CCMIN021897 - Laserfiche WebLink

by the City. The original owner did not find the tree to be a nuisance, but she does. She discovered that the neighbors complained to the original owner for years about the nuisance. The size of the tree creates an unreasonable burden for annual thinning and does not solve the other problems. She asked Council to look at the photoboard she dropped off before the meeting. She realizes the intent of the ordinance, but the City should recognize individual rights to maintain private property not prejudicial to the public interest: this case public interest is limited to her Court. She continued, another reason they are looking for approval of this request is the tree creates an unsanitary situation due to bird droppings. There are safety concerns regarding the limbs that extend over the house. Since the request has been denied, the Gutierrezes have received a letter from their insurance company to have the limbs trimmed back. The City street light has also been affected. When the tree is in full bloom it covers the street light and throughout the years during stormy weather the street light has been broken. She said her 65 LTD is practically mined from the bird droppings. Regarding the light fixture, its straddles her driveway and the driveway to the left. When the glass shatters it covers the two properties and into the street. Ms. Gutierrez does not feel they should be responsible for cleaning up the debris for the entire court, but also does not feel the other homeowners should be responsible to clean up debris from this tree. The wind carries the leaves and branches far beyond the Court. Regarding property damage, the tree has raised the ground 18 inches and the original homeowner had to replace the water pipes. Ms. Gutierrez was concerned that the sewer pipes would be next and from previous experience knows this is expensive. The bird droppings affect all the parking spaces around her home. They have to constantly wash their cars to keep the bird droppings off. The car is taking a beating. (She referred Council to pictures of the car, before and now). She said there is no way to clean the bird droppings off her roof and that the droppings are very corrosive. This tree creates very high maintenance on the Court and because of the Court's design the street sweepers cannot do an adequate job. She said because the tree was planted by the City and not the owner, she feels the city should bear some of the responsibility for maintaining the Court. Staff agreed to have a public hearing in case some of the neighbors wanted to keep the tree. In this case the neighbors want this tree gone. (She referred to a petition signed by neighbors.) She feels staff made its review based on the tree and not the impact the tree has on the citizens. She reiterated things brought up by staff and still feels the safety issues and unsanitary issues should be enough to remove this tree. She feels the homeowners on this Court are the only ones that benefit from the tree's appearance, shade, and beauty. She said the petition to have the tree removed signed by all homeowners should tell Council how they feel. Ms. Dennis asked if the tree has ever been trimmed? Pleasaton City Council 2/18/97 Minutes 10