HomeMy WebLinkAboutph2treeappeal590marshst
FROM: Daryl R. Grigsby, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Barbara Lynch, Deputy Public Works Director
Ron Combs, City Arborist
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF TREE COMMITTEE DECISION TO DENY A TREE REMOVAL
APPLICATION AT 590 MARSH STREET.
RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Tree Committee and Architectural Review Commission, adopt a resolution
denying the appeal of the Tree Committee’s decision to deny the removal of a Ficus tree at 590
Marsh Street.
DISCUSSION
Background
On December 16, 2013, the property owner’s representative, Jeff Edwards, filed a Tree Removal
application for the removal of one Indian Laurel Fig (Ficus) tree at 590 Marsh Street. Their
application cited hardscape issues, solar access, and site development as the reasons for removal.
The owner proposes to replace the removed tree with a Chinese Pistache (Attachment 1).
The Removal request is associated with a project at the site. The Architectural Review Commission
(ARC) conditioned the project to save and protect the tree. The ARC Conditions are included in
Attachment 2.
The City Arborist can approve certain tree removals per Municipal Code Section 12.24.090.D.1.
When tree removal is not related to property development, the City Arborist may authorize a tree
removal after finding any of the following circumstances:
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 tree upon receipt of the removal application. In this
case, the City Arborist was not able to approve the removal as no major defect, disease, or damage
was observed on the tree. The City Arborist also did not find that the tree presented any hazard or
was causing severe root damage that feasibly could be remedied only by removal of the tree.
Tree Committee Decision
Per the City’s Municipal Code Section 12.24.090.E, when the removal is related to development,
and the City Arborist cannot authorize the tree removal, the ARC reviews the removal request, with
the Tree Committee hearing appeals. The Tree Committee reviews the application and may
authorize removal if it finds one of the following circumstances:
Meeting Date
Item Number 3/4/14
PH2 - 1
Tree Committee Decision Appeal – 590 Marsh Street Page 2
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.;
b. Removing the tree promotes good arboricultural practice;
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 tree 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. The Committee members felt
the tree was significant, and would not prevent solar effectiveness (Attachment 3).
The Tree Committee voted 4 to 1 to deny the request for removal of the tree at 590 Marsh Street
(Attachment 4), finding that:
a. The tree is not causing undue hardship;
b. The removal would not promote good arboricultural practices,
c. Removal would harm the character of the surrounding neighborhood.
Appeal
On January 28, 2014, the City Clerk’s office received an appeal of the Tree Committee’s decision
of January 27, 2014, from Jeff Edwards. Tree Committee decisions are appealable to the City
Council by anyone within 10 days from the date of the decision. In the appeal, Mr. Edwards stated
that the size of the tree would “frustrate” site redevelopment and shade proposed solar elements of
the project. He also pointed to damage of the sidewalk area (Attachment 5).
According to Municipal Code Section 1.20 the Council can consider any information 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.
ALTERNATIVE
1. Uphold the appeal. The City Council could choose to uphold the appeal for tree removal,
thereby allowing removal of the Ficus tree and replacement with a Chinese Pistache. Adopted
standards for tree planting in the Downtown include a list of “Accent Trees” that may also be
used in this area.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Tree Removal Application
2. 2008 and 2014 ARC Findings and Conditions for site development
3. Tree Committee minutes
4. Tree Committee decision letter
5. Tree Committee decision appeal
PH2 - 2
Tree Committee Decision Appeal – 590 Marsh Street Page 3
6. Municipal Code Sections
7. Resolution denying appeal
8. Resolution upholding appeal
t:\council agenda reports\2014\2014-03-04\appeal of tree comm 590 marsh st (grigsby-combs)\ccreport 590 marsh appeal.docx
PH2 - 3
ATTACHMENT 1 - 1
PH2 - 4
ATTACHMENT 1 - 2
PH2 - 5
ATTACHMENT 1 - 3
PH2 - 6
ATTACHMENT 1 - 4
PH2 - 7
December 9, 2008
Dave Bjerre
1320 Santa Rosa Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
SUBJECT: ARC 53-08: 590 Marsh Street
Review of a mixed-use project with 7,400 square feet of commercial
space and 13 residential units
Gentlemen:
The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of December 1, 2008, granted
final approval to your project, based on the following findings, and subject to the
following conditions:
Findings
1. As designed and conditioned by this architectural review approval, the project is
appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with surrounding land
uses.
2. The project conforms to the general plan policies, which encourage mixed-use
projects downtown with ground-floor retail and residential units on upper floors.
3. The design of the new building conforms to Zoning Regulation development
standards and is consistent with the design principles contained in Section 4.16 of
the Land Use Element.
4. The project is consistent with goals contained in the City’s Community Design
Guidelines, which encourage projects that are pedestrian oriented, and have
proportions and design details that complement surrounding structures.
5. The project is categorically exempt from environmental review under CEQA
Section 15332, In-fill Development Projects.
Conditions
1. The applicant shall construct the project so as to substantially conform to plans
stamped with Community Development Department approval and incorporate
conditions listed herein. Any change to approved design, colors, materials,
landscaping, or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Community
2008 & 2014 ARC CONDITIONS - ATTACHMENT 2 - 1
PH2 - 8
ARC 53-08
Page 2
Development Director and may, at the discretion of the Director, have to be
referred back to the Architectural Review Commission.
2. Construction plan sets shall include conditions of approval from all project
approvals for contractor/builder reference.
3. Prior to issuance of building permits recommendations of the Historic Evaluation
Report, prepared September 8, 2008, for reuse of the double-faced neon pole
sign shall be followed. Construction plans shall include information on how the
recommendations have/will be followed.
4. Complete frontage improvements will be required as a condition of the building
permit. The improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the
engineering standards in effect at the time of encroachment permit issuance.
5. Identify and protect the bench mark and survey tags located in the sidewalk near
the intersection of Marsh and Nipomo.
6. Identify and note the protection and replacement of parking meters, informational
signs, and parking space markings.
7. The traffic signal and traffic signal control box shall be relocated to the satisfaction
of the Public Works Director.
8. Provide calculations to demonstrate that the proposed 4” sewer lateral is adequate
to serve the proposed project.
9. One existing Ficus nitida tree is to remain. This tree is and counts for a street
tree. Some existing trees within this site were identified as Ailanthus altissima and
are considered invasive plants in our creek systems. The Ailanthus altissima are
ok to remove. However some small desirable trees may fall within this property
and at the line or in at least two adjacent properties. A tree protection plan will be
required for the Ficus and any existing desirable trees on adjacent properties that
could be negatively affected by this project.
10. A Tree Protection Plan shall be submitted by a Certified Arborist and approved by
the City Arborist. This plan shall be approved and all protection measures in
place before any tree work, demolition, grading, or construction begins.
Mitigation in the form of replanting for trees lost on adjacent properties will be
required and coordinated with those property owners and the City arborist.
11. Building plans shall include a sidewalk and pedestrian facility improvement plan
which details all proposed improvements to area sidewalks while maintaining a
minimum of 8 feet of free pedestrian passage along all project frontages. The
plan should provide the dimensioned locations of all public improvements
including signal poles, signs, parking meters, street trees, street furniture (e.g.
benches bike racks, trash receptacles, etc.) while maintaining a minimum of 8 feet
2008 & 2014 ARC CONDITIONS - ATTACHMENT 2 - 2
PH2 - 9
ARC 53-08
Page 3
of free passage on all project frontages consistent with general direction of City
policy.
12. The parking structure exit shall provide a minimum of ten feet clear visibility to the
sidewalk on both sides of the exit, unobstructed by building corners, columns, or
any other visual impediment. Building plans shall include the garage line-of-sight
information as well as signage and striping for the garage driveway. The line-of-
sight triangle shall be identified as an area to remain clear of visual impediments.
13. Building plans shall include the provision of two long-term bicycle parking spaces
for each residential unit, one long-term bicycle parking space for the commercial
use and two short-term bicycle parking spaces for the commercial use all located
on the project site. The parking shall be installed at highly-visible locations that
are as close to the main entrance of the destination as possible. If the one long-
term bicycle parking space required for the commercial use is located with the
long-term residential bike parking, plans shall indicate how employees of the
commercial use will be granted access to the parking.
14. Dimensioned details of the proposed long and short-term bicycle parking shall be
provided on the project’s construction plans including rack model/manufacturer,
location, clearances, and circulation for users in compliance with manufacturers’
standards. The plans submitted for Architectural Review Commission approval do
not contain these required details.
15. The applicant shall pay parking in-lieu fees for a total of 13 parking spaces.
The decision of the Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council within 10
days of the action. Any person aggrieved by the decision may file an appeal. Appeal
forms are available in the City Clerk’s office or on the City’s website (www.slocity.org).
The fee for filing an appeal is $100 and must accompany the appeal documentation.
While the City’s water allocation regulations are in effect, the Architectural Review
Commission’s approval expires after three years if construction has not started, unless
the Commission designated a different time period. On request, the Community
Development Director may grant a single, one-year extension.
If you have questions, please contact Brian Leveille at 781-7166.
Sincerely,
Pamela Ricci, AICP
Senior Planner
cc: County of SLO Assessor’s Office
2008 & 2014 ARC CONDITIONS - ATTACHMENT 2 - 3
PH2 - 10
ARC 53-08
Page 4
Peter Danciart, CRSA ARCH
890 Monterey Street, Suite A
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
2008 & 2014 ARC CONDITIONS - ATTACHMENT 2 - 4
PH2 - 11
2008 & 2014 ARC CONDITIONS - ATTACHMENT 2 - 5
PH2 - 12
2008 & 2014 ARC CONDITIONS - ATTACHMENT 2 - 6
PH2 - 13
2008 & 2014 ARC CONDITIONS - ATTACHMENT 2 - 7
PH2 - 14
2008 & 2014 ARC CONDITIONS - ATTACHMENT 2 - 8
PH2 - 15
2008 & 2014 ARC CONDITIONS - ATTACHMENT 2 - 9
PH2 - 16
2008 & 2014 ARC CONDITIONS - ATTACHMENT 2 - 10
PH2 - 17
ATTACHMENT 3
January 27, 2014 Tree Committee Minutes (Excerpt) – Page 1
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
1. 590 Marsh (Ficus)
Jeff Edwards, applicant’s representative, discussed the second submission of this removal request and the use of solar panels in the design and reiterated that the retaining the tree would minimize effectiveness at various times of the day. He also discussed associated hardscape issues and felt keeping the tree would create undue hardship for the development. He also discussed the need for diversity of species in the area and felt the Chinese pistache would add color. He noted a number of street trees would be installed and also offered to purchase three trees to donate to the City’s Open Space Tree planting program. Mr. Combs stated the large tree was healthy and that he could not make his necessary findings for removal. Craig Smith, applicant’s representative, noted that five specimen trees were being added around the corner area and that another large Ficus was present in the area. He reiterated his concern about solar access being blocked.
PH2 - 18
ATTACHMENT 3
January 27, 2014 Tree Committee Minutes (Excerpt) – Page 2
Mr. Loosley felt removing the signature tree would change the character of the immediate community and that pavement issues could be mitigated. He did not feel solar access would be limited as the solar effectiveness and peak times would be available, as the tree would not be blocking high sun times and the solar delivery results. Mr. Parker agreed that the tree would not dramatically impact solar effectiveness and that hardscape issues could be addressed and that the tree should be incorporated into the construction/design. Ms. Worthy agreed with Committee comments. Mr. Edwards explained that construction would be complicated by having to protect the tree and discussed the goal of creating an energy-neutral site, maintaining that the solar access would be limited. Mr. Ritter agreed the tree was significant and that its shading benefits were important. He discussed the carbon footprint of losing a tree vs. solar benefits/payback. Mr. Parker moved to deny the removal request, as he could not make the findings necessary for approval. Ms. Worthy seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Mr. Duffy 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
PH2 - 19
25 Prado Road San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
January 29, 2014
J.H. Edwards
PO Box 6070
Los Osos, CA 93412
Your application for removal of a tree at 590 Marsh St. 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 tree, the Committee members have voted, in compliance
with Municipal Code Section 12.24.180.C.6, to deny your request based on the following
findings:
a. The tree is not causing undue hardship.
b. Removal would not promote good arboricultural practice.
c. Removal would harm the character of the environment of the surrounding
neighborhood.
The decision of the Committee is final unless an appeal, in accordance with Municipal Code
Section 1.20.020 - 1.20.050, is filed with the City Clerk's office within ten (10) days of the
Committee's decision. An appeal may be filed by any person aggrieved by a decision of the
Committee.
You are reminded that the Tree Ordinance (#1392 - 2001 Series), Section 12.24.130, Protection
of Trees, reads in part:
C. No person shall willfully injure, disfigure, or intentionally destroy by any means any
tree growing within the planting area or elsewhere within the jurisdiction of this
ordinance, except with permits described elsewhere in this chapter.
G. Any person deemed responsible for damaging a tree or removing a tree without a
permit as described in this chapter shall be liable for civil damages to the city in the
amount adopted, by resolution by the City Council, or for the value of the tree as
determined by methods established by the International Society of Arboriculture,
whichever is greater as determined by the City Arborist.
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 4
PH2 - 20
ATTACHMENT 5 - 1
PH2 - 21
ATTACHMENT 5 - 2
PH2 - 22
Municipal Code Sections ATTACHMENT 6 - 1
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
PH2 - 23
Municipal Code Sections ATTACHMENT 6 - 2
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
PH2 - 24
Municipal Code Sections ATTACHMENT 6 - 3
activity affecting the subject tree until the appeal is heard and a decision is reached. (Ord. 1544 § 1 (part),
2010)
PH2 - 25
ATTACHMENT 7 - 1
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2014 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING AN APPEAL TO THE TREE COMMITTEE DECISION
TO DENY A TREE REMOVAL REQUEST AT 590 MARSH STREET
WHEREAS, the Tree Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing on
January 27, 2014, and denied the Property Owner’s request to remove one Indian Laurel Fig tree
located at 590 Marsh Street, 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 deny the removal of
one Indian Laurel Fig 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 the appeal of the San
Luis Obispo Tree Committee’s action, staff recommendations and reports thereon, and public
testimony, makes the following findings:
a. The tree is not causing undue hardship to the property owner because:
1. No testimony or evidence was presented to demonstrate that the presence of the
tree severely restricts development; and
2. No testimony or evidence was presented to demonstrate that maintenance and/or
repair of the tree or affected sidewalks, in a manner that would mitigate or eliminate
impacts asserted by the applicant, is physically or financially infeasible or unduly
burdensome.
b. The removal of the tree will not promote good arboricultural practice because the tree is
healthy, attractive, and vigorous.
c. The removal of the tree will harm the character or environment of the surrounding
neighborhood because it is a large and attractive shade tree within the public street.
SECTION 2. The appeal of the Tree Committee’s decision to deny the removal of an
Indian Laurel Fig tree at 590 Marsh Street, San Luis Obispo, California is hereby denied and the
property owner may not remove the tree.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
PH2 - 26
Resolution No. _____ (2014 Series) ATTACHMENT 7 - 2
Page 2
ABSENT:
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
PH2 - 27
ATTACHMENT 8 - 1
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2014 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
UPHOLDING AN APPEAL TO THE TREE COMMITTEE DECISION
TO DENY A TREE REMOVAL REQUEST AT 590 MARSH STREET
WHEREAS, the Tree Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing
on January 27, 2014, and denied the Property Owner’s request to remove one Indian Laurel Fig
tree located at 590 Marsh Street, 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 deny the removal of
one Indian Laurel Fig 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 the property owner’s
appeal, from the San Luis Obispo Tree Committee’s action, and staff recommendations and
reports thereon, and public testimony makes the following findings:
a. The tree is causing undue hardship to the property owner, significantly limiting
development and solar access.
b. The removal of the Indian Laurel Fig tree is reasonable because the tree will continue to
damage curb, gutter, and sidewalk along Marsh Street.
c. The removal of the tree will not harm the character or environment of the surrounding
neighborhood.
SECTION 2. The appeal of the Tree Committee’s decision to deny the property owner’s
request to remove one Indian Laurel Fig tree at 590 Marsh Street, San Luis Obispo, California is
hereby upheld, and therefore removal of the Indian Laurel Fig tree is approved subject to the
condition that the appellant plant replacement trees per their landscape plan as directed by the
City Arborist.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2014.
PH2 - 28
Resolution No. _____ (2014 Series) ATTACHMENT 8 - 2
Page 2
____________________________________
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Anthony Mejia
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
PH2 - 29
Page intentionally left
blank.
PH2 - 30
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Lynch, Barbara
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 12:02 PM
To: 'adamsrancho @aol.com'
Cc:'keroza @morrobayrealty.com'; Combs, Ron
Subject: FW: 590 Marsh St. project
Importance: High
MAR 0 4 2014
t
t:, :'A P CLERK
AGENDA
CORRESPONDENCE
Date-3 L `t -1 Item# 2 /12-
Mr. Adams,
Generally, the City process allows anyone to submit an appeal. You may wish to contact Mr. Edwards
directly with your request.
If the item goes forward, you will have an opportunity to provide input to the Council for their decision
at their March 4th meeting.
Barbara Lynch
Deputy Director of Public Works
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Wayne Adams f mailto:adamsrancho @aol.coml
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 10:20 AM
To: keroza @morrobayrealty.com <mai Ito: keroza @morrobayrealty.com>
Subject: 590 Marsh St. project
Dear Mr. Combs,
I am an owner of 590 Marsh Street, the subject of an appeal of a tree removal determination by the
Tree Committee. On behalf of both families which own this property, I wish to withdraw the appeal by
this communication.
Prior to the January 27, 2014 hearing on this tree removal application, I called your office and spoke
with the clerk requesting the hearing on this subject not to go forward. Apparently that message was
not relayed and acted upon. I also notified Jeff Edwards who filed the application, that we did not wish
to proceed. Contrary to my instructions, he proceeded with the hearing.
Mr. Edwards does not represent the owners of 590 Marsh Street, was not authorized to file the
appeal, and he is not authorized to make any representation to the City with respect to 590 Marsh
Street. Mr. Edwards may claim to be in escrow with the owners of 590 Marsh Street, but in fact, a
contract of sale involving Mr. Edwards has been terminated by the owners. Please confirm by return
email that the appeal has been withdrawn. If you wish to contact me by phone, my number is 995 -2408.
Sincerely, Wayne Adams
Kremke, Kate
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
tel 1 805.781.7102
r3
R:V ..
MAR 0 4 2014
Mejia, Anthony
Tuesday, March 04, 2014 11:08 AM
Kremke, Kate
FW: Contesting removal of Ficus tree at the Foster Freeze, San Luis Obispo
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Vanessa Berlowitz [mailto:vanessaberlowitz @me.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 10:43 AM
To: Mejia, Anthony
Subject: Contesting removal of Ficus tree at the Foster Freeze, San Luis Obispo
Dear Council Members,
AGENDA
CORRESPONDENCE
Date 2 -'f Item# P
I would like to make a case for rejecting the application to remove the Ficus tree at the Foster Freeze location. San Luis
Obispo has a reputation for its beautiful trees downtown, in particular the established ficus trees. Many of these
majestic trees have taken decades to reach this stage of splendour and to remove them in a few hours is nothing short
of criminal. Established trees can withstand the fluctuations in our current climate and do not need the excessive levels
of water that new trees would require.
The texture and colour of these trees in the urban landscape brings softness and protection for the human beings who
inhabit it. An environment devoid of nature is hostile and overwhelming for many. The tree is a symbolic and functional
shelter, comforting human beings over the millennia. For many cultures, ficus trees have a religious significance
providing spiritual sanctuary and refuge. Surely buildings can always be designed to accommodate these outstanding
specimen trees.
Sincerely,
David Brodie
Sent from my Wad
1
March 4, 2014
TO: San Luis Obispo City Council
RE: Agenda Item PH -2. Tree removal application at 590 Marsh St.
,k_LT-) 0 —� S
Noz t0 VVI
AGENDA
CORRESPONDENCE
Date 3! l Item# _EH -
I encourage you to act on the staff's recommendation that council deny the application to
remove the Ficus tree at this location. Now that there is that looming development
across the street with no setback, this tree is needed more than ever to soften the entrance
to our downtown.
Both the ARC and the Tree committee have recommendation that this healthy tree be
retained in this spot. This is a glorious tree and it is an environmental asset. It will not
significantly block the applicant's solar access.
This tree helps to define the entrance of our downtown and sets the tone for a place that
values nature and history. People enjoy walking where there are trees and it has been
proven that trees enhance the shopping experience.
I urge you to deny the application to remove this wonderful tree.
Sincerely,
Diane and Jim Duenow
AGENDA -
CORRESPONDENCE
Date l.t *_Item# J MAR it 4 1014
Bill Spiewak ,
C O N S U L T I N G A R B O R I S T
Rr�is,emd (:rnisulrinu Ai borist #381 • American Society of ConsUILing AiborisLs
March 4, 2014 City Council Meeting for the City of San Luis Obispo - Agenda Item #PH2
RE: Appeal of committee denial to remove the Ficus tree at 590 Marsh St.
BACKGROUND
The 36" diameter ficus tree at 590 Marsh Street was denied approval for removal based on the
following:
• The tree is not causing undue hardship
• Removal would harm the character of the surrounding neighborhood
• Removal would not promote good arboricultural practices
FINDINGS
Undue hardship
- This is a Green Project with a Net Zero Voltaic Application
• Although the current height of the tree is equal to the height of the solar panels, future growth
will require annual to biannual reduction pruning. Without this work, the Net Zero status will
be non - compliant thus wasting funds required to make this project compliant.
Character of the neighborhood
• Ficus comprise approximately 40% of the street trees in the downtown area.
• Many have outgrown their small planting spaces and caused damage to the infrastructure
resulting in high maintenance costs and increased risks to people and structures.
• The high percentage of one tree type minimizes species diversity and increases risk to the
urban forest should pest, disease, or freeze occur in the future.
Diversity protects the conservation of the urban forest.
• Removal of this ficus provides an opportunity to increase tree diversity in the neighborhood,
reduces risks from trees that have outgrown their space, and reduces municipal costs.
Good Arboricultural Practices (see summary of study on second page)
The removal of roots to accomodate the approved underground garage and required repair of
the sidewalk, curb, and gutter will render the tree unstable and pose high to extreme risks to
people. It will become a hazardous tree.
CONCLUSIONS
Removal and replacement will:
1. Avoid undue hardship to the property owner
2. Increase tree diversity in the downtown area
3. Promote the long term conservation of the urban forest in the city of San Luis Obispo
4. Avoid creating a hazard to people and structures.
Prepared by: , u:
Bill Spiewak U19 Registered Consulting Arborist #381American Society of Consulting Arborists a n Board Certified Master Arborist #3106
American Society of Consulting Arborists
35175anjosclane • SaUreBalbala7CA93105 • (805)331-0075 • (805)682 -9501 FAX • btc4treesCacoxnet
590 Marsh - Ficus Tree
Mar 3, 2014
Above: The arrow points to a large depression and
discoloration in the root crown indicating defects and
.� infection in the root system. Note the cracked curb and
IS, the root undermining the sidewalk.
Above: Ribs of reaction wood (vertical bulges) circumvent
the entire trunk indicating a very heavy tree and extreme
concentration of forces. The lifted concrete can be
partially seen below although more clearly on the site.
I
.
p�
Below: The arrows point to oozing from the
trunk indicating an infection. Note how the tree
has outgrown the planting site. The concrete
surrounding the tree to at least 5' -8' beyond is
lifted by roots and will need to be repaired.
This will require removal of the stabilizing
roots.
r
w-
::c
Bill Spiewak - Consulting Arborist 3
Bill 5pi ewak 10
MAR 0 4 2014
March 4, 2014 City Council Meeting for the City of San Luis Obispo - Agenda Item #PH2
RE: Appeal of committee denial to remove the Ficus tree at 590 Marsh St.
BACKGROUND
The 36" diameter ficus tree at 590 Marsh Street was denied approval for removal based on the
following:
• The tree is not causing undue hardship
• Removal would harm the character of the surrounding neighborhood AGENDA
• Removal would not promote good arboricultural practices CORRESPONDENCE
FINDINGS Date. _,� -L4 -1 ± Item# i 2
Undue hardship
• This is a Green Project with a Net Zero Voltaic Application
• Although the current height of the tree is equal to the height of the solar panels, future growth
will require annual to biannual reduction pruning. Without this work, the Net Zero status will
be non - compliant thus wasting funds required to make this project compliant.
Character of the neighborhood
• Ficus comprise approximately 40% of the street trees in the downtown area.
• Many have outgrown their small planting spaces and caused damage to the infrastructure
resulting in high maintenance costs and increased risks to people and structures.
• The high percentage of one tree type minimizes species diversity and increases risk to the
urban forest should pest, disease, or freeze occur in the future.
Diversity protects the conservation of the urban forest.
• Removal of this ficus provides an opportunity to increase tree diversity in the neighborhood,
reduces risks from trees that have outgrown their space, and reduces municipal costs.
Good Arboricultural Practices (see summary of study on second page)
The removal of roots to accomodate the approved underground garage and required repair of
the sidewalk, curb, and gutter will render the tree unstable and pose high to extreme risks to
people. It will become a hazardous tree.
CONCLUSIONS
Removal and replacement will:
1. Avoid undue hardship to the property owner
2. Increase tree diversity in the downtown area
3. Promote the long term conservation of the urban forest in the city of San Luis Obispo
4. Avoid creating a hazard to people and structures.
Prepared by:
Bill Spiewak
Registered Consulting Arborist #381
American Society of Consulting Arborists
Board Certified Master Arborist #310B
American Society of Consulting Arborists
s`a'i r.: s: ..., • �, ;,. o, t 4`tss�?', . I,") W.4075 0 if A)(87.49A IM • W4arc�ewi< (mo
590 Marsh - Ficus Tree
Mar 3, 2014
RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
Observations
1. Reaction wood has formed around the trunk and roots. This is anatomically illustrated
as the proliferation of growth (vertical ribs) in the lower trunk and bulging roots beneath
the sidewalk. [Based on The Axiom of Uniform Stress -Claus Mattheck: http: //
www.arborecoloay.com /arb _ vta.htm.].
2. Support of this massive tree exacerbated by the forces of gravity and wind is
concentrated in the lower trunk and limited root area (radiating outward beneath the
lifted sidewalk.
3. Bulges, depressions, oozing, and discoloration, in the lower trunk and roots, suggest
decay at the base of the tree.
4. The soil report indicates soil saturation at 30" [the namesake Marsh Street]. This soil
condition limits root growth deeper than 30" due to water infiltrating all pore spaces
between soil particles and displacing oxygen necessary for root growth.
The Project
5. Roots will be cut 6' from the north side of the trunk to a 15' depth. This is a distance
from the trunk of less than two trunk diameters. Research recommends root protection
from three to five trunk diameters to minimize instability.
6. Roots within a foot of the north, east and west sides of the trunk will be cut to a depth of
at least 12" for repair of the sidewalk. If the damaged curb and gutter are repaired, roots
on the south side will be also be cut at the trunk.
Conclusions
7. The project in conjunction with repair of city infrastructure will remove stabilizing roots,
and drastically more than recommended by scientific research. [Tom Smiley: Root
Pruning-and Stabilit of Youn Willow Oak]
8. ISA Tree Risk Assessment BMPs provide tables that rate risk according to likelihood of
failure, possibility of hitting targets within range of the tree, and the severity of
consequences of a failure. Upon completion of root pruning, potential for toppling is very
high, targets within range are significant (people and structures), and consequences of
failure could be tragic.
9. Based on observations, research and the International Society of Arboriculture Best
Management Practices for Tree Risk Assessment, this ficus will become a hazardous
tree after root pruning for the structure and the city's sidewalk, curb, and gutter.
References
• Matheny and Clark, Evaluation of Hazard Trees In Urban Areas, Second Edition, International
Society of Arboriculture, Savoy, Illinois, 1994.
• Matheny and Clark, Trees and Development; A Technical guide To Preservation of Trees
During Land Development, ISA, 1998.
• Smiley, Root Pruning and Stability if Young Willow Oak, Arboriculture and Urban Forestry,
Scientific Journal of the International Society of Arboriculture, 34(2): 123 -128, March 2008.
• Smiley, E., and Matheny, N. , and Lilly, S. 2011. Best Management Practices: Tree Risk
Assessment. International Society of Arboriculture
Root Pruning and Stability of Young Willow Oak
• htt :flhort_uflyedulwaoriylroot- r ne. c uidolines_ htmI
• htt : / /www.arborecolo com/ rb vta.htm].
Bill Spiewak - Consulting Arborist 2
590 Marsh - Ficus Tree
Mar 3, 2014
�C
ri
s Above: The arrow points to a large depression and
discoloration in the root crown indicating defects and
infection in the root system. Note the cracked curb and
, the root undermining the sidewalk.
Below: The arrows point to oozing from the
trunk indicating an infection. Note how the tree
has outgrown the planting site. The concrete
surrounding the tree to at least 5' -8' beyond is
Above: Ribs of reaction wood (vertical bulges) circumvent lifted by roots and will need to be repaired.
the entire trunk indicating a very heavy tree and extreme This will require removal of the stabilizing
concentration of forces. The lifted concrete can be roots.
partially seen below although more clearly on the site.
Bill Spiewak - Consulting Arborist 3