Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/09/2001, 3 - APPEAL OF TREE COMMITTEE DECISION TO DENY TREE REMOVAL REQUESTcouncil ac,Enda uEpont C I T Y OF S A N L U I S O B I S P O FROM: Michael McCluskey, Public Works Direct r Prepared By: Todd Martin, City Arborist� SUBJECT: Appeal of Tree Committee decision to deny tree removal request CAO RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution denying the appeal of the Tree Committee's decision to deny the removal request at 1321 Madonna Road. DISCUSSION On October 10, 2000, staff received a tree removal application from Mr. and Mrs. Rodolfo Budano of 335 Margarita Avenue in San Luis Obispo. The application was for the removal of one Monterey cypress and one Liquidambar tree located at 1321 Madonna Road in San Luis Obispo. The request was based on claims that the trees were damaging the public sidewalk in front of this property and that roots from both trees were infiltrating their sewer lateral resulting in blockages. The applicant also expressed concerns about the potential for falling limbs and debris from these trees. Upon receiving Mr. and Mrs. Budano's application, staff inspected the two trees in question. Staff identified two areas of public sidewalk that had been damaged by tree roots, however, the damage caused by the cypress was minor. The second tree, a liquidambar, had lifted the sidewalk and had also damaged the curb and gutter slightly. This was not viewed as a `hardship' to the property owner, however, as the necessary repairs are the responsibility of the city. After inspecting the trees at 1321 Madonna, staff determined that the two 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 that the removal request would be placed on the November 27 Tree Committee agenda for consideration. Municipal Code 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? 3 -1 Council Agenda Report — Appeal of Tree Committee decision to deny tree removal request Page 2 Mr. and Mrs. Budano were both present at the Nov. 27 meeting. The Tree Committee members present at the meeting included Chairperson Steve Caminiti, Barbara Murphy and Jennifer Metz. At the meeting, Mr. and Mrs. Budano expressed their concerns regarding the expense of maintaining the sewer lateral and presented an invoice from S.L.O. Plumbing. The Budano's stated they could neither afford to replace the sewer lateral nor have it cleaned out periodically due to the root intrusion from adjacent trees. Mr. and Mrs. Budano also called attention to the damaged sidewalk, however, it was clear that their main concern was the sewer lateral and the expense of maintaining it Both staff and members of the Tree Committee urged the Budano's to take advantage of the city's free sewer lateral inspection program in order to determine the extent of the failure of this lateral. The applicants were also encouraged to investigate the possibility of participating in the city's sewer lateral replacement program. After taking into consideration the concerns of the applicant, the Tree Committee members voted 3 -0 approving the removal of the liquidambar, and denying the request to remove the large cypress. The Tree Committee felt there was insufficient evidence that the cypress was causing significant damage to either public or private property. The decision to allow the removal of the liquidambar was based on (a) undue hardship to the property owner, and (b) good arboricultural practice. Mr. and Mrs. Budano were notified of this decision by letter on November 29, 2000. On December 1, Mr. and Mrs. Budano filed an appeal with the City Clerk's office. The appeal asserted that the Tree Committee decision was made in error due to the failure of the Committee to give proper consideration to information tendered with the original application. FISCAL EAPACT There is no fiscal impact to the City for either denial or approval of the appeal. The cost of the tree removal, if the appeal is denied, is borne by the applicant. ALTERNATIVES Adopt a resolution upholding the appeal. Attachments: i . Resolution denying appeal of the Tree Committee A . Resolution upholding appeal of the Tree Committee 3. Appeal to the City Council received December 1, 2000 4. Tree Committee Minutes of meeting of November 27, 2000 Tree Removal Application dated October 10, 2000 6. Arborist's letters to applicant `f. Letter from appellant (:\Council Agenda Reports \tree removal appeal 1321 Madonnadoc 3 -2 A[i chtftee -i+- 1 RESOLUTION NO. (2000 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF A TREE REMOVAL REQUEST AT 1321 MADONNA ROAD 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: The cypress tree is not causing undue hardship to the property owner; and 2. Removal of the cypress tree would not promote good arboricultural practice. SECTION 2. Action. The appeal of the Tree Committee decision to deny the tree removal request at 1321 Madonna Road is hereby denied. Upon motion of and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was adopted this ATTEST: Lee Price, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jeffrey G. targensen, ity AfiOrn ey seconded by day of , 2000. Mayor Allen Settle 3 -3 A lt, -iC hm 01i+ 2 RESOLUTION NO. (2000 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF A TREE REMOVAL REQUEST AT 1321 MADONNA ROAD 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 cypress tree is causing undue hardship to the property owner; and 2. Removal of the cypress tree would promote good arboricultural practice. SECTION 2. Action. The appeal of the Tree Committee decision to deny the tree removal request at 1321 Madonna Road is hereby upheld. Upon motion of and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was adopted this ATTEST: Lee Price, City Clerk AP OVED AS TO FORM: Jeffrey G. Jorgensen, City A orney seconded by day of , 2000. Mayor Allen Settle 3 -4 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 i ire Q (2o t.vr ` fee rendered on "nil which consisted of the following (i.e., explain what you are appealing and the grounds for submitting the appeal. Use additional sheets as needed.) The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with: .n Name/Department (Date i Appellant: 3r` eq r 54O Nam6tritl Mailing Address ( Zip Code) Sv =-60- Home Phone Work Phone `qp J �v r Representafive: r —� L Q 34-01' 4 Namelritle a' ing Address (& Zip Code) For Official Use Only: Calendared for Date & Time Received: c: City Attorney City Administrative Officer RECEIVED Copy to the following department(s): iYLc.lie. �'1') DEC 1 - 2000 AAZE;) SLO CITY CLERK Original in City Clerk's Office q 00 A ,�L( - 3 5 MEMBERS PRESENT: . . N STAFF PRESENT: 1. TREE REMOVALS /�(ICIC�If "r1C:i� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TREE COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, November 27, 2000 Steve Caminiti, Jennifer Metz, and Barbara Murphy Jane Worthy and Ron Regan Todd Martin, Lisa Woske ■ 1321 Madonna (Cypress and liquid amber) The applicants discussed the removal request, noting major problems with sidewalk lifting and root intrusion, which now requires a plumber to service the property three to four times a year. They stated the trees had been regularly maintained, but had caused problems with the roof and gutters and now presented a financial hardship to retain and maintain. They noted the sewer line was approximately 15 -20 feet from the cypress tree and submitted a recent plumbing bill, which recommended replacing the sewer main and lateral. Mr. Martin clarified that the liquid amber was probably the cause of the sidewalk damage and much of the sewer problems. He stated the city would be responsible for repairing the sidewalk and discussed the city's sewer lateral replacement program. Ms. Murphy favored removing the liquid amber, as it appeared to be responsible for most of the site problems. She did not favor removing the cypress, as she did not determine clear problems caused by that tree. She discussed a replacement planting for the removal of the one tree and agreed that the applicants should investigate the city's sewer line replacement program. Mr. Caminiti and Ms. Metz agreed with Ms. Murphy, stating that the liquid amber was the wrong tree in the wrong location. Mi TREE COIVIIIVIPITEE MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 27, 2001 PAGE TWO Mr. Caminiti moved to approve the removal of the liquid amber, based on undue hardship to the property owners and promoting good arboricultural practice, and required one replacement 15- gallon tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of the issuance of removal permit. He denied the removal of the cypress, as he could not make the necessary findings. Ms. Metz seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. ■ 1235 Osos (Italian stone pine) Mr. Martin felt it was a good specimen but planted in the wrong location, as it had no room to grow, was ruining the asphalt, and was displacing the air conditioning unit. He felt a different species would work better on the site. The applicant's representative concurred with Mr. Martin's assessment, noting that the planter and asphalt areas were severely damaged and discussed a concern about trip hazards due to roots. Ms. Metz agreed with the damage were nicer trees on the property. the wrong location. assessment and felt that there She felt it was the wrong tree in Mr. Caminiti and Ms. Murphy agreed with Ms. Metz. Ms. Metz moved to approve the removal request, based on undue hardship to the property owners and promoting good arboricultural practice, and required one replacement 24" box tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of the issuance of removal permit. Mr. Caminiti seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 3 -7 TREE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 27, 2001 PAGE THREE ■ 1065 Cortez (Italian stone pine) There was no applicant or representative present to discuss the removal request and answer Committee questions or concerns. The Committee discussed the application, noting that the tree was a significant neighborhood tree, but had not been well maintained. They agreed that as a result of the roots not being maintained or pruned, the driveway had been damaged. They discussed the possibility of severe root pruning to mitigate further damage, especially if the driveway were to be repaired. Mr. Caminiti moved to deny the removal request, as he could not make any of the necessary findings. Ms. Murphy seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 2. REVIEW OF MASTER STREET TREE LIST The November revisions were reviewed and approved. 3. OLD BUSINESS There was no discussion. It was agreed that there would be no December meeting, due to the holiday. The meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m. to the January, 2001 meeting. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske Recording Secretary 3 -8 rt ttac nivictir v city of son Luis omspo Ei& 25 Prado Road * San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 IMPORTANT: A tree removal application will only be considered if accompanied by a sketch showing the street, structure(s) location and location of all trees proposed for removal. Please draw on the back of this form or fax on a separate sheet of paper, along with your application. Applicant: Mailing Address: Location of tree(s): PLEASE NOTE: If your tree is approved for removal and posted, please call the office at the end of your posting period to arrange to pick up your permit. "*SEE NOTE BELOW TREE REMOVAL APPLICATION U2 W_ r&/V AadakfQ Telephone: 3� �dae— a l-a yht , Scr,K 144 Is dd fshe.CG- zip: 930 13 z/ Ua.d ylt" 106( , day A,14 V ke�ae ; Ga Please indicate nearest cross street: Tree Species: Botanical Name Reasons for removing: Common °NOTE: Any required 'replacement trees' must be installed within '45 days of issuance of permit°. Since tree removal permits are good for 6 months, you may wish to hold off picking up your permit until you are sure you will be able to install the replacement tree(s) within the 45 day period. **MAIL OR FAX completed form to: City Arborist, 25 Prado Rd., San Luis Obispo, CA 93401, Phone: 781 -7220 Fax: 542 -9868 Applicant /Owner: Date: 10CMeA, lag, xpvv (Sketch attached) �f,(,ta Q /� 4,- �/�„� F: groups /trees /forms /tree removal application The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities�lq Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781.7410. �V �gllll;I city of sAn Luis oBispo 25 Prado Road * San Luis Obisno CA 93401 October 23, 2000 Rodolfo & Fely Budano 335 Margarita Ave. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Your application for tree removal at 1321 Madonna Rd., 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, November 27, 2000 at 5:00pm , in Conference Room A at the Cite Corporation Yard, 25 Prado Road. A copy of the agenda will be sent prior to the meeting. You arc encouraged to attend the meeting. At the meeting, the City Arborist will provide a brief overview of the circumstances surroundinL 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. 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 M11r.cam ©The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services. programs and activities." 1W Om Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781 -7410. `ice November 29, 2000 city of sAn LUIS oBispo 25 Prado Road • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Rodolfo & Fey Budano 335 Margarita Ave. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Your application for tree removal at 1321 Madonna Rd., was reviewed by the City of San Luis Obispo Tree Committee on November 27, 2000. 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.C.6, to take the following actions: # approve removal of the Liquid Amber based; on good arboricultural practice & undue hardship # deny your request for removal of the Cypress because: 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. 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. If you have any questions regarding this matter, you may contact Todd Martin at (805) 781 -7023, Monday through Friday, 8:00 -5:00. Respectfully, Todd Martin City Arborist corm /dmy O T he City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and acti0 e—J Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781 -7410. Rodolfo & Fely Budano 335 Margarita Ave. San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401 805 543 8664 November 30, 2000 Mr. Todd Martin, SLO City Arborist 25 Prado Rd. San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401 A6thillet,14- I. Regarding: Appeal of denial of request for permission to remove a cypress tree from the front yard of 1321 Madonna Road S.L.O. per Municipal code section 1.20.020 — 1.20.050. Dear Mr. Martin. In your written denial of our primary request for permission to remove the cypress tree, you cited three allegations upon which you based that denial: 1. You alleged that "the tree is not causing undue harm ". 2. You alleged that "removal would not promote good arboricultural practices ". 3. You alleged that `removal would harm the character of the environment of the surrounding neighborhood ". We will speak to each of these allegations separately and beg you to consider our reasoning and feelings in this matter. We plan to demonstrate that the denial was an error made as a result of a failure of the Arbor Committee to give due consideration to the original material and attachments tendered with the primary application. 1. "The tree is not causing undue hardship ": We think that statement is in error. We respectfully refer you to items # 2 & 3 of the original letter. You will note there that we explained the root encroachment into sewer lines and attached an invoice and letter from the plumber who affected the repair of the clogs caused by that root encroachment. To us this recurring problem constitutes a severe hardship on us, on the residents and on the sewer lines. Further, when the sewer lines become clogged, fecal matter is pushed up through the other drains within the residence causing a stench to permeate the entire residence. This causes not only severe discomfort but also a serious health hazard. Such a situation cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely. The most expedient remedy for this recurring situation is removal of the tree. 2. "Removal would not promote good arboricultural practice": We believe that the removal of the cypress and replacing it with two well chosen native trees which will send their roots to a grade below the sewer lines and thus would not sustain the chronic nature of the current tree but, which would afford esthetic beauty for the property, produce shelter from the sun, and provide a resting place for our feathered friends. We are certain that such a scenario would be far better arboricultural practice than to retain the status quo. 3. "Removal would harm the character of the environment of the surrounding neighborhood. We believe that this cypress is an eyesore and an abomination to the environment of the surrounding neighborhood. We sincerely believe that the removal of this tree and the planting of two trees as described in # 2 above would be immeasurably better than to allow this tree to dislodge the sidewalks, encroach on the sewer lines and drop its spiny foliage onto the lawn rendering it a hazardous area for all not wearing combat boots. In comparison, the two new trees would extend their roots below the grade of the sewer, their foliage would be soft and pliable when dropped and which, in time, would provide shade for the 3 -12 lawn area of the two adjoining properties. All of these circumstances act in concert to improve rather than harm the "character of the environment of the surrounding neighborhood ". Consequently, we vigorously renew our request for permission to remove the cypress tree form the front yard of the property located at 1321 Madonna Road. Res ectfully submitt� Rodolfo B o tv�, itv Fely BtIdano 3 -13 r LO 19) L 0 r ` l M W v O L ? 7 a u n Z L O MO 101 00 Tr Tr et 0% U Q U 4 11 -V a �'• �aWa O 'w a N L.0 0 cm N n W 3 0 M 01 ro m � A p O ro m V ro cc � � P^ M f6 0. of ro to O a U c JJ $ C 41 ro r- N ® Wr n 1V 0 d' Ot 2 0 6 �U m O a N A O m rn I m a o ro $ter ernLn N m O x I C O OE O D3 C e Y E a IN 1` r Q g E u r m u O� q^p - O E Oe ¢ N = L m m D 3:a$m L$m is w = o m e S-a° g < _.• c O E E El"! �@ sm or�4 < m 8 St. E 5 n 0< �a r 9 E� . I m m s a vi W m ¢ m J W i i W f W r ¢ LL Q N V ¢ a z rW v W W Imml O U 0 O s° O Y L U 3 W U O 0 L o W U T > c Z t W ° E p Y 2 r 3 o t C O OE O D3 C e Y E a 9g s s D 0 L o� t• r Q g E u r m u O� q^p - O E Oe ¢ N = L m m D 3:a$m L$m is w = o m e S-a° g < _.• c O E E El"! �@ sm or�4 < m 8 St. E 5 n 0< 9 E� m m s a vi W m ¢ m J W i i W f W r ¢ LL Q N V ¢ a z rW v W W Imml O U 0 O s° O Y L U 3 W U O 0 L o W U T > c Z t W ° E p Y 2 r 3 o t m o m D s b r Q� €, ;32 s g i- m u .5 pm8m3�� c ti{ �g;CF°i�• c S e s m W II as gm 1 p . . V y m g E a ff U. p cc a _m L_ 0 O E m a e N a m m C 0 U m O V Cl O Ln m o: m L U m m 3 C O U m 0 OI a a to O �.z N E A nm mU U �p Op CL 7 m f° D Y mo m o_ c 4 m w 0z C O OE O D3 C e Y E a 9g s s D 0 L o� t• r Q g E u r m u O� q^p - O E Oe ¢ N = L m m D 3:a$m L$m is w = o m e S-a° g < _.• c O E E �@ sm or�4 < m 8 St. E 5 n 0< m o m D s b r Q� €, ;32 s g i- m u .5 pm8m3�� c ti{ �g;CF°i�• c S e s m W II as gm 1 p . . V y m g E a ff U. p cc a _m L_ 0 O E m a e N a m m C 0 U m O V Cl O Ln m o: m L U m m 3 C O U m 0 OI a a to O �.z N E A nm mU U �p Op CL 7 m f° D Y mo m o_ c 4 m w 0z OUC.9 572678 P L U, M Gs, / P.O. BOX 264 PISMO BFAC$ CA 91148 FAST SE VICE 805489 -3800 595 -3800 489 -3879 fax September 27, 2000 Fely Budano - Property Owner 335 Margarita San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 0 Re: 1321 Madonna Road San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 To whom:it may concern: In regards to the above referenced property, we have been called out to said property several times for main line stoppages. These stoppages have been caused by roots in the line. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at the above phone number. Sincerely, !` V Ed Von Burg V SLO Plumbing EVB /cic 3 -15 11 MEET11, _ AGENDA DATE '°1 ITEM # council mE r._ moRanoum aty o san Luls oslspo, aarnmistrzation dEpaRtmEnt - - -- DATE: January 8, 2001 TO: City Council FROM: Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer� SUBJECT: Item C -10 Alternative As food for thought, I wish to offer the following alternative to the City Council relative to the Marsh Street Garage Expansion Contract: that you treat the plans and specifications and contract award in a manner identical to how we handle any other capital improvement project with a value in excess of $50,000. For the last several years, the practice has been that any capital improvement projects in excess of $50,000 are taken to the City Council for approval of plans of specifications and authorization to go out to bid, and the CAO is then delegated to award the contract, if the low bid is within the engineers budget estimate. If the Council's goal is to "see" the final plan for the project before it is actually constructed, then I believe there are advantages to having this final look at the point of bid authorization, as opposed to contract award. One advantage is that the Council can review and be comfortable with the final plan and design for the garage before bids are solicited to build it. Another advantage is that the Council could complete its review of the project at an earlier time, thus making for a stronger and less uncertain bid climate. PCODUCIL � ' _ . ' c -10 alternative memo p� P>DCf1�t6YI ❑ UTIL DIR g!�p ❑ PERS DIR c -10 alternative memo