Urban Forestry Board upholds denial of heritage tree removal request at 500 West Middlefield

The Mountain View Urban Forestry Board voted 5–0 on June 10 to deny an appeal seeking removal of a heritage coast redwood at 500 West Middlefield, upholding a staff determination that the tree does not meet the city’s removal criteria.

Staff forestry manager Russell Hansen told the board the redwood, in a common area of an HOA complex, is in good health with fair structure and an estimated 30-inch trunk diameter. Hansen said inspectors found about a one-inch lift in a section of pavers near the tree and evidence that a root flare had started to displace an adjacent fence, but that removal is not necessary “at this time” and that less-invasive fixes — removing pavers to inspect and, if safe, selectively pruning roots or modifying the fence — remain options.

Appellants Gina and Dave Gwyn said the tree has repeatedly damaged their property: they described a cracked 4-by-6-foot patio section, a newly installed fence that is bowing from root pressure (they reported the fence cost just under $8,000), and ongoing safety concerns for residents. They told the board HOA rules limit visible fence modifications and said they would prefer a replacement tree planted farther from the patio.

An arborist retained by the HOA, Evan Fuller of A+ Tree Service, told the board his firm would not be comfortable cutting roots at the tree’s trunk flare and warned that aggressive root severing could mechanically weaken the tree. “I personally am not comfortable cutting roots that close,” Fuller said, adding that excavation to expose roots would be needed to gauge the true risk and that, for liability reasons, his company favors removal over cutting into the root flare if owners demand aggressive pruning.

Several neighbors and condo residents urged preservation of the redwood during public comment, describing the trees as a defining feature of the complex and asking the board to exhaust mitigation options. One neighbor said, “I want this tree to stay,” and several commissioners pointed to the city’s heritage-tree policy and the tree’s role in the neighborhood as reasons to prefer solutions that preserve the tree.

After questions for staff and the arborist on the feasibility and risks of root pruning, fence modification and HOA responsibilities, Commissioner Davis moved to adopt a resolution denying the appeal and upholding staff’s decision; Commissioner Bryant seconded. The board voted unanimously to deny removal.

The board also directed staff to continue coordinating with the HOA and property owners on non-destructive mitigation, including paver removal for inspection, temporary protections while repairs proceed, and potential fence adjustments that would not violate visible-modification restrictions. Staff said it can revisit the permit if conditions worsen and reapply the removal standard if new evidence shows imminent danger.

The board’s action keeps the redwood in place while urging the HOA and owners to pursue repair and mitigation options; it also reaffirmed that HOA CC&Rs do not supersede municipal heritage-tree rules.

Outcome and next steps: the denial is final from the Urban Forestry Board; staff will follow up with the appellants and the HOA about interim protections and mitigation options and will reopen review if additional deterioration or new evidence emerges.