►
From YouTube: Planning Commission - 06/07/2021
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
A
Here
all
right
tonight
we
have
with
us
interim
deputy
community
development
director,
steve
kearns,
mr
kearns.
Are
there
any
written
comments,
announcements
or
continuances
at
this
time.
C
A
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.
A
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.
A
B
B
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.
D
D
And
again,
just
to
reiterate
the
three
oak
trees
are
going
to
be
two
coast
live
oaks
and
one
valley
oak.
A
little
bit
of
background
in
1976
city
council
did
approve
rpd
75-136,
which
established
track
2343..
D
D
And
again,
project
description
proposed
tree
removal
do
include
one
29-inch
coast
oak
live
it's
going
to
be
noted
in
the
report.
As
w2a
in
a
presentation,
one
multi-trunk
valley
oak
is
going
to
be
noted
as
wot-3
and
one
18-inch
coast
live
oak
is
going
to
be
noted
at
wot-6
tree
according
to
the
to
the
report
again
in
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.
D
Here's
a
site
plan
and
a
tree
plan
you'll
notice
that
the
trees
that
are
highlighted
are
the
ones
subject
to
the
case
that
we
are
reviewing
tonight:
2a,
3
and
6,
and
that's
approximately
their
locations
on
the
site.
D
D
Six
again,
as
I
indicated,
it
is
recommended
by
the
the
fire
department
to
be
removed
due
to
impeding
safe
passage
of
emergency
vehicles
and
three
it
is
suspected
to
also
have
the
same
pathology
as
w2a.
However,
a
lab
test
may
be
required
to
verify
that
conclusively.
D
And
now
I've
got
some
photos
here
to
to
sort
of
demonstrate
how
wot-6
is
sort
of
affecting
that
that
hollyhock
court,
you
notice,
there's
a
branch,
that's
growing,
very
laterally
and,
as
that
continues
to
grow,
it'll
continue
to
sort
of
droop,
and
there
was
just
one
moving
truck
here
as
an
example
that
ended
up
making
contact
with
that
branch
and
I'll
elaborate
this
on
this
a
little
bit
further,
but
the
fire
memo
and
the
code
fire
code
ventura
fire
code
does
stipulate
they
need
13
and
a
half
feet
of
clearance
and
over
the
entire
road
with
this
is
more
important
when
the
road,
the
road
width
is
actually
narrow
and
in
this
case
hollyhock
is
narrow.
D
It's
one
of
the
more
narrow
streets,
here's
a
picture
of
wot-2-a,
just
a
quick
snapshot
of
some
of
the
issues.
It's
unbalanced,
canopy,
thinning
foliage
and
it
has
evidence
of
past
failure.
I
was
also
at
the
site
and
have
some
additional
pictures
here.
D
What
you
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.
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.
D
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.
There,
here's
another
picture
again
of
the
the
buy
back
of
the
trunk
and
again
that
looks
like
an
old
canker.
D
Here's
some
the
his
branch
stumps.
I
circle
the
one,
the
hist
which
is
which
which
occurs
naturally,
when
when
a
branch
falls
off
spontaneously
due
to
whatever
conditions,
that's
circled
in
red,
you
notice.
D
The
difference
between
that
looks
like
a
kind
of
the
tree
helps
to
sort
of
mend
itself
with
something
that's
been
removed
by
by
human,
okay
and
it's
been
cut,
and
then
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.
D
And
next
is
wt3.
D
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
wot1,
which
was
a
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
help
healthy
budding
and
we
think
it
may
harbor
some
infection
again.
We
do
see
some
de-his
branch
stumps
previous
failure.
D
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.
D
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.
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.
D
So
if
you
can
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.
You
know
common
perception,
layman
perception,
I'm
not
an
arborist,
but
you
could
take
a
look.
You
know
for
yourself
again
just
to
show
you
some
more
of
that
severe
lean.
That's
that
branch
that
I
mentioned.
D
D
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.
D
So
this
is
a
view
of
wot4
again
coming.
This
is
actually
on
cresthaven,
looking
towards
hollyhock
and
there's
a
picture
of
the
two
larger
sycamores.
D
D
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.
D
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
pro
profile,
anyways
genus
and
basically
it's
a
fungal.
D
A
Thank
you
very
much
senior
planner
newshour,
slim
commissioners.
Do
we
have
any
questions
everybody
nodding
at
me?
I
will
go
with
commissioner
newman.
First,
please.
E
Regarding
the
third
tree
tree,
w-o-o-t-3,.
D
Thank
you
for
that
question
in
conversation
with
the
applicant
and
I
yeah,
do
you
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
I
believe
they
will
follow
through
so
that
hasn't
been
determined.
D
Yet
the.
D
E
Okay,
so
with
regard
to
the
staff's
position,
there
are
two
reports
from
independent
arborists,
the
city
commission.
I
presume
the
first
one
essentially
repeated
the
applicant's
report,
findings
about
tree
three
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.
E
The
other
report
from
mr
innis
had
a
different
viewpoint.
It
supported
the
removal
of
trees
too
and
six,
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.
D
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.
D
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
that
it's
a
likely
disease,
although
it
might
not,
the
disease,
might
not
have
progressed
as
far
and
it
might
be
a
long
period
of
time,
maybe
years,
maybe
10
years
before
something
happens,
but
I
can't
say
for
sure.
E
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
ten
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.
E
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.
E
So
so
I
guess
to
ask
a
question
around
this
is
it's:
is
it
staff's
position
that
sufficient
evidence
exists
for
staff
to
support
the
removal
of
tree
three.
C
If
I
can
just
jump
in
here,
the
recommendation
from
staff
is
to
have
lab
tests
performed,
so
we
can
verify
that
the
tree
does
have
the
fungi
and
that's
that's
by
condition
and
the
recommended
resolution.
So
we
would
want
that
lab
result
to
demonstrate
that
it
does
actually
have
the
fungi.
E
E
Okay,
so
just
so
I
understand,
then
I
think
the
my
reading.
The
condition
says
the
tree
cannot
be
removed
until
a
positive
result
from
a
lab
test
is
submitted
to
the
city.
Exactly
that's
correct.
Is
that
a
correct?
That's.
A
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Newman
commissioner
mcmahon.
B
Yes,
that
lab
test
that
you're
suggesting
will
it
show
how
much
of
the
disease
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.
D
D
Different
sections,
one
is
in
the
root
system
and
then
a
section
of
the
bark
and
then
perhaps
you
know
up
further
up,
maybe
and
actually
take
some
of
the
leaves
like
that
yellowing
that
we
saw
and
then
actually
put
that
under
under,
like
lab
microscope
grow,
the
culture
see,
if
actually
does
have
the
presence
of
the
fungus.
D
The
issue,
though,
is
again:
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,
you
know,
a
massive
failure
of
structure.
So
that's
all
I
really
have,
and
as
far
as
that,.
B
One
more
question:
you
showed
us
a
picture
where
the
tree
had
been
cut.
You
know
by
a
person,
would
that
cut
had
to
have
a
permit
pulled
for
that.
D
C
Did
get
a
permit,
they.
C
For
that,
the
printing
of
that
tree,
any
branch
that's
over
two
inches
in
diameter-
requires
any
live
branch
over
20
times
requires
the
no
tree
permit.
F
Thank
you,
chair
boss,
since
this
is
my
first
time
at
the
rodeo
on
the
oak
tree,
professor
preservation,
I
just
had
a
well
had
a
couple
questions
on
the
actual
ordinance
itself.
Nine,
never
mind
what
section
is
what
constitutes
an
encroachment
into
the
drip
line.
C
F
F
Any
kind
of
activity,
construction
or
otherwise,
yeah
anything.
So
on
that
same
vein,
what
was
the
improvement
that
was
shown
within
the
arborist's
report,
with
the
temporary
orange
fencing
around
the
the
tree.
D
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
is
again
per
the
the
arborist
report
that
was
submitted
with
that
permit.
D
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.
Okay-
and
that's
what
that
was
part
of
that
that
fencing,
and
also
the
removal
of
that
that
decking.
I
believe
that
that
was
the
case.
So.
D
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.
F
That's
around
2a
yeah,
yeah
yeah,
that's
right,
let's
see
and
the
new
pool
it
looks
like
there
was.
I
did
a
little
research
online
went
through
zillow
and
saw
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.
D
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,
if
you
see
it
on
on
the
map,
it's
that
one
all
the
way
to
the
sort
of
south
south
east
corner.
F
Okay,
and
does
the
city
have
any
record
of
other
trees
being
removed
from
the
property
since
its
construction.
D
We
would
honestly
would
have
to
look
at
the
the
cases,
because
there
are
at
least
three
cases
in
current
history,
one
in
2016
and
two
in
2018.
I
have
those
here
and
they
do
talk
about
removal
of
wt1
encroachment
and
iv,
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.
G
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.
D
I
don't
believe
so,
and-
and
none
of
that
was
actually
called
out
in
the
the
two
arbors
reports
in
this
case-
the
three
arbus
reports,
so
there
was
no
mention
of
that.
In
fact,
and
just
since
you
did
mention
waterways,
the
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.
D
D
And
hundreds
of
gallons,
this
is
immediately
after
within
10
to
15
minutes
after
a
rainstorm,
and
with
that
I
think
they'll
be
taking
up
a
lot
of
that
water
and
with
those
branches.
That
also
may
be
another
consideration,
but
but
but
no
no,
no
changes
to
any
waterways
nearby,
waterways.
D
That's
a
great
question,
and
I
don't
know
I
you
know
there
would
have
to
be
something
I
would
imagine
to
to
to
mitigate
for
that.
If
it
it
does,
you
know
if
there
is
a
significant
amount
of
rainfall.
G
D
Correct
I
mean,
as
I
stated
generally,
they
they
weren't
happy
about
the
tree
coming
out.
But,
as
I
explained,
I
think,
a
couple
items
one
was
there
was
at
least
two
here
out
of
out
of
necessity.
D
The
third
is
again
questionable
right,
but
also,
moreover,
that
removing
these
trees
was
was
going
to
basically
require
a
payment
into
the
open
space
and
and
that
would
allow
us
to
again
acquire
more
open
space
and
potentially
plant
things
down
the
road
and
an
opportunity
for
for
for
new
trees
to
be
placed
somewhere
where
they
will,
you
know,
flourish
and
won't
be
interrupted,
and
that
was
sufficient.
G
D
That
that
is
correct,
I
think,
for
for
a
number
of
reasons.
You
know
if
something's
not
planned
now
or
it's
not
the
right
timing
having
that
having
those
funds
in
a
or
having
the
money
in
the
fund
ready
to
go
to
execute
at
a
time,
that's
appropriate,
I
think,
is
what
we're
looking
to
do.
D
A
Thank
you,
commissioner
lansin.
I
just
have
one
quick
question.
We've
talked
about
wot
one
a
couple
times
now.
I
there's
a
tree
present
there
right
now
and
that
there
was
a
tree
that
was
removed
at
some
point
is
that
is
that
a
replacement
tree
is
that
we're
talking
about
and
when
that
happened.
D
No,
I
think
it
may
have
misspoke,
I
know
wto2,
not
2a,
o2
was
removed
and
w001
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
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
on
the
south
end
of
the
property
along
the
the
facade
along
along
the
front
edge.
A
A
All
right,
then,
we'll
move
on
now.
Thank
you,
and
now
we
ask
for
the
applicant
and
applicant's
representative
to
speak.
You'll
have
15
minutes.
You
come
up
over
here
to
the
dyas.
A
And
the
applicant
is
applicant's,
representative
is
ryan
baker
with
distinguished
creations
and
catherine
wolfe
is
the
applicant
herself
you're
right
there
and
and
your
mike
is
live
and
you
have
15
minutes.
Thank
you.
So
much.
H
The
the
original
project
started
with
you
know
I
guess
in
2016
or
2017,
the
original
home
was
built
with
a
pool
and
if
you
look
on
the
zilla
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.
H
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
2018-704-4408.
H
H
H
H
H
The
question
that
we
have
about
wot3
and
about
the
lab
results
and
the
testing
is
that
the
project
has
been
about
a
year
and
a
half
we
submitted
for
this
tree
permit
september
17
2020.,
I
don't
remember
who
was
the
first,
the
first
consultant
that
came
out
the
first
city,
arborist.
D
That
that
would
have
been
campbell,
so
richard
campbell
well
original.
I'm
sorry!
No
I'm
sorry!
I
meant
greg
ainsworth.
H
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.
H
So
we
haven't
been
trying
to
remove
this
tree,
but
from
the
original
report
in
2016,
with
wot,
1
and
then
2018
and
then
2020,
which
is
this
report.
His
rating
on
the
tree
has
gone
down
from
a
c
to
a
d
minus
so
and
we've
spent,
I
don't
know,
20
000
on
the
the
breathing
system
for
the
tree,
as
as
his
reports
say,
the
tree
is
in
permanent
decline,
so
that
was
a
little
bit
frustrating
and
then
it's
been
about
six
months
since
we
submitted
for
for
the
permit
to
remove
the
tree.
H
H
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.
H
The
tree
is
never
ever
going
to
grow
at
a
different
angle.
It's
never
going
to
get
lighter
and
we
really
don't
want
to
put
her
through
any
more
of
it.
H
You
know,
I
think
wwot,
2
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.
It
will
die
eventually,
and
our
concern
is
that
you
know
the
liability
of
of
her
kids
or
that
tree
or
that
branch
is
not
the
same.
As
how
long
will
the
tree
live?.
A
Okay,
if
you're
comfortable,
I
can
go
ahead
and
open
it
up
to
commissioner
questions
for
you.
That's
that's
acceptable,
yeah,
okay.
I
will
start
with
commissioner
lanson
if
he'd
like,
since
I
used
him
last.
G
Yeah,
thank
you,
chair
bus,
just
to
follow
up
on
the
question
I
had
for
staff
in
terms
of
if
two
and
three
are
removed
in
terms
of
the
water
way.
As
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.
H
So
would
we,
when
we
did
this
project,
we
actually
hired
m3?
As
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.
G
H
I
mean
the
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.
G
One
thing
you
mentioned:
there
was
an
hoa
involved.
Is
there
some
hoa
approval
you
have
to
get
or
has
that
already
been
provided.
H
B
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.
H
There's
probably
I
mean
you,
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.
B
H
Not
that
I
know
of
I
mean
there's
a
lot
of
there's
a
lot
of
oak
trees
in
the
basically
the
common
area
on
either
side
of
our
property.
That
also,
you
know,
don't
look
like
they're
in
great
condition.
H
H
H
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,.
E
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
Mr
barry,
you
showed
some
pictures
of
a
breathing
apparatus.
Do
I
understand
correctly
that
was
that?
Well,
let
me
ask:
was
that
installed?
Was
it
dedicated
to
try
to
preserve
tree
number
three
or
was
it
for
other.
H
H
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.
H
Right
if
the
tree
is
gonna
die
anyway,
or
if
it's
a
hazard
and
we're
going
to
remove
it,
it's
just
it
took,
it
would
have
taken
so
long
with
cobit
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.
H
E
Right
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
the
approval
of
the
permit
to
take
out
the
three
trees.
E
E
That
basically
says
we
agree
to
whatever
the
other
conditions
are,
and-
and
so
I
just
I
want
to
ask
just
to
be
sure
if
we
do
go
ahead
and
vote
to
remove
all
three
trees.
Are
you,
okay,
with
accepting
that
condition
that
that
a
lab
test
be
done.
H
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
the
aeration
system
on
top
of
a
large
part
of
the
root
system.
H
We
have
it
where
we
put
down
sod,
because
that
was
the
condition
of
the
the
pool
permit,
and
we
did
everything
that
we
were
supposed
to
to
do
that
and
now
we're
basically
being
asked
okay,
we
have
another
city
representative.
H
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.
E
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
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
but
I'm
asking
whether
you're,
okay
with
the
conditions.
H
Okay
with
the
test,
the
and
you
know
the
reason
that
we're
we're
not
on
board
with
the
test
is
that
it
was
asked
that
we
do
it
once
before,
and
our
tree
permit
process
has
been
seven
months
long.
The
second
arborist
that
came
out
from
the
city
came
out
may
5th,
like
six
months
into
us,
trying
to
get
a
permit.
We've
already
posted
you
know
for
our
hearing.
We
finally
get
another
arborist
that
shows
up.
That
wants
us
to
do
the
same
thing.
The
liability
issue
of
you
know
this.
H
E
E
E
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,.
H
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
and
a
breathing
system.
H
E
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,
I
know.
E
H
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.
H
H
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.
I.
E
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
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.
H
One
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.
E
H
F
F
D
H
H
I
wasn't
involved
at
the
time,
but
I
know
that
wot-1
was
over
there
somewhere
and
was
and
was
a
hazardous
condition
tree.
So
I
don't
think
when
this,
when
this
conversation
started,
that
another
location
was
viable.
A
All
right,
the
only
questions
I've
got
are
the
initial
soil
test.
When
that
was
done,
you
said
you
had
to
dig
up.
I
I
have
it
in
my
head.
As
a
layperson,
I
will
be
the
18th
person
to
say
I
am
not
an
arborist.
A
It
is
not
somebody
walking
out
the
test
tube,
scraping
a
little
bit
and
walking
away.
Apparently,
apparently,
this
is
a
fairly
invasive
process.
Yeah.
H
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
him.
H
A
H
H
And
even
when
we
asked
when
we
asked
richard
like,
is
it
just
dig
up
any
route
and
test
any
route?
It'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.
H
A
H
A
H
I
mean
when,
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,
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
and
the
rating
declines
in
all
of
them.
H
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.
A
A
A
Sorry,
mine
with
minor
technical
difficulty,
we
will
go
to
public
comments.
We
have
two
public
speakers
this
evening.
Each
speaker
will
have
five
minutes
to
speak
and
we
will
begin
with
randall
witt.
J
Hi
I
moved
into
the
area
in
the
1990s
or
right.
E
J
However,
I
joined
the
hoa
board
dealing
with
our
three
miles
of
arroyos
in
about
1993
and
I've
been
dealing
with
those
arroyos
since
from
1993
to
the
present,
I
have
a
pretty
good
sense
as
to
how
the
arroyo
system
works
as
a
result
of
working
with
civil
engineers
and
geologists
and
the
like,
on
the
slopes
and
with
city
oak
tree
people,
as
well
as
other
arborists,
relating
to
the
stabilization
of
the
slopes
around
the
arroyo
systems
and
their
dependence
for
their
stabilizations
on
oak
trees,
willows
toyons,
sycamores
and
a
variety
of
other
trees,
most
of
which
are
invasive
that
are
in
the
arroyo
system
that
we're
battling.
J
In
any
case,
I
also
deal
with
the
maintenance
crews
that
deal
with
the
water
flow
in
that
system.
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
work
closely
with
the
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
plants
and
we
review
architectural
plants,
why
we
were
never
consulted
to
review
these
landscape
plants,
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
royal
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
voted,
because
they
do
do
our
walk-throughs.
J
But
by
the
same
token,
you
you
are
saying
that
you,
you
know
you
may
have
killed
your
mother
and
father,
but
you're
pleading
for
the
leniency
of
the
court
on
the
basis
of
the
fact
you're,
an
orphan.
J
J
Okay
got
it
and
you
impact
trees
that
are
in
the
barranca.
I
I'm
I'm
struggling
to
see
how
we
come
out
whole,
given
the
job
that
the
city
has
tasked
us
to
do,
maintaining
the
barranca.
J
The
last
thing
relates
to
the
oak
tree,
which
I
get
them
all
mixed
up,
but
the
one
that's
over
the
roadway,
which
I
guess
is
number
six
wrong
picture
here.
They
put
a.
They
took
a
picture
of
a
moving
truck
in
the
street.
I'm
gonna
just
add
this
truck,
which
was
there
today
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.
J
Today,
a
fire
truck
is
13
feet,
6
inches
or
about
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,
but
even
if
you
don't
want
to
to
sign
off
on
that
where
this
line
is
here,
we
could
cut
the
tree
limb
right
before
that
limb.
That
points
upwards
and
then
preserve
the
tree
to
some
extent
and
keep
it
entirely
out
of
the
roadway,
which
is
an
option
for
not
removing
that
entire
tree.
A
You
got
it.
Thank
you,
mr
whit,
mr
whit,
your
city
of
residence
is,
I
forgot
to
ask
you
at
the
beginning.
E
North
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
and.
E
E
E
A
K
K
K
That's
been
going
on
this
property
for
a
long
time,
which
I
know
is
not
anything
you
guys
want
to
hear
about,
but
I
did
get
homeowner
calls
so
and
I
also
wrote
a
letter
to
mr
nazir
and
there
were
several
other
letters
that
were
written
in
from
people
around
the
area,
about
removing
the
trees
and
what
reasons
etc,
etc
so
from
the
staff
report,
and
I'm
not
a
I'm,
not
an
arborist
either,
but
I
I
get
it
w-o-t-2-a
I
get
that
tree
maybe
needs
to
be
removed,
I'm
not
sure.
K
K
If
that's
what
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-6-
and
that
is
not
a
diseased
tree
as
a
as
the
staff
report
says,
and
it
does
partially
hang
over
the
roadway.
K
K
Why
take
out
the
whole
tree,
so
in
conclusion,
we'd
like
to
see
a
conservative,
this
is
the
board
would
like
to
see
a
concerted
effort
on
the
part
of
the
city
to
save
tree
wot,
3
and
wog-6,
because
we
know
how
important
oak
trees
are
to
thousand
oaks,
and
these
trees
are
important
to
everyone.
So
I
hope
you
will
consider
that
in
your
deliberations.
G
A
He's
asking
if
both
public
speakers
are
representing
the
same
age,
different.
G
A
All
right,
I
believe
we
are
done
with
public
comments,
so
I
would
like
to
go
back
to
his
staff
for
follow-up
comments.
D
A
D
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Yeah
I'd
like
to
respond
to
wot-6.
I
think
there
was
some
comments
made.
I
have
on
the
slide
here.
Basically,
the
section
501
of
the
fire
apparatus
access
standard,
and
I
want
to
just
be
clear
about
it.
At
4.1.1,
vertical
clearance
does
state
13
feet
6
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.
D
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'll
continue
to
lower
itself
rather
than
then
be
elevated.
D
It
was
suggested
to
go
ahead
and
cut
the
cut
the
branch
so
that
the
roadway's
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.
D
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.
D
D
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.
The
other
thing
I'd
like
to
offer
is,
I
see
wot3
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
did
mention
a
lot
of
lateral
branches.
D
Branches
are
growing
out
very
far.
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.
A
Thank
you,
sir.
We're
going
to
go
to
commissioner's
questions
for
staff.
Commissioner
newman
looks
very
eager,
we'll
let
you
go
first,
sir.
E
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
A
couple
questions,
one
that
came
up
during
the
applicant's
testimony.
There
was
an
assertion
made
that
mr
campbell,
the
applicant
street
consultant,
worked
for
the
city
of
thousand
oaks.
Is
that
correct?
D
E
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.
E
You
mentioned
form
as
another
concern
with
tree
number
three
I'll
ask
a
hypothetical
here.
If
we
take
away
the
issue
of
disease,
if
we
just
have
some
tree
somewhere
that
the
trunk
goes
straight
up,
but
then
this
branch
goes
out,
90
degrees
over
something
that's
just
been
built.
E
D
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.
D
E
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
accrue
permits.
We
don't
allow
the
indiscriminate
removal.
C
E
D
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.
E
D
G
D
Correct
that
was
that
was
one
of
the
major
concerns
is
that
you
know,
even
though
the
pool
was
placed
after
the
fact
and
again
was
based
on
that
was
the.
B
D
Mind
is
the
best
place
for
the
pool,
and
this
is
maybe
an
afterthought,
but
considering
where
the
tree
is
again,
the
span
of
the
span
of
the
branches
in
the
canopy,
the
girth
of
the
cannon,
the
girth
of
the
branches
over
that
area
were
where
they
and
and
visitors
may
be
recreating
they've
felt.
That's
a
concern
and
they've
actually
reiterated
that
to
me
several
times.
F
D
I
only
have
the
report,
I'm
sorry
the
decision
and
not
the
not
the
arborist
report
for
the
for
the
we're
talking
about
the
one
with
the
encroachment.
D
That's
a
theme
tonight
you
know
and
I
apologize
I
I
don't
have
the
original
arborist
report.
What
I
did
was
only
had
access
to
was
the
was
the
decision
that
was,
I
was
rendered.
Okay.
Thank
you.
F
A
Then
that's
enough
of
that
then
I
wanna,
I
wanna,
confirm
what
you
said:
wot-6
is
not
pruneable,
because
what
we'd
be
pruning
is
the
main
branch
of
the
of
the
tree
correct,
and
that
would
be
nonsensical.
That's.
D
A
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
they
have
access.
A
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
any
of
these
reports
and
part
of
what
they've
done
to
mitigate,
that
is
to
create
air
flow
to
those
routes
potentially
to
try
to
save
it.
My
question
is:
is
how
have
previous
hardscapes
been
placed
over
these
trees?
A
D
I
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
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.
So.
A
D
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:
okay.
A
So
so
I've,
so
my
question
I
just
might
be
from
mr
kearns:
do
we
have
some
kind
of
an
inspection
system
for
the
trees
that
exist
on
private
property?
Are
we
verifying
that
that
private
owners
are
being
good
stewards
of
these
trees
so
that
we
don't
run
into
these
situations
in
the
future.
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.
C
A
Okay,
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
A
Okay,
thank
you
and
with
that
we
will
follow
up
to
the
applicant.
Do
you
have
any
rebuttals
you'd
like
to
make
perfect.
A
All
right
so
you'll
have
five
minutes.
Justina.
H
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
10
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.
We
would
just
be
cutting
the
trunk
off
and
leaving
the
tree
there
and
as
far
as
the
the
planning
commission
process
this
process
for
removing
a
tree.
H
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.
H
The
standards
for
an
oak
tree
permit
may
be
approved,
based
on
one
of
the
following
findings
by
the
decision
maker,
the
conditions
of
the
trees
with
respect
to
disease,
danger
of
falling
proximity
to
existing
structures,
high
pedestrian
traffic
areas
such
as
parking
lots,
pedestrian
walkways
interference
with
utility
services
or
is
causing
or
likely
to
cause
substantial
substantial
property
damage
based
on
sufficient
evidence
and
or
documentation
and
said
damage
cannot
be
controlled
or
remedied
through
reasonable
prevention
and
our
preventative
procedures
and
practices.
H
A
Thank
you
very
much.
Do
any
commissioners
have
any
follow-up
questions
for
the
applicant
now
there
will
answer.
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.
L
L
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.
A
You
got
it
so
I'm
going
to
leave
it
open.
If
that's
okay
with
my
fellow
commissioners
and
I
think
that
we
should
discuss
item
four
real,
quick
and
who
would
anybody
like
to
lead
off.
H
With
m3
symbol
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.
H
A
E
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
wanna
ask
is
what
what
evidence
are
we
considering
here?
E
I
may
have
missed
it,
but
I
think
I'm
characterizing
all
three
reports
correctly.
So
I
guess
the
question
I'm
raising
is
absent
evidence
of
disease
at
the
moment
in
tree
three.
What
other
evidence
should
we
be
considering
in
looking
at
whether
to
remove
or
not
remove
that
tree.
E
G
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
3.
F
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,
then
obviously
we
should
have
that
report
in
front
of
us.
F
Conflicting
reports
do
not
equal,
definitive
answer.
However,
when
we
start
talking
about
hazards
and
health,
you
don't
usually
get
remediation
from
a
situation
that
you've
created
for
yourself.
F
So
I
I
don't
know
if
that's
necessarily
answering
commissioner
lansing's
question
about
whether
we
need
to
you
know,
look
into
that
or
consider
that
as
part
of
the
removal
or
we
go
back
and
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
so.
A
It'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
health.
A
D
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
treaty'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.
A
A
My
understanding
is,
they
saw
sick
tree,
they
thought
they
were
taking
out
their
artscape.
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
you're.
F
No-
and
I
hear
that
as
well,
I,
the
in
bringing
up
the
issue
of
whether
the
street
is
going
to
fall
into
the
pool,
is
sort
of
the
situation.
Again,
that's
a
situation
you've
created
by
putting
your
pool
immediately
underneath
the
branch
that
may
or
may
not
fall
down.
A
E
E
A
Think
the
problem
I'm
running
into
is
that
I
I
we
don't
have
an
arborist
here
and
so
I
saw
our
senior
planners
pictures
where
he's
showing
us.
You
know
yellowing
of
of
leaves
and
and
stuff
like
that,
and
we
actually
don't
have
the
professionals
here
so.
E
The
reason
the
reason
for
my
first
question
to
staff
was
when,
when
this
test
would
be
done-
and
then
my
surprise
to
here,
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
link
has
suggested,.
E
G
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.
E
C
Yeah
and
removal
of
any
request
removal
any
tree
oak
tree
larger
than
24
inches
of
diameter
requires
planning
commission
review.
A
E
A
E
We
are
using
that
exact
basis
to
what
sounds
like
there's
agreement
that
we
would
proceed
with
an
approval
of
taking
down
tree
2a.
A
Now,
while
they're
saying
that
we
should
approve
the
removal
of
the
third
tree
pending
a
positive
test
for
the
same
disease
that
the
tree
two
has
otherwise,
that
tree
is
not
going
to
be
removable.
E
E
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.
A
Well,
I
think
we're
in
agreement
that
the
majority
of
commissioners
said
that
if
it's
a
safety
issue,
we
we're
not
going
to
we're
not
going
to
say
a
safety
issue
is
something
that
if
you
created
the
safety
issue
yourself,
it's.
D
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
arborist.
That
is
correct.
I
think
one
one
did
mention
the
this
decision,
branches
and,
but
and
and
some
and
some
die
back
or
foliage
changes.
The
other
one
did
not
said
there
did.
It
was
absence
of
any
of
any
evidence.
D
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
to
play
out.
E
Up
I
mean
if,
if
we
do
just
do
an
up
or
down
vote
on
the
application,
as
you
presented
it
to
us,
that
would
essentially
require
a
lab
test.
Would
it
not.
D
If
they
want
to
remove
the
tree,
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.
E
So
if,
as
a
matter
of
procedure,
though,
because
because
it
is,
it
is,
as
the
applicant
has
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.
A
G
In
light
of
how
it
looks
like
we're
thinking,
I
think
it
still
goes
back
to
the
applicant
as
to
whether
or
not
they
want
to
go
through
with
getting
the
approval
of
the
application
as
presented,
whether
they
want
to
then
maybe
continue
it
or
take
it
off
calendar
to
then
present
additional
evidence
as
to
the
danger
issue,
because,
right
now
it
doesn't
sound
like
they're
in
favor
of
the
application
it's
presented.
A
A
A
So
at
this
point,
we've
discussed
it
as
you've
heard
we'd
like
to
vote
on
this
as
exists.
If
you
would
prefer
to
withdraw
it
and
go
back
and
review
this
evidence
with
an
arborist
and
see
if
you
can,
if
you
could
change
the
scope
of
what
the
recommendation
is
and.
B
H
A
H
Was
extremely
coveted
concerned
and
he's
not
very
tech
savvy,
so
it
the
zoom,
wasn't
an
option
for
him.
Yeah.
L
No,
I
think,
certainly
I
understand
applicants
comment.
I
just
there
there's
no
solution
tonight
for
that
issue,
so
I
think
your
presentation
of
the
two
options
are
appropriate.
L
That
is
you
either
he
can
make
it
as
they
can
make
a
decision
as
a
as
a
team
to
say,
we
want
to
step
back
and
continue
this
to
it
to
a
time
you
know
to
a
new
date
or
and
then
see
what
the
arbor
says,
or
you
can
make
a
decision
tonight,
because
the
decision
does
have
in
a
sense
an
ability
to
address
all
three
trees
based
on
based
on
the
current
recommendation
staff
right.
L
A
H
C
Excuse
me,
chair
boss.
If
I
can
dialogue
the
report
process,
the
evaluation
process
is
a
technical
evaluation
of
one
arborist
report
and
our
consultant
reviewed
those
what
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
The
tree
2a
did
demonstrate
signs
of
symptoms,
and
then
36,
of
course,
is
just
is
a
it's
blocking
the
roadway,
so
the
technical
analysis
has
been
performed
and
so.
C
That
what
richard
had
performed
was
tests
on
2a
and
not
on
treat
3.
now
richard's
findings
determined
are
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
the
disease,
we
have
the
ability
to
based
on
planning
commission
decision
to
administratively
remove,
allow
removal,
electricity.
A
H
F
H
Came
out,
I
think
in
november
that
dug
up
roots
with
richard.
I
don't
know
what
his
report
was,
but
we're
basically
being
asked
to
spend
the
same
money
on
the
same
thing
twice,
but
we're
not
allowed
to
know
what
the
results
of
the
first
guy,
but
the
second
guy
said
something
else.
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
His
comments
were
well
to
sum
up.
He
basically
said
that
the
disease
is
highly
contagious.
He
we
can't
confirm
with
any
certainty
that
tree
number
three
does
have
disease.
D
The
unfortunate
thing
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
that.
H
And
just
if
I
can
add
one
more
thing
about
the
you
know
the
comments
of
basically
a
situation
that
you
know
the
applicant
created.
You
know
she.
Obviously
she
bought
a
house
that
had
a
pool
the
pool
that
was
in
a
certain
location
and
based
on
the
drip
line
and
the
tree
map
of
the
property.
You
couldn't
put
a
pool
between
wo2
and
w0t3,
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.
A
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
third
tree
removed
or
you
could
withdraw
the
application.
This
time
go
back
to
staff
present
it
in
that
way,
and
then
and
then
we
could
represent.
A
Showing
yeah
we'd
need
we'd
we'd
need
evidence
from
an
arborist
saying
that
this
is
a
potential
issue.
H
C
H
C
H
D
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,
there's
a
few.
It's
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.
D
I
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.
I
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.
E
Ms
wolfe,
if
I
may,
the
the
very
first
arborist
report
in
this
process
was
from
mr
campbell
on
your
behalf,
and
mr
campbell
did
dig
up
some
roots
in
tree
2a
and
did
find
some
evidence
of
disease.
E
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.
E
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?
That
shows
that
there
is
disease
in.
I
Whether
it
would
be
disease
or
or
just
imminent
decline,
I'm
not
sure
why
the
I
understand
your
position,
but
I'm
not
sure
why,
if
it's
being
if
it
is
known
to
decline,
whether
it's
disease
or
it's
just
dying,
why
that
actually
matters
well
well.
E
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
there
is
there
something
that
maybe
he
left
out
of
the
report
or
something
additional
some
later
report.
Is
there
something
that
shows
that
tree
three
is
diseased
yeah.
I
E
H
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.
A
I
A
A
H
Is
I
know
what
her
concerns
are
and
what
she's
been
waiting
for
for
a
few
years?
If,
if
you
approve
it
pending
a
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.
L
A
L
Right
so
so,
first
of
all,
just
to
be
clear
with
the
what
the
recommendation
is
for
you
as
applicant
and
and
for
the
decision
makers,
the
the
recommendation
is
to
permit
the
removal
of
two
and
six
and
three,
but
three
is
conditioned
upon
a
finding
of
the
disease
from
lab
results.
L
L
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.
L
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
three.
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.
L
L
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
the
experience
before
I
I
don't
know
from
not
having
one
here
as
to
what
would
be
required
for
that
testing
for
the
for
the
lab
testing
results.
H
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?
H
L
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.
E
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
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.
F
Chair
boss,
quick
point
of
clarification
with
mr
currents.
If
the
applicant
or
just.
A
F
Well
and
the
face
isn't
popping
up
as
the
person
speaking
on
on
zoom
so
completely
different
situation.
It's
a
wild
world
if
the
applicant
were
to
come
back
with
a
report
documenting
hazards.
F
C
Yeah
that
actually
changes
the
pros
procedural
direction
hazards
better
hazardous
trees
go
through,
what's
called
a
type,
a
verification
that
the
tree
is
a
dead
or
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.
E
Mr
chair
sure,
so
just
to
clarify
we
would
not
be
able,
as
the
commission,
to
change
the
terms
of
the
f
of
the
hearing
on
the
fly.
We
couldn't
say
well
we're
going
to
talk
about
hazards
tonight,
we'd
need
we
need
to
have
that.
Go
through
staff.
D
A
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.
A
I
see
nobody
jumping
so
I'm
going
to
force
commissioner
lanson
to
speak.
G
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.
G
We
don't
have
any
evidence
that
was
presented
to
us
to
show
the
hazard
and
I'm
not
really
happy
about
trying
to
do
things
on
the
fly,
especially
when
again
we
enforce
the
rules,
we
don't
make
the
rules,
so
I
am
ultimately
in
favor
of
the
staff
position
we'll
go
ahead
and
make
the
motion
to
recommend
that
otp
2020-70547.
E
E
E
We
can
talk
about
whether
six
can
or
cannot
be
mitigated,
but
it
seems
like
there's
pretty
strong
concurrence
here,
even
if
I
were
to
vote
against
it
that
that
there's
a
public
safety
hazard
posed
by
the
current
configuration
of
tree
six
so
I'll,
I
will
support
the
motion.
A
Thank
you
secretary
gore.
If
you'll
prepare
us
for
a
vote.
A
A
All
right.
Thank
you,
everybody
for
your
patience
with
that
exhaustive
discussion,
we're
going
to
move
on
to
commission
comments
and
ab123
reports.
Are
there
any
comments
from
my
fellow
commissioners.
A
B
A
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
Yeah
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
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.