HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/30/1993, 1 - APPEAL OF TREE COMMITTEE DECISION TO DENY TREE REMOVAL REQUEST AT 382 JAYCEE DRIVE II�h������lullllllllll�IUIII 1 MEETING GATE:
p�uiu�► cityo san jai s OBISPO I '
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
FROM: Michael McCluskey, Director of Public Works ,;., )'/P ,
PREPARED BY: Todd Martin, City Arborist
SUBJECT: Appeal of Tree Committee decision to deny tree removal request
at 382 Jaycee Drive
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a resolution upholding the Tree Committee's decision to
deny the removal request
DISCUSSION:
On September 13 , 1993, staff received an application for a tree removal
permit from Liz Gladwell of 382 Jaycee Drive in San Luis Obispo. The
applicant requested removal of a carob tree located in the City parkway
for the following reasons: 1) the branches break too easily; 2) the tree
is not deciduous; 3) the applicant is re-doing the landscaping; and 4)
would like tree removed simultaneous with sewer line replacement.
The tree was reviewed by City staff on September 15, 1993 and determined
that criteria to allow immediate removal could not be met. As such on
September 16, 1993, Ms. Gladwell was informed by staff that the request
would have to be presented to the Tree Committee for a decision. (In
1989, Ms. Gladwell received a removal permit for this tree, signed by Art
Tonneson who at the time was a Tree Trimmer II for the City) . The
subject tree is a multi-stem (3) carob tree located within the street
right-of-way. This particular species was the designated street tree
when this tract was completed in 1958. The tree is in good condition and
was last pruned in March of 1991 by City contract.
The item was put on the Tree Committee agenda for the October 4, 1993
meeting. Each applicant was sent an agenda one week before the scheduled
meeting. Hours before the scheduled meeting it became apparent that
there would not be a quorum, since only two of the five members would be
present. Each applicant was notified by phone and their items were
placed on the agenda for the October 25, 1993 Tree Committee meeting.
Each applicant was again sent an agenda one week prior to the meeting.
Ms. Gladwell was not present at the meeting on October 25, 1993 . Her
application was reviewed by the five member committee which found: 1) the
tree was in good shape (i.e. health) ; 2) the tree was not prone to
breakage (i.e. brittle) ; 3) the tree was not interfering with sunlight to
living areas (i.e. no need for deciduous trees) ; and 4) the sewer line
replacement project did not warrant tree removal.
The Committee then voted unanimously to deny the request based upon the
fact that the reasons given for removal by the applicant did not meet the
criteria available in the Municipal Code, Tree Regulations, to allow
approval.
IIIII�Itl►►►�VIIIIIIIIII�I�Ih "J f G TE
►u�ui► city o san suis o��spo ME � �y.q
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
382 Jaycee
Page Two
On October 27, 1993, Ms. Gladwell was sent a letter informing her of the
decision and her right of appeal. On that same date, Ms. Gladwell called
the City Arborist to request information on the Tree Committee's
decision, at which time, she was told her application had been denied.
She then requested and was given direction on how to exercise her right
of appeal of the Tree Committee's decision. The City Clerk's Office
received Ms. Gladwell's appeal on November 3 , 1993 .
As mentioned above, the Municipal Code, Section 12 .24 . 180 C-6, provides
guidance for approval or denial of tree removal requests. The following
are the criteria by which the removal request has to be judged:
A) Does the existence of the tree cause undue hardship to the property
owner?
B) Does the removal of the tree promote good arboricultural practice?
C) Will removal of the tree not harm the character or environment of
the surrounding neighborhood?
If any of the above questions can be answered with a "yes" , permission to
remove the tree can be granted. The Tree Committee did not find favor in
any of the three criteria. If the Council cannot find favor in any of
the three criteria, Council should adopt the resolution provided
upholding the Tree Committee decision.
If with new or additional testimony, the Council does find an affirmative
answer to any of the three criteria, Council should adopt the alternative
resolution provided. Depending upon which criteria is chosen, staff will
include only that criteria in the final resolution.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact to the City for either denial or approval of
the appeal. The cost of tree removal, if the appeal is upheld, is borne
by the applicant.
Attachments: ree removal application
(appeal
ree Committee agenda & minutes of 10/25/93
etter of 9/16./93 , Arborist to Liz Gladwell
etter Of 10/27/93 ,
to City Council, dated 10/27/93
esolutions (2)
jaycee/mm2
�-a
RESOLUTION NO. (1993 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL FOR A
TREE REMOVAL REQUEST AT 382 JAYCEE DRIVE
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration
of the applicant' s appeal, and the San Luis Obispo Tree
Committee's action, staff recommendations and reports thereon,
make the following findings:
1. The tree is not causing undue hardship to the property owner;
and
2 . Removing the tree does not promote good arboricultural
practice; and
3 . Removing the tree will harm the character or environment of
the surrounding neighborhood.
Upon motion of seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of
1993 .
Mayor Peg Pinard
ATTEST:
Diane Gladwell , City Clerk
1-3
Resolution No.. (190 series)
APPROVED:
Y toY ey
382jeyteeMip01
RESOLUTION NO. (1993 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING AN APPEAL OF THE
SAN LUIS OBISPO TREE COMMITTEE'S ACTION, THEREBY
APPROVING A TREE REMOVAL. REQUEST AT 382 JAYCEE DRIVE
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as
follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration
of the applicant' s appeal, and the San Luis Obispo Tree
Committee's action, staff recommendations and reports thereon,
make the following findings:
1. The tree is causing undue hardship to the property owner; and
2. Removing the tree does promote good arboricultural practice;
and
3 . Removing the tree will not harm the character or environment
of the surrounding neighborhood.
SECTION 2 . The appeal is hereby approved and the proposed tree
removal is approved as proposed.
Upon motion of seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of
1993 .
Mayor Peg Pinard
ATTEST:
Diane Gladwell, City Clerk
T
l5
Resolution No. (1993 Series)
APPROVED:
C' for ey
&982iaycee/wV/1
i
r
>>►i��ii��;;!��I�Iiilil!IIIII�IIIh�°iii►i�i�� i 'lll
Ib cityo san tuts oBis o
Ai
25 Prado Road • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
TREE REMOVAL APPLICATION FORM
Applicant: L 2 18.1 Ll I� Telephone'T647�21
Address: �- ���4ci 0.1-76 S
Location of tree(s) : �T
Important: A tree removal application will only be considered if
accompanied by a plot plan showing the location and species of
any tree proposed for 11removal.
Tree species: CAVA ?
Botanical name Common name
Reasons for removing: 0rec-C A00
O C 1 uS 11J F C�G1�T' L f���-fl P 11�G
No Sio -c ko%;se IK. L Sewer hAe 1,:5be:v+4
�
-!�
C'eDlaced would 1 ;(Cr -I-o 0'e-gcoJf �Iree Q'f :5a .Ke 4-t'rKe • � � /''�_"
o-.. 9-Z3-4:
Compensatory replacement proposed: 1t1 ?
Comments:
Applicant/Owner / Date — 13 -23
(plot plan attached
1xm0%1aLfsm/IID#2
/-7
TREE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 25, 1993
PAGE 4
-- 382 JAYCEE (Carob)
Dr. Brown presented the application for removal and noted that the tree was
in good shape and also was a prevalent street tree for the area.
Mr. Martin noted that Carob trees are not prone to breakage and were not
that brittle. He also did not feel the tree interfered with allowing sunlight
into the house.
Mr. Combrink did not feel that sewer line replacement warranted allowing the
removal of the tree.
Ms. Vigil moved to deny the removal request. Mr. Regan seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
-- 542 HIGHLAND (Cypress)
Dr. Brown presented the removal request application and stated he saw no evidence
of bettle amage, but would favor removal if beetles were present. He felt there
was room for a replacement tree.
Mr. Regan felt the tree was valuable to the neighborhood and skyline and favored
retention. Also he saw no evidence of beetles and recommended pruning.
Ms. Murphy felt that pruning was necessary and favored retaining the trees.
Mr. Combrink agreed with Ms. Muprh.y.
Mr. Martin stated the tree was in decent helath and needed pruning. He saw no
evidence of beetles and said that one would have to go high up into the tree
to find evidence of beetles.
Mr. Combrink moved to deny the removal request. Mr. Regan seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
-- 1370 CHORRO (Evergreen Ash)
Mr. Martin stated there was only one area in the parking lot that was raised
and that the tree could be root pruned.
Mr. Combrink did not think brick should be used in parking areas, as it shifts.
Ms. Vigil moved to deny the removal request. Mr. Combrink seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
� Q
' V
city
SAn WIS OBISPO
25 Prado Road • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
September 16, 1993
Liz Gladwill
382 Jaycee Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Your application for a tree removal has been reviewed by the City
of San Luis Obispo Arborist. Since the existing conditions did
not allow the City Arborist to make a determination regarding
removal of the tree(s) , the matter has been forwarded to the City
of San Luis Obispo Tree Committee, pursuant to City Ordinance No.
1153, Section 12.24.180.
The Tree Committee, which is comprised of five members, will
review your application and inspect the tree(s) in question. The
members will then take up the issue at the next scheduled Tree
Committee meeting, scheduled for October 41 1993 . At the
meeting, the City Arborist will provide a brief overview of the
circumstances surrounding removal of the tree(s) , after which you
may be present to explain your reasons for removing the tree(s) .
The Committee members will then address your concerns and
deliberate the facts to determine whether they should, infact,
grant or deny your request or provide you with other options.
Any decision rendered by the Tree Committee can be appealed to
the City Council if you are not satisfied with the Tree
Committee's decision.
Sincerely,
Todd Martin
City Arborist
tre iew•Jtr/tm#2
f� The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities.
f Telecommunications Devitt for the Deaf(805)761-7410
/-9
►►�►►►������������i����IIIlillllllla���"""�� III
cityof to
is oBispo
25 Prado Road • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
October 27, 1993
Liz Gladwell
382 Jaycee Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
Your application for tree removal has been reviewed by the
City of San Luis Obispo Tree Committee. After careful
consideration of the facts provided by you and an on-site
inspection of the tree(s) , the Committee members have voted,
in compliance with Municipal Code Section 12 . 24 . 180.0. 6, to
deny your request based on the following findings:
■ a. The tree is in very good health
■ b. This tree species is not brittle nor subject to limb
breakage
■ c. The location of the tree does not interfere with sunlight
reaching the house during the winter
■ d. Sewer line replacement does not justify removal of tree
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
decision. An appeal may be filed by any person aggrieved by a
decision of the Committee.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, you may
contact Todd Martin at (805) 781-7220, Monday through Friday,
8:00-5:00.
Respectfully,
4=--�. /5PZT :z::
Todd Martin
City Arborist
tcdeniaLltr/tm2
ffLt The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities.
V` Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410
NO
at O S '
An' tUISOBISPO *
I
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL
In accordance with the appeals'procedure as authorized by Title I, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code,the undersignedherebyappealsfrom the decision of ( off H+TT
rendered on /O-Z 7-4 which decision consisted of the following (Le. set forth factual
situation and the grounds for submlWng this appeal. Use additional sheets as needed):
I. �i�o f,�E does h"r 4. Ches +I A--r home, �ei.04 br6w• -
SevEr�a-�
,c., They b rte+k
a, �e �►- !1 bsol vlzt-�zPPr�cF` p l 1. rN rnO61577
afim�-G�
k�rN�R 51tN • t�riN�
/u loehT7oN 0_f SUN —wt L rNt
�- 71E
�N57�rllttnoN.4lua_ �/� ��N� setl-p,N� �cs,G�v- �
a /t,OT w o".)
s}. WAY WAs l g 1 ,J E7U .A bb-4 or£ ,'}N
The undersigned discussed the.declslon being appealed with:
on '
DATE&TIME APPEAL RECEIVED: Appelia ,
eitle
Representative
14 9
ress
140V 19U, 2 -742 g
Phone
CITY CLERK -
Original to Clty Clark
City Attorney .
Calendaredfor. ��(n✓i
�r1-- i9� _ Copy to Administrative Officer
Copy to the-following department(s):
_ /,
APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION.
Name of applicant L 14D U11 f I
(Please Prhrt)
Address � 10
Assessor's Parcel Number-
Phone Number (daytime)
Reason for exemption:
(Please type or print natty) (�
V2 Q-ry R\ 1�Ep 1 Q CEt tEIJT o't S"T�' U CTU s
I declare undiar penalty of perjury that the information in the application is correct
Mg2n!rbf
kn wl ge and belief.
/N �3
Date
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
P.O. BOX 12760
888 MORRO
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93403
(805) 781-7217 / /�