►
Description
6/7/2021
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
C
B
Thank
you,
sir.
All
right
now
is
the
time
for
public
comment.
At
this
time,
any
person
may
address
the
commission
regarding
a
city
planning
matter.
That
is
not
on
this
evening's
agenda.
Should
the
commission
wish
to
discuss
an
issue
raised
by
the
member
of
the
public?
The
issue
will
be
referred
to
staff
for
scheduling
on
a
future
agenda.
B
Anyone
who
would
like
to
speak
under
public
comments
must
complete
a
speaker
card
and
file
it
with
the
recording
secretary
before
the
public
comments.
Portion
of
the
agenda
is
called
speaker's.
Remarks
should
be
addressed
to
the
commission
as
a
whole
and
not
to
an
individual
commissioner
or
staff
member
unless
otherwise
provided
by
the
commission.
Speakers
are
limited
to
five
minutes
screen
will
show
you
the
remaining
time
you
have,
and
I
do
not
believe
we
have
any
speakers
this
evening.
B
A
A
Hearing
having
been
advertised
as
required
by
law,
is
hereby
open
to
consider
agenda
item
7a
oak
tree
permit
otp
2020-70547
to
allow
removal
of
three
oak
trees
involving
a
coastlive
oak,
a
multi-trunk
valley
oak
and
a
smaller
coastlo
live
oak
due
to
the
health
and
location
of
the
trees
on
private
property.
With
a
single
family
dwelling
located
at
4014
cresthaven
drive,
the
applicant
is
catherine
wolf.
Distinguished
creations,
incorporated.
E
E
E
Subsequently,
in
1978,
a
home
was
built
at
the
time
of
the
planning,
as
best
as
records
can
show.
There
were
five
oak
trees
that
existed
on
a
property.
At
that
time
there
are
currently
five
oak
trees
and
two
landmark
sycamores
on
the
property.
Today,
otp
2020-70547
is
the
case
before
you
tonight
that
was
applied
for
in
2020
to
remove
the
three
trees.
E
E
tree.
According
to
the
to
the
report
again,
the
applicant
tree,
w2a
and
w3
are
creating
a
potential
hazard
due
to
eminent
structure.
Failure
and
we'll
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
that
throughout
the
report.
The
presentation
tree
w6
is
preventing
safe
right-of-way
passage
for
emergency
vehicles
on
hollyhock
court
and
that's
according
to
memo
from
the
fire
department.
E
E
E
It's
one
more
narrow
streets,
here's
a
picture
of
wot-2a,
just
a
quick
snapshot
of
some
of
the
issues.
It's
unbalanced,
canopy
thinning
foliage
and
it
has
evidence
of
pass
failure.
I
was
also
at
the
site
and
have
some
additional
pictures
here,
which
are
what
I
have
pictured
here.
Also,
if
you
take
a
look
at
the
trunk,
it's
a
hypoxalon
die
back
of
the
trunk
and
that's
associated
with
some
sort
of
pathology.
E
In
this
case,
we
suspect
it's
the
fungi
that
does
choke
out
areas
of
the
tree
and
it
deprives
it
of
oxygen,
and
you
see
these
well.
This
is
evidence
of
a
previous
canker
and
I've
got
I've
got
that
marked
where
it
is
also.
Another
thing
that's
noteworthy
is
we
did
talk
about
an
unbalanced
canopy
and
I
hope
this
picture
kind
of
shows
that,
where
the
more
the
the
canopy
and
the
branches
are
more
to
one
side
than
the
other,
so
there's
a
little
bit
of
an
imbalance.
E
E
The
difference
between
that
looks
like
a
kind
of
a
the
tree,
helps
to
sort
of
mend
itself
with
something
that's
been
removed
by
by
human,
okay
and
it's
been
cut
and
that's
the
difference
between
a
cut
stump
and
a
and
a
stump
that
fell
off
on
its
own
oops,
sorry
and
once
again,
2a
here's
evidence
of
branch
dieback
and
again
this
picture
doesn't
really
do
it
justice.
But
when
you're
there
in
person,
you
really
do
see
that
there
are
quite
large
branches.
E
This
is
the
one
that
was
suggested
to
have
some
lab
work
done
to
again
to
determine
conclusively
if
it
does
have
the
same
pathogen
that
2a
has.
It
should
also
be
noted.
There
was
a
tree
removed
sometime
in
the
past
wot-1,
which
was
gravely
stricken
with
this,
with
this
fungus
and
I'll
share
that
name
within
a
minute.
But
let
me
get
through
this
so
again,
it
appears
healthy,
but
again
we
think
it
may
harbor
some
infection
again.
We
do
see
some
de
his
branch
stumps
previous
failure.
E
Another
thing
I'd
like
to
note
too:
if
we
take
a
look
at
the
slide-
and
we
note
the
branch
there,
it
is
growing
again
quite
laterally.
It
takes
actually
a
90
degree
turn
like
that,
and
that
branch
does
extend
quite
a
few
feet
beyond
the
tree
from
the
tree
as
a
radius
and
again
also
just
to
show
an
up-close
view
of
the
dehist
branch.
E
There's
also
evidence
of
yellowing
yellowing
leaves
so
I
took
a
picture
of
that
and
lastly,
there
is
also
some
structural
issues
again
potential
structural
issues
to
consider
this
does
have
a
co-dominant
truck
now.
This
is
actually
a
view
from
from
one
view:
it
doesn't
look
as
bad,
but
when
you
come
around
the
tree,
you
can
see
what
we're
looking
at.
E
That's
about.
You
know
that
that
sort
of
connection
where
it
happens,
it's
only
about
two
and
a
half
feet
above
the
ground.
So
if
you
could
imagine
this
thing
is
attached
two
and
a
half
feet,
and
then
you
have
probably
another
20
to
30
feet
above
that
that
that's
going
to
be
cantilevering
again
subject
to
wind,
wind,
sway
and
forces.
So
there's
a
potential
there
for
that
to
split
and
that's
just
again
common.
E
You
know
common
perception,
layman
perception,
I'm
not
an
arborist,
but
you
can
take
a
look
for
you
know
for
yourself
again,
just
to
show
you
some
more
of
that
severe
lean.
That's
that
branch
that
I
mentioned.
That's
growing
at
a
90
degree
angle,
and
it
does
continue
and
again
it.
The
span
is
pretty
far
to
estimate
about
20
feet.
E
So
there's
that
here's
another
view
a
better
view
of
the
site
tree
plan.
Again,
I
want
to
note
kind
of
what's
what's
being
shown
here.
Actually
that
should
have
been
should
have
been
highlighted
as
well,
but
wot,
wt1
and
wt4
are
oak
trees
that
are
going
to
be
remaining,
let's
get
back
up
as
well
as
wlt
two
and
one
which
are
sycamore
landmarks
and
those
are
located
out
front.
E
E
Three
findings
must
be
made
in
order
to
prove
that
approval
is
consistent
with
the
intent
of
the
oak
tree
preservation
and
protection
ordinance,
since
the
proposed
removal
of
the
oak
trees
will
be
replaced
in
accordance
with
mitigation
standards
adopted
by
the
oak
tree
preservation
and
protection
guidelines.
Resolution
210
14..
E
E
A
monetary
payment
equivalent
to
the
market
rate
will
be
made
to
the
open
space
conservation
fund
oak
tree
preservation,
which
is
allowed
by
the
oak
tree
preservation
and
protection
guidelines
in
terms
of
sequa.
This
does
have
clearance
exempt
pursuant
to
section
1504
class,
4,
minor
or
private
alterations
landscaping,
as
long
as
it's
not
scenic
is
allowed.
E
Recommendation,
therefore,
is
that
planning
commission
approve
otp
2020-70547,
based
on
the
findings
and
subject
to
the
recommended
conditions
contained
in
the
attachment
and
just
to,
and
I
did
state
that
I
was
going
to
mention
what
this
was.
But
it
was
a
the
fungus
here
that
that's
that's
in
question.
That's
also
in
the
tree
report
is
a
well.
I
don't
have
it
right
in
front
of
me,
but
it's
a
fight,
bioprofile
anyways
genus
and
basically
it's
a
fungal.
E
B
E
Thank
you
for
that
question
in
conversation
with
the
applicant-
and
I
I
do
see
him
here
today,
they
could
probably
respond
to
that
they
discuss
holding
off
on
the
lab
test
they
will
follow
through,
if
need
be.
They
feel
that,
based
on
the
evidence
provided
in
the
two
harvest
reports
and
some
of
the
observations
that
they've
had
that
that
the
tree
is,
is
certainly
in
decline
and
does
have
that
pathology
again
without
the
benefit
of
the
lab
report,
but
but
but
I
believe
they
will
follow
through
so
that
hasn't
been
determined.
Yet
the.
E
F
Okay,
so
with
regard
to
the
staff's
position,
there
are
two
reports
from
independent
arborists
the
city
commissioned.
I
presume
the
first
one
essentially
repeated
the
applicant's
report,
findings
about
tree
3
and
said
well,
the
applicant's
report
says
it's
diseased,
so
yeah
and
based
on
the
applicant's
finding.
I
think
it
should
come
out.
F
The
other
report
from
mr
innis
had
a
different
viewpoint.
It
supported
the
removal
of
trees,
2
and
6,
but
said
that
there
was
not
evidence
pending
a
lab
test.
There
was
not
yet
evidence
to
support
the
removal
of
tree
three,
and
my
question
is
what
is
staff's
position
here,
because
we've
got
we've
got
some
conflicting
information
around
this.
E
Okay,
well,
you
you
are
correct
and,
and
frankly,
staff
is
technologically
not
in
a
position-
we're
not
arborists,
so
we
we
can't
make
that
determination.
What
we
can
do
is
take
the
pieces
that
we
do
have
and
try
to
you
know
sew
together
an
appropriate
conclusion
and
again,
based
on
on
the
you
know
the
I
guess,
the
differing
opinions,
professional
opinions
like
as
you
would
have
with
the
medical
opinion
and
my
observations
that
I
saw
I
again
I
it
doesn't
matter
if
I
say
I
personally
feel
like
yeah.
F
Trees
are
not
people,
but
if
they
were-
and
we
said
well,
that
person
is
likely
to
do
something
that
merits
a
death
sentence
in
10
years.
So,
let's,
let's
kill
them
now.
We'd
probably
want
to
have
some
evidence
before
making
that
determination.
Now
you
did,
you
did
have
some
other
findings
here
I
mean
you
did.
F
You
did
say
some
other
adverse
things
about
the
tree,
such
as
the
the
structure
of
the
branches
and
the
split
and
things
that
could
happen,
and
even
mr
innis
did
did
state
that
the
existence
of
the
lawn
he
said,
one
that
that
I
hadn't
realized.
That's
that's
a
violation
of
the
city's
oak
tree
ordinance
and
the
two
more
importantly
for
our
discussion,
it's
a
vector
for
spread
of
this
disease.
C
F
F
D
Yes,
that
lab
test
that
you're
suggesting
will
it
show
how
much
of
the
disease
the
the
fungus
is
in
there?
Is
it
like
a
continuum?
Is
it
something
that
will
will
show
that?
Well,
it's
just
a
little
bit
infected
and
the
tree
may
have
another
10
20
years,
or
will
it
say
it's
diseased
get
it
out
of
there.
E
E
The
issue,
though,
is
again
from
this
is
based
on
mine.
I'm
not
an
arborist,
but
if
it
does
start
in
a
root
system-
and
it's
actually
gotten
into
the
bark
there's
really
no
way
to
to
take
that
back
again
and
it
could
be
years
down
the
road
before
it
really
starts.
Choking
up
enough
of
the
tree
where
there
is.
D
C
C
G
C
G
G
E
So
that
they
actually
had
a
it
was
an
older
deck,
dilapidated
deck,
so
I
believe
that
deck
was
removed.
In
addition,
they
also-
and
this
was
again
per
the
the
arborist
report
that
was
submitted
with
that
permit.
They
had
to
install
an
aeration
system
for
the
root
system
because
they
were
gonna
put
sod
over
it.
They
actually
had
a
how
to
provide
a
basically
a
manufactured
network
of
tubes
to
allow
air
to
get
to
the
to
the
root
system.
E
E
So
the
the
new
they
actually
had,
I
think,
wooden
decking
that
was
taken
out
and
then
they
had
paving
over
that
so
or
paving
in
place,
but
that
that's
what
was
being
removed.
I
think
that's
what
the
fence
was
for
that
area
for
that
work
in
that
area,
removing
that
decking
and
placing
in
the
aeration
system.
E
E
G
Yeah,
let's
see
and
the
new
pool
it
looks
like
there
was.
I
did
a
little
research
online
went
through
zillow
and
saw
the
the
photographs
when
the
house
was
sold,
I
believe
in
2015,
but
there
was
an
original
pool
on
the
side.
It
looks
as
though
that
pool
has
been
removed
since
and
replaced
with
a
new
pole.
Yes,
sir,
when
was
that
work
done.
E
I
believe
that
was
2018
is,
if
that's
correct,
yeah
the
2018.
They
also
had
a
counterpart
an
oak
tree
permit
for
that,
as
well.
So
for
the
encroachment
I
believe
for
for
those
oak
trees
along
near
to
the
or
that
oak
tree
near
to
the
the
pool,
but
if
you
see
it
on
on
the
map,
it's
that
one
all
the
way
to
the
sort
of
south
south
east
corner.
E
We
would
honestly
would
have
to
look
at
the
the
cases,
because
there
are
at
least
three
cases
in
in
current
history,
one
in
2016
and
two
in
2018.
I
have
those
here
and
they
do
talk
about
removal
of
wt1
encroachment
and
four,
and
I
think
a
few
others.
I
think
some
of
these
trees
were
also
encroached
on
and
so
yeah
there's
there's
there's
a
record
of
that
at
least
that
I'm
aware
of
three.
H
Thank
you,
chair
boss.
Mr
slim,
I
just
had
a
few
follow-up
questions.
Obviously
my
other
commissioners
did
a
great
job.
I
just
had
a
few
as
the
removal
of
at
least
two
and
possibly
three
of
the
trees
is
going
to
change
any
waterway
or
grading
issues
in
any
kind
of
nominal
or
any
kind
of
substantial
way.
E
In
fact,
and
just
since
you
did
mention
waterways,
the
geography,
the
topography
of
the
of
the
backyard
as
I
as
I
visited
it
is,
there
is
quite
a
bit
of
there's
some
there's
some
pooling
some
depression
around
some
of
these
trees.
So
with
that
I
would,
I
would
also
put
out
there
that
if
there
was
a
rainfall,
I
think
what
would
happen
is
there
would
be
some
water
that
would
pull
around
these
trees.
Trees
are
known
to
suck
up
as.
E
E
H
E
H
E
B
E
No,
I
think
it
may
have
misspoke,
I
know
wt02,
not
2a,
o2
was
removed
and
w01
may
have
been
pruned,
but-
and
it
also
may
have
been
mislabeled,
but
on
the
the
tree
map
that
I
showed,
I
took
a
picture
of
it
that
tree.
You
know
there
are
on
either
like
bookends
of
the
of
the
lot.
You've
got
the
one
big
oak
tree,
I
believe,
to
the
to
the
north,
and
then
you
have
the
two,
the
two
sycamores
on
the
south
end
of
the
property
along
the
the
facade
along
along
the
frontage.
B
B
B
I
The
the
original
project
started
with
you
know
I
guess
in
2016
or
2017,
the
the
original
home
was
built
with
a
pool,
and
if
you
look
on
the
zillow
pictures-
and
I
have
some
of
them
here-
if
you
want
to
see
them,
the
original
pool
was
built
right
up
and
around
these
existing
trees.
The
hardscape
of
the
old
pool,
the
pool
itself
was
built
directly
and
specifically
around
wot3.
I
They
started
a
project,
they
demoed
the
pool
about
2017
with
a
permit,
and
then
it
was
about
two
years
that
the
applicant
went
through
a
divorce.
So
the
project
sat
for
a
very,
very
long
time.
In
2018
we
had
oak
tree
encroachment
permit
2018-70408
issued
to
allow
us
to
rebuild
then
the
only
place
we
could,
which
is
where
the
old
pool
previously
was
between
the
main
house
and
nwt3.
I
I
I
So
in
order
to
build
the
pool
and
the
pool
deck,
the
way
that
we
have
it
now,
we
did
have
to
put
in
that
breathing
system
underneath
the
grass
and
underneath
the
the
concrete
deck,
which
is
a
breathing
system.
That
was,
you
know,
from
a
city
spec
from
the
city
of
agora
and
the
city
of
t.o.
We
use
them
both
because
richard
campbell
is
our
consultant
who
also
works
for
the
city
of
t.o,
so
you
have
the
breathing
system
that
was
put
in
with,
I
think
azir
has
other
pictures
of
it.
I
I
E
I
Richard
campbell
has
been
our
consultant,
for
you
know
the
life
of
the
project.
We
had
to
have
our
job
start
meeting
with
richard
campbell
with
john
burke
who's,
the
landscape
architect
for
the
city,
to
make
sure
that
all
of
our
work
within
the
protected
zone
was
monitored
by
richard
campbell
and
he's
been
there
when
we
had
to
dig
the
pool
and
put
in
the
breathing
system,
and
the
city
has
come
out
and
inspected
all
that
to
make
sure
that
we
were
in
compliance.
I
I
And
this
is
really
the
branch
in
question
that
nazir
is
talking
about.
That
is
at
a
90
degree
angle
that
hangs
over
this
pool.
She
doesn't
really
want
to
dig
up
the
yard
again.
She
doesn't
want
to
extend
this
project
again,
it's
more
of
a
liability
concern
for
her
that
you
know
they're
going
to
have
40
kids
in
this
pool.
I
I
You
know,
I
think
wwot2
and
w026
are
kind
of
self-explanatory.
The
fire
department
wants
one
out,
the
other
one
is
obviously
diseased.
Richard
couldn't
be
here
today,
but
he
says
you
know
the
slope
of
the
yard,
from
wo2
wot
2
to
3
is
downhill.
The
fungus
is
in
the
soil
and
it's
going
towards
the
creek.
I
B
H
Yeah,
thank
you,
chairbus
just
to
follow
up
on
the
question
I
had
for
staff
in
terms
of
if
two
and
three
are
removed
in
terms
of
the
waterways,
you
said
it
would
go
down
to
the
creek.
Is
there
anything
you're
going
to
put
in
its
place
to
make
sure
that
there's
not
a
change
in
terms
of
the
water
course
of
the
of
what
the
hillside
would
be.
I
So
would
we,
when
we
did
this
project
we
actually
hired
m3?
Is
our
civil
engineer
they're
also
the
engineer
of
record
for
the
hoa
they
monitor
the
creek.
They
go
through
the
creek
every
year
for
the
hoa
they
find
the
city
or
they
you
know
they
find
residents
if
they
do
anything
along
the
creek
that
they're
not
supposed
to
do
so.
We
have
drainage
in
place,
that's
designed
by
him.
That
goes
from
the
yard,
all
the
way
to
the
creek,
so
the
drainage
isn't
an
issue.
H
I
I
mean
the
yard
drainage
was
in
place
before
from
the
grass
area.
That
was
there.
That
goes
all
the
way
down
into
the
creek,
and
then
we
had
to
have
drains
for
downspouts
drains
around
the
pool
and
that's
all
tied
in
together
and
the
the
trees
are
on
on
an
existing
slope.
So
the
water
is
all
shedding
towards
the
creek
and
the
branca.
H
I
D
Yes,
I
have
a
question
and
it
really
doesn't
necessarily
pertain
to
this
issue.
But
you
were
talking
about
the
one
disease
tree
slopes
down
to
the
one
that
is
suspected
of
being
diseased,
and
I
did
also
go
out
to
the
property
today
and
it
looks
like
it
would
go
further
downhill
to
the
barranca
right.
I
There's
probably
I
mean
you
guys,
were
there
there's,
probably
15
more
oak
trees
along
the
barranca
that
you
know
are
probably
right
on
the
other
side
of
her
property
line,
but
she
probably
has
20
large
trees
on
the
property,
and
he
said
you
know
that
they
could
all
end
up
with
the
same
fungus,
so
they
could
already
have
it,
but
the
the
danger
of
them
falling.
You
know
into
the
yard
or
the
way
that
they're
leaning
now
is
more
towards
the
creek.
So
it's
not
really
a
safety
concern.
D
I
I
I
I
That's
not
on
her
property,
it's
just
on
either
side
and
it
looks
like
you
know.
The
branches
are
rotting,
they're
falling
off
they're
on
the
ground,
but
it's
not
physically
on
her
property.
So
I
mean
there's
not
a
lot
that
we
can
do
about
it.
But
there
is
you
know
and
I'm
not
an
arborist.
I
don't
know
what
those
trees,
what
happened
to
those
trees
but
they're,
not
all
in
great
shape,.
F
I
I
I
Specifically
tied
to
tree
number
three
because
of
the
proximity
of
the
pool
and
the
pool
deck
to
the
tree,
the
pool
deck
does
cover
where
the
roots
would
need
oxygen
because
the
roots
need
oxygen,
not
water.
So
that
allows
the
tree
to
breathe,
underneath
the
pool
deck
and
the
grass,
which
is
the
only
way
that
we
could
get
the
pool
permitted
but
there's
nowhere
else
that
it
could
fit
on
the
property
and
that's
where
the
previous
pool
was
so
to
get
it
permitted.
That
was
a
condition
of
our
permit.
I
Right
if
the
tree's
gonna
die
anyway,
or
if
it's
a
hazard
and
we're
gonna,
remove
it
it's
just
it
took,
it
would
have
taken
so
long
with
covid
and
everything
else
to
try
to
stop
the
project
and
say:
okay,
the
tree's
going
to
die
anyway,
or
it's
a
hazard
to
kids
in
the
pool.
We
don't
want
to
pay
for
the
breathing
system.
F
All
right,
coming
back
to
the
test,
there
was
some
question
in
the
staff
report
whether
a
lab
test,
as
recommended
by
the
city's
arborist,
would
even
be
conducted
now
in
the
conditions
for
the
approval
of
the
permit
to
take
out
the
three
trees.
There's
two
conditions
of
interest
here,
one
one
is
the
one
that
that
as
staff
testified
requires
a
lab
test
and
another
is,
is
a
boilerplate
paragraph
that
called
the
signed
acceptance
of
conditions.
I
The
the
hard
part
about
that
is
the
first
city
arborist
that
came
out
also
wanted
the
roots
dug
up.
We
paid
richard
campbell
to
come
out.
They
did
some
air
digging
thing
that
doesn't
damage
the
roots
so
that
the
first
arbors
could
see
the
roots,
and
that
was
months
ago
before
we
even
had
to
go
to
a
type
d
permit.
So
we
did
that
with
the
first
city
arborist,
and
we
thought
that
we
were
through
that
and
now
we
have
the
aeration
system
on
top
of
a
large
part
of
the
root
system.
I
You
know
that
wants
the
same.
It
wants
us
to
do
the
exact
same
thing
and
dig
up
the
yard
again
she's,
hoping
not
to
do
that.
She's,
hoping
that
you
know
the
safety
concern
of
kids
in
the
pool
and
the
way
the
tree
is
leaning
over
the
pool
and
the
fact
that
we've
covered
you
know
half
of
the
root
system
with
a
breathing
system.
Digging
all
that
up
is.
I
F
I
don't
know
as
a
non-arborist
whether
a
test
even
requires
digging
up
the
ground.
There
may
be
some
other
way
of
doing
it.
I
don't
know
but,
but
the
question
put
to
me
is
if,
if
I
vote
for
this,
I'm
voting
for
something
that
requires
a
lab
test
and
I'm
asking.
Are
you
okay
with
that
test?
Because
that's
that's
the
question
we've
been
asked
about.
We
can
amend
it.
We
could
change
it,
but
I'm
asking
whether
you're.
I
I
F
F
Okay,
because
if
we
do
vote
for
this,
as
is,
I
want
to
be
very
clear,
as
is
we,
we
can
discuss
changing
it
and
we
can
reopen
the
hearing
and
draft
other
language
and
all
that.
But
but
the
question
presented
to
us
tonight
requires
a
lab
test
and
if
I
understand
you
correctly,
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I
understand
your
view.
You're
saying
no,
you
are
not.
Okay
with
that
lab
test.
Is
that
is
that
an
accurate
statement,
correct
okay,.
I
I
mean
richard
campbell
couldn't
come
tonight
he's
you
know,
he
made
it
very
clear
that
he's
been
there
with
the
other
arborists,
not
the
most
recent
one
that
the
fungus
is
in
the
soil.
You
know
it's
going
to
be
in
the
tree
where
we
have
to
dig
it
up
and
find
it.
We've
covered
half
of
the
tree
roots
with
concrete
in
the
breathing
system.
I
F
It's
it's
now.
You
know,
I
realize
it's
a
small
consolation
for
you,
but
it
is
that
both
reports,
three
reports,
mr
campbell's
right
and
the
two
from
the
city
are
a
matter
of
public
record.
They
are
part
of
the
of
course
agenda
packet
that
was
released
to
the
public
last
week.
Now
I
realize
you've
been
at
this
much
longer
yes
than
the
past
five
days
when,
since
we
got
it.
F
I
To
everyone
here
so
it's
you
know
it's
at
a
point
where
we're
trying
to
get
her
back
into
a
house,
and
the
neighbors
really
really
really
want
us
to
be
done
with
this
project.
Everyone
wants
us
to
be
done
with
this
project
and
we've
we've
been
dealing
with
tree
consultants
and
these
trees
and
doing
what
we
needed
to
around
these
trees
for
since
2018.
I
I
It's
a
hardship-
and
you
know
today
was
the
the
very
first
day
that
she
sent
me
pictures
of
the
kids
in
the
pool
I
was
I
was
out
there
today.
I
met
mr
boss.
We've
been
talking
about
the
trees
nobody's
been
in
the
pool.
The
kids
haven't
been
in
the
pool
for
four
years,
so
to
see
her
under
that
huge
branch
she's
like
I
don't
really
care
about
the
test.
I
don't
want
this
tree.
You
know,
as
a
liability
near
the
pool
near
all
these
kids
they're,
going
to
enter.
F
I
understand
the
concern
but
but
without
I
don't
want
to
seem
crass
when
I
say
this,
but
that's
not
the
question
before
us
right
question
before
us
is
a
legal
one
is:
are
we
an
acceptance
of
these
conditions
and
and
and
if
we
don't
like
the
conditions,
we'll
have
a
discussion
about
that
and
we
might
draft
other
language
or
not,
but
but
I
think
I
understand
quite
well
now.
I
appreciate
your
clarifying
what
your
position
is.
I've
got
it.
I
understand
what
you're
saying,
and
I
thank
you
for
that.
I
One
thing
I
mean
some
of
the
conditions
that
the
planning
commission
has
for
removal
of
an
oak
tree
isn't
only
lab
testing
to
prove
it.
If
it
has
a
disease
or
not
correct,
it
could
be,
it
could
be.
You
know,
liability
to
pedestrians
or
people
or
structural
damage
or
there's
other
categories
that
aren't
just
the
lab
tests
to
take
into
account
whether
you
guys
approve
the
removal
of
a
tree.
B
D
B
G
I
I
B
B
I
They
dig
it
up
with
something
called
air
hammers,
so
they're
really
blowing
the
dirt
out
of
the
way
of
the
roots.
You
don't
have
a
chance
to
damage
the
root
system
itself
and
the
first
arborist
that
the
city
sent
out
asked
richard
to
dig
up
the
roots
before
so
he
could
physically
see
them
and
they
we
paid
richard
to
do
that.
He
hired
a
company.
The
arbors
came
out
and
looked
at
it.
We
never
saw
the
report,
they
didn't
do
a
lab
test
on
them.
I
I
I
I
And
even
when
we
asked
when
we
asked
richard
like,
is
it
just
dig
up
any
route
and
test
any
route
he's
like?
No?
We
have
to
find
you
know
where
it
was
chewed
on
by
an
animal
where
it's
oozing.
We
have
to
find
some
part
of
the
root
system.
That's
visibly
damaged
and
test
that
location,
because
the
tree
will
compartmentalize
around
certain
areas.
I
B
I
B
I
Yeah
I
mean
when
we
had
the
original
encroachment
permit
submitted
in.
You
know,
2017,
I
think
in
richard's
first
report
when
they
submitted
to
trim
other
branches
and
other
stuff.
This
tree
had
a
rating
it
was
before.
I
was
involved
in
right
after
they
bought
the
house,
but
it
had
a
rating
and
then,
when
we
supplied
for
you
know
when
we
applied
for
the
pool
permit,
it
had
a
rating
and
then
recently
we
did
this.
It's
three
reports
that
richard
campbell
did
and
the
rating
declines
in
all
of
them.
I
Yeah
I
mean
if
you,
if
you
see
the
zillow
pictures
25
years
ago,
it
had
concrete
around
the
entire
tree.
Without
you
know-
and
I
don't
know
what
causes
this
fungus-
I
don't
know
if
it's
a
lack
of
oxygen.
You
know
from
the
original
builder,
but
the
the
tree
itself
was
encroached
on
when
whoever
built
the
original
house.
B
B
B
J
So
my
point
is
oh
on
top
of
that,
as
a
little
side
coincidence,
I
formed
the
north
ranch
cert
community
emergency
response
team
and
worked
closely
with
a
fire
department
on
that.
So
I
have
a
certain
knowledge
as
to
what
fire
department
requirements
are
as
well,
but
in
any
case
I,
as
I
said,
I
am
from
the
hoa
and
we
one
of
the
things
we
do
is
review
landscape
plans
and
we
review
architectural
plans
why
we
were
never
consulted
to
review
these
landscape
plans,
especially
since
the
runoff
from
these
trees
or
from
these.
J
These
lawns
that
were
placed
around
these
trees
dramatically
and
directly
impacts
the
arroyo
and
that
the
water
runs
off
from
these
lawn
areas,
down
the
barranca
towards
our
existing
oak
trees,
which
line
and
stabilize
the
arroyo
why
we
were
not
consulted
on
this.
I'm
not
exactly
sure
that
said,
I
would
be
more
than
happy
to
meet
with
m3
civil,
the
people
that
you've
quoted,
because
they
do
do
our
walk-throughs.
J
J
J
J
And
in
that
situation,
what
I
would
propose
other
than
the
fact
that
two
fire
trucks
can
pass
side
by
side,
because,
as
I
measured
that
branch
up
above
and
to
the
left
of
that
truck,
it
was
170.5
inches.
Today,
a
fire
truck
is
13
feet,
six
inches
or
about
a
hundred
162
inches,
which
gives
it
eight
inches
of
clearance
20
feet
from
the
edge
the
far
edge
of
the
roadway.
So
two
fire
trucks
could
pass
in
a
situation
like
that.
J
B
F
Lake
valley
yeah
mr
chair,
mr
chair
for
me,
but
before
you
step
down
mr
witt,
if,
if
there
were
a
meeting
as
you're
proposing
between
the
hoa
and
the
applicant,
what
would
in
your
mind
what
would
be
a
positive
or
constructive
outcome
of
that
meeting?
What
would
change
from
what
we're
considering
tonight.
J
J
You
know
I
get
a
little
lost
down
there
when
I'm
down
in
the
arroyo,
because,
as
I
look
on
the
city
of
thousand
oaks
mapping,
there
are
essentially
two
lines
the
fence
line
they
put
in
has
five
jogs
in
it.
It
strikes
me
at
least
for
my
gps,
that
the
fence
line
is
a
little
bit
more
towards
homeowners
property
as
opposed
to
their
property.
It's
not
it's
almost.
It's
definitely
not
on
the
property
line,
so
I'm
a
little
bit
lost,
but.
F
F
B
K
K
K
If
that's
what
it
it
can
take,
so
the
staff
report
actually
stated
there
were
no
physical
signs
of
disease,
and
it
said
the
assessment
of
this
tree
was
divided
with
respect
to
evidence
of
terminal
disease,
which
means
the
experts
couldn't
come
to
a
decision
and
they
did
not
find
any
disease
in
this
tree
and
it's
a
multi-trunk
tree.
So
I
think
we
should
try
to
save
these
trees.
K
All
the
homeowners
in
the
city
are
always
talking
to
the
city,
about
their
trees
and
how
to
prune
them
and
everything,
and
I
think
we
need
to
make
an
effort
to
try
to
save
the
trees.
However,
we
can-
and
I
also
was
looking
at
the
staff
report
in
regards
to
wot
six,
and
that
is
not
a
diseased
tree
as
as
the
staff
report
says,
and
it
does
partially
hang
over
the
roadway.
K
K
H
H
H
E
B
E
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Yeah
I'd
like
to
respond
to
wot-6.
I
think
there
was
some
comments
made.
I
have
on
the
slides
here.
Basically,
the
section
501
of
the
fire
apparatus
access
standard,
and
I
want
to
just
be
clear
about
it.
At
f,
4.1.1
vertical
clearance.
Does
state
13
feet
six
inches
along
the
entire
road
width?
So
if
you
had
a
situation
where
there
was
somebody
parked
on
one
side
of
holly,
hollyhock
you'd
have
very
limited
room
to
get
around
it.
E
You
may
have,
you
would
be
maybe
forced
to
drive
on
the
inside
of
the
or
toward
the
inside
of
the
lane
closest
to
the
lowest
hanging
portion
of
the
limb
in
the
future.
This
thing
is
going
to
continue
to
grow
and,
as
the
weight
bears
down
on
this
branch,
it
will
continue
to
lower
itself
rather
than
then
be
elevated.
E
It
was
suggested
to
go
ahead
and
cut
the
cut
the
branch
so
that
the
roadways
clear
if
you're
and
I
should
have
taken
additional
pictures,
but
I
was
out
there
that
that
trunk
is
really
the
main
one
of
the
main
trunks.
If
you
cut
that
really
I
don't
know
if
the
tree
would
be
viable,
it'd
be
extremely
unbalanced
for
one,
because
it
does
grow
at
that
very
steep
angle,
and
that's
really
all
I
have
to
say
about
about
that.
I
wouldn't
want
to
guess
the
fire
department
if
they
are
are
requesting.
E
You
know
that
that
they
have
the
13
and
a
half
feet
clear.
Also,
I
think
was
mentioned
that
somebody
said
that
you
can
get
two
fire
trucks
there.
I
I
don't
see
how
that's
possible.
Also
different
trucks
vary
in
height.
You
may
have
a
like
a
more
like
a
paramedic
truck
like
a
you
know,
go
out
to
one
site
and
then
you
may
have
to
drive
a
hook
and
ladder
because
somebody's
having
a
heart
attack
on
other
side
of
town.
E
I
just
don't
want
to
be
in
a
position
to
say
that
one
is
going
to
be
responding
and
not
the
other.
We
just
don't
know
and
that's
why
you
have
to
have
the
clearance
that
they're
requesting.
Lastly,
for
wt3,
we're
again
we're
we're
taking
this
objective
objective
stance
on
on.
If
we're
going
to
discuss
the
disease,
we
need
something
definitive
in
terms
of
you
know.
We
have
a
suspicion,
that's
there.
E
The
other
thing
I'd
like
to
offer
is,
I
see
wot-3
as
as
a
two-pronged
two-pronged
issue.
One
is
the
presence
of
disease
which
will
you
know,
result
in
decline
and
and
lose
that
structural
integrity.
But
in
addition
to
that,
we
need
to
look
at
the
form
and
the
way
that
tree's
been
growing.
I
didn't
mention
a
lot
of
lateral
branches.
Branches
are
growing
out
very
far.
E
You
know
further
radius
from
the
center,
the
multi-trunk
tree
as
well.
It's
easy
to
find
anything
along.
You
know
on
the
internet
that
shows,
when
you
do
have
co-dominant
trunks
like
that.
Sometimes
they
do
split.
Sometimes
they
don't,
but
I'm
just
saying
those
are
the
issues
there
and
that's
really
the
end
of
comments
on
that.
B
F
F
Okay,
but
so
just
so
we're
very
clear
on
this
in
this
hearing,
his
appearance
is
on
behalf
of
the
applicant
correct,
not
as
not,
and
so
what
what
he's
saying
in
his
report
is
a
statement
by
the
applicant.
It's
not
a
statement
by
the
city
is
that
is
that
correct,
that's,
correct,
okay
and
then
the
other
is
just
what
basis
we
have
as
commissioners
for
voting
to
remove
or
not
remove
trees.
F
F
E
If
we
had
a
report
that
we
had
a
report
that
showed
a
tree
that
was
well
branched,
extremely
well
balanced
had
good
form,
good
structure,
a
good
trunk
that
went
up
at
least
you
know
12
feet
before
it
started
to
branch
out,
and
then
there
was
claiming
a
disease
issue.
Then
we
would
absolutely
want
to
see
that
because
there's
no
other
reason
to
consider
removal.
E
F
C
We
would
need
some
sort
of
report
that
demonstrates
that
the
tree
is
dead
or
hazardous
and
that's
one
of
the
criteria
we
use
in
approving
of
tree
permits.
If
there's
no
creeping
in
the
soil
or
there's
no
evidence
of
significant
limb
failure
and
or
disease,
then
we
don't
approve
our
accrued
permits.
We
don't
allow
the
indiscriminate
removal.
Okay,.
C
F
E
You
know
once
again,
I
think
I've
answered
this
just
based
on
the
observation
of
the
direction
of
the
trunks,
the
span
of
the
trunk
or
the
branches
that
are
there,
given
the
event
that
there
would
be
like,
I
said,
a
rainfall
again
in.
In
my
mind,
there
is
a
potential
for
it
to
be
more
hazardous
than
a
tree
that
didn't
have
that
configuration,
and
that's
really
the
extent
of
my
comment.
I
can't
go
further
than
that
because,
again.
A
H
G
E
E
B
E
B
Two,
I
agree
with
your
assessment
of
the
fire
department.
Safety
to
firefighters
is
important
to
me.
I
have
family
members
who
are
firefighters.
I
have
friends
who
are
firefighters,
and
I
know
from
the
fact
that
we've
had
a
thomas
fire
and
a
woolsey
fire.
Sometimes
these
fires
spread
to
areas
where
we
have
populations
and
their
job
is
to
protect
their
property
and
their
lives,
and
I
want
to
make
sure
that
they
have
access.
B
So
that
makes
sense
to
me.
The
the
question
I've
got
is
the
the
tree
that
we're
talking
about
wot-3
is
in
poor
health,
from
what
I'm
understanding
from
reading
these
reports
and
part
of
what
they've
done
to
mitigate,
that
is
to
create
air
flow
to
those
roots
potentially
to
try
to
save
it.
My
question
is:
is
how
have
previous
hardscapes
been
placed
over
these
trees?
B
E
Think
just
one
thing
for
clarification:
the
aeration
system
that
was
placed
in
there-
I
don't
know
if
it
was
to
remedy
a
suspected
issue
with
the
tree
more
than
just
providing
it
the
air
that
it
needed.
When
you
take
up,
you
know
area
from
the
pool,
so
it
was
not
ready
to
remedy,
but
rather
to
mitigate,
so
that
would
have
sufficient
oxygen.
B
E
E
And
that
that's
the
second
question,
I
honestly
don't
know
if
that
was
permitted
or
not
permitted.
I
know
there
was
also
an
older
deck
that
was
around
wot2,
which,
and
I've
got
photos
of
that
in
a
slide
I
can
get
to,
but
that
was
clearly
just
riddled
with
with
the
fungus
and
that
was
a
deck
had
been
placed
over
that
entire
root
system,
and
that
was
like
an
older,
an
older
situation.
So
I
don't
know.
B
C
Yeah,
we
don't,
we
don't
have
a
proactive
program
where
we
go
out
and
evaluate
trees
if
there
is
a
request
for
improvements
on
a
property
that
are
within
the
encroachment
within
the
protected
zone
of
an
oak
tree.
At
that
point
we
do
an
evaluation
and
we
inspect
the
trees
and
the
work
methods
and
that
type
of
thing,
but
not
productively.
So.
A
B
That
makes
sense
all
right
yeah,
because
I
was
just
curious.
I
mean
we,
you
know
we're
finding
ourselves
in
a
position
where
we're
looking
at
trees
that,
to
some
degree
based
upon
the
arborist
reports,
are
in
in
decline
in
health
or
have
issues,
and
I
think
I
suspect
that
some
of
it
is
because
of
the
circumstances
they
grew
in
is
that
is
that
a
correct
assessment
based
on
what
I'm
reading
or
am
I
reading
too
much
into
it?.
C
I
Only
because
I
have
a
few
thousand
pictures
of
this
process,
if
you
could
see
that
so
that's
w06
and
you
can
see
where
the
the
tree
is
barely
on
her
property.
So
at
the
street,
where
the
main
trunk
comes
over
is
128
inches.
So
talking
about
ten
foot,
eight
so
trimming
the
tree
at
that
location,
where
larry
williams
from
ventura
county
fire
department
wants.
It
leaves
a
stub
of
a
trunk.
That's
about
eight
feet
long
and
it's
not
a
tree.
I
We
would
just
be
cutting
the
trunk
off
and
leaving
the
tree
there
and
as
far
as
the
the
planting
commission
process
this
process
for
removing
the
tree.
Sorry,
sorry,
sorry,
I
don't
want
to
be
insulting
and
read
this
if
you
already
know
it,
but
richard
campbell
gave
it
to
me
as
far
as
like
these
are
the
conditions
we
have
to
meet.
This
is
the
hearing
process.
This
is
how
they
make
their
decisions.
I
B
Thank
you
very
much.
Do
any
commissioners
have
any
follow-up
questions
for
the
applicant?
No
there
I'll
answer
loser.
I
think
we're
all
good.
I
have
a
quick
question
for
mr
a
here
since
we
were
discussing
possibly
altering,
should
we
close
the
open
meeting
discuss
reopen
if
we
want
to
make
a
change
or
should
we.
H
H
So
if
you
want
to
modify
that
condition
or
any
of
the
conditions
that
then
you
have
to
reopen
it,
so
that
can
so
the
applicant,
if,
if
it
is
something,
that's
a
change,
could
accept
those
conditions
based
on
the
change
that
you
would
have
so
certainly,
as
you
already
stated
tonight,
it's
within
your
purview
to
make
condition
changes
if
you
wish,
and
we
can
certainly
help
your
staff
can
certainly
help
you
with
those
changes.
If
you
want.
B
I
With
m3
civil
and
jacob,
the
the
civil
engineers
requirement
for
drainage
of
the
yard,
the
whole
property
slopes
towards
the
creek,
the
drainage
system.
The
only
approved
drainage
system
from
the
civil
engineer
that
that
maintains
the
branca
is
that
the
drains
can't
stop
at
the
edge
of
her
property
and
have
all
the
water
runoff
run
down
into
the
creek.
They
have
to
be
run
underground
and
come
out
of
the
wall
like
three
or
four
feet
above
the
water,
and
that
was
the
condition
of
our
permit.
I
B
F
This
is
really
more
of
a
question
for
fellow
commissioners
to
kick
off
the
discussion.
More
than
a
comment
on
the
critical
question
it
seems
to
me
is
about
the
the
health
of
tree
three
or
yeah
tree
three.
The
question
I
want
to
ask
is:
what
what
evidence
are
we
considering
here?
I
in
all
of
the
reports,
even
though
they
have
conflicting
conclusions,
I
don't
think
any
of
them
said
there
is
positive
evidence
of
fungus
in
tree
three.
F
F
H
You
chairbus
along
that
line.
I
had
kind
of
a
procedural
question
as
well
is
that
if
the
applicant
is
now
going
to
add
an
additional
basis
for
removal
of
tree
3
based
upon
a
health
issue
and
considering
that
the
applicant
is
basically
indicating
they
are
not
in
agreement
with
the
entirety
of
the
application
that
we've
been
presented
to
vote
on.
My
first
thought
is
whether
or
not
the
applicant
wants
to
continue
this
hearing
to
allow
them
to
submit
additional
evidence
as
the
tree
three.
G
I'd
like
to
make
one
comment
with
that
for
me.
Frankly,
the
the
burden
of
proof
would
come
well,
the
burden
of
proof.
Obviously,
the
onus
is
on
the
applicant
with
respect
to
removing
the
tree
and
if
the
initial
reasoning
for
that
was
for
disease
and
obviously
we
should
have
that
report
in
front
of
us
conflicting
reports
do
not
equal
definitive
answer.
However,
when
we
start
talking
about
hazards
in
health,
you
don't
usually
get
remediation
from
a
situation
that
you've
created
for
yourself.
G
So
I
I
don't
know
if
that's
necessarily
answering
commissioner
lansin's
question
about
whether
we
need
to
you
know
we'll
look
into
that
or
consider
that
as
part
of
the
removal
or
we
go
back
and
put
the
put
it
back
in
the
applicant's
court
and
actually
get
this
testing
done
for
us
to
make
that
final
decision.
But
that
would
be
my.
B
So,
what's
my
understanding
based
upon
what
a
senior
planner
said
is
that
they
did
raise
that
issue
multiple
times
with
staff?
Staff's
recommendation
is
based
upon
the
the
health
issue,
but
that
he
he
acknowledged
that
the
the
applicant
has
has
raised
that
subject.
He
said
multiple
times
was
my
understanding.
The.
E
Yes-
and
I
did-
I
did
mention
it
as
an
afterthought
because,
commissioner
link,
you
are
correct
in
terms
of
they
located
the
pool
you
know
prior
to
the
tree's
existence.
The
tree
was
there,
they
located
the
pool
there,
and
I
did
say
that
it
was
as
an
afterthought
after
further
considering
kind
of
the
potential
dynamics
of
the
tree
and
the
pool
placement
that
they
were
concerned
about
about
it
being
an
issue.
B
B
My
understanding
is,
they
saw
sick
tree,
they
thought
they
were
taking
out
their
hardscape.
They
thought
they
were
going
to
fix
it
with
this
this
this
thing
they
were
doing
and
now
they're
getting
a
report
saying
the
tree's
in
worse
condition
than
it
was
before,
and
so
that's
why
they're
concerned.
That's
that's
what
I'm
hearing
if.
G
B
G
B
F
F
B
F
So
the
reason
for
my
first
question
to
staff
was
when,
when
this
test
would
be
done-
and
then
my
surprise
to
hear
there
might
not
be
a
test
was
was
my
second
question
was
going
to
be,
then
why
are
we
here?
Why
are
we
having
this
meeting
now
shouldn't
we
be
meeting
after,
as
commissioner
lincoln
suggested,.
F
H
I
I
just
had
actually
a
quick
question.
I
think
the
only
reason
we're
even
here
is
because
there's
three
trees
at
issue.
If,
for
whatever
reason,
we
only
voted
on
the
two
trees.
My
question
to
mr
slimmer
staff
is:
couldn't
the
applicant
come
back
as
to
three
trees
to
treat
three
later
on
and
do
that
as
an
independent
issue
that
would
not
come
before
us.
F
E
E
K
A
A
B
F
A
F
F
Correct
me,
but
but
but
that's
the
distinction
and
if
we're
using
disease
as
the
the
line
that
we're
crossing
or
the
basis
for
our
finding,
then
we
it
sounds
like
we
have
it
on
2a.
We
do
not
have
it
on
three.
If
there
are
other
bases
for
having
a
discussion
about
three,
I'm
happy
to
have
that
discussion,
but
on
the
question
of
disease,
I
don't
think
we
have
the
evidence.
F
B
E
All
I
want
to
do
is
offer
some
clarification
with
with
two
things,
with
respect
to
the
to
the
reports
and
specifically
the
city
city
consultants,
city,
consulting
arborists.
That
is
correct.
I
think
one
one
did
mention
the
this
decision,
branches
and
but
and
then
some
and
some
die
back
or
foliage
changes.
The
other
one
did
not
said
there
did.
It
was
absence
of
any
of
any
evidence.
E
So
that's
that's
the
only
clarification
I
want
to
offer
for
those
two
reports,
but
the
other
thing
I
did
want
to
mention
is
just
so.
We
understand
the
the
decision.
Here
is
two
things:
if
they
don't
go
forward
with
the
lab
test,
they
can't
remove
the
tree
if
they
do
go
forward
with
the
lab
test
and
the
lab
tests
come
back
negative,
they
can't
remove
the
tree.
So
that's
just
something
to
be
clear
about
those
are
those
are
the
con?
That's
how
the
conditions
are
meant
to
to
play
out.
B
F
E
If
they
want
to
remove
the
treatment
that
is
correct,
right
right
and
the
lab
test
and
not
just
do
the
lab
test,
the
lab
test
has
to
show
conclusive
evidence
that
says
yeah
whether
it's
this
this
particular
fungus
or
another
pathology
that
that's
that's
going
to
cause
the
the
tree
to
terminally
decline.
Right.
F
So
if,
as
a
matter
of
procedure,
though,
because
because
it
is,
it
is,
as
the
applicant
is
testified,
it
is
a
significant
cost
and
inconvenience
to
do
additional
work
on
on
three.
It
might,
as
commissioner
mcmahon
has
suggested,
make
more
sense,
or
commissioner
lansing
commissioner
mcmahon
commented
to
perhaps
change
the
scope
of
the
the
vote
so
that
it
only
covers
the
other
two
trees.
B
B
B
H
B
A
I
B
I
H
H
B
C
Excuse
me,
chairperson,
if
I
can
add
a
dialogue,
the
report
process.
The
evaluation
process
is
a
technical
evaluation
of
one
arbor's
report
and
our
consultant
reviewed
those,
but
two
of
our
consultants
reviewed
those
reports
and
provide
their
responses
to
that
analysis
and
the
analysis
from
john
ennis.
Our
consultant
determined
that
there
was
no
physical
signs
of
symptoms
of
the
disease
on
the
tree
and
that
way,
that's
where
the
recommendation
for
the
lab
result
was
inserted
into
the
resolution.
C
C
That
what
richard
had
performed
was
tests
on
2a
and
not
on
tree
3..
Now
richard's
findings
determined
or
stated
that
this
fungi
is
highly
contagious.
It
moves
through
the
soil
and
it's
very
likely
that
it
has
this
disease,
but
there
was
no
conclusion
so
the
way
the
conditions
worded
right
now
condition.
I
think
four
states
that,
upon
submitting
lab
tests
that
demonstrate
the
tree
does
have
the
disease.
If
it
does
have
a
disease,
we
have
the
ability
to
based
on
planning,
commission
decision
to
administratively
remove,
allow
removal
etc.
All.
B
I
I
C
Okay,
the
first
report
by
greg
gainsworth
just
basically
stated
that
he
agrees
philosophically
with
richard's
comments
that
you
know
it
is
a
highly
contagious
disease.
It
is
in
close
proximity
to
tree
three
and
and
it
could
have
it,
but
the
second
consult
we
sent
out
so
there's
no
evidence
that
it
does
have
it
and
that's
what
we're
basing
our
recommendation
on
whether.
C
E
Unfortunately,
there
was
nothing
conclusive,
so
again,
a
lot
of
conjecture
and
suspicion,
but
nothing
conclusive,
and
then
I
think
what
you're
talking
about
you
know
observing
those
roots.
It
takes
more
than
just
a
casual
observation.
I
think
you
actually
have
to
take
a
specimen.
You
have
to
peel
back
some
of
the
roots
and
you
have
to
test
it
culture
it
so
there's
probably
more
entailed
again.
That's
something
that's
beyond
me,
but
but
that's
my
suspicion
on
on
on
how
to
really
determine
whether
or
not
it
has.
I
I
You
couldn't
put
a
pool
between
wot-2
and
w0t-3,
because
it's
under
both
trees,
so
the
only
place
a
pool
could
go
back
in
is
where
the
pool
was
so.
Basically
it
would
be,
it
would
be
telling
her
okay.
Well,
you
tore
a
pool
out
and
you
can
no
longer
have
a
pool
or
put
it
back
in,
because
it's
one
under
this
branch
that
might
fall
and
kill
your
kids
or
the
other
location
is
unbuildable.
B
Copy
that
so
I
think
we're
still
stuck
at
the
same
two
options,
though
either
we
can
approve
it
as
is,
and
you
would
have
to
do
the
soil
test
in
order
to
get
that
that
that
third
tree
removed
or
you
could
withdraw
the
application.
This
time
go
back
to
staff
present
it
in
that
way
and
did
not,
and
then
we
could
represent.
I
C
I
C
I
E
Appreciate
what
you're
saying
and
I
think
what
you're
referring
to
there's
there's
a
matrix
they
use,
and
basically
you
just
fill
in
the
dot
here,
filling
the
dot
there
and
that's
again,
this
is
like
a
paint
palette.
You
know,
there's
a
couple
things
here
and
there,
but
it
doesn't
it.
We
need
that's
why
you
need
an
arborist
to
basically
state
it
explicitly.
E
L
Well
from
my
position,
this
would
have
been
wonderful
to
know
6
12
18
months
ago,
when
this
entire
process
started,
and
I
would
have
been
happy
to
provide
whatever
documentation.
You
would
need
to
see
that,
but,
as
it
is,
I've
jumped
through
hoops
for
the
last
year
and
a
half
to
try
to
save
trees
with
a
breathing
system.
Multiple
thousands
of
dollars
being
told
that
these
trees
are
still
declining.
L
You
know,
holding
up
the
job
not
being
able
to
move
forward
and
and
being
told
that
it's
hazardous
conditions.
So
at
what
point
is
it
not
my
liability
and
it's
now
the
city's
liability,
I'm
telling
you
this
tree,
I've
been
told
it
needs
to
go,
there's
been
evidence
that
it
should
go
and
now
you're
needing
more
evidence
on
a
you
know,
different
level
that
it
should
go.
F
I
did
not
read
anything
in
mr
campbell's
report
that
provided
evidence
and
everything
that
went
forward
from
that
point
was
saying
the
basis
for
removing
these
trees
is
disease,
so
we're
not
going
to
talk
about
hazards,
we're
not
going
to
talk
about
lightning
strikes
or
wildfires
or
locusts,
or
some
something
else
we're
going
to
talk
about
disease.
Here.
F
I
did
not
find
anything
in
mr
campbell's
report,
the
first
report
that
was
done
that
provided
evidence
of
disease
in
tree
three,
and
so
I
guess
maybe
we
could
all
save
ourselves
some
time.
Is
there
something
more
from
mr
campbell
that
that
does
show
that
there's
a
disease
problem,
which
was
the
initial
attack
that
the
first
arborist
took
here?
F
But
if
we
go
back
to
where
this
started,
mr
campbell's
report,
it
said
the
reason
we
should
take
this
tree
down
is
because
it's
probably
diseased,
and
what
I'm
asking
for
is
something
more
than
probably.
Is
there
something
that
says
that
this
tree
is
diseased
right,
so
is
there?
Is
there
something
that
maybe
he
left
out
of
the
report
or
something
additional
some
later
report,
there's
something
that
shows
that
tree
three
is
diseased.
L
Yeah
exactly
I
couldn't,
I
couldn't
speak
for
him.
I
guess
all
I
could
say
is
what
I
what
I've
been
told
by
him,
which
is
that
it
is
his
opinion
that
this
is
very
contagious.
It's
in
the
soil.
It
will,
if
it's
not
already
killing
this
tree,
it
will
kill
this
tree,
and
so
that
was
good
enough
for
me,.
F
I
So
a
question
I
have
is,
if
I
mean
obviously
it's
a
safety
concern
for
her.
I
mean
I'm
going
to
have
50
kids
from
oaks
christian
there
this
weekend
and
I
don't
want
to
be
sued
by
any
of
their
parents.
So
if
it's
something
where
we
have
to
go
through
and
spend
a
bunch
of
money
and
dig
up
the
yard
again
and
do
lab
results,
is
this:
we
send
the
lab
results
to
nazir.
You
guys
look
at
it,
you
approve
it
over
the
counter.
We
have
the
tree
service,
cut
it
down
or
it's
another.
B
L
H
B
I
Is
I
know
what
her
concerns
are
and
what
she's
been
waiting
for
for
a
few
years?
If,
if
you
approve
it
pending
the
lab
result
and
we're
allowed
to
take
out
wo2
and
six
and
then
get
into
the
middle
of
the
winter,
when
the
kids
aren't
using
the
pool?
And
it's
not
disrupting
everything
that
they've
been
working
on
for
two
years
and
then
we
dig
up
the
yard,
and
then
we
talk
about
w023.
A
H
I
H
A
A
I
H
Correct
so
then
what
would
happen
is
you
can
go
forward
with
whatever
pace
you
want
to
go
through
as
far
as
two
and
six
of
course,
and
then
three
at
your
position,
because
the
the
decision
that
you
make
is
that
tree
three
cannot
be
removed
unless
there
is
that
result.
That
is
what
is
presented
tonight
from
the
recommendation.
H
The
option
that
has
been
discussed
with
you
is:
if
you
want
to
not
have
a
decision
like
that
tonight
and
you
want
to
come
back
again
with
a
continuance
of
this
hearing
and
then
come
back
with
additional
information
for
tree
3.
That
is
an
option
that
they
are
providing
for
you
tonight
that
you
can
decide
so
either
one
is
one
you
have
the
motion
that
would
be
made
and
based
on
the
recommendation.
H
That
would
be
assuming
that's
where
they
would
go.
That
is
removal
of
tree
two
three
six
and
then
for
three.
You
would
have
to
show
the
lab
results
and
again
I
also
don't
know
and
again
we
do
not
have
the
arborists
here
tonight,
but
I
do
not
know
what
is
required
for
that
lab
testing.
So
when
you
mention
bringing
up
all
the
soil,
and
everything
like
that,
I
don't
know
what's
required
to
do
the
testing,
so
I
don't
know
the
extent
of
what
you
always
had
to
experience
before.
I
I
spoke
with
richard
about
it
and
they,
you
know,
dig
up
the
roots
until
they
they
have
to
find.
You
know
a
physical
area
of
the
root
that
is
damaged,
whether
it's
you
know
cut
or
oozing,
or
something
test
that
and
then
it
gets
sent.
Well,
you
told
me
one
of
the
uc
schools.
Does
the
testing-
I
don't
remember
which
one?
But
you
know
if
if,
during
that
time
he
did
a
new
report
based
on
the
lab
testing
and
hazardous
conditions.
H
So
so
again
to
be
clear
tonight,
if
they
were
to
vote
with
sas
recommendation,
it
would
be
removal
of
two
tree
two
tree
six
and
then
for
three.
It
would
be
removed.
If
you
show
evidence
that
is
diseased,
if
you
don't
show
evidence
of
disease,
you
don't
have
permission
to
remove
it
based
on
the
decision
that
would
be
made
tonight.
Okay,
but
again
the
option
would
be
that
you
could
continue
this
matter
and
bring
more
evidence
for
tree
three.
If
that's
your
desire,
that's
what
they're
offering
you
tonight.
F
Mr
here,
just
one
one
clarification
just
to
be
clear
about
process.
You
mentioned
a
10-day
appeal:
it's
a
10-day
window
to
file
an
appeal.
The
appeal
itself
would
be
sometime
down
the
road.
After
that,
would
it
wouldn't
be
like
we
make
a
decision?
You
go
you
guys
stink.
We
don't
like
that
decision.
So,
10
days
from
then
you'd
have
another
decision.
It
would
be
sometime
after
that.
A
B
G
G
C
Yeah
that
actually
changes
the
procedural
direction
hazards
better
hazardous
trees
go
through,
what's
called
a
type,
a
verification
that
the
tree
is
a
debtor
hazardous
specimen
and
is
no
longer
protected
by
the
ordinance.
So
then,
the
applicant
has
the
ability
to
do
what
they
like
with
that
tree.
At
that
point,
yeah
the
process
we're
going
through
now
is
because
it's
not
been
shown
that
it
is
dead
or
hazardous.
F
B
Okay,
so
you
want
us
to
go
and
vote
tonight
and
then
we'll
just
go
from
there
all
right,
perfect.
Thank
you
so
much
and
thank
you
for
your
patience
on
this
all
right.
I'd
like
to
go
ahead
and
close
the
public
hearing
and
I
will
open
up
the
floor
for
a
motion
and
or
discussion
with
my
fellow
commissioners.
H
Thank
you,
chairbus.
Looking
at
the
the
issue,
I
think
tree
six
to
me
seems
like
it's
pretty
clear
that
that
has
to
be
removed.
I
don't
see
a
trimming,
that's
likely
going
to
be
possible,
so
I'm
in
agreement
with
that
tree
two.
I
believe,
we've
all
kind
of
looked
through
and
saw
that
that
does
have
the
disease
issue.
So
I
don't
have
a
problem
with
that
tree
three.
At
this
point
again,
we
don't
have,
in
my
opinion,
sufficient
evidence
to
show
disease.
F
F
B
B
D
B
Thank
you,
commissioner
mcmahon.
I
think
you
expressed
all
of
our
sentiments
the
same
often
we
like
this
process
to
be
a
lot
smoother
and
a
lot
easier
for
residents,
and
sometimes
it
does
not
work
that
way,
and
there
are
the
reason
for
it
is
because
the
trees
are
very
important
to
the
city,
obviously,
and
so
sometimes
when
things
don't
go
smoothly,
it's
because
they
are
so
important
to
us.
So
thank
you,
mr
kearns.
Are
there
any
follow-up
items,
announcements
or
upcoming
issues.
C
Yes,
thanks.
Thank
you,
chair,
just
an
update
on
future
elite
fitness
that
was
continued
at
the
planning
commission
a
few
meetings
ago,
we're
still
waiting
for
information
from
the
applicant
before
we
can
bring
that
back
so
we're
the
evaluation
is
continuing
june
21st.
We
have
an
item
shaping
up
for
the
planning
commission
review.
It's
it's
about
two:
it's
218
apartment
units,
a
hotel
complex
over
the
timber
school
site
on
newbury
road.
So
that
would
be
before
you
on
june
21st,
and
that
is
all
I
have.