The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutph1treeappeal1570pennyln FROM: Daryl R. Grigsby, Public Works Director Prepared By: Barbara Lynch, Deputy Director of Public Works Ron Combs, City Arborist SUBJECT: APPEAL OF TREE COMMITTEE DECISION TO ALLOW TREE REMOVAL AT 1570 PENNY LANE RECOMMENDATION As recommended by the Tree Committee, adopt a resolution denying the appeal of the Tree Committee’s decision to approve the removal of three Eucalyptus trees, and deny the removal of one Eucalyptus tree at 1570 Penny Lane. DISCUSSION Background On November 7, 2013, Shelli Winter and Michael Rubottom filed a Tree Removal application for the removal of four Blue Gum Eucalyptus trees at 1570 Penny Lane, citing the need for vehicle access to implement site development. The owner proposes to replace the removed trees with three new trees, a Sycamore, Japanese Maple, and Australian Willow (Attachment 1). Because the removal is related to a development application, the removal application was first reviewed with the Community Development Department before proceeding to the Tree Committee. The project received a Use Permit with conditions in August of 2012, including condition number 8, requiring removals to be reviewed by the Tree Committee (Attachment 2). For projects associated with development, the City Arborist reviews tree removals per Municipal Code Section 12.24.090.E.2 and provides a recommendation, using the guidelines for removal established in Section 12.24.090.D.1: a. The tree is a hazard to life or property, and removing it is the only feasible way to eliminate the hazard; b. The tree is dead or dying or damaged beyond reclamation; c. The tree is causing severe root damage to public or private property, and removing the tree is the only feasible way to eliminate the damage. The City Arborist reviewed the condition of the trees upon receipt of the removal application. In this case, the City Arborist was not able to recommend removal as no major defect, disease, or damage was observed on the trees. The City Arborist also did not find that the trees presented any hazard or were causing severe root damage that feasibly could be remedied only by removal of the trees. Tree Committee Decision Per the City’s Municipal Code Section 12.24.090.D.2, when the City Arborist cannot authorize a tree removal, the Tree Committee shall review the application and may authorize removal if it finds one of the following circumstances: Meeting Date Item Number 3/4/14 PH1 - 1 a. The tree is causing undue hardship to the property owner. Normal routine maintenance does not constitute a hardship, i.e., cleaning of gutters, leaf raking, or root intrusion into a failed sewer lateral, etc.; or b. Removing the tree promotes good arboricultural practice; or c. Removing the tree will not harm the character or environment of the surrounding neighborhood. On January 27, 2014, the Tree Committee heard the removal request. All Tree Committee members inspected the trees prior to the meeting. This is standard protocol for all tree removal requests so that the members can make an informed decision at the public hearing. Prior to the meeting, two emails were received expressing concerns regarding the removals (Attachment 3). One correspondent cited slope stability concerns, and another suggested further investigation is needed into their cultural and historic contribution to the community. The approved site design includes retaining walls around the structure, and the project has both a geotechnical and structural engineer on the design team. It appears slope stability has been evaluated and addressed. As to the need for further historical review, research indicates that although Eucalyptus may be significant in groves as a theme in the Railroad Historic District, the subject trees, location, and size of property do not contribute to this character. There is no mention of Eucalyptus in the City’s Railroad District Plan. There were seven community members at the Tree Committee meeting who spoke against allowing the removal. The concerns were primarily neighborhood character. The Committee members felt the trees presented an undue hardship for the property owners, which justified removal (Attachment 4). The Tree Committee approved the removal of three of the four requested trees and denied the removal of the remaining tree at 1570 Penny Lane, finding that removal of the fourth tree would harm the character of the surrounding neighborhood (Attachment 5). Appeal On January 29, 2013 the City Clerk’s office received an appeal of the Tree Committee’s decision of January 27, 2014, from Stephen Lamb. In the appeal, Mr. Lamb indicated the removal would have irrevocable damage to the character of the neighborhood (Attachment 6). As noted earlier, staff does not agree that the subject trees contribute to the historic neighborhood character because of the location of the trees and size of the property. According to Municipal Code Section 1.20 the Council can consider any information in the record and available to all parties, which it deems necessary to make its decision after the appellant is given the opportunity to explain why the Tree Committee’s decision should be overturned. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact realized by the City in the denial of the appeal. PH1 - 2 ALTERNATIVE Uphold the appeal. The City Council could choose to uphold the appeal to retain the trees, thereby not allowing the removal of the three Blue Gum Eucalyptus trees at 1570 Penny Lane. ATTACHMENTS 1. Tree Removal Application 2. Use Permit conditions 3. Correspondence 4. Tree Committee minutes 5. Tree Committee decision letter 6. Tree Committee decision appeal 7. Municipal Code Sections 8. Resolution denying appeal 9. Resolution upholding appeal g:\staff-reports-agendas-minutes\_car\2014 post-approval\trees\1570 penny appeal\report 1570 penny appeal.docx PH1 - 3 ATTACHMENT 1 - 1 PH1 - 4 ATTACHMENT 1 - 2 PH1 - 5 ATTACHMENT 2 - 1 PH1 - 6 ATTACHMENT 2 - 2 PH1 - 7 ATTACHMENT 2 - 3 PH1 - 8 1 Lynch, Barbara Subject:FW: Penny Lane Tree Removal Tree Committee Meeting January 27 From: Mary Ellen Gibson [mailto:MEGibson@charter.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 5:37 PM To: Mejia, Anthony; Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy; rcoombs@slocity.org; Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; Codron, Michael; Dietrick, Christine; Lichtig, Katie Cc: Matt Ritter Subject: Penny Lane Tree Removal Tree Committee Meeting January 27 We are a wonderful neighborhood and look forward to new neighbors at the top of Penny Lane. As I am sure you are aware, historically, the railroad created a deep cut through the hill and street. The half street on the North side became Penny lane. I hope you will stop by and look at the top of the Lane. Over the decades, this “hill” (the top of Pe nny Lane) has eroded. Much of this is due to the vibrations from the trains that pass by daily. I have no objection to the building of a home on that site, but the vibrations from the daily trains directly affect all of us (one neighbor reported foundation damage from it). We (much further down the hill) regularly notice the affects of the vibration (glass shelves move and have to be pushed back). This is a minor inconvenience to us who are further away than the proposed building, but demonstrates the potential problems to a building at the top of the hill. Evidence of the effects of train vibrations can be seen with the“walkway” that was installed along the side of the railroad station some years ago. That is an excellent example of how quickly vibrations can cause damage. Trees and other plant life hold the soil and protect it from extreme erosion. Will the removal of the trees at the top impact the stability of the hill? If the city approves this and then the site proves to be unstable, I believe it could be a potential liability for the city. Maybe if you insist upon in-depth stabilization of the new home, it will all be fine. However, the heavy trucks transporting building materials to the site can only further impact the stability of this area. I hope you will do an in-depth evaluation of this site to help everyone (builder, neighbors, city) proactively solve potential problems. Thank you for your consideration and time. Mary Ellen Gibson 1251 Buchon (corner of Buchon and Penny Lane) 805.544.6624 PH1 - 9 1 Lynch, Barbara Subject:FW: Tree Committee CDD presence - 1570 Penny Lane tree removal within RR district Please forward this as Agenda Correspondence to your Tree Committee as regards 1570 Penny Lane. Please email it to them immediately and also provide hard copies to them prior to the meeting next week. thanks ------- To: Ron Combs/Tree Committee City Of San Luis Obispo 1570 Penny Lane was sold to the current owners by John Koch, who obtained title from the previous owner Union Pacific Railroad, who obtained title from the previous long term owner the Southern Pacific Railroad. I know this because I was working with the Southern Pacific prior to their purchase by the Union Pacific in order to acquire a few large tracts of land from them. I am the individual that helped George Moylan acquire the" Humbert Y track" (now "Moylan Terrace") from the Railroad for the Housing Authority... and also the fellow that told Neil Havlic about the large railroad land parcels above the railroad west of Cuesta Grade high on the ridge that were quietly available from the UP. The UP was selling all three parcels at the same time. This parcel was too small to be of use but the other two seemed like excellent candidates for purchase by the city (as open space) and by the housing authority (for low income housing). These two large sites were eventually acquired by these entities for just those purposes. I told John Koch about the availability of the Penny Lane parcel and he acquired it. None of these parcels were publicly for sale. The City of San Luis Obispo adopted the Railroad District Plan in 1998 prior to Mr. Koch's ownership of 1570 Penny Lane. This Parcel... having been owned by the RR upon the adoption of the Railroad District Plan would be incorporated as a component of this plan as the area of the plan begins at Johnson and continues southerly from Johnson incorporating all of the historic RR property. Indeed... the site "Penny Lane/Fairview st." is identified within the Railroad District Plan as being a "Key Railroad District Feature" (page 15) because of the old bridge that used to be there(exactly adjacent to 1570 Penny Lane) and its relationship to the potential future new bike bridge that is identified with the SLO City Bike plan that is to replace that now lost historic bridge. This Fairview Bridge is further listed on page 20 of the RR District Plan as being an "Historic Site". An entire paragraph is devoted to the site. Additionally... within the RR district plan there are many references to a "visually sensitive gateway" to our city. Page 28 in particular explains how the railroad is an historic gateway to our city... and goes on to describe how the area has "retained much of its original layout and visual character. Various actions are described... "Gateway Renovation Area" on Page 54 #20 states that "the city shall work with property owners along both sides of the rr right of way.... to improve the appearance of the City's gateway". Within the Introduction of the entire District plan... on page 4 "community objectives" is stated "to enhance the appearance of a visually sensitive gateway to the city because"... and then there are three bullets... the second of which states: "the railroad right-of-way is one of the City's largest contiguous open space areas". The Plan further explains how historic resources are "not clearly identified", and thus these historic resources "are being lost and are at risk". Indeed many of these resources are in fact already gone. PH1 - 10 2 Within the City's Capital improvement plan there is $105,000 dedicated to " RR corridor palm tree planting". This is to replace the trees lost over the years... and is an attempt to re-create the original landscaped conditions as developed by the Southern Pacific over 100 years ago. The RR didn't just plant Palm trees. It would seem that they also planted Eucalyptus Globulus (the subject of this tree removal plan) See the wikipedia article . According to Wikipedia Eucalyptus Globulus "was introduced in the mid 19th century partly in response to the Southern Pacific Railroad's need for timber to make railroad ties". There are hundreds of these trees all around the RR district I suspect precisely because the Southern Pacific planted them along with other non natives like the Canary Island Palm I mentioned just above in order to create a more attractive MAIN entrance to the city. (the automobile had not yet been invented). San Luis Obispo was the headquarters of the Southern Pacific... it would make sense that they also chose Eucalyptus Globulus for their landscape plan... and given the exact age of the trees this makes perfect sense. I would venture to state that the Eucalyptus Globulus forest on the south side of the RR tracks does indeed provide a unique and beautiful backdrop to the historic area, the RR station, the Water Tower etc... and also to the area near the Sears building just beyond the Roundhouse... and to the switching area... just below the Penny Lane site in question. It seems to be a repeating characteristic of the entire RR district. I have attached to this email an 1890's photo taken from Pacific St just east of Johnson which clearly shows these exact same 4 young eucalyptus Globulus just immediately east of the Fairview Bridge on what was then RR property. I would suspect that the 4 trees are just a few years old in this photo.The trees and bridge are above the brown barn structure and further in the distance ... (note the old horse drawn trolley on Johnson!) Dr. Matt Ritter... a noted California Botanist and one of the leading US experts on Eucalyptus describes Eucalyptus Globulus in his 2006 book "the Plants of San Luis Obispo" as weeds. It is ironic... that the specimens he chose to use for the subject of his photo of are the EXACT trees under discussion for removal on Penny Lane (see page 137 of his book photo attached). While they may be weeds in other areas... I suspect that Dr. Ritter, in that he is a member of the tree committee, could probably elaborate as to the likely origin of these trees... and whether they started as weeds here... or whether they were planted. The main sawmill of the Southern Pacific was right here in San Luis Obispo within this Historic District. Eucalyptus wood was being cut and formed into rr ties just a few hundred feet from these trees... and I suspect these trees were planted by the RR. I don't know it for fact... but there are enough clues to make me really wonder. It would seem that there may also be some educational usefulness as to the history of the railroad... the eucalyptus... and the rr ties... as is related to the Railroad Museum nearby. I suspect that the usage of the trees... their importation to the country because of the RR... and the fact that the sawmill was right here... would be a natural interpretational signage opportunity along some "walk of history type of trail or bike path. The RR safety trail would be the perfect place for this sign to be placed... and it is also perfectly convenient... because it is scheduled to travel immediately adjacent to these four Eucalyptus trees. You may be able to touch these trees from the trail property. As I have stated I would also suspect that there is some historic significance to these trees. We as a city have determined that the non native Canary Island Palm trees are historic along this corridor... and I imagine that with research the same determination will someday be made for the eucalyptus here. It would be sad if we allow these trees to be cut down without any further determination as their cultural, scenic, and or historic value... and end up spending hundreds of thousand of dollars at some future date to replant them as we are doing with the Palms now. PH1 - 11 3 So... I suggest that a careful cultural and historic assessment be made by qualified individuals as regards Eucalyptus Globulus along the RR district.. and then that this research is vetted by the Cultural Heritage Committee prior to any tree removal. It is too easy to make innocent and perhaps regrettable mistakes. ------------- Lastly... and separately... is there a accurate survey by a registered surveyor of the lot showing the exact location of the trees? I am not certain that these trees are even on this lot. They may in fact be on the Railroad right of way or straddling the lot line. The fences in this area may or may not be on the lot lines. I would like to be certain that these trees are indeed on the private property prior to deciding whether they can/should be removed for the residential development project. Eric Meyer cc. Phil Dunsmore, Doug Davidson attached... two photos below. PH1 - 12 4 **************** From: Dunsmore, Phil Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 11:33 AM To: Lynch, Barbara Cc: Davidson, Doug Subject: RE: Tree Committee CDD presence - 1570 Penny Lane tree removal within RR district I have reviewed the site, the plans and Eric’s letter and determined that this is outside of the CHC’s jurisdiction. Although Eucalyptus as a railroad theme may be significant in groves, the subject trees, size of the property and location of the trees clearly do not contribute to this character. There is no mention of Eucalyptus in the Railroad plan and they do not individually qualify as heritage trees. Thanks for including me in this correspondence. Phil Dunsmore Senior Planner, AICP City of San Luis Obispo Community Development 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 (805) 781-7522 PH1 - 13 TREE COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA MONDAY, JANUARY 27, 2014 Corporation Yard Conference Room 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo MEMBERS PRESENT: Jane Worthy, Matt Ritter, Trey Duffy, Ben Parker and Scott Loosley STAFF PRESENT: Ron Combs PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. MINUTES: Approval of Minutes of December 3, 2013 Mr. Parker moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Loosley seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. TREE REMOVAL APPLICATIONS 3. 1570 PENNY LANE (3 eucalyptus) Tom Jess, applicant’s representative, discussed the small site and majorly restricted ability to develop the property. He noted three trees were in direct line of vehicle access and retaining them would create severe hardship in developing the site. He noted a fourth tree was located in the City’s right-of-way. Shelli Winter, owner, discussed the small lot and the steep access that created the undue hardship. She agreed these were skyline trees, but noted that there were several other large trees in the immediate area. Mr. Combs reported that the large eucalyptus trees were relatively healthy. Mr. Ritter noted that the Committee had received several letters of opposition. PH1 - 14 Stefan Lamb, 1251 Buchon, discussed the neighborhood atmosphere and felt the trees provided a visual anchor, as well as a windbreak and natural wildlife habitat. He felt such a community resource should be protected. Mark Binder, 1563 Penny Lane, felt the character of the street would be irrevocably harmed. He agreed that the skyline trees were a wildlife habitat. Maryellen Gibson, 1251 Buchon, was concerned about the integrity of the cliff if the trees were removed, especially when the traveling train created significant vibrations in the area and could cause stabilization issues. Eric Meyer, 1232 Buchon, appreciated the predicament for the owners but could not support removal of the trees for vehicle accessibility. He discussed the possibility of a variance. Mr. Jess noted that the City would not likely cede any rights. Peter Safelli, 1235 Buchon, was extremely opposed to the removals and felt the environmental benefits were significant. Drew Ramsey, 1516 Penny Lane, agreed with all of the neighbor comments and felt the trees’ protection was paramount. Shelly Safelli, 1235 Buchon, stated the removals would leave an unsightly area and that the trees’ shading was significant. Ms. Winter noted that the fourth tree on the street was not listed for removal in the application. Mr. Loosley agreed that removing the trees would create an inhospitable area. He was also concerned about limb droppage on such a small site. He understood that the property could not be built without removing the three trees and was concerned that construction might adversely affect the viability of the fourth tree, which he noted was in need of drastic pruning. Mr. Parker felt that confirmation was needed to determine the habitat issues for the trees. Ms. Worthy noted the City deemed the lot buildable and favored removal, as retaining the trees would create undue hardship to the property owners and their plans to be able to utilize their property. Mr. Duffy agreed with Ms. Worthy. PH1 - 15 Mr. Duffy moved to approve the removal of the three site trees, based on undue hardship to the property owners, contingent upon a qualified biologist determining that no active nesting sites existed. He further required three 15-gallon replacement trees to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of tree removals. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Mr. Ritter voting against. The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m. to next regular meeting scheduled for Monday, February 24, 2014, at 5:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske, Recording Secretary PH1 - 16 25 Prado Road  San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 January 29, 2014 Shelli Winter and Michael Robottom 6135 Avenida Trinidad San Miguel, CA 93451 Your application for tree removal at 1570 Penny Ln. was reviewed by the City of San Luis Obispo Tree Committee on January 27, 2014. After careful consideration of the facts provided by you and an on-site inspection of the trees, the Committee members have voted in compliance with Municipal Code Section 12.24.180.C.6, to take the following actions:  Approve removal of the 3 Eucalyptus trees.  Deny your request for removal of the 1 Eucalyptus tree growing in the Right of Way on Penny Lane for the following reasons:  the tree is not causing undue hardship;  removal would not promote good arboricultural practice;  removal would harm the character of the environment of the surrounding neighborhood. Subsequent to the above stated determination of the Tree Committee, an appeal was filed on January 28, 2014, in accordance with Municipal Code Section 1.20.020- 1.20.050, with the City Clerk's office within the required ten (10) days of the Committee's decision. In accordance with this action, a tree removal permit cannot be granted until the final outcome of the appeal process is determined at an upcoming City Council meeting. If you have any questions regarding this matter, you may contact Ron Combs at (805) 781-7023, Monday through Friday, 7:00 – 4:30 PM. Respectfully, Ron Combs City Arborist / Urban Forester ATTACHMENT 5 PH1 - 17 ATTACHMENT 6 - 1 PH1 - 18 ATTACHMENT 6 - 2 PH1 - 19 1 Lynch, Barbara From:Stephan Rene Lamb <slambslo@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, January 31, 2014 11:28 AM To:Lynch, Barbara Cc:Eric Meyer; Mary Ellen Gibson Subject:Re: Appeal of 1570 Penny Lane Barbara - You are correct we are appealing the approval of the removal of the three trees. Thanks! Best, Stephan On Jan 31, 2014, at 11:26 AM, Lynch, Barbara <blynch@slocity.org> wrote: Mr. Lamb, Am I correct in assuming that your appeal of the Tree Committee’s decision regarding 1570 Penny Lane, is ONLY regarding the approval for the 3 removals and NOT regarding the decision to require them to retain 1 tree? Thank you for clarifying. Barbara Lynch Deputy Director of Public Works / City Engineer City of San Luis Obispo 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805‐781‐7191 blynch@slocity.org <image003.jpg> ATTACHMENT 6 - 3 PH1 - 20 12.24.090 Tree removal. A. Policy. The city values trees as an important part of the natural and economic environment and efforts shall be made to preserve them whenever possible and feasible. When reviewing requests for tree removal permits, the city shall discourage removing desirable trees and shall consider approving removal of desirable trees only as a last resort alternative for the applicant. B. Permits for Removal. Removing any tree in the city shall require a tree removal permit, except as otherwise provided in this chapter. C. Tree Removal Not Related to Property Development. 1. Removing a tree in all zones except as otherwise provided in this chapter shall require a permit issued by the public works department. 2. An application for a tree removal permit issued by the public works department shall include: a. A site plan showing the location and species of any tree proposed for removal; b. All information to support the reason for removal; c. Any other pertinent information to the request, including documentation of property damage. D. Removals for Tree Health or Hazard Mitigation. 1. The city arborist may authorize a tree removal upon receipt of a removal application without the need for a permit from public works upon finding any of the following circumstances: a. The tree is an imminent hazard to life or property, and removing it is the only feasible way to eliminate the hazard; b. The tree is dead or dying or damaged beyond reclamation; c. The tree’s roots are causing severe damage to public or private property, and removing the tree is the only feasible way to eliminate the damage. 2. When the city arborist cannot authorize a tree removal, the request shall be reviewed by the tree committee, which may authorize removal if it finds one of the following circumstances: a. The tree is causing undue hardship to the property owner. Normal routine maintenance does not constitute a hardship, i.e., cleaning of gutters, leaf raking, pruning or root intrusion into a failed sewer lateral, etc.; or b. Removing the tree promotes good arboricultural practice; or PH1 - 21 c. Removing the tree will not harm the character or environment of the surrounding neighborhood. E. Tree Removal with a Development Permit. 1. To remove a tree from any parcel in the city as part of property development by subdivision, building permit or other entitlement, the developer shall clearly delineate trees proposed to be removed as part of the development application and approval process. All development applications which include tree removals shall include the following documents: a. A site plan showing the location and species of any tree proposed for removal; b. All information to support the reason for removal; c. Any other pertinent information required. 2. Review of the application to remove a tree with a development permit shall proceed as follows: a. The city arborist shall inspect the property and recommend approving or denying the application; b. If no architectural review is required for the development, the tree committee shall approve or deny the application; c. If architectural review is required for the development, the architectural review commission shall approve or deny the application: i. If the city arborist has recommended denying the application and the architectural review commission has approved the application, the tree committee shall review the architectural review commission’s decision; ii. If the tree committee concurs with the city arborist’s recommendation to deny the application when the architectural review commission has approved the application, the city council shall review the matter for final action. 12.24.180 Appeals. A. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 1.20, any person aggrieved by an act or determination of the staff in exercising the authority herein granted shall have the right to appeal to the tree committee, whose decisions are appealable to the city council. B. Appeals received by the city clerk within ten calendar days from the date of determination or act shall cause the public works director to withhold tree removal permits and stop any construction or demolition PH1 - 22 activity affecting the subject tree until the appeal is heard and a decision is reached. (Ord. 1544 § 1 (part), 2010) PH1 - 23 RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2014 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE TREE COMMITTEE DECISION TO APPROVE TREE REMOVAL REQUESTS AT 1570 PENNY LANE WHEREAS, the Tree Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing on January 27, 2014, and approved the Property Owner’s request to remove three Blue Gum Eucalyptus trees and denied the Property Owner’s request to remove a fourth Blue Gum Eucalyptus, located at 1570 Penny Lane, San Luis Obispo, California (“Property”); and WHEREAS, on March 4, 2014 the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing to consider the appeal of the Tree Committee’s decision to approve the removal of three Blue Gum Eucalyptus at the Property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings: The City Council, after consideration of an appeal of the San Luis Obispo Tree Committee’s action, staff recommendations and reports thereon, and public testimony, makes the following finding: a. The trees are causing undue hardship to the property owner by significantly impacting the ability of the owner to develop the property SECTION 2. The appeal of the Tree Committee’s decision to allow the removal of three Blue Gum Eucalyptus at 1570 Penny Lane, San Luis Obispo, California is hereby denied and the property owner may remove three Blue Gum Eucalyptus trees: a. Contingent upon a qualified biologist determining that no active nesting sites exist. b. Requiring that three 15-gallon replacement trees be planted, chosen from the Master Street Tree list. Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PH1 - 24 The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2014. ____________________________________ Mayor Jan Marx ATTEST: ____________________________________ Anthony Mejia City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________________ J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney PH1 - 25 RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2014 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL TO THE TREE COMMITTEE DECISION TO ALLOW TREE REMOVALS AT 1570 PENNY LANE WHEREAS, the Tree Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing on January 27, 2014, and approved the Property Owner’s request to remove three Blue Gum Eucalyptus trees and denied the Property Owner’s request to remove a fourth Blue Gum Eucalyptus, located at 1570 Penny Lane, San Luis Obispo, California (“Property”); and WHEREAS, on March 4, 2014 the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing to consider the appeal of the Tree Committee’s decision to approve the removal of three Blue Gum Eucalyptus at the Property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings: The City Council, after consideration of an appeal of the San Luis Obispo Tree Committee’s action, and staff recommendations and reports thereon, and public testimony makes the following findings: a. The trees are not causing undue hardship to the property owner, by significantly limiting development because _____________(the Council should provide factual findings based on facts and evidence in the record supporting a conclusion that differs from the Tree Committee’s conclusion). b. The removal of the trees will not promote good arboricultural practice because the trees are healthy, attractive, and vigorous. c. The removal of the trees will harm the character or environment of the surrounding neighborhood. SECTION 2. The appeal of the Tree Committee’s decision to approve the property owner’s request to remove three Blue Gum Eucalyptus at 1570 Penny Lane, San Luis Obispo, California is hereby upheld, and therefore removal of the three trees is hereby denied and the property owner may not remove the trees. Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PH1 - 26 The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2014. ____________________________________ Mayor Jan Marx ATTEST: ____________________________________ Anthony Mejia City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________________ J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney PH1 - 27 Page intentionally left blank. PH1 - 28 40". council mEmoaandum March 4, 2014 TO: City Council MAR 04 2014 1 Q CITY C. RK . "* FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Public Works Director Derek Johnson, Community Development Director AGENDA VIA: Katie Lichtig, City Manager @ +___ CORRESPONDENCE Date_! II Item #�_ SUBJECT: 1570 Penny Tree Appeal The following questions were received by staff a Councilmember regarding the development as it relates to the trees at 1570 Penny Lane. 1. The Tree Committee approved only removal of the three on -site eucalyptus trees, but denied removal of the larger tree in the Penny Lane Right -of -Way. It's certain to require significant excavation, it seems to me, in order to descend from the extension of Penny Lane and it would seem that even that extension might require excavation in order to provide the requisite slopes for ingress and egress. Can the proposed design of the driveway entry as proposed be constructed without damage to this remaining tree? Response: The City will require tree protection measures which may cause modifications to the grading plan to minimize the impact to the remaining eucalyptus. 2. Were alternatives considered that would enable vehicular access to the property from a position closer to the westernmost corner of the triangular lot and coming off Penny Lane at about the 250' contour, thus reducing grading as well as saving one or more of the three on -site eucalyptus? Response: The Tree Committee did not discuss alternative site designs at its meeting. However, staff has reviewed this suggestion. A driveway accessing the subject property would need to meet with the adjacent grade brought across from the existing Penny Lane right -of -way; to plan for future expansion of the right -of -way (see Attached Grading Plan). The approved driveway location was chosen because the portion between the existing edge of pavement and the east side of the property is less steep than the west side (16% cross slope vs. 27 % cross slope), resulting in no driveway impact to the neighboring residence at 1530 Penny Lane. The approved (easternmost) driveway starts at the 259 -foot contour line which slopes to meet up with the first floor of the house (a basement will be below the first floor). This driveway could be relocated to the westernmost property line, however, this option was not chosen because it would result in vehicles looming over the backyard fence of the adjacent property to the west (1530 Penny Lane). 1570 Penny Lane Tree Committee Appeal ej 3. The plan Council has on p. PH 1 -5 shows two of the three new trees (the sycamore and the Japanese maple) being located within the likely root zone of the large eucalyptus that is proposed to be retained. It does not appear to be good site planning to do so. Is the applicant proposing these two trees to be sited in a more appropriate location? Where would that be? Response: The proposed landscape plan is readily modified, particularly the number, type, and location of trees to best fit the existing conditions, and final grading plan. g:\ataff- reports - agendas- minutog_ccmamos1201413 -4- 14 1 570 permy tree appeal.dom ADJACENT Z PROPERTY NOT A PART�F, m AEI WOOD FENCE I W1011�G -' T � �2% S-0' IF I TRH TO REMAIN MWOOD FENCE IT WIDE OPENINGIN CIRII FOR DRAINAGE 4 { /+r_J/ ifF RiTAWdiC WAa T o, wiu t 254' contour carried '� __ a_ 2" WAf1F CONTAINERS across from existing ROW to future , �•� '� T U, f Ind ` W {: U.P_R.R. sidewalk. ' 1 \\ �41.r PATO� + R37T znar i NEW WIfOp Al PA110 -Al X1111 1 f 7415 inF= ram L \ f I wME p p fEGetb ! sfTm POWURMA 1141, \ f 4\ ?!RY a t h f \ IT T.O WA1L FIRE HYDRANT LOCATED AT 3:SS MW WWVNAT W /1`{Y STREET CORNER OF PENNY P11FGM 11 Ci F4ryRE Fr4�E / - ` ]EOPIO 3TtP �/l \ \ m O /CiYlFAtIftl NATIVE LANE AND BUCHON STREET CST iq1 \\ R� 4 \ ACE +yttlf yay C��F., T.a. TO wMi A�'V f 4DCAnaN ar FUTURE RACC y �v I OF .MK IDEH''4.REO WI \53. \ y NEW RETAINING WALL AT F.NANIA DRIVEWAY ITT, / M \ DE OPENINGIN CUR \ ` ■ 7dDN DRAINAGE ✓ 1 \� WAll I / ire roirceeAw w \ A 26111' \ •p 1�_ A'CONCRFKAPRaNO/S \ a COMPACTED ROAD RAH \ . -CON/GRM LEADPIG \ p, 1DOE Tp P AY*KT F� pT [11EC1 TiM lITAT MDRRT H, ARCHITECTURAL SITE & GRADING PLAN