HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/25/2020 Item Public Comment, Powers
Wilbanks, Megan
From:Will Powers <
To:Advisory Bodies
Subject:TC Communication
Comments for items not on agenda:
1. When the committee continually moves around meeting dates and times, it makes it very difficult for those of us with
a schedule to “appear”. I realize that Covid-19 is the excuse for everything nowadays, but I count on the 4th-Monday
arrangement; for example, I cannot “appear” tomorrow because of the switch.
2. Applicants continue to fail to put out the signs and ribbons, which makes tree identification difficult. Fully half of this
month’s applicants did not have signs out and ribbons on the trees. Until the committee delays hearing applications
that fail to meet the requirements, this lack of compliance will continue.
3. I have been working with ECOSLO in their tree-planting and tree-watering program. These trees (unlike many the
committee allows citizens to plant as “replacements”) are not twigs; still it will be MANY years before they will be the
size of the trees today’s applicants are trying to remove. Please keep that in mind.
Comments on applications:
1. 2472 Johnson. This is another of those cases of inconvenience vs. hardship. This large, oxygen-producing, habitat-
hosting tree, while leaning, is solid and, with proper trimming, will be healthy and safe for many years. Please vote NO.
2. 1288 Morro. Hamish Marshall is at it again. He tried to kill the other beautiful pine to the south of this one, in the
same parking lot, a few years ago, claiming (as he does here) that the tree is damaging the parking lot. He easily
trimmed (and saved) the other tree after this committee denied his application and, with a little root-trimming and tree
maintenance (come on, Hamish, turn loose of a few of your millions of bucks), can save this one, too. Please vote NO.
3. 3998 Hollyhock. This tree, near the railroad, is a highly-beneficial, healthy one. Still, there are many trees around it
and, though it would be a loss, I’m 50-50 on this one. No recommendation.
4. 1580 Lizzie. Another inconvenience vs. hazard example. Applicant wants to remove three trees; I think allowing
removal of the middle one would be appropriate. Please vote No on the outer two and yes on the middle one.
5. 1359 Madonna. The claim is that this tree is damaging the house foundation. Unless applicant can show an
engineer’s report with proof, please vote No.
6. 3960 So. Higuera #146. I could see no significant hardscape damage. The fact is, that's a shallow, old, poorly-made-
in-the-first-place driveway that ought to be replaced. Stop blaming the tree for damage to a shoddy driveway. Please
vote No.
7. 348 Alder. I support removal of this palm tree (reminder: Palm fronds are NOT recyclable; they go into the landfill
with the rest of the trash) provided the applicant promises to try to convince three of her neighbors to remove THEIR
palm trees. Vote YES, please.
8. 364 Los Cerros. I think this is a renewal of a removal request: These trees do not appear to be harming anyone or
anything, they provide shade, oxygen and habitat. Please vote NO.
9. 513 Jeffrey. The sewer pipe problem is NOT due to the tree. It is causing no hardscape problems and should be
preserved. Please vote NO.
10. 4421 Brookpine. These trees are BADLY in need of pruning and maintenance. Don't blame the trees for the
owners'/HOA's lack of maintenance. Please vote NO.
11. 529 Hathaway. Unless the applicant can present an engineer's report showing the tree's roots are damaging the
house, this application should be denied. Please vote NO.
Thank you for your consideration of my comments.
1