CITY COUNCIL: Appeal of a Forest & Beach Commission Decision Approving Removal of Black Acacia Tree

Meeting Date: September 9, 2008
Prepared by: Mike Branson

City Council
Agenda Item Summary

Name: Consideration of an appeal of a decision by the Forest and Beach Commission approving the removal of a 30-inch diameter black acacia.

Description: During its regular meeting of April 3, 2008, the Forest and Beach Commission unanimously approved (4-0) an application by Ms. Susan Page for the removal of a 30- inch diameter black acacia located on her property at 2922 Santa Lucia Avenue. The Commission’s approval was contingent upon the applicant planting a 24-inch box specimen tree in the same area following removal of the acacia tree. An appeal of the decision was filed by Sue McCloud, the neighbor to the east, on the grounds that pruning of the tree was not discussed as an option to retain the tree.

Overall Cost: Not applicable.

Staff Recommendation: Uphold the decision of the Forest and Beach Commission.

Important Considerations Ms. Page has applied for removal of this tree twice before, dating back to 2000. Both applications were withdrawn by Ms. Page and no decision was rendered by the Forest and Beach Commission. Ms. Page considers the tree to be dying and poses a significant liability risk for her. Ms. McCloud desires to retain the tree to provide screening between the two properties.

The acacia tree has been topped and heavily pruned for many years, resulting in multiple leaders with poor points of attachment to the main structural limbs of the tree. This type of pruning also frequently leads to decay of the limbs and an increased risk of limb or tree failure over time. Continued heavy pruning to limit growth and weight of the tree canopy can limit the stress on the limbs, but the risk of significant limb failure always remains due to past pruning practices. Staff recommended allowing removal of the tree and replanting with a 24-inch box fruitless olive tree.

Decision Record: None.

Reviewed by:

______________________________ _________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date


CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT
FORESTRY DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR McCLOUD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
THRU: RICH GUILLEN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: MIKE BRANSON, CITY FORESTER
DATE: 25 AUGUST 2008
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF A DECISION BY THE FOREST AND BEACH COMMISSION APPROVING THE REMOVAL OF A 30-INCH DIAMETER BLACK ACACIA

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Uphold the decision of the Forest and Beach Commission.

BACKGROUND
During its regular meeting of April 3, 2008, the Forest and Beach Commission
unanimously approved (4-0) an application by Ms. Susan Page for the removal of a 30-
inch diameter black acacia located on her property at 2922 Santa Lucia Avenue. The
Commission’s approval was contingent upon the applicant planting a 24-inch box
specimen tree in the same area following removal of the acacia tree. An appeal of the
decision was filed by Sue McCloud, the neighbor to the east, on the grounds that pruning of the tree was not discussed as an option to retain the tree.

Ms. Page has applied for removal of this tree twice before dating back to 2000. Both
applications were withdrawn by Ms. Page and no decision was rendered by the Forest
and Beach Commission. Ms. Page considers the tree to be dying and poses a significant
liability risk for her. Ms. McCloud desires to retain the tree to provide screening between the two properties.

REVIEW
The acacia tree has been topped and heavily pruned for many years, resulting in multiple leaders with poor points of attachment to the main structural limbs of the tree. This type of pruning also often leads to decay of the structural limbs and an increased risk of limb or tree failure over time. It was noted by staff and other arborists who have examined the tree that regular heavy pruning to limit growth and weight of the tree canopy can reduce stress on the limbs and allow the tree to remain. The risk of significant limb failure, however, always remains due to the poor overall structure resulting from past pruning practices. No signs of disease or insect problems were observed in the tree. Under optimal growing conditions, black acacias may grow to 30-40 feet tall with an equal spread. They are not among the tree species on the City’s recommended tree list.

On the date of the commission hearing, the Forest and Beach Commissioners toured both
the Page and McCloud properties and viewed the tree from the inside of both homes.
During the public hearing, testimony regarding the tree was presented by Ms. Page, who also presented an assessment of the tree by certified arborist Frank Ono, who she hired to evaluate the acacia. Ms. McCloud submitted a letter to the Commission regarding her side of the issue. Additional testimony was offered by Mr. Jacobson of Smith Tree Service and Carmel resident Clayton Anderson. The arborist’s report, letter and other documentation are included in this staff report.

The staff recommendation was to allow removal of the tree and replanting with a 24-inch box fruitless olive tree in the same area as the acacia tree to provide vegetative screening between the two properties.

FISCAL IMPACT
None.

SUMMARY
The Forest and Beach Commission visited the site, heard public testimony, discussed the issues, and approved the application to remove the acacia tree. As a condition of approval, the Commission required the applicant to replant a 24-inch box specimen tree in the same area as the acacia.

Replacement tree plantings are to be maintained per Chapter 12.28.350(A) of the
Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code:
12.28.350. Safeguarding Trees That are Required to be Planted as a Condition of Tree-Removal Permit Approval.
A. Trees required to be kept on a building site and trees required to be planted as a condition of tree-removal permit approval shall be maintained according to accepted arboricultural practices for a minimum of five years from the completion of construction or the date that the tree is planted.


MCCLOUD CHRONOLOGY OF “THE ACACIA TREE”
Date tree planted: Unknown, but know my Father did not want to cut it down.
Have a photo showing it filling the second story window in 1977.
Fence was contracted for by my Father in 1987.
B & B Services memo of Feb 21, 2000 to Union Bank (manager of Harrie Page
Trust) recommended removal of pine, but for acacia said: “tree size should be
maintained because of limited growing space. Recommendation: biannual
pruning to maintain clearance from structure. Drop-crotch and light weight
reduction to preserve size and to reduce weight from weak branches”.
Permit to remove Acacia and pine requested by Susan Page 11 Oct 2000 due
“roots and light and warmth”.

Mike Branson staff report of 25 October 2000 to Forest and Beach said of acacia
“it has been severely pruned several times in the past creating a number of
leaders and many potential sites for limb failure. Surface roots extend 30” from
the trunk…No other signs of insect or disease problems were observed.”…”The
acacia has damaged the walkway(now DG), grows into the house and limits light
to the east side of the house. Applicant is requesting permission to prune acacia
if removal is not allowed.”

Removal of pine was denied—although it was later removed and consideration of
acacia was continued.

Page memo of October 31, 2000 reported that Susan and I had met with Smith
tree Service arborist on Oct 31 and agreed to continue with pruning rather than
remove tree.

Permit to remove acacia requested 4/03/06 by Susan because tree is “too
invasive”.

Mike staff report of 23 May 2006 to Forest & Beach “acacia has been significantly
pruned several times in the past to maintain its current height and shape. This
type of pruning has created a number of leaders and many potential sites for limb
failure. No other signs of insect or disease problems were observed. Reason for
request: the acacia is invasive and limits light to the east side of the house.”
Staff recommendation: “approve the application. The acacia provides some
screening between the 2 neighboring properties; however, past pruning practices
have created a tree with any potential limb failure points and will require
consistent regular pruning to maintain a smaller form. If the applicant and the
neighbor can agree to continue pruning the tree in order to maintain the screening and safety of the tree, then the acacia can remain. I recommend planting a new tall 24” fruitless olive tree in the same vicinity to replace the acacia.” Application was continued by request of applicant. There was no Commission review.
Permit to remove acacia again requested by Susan because it is “dead and
dangerous” on 17 October 2007.

Mike staff report of 27 March 2008 same as 23 May 2006 with addition of the
following: “Several of the leaders are dead or dying but other leaders appear
healthy and vigorous.” “Reason for request APPLICANT considers tree to be
dying and a hazard.”

His recommendation is same as above.

On May 18 the City sent Susan a letter urging her, as is City policy, to meet to try
to reach an acceptable solution. Although Susan had agreed to a meeting on
Dec 4, 2007, she has since refused to meet.

Frank Ono tree assessment April 1, 2008 for Susan. Page l line 2 of Summary:
“tree is considered in moderate health with no significant signs of insect or
diseases. Page 4 bullets 1 and 3 note that the tree provides a visual barrier
between the properties. Page 7, recommendation: Mr. Ono recommends 4
SHRUBS, not trees and concludes “Should the removal not be grated, at
minimum the existing large limb growing to the south should be removed and
replacement planting be installed to grow in areas where the canopy has been
removed and allowed to grow to replace the Acacia”

McCloud memo of April 3 to the Commission read by her sister Sarah Berling
included design guidelines 5.1 “preserve significant tees that will help screen
views into adjacent properties.” McCloud also requested “if appeal denied, that
tree not come down until there is agreement on tree replacement.”
Commission agreed to permit acacia’s removal. McCloud filed appeal April 3rd on
grounds Commission had not considered the option to trim, in fact it was not
even mentioned.

Susan then hired lawyer Steven Beals to handle issue. He contacted me and
came to my home where he spent about an hour. I expressed my concern that
the approved tree even in full sunlight (which there isn’t) will take about 5 years
to reach to the second floor. This according to Mike Branson based on the 2
fruitless olive trees in front of Brian Congleton’s office on north side of 8th at San Carlos.

As compromise, McCloud then proposed that we consider bamboo from Heavenly Bamboo as they have used at the Tradewinds Inn. This grows fast, let’s light filter through, etc. The company provides basins to plant the bamboo in to keep the roots from spreading. Beals’ July 9 letter rejects this proposal. McCloud then suggested we cut back the southern most acacia limb and plant a fruitless olive there to ensure it will grow—we had talked as had the F and B Commission about putting 2 trees there, although it was not in the motion. That too was rejected as reflected in Beals’ Aug 1 memo.

McCloud Sept 4 letter to Beals corrects 2 inaccuracies in his July 9 letter.
And here we are………….