Tree removal request denied in San Carlos

The appellant, Kevin Collins on behalf of the La Ventana Homeowners Association, requested 29 out of 31 Canary pine trees that exist on the property be removed because they present fire risks. While the commission agreed some trees may be a fire hazard or have other dangers, they noted many don’t and could not approve the appeal as a whole. Instead, the commission suggested the permit application be resubmitted with greater information on the risks of the trees or tree removal permits be submitted individually. 

Arguing his case, Collins said the trees have grown substantially larger than the original planner intended and many now sit relatively close to existing buildings. Initially an application was submitted requesting 52 trees be removed, 20 of which were not classified as “protected” and exempt from the permit request. Two dead protected trees were also recommended for removal by the city arborist. 

Harris said any tree can become hazardous if poorly maintained, specifically pine trees which shed large loads of pine needles, but noted pine trees themselves are not hazardous. Within city code the trees only need to be at least 10 feet away from a chimney or a stovepipe outlet to create a defensible fire zone between the vegetation and homes. 

The municipal code used to decide whether the trees are a fire hazard was last updated in 2011 but does not detail which types of trees constitute a greater fire risk. Commissioner John Dugan suggested the city revisit its “objective nature of standard,” suggesting the city should instead support the subjective view of fire hazard professionals. 

“If a professional determines it’s a fire hazard then that should be it,” said Dugan, questioning whether trees are only hazardous if dead or too close to chimneys. 

During a Board of Supervisors study session on fire fuel load reduction, Cal Fire Chief Richard Sampson listed pine trees as a non-native fire hazard, noting only the Monterey pine is the only native species to the area. Sampson listed “various” species of pines, along with eucalyptus and gorse trees as vegetation subject to eradication from the county to mitigate wildfires. 

“When you talk about trees torching in a neighborhood, it’s probably pine trees that are torching. They just take off when they’re heated,” said Sampson, noting most pines in the county are hybrids from those planted in the early 1900s with a life span of 40 years. 

Harris said the neighborhood is in a significantly better condition to defend against fires than it was in 2018 when the community was first cited for not maintaining the trees. The city arborist also suggested the remaining 29 trees could be trimmed to provide a substantial defensible zone, not affecting the health or aesthetic value of the trees. 

Review of the property and trees in question was done by Fire Prevention Officer Daniel Noe with the Redwood City and San Carlos Fire Department and Patrick Griffin, deputy fire marshal with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Noe noted crews developed a defensible space below the neighborhood around Devonshire Canyon which exceeds 100 feet, upward of 300 feet from homes. Within the final decision, Griffin is noted as saying “the property is so well maintained it should be used as a guide in San Mateo County for how to maintain proper defensible space in high fire severity zones.”

Commissioners suggested the applicants come forward with a plan to replace the trees but did not require the condition within the denial. Collins and other residents have informally expressed to staff they would submit a formal tree replacement plan but were not required to under the initial permit process. 

sierra@smdailyjournal.com 

(650) 344-5200 ext. 106