A public hearing to again determine the fate of an oak tree overhanging the roadway on El Pintado ended with a debate over semantics at Tuesday’s Danville Town Council meeting. A motion was finally passed to direct staff to eliminate the liability in regards to vertical clearance.
The ongoing discussion centers on a large oak tree that encroaches on the right of way on El Pintado Road at the corner of Victorian Lane. Earlier this year, town staff determined the oak must come down due to liability issues involved with the tree’s proximity to the road. Area residents appealed the decision to the Planning Commission, which denied the appeal.
At their Feb. 21 meeting, members of the Town Council approved a resolution overturning the denial, sparing the tree. However, an arborist’s report showed that for the tree to be pruned sufficiently to remove the liability, it would have to be reduced by 80 percent. This prompted the town to reconsider its decision and hold another public hearing at the Tuesday meeting.
Concerns were voiced by residents on both sides of the issue. Paul Clark said that while he appreciated the concerns about the oak, consideration for the residents should be the higher priority.
“You’re talking about this tree like it’s a person,” he said. “The first time someone gets hit on that road you’ll do something.”
Clark exhorted the council to act before an injury is caused. He also called for decisions to be made regarding the repair or upgrading of El Pintado to make the road safer to travel.
Original appellant John Eudy applauded the council’s willingness to continue the discussion, but said he felt there needed to be an economy of scale to the decision-making.
“Let the tree figure out if it’s going to make it. Do the pruning you need to do and remove the liability issues,” he said. Eudy disagreed with the arborist’s report, saying he felt the pruning could be done with the removal of only 50 percent of the tree.
Council members agreed the current state of the oak presented a danger to the public and that something needed to be done. Where the council split, however, was in the wording to be used in their recommendation to staff.
Councilwoman Candace Andersen moved for a resolution calling for the “elimination” of the liability issues, with the caveat that if the tree did not survive, two new trees would be planted as mitigation.
“My concern is human life,” Andersen said. “I don’t want to see someone strike the tree or more likely swerve to avoid the tree and hit someone. We do have to do work on the road. And that is in the works for the capital budget. We want to do the work and yet keep the character of the neighborhood.”
Councilman Newell Arnerich opposed the plan, saying by using the term “eliminate” it gives staff leeway to completely remove the tree if that is what is necessary to eliminate the liability. Arnerich supported the pruning, but wanted staff to have a clear mandate to keep the tree.
After discussion with the town attorney, the motion was amended to direct staff to eliminate the liability in regards to vertical clearance. Council members voted 3-2 in favor, with Arnerich and Vice Mayor Mike Shimansky opposed.
Shimansky said he voted against the motion because of the semantics used.
“I just wanted it trimmed for liability,” he said. “I don’t want it torn down and the motion leaves that possibility intact.”
In regards to the road improvement issue, Shimansky said, “We could probably come up with enough money to make the road safe. But the neighborhood needs to get together with a unified voice. Then we can move ahead and get it done.”
