| |||||
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY | |||||
Date: |
October 28, 2002 | ||||
Set Time: |
9:30 a.m. | ||||
Hearing Date: |
November 12, 2002 | ||||
To: |
Honorable Board of Supervisors | ||||
From: |
Marcia Raines, Director of Environmental Services | ||||
Subject: |
Update and Status of an After-the-Fact Tree Removal Permit 202 - 11th Street, Montara | ||||
County File Number: |
PLN 2000-00016 (Mahon) | ||||
RECOMMENDATION | |||||
Direct the Planning and Building Division to continue the Stop Work Order prohibiting any further work on the proposed new residence, subject to the finding and conditions of approval listed in Attachment A. | |||||
BACKGROUND | |||||
On September 12, 2000, your Board considered an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve an "After-the-Fact" Tree Removal Permit for the trimming and removal of one tree located at 202 - 11th Street in the unincorporated Montara area of San Mateo County. Your Board upheld the decision of the Planning Commission to grant the "After-the-Fact" Tree Removal Permit, made the findings and adopted revised conditions of approval (refer to the Notice of Decision attached as Attachment D), including maintenance of a Stop Work Order on further construction, replanting three trees, submittal of an arborist's report, and a public hearing by your Board after one year to determine if replanting was successful and the Stop Work Order should be lifted. | |||||
For a chronology of events that have occurred since your Board approved the Tree Removal Permit, please refer to Attachment E. | |||||
DISCUSSION | |||||
1. |
Arborist's Report | ||||
As indicated in the chronology, three trees were planted as required on April 27, 2001. One tree died and a replacement tree was planted in January 2002. | |||||
Staff has reviewed the final arborist's report, dated May 24, 2002, submitted by Arbortouch, Inc., in compliance with the revised conditions of approval (see Attachment G). The arborist's report indicates that the two previously existing mature Monterey cypress trees located along 11th Street that were damaged when the third cypress was removed have been pruned, thinned and all deadwood has been removed. As a result, the arborist states that these two trees appear very healthy. | |||||
With regard to the three replacement trees, the arborist indicates that Trees #2 and #3, located at the rear of the property, are succeeding and that although Tree #2 experienced some tip die back, that any removal of dead foliage should not harm the future of the tree. They are currently 10 1/2 feet tall and 6 feet wide and 12 feet tall and 6 1/2 feet wide, respectively. | |||||
The arborist indicated that the tree closest to 11th Street, Tree #3, planted in January 2002, as a replacement tree for the original tree planted in April 2001, is slightly stressed and he believes that the stressed look is a result of the combination of transplant shock and water competition from existing weeds. This tree experienced some tip die back. It is his opinion that the dead tips were appropriately pruned to remove dead foliage. It is his belief that the removal of this dead foliage will not leave any negative lasting effects that could jeopardize the growth, form or longevity of this tree. | |||||
The arborist found that all three trees have been planted and staked properly. | |||||
The arborist recommends that all weeds within the active root zone of these trees be removed. Additionally, he recommends that a 4-inch layer of mulch be placed over the active root zone of all three trees which will help eliminate water consumption from the existing weeds as well as provide a rich organic layer of compost for the new roots. He also recommends deep root fertilizing for these young trees to promote root growth and assist in establishment. The arborist has determined that these trees can succeed in their current conditions and replacement at this time is not warranted. | |||||
The arborist concludes in his final recommendations that: (1) these trees will require yearly inspections of their root crowns and canopies; (2) any broken branches should be immediately removed as well as any deadwood; and (3) these trees should be fertilized only when exhibiting signs of stress due to the proximity to the ocean. The arborist concludes in his final report that he believes that if his recommendations are followed, as indicated above, these trees will continue to mature and provide years of enjoyment for the surrounding community. | |||||
Furthermore, the applicant has submitted a signed contract, signed May 29, 2002, and a receipt of payment to Arbortouch, Inc., to: (1) perform the removal of all weeds within the active root zone; (2) apply a 4-inch layer of wood mulch over the active root zone; (3) perform deep root fertilization with 200 gallons of liquid fertilizer (see Attachment H). | |||||
Additionally, the applicant has submitted a chronology of events prepared by Arbortouch, Inc. This includes an overview of the trees and an update of the trees based on an arborist's inspection performed on October 21, 2002. It is the opinion of the arborist that if these trees continue to receive the current care, they will mature into excellent specimens that will benefit the property as well as the surrounding community (See Attachment L). | |||||
2. |
Staff Inspection | ||||
Staff has reviewed the conditions of approval as stipulated by your Board and has determined that Condition #1 has not been met. | |||||
Based on a site inspection conducted on October 16, 2002, by Planning staff, staff is of the opinion that Tree #3 is in a healthy state. This tree is full of healthy branches with extensive new growth extending from the branches. | |||||
Staff is of the opinion that Trees #1 and #2 are not in the same condition as Tree #3. Staff found Trees #1 and #2 to be in a stressed state with extensive die back and the tips of a significant number of branches had been pruned to remove deadwood including the top vertical stem on Tree #2. Staff believes this practice has compromised the growth and vigor of these two trees (see Attachment I). Staff also believes if the trees had been properly maintained during the maintenance period, the die back, branch density, and vigor would not have been compromised. Therefore, staff is recommending Trees #1 and #2 be replaced. | |||||
3. |
Objections Received | ||||
The Midcoast Community Council's Planning and Zoning Subcommittee (MCCC) submitted comments regarding this permit (see Attachment J). The MCCC's review resulted from a request by Ellen Zeff who was the appellant of this project when this was before the Board on September 12, 2000 (see Attachment K). The MCCC is recommending that your Board maintain the Stop Work Order on the applicant's building permit to construct a new single-family house. The Council is of the opinion that the condition of approval which requires that the planting of new trees to be maintained in a healthy state for one year has not been met and refers to the final arborist's report as stating this fact. Additionally, the Council does not support the lifting of the Stop Work Order, because one tree died during the one-year maintenance period and because the remaining trees are in moderate health and require maintenance to ensure their future success. The Council is of the opinion that the conditions placed on this project were clearly neglected and that replanting and current maintenance of the trees are equivalent to restarting the maintenance period, which requires the recommended amount of time for these trees to reestablish themselves. | |||||
STAFF'S RESPONSE AND RECOMMENDATION | |||||
As discussed above, staff believes that the applicant has not fully complied with the requirements of this permit and therefore should not be allowed to continue with their construction project to build a new single-family residence. Staff recommends the following: | |||||
1. |
Trees #1 and #2 be replaced immediately by a certified arborist as stipulated in the revised conditions of approval. | ||||
2. |
The applicant to enter into a contract for maintenance services by a professional arborist for two years, a copy of the signed contract and proof of payment for services to be filed with the Planning Division. | ||||
3. |
The applicant to submit quarterly arborist's reports on the health and progress of the three trees. | ||||
4. |
The Board of Supervisors, after one full year has transpired since the completion of Items #1 and #2, above, meet to consider the arborist's reports as well as public testimony on whether the conditions have been met and the Stop Work Order should be lifted. | ||||
ALTERNATIVE | |||||
If the Board's desire is to lift the Stop Work Order, staff recommends the following conditions: | |||||
1. |
Trees #1 and #2 be replaced immediately by a certified arborist as stipulated in the revised conditions of approval; and | ||||
2. |
The applicant enter into a contract for maintenance services by a professional arborist for two years, a copy of the signed contract and proof of payment for services to be filed with the Planning Division. | ||||
VISION ALIGNMENT | |||||
The After-the-Fact Tree Removal Permit keeps the commitment of preserve our natural environment and related goal number 14, natural resources are preserved and enhanced through environmental stewardship. It also serves the commitment of responsive, effective and collaborative government and related goal number 20, decisions are based on consideration of future impact, rather than temporary relief or immediate gain. The After-the-Fact Tree Removal Permit contributes to these commitments and goals by providing replacement trees to mitigate the impacts to the environment and surrounding neighborhood, which was caused by the removal of a large significant tree. | |||||
ATTACHMENTS | |||||
A. |
Recommended Finding and Conditions of Approval | ||||
B. |
Location Map | ||||
C. |
Site Plan | ||||
D. |
Board Decision Letter | ||||
E. |
Chronology of Events Since Board Approval | ||||
F. |
Implementation Plan Prepared by Arborist | ||||
G. |
Final Arborist's Plan | ||||
H. |
Contract and Payment for Recommended Maintenance | ||||
I. |
Ellen Zeff's Correspondence to MCCC | ||||
J. |
MCCC's Comments | ||||
K. |
Pictures from Staff's Inspection of Trees | ||||
L. |
Updated Arborist's Report and Chronology | ||||
