Appeal of the Forest and Beach Commission's Decision-Profeta 01-06-15

8/10/2019 Appeal of the Forest and Beach Commission's Decision-Profeta 01-06-15

1/28

F CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

Council Report

January 6, 2015

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City CouncilDouglas J. Schmitz, City Administrator

Submitted by: Mike Branson, City Forester

Subject: Consideration of an Appeal of the Forest and Beach CommissionDecision to Deny Removal of a Tree on Public Property the ApplicaConsiders to Pose an Unreasonable Risk to adjacent Properties. The TreeLocated on Torres Street, 2 houses Northeast of Ninth Avenue. The

Applicants are Robert and Judith Profeta.

RECOMMENDATION: Based on the Forest and Beach Commission decision, staffrecommends denial of the appeal.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On September 11, 2014, the applicant, Robert Profeta, submitted

an application to remove a 30 diameter Monterey pine growing on public property in front of

his home on Torres St., 2 northeast of Ninth Ave. Mr. Profeta considers the tree to be an

unreasonable risk to his and neighboring structures. He also submitted an arborist report in

support of his application.

On November 13, 2014, the Forest and Beach Commission reviewed the tree removal

application. Two commissioners recused themselves due to professional and personal

relationships with the applicants. The three remaining commissioners voted 3 0 to deny the

application for tree removal with a condition that staff perform a Level III inspection of the tree

to evaluate the root crown, measure the angle of lean, and continue to monitor the tree for

any changes.

Robert and Judith Profeta filed an appeal of the Forest and Beach Commission decision on

November 19, 2014.

ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION:

Forest and Beach Commission Review and Staff Analysis

The Forest and Beach Commission considered the tree removal application on November 13,

2014. Staff presented a report regarding the site conditions, the health and condition of the

tree, and other issues relating to the tree in question. The staff report also presented a

recommendation for retention of the tree with additional pruning and monitoring of the trees

condition. The staff report included a staff assessment of the trees likelihood for failure of the

entire tree or upper crown failure or trunk failure as low to moderate. After receiving the staff

report, the Commission addressed questions to staff regarding monitoring the tree lean,

Agenda Item: 9.APage 1

City Council Meeting of January 6, 2015Page 17


2/28

removing asphalt, and what constituted a Level III tree risk assessment. The November 7,

2014 staff report is included as Attachment 1.

The applicant and his wife addressed the Commission with their concerns with the safety of

the tree, the potential of the tree to hit their house, and their willingness to plant a new tree.

The applicant also referred to the tree risk assessment report he had commissioned from

Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC.

The Commission discussed monitoring of the tree, planting a new tree, pruning of the tree,

and performing a more detailed inspection of the tree. After discussion, the Commission voted

to deny the removal application and to have staff performs a Level III inspection to evaluate

the root crown and measurement of tree lean, as well as, continuing to monitor the tree for

any significant changes to its condition.

Basis for Appeal

The primary basis for the appeal are the applicants pre-existing concerns of the trees

condition and the tree risk assessment presented in the arborist report. The arborist report is

included as Attachment 2 to this staff report.

The arborist report identifies two defects or conditions that could lead to tree failure during

normal conditions. It should be noted that the arborist assessment is based on a three year

window under normal conditions for the area throughout the year, not on storm events or

other unusual conditions. A retention option is also offered in the arborist report.

Below is a summary of the issues raised by the report, along with staff responses.

1. Bowed stem with poor taper and low live crown ratio

The arborist report identifies this tree as having a bowed stem and poor trunk taper with a

likelihood of failure as either possible or probable. Staffs assessment of the tree is having a

corrected lean or sweep rather than a bow. Corrected leans are characterized by a leaning

lower trunk and a more upright upper trunk. This type of tree is considered to be stable under

normal conditions but can be les stable under unusual loads. Staff does not consider the tree

to have poor taper or a particularly low live crown ratio. Trees with corrected leans are

considered to have a likelihood of failure as either unlikely or possible.

2. Limi ted soil volume around the tree with a partially buried root collar

The arborist report indicates there is limited soil around the tree for root development. There

are two paved driveways to the north and south of the tree and two garages to the east. Staff

does not consider the two driveways to be significant obstructions to root development.

Typical driveways are 6- 8 inches deep with native soil beneath for roots to extend into. A

typical structure, such as a garage will have a 12 18 inch deep concrete footing that will

obstruct root penetration, but roots will grow parallel or under this type of footing. More

significant obstructions to root development are soil cuts to enable below grade construction,

compacted soils, or natural soil hardpans none of which seem to be present.




3/28

The arborist report also discusses the partially buried root collar and problems associated with

this situation. Staff agrees that the root collar should not be buried and excavation and

evaluation of the root collar should be done.

3. Risk assessment table

The report presents a risk assessment table with a risk rating of the tree parts. Staff hasperformed a similar risk rating as presented below.

Partmost

likely tofail

Target Failure Likelihoodof Impact

Failureand

Impact

Consequences RiskRating of

Part

Trunk People Possible Low Unlikely Significant orSevere

Low

Trunk House Possible High SomewhatLikely

Significant orSevere

Moderate

Trunk Cars Possible Medium Unlikely Significant orSevere

Low

EntireTree orUpperCrown

People Possible Low Unlikely Significant orSevere

Low

EntireTree orUpperCrown

House Possible High SomewhatLikely

Significant orSevere

Moderate

Entire

Tree orUpperCrown

Cars Possible Medium Unlikely Significant or

Severe

Low

4. Retention option

The arborist report provides an option for retention and monitoring which entails an advanced

inspection (Level III) focusing on excavation of the root collar and measurement and

monitoring the lean of the tree. Staff concurs with this following this option and continuing to

monitor the condition of the tree in the future.

Alternative Options

This hearing is a de novohearing. The Council is responsible for reviewing the entire project

and is not bound by the decision of the Forest and Beach Commission. The November 13,

2014 Forest and Beach Commission staff report is included in Attachment 1 for the City

Councils consideration. Attachment 3 includes the meeting minutes. The applicants appeal

request with their arborist report is included in Attachment 2.




4/28


Based on the Forest and Beach Commission's action, staff recommends that the City Council

deny the appeal and uphold the Forest and Beach Commission's decision.

Alternative 1: The Council could choose to approve the appeal

and

allow removal of the tree.

If the Council approves removal, staff recommends a condition that the appl icant

be

required

to

plant a 5 gallon size upper canopy tree

on

public property, as directed by the City Forester,

in the vicinity

of

the removed tree.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The City collects a fee of 304.82 when an appeal to the City Council is filed. This fee

defrays some of the staff time costs for processing the appeal , and staff costs beyond the

appeal fee are paid out of the City's General Fund .

Budgeted (yes/no)

Funding Source( general fund, grant,

state)

Yes Ap_peal Fee and General Fund

PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION DECISION HISTORY:

The Forest and Beach Commission considered and denied an application for tree removal

submitted by Robert Profeta during their regular meeting on November 3 , 2014.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 Forest

and

Beach Commission Staff Report November 7, 2014

Attachment 2 - Profeta Appeal Application - including arborist report

Attachment 11/13/14 Forest and Beach Commission Meeting Minutes (relevant

excerpt)

APPROVED:

Date:

:Jt J

ft:c ( /

Agenda Item: 9.A

Page4


5/28



TO:

FROM:

DATE:

SUBJECT:

MEMORANDUM

Members of

the

Forest and Beach Commission

Mike Branson, Ci

ty

Forester

7 November 2014

Tree Removal (Public)

Block: 100 Lot: 14 16

A P

.N : 010-053-012

E/ Torres St., 2 north of gth Ave.

Applicant/Owner: Robert Profeta City of Carmel

Site Condition:

This site

is

on

the

Torres St. public right-of-way in

front

of

a 6,000

sq

.

ft.

lot with

a single-family

home and two garages. The tree I located in a 7 foot wide, 15

foot

long, unpaved area between

two private driveways. The area is planted with agapanthus and also

has

a utility pole that

is

within 18 ofthe base ofthe tree trunk.

Size and species

of

trees s) requested for removal/pruning:

Remove one

Monterey

pine on public

property

- 30 diameter.

Health and condition of tree requested for removal:

The pine

tree

of concern appears healthy and in good condition . No significant insect

or

disease

is

sues were observed. The trunk leans a

little to

the south and sweeps

to

the east at around 15

feet

above the ground. Except for the narrow planted area, much of the area around the base

of

the

tree

is

covered with pavement

from

two driveways

to the north

and south of

the tree

and an adjacent garage. The tree has been pruned in

the

past, and within the last couple of

years, to remove several limbs extend ing to the east in order

to

reduce

the

weight of the crown

over

the

nearby structures.

Previous requests and decisions:

None.

Reason

for request

Description

of

Project:

The applicant considers the tree

to

pose an unreasonable risk to their property.

The importance

of the

tree s)

to the

urban forest in

the

area:

The tree contributes

to the

upper canopy of the urban forest th is neighborhood .

Attachment 1


6/28



Size and species of tree s) th t re to be preserved:

N A

Impacts construction may have on trees th t are

to

be preserved and suggested mitigation:

N A

Options:

1. Approve the application.

2. o not approve the application.

3. Postpone consideration.

Staff Recommendations:

Option 2. o

not

approve the application. I recommend additional pruning and monitoring of

the

tree

for

any changes in

the

tree s

condition

that

may affect

the

level

of

risk

the tree

may

pose. Staffs assessment

of

the risk the

tree

poses for trunk failure, failure

of

the entire tree, or

upper crown failure is in the low to moderate levels.

The applicant has submit ted

an

arborist report on

the tree

with a risk rating

of

moderate

to

high for trunk failure, failure

of

the entire tree, or upper crown failure. The report also includes

a provision for retention and monitoring.

f the

public tree is allowed

to be

removed, I recommend planting a new upper canopy tree in

the planting space in front where the existing tree is growing.


7/28



CITY OF

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA I

9

RECEIVED NOV Jt

APPEAL OF

FOREST

BEACH CO:M:MISSION DECISION

(FILING FEE:

80-'/; 8Z)

'

; > P 1 D

Recei

ved by ity

lerk

Appellant: - 0 ~

Y

v V J / / 7 ~

7/?oj:= zz:l.-.

Property Owner: ~ 8 ~

\,/vLJ//7/-

~ , z z l j

Mailing Address:

R2r x 7 lf-- 9 a r b - t v ~ ~

Q'

_ ~ 9 o i

I

~ 0 / - ~ 2 ~ 2 - -

Phones: Day:( i)

C >0 I

3>

:ZC, 7

0tJ -- ~ 2 . . ~

2

Evening:

W} teo g o 7

Fax:

~ 3 /

Email:

rp

-{;?_ -jq_

@(if/':

L;M'J

Date Board heard the matter:

/I);5 j?< t;/ Lf

Appeals to the City Council must be

mad

e

fn

writing

in

the office

of

he City Clerk within

10

working days following the date

o

action by the Forest Beach Commission and

paying the requiredjil ingfee as established by City Council resolution.

Physical location

of

property

that

is the subject

of

appeal:

To/2-#5

:2/JE 9'TJ-J-

Lot(

s} /IJ f; j

Block:

/DO

MN: O/D-053- .o/2-

COMMISSION ACTION BEING

APPEALED

k)._fr?O/Ittl c-f C drf'

free:.

bdehAI:J h?fj-'y?er/y

If you were NOT the original applicant or the applicant' s representative, please state the

evidence that you are an aggrieved party:

(CONTINUED ON

REVERSE

SIDE)

Attachment 2


8/28



GROUNDS FOR APPEAL (State the specific basis for your appeal, such as errors or

omissions you believe were committed by the Commission in reaching its decision, etc.)

J ~ ? z z ~ ~ n ? M I L ? ? . . ~ l J / 1 / 4 l ~ o ~ l

I CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT

THE

FOREGOING

IS

TRUE

AND CORRECT:

DATED A T ~ ~ , T H i sd _ D Y O F ltiem/; -= c;}tJj f

Staff Initial) Receipt :

ATTEST

:

~ ~ - - - C _ , . i t y - 1 = - - l e - r k

*Article

9

Section 7, of he Constitution of the State ofCalifornia authorizes a city to

impose fees. Also see California government Code, Section 54344.

IMPORTANT If the appellant wishes to submit materials for duplication and

inclusion in the City ofCarmel-by-the-Sea's Council agenda packet, the materials must

be submitted to the City Clerk

by

2 f:-t0 working days after the decision of he

Commission. This matter is tentatively scheduled

to

be heard on

t

dt:Jtt;/i

~ f lrtfT Copt e

Appeal of the Forest and Beach Commission's Decision-Profeta 01-06-15

Documents