PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF 01/12/04

 2003-0839- Sheldon Perry [Appellant] - Appeal of a decision by the Director of Community Development denying the removal of a Deodar Cedar Tree.  The property is located at 810 Coolidge Avenue in an R-2 (Low Medium Density Residential) Zoning District.  (APN:  165-17-019) JMc

Jamie McLeod, presented the staff report. Staff noted the appellant's reasons for the appeal expressing concerns that the tree poses a serious risk and that the tree may fall on a home or power lines.  She stated that after site visits, staff determined that the tree is healthy and does not represent hazard to people, structures or other trees.  Staff was not able to make the required Findings and recommended denying the appeal and upholding the decision of the Director of Community Development denying the removal of the Deodar Cedar.

Chair Babcock opened the public hearing.

Sheldon Perry, appellant/applicant, commented on the expenses incurred in the maintenance of the tree. He stated that he received a confirmation from an independent arborist that the tree is decaying and is a potential hazard.  He urged the Commission to approve the removal of the tree.

Vice Chair Moylan asked Mr. Perry, which of the required Findings he felt that removal of the tree meets.  Mr. Perry responded that the primary concern is the future liability the tree represents and that it is badly damaged.

Comm. Hungerford commented that there is a "For Sale" sign on the property and asked whether he is having difficult selling or developing the land because of the tree.  Mr. Perry responded that his main concern is the potential hazard and noted that the tree is not hindering him from developing the property.

Comm. Klein asked staff what is the age of the tree.  Leonard Dunn, City Arborist, responded that by its size, the tree is about 20-35 years.

Bill Roman, Jr., arborist hired by the applicant, offered his professional determination that - 1) that the tree poses potential hazard to the power lines which are in close proximity; 2) that the tree has been topped severely, which eliminates the elliptical growth of the tree creating a strong likelihood of falling limbs and that there are already irreversible damages; 3) that the tree shows indication of decay and infestation because of the limb trimming and the trunk wound is very visible.  He presented the Commission photographs of the tree to demonstrate the damages and wound.  He offered his professional opinion that the tree is unhealthy, it has been exposed to improper trimming, topping, foreign chemical contamination and is a potential liability.  He concluded that the tree is badly damaged.

David Ridge, resident, stated that one of the reasons he moved to the neighborhood is because of the beautiful tree.  He stated that the tree is still beautiful which adds value to the neighborhood.  He wants the tree protected during construction and to continue the tree maintenance. He stated that some of the neighbors share his desire to preserve the tree.

Lisa Rocha, concurred with Mr. Ridge and stated that the tree adds charm to the neighborhood.  She commented on hearing two different opinions.  She wonders when the tree was topped.  However, she felt that the tree has a 20-30 year life expectancy and should be preserved.  She felt confident that the tree is healthy.

Comm. Simons asked staff whether the branches closer to the power lines could be trimmed and would it damage the tree.  Mr. Dunn responded that it depends on how much the limbs are going to be trimmed.  He stated that Cedar trees are slow in growth and that a qualified arborist must trim the tree.

Comm. Simons further asked staff about a couple of old cut which appear to be deep, whether there is any solution to protect the wound.  Mr. Dunn responded that he does not know when the wound was cut and does not believe that this could be corrected.  However, he stated that he did not find any decay or signs of decay.

Sheldon Perry, appellant/applicant, offered to replace the tree. He stated that he appreciates older trees; however, he is worried about the potential liability of the tree.   He urged the Commission to approve the removal of the tree.

Comm. Simons commented that during his site visit, he spoke to one of the neighbors expressing the desire to keep the tree but has concerns about the potential hazard.  Mr. Perry commented that he likes the tree as well as the neighbor. However, the neighbor is also concerned about the potential safety hazard. 

Comm. Fussell asked Mr. Perry how long has he owned the property.  Mr. Perry responded February of 2003. 

Comm. Fussell further asked whether the condition of the tree has changed since he purchased the property.  Mr. Perry responded that he was not even aware of the condition of the tree until concerns were brought up to his attention.

Chair Babcock asked the appellant when the tree was last topped.  Mr. Perry was unable to determine the date.

Chair Babcock closed the public hearing.

Comm. Simons commented that he shares the concerns of the appellant for future liability; however, he believes that there are techniques that could be done.  He also concurred that the damaged was already done which is unfortunate. However, he felt that it is not of immediate issue and that the tree is healthy and could be preserved.

Vice Chair Moylan did not support the motion.  He felt that the appellant presented a strong argument to remove the tree.  He also shared his experience with PG&E where the tree is a hazard to the power line, their main concern is to protect the power line and trim the limbs.  The least of their concern is to save the tree.  He complimented the appellant for his thorough presentation and felt that the tree has been damaged which supports the required Findings warranting approval of the tree removal permit.

Chair Babcock did not support the motion. She stated that she advocates for protecting trees.  However, during her site visit, it appears that the tree has been damaged, stumped and topped.

Ms. Ryan stated that the decision is final.