Commission upholds staff in denying removal of coast redwood at 1145 Carver Place
Loading...
Summary
The Mountain View Parks and Recreation Commission voted to deny a homeowner’s appeal to remove a heritage coast redwood at 1145 Carver Place, siding with staff that the tree’s condition and available mitigations do not meet removal criteria. The appellant pressed solar access and repeated driveway damage as reasons for removal.
The Mountain View Parks and Recreation Commission on April 8 upheld staff’s decision to deny removal of a heritage coast redwood at 1145 Carver Place, rejecting an appeal from the property owner.
Russell Hanson, the city’s urban forest manager, told the commission the tree is a “large sequoia sempervirens, coast redwood, approximately 47 inches in diameter, 90 feet tall, and has about 20 feet of crown spread,” and said staff’s field assessment found the tree in only marginally thin condition but not hazardous. “We didn’t feel that the condition raised to that point where it required removal,” Hanson said, describing pruning and other mitigations as feasible.
The appellant, Doug Reese, said the tree limits rooftop solar and has caused repeated driveway and sewer repairs at the rental property, arguing removal would improve the property’s climate responsiveness and avoid future damage. Reese framed the issue as a trade-off between tree preservation and rooftop solar potential: “I think the tree policy needs to be modified to where it doesn't prevent solar,” he said during his presentation.
Commissioners pressed staff on the precise causes and scale of pavement and driveway lift, and on the tree’s remaining lifespan. Hanson said the staff’s view was that the tree’s health and structure were not poor enough to require removal and estimated a reasonable remaining lifespan of about “5 to 10 years” under mitigation. Commissioners and staff also noted the city’s responsibility for the public sidewalk where damage occurs and that driveway repairs on private property are typically the owner’s responsibility.
Multiple commissioners explicitly acknowledged the appellant’s concerns about climate and solar while stressing the commission’s charge to preserve heritage trees where removal criteria are not met. Commissioner Davis said the binary choice between trees and solar was a “false dichotomy” in many cases and supported the staff recommendation. Vice Chair Summer and others echoed the view that mitigation, additional investigation (including a possible excavation), or a future reapplication if a concrete rooftop-solar plan emerges would be appropriate next steps.
The commission adopted a resolution to deny the appeal and uphold staff’s decision; the motion was made from the dais and seconded. The roll-call vote recorded affirmative votes from the commissioners present and the motion carried.
The commission noted options for the owner and staff to pursue further technical steps — for example, targeted excavation or hydro-excavation to assess root size and condition — and left open the possibility of revisiting the decision if new, concrete evidence or a verified solar plan is submitted.
