Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-01-12; Parks & Recreation Commission; MinutesMinutes of: Time of Meeting: 530 P.M. Date of Meeting: January 12,2005 Place of Meeting: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Carlsbad Senior Center CALL TO ORDER Chairman Comstock called the Regular Meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Comstock, Commissioners Pacheco, Hubbard, Lyons and Craig Absent: None Staff Members Present: Ken Price, Recreation Director Keith Beverly, Senior Management Analyst Kyle Lancaster, Parks Superintendent Connie Ashby, Administrative Secretary Amy Knight, Senior Office Specialist Mike Bliss, Park Supervisor Erin Letsch, Risk Manager ANNOUNCEMENTS None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ACTION: AYES: NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioners Pacheco and Lyons ABSENT None On motion by Commissioner Hubbard, the Minutes of the Regular Meeting held on December 10,2004 were approved. Chairman Comstock, Commissioners Hubbard and Craig PRESENTATIONS None. PUBLIC OPEN FORUM None. Parks and Recreation Commission -2- January 12,2005 APPROVAL OF AGENDA ACTION: On motion by Commissioner Lyons, the Agenda for January 12,2005, was approved. AYES: Chairman Comstock, Commissioners Pacheco, Hubbard, Lyons and Craig NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. AB #105-1 SUMMARY REPORT To accept, approve and file the Summary Report of the December 10,2004 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting. 2. AB #105-2 RECEIPT OF DONATION To receive funds from the sale of handcrafted items to benefit the Carrillo Ranch Trust Fund. 3. AB #105-3 RECEIPT OF CASH DONATIONS To receive cash donations totaling $2,566.75 in support of the Carrillo Ranch Trust Fund. DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS 4. AB #105-4 EAGLE SCOUT TRAIL PROJECT This item was deferred until March since the Eagle Scout representative was not available. 5. AB #105-5 APPEAL OF STREET TREE REMOVAL DENIALS ON AVONDALE CIRCLE 18) AND BEDFORD CIRCLE (2) Kyle Lancaster, Parks Superintendent, gave the staff presentation on this item. He explained that this was an appeal to deny removal of street trees and clarified that letters sent from Mr. Bernard over the past two years were included in the Commissioners’ packets for the evening. He explained that the item was originally an item on the agenda for the Parks and Recreation Commission’s regular meeting of November 15, 2004 but was deferred to another meeting due to scheduling conflicts. Mr. Lancaster carefully reviewed the events that occurred in November and December with regard to the appeal hearing, including correspondence, telephone messages, and telephone conversations with Mr. Bernard. He also summarized the crucial points regarding the appeal. He stated that Mr. Bernard was asking the City to remove eight Evergreen Pear street trees on Avondale Circle and two on Bedford Circle, and either have all the trees replaced with Queen Palms, or have the subject Evergreen Pear trees trimmed according to “industry standards.” He explained that staff’s response was to deny removing the ten trees based on City Council adopted Policy Statement #4 and Ordinance #NS-545 relating to street trees and shrubs, and that trimming of these trees according to International Society of Arboriculture (I.S.A.) standards had been done. Parks and Recreation Commission -3- January 12,2005 Mr. Lancaster displayed photos of the trees on Avondale Circle and Janis Way and described the trees in detail. He showed photos of the trees as the trees appeared in November. He then showed photos of the Avondale Cul-de-sac and 3510/3520 Avondale with the surrounding trees. Mr. Lancaster displayed photos of Bedford and Janis and the Bedford Cul-de-sac to the east and described the Evergreen Pear trees and Queen Palms. He clarified that neighbors had removed the Pear trees prior to City Council adoption of the existing policy and replaced them with the Queen Palms that Mr. Bernard preferred, and added that the City did not plant the Queen Palms. He then discussed the points of Mr. Bernard’s appeal in detail, which were: Obstruction of home’s ocean view; personal preference of palm trees; continuity of trees within the tract; presence of disease within the trees; root damage to city infrastructure; root damage to private hardscape; and dissatisfaction of pruning practices. Mr. Lancaster addressed obstruction of Mr. Bernard’s home’s ocean view first. He displayed a photo of the home and stated that the view was partially obscured by the tree adjacent to Mr. Bernard’s home and by one across the street. He stated, however, that according to Section 1I.C of City Council adopted Policy #4, “The City will not remove any tree solely for the cause of view restoration.” He also explained why the City did not advise topping the trees. He then addressed the second point which was personal preference of palm trees. He displayed photos of Bedford and Janis, and of the Bedford Cul-de-sac and stated that according to Section I1.F. of City Council adopted Policy #4, “The City will not remove existing street trees on the basis of individual or group preference for a specific species of trees.” Mr. Lancaster then referred to the third point of the appeal which was continuity of trees within the tract. He displayed a photo of the Bedford Cul-de-sac and stated that according to Section 1I.C of City Council adopted Policy #4, “The City will not remove existing street trees on the basis of individual or arouD preference for a specific species of trees. He then addressed the fourth point which was presence of disease within the trees. He mentioned that there was no fire blight visible and read excerpts from several publications describing what fire blight was and how it could be controlled. He displayed photos of 3510/3520 Avondale and the Avondale Cul-de-sac and stated that according to Section 1I.E of City Council adopted Policy #4, “Potentially hazardous, dead, dying, or diseased trees shall be inspected by a City arborist.” He emphasized that two City arborists and one consultant arborist did not feel there was significant or detrimental damage to the trees.” Mr. Lancaster then addressed point five of Mr. Bernard’s appeal which was root damage to city infrastructure, particularly the sidewalk and sidewalk approach. He pointed out Mr. Bernard’s home in a photo and said there was no street tree in front of the home because it was damaged by the City during removal of the sidewalk in 2003. He added that the tree had not been replaced, He referred to other areas where lifts in the sidewalks were a problem and stated they would be taken care of. He also explained what was done when the damaged sidewalks were replaced. Mr. Lancaster stated that according to Section 1l.B of City Council adopted Policy #4, “It shall be the intent of the City not to remove any tree solely for the cause of damage to hardscape.. .. Trees causing damage to sidewalks, curbs, gutters, or pavement shall be inspected by a City arborist.” Parks and Recreation Commission -4- January 12,2005 He discussed point number six which was root damage to private hardscape. Mr. Laneaster pointed out the tree and the portion where the sidewalk and drain were repaired in 2003. He said that the roots of the tree were impacting the sidewalk and drain, and described what was done. He showed where the driveway was cracked adjacent to the tree and mentioned that the crack may have been impacted by the adjacent tree but there was no proof that was what happened. He stated that according to Section 1l.B of City Council adopted Policy #4, “It shall be the intent of the City not to remove any tree soleiy for the cause of damage to hardscape.. . .” Mr. Lancaster clarified that Mr. Bernard made reference to the City of Carlsbad Landscape Manual when referring to trees having to be five feet from the sidewalk. He clarified that the Landscape Manual was adopted in 1990 as a guideline for future developments and proceeded to explain the purpose in detail. He pointed to a photo of the sidewalk that was replaced in 2003 and to a section of brick, and explained that brick masonry work was also removed. He mentioned that it was his understanding that Mr. Bernard thought that the brick would be replaced but the Risk Manager explained that the brick would not be removed. Mr. Lancaster further stated that according to Section 11.1 2.080.E.l. of City Council adopted Ordinance #NS-545, “No person shall construct a concrete, asphalt, brick or gravel sidewalk, or otherwise fill up the ground area near any tree, shrub, or plant growing in any street, sidewalk, median or other public right of way of the city, to shut off air, light, or water from the roots, except under written authority.. ..I’ He then addressed point seven which was dissatisfaction of pruning practices. Mr. Lancaster stated that certified arborists were satisfied with the pruning and the pruning schedule for the trees. He clarified that the eight street trees on Avondale Circle were pruned by City crews, according to International Society of Arboriculture standards, in July 2001 and September 2004 and that the two street trees on Bedford Circle were likewise pruned in August 2001 , and have been scheduled for further pruning in February 2005. He emphasized that the trees were pruned more often than those trees which were usually pruned as part of the Block Tree Pruning Program. Mr. Lancaster reviewed the Provision for Appeal and stated that as a result of the reasons given for each of the points in the appeal, staff was recommending that based upon City Council adopted Policy Statement #4 and Ordinance #NS-545, relating to street trees and shrubs, the Parks and Recreation Commission uphold staff’s denial of the requested removal of ten Evergreen Pear street trees, eight on Avondale Circle and two on Bedford Circle. Questions and discussion included the following issues: 0 0 0 Clarification of whether the Queen Palms were authorized by the City to replace the Evergreen Pear trees Rarity of having one type of a street tree on a street Topping of trees and how it could permanently disfigure trees Average age of the trees in question and expected life Fire blight and which trees were affected Background of the mailbox that was located on one of the trees and the mailbox’s removal from the tree Chairman Comstock opened the meeting for public testimony. Parks and Recreation Commission -5- January 12,2005 Victor Dalforno, 3500 Bedford Circle, Carlsbad, stated that he was not a participant of the cul-de-sac planting of palm trees. He mentioned that two trees on Bedford Circle used to be pruned but the last time it was done was around 2001. He added that it was extremely messy, the trees had fire blight, and did not add anything to the neighborhood. Kay Okamoto, 3055 Blenkarne Drive, Carlsbad, asked for clarification of liability on his part for the trees in his parkway. Mr. Lancaster stated that the trees were owned by the City. Mr. Okamoto explained that he was concerned that he would be liable if injury was caused to someone by the tree. Erin Letsch, Risk Manager, explained that liability was a broad issue. In response to Mr. Okamoto’s query regarding a rise in the sidewalk, Ms. Letsch stated that it was the City’s responsibility if the tree caused a lift in the sidewalk. In response to Mr. Okamoto’s question regarding what would happen if a tree branch fell on someone, Ms. Letsch clarified that it was dependent on whether it was an act of God and explained that it would depend on whether or not the City knew that it could happen. She added that if something was dangerous, the homeowner should notify the City of the danger. Ms. Letsch also pointed out that there were areas in the City where people took over maintenance of street trees on their street. Mr. Bernard, 3520 Avondale Circle, Carlsbad, stated that if the trees were on someone’s property, and if a person became injured on the property by the tree, that person would sue both the City and the homeowner. He referred to the City’s Landscape Manual and said that once a tree within five feet of paving was gone, the tree would not get replaced. He added that someone who decided not to replace tree in front of his house followed the Landscape Manual. Mr. Bernard went on to say that hazards in existence before 1990 should still be considered. He referred to grandfathering and gave some other examples as to what other companies such as Merck and Ford had done. He mentioned that there was nothing in the Landscape Manual which stated that the Landscape Manual referred only to trees planted after 1990. He said that he did not think hazards should be kept if they were planted before 1990. He referred to odd looking trees and mentioned that it was due to vehicles hitting the trees. Commissioner Pacheco asked if he was living in the house when the tree policy was put into place. Mr. Bernard responded that he was not living in the City at that time. He added that he never wrote a letter to the City before the tree issue. He said that he never hit a tree until the first day that he moved into his house in Carlsbad, and mentioned that for 3% years a series of bad things like that happened. The public testimony closed at 6:45 pm. Further discussion included the following: Lack of justification for the appeal Clarification of why the street policy was developed Maintenance of trees at their own expense by homeowners in other areas 0 Parks and Recreation Commission -6- January 12,2005 ACTION: On motion by Commissioner Pacheco, AB #105-5, that based on the June 20, 2000 City Council adopted policy on Street Trees, the Parks and Recreation voted to uphold staff's denial of the requested street tree removals - ten Pyrus kawakami (Evergreen Pear), eight on Avondale Circle and two on Bedford Circle. AYES: Chairman Comstock, Commissioners Pacheco, Hubbard, Lyons and Craig NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT None 6. AB #105-6 ELECTION OF COMMISSION OFFICERS ACTION: After nomination and a vote by the Commission, Chairman Comstock was re-elected Chairman of the Parks and Recreation Commission, and after nomination and a vote by the Commission, Commissioner Craig was elected Vice Chairman of the Parks and Recreation Commission. AYES: Chairman Comstock, Commissioners Pacheco, Hubbard, Lyons and Craig NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None COMMllTEE /COUNCIL REPORTS None. AGENDA ITEMS FOR FUTURE COMMISSION MEETING 1. Fee Schedule 2. Budget ADJOURNMENT ACTION: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: On motion by Commissioner Hubbard to adjourn the Regular Meeting 7:OO p.m. Chairman Comstock, Commissioners Pacheco, Hubbard, Lyons and Craig None None None Resgectfully submitted, Ruth Stark Minutes Clerk