Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-07-20; Parks & Recreation Commission; MinutesM I N U T E S Minutes of: PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION Time of Meeting: 5:30 P.M. Date of Meeting: July 20, 2020 Place of Meeting: Zoom Meeting CALL TO ORDER Chair Luna called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Luna, Vice Chair Martinez, Commissioners Thorp, Livingston, Alle-mann and Pearson. Absent: Commissioner Simons PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ANNOUNCEMENTS None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ACTION: On motion by Vice Chair Martinez and a second by Commissioner Thorp, the minutes of the June 15, 2020 Parks & Recreation Commission meeting were approved. AYES: Chair Luna, Vice Chair Martinez, Commissioners Thorp and Allemann. NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioners Livingston and Pearson ABSENT: Commissioner Simons PRESENTATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC COMMENT None DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS 1. SR # 0720-1 RESIDENT’S APPEAL OF DENYING REQUEST TO REMOVE A CITY TREE Parks Services Manager Tim Selke presented the background on the resident’s appeal of staff’s decision to deny the requested removal of a city street tree and asked the commission to approve staff’s decision or support the resident’s request for the removal of the tree. Mr. Selke explained the role of the Parks & Recreation Commission and explained the city municipal codes. CMC 2.36.070 – it shall be the duty of the commission to review tree-related issues and determine the needs of the city with respect to its tree planting, replacement, mainte-nance and preservation programs. The Parks & Recreation Commission shall hear appeals from decision of the city man- ager acting through the parks and recreation director or designee, regarding the planting and removal of street trees. Mr. Selke continued to present the street tree policy under the city municipal codes and Council Policy. CMC 11.12.010 – It is… the policy of the city to protect and preserve all desirable trees that are located on the city’s right-of-way. CMC 11.12.090 – The city values trees as an important part of the environment and shall strive to preserve them whenever possible and feasible. When reviewing requests for a street tree removal permit, the city shall discourage removing desirable trees and shall consider approving removal of desirable trees only as a last resort alternative for the applicant. Council Policy No. 4 – It shall be the intent of the City not to remove any tree solely for the cause of damage to hardscape or for the cause of routing underground or overhead utility lines. Mr. Selke then explained the appeal process for the commissioners. CMC 11.12.150 – Any person may request a formal appeal to the parks & recreation commission for: 1. The removal of a street tree which is not dead, dying or diseased; and/or 2. The removal of a street tree that is listed as a heritage tree; and/or 3. The removal of a street tree that is causing damage to hardscape or for utilities. Mr. Selke then went over the background of the request and the city’s criteria for re-moval. • On May 13, 2020 Parks & Recreation staff received a written request for the re- moval of a city tree within the public right of way at 4308 Sea Bright Drive due to its’s roots impacting adjacent hardscape. • On May 19, 2020 staff inspected the subject street tree, a Canary island pine and completed an evaluation. CMC 11.12.090 – The city arborist may authorize a tree’s removal after finding either of the following circumstances: a. The tree is a hazard to life or property and removing it is the only feasible way to eliminate the hazard; b. The tree is dead, dying diseased or damaged beyond reclamation. 3. If the city arborist does not find either of the above circumstances for removing a tree, a priority rating depending of the following factors can be considered for a tree removal. a. Service life; b. Damage to utilities and/or sewer lines; c. Damage to hardscape; d. Conformity of the existing tree to recommended species list. Mr. Selke presented the evaluation and determination from the city arborist and the recommendations to the owner. • The tree species is in conformance with Carlsbad Community Forest Manage-ment’s Plan. • The street tree is in the city’s existing inventory for maintenance and is well within its useful service life. • It displayed good health and condition and had an approximate height of 45 feet. Condition was consistent with other city owned Canary pines. • After observing the above condition, staff determined the removal of this street tree was not justifiable under the Carlsbad Municipal Code as it only met one of the criteria. Recommendations to the owner were given on May 14, 2020. • Advised of process for submitting claim to Risk Management • Offered bio-barrier root control system to prevent any potential damage to the hardscape from the tree roots. To date, no repairs have been made to hardscape and a claim has not been filed. Mr. Selke showed some photos of the existing tree and damaged hardscape. Mr. Curtis Shields presented why he wishes to remove the tree. He has requested the removal of the tree three times, this is the third attempt. He feels the tree has done some significant damage to the property and hardscape, which includes the garage which is property and not hardscape. In the last ten years the tree has done significant damage and in ten more years will cause even more damage to the property. This tree has affected the value of the property, not only the value of the property but the sale-ability of the property. He is attempting to sell; he got a home inspection that noted all of the damage to the property the tree has caused. He has not scoped the pipes, however he knows the drainage in the back of his property does not work like it used too, and it drains just under the tree location. He has had two offers on the property and those two offers were reluctant because of the tree and future damage. Once he explained that the tree was out of his control, he cannot remove that tree legally, they rescinded the offers. This situation also affects him as his home is in pre-foreclosure and if he continues down this path it will go into foreclosure and harm him financially. This will personally harm him, could affect his credit and financial wellbeing in the future. Mr. Shields stated that this tree in respect to the other trees that are not located on his street anymore; this house was built between 78 and 80 and the properties all had this pine tree. When he moved in here 16 years ago, half of the houses no longer had the tree, they removed them, they did not remove them through the city. Now there are maybe three trees of this type of tree on the street, some people replaced them, oth-ers did not. I would be happy to replace the tree with one that would not damage the property. Do not penalize him for trying to do this the correct way, by asking for ap- proval to remove this tree. Commissioner Thorp asked if when the repair to the sidewalk was done, was a root barrier put in at that time? Mr. Selke replied that the repair to the sidewalk was done by another department, to his knowledge there was no root barrier put in place. Mr. Shields said the sidewalk repair was the solution to his second appeal about 5 years ago; the appeal was not done formally. When staff presented there was another factor that was mentioned still to be done, which he has not done as he was trying to follow the guidelines and did not know the criteria. Mr. Selke explained the reimbursement/request to risk management; this would be done after the repairs have been completed. Then he would indicate what the dam-ages were and send to risk management for consideration. With regards to the criteria, those are outlined in the letter Mr. Shields received indicating the request was denied. Commissioner Livingston asked what criteria was not met. Mr. Selke explained the tree is within it useful service life, in conformance with our species list. Mr. Lancaster mentioned there is no damage to utilities or sewer. He referenced the municipal code, This tree only meets one of the criteria for removal. 3. If the city arborist does not find either of the above circumstances for removing a tree, a priority rating depending of the following factors can be considered for a tree removal. a. Service life; b. Damage to utilities and/or sewer lines; c. Damage to hardscape; d. Conformity of the existing tree to recommended species list. Commissioner Pearson asked the age of the tree. Mr. Selke estimated the age of the tree as halfway through its life. Commissioner Allemann questioned the use of a bio barrier root control, is there an expectation if the barrier were installed would that prevent future damage to the prop-erty? Mr. Selke explained the use of a fiber roll barrier that would be placed by the driveway and this would cause the roots to grow down and not out. Commissioner Pearson asked if the ability to have the repairs made and install a bar-rier transfer to a new homeowner? Mr. Selke said the city would be willing to install the barrier for any homeowner that made the repairs to the hardscape. Mr. Lancaster pointed out the claim to risk management can be made by the current owner or any future owner. The claim would then be reviewed by risk management for a determination. Commissioner Livingston asked Mr. Shields if this is different than what he has tried in the past? Mr. Shields responded that he believes the time for a bio barrier is past and was gone even when he purchased the home 16 years ago. Commissioner Livingston asked Mr. Selke if the arborist would be able to determine if the bio barrier would make a difference at this point. Mr. Selke said that determination would be made at the time when the hardscape is under repair. Chair Luna asked for an explanation on how this moves forward if the appeal is de- nied. Mr. Lancaster mentioned if the appeal is denied there is one additional appeal availa-ble to Mr. Shields, that would be directly to the City Council. The City Council has the ability to decide in favor of the appellant. If the Commission were to side with Mr. Shields, staff would go back and review the muni code; it appears to staff there are not options to legally remove the tree. Commissioner Pearson asked for clarification of Mr. Lancaster’s last remark regarding removing the tree. Mr. Lancaster said staff will have to make a legal determination based on one of the four criteria - if it is an adequate reason to remove the tree. If the Commission goes back to the criteria referenced earlier, it indicates only one factor has been met would be a 25% priority. Staff would want to confirm this is acceptable with the attorney’s of- fice. 3. If the city arborist does not find either of the above circumstances for removing a tree, a priority rating depending of the following factors can be considered for a tree removal. a. Service life; b. Damage to utilities and/or sewer lines; c. Damage to hardscape; d. Conformity of the existing tree to recommended species list. Commissioner Thorp asked if the city has every approved tree removal that meet only one of the criteria? This tree is 40 years old what is the life span? Mr. Lancaster said that he was not aware of a tree removal request that met only one of the criteria being approved in his time with the city and referenced the muni code. Mr. Selke indicated the tree was half-way through the its life span. CMC 11.12.150 – Any person may request a formal appeal to the parks & recreation commission for: a. The removal of a street tree which is not dead, dying or diseased; and/or b. The removal of a street tree that is listed as a heritage tree; and/or c. The removal of a street tree that is causing damage to hardscape or for utili-ties. Commissioner Livingston questioned what would happen if Mr. Shields put the barrier in and it was determined it would not work? Mr. Lancaster felt confident that the installation of a barrier would be effective and staff would minimize the number of roots affected. Staff’s goal would be to protect and preserve the tree as the ordinance and Council policy indicates. If after removing hardscape it was determined the tree was no longer stable as a result of the adjacent roots that would be removed, then staff would have no choice but to remove the tree at that point. Commissioner Pearson asked if the tree were removed, would we just cut it down, re-move the stump? Mr. Lancaster said staff removes the tree itself and then would grind the stump down about 12 – 18 inches. The stump grinding would not go beyond the public right of way into private property. Commissioner Thorp asked who would be responsible for the cost and installation of the barrier? The removal of the driveway would be at the homeowner’s expense? Mr. Lancaster said the city would perform the work at any point that Mr. Shields pro-ceeds with the removal of the existing hardscape. Staff could install a barrier at this time, however with the hardscape as it is now, Mr. Lancaster is not sure how effective it would be and not sure that would really serve a purpose. The driveway removal would be the homeowner’s initial expense, with the right to file a claim with risk man-agement for reimbursement. Chair Luna asked for a motion from one of the commissioners for the resident’s ap- peal – to deny the request and uphold staff’s decision to deny the request for the re-moval of this tree, based on the criteria of the city municipal code and city council pol-icy. ACTION: On motion by Commissioner Alleman and a second by Vice Chair Martinez, staff’s decision was upheld. AYES: Chair Luna, Vice Chair Martinez, Commissioners Thorp, Livingston, Alle-mann and Pearson. NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Commissioner Simons 2. SR # 0720-2 DEPARTMENT REPORT Recreation Services Manager Mike Pacheco and Parks Planning Manager Kasia Tro- janowska reported on recently completed, ongoing and upcoming Parks & Recreation Department programs, events and park projects. Mr. Pacheco, Ms. Trojanowska and Mr. Lancaster were available for clarifying questions from the commission. COMMITTEE/CITY COUNCIL REPORTS None AGENDA ITEMS FOR FUTURE COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNMENT ACTION: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Charlene Buckalew Minutes clerk On motion by Vice Chair Martinez second by Commissioner Thorp, the meeting was adjourned at 6:38 p.m. The next meeting of the Parks & Recreation Commission will be September 21 , 2020 at 5:30 p.m. Chair Luna, Vice Chair Martinez, Commissioners Thorp, Livingston, Al- lemann and Pearson. None None Commissioner Simons