I thought Blockbuster went out of business.

To learn more about the trees on Sierra Avenue please visit http://savesierraredwoods.com.

There is also an online petition at Web Link for anyone interested

It's unfortunate what the city has come to. I was raised in MV and it's nothing like it used to be. Now there is traffic all over town and to be frank, nobody cares about one another anymore, but yet there are plenty of people that want to say "DON'T CHOP DOWN THOSE TREES!"
How about putting your effort into "NO MORE CONSTRUCTION ON EL CAMINO!" Or "LETS FIX THESE POT HOLES" or "HELP SMALL BUSINESSES!"
I doubt any of those will catch on though.
See ya later good ol' Mountain View

Redwoods are not a good match for our climate. The only way they survive here is to be irrigated next to a grass lawn. Far better to replace them with more appropriate tree species.

Redwoods are not native to this region of the city. These protests are pure NIMBY

"All trees of a certain height and diameter are classified as heritage trees under the city's ordinance, but Sequoia redwoods of any size are explicitly protected."

That's not true. Redwoods with a diameter under 4 inches are not protected.

Great job of generating community response to the uncorrectable error of cutting down these valuable trees. Bureaucracy can be controlled by resident response, when it is timely, coordinated and contains clear and factual information.

Once this one is settled, let's take on the ill-advised Hope Street Hotel project that is being fast-tracked through the Council. Mountain View is clearly in the greedy-developers crosshairs. We need a "hold" on all downtown development until a new and clear Precise Plan is in place.

While I understand and support the right of property owners to develop their properties, this must be balanced against community assets such as heritage trees and historic buildings. In this case, the developer wants to cut down all the trees, because of his desire for a specific design that calls for a full basement.

I understand the developer behind this is Glen Yonekura of GPR Ventures. He is the same developer who gave Morocco's the boot and is developing that site - which coincidentally has two rather large Redwoods on it as well. Wonder what will happen to those?

Separately, I also understand (from an email newsletter I received) that there are currently 77 ongoing developments which will result in close to 800 heritage trees being destroyed. Not sure how true this is as I have not personally verified it, but it wouldn't surprise me at all. If that is the case it's about 65 trees/sq mile (city is 12 sq miles)

I am all for growth, as long as it is rational and well thought out; however, It feels to me that we are currently going through a period uncontrolled growth that is jeopardizing valuable assets such us our historic buildings and heritage trees.

Pure NIMBY

In the petition's update from the City Web Link the lot is described as vacant. It seems incorrect: the lot is not vacant it's full of heritage redwood trees. The developer knew about the grove before buying; hard to feel sorry if the City were to deny removing the grove and ask for house plans that fit the site.

Also, that whole project runs contrary to the Tree Master Plan adopted in 2015 (Web Link increasing Mountain View's canopy by 5% over the next 10 (now 8) years.

MOUNTAIN VIEW IS NOT THE SAME EVERYTHING CHANGE SINCE YAHOO..GOOGLE..APPLE ETC ETC ..MoVE TO SILICON VALLEY...... ...thats why mountain view is known as the MOUNTAIN with the most beautiful view.. pure air ..trees and lines ..but now ..technologies will destroy humanity and nature......too much building will make SILICON valley more sensity land and easy to be destroyed by any earthquaked

To those who call this NIMBY: save your outrage for the developer who wants to destroy these trees for a purely selfish profit motive without thought to the destruction of a resource that will impact the broader community for generations to come.

Mature trees like the ones on Sierra Ave are vital to the quality of life in our town. Developers should not be allowed to clear mature trees just to make a profit and then move on to their next project without looking back. It is we the residents who pay the cost of losing trees that took decades to mature. Our neighborhood has a dwindling supply of mature trees, let's not lose the ones on Sierra Avenue too.

I am disturbed to read to that "most requests to remove heritage trees are granted by the city." We live in an urban forest. It is individually owned but enjoyed by all. The city has a responsibility to protect our irreplaceable canopy from the motives of simple profit or convenience. I have lived here all my life and in the past ten years I have watched too many heritage trees vanish. It is time to strengthen the regulations that protect our trees. Our neighbors to the northwest have a category of regulated tree called a designated tree that protects trees associated with development. If we don't already have a protected category like this then perhaps it could serve as a model.

Web Link

Mountain View has a heritage tree ordinance for a reason. We value the distinctive character and historical significance of our trees. Let's preserve the mature trees in our town, starting with the grove on Sierra Avenue.

Its sad to see Mountain view change. Change is good they say,"right"? The issue with me is not of developers comming here and starting projects. Its more of developers comming here and not respecting mountain view for what it is. Money can buy a lot of things but mountain views rich cultures is not one thing. Trees are essential to life. I see all these developers comming starting new housing projects and moving people out, especially lower and hard working class individuals. Housing prices have increased,traffic has increased and eventually the laws of attraction will increase.

"Pure NIMBY"

You betcha. Many of us absolutely do not want more heritage trees removed in our "backyard", and especially not for the purpose of lining the pockets of wealthy developers.

That's me Proud nimby, gimby, pimby or whatever you want to call me living here for the last 40 years. We need to protect our town from horrible way it is going. Enough city council - stop it!

Really good to see this effort -- would be great to save these redwood trees and preserve Old Mountain View's heritage.

I live in a smaller apartment downtown so a great part of my "outdoor time" is spent walking around old mountain view neighborhoods and parks. In fact I walk past these trees with my dog several times a week. They are really spectacular and an important part of the city's landscape. You can actually see them for all around.

I simply cannot believe that they could be cut down. What is the point of the Heritage tree ordinance if this can happen?

The developer bought this property knowing full well that these trees were Heritage trees, and he obviously believes that he can cut them down with relative impunity. Quite frankly, he could build a home on the lot, sell it for a couple of million dollars and still save the vast majority of the trees.

I just can't understand this kind of willful destruction for a few extra dollars.

This is ridiculous. Destroying these magnificent trees to line some developer's pocket is a sign of the times these days. It's time to say enough is enough and we will not stand for this! I don't know if it has been posted yet, but thanks to the link provided above, there is at least this remedy.

What is the appeal process?
Any person aggrieved or affected by a decision to remove or deny removal of a Heritage tree may appeal the decision during the ten (10) day posting period. A letter stating the reason(s) for the appeal must be submitted to the City Clerk's Office. There is a Fifteen Dollar ($15) fee for filing an appeal. An appeal automatically stops any action on the tree until the Urban Forestry Board hears the appeal at a public meeting. The Board's decision on an appeal is final.

"I really see this as a special outlier," said Bruce Hurlburt, city parks and open space manager. "Clearly, this has generated huge interest because there's a large number of trees on the property; that's why people are concerned."

Actually, I think people are just tried of seeing their historic buildings and tree canopy removed and replaced with faceless office buildings and oversized homes - just look at the community response to Chez TJ and the Tide House development

While there is no doubt these trees should be preserved as far as possible, I think they are the straw that broke the camel's back.

The people living in the community are rejecting the vision of a denuded hyper-dense urban landscape that is being foisted on them, and they are tired of being called NIMBY for defending the character of their city.

As a frequent visitor to this neighborhood, it is inconceivable that a developer will be allowed to clear this entire lot of magnificent trees which are part of the neighborhoods charm.

I really hope the city denies the developer the permit and instead suggests that slight modification of the building plan can be done to allow these trees to remain.

There is a huge difference between a homeowner getting a permit to remove a heritage tree that has reached the end of its life and a developer who seeks to remove healthy, thriving trees so he can pack one more house on to already densely built property.

The homeowner is required to replace the tree they remove with a fairly large tree or pay a $250 fee, which I hope the city uses to plant more trees (though I doubt it). My guess is that most of those granted permits are for removing trees that are dead or dying, so getting upset because they are being removed and replaced with a healthy young tree is just silly. If you think that the number is excessively large, then you should consider that those trees are stressed when we have drought periods and are more likely to die then. I don't think we have any real problem with the removal process as it applies to homeowners.

However, it seems we do have some issues when it comes to these large developers. I have yet to see any of them required to refrain from cutting healthy trees or to really replace them. Also, since the permission to cut them is granted as part of the city giving permission to build, the process is somewhat hidden from the community.

As I have stated before, this city council claims all their moves are based on a "master plan" for the city, yet they continue to do things that negatively impact the quality of life for current residents. It is about time they reconsider their "plan" and bias it toward making things pleasant for the people who already live here, rather than pack in more people in the name of "fairness," "social justice" or an other vague excuse for lining the city coffers with property tax dollars for the council to fritter away on nonsense. We know they don't have to do what they are doing because other cities in the area are managing not to turn into urban jungles. The difference is, those cities care about the citizens. Residents of Mountain View should consider that the next time they vote.

In a time when we are fighting climate change how does it make sense for the city to keep permitting the chopping down of established heritage trees?

Besides being spectacularly beautiful and an asset to the neighborhood and the city. these mature trees are a carbon sink that helps reduce the impact of climate change.

Destroying them to line the pockets of a single developer who's building a single home is simply unacceptable. If the city has any concern for climate change or holds any value for our natural resources, it will stop this from going forward!

The nice thing about trees is you can plant new ones after they die or are removed. Assuming one has the desire. Anyone can do it, esp if they want to offset any city tree removals.

@Re-Plant:

Trees take several decades to mature, in the meantime the canopy that is vital to protecting our environment and which provides so much beauty and character to our city is further and further reduced.

Moreover, I have learned that in this particular case, the developer is proposing the removal of all nine trees on the lot and planning on replacing them with ONE tree street. It would be laughable if it wasn't so utterly sad.

Finally, what's to say that the "new" trees won't be cut down when they are mature to be replaced by newer trees because "The nice thing about trees is you can plant new ones after they die or are removed". It becomes a perpetual cycle based on the instant gratification of making a quick dollar.

Hmm.., “irreplaceable resource”? Last I checked trees are a renewable resource. Cut one down plant another.

Anyone that thinks that cutting down a few redwood trees is going to hasten “global warming”, really needs to rethink that. That’s a bit akin to saying that takng a long shower now and then is going to jeopardize our water supply.

As for Morocco’s, GPR did not give them the boot. They stopped paying their rent and skipped town. The only heritage tree in the 881 Castro project as currently approved is a nasty nuisance pine tree in
my yard that pisses sap all over everything every summer and it still appears in the drawings for the future project.

It would be interesting too see all the commentary made without the anonymous pseudonyms and with addresses attached. It would make it a lot easier to figure out what stake each of the numerous players have in the removal or preservation of these trees.

I’ve got an easy solution for those want the trees saved though. Buy the property.

Does anyone know or care to share who owns the webisite "savesierraredwoods.com" ? It is registered anonymously through a company called Domains by Proxy LLC. Somebody is paying for this slick website, but why the secrecy?

Seems the residents of OMV are being sold a bill of goods.[Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

@Greg David

My name is Ross Dargahi. I own the website and I live in Old Mountain View and have since 2001. Thank you for your compliment on the website. I built it myself.

I filmed the drone footage that was referenced in the Voice article and as the article discussed this footage was presented at City Council when my wife Kim spoke before them a week or so ago.

Over the past year I have been personally concerned with the number of Heritage trees that have become at risk and have spoken with current and former city officials about this issue. The trees on Sierra are the latest and most visible.

So I can assure that there is no secrecy here and we certainly are not hiding the fact that we think that removing all of these trees in order to develop a single home is not a good idea especially when a modified design could warrant a different result.

I most certainly respect that you may have a different view point on tree preservation, and that is certainly your right.

Thank you Ross for that explanation. It makes the situation a little clearer to me and hopefully others.[Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

Good luck in you effort to save the redwoods. I was disappointed in the city when they allowed Google to take down over 200+ redwood trees out in North Bayshore. City and Google claimed that the trees are not native to this area...my argument was what about El Palo Alto..seems like a tree over 1,000 years old in this area would show that they are native.(In 1955, an increment boring of the tree rings was taken and the tree's age was accurately determined to be 1,015 years, and in 2004 was 1,064 years old. El Palo Alto originally had twin trunks, but an 1886 flood and windstorm in the San Francisquito arroyo downed one of the two trunks.)
It is sad to see some of the comments on this site regarding the lack of understanding of climate change, the lack of respect towards living forms, the lack of appreciation of the beauty of these majestic trees. Shocked at the mentality of "cut a tree down and plant another one" SHAME

Web Link

A little more background here: This property was sold to a developer for $3million. We were shocked to see it-- what a crazy price for a home, even given today's market! But then we learned that the lot was 10,000 square feet, and it is the developer's intention to split the parcel into two single family homes, probably expecting to net $5m+ or so in revenue from the flip. The ring of trees was in the back corner of the 10,000sqft lot, but take up a prohibitive amount of space on the "new" 5,000 sq.ft lot.

I do not believe the City should allow the trees to be removed. A lone single family home built by an enterprising developer does not justify removing these trees, which are by far the largest in the neighborhood and are visible for many blocks. I would be more sympathetic if an existing homeowner had reason to remove the trees, but here I feel an entrepreneur made a bad gamble that a local law (which they knew well) could be skirted to pocket a million bucks in profit. Entrepreneurs take risks, and I don't think this bet should pay off.

Why have zoning and why have heritage trees at all if the City Council is going to approve any ridiculous proposal that comes across its desk? The developer will only make $9.9 million instead of $10 million if they don't tear out the trees, time to start the chainsaws.

Would be a bummer to see these trees lost. How many years did it take for the grove to get to this size vs how quick to come down?

Apparently BJD does not believe in property rights.