Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2019-09-16 PMCity of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of September 16, 2019 Page 1 of 10 14 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Development Review Commission Minutes September 16, 2019 The Commissioners convened at 7:00 PM in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 380 A Avenue. Members present: Chair Jeff Shearer, Vice Chair David Poulson, Craig Berardi, Kirk Smith, Mark Silen, and Randy Arthur Members absent: Jason Frankel Staff present: Jessica Numanoglu, Planning Manager; Ellen Davis, Associate Planner; Jessica Morey-Collins, Associate Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Kat Kluge, Administrative Support COUNCIL UPDATE Councilor John LaMotte was not present to give an update. FINDINGS Vice Chair Poulson moved to approve the findings for LU 19-0024. Seconded by Commissioner Silen and passed 6:0. PUBLIC HEARING AP 19-06 [TR 499-19-03281], a request for approval of a Type II tree removal permit to remove one 37.7” DBH Douglas fir tree. This site is located at 16649 Maple Circle (21E17AB10400). The Staff Coordinator is Jessica Morey-Collins, Associate Planner. Mr. Boone listed the criteria and explained the process of a public hearing, and inquired of DRC members regarding any ex-parte contacts, biases, or conflicts of interest, and their business and/or employment. All Commissioners stated they had no ex parte contacts (other than those listed below), biases, nor financial conflicts of interest. Chair Shearer stated that he had driven by the site many times, as they have friends living on the street. There were no challenges to the Commissioners' right to consider the application. Staff Report Jessica Morey-Collins presented the staff report, beginning by adding two additional letters to the record (both in opposition). The tree for removal is a 37.7-inch diameter-breast-height (DBH) Douglas fir, located at the rear of the property and on the lake side. Staff tentatively approved the request for removal on August 7, 2019. The subject lot has a minor slope from 104 feet in elevation on the western side to 102 feet on the eastern side. The City's contract arborist and Planning staff visited the site and City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of September 16, 2019 Page 2 of 10 14 determined that the tree did not meet the criteria to be considered "significant". Other prominent trees of the same species will remain. Photos of surrounding area and trees were shown. Larger Douglas firs at the front of the property obscure the view of the subject tree from the front of the house, and another fir between the subject tree and the lake is to remain. The subject tree is not one of the largest in the area, nor the only one of its species. The City's contract arborist observed that the distance between the subject tree and the other Douglas fir that was to remain was sufficient to prevent negative impact to the remaining tree based on removal. The application for removal was tentatively approved based on the criteria in LOC 55.02.080. The tree was proposed for removal because it had outgrown its landscape area. The contract arborist and staff observed that the tree was very close to the house and was surrounded by the house, a retaining wall (which supports a patio), and a pathway. The tree was in close proximity to the retaining wall, which appeared to be lifting. Less than a foot separated the tree from the retaining wall. Staff recommends approving the application, with the following conditions: prior to issuance of the tree permit, submit a mitigation plan showing the location, size and species of one mitigation tree (the tree shall be a minimum of 1.5 caliper inches for deciduous or six-feet tall for evergreen); plant the approved mitigation tree prior to the expiration of the tree permit; and leave the stump in the ground or grind to approximately six-inches below ground to avoid root impacts to the remaining fir. Questions of Staff Commissioner Arthur asked what the Applicant's burden was and why it mattered whether they had submitted evidence on the following points: Criterion 3 on page 5 of the staff report (the removal will not have a significant negative impact on the character or aesthetics of the neighborhood, with the burden being on the Applicant to show the other two exceptions are met, if they are unable to prove Criterion 3); and page 6 - in this case, the Applicant had not submitted evidence addressing the significance of the tree to the neighborhood, due to size or species. Jessica Numanoglu, Planning Manager, confirmed with Ms. Morey-Collins that the Applicant submitted some pictures, adding that staff did a site visit to verify this and if not explicitly said, there was enough evidence in the record for staff to make that determination. Commissioner Arthur stated that he was just intrigued by the comments that they had not submitted evidence addressing the significance of the tree due to species or size and asked if staff was saying that the Applicant, in fact, did. Ms. Numanoglu acknowledged that it appeared that way, because the photos and descriptions provided were verified on the site visit, so perhaps, that was not stated correctly in the report. Commissioner Arthur thanked staff for that clarification. Vice Chair Poulson asked for a review of the criterion for out-growing the landscape area so members can understand how to evaluate that. Ms. Morey-Collins directed DRC members to page 3 of the staff report and to the LOC on the screen, reading the code as follows: a tree that has outgrown its landscape area may include, but is not limited to, a tree that has grown such that damage to a structure or facility cannot be avoided by pruning or other maintenance; a tree that has grown too large within a constrained space, such as a deck or other built feature that was built around the tree; or thinning to improve the health of other trees. Ms. Morey-Collins added that staff found that the second specification was applicable in the case of this application. Vice Chair Poulson thanked staff. Commissioner Berardi inquired if it would be correct that the tree was outside of the landscape area if the roots were underneath the house (not being able to tell if the house had a crawl- space). Ellen Davis, Associate Planner, responded that staff does not have information on the City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of September 16, 2019 Page 3 of 10 14 location of the roots, as air-excavation was not required in this case to determine the exact location of the roots. Chair Shearer asked for clarification of a fact noted in the application of the tree being 30-inch DBH, when in actuality, it is 37.7-inch DBH (noted on page 13). Ms. Numanoglu replied that the code addressed this under the application requirements in 55.02.050 (misrepresentation of any fact necessary for the City's determination for granting the tree-cutting permit shall invalidate the permit); adding that the fact that the Applicant initially put 30 inches in diameter, when staff found it was actually 37.7 inches in diameter during the site visit, was not material to the criteria for approval, and regardless of whether it is 30 or 37 inches, the same criteria apply to any size Type II tree. She noted that staff has found that some applicants were not as adept at measuring the DBH or may not know the species of the tree, and again, this doesn't change the fact that the same criteria would still apply to any Type II tree. Ms. Numanoglu informed members that where it would become material was if an applicant stated under a Type I application that they had a 14-inch tree (as two trees per year are allowed to be removed under a Type I permit if they are between six to 15 inches in diameter) and staff later found it was an 18-inch or 20-inch tree, as this would put the applicant under totally different criteria (review under Type II, rather than Type I), and in that case, staff would revoke or invalidate the permit. Chair Shearer then asked if it was the City's practice to give a little lee-way on species and size. Ms. Numanoglu stated that it was verified once staff went out to the site, and they've had instances where they find the tree actually qualifies for Type I, so the person could then reapply. Mr. Boone added that this section relates to invalidating the permit and no permit has been granted, and that was up to the Commission in their final decision. Mr. Boone explained that the question was whether there was a material misstatement in the application that would prejudice the parties in deciding whether to or how to proceed in their presentation of evidence before the Commission (in example, the Commission might find that parties not here might be prejudiced because they thought it was a small tree), and the distinction over 15 inches in size didn't make a difference in significance. Chair Shearer thanked staff. Commissioner Silen inquired about the yellow tape being on the tree or not and where that stood, and when outgrown landscape area became a relevant criterion, like in this one, what was done ahead of time (in example, a planned building with a tree coming through a deck) and to what extent does Building Code mitigate that? Ms. Morey-Collins answered the first question by pointing to page 31 of the staff report, which is the correspondence regarding the lapse of noticing; stating that staff restarted the notice period for this application with the Applicant re- affixing the sign with the corrected date, and staff had received notice of that. Ms. Numanoglu addressed the question regarding outgrowing the landscape area, acknowledging that people made mistakes where they plant trees and opining that whether it happened 50 years ago or 20 years ago, it boiled down to whether the tree qualified as significant, because that was when you look at alternatives for removal. Commissioner Silen opined that he felt the tree was probably there before this particular house was built given the age of the house and the rough age of the tree. Ms. Numanoglu agreed that could be very likely. Mr. Boone added that there were inclusions of a structure being built around the tree, and that didn't preclude the application of outgrowing its landscape area. Applicant Testimony Diana Scott, 16649 Maple Circle, Lake Oswego 97034, stated that she and her husband, Jeff, had lived at the home for 17-plus years and they moved in, loving the house and the trees. There were six trees of a similar size on the property and they were asking for the removal of one (for specific reasons). She stated that they liked their trees and had taken care of them (trimmed for health and safety), but have seen this particular tree start to lean toward their neighbor's house (Paula and Morris Westlund), opining that should it fall, it would be directly on the neighbor's City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of September 16, 2019 Page 4 of 10 14 house. She pointed out that heavy winds come from the west and that was the way the tree was leaning. Mrs. Scott informed DRC members that they did not decide to make this request "willy- nilly", but recognized and appreciated that the tree and the house had been there for a long time. She opined that the tree had outgrown its footprint, feeling that it was time to take this tree down. Questions of Applicant Commissioner Berardi asked if there was any evidence of the roots going under the house. Mrs. Scott replied that she couldn't imagine that they were not, given how close the tree was to the house, and would assume a tree that size would have roots going under the house. Commissioner Berardi stated that he asked because he would assume that if the tree fell, it would also possibly damage the house. Mrs. Scott agreed with Commissioner Silen, adding that DRC members could see that there was some lift on the patio pavers. Vice Chair Poulson asked if anyone from the City advised the Applicant that if it was a safety hazard, it could go under a different application (as a Hazard Tree Removal). Mrs. Scott replied that she didn't believe so. Vice Chair Poulson noted that the Applicant was using criteria that was more toward the code itself, not toward the safety, asking for clarification from staff. Ms. Davis affirmed that Vice Chair Poulson was correct in that there was a process for Hazardous Tree Removal, and the City's contract arborist found that the tree's lean didn't qualify as a "high or extreme risk" (which would be necessary), so the Type II application was the correct one in this case. Vice Chair Poulson asked if it would be processed through the DRC, should the Applicant have their own arborist find a different opinion. Ms. Davis replied that it would not come through the DRC, but would be a staff-level/counter application. Vice Chair Poulson thanked staff. Public Testimony Proponents Morris Westlund, 16615 Maple Circle, Lake Oswego 97034, stated that he and his wife had lived next door to the Applicant for over 10 years, and were so happy to hear that the tree was going to be removed given how scared they were that it would fall over and hit the master bedroom or their kid's room when the winds were howling up the lake in December. Mr. Westlund noted that there was another tree there that he would like to see out of the way. He stated that they were 100 percent behind the Scott's to have the tree cut down. Opponents Gary Granger, 16560 Maple Circle, Lake Oswego 97034, started by saying that he had lived in LO for over 20 years, had raised his daughters here, and was invested in the community. He stated that he paid more money per square-foot for his house in LO because he wanted to live in an urban forest, and that the trees were the draw for moving to LO. Mr. Granger pointed to the irrevocability of certain decisions (if they cut the tree down, they can't go back...it was gone and a tree of that size would never come back in their lifetime, as it was older than all of them). He noted that the tree should remain to see if it becomes dangerous in the future, as that decision could be changed. He pointed to his written testimony, where the removal was not required by any exigent circumstances (as the City's contract arborist found that the tree looked generally healthy and the lean was normal for those kinds of trees, so nothing unsafe was found). Mr. Granger acknowledged the Applicant's concern, stating that he had lived under the trees for the last 23 years, and the tree in question was no more or less dangerous than any other tree in the area. He opined that the Applicant did not meet the burden of proof, but the City Planning Commission met the burden of proof; adding that the contract arborist wrote extensively about the landscape area being fundamentally identical to what was in the back and that tree was removed. Mr. Granger stated he understood what City staff said about the size being immaterial, City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of September 16, 2019 Page 5 of 10 14 but that it was up to the Commission to decide. He informed DRC members that the trees were not marked, as required, until after he had written comments and after the arborist visited (giving the Applicant tape to mark the tree). Mr. Granger stated that he was fundamentally surprised by the report written by staff, as it misrepresented the significance of the tree, citing the statement that the tree was "dwarfed by the other trees and barely visible" versus the photos he supplied in his written testimony. He pointed out that the value of the size of the tree was magnified and multiplied with its height, adding that big trees have positive impacts on the community that they can't see; for example, they are good for peoples' health, they are good for the environment, and a whole lot of other stuff. Mr. Granger informed DRC members that Rebecca had agreed to cede her time to him, as his time was up. Permission was given for Mr. Granger to continue. Mr. Granger opined that planting ten 10-foot trees would not make up for one 100-foot tree, nor would two 50-foot trees, in terms of environmental and habitat impacts. He stated that he was upset to see the area deforested one tree at a time. Mr. Granger requested that members not make a decision that was irrevocable, as they had chosen to live in the forest. Applicant Rebuttal Mrs. Scott stated that they did not misrepresent facts on the application with any intent (30-inch versus 37 inches), as they gave information to City staff of their approximation. She stated they were not aware that tape needed to be put up and did so as soon as they were told and the amount of time for feedback was extended, so that should not come into the Commission's decision, adding that she didn't feel that Mr. Granger accurately stated that. Again, she wanted to make sure members understood that she was not one who liked cutting down trees, but that they continued to take care of the trees on their property and were good stewards of that. Deliberation Mr. Boone heard no request to continue the hearing to submit additional evidence, nor did the Applicant request to submit final written argument. Mr. Boone informed Chair Shearer that members may proceed with deliberations. Commissioner Silen asked for clarification on the definition of the interpretation of a "significant tree" and if there were written, documented rules to designate a tree as "significant". Ms. Morey- Collins read the code definition to Commissioner Silen (a healthy, non-invasive tree over 15 inches in DBH and is considered "significant" to the neighborhood due to size, species, or distinctive character, or is the only remaining tree on the property). Commissioner Silen then asked for affirmation that the determination was that the tree was not found as "significant". Ms. Morey-Collins affirmed and indicated this was found at pages 4 through 7 of the staff report. Commissioner Berardi acknowledged Mr. Granger's comment about tree-planning and thinking 50 years ahead, adding that he felt he would vote to have the tree removed in looking at the work that the City had done and where the tree was located. Commissioner Smith stated that he looked at the application, and based on the information provided, he thought staff was correct in granting the permit to take this tree down and would deny the appeal to save the tree. Vice Chair Poulson stated that he sided on the other side, as the retaining wall and the porch could be easily modified to accommodate the tree, adding that he didn't hear much in testimony regarding the nexus of the application (it being a potential safety hazard tree, rather than outgrowing the landscape or that it had caused damage). He pointed out that the City's arborist didn't think it was a hazardous tree; however, the Applicant thought it was, adding that they've seen this before (applying on basis of hazard, but under the code of "significant" tree or outgrown City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of September 16, 2019 Page 6 of 10 14 landscape area). Vice Chair Poulson acknowledged the landscape area was close, but didn't see significant damage that would warrant the removal of the 38-inch fir, as it had been there a long, long time, so they should work harder to keep it. Commissioner Arthur stated that he had no specific additional comments, except that he appreciated the detailed oral and written testimony by Mr. Granger. Commissioner Silen pointed out that the Commission's responsibility was to follow code, with respect to these issues, regardless of other circumstances. He acknowledged that the Applicant not selecting the correct silo was not a fatal decision, in and of itself, as the tree was still the tree, and according to staff interpretation of the site, it appeared that the tree had outgrown its landscape area relating to proximity of permanent structures and buckling up of the retaining wall, suggesting, but not proving the cause was the presence of a large root. Commissioner Silen asked Vice Chair Poulson if his opinion would change if that were proven. Vice Chair Poulson answered that the Appellant brought up the difficulty they have over the tree ordinance, as many parts were addressed, and to him, it was more a black-and-white meeting or not meeting, and if they were to place more value on the tree, they may look at it as if it had outgrown the landscape area differently by possibly modifying the landscaping and retaining wall to accommodate the tree. Vice Chair Poulson stated that was why he didn't agree with staff's report, based on the wall being bowed, so take out the tree, adding that he felt they had not tried hard enough to modify the landscape accordingly. Commissioner Silen then asked Vice Chair Poulson what additional information would give him peace of mind to outline or design a plan for moving forward to address those issues. Vice Chair Poulson responded that if he had criteria that said "here was evidence of the foundation in jeopardy" or "here was evidence that the little keystone wall could not be repaired, as it had been happening over a long period of time, and anything done still seemed to be impacted by that tree." If he saw an extensive effort to try to accommodate the tree in its landscape area he would say it met the criteria, but he had not seen much of that. Commissioner Smith added that with the way the Tree Code was drafted, a lot of what the Commission did was subjective (has it or hasn't it outgrown the landscape area) and he was swayed by how the tree was impacting the property owner's home or the neighbor's home. In this case, he found that the tree was close to the house and was leaning, and there were more trees on this lot. W hat he knew about Maple Circle was that there weren't a lot of trees in that area, but the property owner was not trying to remove all the trees for property development. He added that the Applicant was saying that one of their 5-6 trees was causing their home a problem and their neighbor was nervous that the tree may cause damage to both homes. Commissioner Smith stated that he loved trees, but was not as much swayed by the carbon replacement analysis versus immediate harm to life. Commissioner Silen asked for clarification of the portion of the code that stated that mitigation had to be done by pruning or other maintenance. Mr. Boone replied that there were two parts to the code: pruning or other maintenance was in the criteria to whether or not it had outgrown its landscape area ("such that damage to a structure or facility could not be avoided by pruning or other maintenance") and if pruning or other maintenance could avoid damage to the structure, then the criteria would not be met (believing that was Vice Chair Poulson's concern); and addressing Commissioner Silen's concern, he stated that he believed it related to the mitigation that could be imposed to offset the loss of the tree (under 55.02.094, Conditions of Approval - "if reasonably necessary to mitigate a negative impact or potential impact on natural features or processes or on the built environment of the neighborhood, which is, as created or contributed to, by the approved tree removal"), such as: cutting a tree stump flush with grade rather than fully grinding or fully removing a stump; requiring modification to location, design, or intensity of development or prohibiting certain construction; requiring vegetation, not requiring a tree removal permit, to remain in place or be planted; or requiring removal of injurious vegetation. These were City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of September 16, 2019 Page 7 of 10 14 the provisions for ways to mitigate losses of contributions of trees to the built environment. Commissioner Arthur asked Vice Chair Poulson whether he had formed an opinion that this was a "significant" tree under the City's tree standards or was he referring generally to the term. Vice Chair Poulson responded that he felt the tree was "significant", but didn't meet the criteria completely "of distinctive character", as it was one of many out there, so it didn't have a unique quality, such as a "Centennial" tree. Commissioner Arthur asked if Vice Chair Poulson was referring to the "defining the neighborhood character" when he said "significant to the neighborhood." Vice Chair Poulson affirmed, adding that he wanted to be rigorous in their thinking, even though it was highly subjective, and the hazard of the tree had to be removed from their discussion as it couldn't be considered a criterion in their decision. Vice Chair Poulson opined that once that was gone, the only thing that was left was the code, adding that the only things brought up in the photos submitted by the Applicant were the bowed, short, keystone retaining wall and a close up of paver heave (also something that was easily repaired). Vice Chair Poulson stated that he would probably be more swayed if the Applicant had presented evidence showing extensive studies with statements of struggling with coexistence with the tree for the past 10 years, adding that the Applicant thought it was a hazardous tree and they were using the code to take out this hazard, but since the thought of it being a hazard had been eliminated from their thinking, he couldn't see that the criterion the Applicant was using stood, in and of itself. Commissioner Arthur inquired of staff regarding the submission of sufficient evidence addressing the significance of the tree due to size. W here does that leave the Commission in their analysis if they found the tree was "significant" due to size (looking at page 5 of 9, where staff stated the standard was met when the removal of the tree does not involve a tree considered significant to the neighborhood due to size, and on page 6, where it was noted that the Applicant had not submitted evidence addressing size, with pictures showing the dwarfing, therefore was not significant due to size)? Ms. Numanoglu replied that would then be considered a "significant" tree, in which case DRC members would then go to the "exception" criteria to determine if there were there reasonable alternatives to removing the tree that would still allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone, for example, repairing the wall or moving it. Commissioner Arthur then asked what the Applicant's burden was on that. Ms. Numanoglu responded that the Applicant would address the exceptions if they concurred that it was a "significant" tree, but in this case, they didn't, so they didn't provide any alternatives. She added that if the Commission identified some reasonable alternatives and found they couldn't clearly approve the application given that "A, B, or C" could be done, it would be a basis for denying the application. Mr. Boone added that on the significance of size, as indicated in the staff report (which the Commission has reviewed and approved on previous applications), it wasn't that the tree was "significant" in its absolute size (a 45-inch tree alone, itself, would not be significant where the tree size was in the general size of other trees in the neighborhood, but would be if it was the only 45-inch tree in a grove of 20-inch trees). Mr. Boone noted that the question would be whether the evidence provided by the Applicant showed or didn't show that the loss would be significant to the neighborhood (found by looking at all the evidence to see if it met the burden). If members found that the tree would be significant due to its size, they would then look at the reasonable alternatives (these were generally decided in pre-construction), by relocating something (distinguished from the pruning or other maintenance). Commissioner Arthur thanked staff and stated that was very helpful. Chair Shearer asked if he was looking at the City's arborists' report. Staff affirmed. Chair Shearer then asked for confirmation that he was reading it right..."some history of branch failure that was close to the house, over a neighbor's yard, lean is minor and natural; however, no…impacts to remove". Ms. Morey-Collins responded that it stated "no significant negative impacts to remove." Chair Shearer asked if that meant he was saying there was no reason to remove it. Ms. Morey- City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of September 16, 2019 Page 8 of 10 14 Collins replied that she was saying there were no negative impacts to removal. Chair Shearer opined that the tree had been there a long time, in a lot of wind storms, and whether the tree fell tomorrow or tonight, the way he was reading the City's arborist report, it was not a dangerous tree, so for him, the impacts to the landscaping were minor (as you see the tree when driving on that street) and he saw no evidence of impact to the house foundation, nor danger to person or dwelling (as the trees were well-rooted and had been there a long time), and the lean was not excessive. He added that he did not agree with staff and would vote to deny this application. Vice Chair Poulson moved to agree with the Appellant, in that their reasoning for denying the application was valid and it didn't specifically meet the Tree Code, as written. Seconded by Chair Shearer, adding that there was a question, as it might not be clear. Commissioner Arthur asked Vice Chair Poulson if his motion was to approve or to deny the application. Vice Chair Poulson responded that there was trouble with an appeal, and he approved the appeal. Mr. Boone informed members that it would be to deny the application on the basis that the Applicant had not met the burden of proof in the criteria for the reasons laid out in the Appellant's argument. Chair Sheared suggested removing the first motion and he would remove his "second", and to make it simple, make the motion to deny the Type II application. Decision Vice Chair Poulson moved to deny the application on the basis of the Appellant's reasoning. Seconded by Chair Shearer and denied 4:2. Mr. Boone stated that this was a Tentative Decision and written Findings would be brought back to the Commission on October 7, 2019 at 7:00 PM. Chair Shearer stated that, of the things the Commission looked at, the tree permits were one of the toughest things for them to decide. Vice Chair Poulson added that he thought the Applicant should consider the Hazardous tree removal and do their own investigation, to look at it from that point, adding that he didn't want to be insensitive to that. OTHER BUSINESS Schedule Review and Management Update Ms. Numanoglu updated DRC members on upcoming meetings: October 7, 2019: the Findings from tonight as well as the reopening of the Tree Appeal in the First Addition neighborhood. Ms. Davis added that there was also AP 19-07. Vice Chair Poulson asked if the former was the "famous" root. Ms. Numanoglu affirmed and stated that would be heard first, then the application for tree removal for development purposes. Commissioner Smith asked if there was anything in the pipeline for Design Review, as opposed to just tree appeals, because he thought it was becoming a tree appeal Commission. He stated that he didn't sign up for that and might not show up if that was the only thing scheduled - deciding whether a tree comes down or not or whether a developer takes a chainsaw to it. Ms. Numanoglu replied that tree appeals are a function of the DRC, and typically they get about two per year (as in the four years prior). She acknowledged they have had a higher number than usual this year. Commissioner Smith stated that he understood, but that when he first started on the Commission, they reviewed projects, condominiums, houses, and things of that nature; however, he was seeing that a homeowner wants to take a tree down and someone objects, so they spend a whole night arguing over whether it is "significant" or not. He stated that they should set up a tree appeal Commission so they could do the job of design review. Ms. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of September 16, 2019 Page 9 of 10 14 Numanoglu stated that she completely understood and informed Commissioner Smith that the City used to have a Community Forestry Commission (CFC) that was set up just to review tree appeals, but they met so infrequently because there were generally not many tree appeals per year, so it was repealed and brought under the purview of the DRC. She opined that the Council might consider reinstating the CFC if they continue to see a frequent number of the tree appeals. Ms. Numanoglu stated that there were a couple of incomplete land use applications in process, and when they were complete, they would come before the Commission. Commissioner Berardi asked if the City had a plan to put together a group of people (those interested in protecting the trees) that would become involved in finding locations to plant trees in the right spots for the City to ensure that they do have that canopy 50 to 75 years from now; opining that it would be good for these people if they felt the City did care. Ms. Numanoglu replied that was a complicated question, stating that the City had about a 50% tree canopy cover (which was pretty incredible for a City, and was pretty enviable), and the City did do a lot to save and plant trees. For instance, up to 1,000 trees per year have been planted by the Parks Department as part of restoration projects. As far as what more they could do, Ms. Numanoglu stated that it would be under the direction of the City Council, not the purview of this Commission or for staff to initiate. Commissioner Berardi acknowledged that he heard that and agreed (seeing all of the trees from the hills in the Palisades, and not realizing there were hundreds of houses underneath them), but it seemed to him that if the people were involved…because they seem to be here all the time (sentence not finished). Ms. Numanoglu stated that trees are certainly a defining characteristic of the City and people are very passionate about them, and staff respects that, but there are times when trees need to come out too, so there is a balancing act and that is what the Tree Code tries to navigate, but it doesn’t always make everyone happy. Commissioner Silen informed Commissioner Berardi that those folks actually do participate in the Parks Department's "planting weekends" (planting close to 1,000 close to a month ago, in one weekend), and the Parks Department were always soliciting for volunteers. Vice Chair Poulson stated that for him, it was the "hazard tree" issue, but if the Applicant had some better guidance, as the thrust of their argument was the concern of the tree blowing over, and talking about something that was irreplaceable, was a life if the tree fell on the neighbor's house. He added that he was not insensitive to that; however, if the City arborist said it was safe, he couldn't use that criterion knowing that what they were reviewing in the code had nothing to do with hazard. Vice Chair Poulson asked staff if the Applicant couldn't have been tutored about applying under the "Hazardous Tree Removal", getting their own expert to state a strong opinion. Ms. Numanoglu agreed that the Applicant could have, but staff would not want to lead someone down a path that was not successful either, and if the City's arborist (who was a qualified tree-risk assessor with a Master's Degree in Forestry) said she disagreed it was a hazard, they may not issue that permit. Vice Chair Poulson asked them to assume that was the nexus of why they appealed to have the tree removed (their concern for safety), and through the process of trying to apply for a "Hazardous Tree Removal", they, themselves, were convinced it was not as hazardous as their perceptions led them to believe, and so they would have then stopped the process, versus what happened tonight, as them thinking they could use that as part of their argument. ADJOURNMENT Chair Shearer adjourned the meeting at 8:17 PM. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Kat Kluge, Administrative Support