The heritage tree law is toothless if you can chop down two 50 year old trees and only pay $500 plus maybe $200 for two "replacement" trees. People often cut off all the limbs of a heritage tree and then a year later they ask for a permit to cut it down because its not healthy.

Trees grow back. Making a giant fuss over building anything because it may impact trees is one of the many reasons we have such expensive housing here. Don't get me wrong, I like trees, but look at that photo - that poor tree would likely have withered anyway, and it remained clearly just to appease the anti-development people using trees as an excuse to make building more difficult.

Eucalyptus is a nasty invasive species, I'm not so broken up about those ones. Sad news about the cedar, though.

One of the ways I can usually tell I've crossed the boundary into Los Altos is the different feeling its neighborhoods have vs. Mountain View. I've been trying to figure out what it is, exactly, and I've realized that large mature trees account for a lot of it. Walk along Mountain View avenue and you can see this pretty dramatically. Some blocks (the Los Altos blocks) are greener than others. Personally I prefer the greenery and hope the city council imposes measures significant enough to dissuade developers from making these kinds of mistakes again.

Our Heritage Tree program is a sham if the fine is only $500; that's a penny to Prometheus. A fine of $500,000 might slow down purposeful damage to and removal of our significant trees. We need to fix this fake regulation.

I seriously doubt it was a mistake, more of a "it's better to ask for forgiveness than permission" type of thing. It's a shame our city cares so little for what we want & constantly caves in to the developers wishes

A tree for a tree isn't really the right mitigation formula or penalty for these violations. How many pounds of carbon was that cedar sequestering and how much oxygen was it producing? That should be the metric used for mitigation - pretty obvious and I have read of other cities moving to this approach. Given the size of that cedar, I would guess it would be at least a dozen 36" box trees. Hopefully our P&R which is also our Urban Forestry, can use this incident as impetus for revising the mitigations and penalties.

These are not anti-developer rules. We just cannot allow developers to degrade our city and exploit our existing resources while they make their money under the guise of providing us with a housing supply.

Make sure Prometheus NEVER BUILDS AGAIN IN MOUNTAIN VIEW! That may be " shutting the barn door after the horse escaped ", However that statement has teeth in it more than any Heritage Tree ruling.. If that statement is not created, it WILL be time to seek more leadership in the City Council.
It's time to put up or shut up, City Council. [Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

Why not fine Prometheus by forcing them to buy three 50year old trees? There are nurseries that purchase very large trees, and replant them. They cost about $50k each, and while they probably wouldn't be cedar, they might be 50y old olive trees, or palms or other old trees that would give character.

Prometheus will likely make about $800k a month renting the apartments, at going rates. $150k for old large trees is a drop in the bucket for them, as they'll likely make $10m a year on that property. They can pay it.

Web Link carries olives that are up to 500y old.

Honestly, with the horrible new city rules that allow and even encourage building right out to the street, this will keep happening.

It is bad enough that these new multi-story monstrosities are built so close to the street that it is dangerous to attempt left turns. Now we get to have the builders "accidentally damage" a tree and not even get a significant slap on the wrist.

Take a look at that picture. The tree would not have been in danger if the builder had not been allowed to place the exterior walls of the building right next to the sidewalk. So,in addition to packing people into the city like sardines, we get to sacrifice our trees in order to do it.

Bravo, City Council, you have gotten your wish. We are well on our way to paving our quiet city into a concrete canyon. I hope the extra tax dollars you have to waste are worth it to you. Too bad the quality of life of the residents doesn't enter into your calculations.

Mark Noack, if Prometheus said they had permission to remove two of the trees and just removed them earlier than they were supposed to, where's your follow up to determine if that's true? That's pretty critical to the question at hand.

You can't just write a story that these trees were removed and quote the developer that they had permission to do it just later on, and not check if that's correct or not.

The city emblem symbol of Mountain View is two heritage trees and here are two of our trees being destroyed by developers - should we change the symbol of Mountain View to two buildings? How sad.
I agree with the Mountain View resident comment - "Prometheus will likely make about $800k a month renting the apartments, at going rates. $150k for old large trees is a drop in the bucket for them, as they'll likely make $10m a year on that property. They can pay it."
and the_punnisher comments. "Make sure Prometheus NEVER BUILDS AGAIN IN MOUNTAIN VIEW! That may be " shutting the barn door after the horse escaped" , However that statement has teeth in it more than any Heritage Tree ruling. If that statement is not created, it WILL be time to seek more leadership in the City Council."
We just cannot allow developers to degrade our city and exploit our existing resources.
We have lost so many old growth trees to the drought and the beetle and development all over the city. I have counted 15 alone in my daily neighborhood walk. Everyone needs to step up to the plate to help protect what old growth canopy we have left.

@ Trees

I completely agree, and I did check with the city to make sure Prometheus' account was accurate. Lindsay Hagan, the planner on the project, told me that the two trees were approved for removal at a later phase of the development.

The best thing about a tree is all the things you can do with it once you cut it down.

Cheaper for construction companies to pay the "fines" than to follow the requirements. It wasn't like they didn't know. They knew exactly what they were doing and it was cheaper for them to pay the fines. Ridiculous. We don't need builders like this.

If the trees had already been approved for removal at a later date, how is this newsworthy? And why would Prometheus be fined?

I'm always bewildered by the level of controversy attached to the removal of so-called "heritage trees". just because its a big old tree, why does it deserve special protection? It's not like most of these trees are in their natural surrounding. They were planted at one point by a property owner and when a property owner no longer wants the tree on their property, why shouldn't they be able to remove it. I mean seriously, we're not talking about ancient Redwoods, Sequoias, or Oaks. People are getting their panties in wad over Eucalyptus and Palms!

Wood products built this nation. If you live in a house made of wood or buy just about any consumer product, you owe this to trees being cut down. They are the ultimate renewable resource. Stop being so selfish and worry about the trees on YOUR property and stop worrying about what others do with theirs....

Dunno why people are surprised. This happens on virtually every big building project in Mountain View, including City Hall back in the 80s. We never even talk about heritage trees except just before and after a removal.

This reminds me of Shel Silverstein's book, The Giving Tree. Sad.

Prometheus is ABOVE THE LAW - well connected at City Hall.

I drove by this development today. Holy cow it's close to the street! Why? They barely left the existing trees any space at all. The building even looks comical being crammed so close to the row of trees. People living in some of those apartments won't be able to see anything out their windows except green leaves against their window. Was this really what our council approved? It looks ridiculous.

@ Silly Developers

ALL the new construction the city has approved has been right up to the sidewalks. Just drive down El Camino and confirm it. Not only is it UGLY, it makes it difficult to make left turns because you have to pull out into oncoming traffic in order to see around the buildings.

That seems to have started with the San Antonio Center revamp. They showed lovely "artist rendition" drawings that made it look as if the street views would be tolerable. What we got instead was a view of service doors, industrial piping and Starbuck's advertising. The only mildly attractive views are at the front of the Safeway parking lot where they put a few plants.

I live here because I DON'T want to live in a concrete canyon. If I wanted views of sheer walls and cement, I would have moved to San Francisco long ago. The city council doesn't care about quality of life, just revenue. Just pack in the square footage so they can tax more.

"I've crossed the boundary into Los Altos is the different feeling its neighborhoods have vs. Mountain View. I've been trying to figure out what it is"

You haven't noticed that Los Altos doesn't have sidewalks? Really?

Wow.. does anyone here actually vote?

If you don't like the direction the city is heading VOTE for someone else.

If you can't get the votes that means you're in the minority. Your community wants to go in a different direction. Might be time for you to move.

How about Los Altos? They've done a good job keeping the small town "rural" feel.

@ Otto

Voting is nice, but it can be meaningless. The Mountain view City Council (specifically Par Showalter and Ken Rosenberg) both said they were opposed to the crazy VTA BRT idea, yet both of them voted for this insanity when it can to the council for a vote. Ken Rosenberg stood on my porch and lied to my face about that issue.

In short, the city council does what they like. They are willing to say one thing in order to get votes, then do something else when in office. Just because the "city" is going in a particular direction does NOT mean the citizens WANT that to happen.

My description was mild compared to other people's descriptions of people in the City Council, yet I get it censored. That in a nutshell is the problem with both M$M and the City Council; both do not want to listen or act with the PEOPLE WHO PAY THESE PEOPLE'S SALARY. Taking people's money and not using it for what the PUBLIC wants is stealing the money.
I think Mountain View has had enough of Prometheus and their behavior. That also applies to members of the City Council that promise one thing and breaks that promise to the taxpayers of this City.

For all that say," Get over it, these are trees..

A tree not only gives you shade and " personality ", it also changes CO2 back to 02 that you MUST HAVE TO LIVE!
The amount of trees needed PER PERSON IS 7 ACRES OF WOODLOT. These trees are a renewable resource; you cut them down and you allow trees to grow back and cut them down again. Specially planted woodlots give you the lumber you need; many natural woodlots are only good for firewood. Or Christmas trees.

How do I know this? From coursework in Alternative Energy. Our family owns many acres in both woodlots and cleared pastureland. I HAVE my 7 acres of trees. How about you?