Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tree Removal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission approves several tree‑removal permits; staff requires nesting‑bird avoidance measures
Summary
The Nevada City Planning Commission approved tree‑removal applications across multiple properties (431 Broad, 331 Brock, 788 Nevada and others), with staff emphasising compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and conditions including avoidance of nesting impacts, mitigation plantings for some sites, and erosion control for steep cut banks.
The Nevada City Planning Commission voted to approve a series of tree‑removal permits for residential and commercial properties across Nevada City, hearing staff analyses of each site’s tree health, root impacts, and site constraints and imposing conditions to avoid migratory‑bird impacts.
At 431 Broad Street (a small historic inn), staff said four trees — two cottonwoods and two black walnuts — were proposed for removal because roots were lifting foundation walls and the removal exceeded the 20% threshold for on‑site regulated trees, triggering commission review. Staff recommended and the commission approved removal with the standard condition to avoid impacts to nesting birds under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
At 331 Brock Street, staff recommended removal of three very large trees (two Ponderosa pines and a cedar) because root systems and falling limbs were damaging driveways and threatening structures; the commission approved removal with a mitigation condition of planting one 5‑gallon tree per removed large tree, to be verified by staff after installation.
At 788 Nevada Street staff updated the record to show 16 trees proposed for removal out of 73 on site (≈22%); reasons included dead or dying trunks, split tops, leaning trees close to structures, and overcrowding. Staff recommended approval without replacement plantings because the parcel remains heavily treed; approval included erosion‑control measures for stump removal on a steep cut bank and standard conditions to avoid nesting impacts.
Public comment raised concerns about nesting season and the prevalence of dead nestlings after in‑season removals; staff responded that municipal code lacks a specific nesting‑survey requirement but that avoidance of nesting birds is a standard condition and that larger projects commonly hire a biologist to perform pre‑construction nesting surveys. Commissioners discussed adding a stronger, uniform requirement to avoid nesting season or require surveys; the commission retained the standard condition but acknowledged broader code and policy discussions could be referred to city council.
What happens next: each approved project will receive a conditional approval letter and must comply with the staff conditions, including avoiding active nests or conducting a pre‑work survey if removal cannot wait until after nesting season. For some approvals, mitigation plantings (minimum five‑gallon specimens) must be installed and verified by staff.
