Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/19/1996, 2 - APPEAL OF TREE COMMITTEE DECISION TO GRANT TREE REMOVAL REQUEST AT 1951 MONTEREY STREET council j. )I' ll j ac,Enaa Report 'mNmb� CITY O F SAN LUIS 0 B I S P 0 FROM: Michael McCluskey, Public Works Director� Prepared By: Todd Martin, City Arboris SUBJECT: Appeai of Tree Committee decision to grant tree removal request at 1951 Monterey Street CAO RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution upholding the decision of the Tree Committee to approve the removal request for 1951 Monterey Street REPORT-IN-BRIEF On August 27, 1996, City staff received a tree removal application from Mr. Jerry Holland of 1320 Santa Rosa Street in San Luis Obispo. The request was for the removal of two large eucalyptus trees located at 1951 Monterey Street. The request was based on the following claims: (1) debris from the trees creates hazardous walking conditions for guests of the motel, (2)there is a constant threat of limb drop due to past pruning practices, (3) the trees create a hazardous situation for workers who must routinely clean roof and gutters. DISCUSSION City staff inspected the trees and determined that the trees did not meet the criteria for tree removal as described in Section 12.24.180 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. The applicant was notified of this by letter on August 27, 1996, and advised that the removal request would be placed on the September 23, 1996 Tree Committee agenda for consideration. Mr. Holland was not present at the meeting on September 23, however, his representative, Mr. Harmshan Sohi, was in attendance. Mr. Sohi reiterated those concerns listed on the tree removal application and did not provide any further information. Municipal Codes Section 12.24.180 C-6 provides guidance for approval or denial of tree removal requests. One of the following criteria must be met before a removal request can be approved: 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? Among other things, "good arboricultural practice" dictates the "right tree for the right place" and the use of proper pruning techniques. The Tree Committee and staff felt the two eucalyptus trees were inappropriate for this location, given their close proximity to the building (approximately 6" at the roof line). Staff also felt that past pruning practices had left the trees prone to storm damage. Staff and the Tree Committee agreed there was not sufficient room for replacement trees ./ Page 2 Tree Removal Appeal at this location or elsewhere on the property. After careful deliberation, the Tree Committee was able to make Finding B) and thus approved the removal request, per the Municpal Code. (See Attachment E.) On October 3, 1996, Norman and Cherie Smith filed an appeal with the City Clerk's office appealing the Tree Committee decision per the Municipal Code, Chapter 12.24.180 H. The appeal asserts that removal of the trees in question will adversely affect the view from their home on San Luis Drive by removing the "screening effect" the canopy of each tree currently provides. The appellant also expressed concerns over the loss of habitat the two eucalyptus trees provide. An inspection by City staff revealed that removal of the two trees would have minimal impact on the view from 1920 San Luis Drive. The trees proposed for removal are on the west side of the Super 8 Motel and do not provide significant screening for the residents at 1920 San Luis Drive. There are approximately 30 trees located on the property between the Super 8 Motel and the Smith residence, including several large sycamores and numerous evergreen varieties that provide screening throughout the year. The canopy of the trees proposed for removal is above the roof line of the Super 8 Motel and does not screen the building as seen from the appellant's property. Staff feels the habitat value of these two trees is insignificant given their location and species. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact to the City for either denial or approval of the appeal. The cost of the tree removal is bome by the applicant. ALTERNATIVE Adopt a resolution upholding the appeal. Attachments: A) Appeal dated 10/3/96 B) Removal Application C) Arborist's letter of 8/27/96 D) Arborist's letter or 9/24/96 E) Tree Committee Minutes, meeting of 9/23/96 RESOLUTION N0: (1996 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL FOR A TREE REMOVAL REQUEST AT 1951 MONTEREY STREET BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findines. 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: Removing the trees would promote good arboricultural practice. Upon motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the following resolution was adopted this day of 1996. Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: 2O CkYv Attomev �-3 RESOLUTION NO: (1996 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL FOR A TREE REMOVAL REQUEST AT 1951 MONTEREY STREET 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: Removing the trees would not promote good arboricultural practice. Upon motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES`: ABSENT: the following resolution was adopted this day of 1996. Mayor Allen Settle . ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: j CMy Affo 1 � city of san �s APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL In accordance with the appeals procedures as authorized by Title, 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals from the decision of Tree Committee rendered on 9/23/96 which consisted of the following (i.e., explain what you are appealing and the grounds for submitting the appeal. Use additional sheets as needed.) See attached. The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with: Todd Martin on Name/Department (Date) Appellant: N. Brooks & Cherie Smith 1920 San Luis Dr. Name/Title Mailing Address (& Zip Code) Home Phone Work Phone Representative: Namelfitle Mailing Address (& Zip Code) For Official Use Only: Calendared for 11/6/96 Date &Time Received: c: City Attorney City Administrative Officer Copy to the following department(s): ® Todd Martin CITY CLERK Original in City Clerk's Office `' -0,-7 . rr ' r , � r QL _� Z5 PrAdd Road SLOj CA 93401 lidcity of san lues oBispo Ak 26 Prado Road • San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 �4 rtr A �� ci I TREE REMOVAL APPLICATION FO Y ' �4 Applicant: Telephone:5AA--j-a3A— Jerry Holland Zip-934ni Address: 1320 Santa Rosa C;T.n Location of tree(s) : 195 Monterey qT-Q 11por 8MotelL. Please indicate nearest cross street- Buena Vista 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 removal. Tree Species: =17 Botanical name Common Reasons for removing: Danger to bl 1 if limbs fall on quest rooms- np�nqj c nn parking Int hazardoi when combined with slope of driveway snpciallv for ladies in hoo3a Hazard for workman who must clean off roof and rain gutters. compensatory replacement proposed: We have had thaSe trees topped and trimed already. It arLpears comments: that the result was actually to spur growth. We feel they are- a definite liability and should come out for the benifit of the buildinj� a the public: Applicant/Owner Date (plot plan attached) --------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------ ------ Fc..ee c,-f Trce o Kc rbl. /o/ /Me ' a,46 k zh.+a. a+M a } -4 o����� � + a�•� ll 11 /rot" p4r �a I A C z}c c TY e u I Ur �Pti,wr�� 6L,r°r^ a f 1 � II t I o a 7 v : 1 i I 4 ,y d �-8 Al cityof oaspo 25 Prado Road • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 August 27, 1996 Jerry Holland 1320 Santa Rosa St. San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93405 Your application for tree removal at 1951 Monterey , has been reviewed by the City of San Luis Obispo Arborist. Since the existing conditions did not allow the City Arborist to make a favorable finding 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 Tree Committee meeting scheduled for September 23, 1996 at 5:OOPM, in Conference Room A at the City Corporation Yard, 25 Prado Road. A copy of the agenda will be sent prior to the meeting. You are encouraged to attend the meeting. At the meeting, the City Arborist will provide a brief overview of the circumstances surrounding your proposed removal of the trees, after which you will be given an opportunity to explain your reasons for requesting the removal. The Committee members will then address your concerns and deliberate the facts to determine whether they should, in fact, 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. r If you have any questions regarding this process, you may contact Todd Martin at (805) 781- 7023, Monday through Friday. Sincerely, Todd Martin City Arborist trceltr.com /O The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410. pL ��►►���o��i���►�►�►�III�11f 8�� � �►����� lIi� � city of s An lues oaspo 25 Prado Road • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 September 24, 1996 Jerry Holland 1320 Santa Rosa San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401 Your application for tree removal at 1951 Monterey St. 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 to approve your.request. An employee of the City will post the tree(s) for removal within two working days of the Committee's decision. This "Public Notice" must remain up for ten (10) days to allow members of the public to appeal the Committee's decision to the City Council. After this posting period, if no appeal is filed, a tree removal permit will be issued. If an appeal is received, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the appeal within 45 calendar days of receipt of the appeal. You will be notified both of the appeal and of the subsequent meeting by the City Council. Please contact the City Arborist after October 3rd. to obtain your removal permit. If you have any questions regarding this process, you may contact Todd Martin at (805)781-7220, Monday through Friday. Respectfully, Todd Martin City Arborist =pprov.l7rtmp5 /O The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410. v 4 -109 — 09 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TREE COMMITTEE MEETING MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1996 MEMBERS PRESENT: Barbara Murphy, Peggy Mandeville, Eva Vigil and Ron Regan MEMBERS ABSENT: Jeff Ferber STAFF PRESENT: Todd Martin, Lisa Woske 1 . MINUTES The minutes of the August 26, 1996 regular meeting were approved as amended, indicating a correction on page two to read "sucker growth" and noting that the Holly Oak tree on 440 Corrida was the approved street tree for the neighborhood. 2. TREE REMOVALS - - 1736 ROYAL COURT (Cypress) plicant discussed the application and noted that t lim nd onto the neighbor's lot and creates a ering problem th property owners. He stated h ontinual problems wi is being in the sewer lin called Roto-Rooter approximately o ery six months. . the tree was too large for the lot and was ned abo ity. He did not feel on his restricted income that he the pruning and maintenance that would be required if t was not removed. Mr. Martin felt that ee was hea d that the sewer line was not ABS pipe, did recognize hards the property owner. Ms. Mur It the tree was healthy and was a sky e. She did not removal without documented evidence of the mage a e costs involved with repairing same. TREE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 23, 1996 PAGE TWO andeville agreed with Ms. Murphy and ed pruning measu Mr. Regan felt t e had over the yard and was concerned about the damage t is causing to the property. Mr. Regan moved to ve removal request, based on undue hardship for the erty owne upon verification of sewerline repair bills. quired a replace tree to be chosen from the Master Str ree List and planted w1 5 days of the cypress removal s. Murphy seconded the motion. Th otion passed unanimously. - - 1951 MONTEREY (Eucalyptus) The applicant discussed the application and was concerned about the liability of the motel for limb breakage, litter hazards for guests, and the hardship of constantly cleaning the roof and gutters. He noted that the trees were located in the back of the business property and was concerned about the size and liability in inclement weather and winds. Mr. Martin felt it was an inappropriate tree for the location and agreed that two could be removed. Ms. Murphy agreed with Mr. Martin and noted that there was no room for a replacement planting. Ms. Mandeville and Ms. Vigil agreed with Ms. Murphy. Ms. Vigil moved to approve the removal request, based on good arboricultural practice, and required no replacement tree. Mr. Regan seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.