Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tree Removal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board allows removal of one Coast live oak at 540 Ellis Court, citing onerous recurring maintenance
Summary
After extensive testimony about altered pruning, proximity to utilities and high recurring pruning and traffic‑control costs, the board voted 3–1 to allow removal of a Coast live oak at 540 Ellis Court. The applicant presented bids and argued repeated pruning and Caltrans permitting made ongoing maintenance onerous.
The Design Review Board granted an application to remove a Coast live oak at 540 Ellis Court after hearing competing testimony about safety, pruning history and cost. Staff and the city arborist initially recommended natural pruning to reduce the canopy’s reach over the road and to shift the center of gravity. The tree owner, David Dietz, said a recent large cut performed by a crew identified as AT&T substantially altered the tree’s structure, increased his sense of risk and produced a long‑term maintenance burden.
Ben Anderson, the city arborist, explained pruning can often mitigate lean or canopy overhang and that carefully performed, natural pruning can both improve safety and preserve trees. He also observed, however, that the condition created by large cuts, combined with high recurring pruning and traffic‑control costs (including Caltrans permits for work on a state highway frontage), could make mitigation financially onerous for a retired homeowner.
Dietz submitted contractor estimates and said the lower bids for pruning (Sanborn: about $6,777) and higher traffic‑mitigation or permitting costs made repeated pruning unaffordable; he argued the long‑term consequences of failing to address the tree could include major property damage or public‑safety incidents. Board members debated the balance between conserving mature trees and relieving a homeowner’s proven, ongoing economic burden.
After discussion the board made findings that supported removal under the ordinance’s clause addressing unreasonably onerous recurring maintenance and altered tree condition, and voted 3–1 to allow removal. Staff reminded the applicant and public that removal is subject to permit conditions, replacement‑tree requirements or in‑lieu fees, and that an appeal period applies.
The record shows the board considered both the arborist’s technical guidance and the homeowner’s contractor bids and life‑safety concerns in reaching its decision.
