HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 1a: Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Healthy Oak Tree Removal at 130 W. Longden and 123 W. Birchcroft OF Alt
GALF
IOgni 1.
G ,,
A,. S.199; nli
1/4btwaity,�°�
TAFF REPORT
Development Services Department
DATE: November 15, 2011
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director 3t -
By: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrators
Prepared by: Nick Baldwin, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF HEALTHY
OAK TREE REMOVAL APPLICATION NO. TRH 11-05 TO REMOVE
TWO COAST LIVE OAK TREES THAT ARE LOCATED ON THE
COMMON REAR PROPERTY LINE OF 130 W. LONGDEN AVENUE
AND 123 W. BIRCHCROFT STREET
Recommended Action: Conditional Approval
SUMMARY
Healthy Oak Tree Removal Permit Application No. TRH 11-05 was filed by Mrs. Linda
Lee, the owner and resident of 130 W. Longden Avenue to remove two healthy Coast
Live Oak trees that are located on the common rear property line with 123 W. Birchcroft
Street. Mrs. Lee is requesting to remove these two Oak trees because her two young
sons are highly allergic to Oak trees. The neighbors at 123 W. Birchcroft Street have
consented to the removal of the trees. The Development Services Department is
recommending approval of the application, subject to the conditions in this report.
BACKGROUND
The property at 130 W. Longden Avenue is a 20,500 square-foot (0.47 acre) lot in a
single-family, R-1 zone that has 100 feet of street frontage along W. Longden Avenue.
There are two healthy and mature Coast Live Oak trees located on the common rear
property line shared with 123 W. Birchcroft Street, which is a 10,180 square-foot (0.23
acre) lot that is also zoned R-1. An aerial photo with zoning information and photos of
the subject trees are attached.
The applicant, Mrs. Linda Lee purchased 130 W. Longden Avenue in March of this year
based largely on the spacious rear yard where her two sons could play. At the time she
purchased the property, she was not aware that her sons had any allergies. Soon after
moving in, both of her sons exhibited allergic symptoms including respiratory problems
and rashes. In April 2011, her sons were tested for allergies and it was determined that
they are both severely allergic to Oak trees. The applicant provided the attached copy
of the test results, which show that on a scale of 0 to 6, with 0 being allergies absent or
undetectable and 6 being very high allergies, both her sons are at level 5 — very allergic
to Oak trees.
In July, Code Services received a complaint about Oak trees being cut at the subject
property. The attached photos dated July 11, 2011 were taken by Code Services and
show the unauthorized cutting. In response to the Code Services' investigation, the
applicant submitted Oak Tree Removal Permit Application No. TRD 11-20 on August 4,
2011 to request removal of two Oak trees based on their being either diseased, or
hazardous. This application included a sketch, a web-based aerial photo, photos of the
two Oak trees, the letter from a certified arborist, and a note by the applicant dated
August 4, 2011. All of these items are attached. Staff found the photos to be
unacceptable and conducted site visits to observe the trees. Staff also contacted the
arborist and was given the following additional information:
• Both Oak trees can survive with treatment for termites and borer beetles;
• The limbs that were cut were over 2 inches in diameter;
• It was undetermined if more than 25% of the canopies had been removed;
• The improper cuts should be re-cut cleanly; and
• Removal of the trees was not recommended.
Because allergies are not considered a hazard for Oak tree removal purposes, and
based on the arborist's information, the application was denied. The attached report
denying this application was issued on August 19, 2011.
The applicant then submitted the attached Healthy Oak Tree Removal Permit
Application No. TRH 11-05 on August 22, 2011. The attached site plan and
supplemental arborist's report with a fax date of September 9, 2011 were also provided.
Planning Services recommended approval of the application. This was based on the
two Oak trees interference with utility lines, their prior topping and unbalanced canopies,
and the presence of either termites, or borer beetles. This application was heard by the
Modification Committee on October 11, 2011.
The Modification Committee accepted public testimony, which included a statement of
opposition from a neighbor on the south side of Birchcroft Street who said she can see
the subject Oak trees behind 123 W. Birchcroft Street— a photo of this view is attached.
The applicant was not in attendance at this meeting. The Modification Committee
expressed concerns that this case could have policy setting implications because of the
applicant's reasons for the removal of the Oak trees, and voted 3-0 to refer the case to
TRH 11-05
130 W. Longden Ave. & 123 W. Birchcroft St.
November 15, 2011 —Page 2
the Planning Commission. The Findings of the Modification Committee's decision are
attached.
On October 19, 2011, staff received the attached letter from Mrs. Lee dated October 11,
2011, which includes a letter dated September 9, 2011 regarding a release from liability.
The City Attorney reviewed the letter and recommended that the Planning Commission
consider the matter as it normally would based on the standards and provisions in the
Municipal Code.
The Planning Commission considered Application No. TRH 11-05 at its October 25,
2011 meeting. The attached two letters from the children's doctor were provided in
support of the application, and the neighbor to the rear that shares a common property
line on which the two oak trees are situated, submitted the attached letter stating their
agreement to the removal of the trees. The neighbor that lives across from 123 W.
Birchcroft Street, who also spoke at the Modification Committee meeting, stated that
while she sympathizes with the applicant, she doubts that the removal of the two subject
Oak trees will solve the allergy problem, and may set a precedent for the removal of
Oak trees. An excerpt of the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting is
attached. The Development Services Department recommended approval of the
application, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall plant two 24-inch-box trees at locations deemed appropriate by
the Community Development Administrator or designee.
2. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Arcadia and its
officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding
against the City of Arcadia, its officers, employees or agents to attack, set aside,
void, or annul any approval or condition of approval of the City of Arcadia
concerning this project and/or land use decision, including but not limited to any
approval or condition of approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, or City
Staff, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government
Code Section 66499.37 or other provision of law applicable to this project or
decision. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or
proceeding concerning the project and/or land use decision and the City shall
cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own
option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officers, employees, and
agents in the defense of the matter.
3. Approval of TRH 11-05 shall not take effect until the property owner(s) and
applicant(s) have executed and filed an Acceptance Form available from the
Development Services Department to indicate awareness and acceptance of these
conditions of approval.
The Planning Commission voted 4-0 with one Commissioner absent to deny the
application. On October 26, 2011, Mayor Pro Tempore Robert Harbicht submitted an
TRH 11-05
130 W. Longden Ave. & 123 W. Birchcroft St.
November 15, 2011 —Page 3
appeal of the Planning Commission decision because of the potential precedent setting
implications of this application.
DISCUSSION
The applicant is requesting to remove two healthy Coast Live Oak trees because her
young sons are very allergic to Oak trees.
At both the Modification Committee hearing and the Planning Commission hearing,
there was a question about other Oak trees in the neighborhood, and staffs response
was that a visual inspection of the surrounding properties revealed an Oak tree at the
neighboring property to the west of the applicant's property— see attached photos. This
Oak tree has not yet been addressed, but the applicant has indicated that she hopes to
work with the neighbor to either remove this tree, or have it trimmed back from the
property line.
Both the Modification Committee and the Planning Commission stated that because
there are Oak trees throughout the community, the removal of the two subject Oak trees
would probably not improve the condition of the applicant's children. The applicant has
stated that she understands this, but short of moving out of the City, the removal of the
subject Oak trees is the best she can do to address her children's condition. The
applicant has expressed agreement to the recommended condition of planting two
replacement trees of another species.
Staff does not consider allergies a criterion for the removal of Oak trees. Allergic
reactions to tree pollen are probably rather common and typically the associated health
impacts are mild. In this case however, the applicant has shown that the allergic
reactions are severe, and yet, it is unlikely that the removal of the two subject Oak trees
will improve the children's condition.
Regardless of the allergy issue, staff's determination after review of the arborist's report
and observations of the two subject Oak trees is that the trees are not particularly good
specimens and their contribution to the aesthetics of the neighborhood are limited.
Despite the arborist's determination that these trees are in fair to good health, staff feels
that removal is warranted because the trees are interfering with utility lines and have
unbalanced canopies as a result of having been improperly topped in the past. Also,
the planting of two new trees of a different species at other locations such as the front
yard could be an enhancement to the neighborhood. Therefore, staff is recommending
approval of the application, subject to the previously mentioned conditions of approval.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
This project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to Section 15304 of the CEQA Guidelines for a minor alteration in the
condition of land which does not involve the removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees. A
Preliminary Exemption Assessment is attached.
TRH 11-05
130 W. Longden Ave. & 123 W. Birchcroft St.
November 15, 2011 —Page 4
FISCAL IMPACT
The Oak Tree Removal Permit will have no impact on the City's General Fund.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
The Development Services Department recommends that the City Council approve
Healthy Oak Tree Removal Permit Application No. TRH 11-05, sub'
aforementioned conditions of approval. lect to the
Approved by:
Donald Penman, City Manager
Attachments: Aerial Photo with Zoning Information
Photos of Subject Oak Trees
Allergy Test Results
Photos of Unauthorized Trimming by Code Services
Application No. TRD 11-20
Report on Denial of TRD 11-20
Application No. TRH 11-05
Site Plan and Supplemental Arborist's Report
Photo of Trees behind 123 W. Birchcroft Street
Modification Committee Findings
October 11, 2011 Letter from Applicant
Letters from Applicant's Pediatrician
Neighbor's Letter Supporting Removal of Oak Trees
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Excerpt
Photos of Oak Tree on Adjacent Property
Preliminary Exemption Assessment
TRH 11-05
130 W. Longden Ave. & 123 W. Birchcroft St.
November 15, 2011 —Page 5
t
'
a _ { : —1 pf i�f
'4' h d t
r•, E• }'., d'. f.P.If Y.'.'. i.d,`l,-„ mow.
It
_
SS �y
dV t19 I.h t ,
``• .gyp,"�Sy F e i. f 4
t i �. e �4xnS^" d 1 4:
r ,t x „fir . ,C �^
Subject ,.
4 '-'- '''' ' .44e,, ''':,,, ...,:
r
�• Property .
r 4 * `
,,
F i*
k
f . .
.1
�Y� i C7111�(�EEI,tiV4
it�dt�'r^.v h, a
4 i
Y �
i.• -.XIX.J-;".:4/1;:,,'",;"."*„ h '�. M.A�� " !„ � � � •, r IF � } .•�� 'J ,I• _ L r ..ito
it
L , .m H
. ii k
t
M1
1
t: pp .,. l'f' . ',,'•.,-. ,
4011*
dw
401$
y
..
:” # i '. . .,„.< 1 . , .,.._ pirt,„.;;.4 ■ i
1'.. y ` ,.'? �: .i-t„`""'+ ,1 LL „
ft,
. .
r
G�41PO �t' 130 W. Long
den Avenue
dit TRH 11-05
•.nn 1,1101
CO\_. jet
B
�4aity ot�
•
•
e::: : . . 'A''''t...i''i '. Vr.:n.'
• . �f
fit_
I
kVK
linli
•
k 0d•
1
id
� � 4
tf
•
' ,- 3 Sri<� - .
,P11111!.
3
,"..iii.:fr,ir,... +:.,";':7;4:,.:,..,"'',:,.400j),...0A.:,. : '.1.,r' ' ,
l 8 eI
s
t4-.,-L,Z,er-t -.;,. -
.r
tip• ,, A. `'.„+
...
l t
1 :I • i• . !.I. ,, rt.
1� 4, •
i
it {; ,.
ww 'M
e,
•
I
l
t
.a'
;',, Tree 1
N:,,k.,,...7-:,-No,.
-... - . .„ . fir,■ .1.--,; •..,,,,,i. +, U.' �:;,r•
,....
,.] gip,, "r �,� +
! - ! •
yf -t7-. 0_',. .),,i-,a y 1 _.
v �(:,y,,, Y
}3
•
', 1 � 1— + ,-. rX 1 Yet i{
�t+r I
" ,ten � �
` _ 1 �f r. .
t •
b` yin •�- }'t 1i
•':� T t iii }
'�' �,� ' r�J� ii'''''t *P'� >_ 't•.
- 9y aY�..i, i
f 1 vv 9°n Q ei/ '�
s f
•yam !N �;-.
r fit` .c76ra ' ,, Tree 2
'
y �� q
Quest
i.- , 4, Diagnostics ,
PATIENT INFORMATION REPORT STATUS Final
LEE, JUSTIN T
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED ORDERING PHYSICIAN
DOB: 03/08/2005 Age: 6 CHAVA, SREEDHAR MD
GENDER: M
COLLECTED: 04/20/2011 ,'09:58 ID: 05251966
REPORTED: 04/22/2011 10:02
Teat Name I'
RESPIRATORY ALLERGY PROFILE REGION XIII
MITE AND MOLD GROUPING E.
Allergen kU/L Class
DERMATOPHAGOIDES PTERONYSSINUS (D1) IGE <0.35 0
DERMATOPHAGOIDES FARINAE (D2) IGE <0.35 0
PENICILLIUM NOTATUM (M1) IGE <0.35 0
CLADOSPORIUM HERBARUM (M2) IGE <0.35 0
ASPERGILLUS FUMIGATUS (M3) IGE <0.35 0
ALTERNARIA ALTERNATA (M6) IGE <0.35 0
DANDER GROUPING E
CAT DANDER. (E1) IGE <0.35 0
DOG DANDER (E5) IGE <0.35 0
COCKROACH (I6) IGE <0.35 0 E:
TREE GROUPING E:
ALDER (T2) IGE <0.35 0
MOUNTAIN CEDAR (T6) IGE <0.35 0
OLIVE TREE (T9) IGE <0.35 0
WALNUT TREE (T10) IGE <0.35 0
COTTONWOOD (T14) IGE <0.35 0
TREE GROUPING E:
OAK (T7) IGE 53.65 H 5
ELM (T8) IGE <0.35 0
WHITE MULBERRY (T70) IGE <0.35 0 E:
Page 1 - Continued on Page 2
ct,Quest Diagnostics,the associated logo and all associated Quest Diagnostics marks are the trademarks of Quest Diagnostics.®Quest Diagnostics Incorporated.All rights reserved.QD20300•NTL Revised 6/08.SC2K-115570.
f"miii. Diagnostics
PATIENT INTORNATION L
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED LEE, JUSTIN T RZ'POAT eTATVB Pc].A$]- ---__�
DOB: 03/08/2005 canzerne PHYSICIAN
COLLECTED: 04/20/2011 Age: 6 CHAVA S
POR 09:58 GENDER: M + REEDHAg MD
D: 04 2 20
10:0 ID: 05251966
Test Name
RESPIRATORY ALLERGY PROFILE REGION XIII (continued)
GRASS GROUPING L
Allergen
--- _ _ E:
BERMUDA GRASS (G2) IGE ------------- __ __
TIMOTHY Claae
TIMOTHY GRASS (G6) IGE <0.35 _-0 --
JOHNSON GRASS (G10) IGE <0.35 0
WEED GROUPING ' <0.35 0
E
COMMON RAGWEED (SHORT) (W1) IGE
E:
MUGWORT <0.35 0
(W6) IGE
RUSSIAN THISTLE <0.35 0
(W11) IGE
<0.35 0
ROUGH PIGWEED
(W14) ICE
<0.35 0
In Range_ Out of Range Reference Range
---- _ __
IMMUNOGLOBULIN E
431 H -------
FOOD ALLERGY PROFILE <OR=114 kU/L
E:
Allergen
EGG WHITE (F1) IGE --- -- ---- __kU/L. _ Class
--
<0.35 0
PEANUT (F13) IGE
E
WHEAT (F4) IGE <0.35 0
E
<0.35 0
WALNUT (F256) IGE
E
<0.35 0
CODFISH (F3) IGE E
MILK (F2) IGE <0.35 0
E:
<0.35 0
(F14) IGE E
SOYBEAN
MAIZE/CORN (F8) IGE <0.35 0
E
<0.35 0
SHRIMP (F24) IGE
E
<0.35 0
SCALLOP (F338) IGE
E:
<0.35 0
E:
CLAM (F207 IGE
SESAME SEED (F10) IGE <0.35 0
E:
<0.35 0
E.
Page 2 - Continued on Page 3
list Diagnostics,the associated logo and ell associated Guest Diagnostics marks are the trademarks of Quest Diagnostics.,42 Guest Diagnostics Incorporated.All rlphtc reserved.DD20900.ML Revised 5/08.SC2K-115570.
Quest
r r. 4 Diagnostics
PATIENT INFORMATION REPORT STATUS Final
LEE, JUSTIN T
OVEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED ORDERING PHYSICIAN
DOB: 03/08/2005 Age: 6 CHAVA, SREEDHARMD •
GENDER: M
COLLECTED: 04/20/2011,, 09:58 ID: 05251966
REPORTED: 04/22/2011 10:02
Teat Name L
INTERPRETATION
Specific Level of Allergen
IGE Class kU/L Specific IGE Antibody
0 <0.35 Absent/Undetectable
1 0.35-0.70 Low Level
2 0 .71-3.50 Moderate Level
3 3.51-17.5 High Level
4 17.6-50 Very High Level
5 51-100 Very High Level
6 >100 Very High Level
Allergens denoted with a "*" include results using
one or more analyte specific reagents. In those
cases, the test was developed and its performance
characteristics determined by Quest Diagnostics_ It
has not been cleared or approved by the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration. The FDA has determined
that such clearance is not necessary. Performance
characteristics refer to the analytical performance
of the test.
Performing Laboratory Information:
EN Quest Diagnostics-West Hills 8401 Fallbrook Ave Weft Hills CA 91304 Laboratory Director: Loa H Hilborne M.D.
Page 3 - End of Report
,Quest Diag00stics,the associated logo and all 8s600iated Quest Diag00stics marks ere the trademarks 0t Quest Diagn0stcs.®Quest Diagnostics Incorporated.All rights reserved.0D2.0300•NTL Revised 5109,SC2K•115570.
w<b" €
tp ALA �; g Yf s.
r. t .,4 , 'i g StY" 6 ,
4
!�[, ` ;
� as, a f
.4j1k4 1.:4 �+(
r'e
,..",■,44.:4\1k4:,.:'.'",...,..,,,,i.';'?,-*.,,.‘..,,,... ..,,,;i:t?:4;46,,,I .i,.,,r 1.i.,,:::— ,,,?,
,vi -`. ".±4(-.1 ;
m!„ f , g w t '* B ^.t „*....t.'''. F As .. .. r�� 7 ry {,�f Ott, �k7, , , 'F;,--,,,..:44,;.',..- .{ i t '' 't' kt ' ''''',..,,ft,w s sy, e i ,,t f� t s�'P"' c,,,,. ; ` , 4 r� ;,. st i1 � N r r! iii l °ti+t ti Fyr, t_,, °C ! Y w *a ' ii .4 ! dart' - a ;,-,,;1... l l 4 t Mig' Si4 Y i
n F %a
t
I a. fi I , � T J
.14(.1' ,.';',eL , - ''' '''' --- - '‘
•
}• ,7.:,:' ~ ,"' 'T y,.. -'+ '�` !' f r ,. y
Y S �« ~t 1 ��'�".Sri Yyj.,
t:. ' 3 .S(t
,, �t a, �. r. ;
,,,,,,„'s.'.„.....1, -.),;-,-..4....,4:11:06„;:::::,,:l: , ;:,_1, ..sue f. � y � �'��
i/4'V *Tfrc;'
glik
Ai: 4 t` .
i
,,, ,,,,-4prity::11 1 4`'
0
- ' '''itik '•
ib
r.
s
' - l'.:,, - - ,
6l Ie r 11.wi►; �s# $
St
r '.
4Ie
9. t •
ti
. ,it,t\t„ L„...1;, , ,, .n: ;„,,,,,;....6.;,. -,.. . .
.* 444it' ''' I'S*v ,C '_.., i - •
1` •,it,, kj 1� pr R t ''11.'-.:-.,.',7:'"Vr''': '
. li` '1'' 1
:I y., ` f •• its
yti
(,1 �� {� '� to i • _ 4
. a ,(t�A,of'ri,,,i .1{ y rte - •5:. 2�
s
f i 1 V .
a
1 x:: =
0/t r :i: t
: t: ".
-;-,((, (1,r i f 'i ' i r. t%
� �11� Ef4 , � r �rbl� • r.�
e ( 1�' t . 01 1,�•
, ir !f i••'. rit .,{sy
i i ;I(� ,.
AQ J.i+
k� i • I TRD ((-2 0 k . i CITY OF ARCADIA
Oa
1/. .11 '� OAK TREE PERMIT APPLICATION TO REM I VE�
A DISEASED AND/OR HAZARDOUS OAK T g .�,
EE �,
PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION:
--- -- AUG 4 SUBJECT ADDRESS . � - , ,{ 2011
., /l jI '
APPLICANT/CONTACT PERSON'S NAME ,� , /' Pia ICI 9'1��,'�s
,,_,
MAILING ADDRESS
- City of Arcadia
CITY ,. , ,_ .1 ,�
STATE
TELEPHONE NO. � ZIP ���
- / CELL PHONE NO.
E-MAIL ADDRESS , •, „ . ," ` 4 ---, -
PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME ,',
MAILING ADDRESS
CITY
STATE ZIP
TELEPHONE NO.
CELL PHONE NO.
E-MAIL ADDRESS
PLEASE CHECK THE APPLICABLE BOX BELOW, AND PROVIDE ALL ON PAGE 2: L THE INFORMATION
According to the attached independent evaluation by a Certified Arborist, the is/are: ❑ Diseased ❑ Hazardous he subject oak
- For Office Use Only -
ACTION — THIS APPLICATION TO REMOVE A DISEASED OR HAZARDOUS
OAK TREE IS:
❑ Approved
❑ Conditionally Approved—subject to the following:
Denied for the following reason(s): WV l�,44,4- . ., are 1 „ /,,-- 4 oSd /P, l
Date Filed S� I _ Received By
TRD £h ,.- o
-1 'J f1��
8/09
rr
OAK TREE PERMIT APPLICATION TO mEMOVE
A DISEASED AND/OR HAZARDOUS OAK TREE
FILING REQUIREMENTS WORKSHEET
In order for this application to be processed without delay, the application must include all of the
following materials. To ensure that the application is complete, please check-off the boxes next to the
required materials:
❑ Completed application form
❑ Independent evaluation report by a Certified Arborist*that includes the following:
❑ Photographs of the subject tree(s)
❑ Site plan that shows the location of the subject tree(s) and all other mature trees
* The Arborist must be certified by the International Society of Arboriculture. A list of local Certified
Arborists is available from Planning Services.
SIGNATURES
The applicant and property owner hereby declare under penalty of perjury that all the information
submitted for th' ication is true and correct.
7 0//r---71-
Applicant's Signet A
pP e 9 Date
6,...-- -.....„.........._____- SA///
Property Owner's Signature Date
APPLICATION REVIEW PROCESS
STAFF REVIEW: Upon receipt in complete and proper form, city staff will approve, conditionally
approve, or deny the application within five (5)working days.
APPEALS: If the application is conditionally approved or denied, the applicant and/or property owner
may appeal staffs decision to the Modification Committee. The Modification Committee's decision may
subsequently be appealed to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission's decision may
be appealed to the City Council. Such appeals must be submitted in writing and delivered to Planning
Services within five (5) working days of the respective decision. For each appeal, the appellant must
pay the $540 appeal fee and provide a 100-foot radius public hearing notice mailing list and labels, and
15 sets of any plans, documents and photographs that accompanied the application.
EXPIRATION: If, after a period of one year, the authorization granted by this Oak Tree Permit has not
been used, then the authorization shall become null and void, and a new application is required.
TRD -2-
8/09
, 1 .
\ i il . •,,
-----,. ----------/a) /
•
ti...\-' •--..
5 log II
/ '..
citt 11 hitt . )
1 ......_____
.. .
.s>,--- ,---
. „....., , c....--
• . , 4L-Z.:7-
' .
.- -/--
) .
--. '
.,...
0 d 1 • \,.. . .
. -•••>
tz -.
4„. ... ....„, ,,
...,....g
J a '
-ie-------"j
................„
-%-.
C\ .„-------- ._
\)--
,_....... ....
. .
..---
....
z •
`I—
r,,),
lir
,--
- ---------
. ..-.--...
•)
• - \, • '
N
-- --
•,... ------„...
CZ) „,,,,
---
----- )
Print-Maps Page 1 of 1
t J ,k...., Maps
130 W Longden Ave, Arcadia,CA 91007- .,.:,
8231 ..... �
F;, r,`' fi E,1 sr t,),t.i
1 n F V
My Notes � � �,s^�, rl �r t�.
1 '.0 td1:`ri , Y
. ^` ( �
, '6 i1r3t;,p'i
--. 4----- ,'d,„ ...hs , ,,,if I., , `'r4.r1
FREE!Use Bing 411 to find monies, ,,. ,
businesses&mores 600-BING-4t1 jf�y, d E i,c r tc'"
I 't 0 , r. , ,r
yyyy
+� ,p.� ?t... . ,yti.x
M
tr*
! ry
: r. tt
E
m
r A # 1
i . .. i
ib a r '' i
ro ..
4
i"q.
iiiii,
■
A'
4401/4.it:. , 0.a
*''> Birds eye view maps can't be printed,so another map view has been substituted.
http://www.bing.cam/maps/print.aspx?mkt---en-us&z=19.726802086231608&s=b&cp=34.1... 8/4/2011
.0
P
rr
,',I+.' 41e k 1
u _ ,
af
�p �Y• w
i:0.,4*
KM
I.4,
r.,
} `* , Y vet i
fta
"
.,: May
I . .,5*
.,': ,- fix§
4 04
40w. c
,i°,,,, 4i,
J, p!S
.
4 7
. kf Y
47 k ➢ y' y ,. .,.:„...,_ .. ._ ,:,..
.....
4111 ,. . . .,
...,.
g is A"" .S. "�46?,.
•
y
c w
. °
' e a» ,*"
,
,b: n
<...., tit
, ,
_ x*
9�Y
1r
•
•
may
4
titt,,,,,,,, „.., .
$
F
4R x"b
A,:
t z P
+ '
A x
v"
3 bin # Y �+ _
Y
r
,, 0..
y '
A;
.. 4� f d .
o- 4
b S{' y
+$` N _>
da P d fL
.,-41•%,i''.E:,`..",.3.4'•:":"-;'•:';''''.. • .•••' ::-..'Onlii,z-i&S;.'":":', (4''' .7'.'. 4 '-..-. . :. ' .
e',
C , K �`
N`' d v.r'k'�
gg
5'� 'a HG mix -4 1t¢-
karommillmoolooll•"1"ii""Ir
—T I 1," ', lilt r„,—,,...4,iit ric*,...x ' ,.: c' ',,.. - ',•v ,i''
,"--. ,-,., ,•,. ,, .k-,,,,0:,,,,t, , Nkr...1*, .., .,... .. ..„....
:, il ..-,,
, , `-. ■,,' ;IV,...,,1 4ii -"' 1,#:: ''''' 4'''-, 41'45,i
... ' . .,.
I'.„42,!:,&!'44;;;4.4,, ■414I' ' . -''.. '.. '4404t., 4'.4 tr, . 4-4 tt, ... ,.' ,.. ...,...; ,-,:; ,...., .,.
4 -
----.., , :',
... ,. ... .
•-',.i. '- f i4-7-'''''t'' '- -,,-'
. ....,. i
,,.
., .
, ,... .. ..., .. . '..., „ . . .,..
. -
■ i r ,
tt. ■,..,
A
. ■ ,1 k . ,
■
. 1 t t,. ' '...'r.,,t4 t,t■ 11'''1" '' ' '' . , ,
•
, ...
tli
....,s .
ss' •' cf' ' . .s• .. ,
,...., .,,
s ,
s ,- - *S•,;(10 '.
. ...;-
' -•
''• , ,
. •,,,
.. ..,
:, ft
, .• •
•;4?s'.... .
-...'.•4".''...i,s"•,• •, s
7 it
. ... : . ,..
- .. .„, ,•-•
-..-
..,,
' ..,,,...
. .,
41.0 ..,..."
-•
.. ..
, ..
. t " z *,„a
..es, SAN ` .
,
‘:•:•,,„ ,„ . .,',„',, •'', ...„ , , -it.4,0 . .,,,...::,„. • .,,, ,...„. ,. ., , ,.,,, , ,
* i
i .. " fit `1 # a
x'•at' �!i •
... >.
ww Ems �M w..:
x. s
:T °.
e
. .. t. :,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,:,,,.r " rill".
"
r a �` p
may:
" , .•
,a
•. rytatk' K'Y r v c'e•uxwa'....,
y E
". ` ° " 44 `W1 dirt ' }
e x :,
r
iii
a,�,� qov
Np• 4®
s
�` waa � max '"
s.
"' 4
yy,
w,
,4:' ,'''' t 4 '
.
, .,
IP
Y11� fib ,4 . -s4 ;A z
'.:
. to ", ',.Y.:44i444= I -
-
{+ '''''.. k
k
y N
, �t.
Ot
,'
4
:v.-3,4.0.
s
d
$
K � ■ - .
`E,, di ,•
e
*1-
s :!
,. qs',1. - Arbor
r ;
i<
i
Linda Lee
130 West Longden Ave
Arcadia,CA
I performed a tree evaluation/identification at the above address on July 27, 2011.
The following is a summary of my observations,with recommendations. If you have any
questions or request additional information please give me a call.
OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Two mature Oak Trees(Quercus agrifolia)growing in the back yard. Both
trees are growing under the power lines and have been previously topped.
Both trees appear to be in fair to good health although canopies are unbalance
due to power lines growing thin and above them. Tree number 1 has a DBH
(Diameter at Breast Height)of 30-34"and has recently had a large limb break
or cut off(see photo's) leaving an improper cut and should be re cut properly.
Tree 1 has termite activity in some parts of the tree. Tree 2 has signs of
borers.
i
Sincerel ,
/24Z
Mike Parker
Certified Arborist WE 3414 A
3812 Fronds Ave, Chino, CA 91710
(909)590-4100 • (909)590-4165 fax * (877)88-TREES
SY / 2t2 .//
qe reaSoh j d, N I) ✓(Ahjj ii) ry ,
p71- 004 ,ii.,5 yia,camz I IL. 1.)-1- L,
5,7y, 5 5yN5 O,W and (or/ 0 ,1cl r,� � G (14 �`�
U
-1-0 HA .(. oGlic_. + vIlit„s ,
y h „ , r, „/ di 1/'w e � g i�'eaS
�ard� �s�o�rH � A z oq��5 a �
P(, ,1-1/7,e, 0(1 JecfAivs a v t thl,A em it?01A (dit-lr,, a o 1 Aviotrisg' .1”,
1 /6 &Id,-n PA) ?--- . .
,i/47 _ q RAie-- - - 7 ,10 r. dry vvi �o / () AA )41 G ri,t7 �,/1+-' /.:cf-a1/i y
iro �N di � �.e �� �7/�� 4ec '-e-
- ,z,__a_14(76PA 0/ i-A-(244,4,- .
.141vr yle_ i j ic, d .11t-jic- .12A oi cr-091
1 pc v4.- 4-
Idea r -44-)z- 1-19 r,e 7 a lade. A -e 0 ail c$- reti
ji/th tsA,,&-- j -eici ,,d 4 A iiil /A'ri 7 nw re d a P r---
oFS lc 1141 1 0 0 /6 k)ottfeAvc /1A20:4-14 nod Alt
/ 71 ` ,,AeLsrjr --- ,
,"'" p. Oak Tree Removal Permit No. TRD
Wtv .. ,1
oo\ ,,b August 19, 2011
unity of moo¢
APPLICANT: Linda Lee
C of ADDRESS: 130 W. Longden Ave.
ArCC. 1a REQUEST: To remove two
oak trees (one with a major located in the rear ya d along the rear property bline of the
residence.
Development FINDINGS: The subject oak trees are located in the rear yard along the
rear property line of the subject property. The applicant feels
Services the trees are diseased and need to be removed. However,
Department Mr. Mike Parker, Certified Arborist, found that both trees are in
fair to good health. He noted that Tree 1 recently had a large
limb cut or break and has some termite activity. He found that
Tree 2 had evidence of borers. The Arborist Report dated
Jason Kruckeberg August 5, 2011 offers the recommendation to re-cut Tree 1.
Assistant City Manager/
Development Services Mr. Parker provided further findings and recommendations via
Director a phone conversation with Planning Staff on August 17, 2011.
He stated that neither of the trees are currently dangerous or
hazardous. He recommended that both trees should be
treated and Tree 1 should be re-cut, in lieu of their
removal.
ACTION: Denied. A certified arborist should be consulted to
oversee the recommended treatment of the trees and re-
cutting of Tree 1.
APPEAL PERIOD
The applicant may appeal this denial decision within five (5) working days. An
appeal must be submitted in writing to the Development Services Department
with the $540.00 appeal fee by 5:30 p.m. on Monday, August 29, 2011. If an
appeal is submitted, the applicant must provide a public hearing notice mailing
list and labels for all of the property owners and occupants within 100 feet of
the subject property (see enclosed map), and 12 sets of the plans,
photographs, and oak tree documents.
If there are any questions, please contact Nick Baldwin, Assistant Planner, at
(626) 574-5444 or by email at nbaldwin @ci.arcadia.ca.us.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Community Development Division/ Planning Services
Nick Baldwin � — �'` �`
�im Kasama
Assistant Planner Community Development Administrator
240 West Huntington Drive
Post Office Box 60021 cc: Mike Parker, Arborist
Arcadia,CA 91066-6021
(626) 574-5415
(626)447-3309 Fax
www.ci.arca di a.ca.us
.) i
4.442aiL,z , 0 11-og
trii !":„'fIr '•
0 wilko t.-ii
OAK TREE PERMIT FOR
� / REMOVAL OF HEALTHY TREES
PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION:
PROJECT ADDRESS 130 jV11 4- ..R vFrYt r , rcd rG CP_. c10)7
APPLICANT \ _I n aa F--e.e-
ADDRESS V D \ WS 1--O (fW' R i&
, n rC d0 a, '/r 7
ZIP 1 o
I -'
CITY APO� I STATE en
TELEPHONE No 620 p213 - 7601-
E-MAIL ADDRESS ij/p
PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME L p roc, J-eL
PROPERTY OWNER'S MAILING ADDRESS &Th Q ok.b aiz tJL-
CITY lo Pt STATE N Pc ZIP N-R
PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
NOTE: Sec.9704.b.I of the Arcadia Municipal Code requires that all of the following questions be answered in detail to
explain why the oak tree(s)should be removed.(Please attach a separate sheet if necessary.)
1. Why is it necessary to remove the tree(s)? "m '"`'...03°`°""'704.1**Wesirow4w, Yom, .*
ti r('IWn. y Li D
hi . 1..
AU S„ ,'Qfi
Planning Services
City of Arcar"ia
Date Sl2/I l Receipt No. ))32O Z Amount$ 640-- By —nAr.
3/09
2. Why is removal of the tree(s)more desirable than an alternative project design?
4 � i al
3. What mitigation measures are included in the project to compensate for the loss of the oak tree(s)?
The applicant and property owner hereby declare under penalty of perjury that all the information submitted for this
application is tru and correct.
A icant's
8'. /020//
'gnature
Date Q
Pr rty Owner's Signature
Date
3/09
mar
1. Why is it necessary to remove the tree(s)?
1. These oak trees are diseased with termites and borers. They will break
2. These oak trees have unbalance canopies with potential for more breakage
onto adjacent homes and power lines.
3. These trees cause more health hazard for my two little boys with oak
allergy.
4. Last month the oak tree branch broke and bended down to the back yard
and very dangerous for my kids to be near at any time.
2. Why is removal of the tree(s)more desirable than an alternative project design?
There is no project design. The purpose I bought this property with big lot
is all because of my two little boys. I wanted them to be comfortable
playing around the house and front/back yards.
The land has now become a dangerous place with those two diseased oak
trees.
Because of these oaks being protected by the city and gave my two little
boys restrictions of freedom by living at their own home knowing that
these oaks will cause more health problems and danger to them.
Alternatively, I will send all my children medical bills to the city to take
care if these oaks remain and continuously harmful to my sons health.
If my boys die for this reason,there is nothing else in this world that can
replace their lives even money. Except those who protecting and prevent
the removal of such hazardous trees will pay back the loss of my little kids
with their dead bodies if come to this end.
3. What mitigation measures are included in the project to compensate for the loss of
the oak tree(s)?
1. The loss of the little children innocent lives is more important than the
loss of the oak trees.
2. To save the human lives is extremely important rather than to save an
object.
3. There will be healthier kids without sicken by the poisonous oaks.
4. Decrease risk of insect infestation to neighborhood trees.
5. Decrease potential for personal injuries and property damages.
6. Arcadia city will have less potential law suit by residence.
--Tre�e1&2 to be remove crossed property line
I`
Tree
T`�_ PROPERTY LINE
Quercus agrifolia eel I
Canopy "DB
' 30'DBH 20DB Quercus agrifolia
25' H
I 20'Canopy
•
1
I
I
I
. I
Iii
IS ' re
a I .o
HOUSE
• IT
. a
�I .
. I
I .
. I
..I
15'- I
. 60' I
I .
. I
16' —_- PROPERTY LINE
12' 16' .
r t PARKWAY AREA
/ i .
CURE LINE
100'
130 W LONGDEN AVE,ARCADIA 91007
roar
Sep 09 11 11 :50e re'
p. 1
f" is 1
CaliFar[ ia
ArborST.LIC#763339
•y
Care
Linda Lee
130 West Longden Ave
Arcadia, CA
I performed,a tree evaluation/identification at the above address on July 27,2011.
The following is a summary of my observations,with recommendations. If you have any
questions or request additional information please give me a call.
QBSERVAT1O S e D Fr'r7MMEND ATIONS
1., Two mature Oak Trees (Quercus agrifolia)growing in the back yard. Both
trees are growing under the power lines and have been previously topped.
Both trees appear to be in fair to good health although canopies arc unbalance
due to power lines growing thru and above them, Tree number 1 has a DISH
(Diameter at Breast Height)of•30-34"and has recently had a large limb break
or cut off(see photo's) leaving an improper cut and should be rc cut properly.
Tree 1 has termite activity in some parts of the tree. Tree 2 has signs of
borers.
2, 1 recommend trimming(reducing)the canopy of tree number 1 to help avoid
any future major limb breakage and making a proper cut on the broken limb,
Also treat tree number 2 for borer's(trunk injection.Revised 9/8/2011
Sincere ,
Mike Parker
Certified Arborisi WE 3414 A
?t?11 I..r..Qeir t.,. r . , elf narrn
•
i, 4•. rtK P ' , •
■
•
•
•
•
•
h !
µ' ; "
• -ft`s:,.
.
_ i
•
•
Yr I
Yj
.�i
• ♦L
ora
TS 4a�f� r
';� ARCADIA CITY MODIFICATION COMMITTEE
lit __ Tuesday, October 11, 2011, 7:45 a.m.
t���, Arcadia City Council Chambers Conference Room
PUBLIC HEARING TRH 11-05
Address: 130 W. Longden Avenue and 123 W. Birchcroft Street
Applicant: Linda Lee (Property Owner)
Request: To remove two Coast Live Oak trees that are located on the common rear
property line (AMC Sec. 9703).
BACKGROUND
The applicant is seeking to remove two Coast Live Oak trees that are located on the common
rear property line between 130 W. Longden Avenue and 123 W. Birchcroft Street.
The applicant, Mrs. Lee, purchased the subject property in March of this year based largely on
the spacious rear yard where her two sons could play. At the time she purchased the property,
she was not aware that her sons had any allergies. Soon after moving in, both of her sons
exhibited symptoms of allergic reaction including respiratory problems and itching. In April
2011, her sons were tested for allergies and it was determined that her sons have severe
allergies to Oak trees. Staff received a copy of their test results and from a scale of 1 to 6 (1
being absent/undetectable to 6 as very high level of allergies) both her sons were at a level 5
(very allergic to oak trees).
ANALYSIS
Due to welfare of her children health, the applicant is requesting to remove two healthy Coast
Live Oak trees that are located on the rear common property line. The childrens' Pediatrician,
Dr. Chava, has also provided a letter stating that their allergies to oak can be so severe that it
can be life threatening (attached).
Although the Arborist recommended trimming and treating the infested oak trees to prevent
further damage, it is Dr. Chava's opinion that the above measure will not prevent the trees from
re-sprouting and spreading leaves, pollens, and allergens to the surrounding area of the
property still creating a life threatening situation for the children.
Due to the health of the oak trees and the children welfare, the adjacent property owner, Mr.
and Mrs. Jeung, located at 123 W. Birchcroft Street has provided written consent to remove the
trees.
FINDINGS
Mr. Baerg asked if anyone present would like to provide comments on the subject application.
Mrs. Betsy Caputo, who resides at 114 W. Birchcroft Street, stated that she can see the subject
trees from her property and she values these trees as well as other Oaks in the neighborhood.
She said that Arcadia has many Oak trees and cutting these two down probably will not resolve
the allergy issues of the applicant's children. She concluded that the Modification Committee
should not approve the subject application because it sets a bad precedent for oak tree
removal.
Mr. Baerg asked Mr. Baldwin if the neighbors have Oak trees. Mr. Baldwin stated that he
verified that there was one on the lot to the west of the subject property. In reply, Mr. Baerg
said to the other members of the Modification Committee that he wondered if the removal of the
subject Oak trees would resolve the problem for the applicant. Mr. Baerg asked Mr. Baldwin if
there were any previous applications that cited allergies as a reason for removal of healthy Oak
trees. Mr. Baldwin responded that there were none.
Mr. Kruckeberg stated that the Modification Committee may want to address to the larger issue
of removing healthy Oaks based on allergy reasons before making a decision on this specific
project. He went on to say that he would like to hear the applicant's comments on this matter
and that it was unfortunate that he couldn't due to her absence from the meeting.
Mr. Penman stated that this case could be policy-setting and it would be a good candidate to
refer to the Planning Commission.
AC_
Referred to the Planning Commission, 3-0
APPEAL PERIOD
There is a five (5) working day appeal period for this application. The approval is not effective
until Wednesday, October 19, 2011 provided the Committee's action is not appealed. An
appeal must be submitted in writing to the Community Development Division with the $540.00
appeal fee by 5:30 p.m. on Monday, April 18, 2011.
EXPIRATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
The approval granted by this application shall expire one year (October 19, 2012) from the
effective date unless the project is completed or the approval is renewed.
The actual project must be consistent with the approval granted by the Modification Committee.
Any deviation from the Committee's action shall be subject to review and approval by the
Community Development Administrator and may require a new application and another public
hearing.
If there are any questions, please call Nick Baldwin, Assistant Planner, at (626) 574-5444 or by
e-mail at nbaldwin(a�ci.arcadia.ca.us.
Approved by:
Lisa L. Flores, Senior Planner
PLANNING COMMISSIONER PRESENT:
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Baerg
Penman
PLANNING SERVICES REPRESENTATIVE: , Kruckeberg
Baldwin
TRH 11-05
October 11, 2011
Page 2
Wrr1rrrr1rr
RECENED
October 11, 2001 OCT 19 2011
planning SarVioes
Arcadia City Hall City of Arrdio
. .........
240 West Huntington Dr
Arcadia, CA 91066
(626)574-5400
Attention: Planning Department(Jim Kasama-Head Management)
I am Linda Lee, owner at 130 West Longden Ave, Arcadia, CA 91007. I have requested
the city of Arcadia for the removal permit of the two oak trees since August 2011. I've
learned from Nick that my case hearing was deferred on the committee meeting
(10/11/11)because I was not present at the meeting. Previously, I was told by Nick that
my present at the meeting was not mandatory, but it now seems my application was
delayed for this reason.
On September 2011 Lisa Flores and Nick Baldwin have asked for all the evidence to
support my application for the removal of the oaks in my backyard. Thus far, I have
provided all the require documents per Lisa and Nick request and was told by Lisa &
Nick as completed on 9/21/2011.
It has become appearance that the City Planning Department is intentionally delaying my
application for one excuse after another.
First,Nick asking me to get a recommendation from the Arborist to recommend for the
removal of the trees even when Nick is aware that the Arborist had refused to do so
because the Arborist(Mike)think that the tree should be trim and treated.
Secondly, I told Nick that my sons have severe allergic issues with the oak and yet he
still insist that I must get a letter of recommendation from the Arborist in order for him
to process my application. I was disappointed by Nick's request because my sons are
sick with severe asthma and he ignored my concern but instead kept on insisting for my
Arborist's recommendation.
Thirdly,I received a phone called from Nick at 6:00 pm on 10/11/2011 and was told that
my application was deferred and further delayed because I was not present at the
meeting, even when I was told by Nick that it is not mandatory. So, why now my case is
dragging until the next meeting on 10/25/11?
Again, of all the excuses from Nick and Lisa I am extremely upset and tire of the way the
city is handling this case.
Therefore, I am sending a letter of release from liability to the city's attention.
I had initially presented this letter to Lisa and Nick on 9/9/11, but they both refused to
accept. They told me that my provided evidence was sufficient for the committee and
that I should not submit the "Release from Liability" letter.
However, my sons are in danger with their medical problem and I cannot wait for further
delays
Again, if my case doe not conclude by the next meeting(10/25/2011), I will pursue legal
action against the city for negligent to respond to a very serious medical problem of my
sons.
Sincerely
Linda Lee
September 09,2011
Arcadia City Hall
240 Huntington Dr.
Arcadia CA 91006
(626)574 5400
To: City of Arcadia
Attn: Planning Department
Regard: Letter of Release from Liability
I Linda Lee owner of property at 130 West Longden Ave, CA 91007,writing this letter to inform
the city of Arcadia that I have asked for the permission for the removal of the oak trees in my
backyard due to my sons medical conditions and also due to the potential property
damages/personal injuries on mine and my neighbors' homes.
My neighbor and 1 strongly agreed and request for the removal of the two oak trees as soon as
possible.
If the City of Arcadia keeps insisting not to allow the removal of the trees,then the city is legally
and financially liable on any damages and injuries to anyone, including my sons' medical bills
relating to the illness cause from those trees.
According to the rules and regulations of City of Arcadia, I am released from any legal or
financial liability, damages, or lawsuit upon me, friends, relatives,and neighbors cause by the
two oak trees in my backyard.
In addition,City of Arcadia Planners Lisa L. Flores(Senior Planner) and Nick Baldwin (Assistant
Planner)requested a written recommendation from my Arborist(Mike Parker)to recommend for
the removal of the oaks in order for the city to make a decision.
However,Mike Parker refused to make this statement. City of Arcadia is aware that Mike Parker
is an Arborist and not a medical doctor to make a recommendation to remove the trees base on
medical issues.
Mike Parker told me that he is an Arborist only,and therefore he could not authorize or
recommend any thing that relate to medical matters. He told me to ask my doctor or sons
Pediatrician on his recommendation,relating to all medical issues.
Therefore,the final decision and consequences rest totally upon the decision of City of Arcadia.
Sign: Date: 776//
Linda Lee
Sign: Date:
City of Arcadia or Representative
(Your signature is acknowledgement of receiving this Release Letter from the applicant)
`a 0�edice Ad 4�
Sreedhar Chava, M.D. .� r � ��"� �."�.`` �° ,._,`x
*'' �L" Family Medical Clinic LL
t
+ 1, }GHAVA .
8/17/2011
To Whom It May Concern:
Regard: Justin Lee and John Lee
Mrs. Linda Lee has asked me to write a statement regarding the health risk of oak tree to her sons
Justin and John. Mrs. Lee's family recently relocates to their new home at 130 W. Longden Ave.
Arcadia in March 2011.
I am her son's pediatrician. They've been having allergic symptoms including frequent nosebleeds,
difficulty breathing due to asthma exacerbations, sinus congestions, multiple skin cuts and infections
relating to oak trees in her home.
Mrs. Lee also mentioned that there are oak trees in her backyard that was found to have infested with
termites and borers. One large branch also has broken in the past month.
My opinion is that Justin and John will continue to have persistent and possibly worsening of their
respiratory problems and injuries while living near those trees.
Should there be any questions, please don't hesitate to contact my office.
Sincerely.
Sreedhar Chava, MD
3580 "A" Santa Anita Ave. El Monte, CA, 91731. P1-I: (626) 444-2660 • FX: (626) 448-1002
Yeas®v r" g odice
`
Sreedhar Chava, M.D.
vgakliorr. Family Medical Clinic
",
R• Hp1lA
so
9/09/2011
To City Of Arcadia:
Regard: Justin Lee and John Lee
Mrs. Linda Lee has come to see me last week with her son John for treatment of a severe asthmatic
attack and upper respiratory problem. She requests my recommendation to the situation with the oak
trees in her backyard. I have mentioned in my previous letter that Justin and John have severe allergic
reactions to oaks which can be life threatening. Accordingly, Mrs. Lee requested Arcadia City
permission to remove those trees with much resistant.
Arcadia City Council insists Mrs. Lee's Arborist to write a letter of recommendation to remove the oak
trees, which have met with much resistance from her arborist on this issue.
Mike Parker (Arborist) recommended trimming and treating the insect infested trees to prevent further
property damage. However, doing the above measure alone will not prevent the trees from rerouting
and spreading leafs, pollens, and allergens to the surrounding home.
It is therefore in the best interest of the city and to the health welfare of John and Justin to remove
those oak trees permanently.
Should there be any questions, please don't hesitate to contact my office.
Sincerely,
Sreedhar Chava, MD Lam` '
3580 "A" Santa Anita Ave. El Monte, CA, 91731• PH: (626) 444-2660 - FX: (626) 448-ton?
Arcadia City Hall
240 Huntington Dr.
Arcadia Ca 91006
(626) 574-5400
To Whom It May Concern:
•
• Re: Consent Letter
We are Bob and Karen Jeung, the owner of property at 123 W Birchcroft Street,
Arcadia, CA 91007.
We consent and agreed with Mrs. Linda Lee on the removal of two oak trees in
her backyard crossing over the property line. There is potential for personal
injuries and property damages between both of our properties side. Thank you.
Husband Signature: Date: -//
i L►�-
Wife Signature: �%";•.`"�• Date: 6 aC11/ .
Ao ulo , �� "-e
byy „e_A;rxd. tio .0AccLoca, toe. ap-e-e- t-eme-ey,
with -etc niii200aLA
" ta&-,tatri.
otAL
+Am) n
otaxnageo tot- rYw--914-t
9,6 vizi x - OE. '
6-64-4-trat- '$
,a.rue
h,/n vZ
sdozi:ro.
k woo! 1 MINUTES
ARCADIA PLANNING COMMISSION
tI4$° Tuesday, October 25, 2011, 7:00 P.M.
4.00 Arcadia City Council Chambers
- EXCERPT—
1. OAK TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. TRH 11-05
130 W. Longden Ave. and 123 W. Birchcroft St.
Ms. Linda Lee
The applicant is requesting an Oak Tree Removal Permit for two healthy Coast Live Oak
trees that are located on the common rear property line.
RECOMMENDATION: Conditional Approval
Assistant Planner, Nick Baldwin, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Parrille asked if a survey of oak trees within 500 feet of the property had
been conducted. Mr. Baldwin said there was no survey but that on a recent site visit he
noticed an oak tree in the neighbor's yard overhanging the applicant's rear yard.
Chairman Baerg noted that the allergy test results were dated April and asked when the
application for removal of the oak trees was first filed. Mr. Baldwin said the application was
originally filed in August. Chairman Baerg pointed out that there was a four month delay
between the allergy tests and filing of the application.
Chairman Baerg said that the first letter from the applicant's pediatrician did not mention life-
threatening conditions but the following letter did. He asked what triggered the second
letter. Mr. Baldwin explained that staff asked Dr. Chava for further explanation as to some
of the statements made in the first letter.
Chairman Baerg asked if the property owner to the west with the Oak tree that overhangs
the subject property, had been contacted. Mr. Baldwin said that he has had no contact with
that property owner.
In response to an email from the applicant's neighbor, Chairman Baerg asked Mr. Baldwin if
he was aware of any plans for a pool or block wall fence at the site. Mr. Baldwin said he
had not been told of any plans for a pool or fence.
The Public Hearing was opened.
Chairman Baerg asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of this project.
Ms. Linda Lee, the applicant, explained that she filed the application out of concern for her
children. She said that both boys are suffering severe allergic reactions and that she has
had to send them to her mother's home for the present.
Commissioner Parrille asked if the children were taking medication. Ms. Lee said that the
boys have inhalers and that they are experiencing nose bleeds and swollen faces and that
the symptoms are very severe.
EXCERPT FROM PC MINUTES—TRH 11-05
130 W. Longden Ave. & 123 W. Birchcroft St.
October 25, 2011 —Page 1
Commissioner Parrille asked the ages of the children and Ms. Lee said they are 5 and 6
years old.
Commissioner Parri lle noted that a neighbor reported seeing the boys playing in the yard
without experiencing any allergic symptoms. Ms. Lee said that the symptoms can occur at
any time and that she has tried to clean up her yard to reduce symptoms.
Commissioner Parrille asked if the boys had this type of reaction before moving to Arcadia
and Ms. Lee said they had not.
Commissioner Baderian pointed out that there are many oak trees throughout the city and
asked Ms. Lee how she would prevent contact with them. Ms. Lee said she doesn't know
what will happen when the boys go to school but that she wants to prevent contact in the
back yard.
Chairman Baerg asked if anyone wanted to speak in opposition to this project.
Ms. Betsy Caputo, the neighbor directly across the street from the property to the rear of the
applicant, said she and her family have been living in their home for 45 years. She said that
as a mother and grandmother, she sympathizes with Ms. Lee but she asked, if the children
are really in jeopardy, is it wise to remain in the City. Ms. Caputo pointed out that every time
the boys are outdoors, they will be exposed to oak trees, for example; at school, the library,
etc. She said that the removal of mature oak trees in the applicant's yard will not solve the
problem but may set a damaging precedent for removal of oak trees.
Chairman Baerg asked if the applicant would like to speak in rebuttal.
Mr. Kevin Lee, the husband of the applicant and the boys' father, said that he understands
that the City of Arcadia protects oak trees but that the trees have become burdensome for
his family. Mr. Lee assured the Commissioners that he is aware that his children cannot
avoid all oak trees but he feels that they should be free of them where they live. Mr. Lee
said that it is not reasonable to expect those who suffer this problem to leave the city and
that they have good reasons to remain where they are.
Commissioner Baderian asked if a doctor had recommended any medication for relief of
allergic symptoms the boys were experiencing. Mr. Lee said the doctor has provided them
with allergy pills, a nebulizer and epinephrine for injection.
Commissioner Baderian asked if the doctor had indicated that removal of the two trees in
question would reduce future reaction. Mr. Lee said that any oak trees can trigger a reaction
so why not eliminate the trees where you live.
Commissioner Baderian asked if the boys experienced allergic reactions prior to moving to
Arcadia. Mr. Lee said that the boys had asthma and allergies since they were babies but
that the symptoms are much more severe since moving to Arcadia.
EXCERPT FROM PC MINUTES—TRH 11-05
130 W. Longden Ave. & 123 W. Birchcroft St.
October 25, 2011 —Page 3
MOTION
It was moved by Commissioner Beranek, seconded by Commissioner Baderian to close the
Public Hearing. Without objection the motion was approved.
Commissioner Perri lle expressed sympathy for the family but said he was concerned about
setting an unwanted precedent with the removal of these trees. He stated that since this
case could have citywide implications, he felt it should be referred to the City Council.
Chairman Baerg said that it was not clear how removal of these trees would help the
situation since there will still be lots of oak trees nearby. He noted that this would be the first
time that allergies have been used as the basis for removing oak trees and he expressed
concern about the precedent that would be set.
Commissioner Beranek agreed with Commissioner Perri lle and Chairman Baerg. He said
that he couldn't see how removal of these two trees would solve the problem and that he too
is concerned about setting a precedent.
Chairman Baerg asked if the matter could be directly referred to the City Council to avoid
incurring filing fees for the applicant. Mr. Kasama said that it could be directly referred to
Council from the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Beranek suggested that the Commission should indicate their stand on the
matter to the City Council.
Mayor Pro Tem Harbicht said that he will appeal the case to the City Council so no cost will
be incurred by the applicant and no paperwork will be required.
MOTION
It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Beranek to deny Oak
Tree Removal Permit application No. TRH 11-05.
ROLL CALL
AYES: Commissioners Baderian, Beranek, Perrille and Baerg
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Chiao
EXCERPT FROM PC MINUTES—TRH 11-05
130 W. Longden Ave. & 123 W. Birchcroft St.
October 25, 2011 —Page 3
1. `t. ' ...
Oak
r.
t
F.'
taw.0 T.t , "‘ allif
'4C `r r° I
Y g ss }
ye,,. 7.1-,',,„,' 3
��`� ��i* 'spa S. t IS'k i u,
.,,.Z. . , ' ..). ' 4. ''' ' '''t4t tyi.
a
Oak tree on Adjacent Property,View from Rear Yard
i't
�, p' a
V �..
Tom
, , ),!.
Oak � , ;
la .w'' ' :-,-
,
J,. y
[['774' ,-
it5
7 - i ikr emu,.^+.., +�..., ---;....„,_ . ,
f )..,...s.,............, ,ts-s,,,,z,,,,,,- -
♦ s
Oak tree on Adjacent Property,View from Front Yard
1 ! ' ' r CITY OF ARCADIA
240 W.HUNTINGTON DRIVE
it' ARCADIA,CA 91007
oaf/ of
PRELIMINARY EXEMPTION ASSESSMENT
(Certificate of Determination
When Attached to Notice of Exemption)
1. Name or description of project: TRH 11-05
2. Project Location—Identify street 130 W.Longden Avenue.
address and cross streets or attach a
map showing project site(preferably a
USGS 15' or 7 1/2'topographical map
identified by quadrangle name):
3. Entity or person undertaking project: A.
B. Other(Private)
(1) Name Linda Lee
(2) Address 130 W.Longden Avenue,Arcadia,CA 91007
4. Staff Determination:
The Lead Agency's Staff,having undertaken and completed a preliminary review of this project in accordance with
the Lead Agency's"Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)"has
concluded that this project does not require further environmental assessment because:
a. ❑ The proposed action does not constitute a project under CEQA.
b. ❑ The project is a Ministerial Project. ry
c. ❑ The project is an Emergency Project.
d. ❑ The project constitutes a feasibility or planning study.
e. ® The project is categorically exempt.
Applicable Exemption Class: 04-Minor Alterations to Land
f. ❑ The project is statutorily exempt.
Applicable Exemption:
g. El The project is otherwise exempt on
the following basis:
h. ❑ The project involves another public agency which constitutes the Lead Agency.
Name of Lead Agency:
tr
Date: 10-20-11 Staff:
) &A A)
Preliminary Exemption Assessment\2011 FORM"A"