Carpinteria Planning Commission keeps prior approval for Burgess Burke remodel, rejects staff revision that would allow removal of Jacaranda street tree

The Carpinteria City Planning Commission voted 5-0 to conceptually deny staff’s proposed revision that would have allowed removal of a public Jacaranda street tree to accommodate a revised driveway apron for a proposed remodel and addition at the Burgess Burke residence.

Chair Allen opened the continued public hearing and staff recapped the project: a 1,836-square-foot addition to an existing 997-square-foot single-family residence (a total of 2,833 square feet) including a new second floor, a new garage and a proposed driveway apron on Maple Avenue. Staff told the commission that after the commission’s November approval — which included an added condition to retain the existing driveway configuration to preserve the street tree — public works reviewed construction-level details and concluded the tree would obstruct required sight distance for the driveway apron and that apron revisions would likely compromise the tree’s roots and trunk.

John Lawson, the city’s traffic engineer, told the commission public works had reviewed the site and that, in his assessment, ‘‘this particular tree is not in an ideal location’’ for a driveway apron and ‘‘it warrants a removal, in my opinion.’’ Lawson also said the municipal code gives the public works director authority to remove a street tree that poses a public safety hazard.

Applicant representatives and the project architect said they attempted alternate curb-and-apron geometries, including different sweep radii, but that making the apron conform to current standards would encroach on the tree’s root zone and likely threaten its survival. The architect said he could not find a way to implement the apron changes without substantial impact to the tree.

Several neighbors and members of the public urged the commission to preserve the mature Jacaranda, noting street-tree canopy value and alternatives such as shifting the driveway to the rear. Nathan Pratt said the RFP process for an unrelated project ‘‘is thin’’ and urged care in decision timing; another commenter estimated the value of a mature street tree at roughly $50,000. Commissioner statements emphasized balancing public-safety norms with the city’s urban-forest and tree-canopy policies.

During deliberations multiple commissioners said they did not see new, decisive evidence that would overturn last month’s condition to retain the current driveway alignment. Commissioners asked staff to work with public works to consider design exceptions that could preserve the tree while responding to safety concerns. A motion to conceptually deny the staff’s proposed revision and direct staff to return with findings for denial carried on a 5-0 roll call (Commissioners Moyer, Van Antwerp, LaFeavers, Benefield and Chair Allen voting yes).

The commission’s action is procedural: staff said the prior approval remains effective unless the commission formally approves revised conditions. Staff also said the public works director retains independent authority under the municipal code to remove a street tree when the city determines it poses a public safety hazard.

Next steps: staff will prepare findings for denial to return to the commission at a future meeting unless the applicant elects to withdraw the request to revise conditions. The commission’s decision tonight does not itself prohibit public works from exercising its municipal-code authority in separate action.