General Trees - Laserfiche WebLink

New Search

HAMMITT Bob From: MEDLIN Johnny R To: HAMMITT Bob Subject: FW: Braewood Hills PUD Tree Issues Date: Wednesday, May 14, 1997 12:45PM FYI .... Johnny From: PLAMONDON Scott F To: MEDLIN Johnny R Subject: FW: Braewood Hills PUD Tree Issues Date: Wednesday, May 14, 1997 10:10AM Johnny, thought you would like to see this memo. Thanks Scott From: MCKERROW Mike J To: NATHANSON Nancy L Cc: COURTNEY Teresa K; BELLMORE Mike; PLAMONDON Scott F; JACOBSON Jerry P; GASSMAN Dick L Subject: Braewood Hills PUD Tree Issues Date: Wednesday, May 14, 1997 9:38AM Nancy, a semi -quick update. After getting a complaint from Alice and Robert Curzon (2284 Lasater) in the late afternoon on Monday, 5/12, about a backhoe clearing brush in a conservation zone in Braewood Hills 1st Add. PUD I went to the site to investigate. I talked to Dave Nystrom, a logger who was hired by lot 51 owner, Rudy Hedberg, to clear "noxious" vegetation from the site. Lot 51 is vacant and is the northernmost lot on the E side of Lasater in Braewood 1st Addition. Before going out to the site I did some preliminary research and made copies of a memo from Rob Lilley, planner who approved the final PUD, to the Urban Forester. The memo outlined specific language regulating activities in the conservation zone and informed the Urban Forester on the process to authorize the removal of hazardous trees over 8 inches in diameter. (The memo was written after the big wind storm that blew a large tree down from the top of the ridge. Since that time almost all of the large trees have been declared hazardous and removed.) The relevant language in the PUD could be better. It states that the area within the conservation zone "shall be a no disturbance zone. Cutting of significant structurally sound trees shall not be allowed." These two statements were added by the Planning Commision when the PUD approval was appealed. However, right after that language the condition of approval also says that "Noxious vegetation such as poison oak and blackberries may be removed." There is no limit to those two types of plants and noxious vegetation is not defined in the PUD. The langauge doesn't specify that any noxious vegetation must be removed by hand and not by machine. The logger, at the lot owner's request, is removing "brush" and living plant material to reduce the fire hazard during the dry months (something the Fire Marshall promotes). I distributed a copy of the memo to the complainant and logger while at the site Monday evening. I also stressed that all trees in the conservation zone over 8 inches in diameter DBH (4.5' above ground) are clearly protected by the PUD language. After discussing the PUD language and the situation with my supervisor I called the complainant and left a message with the property owner that at this time we can not identify a clear violation on this lot that warrants enforcement action. We are involved in another case in the same PUD at lot 48 (higher along the top of the ridge to the south) where approximately 15 maple trees in the coservation zone were topped off, apparently to increase the view. It appears that we can pursue enforcement in this case since the specific PUD language says "cutting" of significant, structurally sound trees. We will proceed with the investigation and will rely on the Urban Forester to help us with any technical needs regarding impacts to the health of the severely pruned trees. One last note: With the proposed cuts in Code Compliance reducing land use inspectors from 3 to .5 FTE general fund support, it appears that we will not be able to provide investigations of this type (vegetation removal in PUD /SRs) in the near future. Due to anticipated staff changes in the next several weeks (one of the land use inspectors has found a job in engineering) we are planning to make appropriate work program reductions focusing only on health and safety related issues. Thanks. Page 1