CC 2014-09-09_11.a. Appeal Tree Removal Tanner Lane
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: GEOFF ENGLISH, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL TO DENIED REQUEST TO
REMOVE A TREE AT 465 TANNER LANE
DATE: SEPTEMBER 9, 2014
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council adopt a Resolution upholding the Parks and
Recreation Commission’s denial of an appeal from Steven L. Andrews to remove a
mature Coastal Live Oak tree located at 465 Tanner Lane.
IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:
No fiscal impact to the City of Arroyo Grande. Expenses for removal of the tree would
be covered by the resident if the tree removal request is approved. Minor City staff
time has been necessary to process the tree removal request .
BACKGROUND:
Following is a timeline regarding the status of the Tree Removal Permit application
submitted by Steven L. Andrews.
April 21, 2014- Tree Removal Permit application submitted to remove a 24”dbh
Coastal Live Oak (Quercus agifolia) tree located on his property at 465 Tanner
Lane (Attachment # 1), accompanied with a letter and attachments explaining the
purpose for the request. (Attachment # 2)
April 25, 2014- City Arborist and Public Works Department employee Peter
McClure conducted an evaluation of the tree in question. (Attachment #3)
May 15, 2014- A letter from Public Works Director, Geoff English, denying the
tree removal request was mailed to the applicant. (Attachment #4)
May 20, 2014- The applicant, Steven L. Andrews, submitted a letter requesting
an appeal of the denial. (Attachment #5)
June 11, 2014- The Parks and Recreation Commission denied the appeal by Mr.
Andrews. (Attachment #6)
August 11, 2014- Steven D. Andrews submitted a letter requesting the removal
of the tree to City Manager, Steve Adams. (Attachment #7) The applicant
requested that the appeal review by the City Council be postponed for
consideration until September 9, 2014.
Item 11.a. - Page 1
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL TO DENIED REQUEST TO REMOVE A TREE AT
465 TANNER
SEPTEMBER 9, 2014
PAGE2
The applicant had previously submitted a tree removal request form for the same
tree in 2013. This previous Tree Removal application was also denied.
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
The Community Tree Ordinance (Arroyo Grande Municipal Code 12.16), adopted by the
Arroyo Grande City Council, is a comprehensive tree protection program that promotes:
A. The preservation, maintenance, and regeneration of all trees;
B. A beautiful and aesthetically pleasing community;
C. Trees or groves of unique or historical value and wildlife habitat;
D. Educational programs that address the importance of trees in the
environment and their Joie in purifying the air, providing shade,
controlling erosion, and maintaining the rural, small town
atmosphere;
E. Improved communication between the Parks and Recreation
Commission, Architectural Review Committee and the Planning
Commission regarding tree-related issues and concerns.
In addition, the Community Tree Ordinance establishes policies, regulations and
specifications necessary to govern installation, maintenance and preservation of trees
to accomplish the goals stated above. The Community Tree Program also establishes
the definition of "Regulated Tree" as follows:
"Regulated tree" means any tree located on properties in commercial, multifamily or
mixed use zones; coastal live oak trees (Quercus agrifolia) on properties in single-
family residential zones that measure twelve (12) inches in diameter when
measured four feet and six inches from the base; and any trees located in the public
right-of-way adjacent to the street on properties in single-family residential zones, ·
whether city or privately owned.
Below is the determination of the tree remova! request based on City staff's evaluation
of the tree and compliance with the City of Arroyo Grande Community Tree Ordinance:
~: Coastal Live Oak (Quercus agifolia) Dbh: 24"
Location: 465 Tanner Lane, Arroyo Grande
Tree Status: Regulated under the City of Arroyo Grande Community Tree
Program Ordinance as it is a Coastal Live Oak that measures at least twelve (12)
inches diameter at breast height.
Removal Determination: Denied for the following reasons:
This tree is regulated under the City's Tree Ordinance which lists specific reasons
that quali'fy for tree removal authorization. In City staff's opinion, the reasons stated
in the request did not meet the established conditions for the following reasons:
1. The tree is in fair to good condition despite some leaf loss and die-back due
to the oak moth worms; moreover, the conditions of the tree may improve with
period pesticide spraying for oak moth worm. Oak moth worm infestation has
been wide-spread in Arroyo Grande for the past three years, affecting a
Item 11.a. - Page 2
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL TO DENIED REQUEST TO REMOVE A TREE AT
465 TANNER
SEPTEMBER 9, 2014
PAGE3
significant population of the Coastal Live Oak trees. Most of the affected
trees successfully recover and re-foliate from the temporary impacts.
2. We are 'extremely sensitive to your health concerns and claim of allergies to
Oak trees, however, there is a Coastal Live Oak tree in the yard of the
property adjacent to yours and there are multiple Coastal Live Oak trees in
your neighborhood. In addition, there is a significant oak tree grove on the
hillside less than 400 feet from your home. Removal of this particular tree will
not eliminate the presence of oak pollens and other oak tree related impacts
on your property.
3. Allergic reaction to a specific tree type has not been used previously as a
justification for the approval of a Tree Removal Permit by the City of Arroyo
Grande. Oak pollens also are only released for a one to two month period
yearly.
For the reasons stated above the removal request for this specific tree has been
denied.
Tree removal requests for regulated trees are not approved unless the tree meets one
or more of the following conditions listed in the City of Arroyo Grande Community Tree
Program Ordinance:
1. The condition of the tree regarding its general health, location to utilities or structures,
or status as a public nuisance;
2. The necessity of the requested action to allow construction of improvements or
otherwise allow economic or other reasonable enjoyment of property;
3. The topography of the land and the effect of the tree removal on erosion and water
retention;
4. The number, species, size and location of existing trees in the area and the effect of
the tree removal on scenic beauty, historic values, fire safety and the general welfare
of the city;
5. Good forestry practices in general.
The Public Works Director, by action of the City Council, has been designated with
authority to determine if requests for tree removals meet any of the above listed
conditions. Following review of the Coastal Live Oak tree located at 465 Tanner, it was
determined that the tree is a regulated tree and does not meet the conditions in the
Community Tree Program for tree removals and as such recommends denial of the
appeal.
City of Arroyo Grande Community Tree Ordinance includes a provision for applicants to
appeal decisions on tree removal permits by the Director to the -Parks and Recreation
Commission.
Arroyo Grande Municipal Code 12.16. 070 G. Appeals: Appeals regarding
decisions on tree removal permits by the Director are to be submitted in writing to
the Parks and Recreation Commission within fourteen (14) days of the
Item 11.a. - Page 3
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL TO DENIED REQUEST TO REMOVE A TREE AT
465 TANNER
SEPTEMBER 9, 2014
PAGE4
Director's decision. Actions of the Parks and Recreation Commission are final
unless appealed to the City Council.
On June 11, 2014, the Parks and Recreation Commission denied the appeal by Mr.
Andrews on a three to zero vote, with one abstention. The minutes from the Parks and
Recreation Commission meeting are attached. The applicant has again requested a
reconsideration of the denial of the tree removal request and will be in attendance to
speak to this matter. A letter from the Arroyo Grande Tree Guild, supporting the denial
of this tree removal request is attached.
ADVANTAGES:
Denying the appeal preserves a mature oak tree, which provides benefits of a tree
canopy, such as shade and preservation of wildlife habitat. In addition, denial of the
appeal is consistent with the City's Community Tree Ordinance.
DISADVANTAGES:
Upholding the appeal and allowing the removal of this tree for the reasons stated may
establish precedent for removal of trees based on allergic reactions by property owners.
Allergic reaction to a specific tree type has not been used previously as a justification for
the approval of a Tree Removal Permit and is not listed within the guidelines proscribed
in the Community Tree Ordinance. In addition, Oak moth worm infestation has been
widespread in Arroyo Grande for the past three years, affecting a significant population
of Arroyo Grande's Coastal Live Oak trees. A large majority of the affected trees
successfully recover and re-foliate following the temporary effects of the Oak Moth
worm. Staff is also concerned that approving the removal of this tree based on tree
litter from Oak Moth worms could be precedent setting as well.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Commission's consideration:
• Adopt a Resolution denying the appeal from Steven L. Andrews to remove a
mature Coastal Live Oak tree located at 465 Tanner Lane;
• Uphold the appeal of the denied tree removal request, allowing for removal with
tree planting mitigation requirements; or
• Provide direction to staff.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Guidelines Section
_ 15301 (c).
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
The agenda was posted at City Hall on Thursday, September 4, 2014. The agenda
and staff report was posted on the City's website on Friday, September 5, 2013. The
appellant, Mr. Steven Andrews was provided notice regarding the meeting and a copy
of the staff report in advance.
Item 11.a. - Page 4
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL TO DENIED REQUEST TO REMOVE A TREE AT
465 TANNER
SEPTEMBER 9, 2014
PAGE 5·
Attachments:
1. Tree Removal Permit application
2. Correspondence from Steven L. Andrews
3. Staff Tree Evaluation form
4. City response letter to applicant
5. Appeal request by applicant
6. Tree Site Map and photograph
7. Parks and Recreation Commission minutes
8. Tree Guild Correspondence-June 2, 2014
Item 11.a. - Page 5
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ARROYO GRANDE DENYING AN APPEAL TO
REMOVE A COASTAL LIVE OAK TREE AT 465 TANNER
LANE
WHEREAS, on April 21, 2014, a Tree Removal Permit form was submitted to the
Director of Public Works, requesting permission to remove a 24”dbh Coastal Live Oak
tree located at 465 Tanner Lane; and
WHEREAS, the applicant’s primary reason for requesting permission to remove the tree
is because of allergic reactions to pollen and tree debris; and
WHEREAS, on May 15, 2014, the Director of Public Works determined that the tree is a
regulated tree and the reasons stated for the tree removal do not meet the conditions in
the Community Tree Program for tree removals and as such denied the tree removal
request; and
WHEREAS, the applicant, Steven L. Andrews, submitted a letter appealing the decision
of the Director of Public Works; and
WHEREAS, on June 11, 2014, the Parks and Recreation Commission denied the
appeal; and
WHEREAS, the applicant submitted a letter to City Manager, appealing the decision of
the Parks and Recreation Commission; and
NOW, THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande hereby finds that none of the conditions required to remove a tree exist based
on the evidence presented, and therefore, denies the appeal of the denied request to
remove a mature Coastal Live Oak tree located at 465 Tanner Lane.
On motion of Council Member __________, seconded by Council Member__________
and on the following roll call vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing Ordinance was adopted this_ day of ______ , 2014.
Item 11.a. - Page 6
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 2
_______________________________
TONY FERRARA, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_______________________________
KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
_______________________________
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
Item 11.a. - Page 7
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
TREE REMOVAL PERMIT
LOCATION OF TREE s TO BE REMOVED: I~ Ir-L LIN e_.
Property Address: ~ -rJ '/{/ c/-Z... .r}
Pr~pertyOwner:Sref/13/V ~-/l!vl>REti/5 Date: 7-3/,--/ ~
Mailing Address: /!6£ 77f/VJI/ £/Z.. /_/\I "
City/bf<ti ~ '(pgftNP£, C/! Zip Code: /3 }L-.2CJ
Contact Pe~on: ~ zz;J/£ Avj);<£f!}5 Phonff:S ff'/-:-g5 ,,.Zt:J
TREE INFORMATION:
11
,, /.
Number of Trees: l/}J;,/.e,
. Ctt:Jll~I .?1Ve
Species/Type: '\ ~ k /I
......-/)I
Approx. Height: ?l/ Diameter of trunk at 4' 6" above ground: ___ _
-rr<..t:e 1 :5 ~o L-.//AJ--€--
REASON FOR REMOVAL:
~AMAGING PRIVATE/ PUBLIC PROPERTY
0 fiLEAR SITE FOR PERMITED CONSTRUCTION
llf'" EMINENT RISK TO PUBLIC SAFETY
0 APPROVED 0 DENIED
COMMENTS: -----------------------
TO BE REMOVED BY:
0 CITY 0 OWNER 0 OTHER----------
SIGNATURE -CITY APPROVAL DATE
White Copy-Property Owner/Applicant Yellow Copy-Tree Removal Company Pink Copy-City of Arroyo Grande
ATTACHMENT 1
Item 11.a. - Page 8
Steven L. Andrews
465 Tanner Ln.
Arroyo Grande; CA. 93420
August 111h, 2014. Monday !! !
To: City of A"oyo Grande, CA.
300 E. Branch Street
A"oyo Grande, CA. 93420
473-5400
Attention : Mr. Steven D. Adams, City Manager
Re: request to remove Tree
Dear Steve;
This letter is very important, I am requesting removal of Oak tree in front yard.
Please see attached request dated 7131114. I believe this to be our fourth request
To receive a '' Tree Removal permit ".
The main reason for the request is a health matter for myself, I have a very weakened
Respiratory system. The Tree with its pollen and debris causes myself to have a
Allergi.c reaction, which goes from sneezing to asthma, from that point I am in· danger
With emphysema, bronchitis, and up the scale to deadly Pneumonia. The episodes
per year average three ( 3 ), each time puts me down for 4 to 6 weeks.
Other reasons for removal (I believe) are present, however my health is the priority.
I called Parks and Recreation, asked Geoff English director of public works to please
Come over to the house. On 8105114 Geoff came over for a visit.
He mentioned that he would of never believed the impact on the house without the
visit. Driving by the property doesn't tell the story.
We discussed the last go around, where I was denied removal on my appeal, the
reason being no tree had been removed due to health reasons. It could set a
precede.,,t.
Our front yard is small, the tree hangs over house, and Neighbors yard at 453.
The tree rains down with constant debris, this debris due to the low sloping roof
Stays on the Roof, a small gust of wind and now our Back yard area is covered.
The other day I was in back yard, a gust of wind and I was covered in hair I shoulders/
Neck I face I with the debris.
I would like to work with the-City, and have this a-quiet.matter~ ·fi~d a-resolution.
Please call Mr. Geoff English and discuss, also, · if it is at all possible give me a phone
Call and come by the house to see actual situation for request.
ATTACHMENT 2
Item 11.a. - Page 9
City of Arroyo Grande
Department of Public Works
TREE REMOVAL REQUEST-STAFF EVALUATION FORM
Name of App Ii cant: ~5-\-: e._v e~ AwJ....., e._ vJs Date of Eva lu~tion: 'ii ;L;.-/t 1
Property Address: ~ Tc:ZV\..ld. ev-bQ""-e__
Tree Information ,, (
Species/ Type: Du e.rc\As 0 ~-. ~o\ta D.B.H.: 3 b Height: 46
Regulated Tree under the Community Tree Program Ordinance: Yes-~ No-D
Multi-Family Residential Zoning-D Commercial Zoning-D
Street Tree in ROW/ Easement-0 Coastal Live Oak-~
Genera.I Condition of Tree: J
5-o..'i 1 .\-o QC>cv,
Is the tree damaging private or public property? Yes-D No-~
If yes, explain: ----------------------
Does the tree presents a risk to public health and safety? Yes-D No--~
If yes, explain: ----------------------
NAME OF EVALUATOR:
EVALUATOR SIGNATURE:
ATTACHMENT 3
Item 11.a. - Page 10
CITY OF A G _/-__ RROYQ, i· :_':RANCE
May 15, 2014
Steven L. Andrews
465 Tanner Lane
Arroyo Grande CA 93420
Dear Mr. Andrews:
CALIF-ORN IA
This correspondence regard the Tree Removal Permit dated April 21, 2014 requesting permission
to remove a Coastal Live Oak tree located on your property at 465 Tanner Lane, Arroyo Grande.
City staff reviewed the Tree Removal Permit application in question and determined the following:
'Dmft: Coastal Live Oak (Quercus agifo/ia) Dbh: 24"
Location: 465 Tanner Lane, Arroyo Grande
Tree Status: Regulated under the City of Arroyo Grande Community Tree Program
Ordinance as it is a Coastal Live Oak that measures at least twelve (12) inch diameter at breast
height.
Removal Determination: Denied for the following reasons:
This tree is regulated under the City's Tree Ordinance which lists specific reasons that qualify
for tree removal authorization. In City staffs opinion, the reasons stated in your request do not
meet conditions for the following reasons:
1. The tree is in fair to good condition despite some leaf loss and die-back due to due to
the oak month worms however the tree may benefit from pesticide spraying for the oak
moth worm.
2. We are extremely sensitive to your health concerns and claim of allergies to Oak trees,
however, there ·is a Coastal Live Oak tree in the yard of property adjacent to yours and
there are multiple Coastal Live Oak trees in your neighborhood. In addition, there is a
significant oak tree grove on the hillside less than 400 feet from your home. Removal of
this particular tree will not eliminate the presence of oak pollens and other oak tree
related impacts on your property.
3. Allergic reaction to a specific tree type has not been used previously as a justification
. for the approval of a Tree Removal Permit by the City of Arroyo Grande.
For the reasons stated above the removal request for this specific tree has been denied.
Typically, tree removal requests for regulated trees are not' approved unless the tree meets one or
more of the following conditions listed in the City of Arroyo Grande Community Tree Program
Ordinance:
o The tree is dead or in poor general health without the potential to recover,
o The tree is damaging private or public property
o The tree prevents permitted construction or improvements on the property
o The tree presents a risk to public health and safety
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT• 1375 Ash Street• Arroyo Grande, California 93420
Phnm~~ fROfi\ 47.~-fi41'iO •FAX: f805) 473-5462 •E-mail: a2citv@arrovo2rande.or2 •Website: www.arrovogrande.org
ATTACHMENT 4
Item 11.a. - Page 11
We do however, recognize that you are experiencing some unique issues; therefore, the City does
have an appeal process available. If you wish to appeal staff's decision, please submit a letter to
the Director of Public Works, 300 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, CA 93420, within fourteen
(14) days of this notice. Y~ur appeal will be forwarded to the Parks and Recreation Commission.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 473-5460.
Sincerely,
Geoff English
Director of Public Works
Attachments
Item 11.a. - Page 12
Steven L. Andrews
465 Tanner Ln.
Arroyo Grande, CA. 93420
(805) 489-8520
May 2o'h, 2014, Tuesday J J J
To: City of Arroyo Grande
% Director of Public Works
300 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, CA. 93420
Attention: Please forward to Parks and Recreation Commission.
Re: Appeal process, removal of Oak Tree at above address.
Dear Sirs;
This. letter is in reference to denial determination, I wish to appeal.
The large Oak Tree in our front yard puts out excessive pollen and debris, it is
Overwhelming. Literally constantly rqining down upon house and yard I vehicles.
This brings on my severe allergic reaction, and related health conditions.
For myself it represents constant attack on respiratory, my immune system is weak
• ' '1,, " ' .
Note; in response, as for the smalf Oak tree "ih' ti.djacent ycird:;--t'ne debris and pollen
Is not in significant amount. : ,\ · ' · ·-',~ · ·
Also, this being the same for the Oak tree -grove on hillside, distance is buffer zone.
I absolutely need approval, my preference is to stay living on the property and enjoy.
To be denied would force negative change, such as selling house and moving, so forth.
This is not the direction I wish to ever consider.
I respectjjtlly request this appeal to remove
~/-· ~ c.. Steven L. Andrews,
ATTACHMENT 5
Item 11.a. - Page 13
465 Tanner: Tee Removal Request
ATTACHMENT 6
Item 11.a. - Page 14
MINUTES
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 11, 2014, 6:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS .
215 E. BRANCH STREET, ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA
7c. Consideration of an Appeal to Denied Request to Remove a Tree at 465 Tanner Lane
Director English presented the staff report stating that the City received a Tree Removal Permit
application on April 21, 2014 to remove a Coastal Live Oak located in the front yard at 465
Tanner Lane. The applicant, Steven Andrews is present in the audience. Mr. Andrews had
previously submitted a similar request in 2013, which was denied. Along with the current
application was documentation from the applicant's physician. Director English stated that
while being sensitive to the health issues of the applicant, there are many oak trees in the
area, as well as one right next door. He felt that if this request is approved, a precedent will be
set.
Steven Andrews, applicant, 465 Tanner Lane, stated that he has resided at this location for 17
years, and every year the tree gets bigger and becomes more of a danger to his life. He
stated that the oak moths are also a big problem. He said he would be happy to plant a
different type of tree should he be allowed to remove the oak. As for setting a precedent,
maybe some kind of waiver could be established.
Commissioner Betita asked how about the age of the tree. Mr. Andrews stated that he
understood that the tree was a seedling from the oak grove across the street and was planted
by neighborhood children in 1970. He stated that the City planted the oak tree next door in
2004. He felt that planting this oak side-by-side with the oak in his yard is a nightmare waiting
to happen.
Commissioner Ekberg asked about recent pruning of the tree, to which Mr. Andrews stated
that Cobb's Tree Service pruned the tree about 2 years ago.
Commissioner Blethen asked if he had sprayed the tree for the oak moths. Mr. Andrews
stated that spraying does not do much good.
Commissioner Ekberg asked if Mr. Andrews cited allergies when he first applied for tree
removal in 2013. Mr. Andrews answered that his request was denied but decided not appeal
at the time. Things are a lot worse now.
Commissioner Betita stated that the Commission has a difficult decision to make and that they
do not take his health issues lightly.
ACTION: Commissioner Betita moved to deny the appeal of the denial to remove the Coast
Live Oak. Commissioner Blethen seconded the motion. Motion passes on roll call vote:
Ayes: Betita/Blethen/King
Noes: None
Abstain: Ekberg
ATTACHMENT 7
Item 11.a. - Page 15
465 Tanner Lane
Applicant Request:
Remove large Coast Live Oak
Reasons for Objection:
1. This is a regulated tree.
2. Per the City Ordinance and evaluation:
e The tree is not dead or in poor health.
e The tree is not damaging private or public property.
~ The tree is not a risk to public health and safety.
e The tree does not prevent permitted construction or improvements.
3. Adjacent property owner has a small oak tree which has the same potential to act
as an allergen.
4. The residential development is adjacent to an existing oak woodland to the south
and riparian corridor with trees to the north.
5. Street trees provide benefit to the neighborhood, community, and city as a whole.
Summary:
Although the Tree Guild sympathizes with the applicant's health condition, removal of
regulated street trees due to individual's allergens does not meet the criteria for removal
and sets an open ended opportunity for tree removal.
App · ant Request:
Remov o Eucalyptus.
Reasons for · ection:
1. These ar egulated trees.
2. Per the City dinance and evaluation:
,,, The tree · not dead or in poor health.
• The tree is n damaging private or public property.
e The tree is not a · k to public health and safety.
o The tree does not pr ent permitted construction or improvements.
3. Removal of a third tree in t · same location was permitted by th·e City for
removal based on damaging privat ublic property per the City Ordinance.
Summary:
This regulated tree does not meet the criteria for rem
Regards,
~~
Scott Dowlan
Tree Guild of Arroyo Grande
Vice President
ATTACHMENT 8
Item 11.a. - Page 16