Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Forest topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Design board denies HOA request to remove four protected redwoods at Green Valley Vista
Summary
The board denied removal of four protected redwood trees at Green Valley Vista condominiums after city arborist Ben Anderson and a consulting arborist concluded the trees are healthy; HOA representatives and homeowners cited repeated infrastructure damage and high maintenance costs and were advised of appeal rights.
The Design Review Board denied an application to remove four protected coast redwoods at Green Valley Vista condominiums after hearing testimony from the HOA’s arborist, multiple homeowners and the city arborist.
Staff presented an arborist report (dated 05/10/2024) describing the redwoods as healthy with full canopies. Jeremy Issel, a certified arborist with True North Landscapes representing the HOA, acknowledged the trees’ health but said his concern was infrastructure damage: several trees are close to driveways, sidewalks and utility lines and one (ID 7) may sit on or immediately above a gas line, he said. Homeowners described repeated repair costs, prior tree removals on the property and concern that ongoing root intrusion and utility repairs have raised HOA reserve spending significantly.
City consulting arborist Ben Anderson told the board he observed typical urban redwood conditions, that redwood roots are generally shallow and that he had not seen evidence that the trees needed removal under the ordinance’s findings. He recommended preservation where possible and said the ordinance’s purpose is to preserve urban canopy unless clear findings for removal are met.
Board members balanced homeowner cost concerns against the arborist findings and the public‑benefit purpose of the tree ordinance. After discussion the board adopted staff’s recommended findings of denial and voted 4–0 (two members absent). Staff noted the board’s decision is subject to a seven‑day appeal period and explained replacement‑tree or in‑lieu‑fee processes that would apply if removal were later authorized on appeal or further application.
The record includes HOA claims of increased reserve expenditures and homeowner testimony about service‑line conflicts and safety worries; those concerns were recorded by the board and staff advised interested parties on appeal procedures and next steps.
