Pleasant Hill commissioners remand appeal over mimosa tree at 96 Dublin Drive to zoning administrator

The Pleasant Hill Planning Commission on June 23 remanded an appeal over a zoning administrator's denial of a tree removal permit for a mimosa tree at 96 Dublin Drive, directing the zoning administrator to gather additional site information and attempt to resolve the matter at the staff level before it returns to the commission.

Staff planner Andrew Shifflett recommended denying the appeal and upholding the zoning administrator's decision, telling the commission the tree meets the city's protected-tree threshold under the Pleasant Hill tree preservation ordinance and that the applicant had not supplied technical evidence linking the tree to the driveway or adjacent sidewalk damage. "No medical documentation was provided that would support the tree removal at a staff level," Shifflett said during his presentation, and he noted the property is not in a high fire hazard area, so fire-clearance rules do not apply.

Applicant Evan Daly told commissioners the mimosa causes his daughter's allergies, that his insurer (AAA) had notified the family of a cancellation tied to perceived fire risk, and that driveway constraints (utilities and steep slopes) make widening on the opposite side infeasible. "I'm here asking you today to cut down just one of those trees, an invasive allergenic fire danger tree, so that I can beautify my corner," Daly said. Daly and several neighbors submitted photos, an arborist note, insurance documents, and contractor sketches; Daly said the arborist report his side paid for was brief and incomplete.

Four public speakers backed the appeal, citing child health concerns, prior local mimosa trees blown down in storms, and practical limits on where the Daly family can expand their driveway. Neighbor David Scherer said two mimosa trees on a nearby road had fallen across sidewalks during storms. Bill Marshall and another neighbor described willingness to plant replacement trees and to accept mitigation measures.

Commission discussion was split. Commissioners who supported removal cited the tree's described flammability, storm history of similar trees in the area and concern for a child's health. Commissioners opposing immediate approval emphasized the lack of site-specific technical analysis and of medical documentation tying the daughter's allergies to this specific tree, saying the ordinance requires findings based on evidence for each application. One commissioner noted that many residents have allergies and that without documentation it's difficult to make a precedent-setting exception.

The commission discussed conditioning any removal on replacement plantings and noted the ordinance's replacement ratio for non-native trees (1:1) and commonly used planting size (about 15-gallon containers) but said the commission could direct a different size or species if it approved removal. Because two commissioners favored removal and two opposed, the commission opted to remand the matter to the zoning administrator "for further review," instructing staff to work with the applicant to collect clearer plans, utility information and any additional technical or medical documentation that could bear on the ordinance findings. The motion passed on a roll-call vote (yes: Commissioners Chiang, Nelson, Vaverick and Weiler; absent: Commissioners Coughlin, Weber, Field). The mover and seconder were not named on the record.

Next steps: the zoning administrator may review new information and, if the findings can be made, approve the permit without returning the matter to the Planning Commission; if the zoning administrator denies the permit again, the appeal would return to the commission for another hearing.

The Planning Commission then moved to other business and adjourned at 7:38 p.m.; its next regular meeting is scheduled for July 14, 2026 at 6:30 p.m.