HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/04/2003, PH2 - APPEAL OF TREE COMMITTEE DECISION TO APPROVE TREE REMOVAL REQUEST: MICHAEL R. BOTWIN, APPELLANTIh9 _I
council 't°°°a
agcnoa REpoRt I�N a
CITY OF SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: Michael McCluskey, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Ron Combs, Interim City Arborist
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF TREE COMMITTEE DECISION TO APPROVE TREE
REMOVAL REQUEST: MICHAEL R. BOTWIN, APPELLANT
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a resolution denying the appeal of the Tree Committee's decision to approve the removal
request at 2389 Helena Street
DISCUSSION:
On November 18, 2002, staff received a tree removal application from William & Melinda Jones
of 2389 Helena Street in San Luis Obispo. (Attachment 1) The application was for the removal
of 3 Modesto Ash trees located in the parkway at that address. The request was based on claims
that the tree's roots were cracking the driveway and public sidewalks. The request noted that the
trees were diseased and dripped sticky sap on their cars which leave the sidewalks and driveway
with a sticky residue. The applicants also stated they would remove and replace the trees with
more appropriate trees from the City's Master Street Tree List at no cost to the city.
Upon receiving the Jones' application, staff inspected the trees. Staff identified displacement of
the sidewalk that had been recently ground and patched. The homeowner's also had replaced
their driveway, driveway approach and a small section of city sidewalk, which was likely a result
of tree roots displacing the concrete. Staff also noticed the sticky residue and concluded it was
the result from aphid infestations.
After inspecting the trees staff determined it did not meet the criteria for tree removal as
described in section 12.24.180 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. The City Arborist may
authorize a tree removal after finding any of the following circumstances:
A. The tree is a hazard, 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 way feasible to eliminate the damage.
Because all three trees were not dead or hazardous and root damage although evident was not
severe, the City Arborist could not authorize the removal. When the City Arborist cannot
approve removal, the Tree Committee shall review the application.
C�'r
Council Agenda Report — Report Title
Page 2
The applicant was notified that the removal request would be placed on the December 16, 2002,
Tree Committee agenda for consideration.
Municipal Code Section 12.24.180 C -6 provides guidance for approval or denial of tree removal
request. The Tree Committee shall review the application and may authorize removal if it finds
one of the following circumstan ces:
A. The tree is causing undue hardship to the property owner.
B. Removing the tree promotes good arboricultural practice.
C. Removing the tree will not harm the character or environment of the surrounding
neighborhood.
The Tree Committee members present at this meeting included Chairperson Steve Caminiti,
Laura Rice, Linda Hauss, and Teresa Larson. After taking into consideration the concems of the
applicant the members voted unanimously 4-0 in favor of approving the request. The applicant
Melinda Jones was present at the December 16th meeting. (Attachment 2)
The decision was based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required three 15- gallon
replacement trees to be chosen from the Master Street Tree List and planted within 45 days of
issuance of permit. In areas with large mature trees that cause infrastructure problems, promoting
age and species diversity to the urban forest over a long period of time instead of large -scale
removal projects is desirable and less controversial. The impact to the neighborhood is lessened
and enhanced as young and middle aged trees mature while mature trees are being removed and
replanted over time.
On December 20, 2002, the City Clerk's office received an appeal of the Tree Committee
decision from Mr. Michael R. Botwin of 2566 Santa Clara.(Attachment 3) The appeal was based
on the belief that removal of these trees would harm the character of the neighborhood. Mr. And
Mrs. Jones were notified of the appeal and informed the matter would be decided upon by the
City Council on February 4, 2003.
To uphold the decision of the Tree Committee and deny the appeal, the Council must find that
the Tree Committee's finding was correct. To uphold the appeal, the Council must find the Tree
Committee's finding in error and that none of the remaining two criteria apply.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the City for denial of the appeal. The cost of the tree removal and
replacement, if the appeal is denied, is borne by the applicant.
Council Agenda Report — Report Title
Page 3
"g0of OVEN I"I, V
Adopt a resolution upholding the appeal.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Tree Removal Application dated November 18, 2002
2. Tree Committee Minutes of meeting December 16, 2002
3. Appeal to the City Council received December 20, 2002
4. Resolution denying appeal of the Tree Committee
5. Resolution upholding appeal of the Tree Committee
a ^3
NOV-04 -2002 09 10 RICFPRD A. CAL `L 805 544 6357 P.01./32
MACH ENT I
C4 .. Sidi IJAIS Q 1
I" Ptedo ROW • SO U14 Obiepa CA eeaoi
rmtmw: A hose remora) oppncation *11 P1EAse NOTE: If your tree Is approved for
Only be c4midared If accompanied by a jk&. ± tw om alsd poew, please eau the 13ffke at
showt g the strse t, 5tMctu*5) :oaatton and tha end of your pastillp period to anmmp to
Iaealtion of all tt+ses propated }ar rmneAI. pick up your par►nit:
Please, a'raw an the bask of ttds farm or fax "*SEE NOTE BELOW
an a separate sheet of paper, olov afth yaw
dw•
r&
.4ppikam:
rWaaQlp �ddro>b: '�38af 'NEI. N_ c'f.t - wi s 1�P.°:�p� 9 .
Locattea 44 tree(* tc cc �►
Neese k dmate eesarnt cram Own Willi _( "i4-FZ >_05
Tf'sa 8p4Cfp: CJ�) I1�L15 V E 4kIT I wl N(p Pe 9m
Bete" Name GORI AC.¢A a VIOI76sw . Common Nags —
Realm for ratmerfros
'''NOT!: ARY nWft#lrpfowesat traNrruat be Woled *ft a day! of beuw" of WmW. &M "ft rSnlo WR it
-JV good for 61 M118 You MY with tb keW off pleldrs ap ra. prWt MMI Y0U art curs you %jo be able to held! the
M*MM%srt VOW of" the 45 day period.
e4#AL OIL FAX esoRlpiatsed f m to: Cf'ly Arbarkt, 95 Pro& Rd., Son Lurm Obispo.
CA 9M1, PMfwes Ma7M Fax; lf4Y-1M"
( 3 . - & =of
f4 orwwrwwxaraerse �a
dWGbbd in an of 10 aIMM pRgRnl{ and amdeea.
a.4
Nw -18 -2002 1500 RICHARD A. CARSEL 805 544 6357 P.01 /31
• �•
/t'04 liG7hb 1%7/1 • ✓ �� • �6d' /�(�Q `p���G'
�1e5 AI RCHflVgI�EN
R oee9 ffWe4L-qtR,
^'T . PROCAM ONE VA5M
ALMA LDO55ON T=
fO ft PARKWAY Ai SHOWN
r r J Pf ON PACE LZ
rd�/ �• J .
PA
J r r I WIW �1� VIY'YW�.M
FH ALDQN L.eNY�ON TREE
J r J
Y^Y' Jr • r.
Pf
r, it
L Jrrrr ��
rr-+r rr ml
rrrrr'J
r .�rrrr
Ham•-+ r r J _• •r
G rrrrr�
Jrrr.P p PA
J r r rjOOp O`
J ^+ r r
r r
0000006..
0000 fww
�OWOUO% p1tRY ;
p p p 0 PA PJC5IMG AEOOi
PA
., AND VFCS f0 Em" WKM PAM
i y y y y y y'
,
y y y y LAWN y
y' LAWN y 0 v .V J•
,
y i y
,
,
i
SDEWA4K �
i
® i PA
PA
7
,
,
,
' flOti OF mvwzROw wm WE
VERY xm
238
HUNA 51W
Xrs•hn lYlsd�sia &A n ty i�w5
1p 4
_- TOTAL P.01
-2C -2002 09 :10 RICHARD A. CARSEL 805 544 6357 P.02/32
4el-
fl�
Tom•
j� ih �1v�2����- /✓%S� Gfi���
p,
J64,Ax
a -�
TOTAL P.02
MEMBERS PRESENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
- ATTAC�ti i�NT �.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
TREE COMMITTEE MEETING
MONDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2002
Laura Rice, Linda Hauss, Teresa Larson, and Steve
Caminiti
Ron Combs, Lisa Woske, Jay Walter
1. TREE REMOVAL REQUESTS
■ 2389 HELENA (3 Modesto ash)
The applicant discussed the removal request and stated the trees have been in decline for
thirteen years and were misshapen, diseased, and continually dripped sap on cars. She
submitted a landscaping replanting plan.
Mr. Combs noted the trees had been sprayed for aphids and ants several times annually.
He reported there was minor vertical displacement and subsequent repairs due to root
damage.
Mr. Caminiti stated he favored the removal, as these were problem trees for the area.
Ms. Larson and Ms. Rice agreed.
Mr. Caminiti moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good
arboricultural practice, and requiring three 15 -gallon (minimum) replacement trees to be
chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of issuance of permit.
Ms. Rice seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
■ 1537 BEACH (2 pines)
The applicant discussed the removal request, stating that the house was very small and the
trees were too large for the property. She stated that nothing else would grow around the
trees, there was extensive needle littering which presented a hazard, and that the sewer
line had been replaced due to root damage. She discussed re- landscaping the area
Mr. Combs stated that the trees were healthy and would get larger_. He noted the roots
were invasive and buckling the sidewalk and driveway.
a -q
c {= City or
i san Luis OBISp0
RECEIVED D to Received
iiAU
HMENT
SLO CITY CLERK
APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
SECTION 1. APPELLANTINFORM4TION
PA. kg= w ltz1 K. • PF> '5AtL+A- cAtti. -A SLo 934 a
Name Mailing Address and Tip Code
Phone Fax
Representative's Name Mailing Address and Tip Code
Title Phone Fax
SECTION 2 SUBJECT OFAPPEAL
1. In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code (copy attached), I hereby appeal the decision of the:
(Name
C-4 M t-t t'tCgr,-C
er, Committee or Commission decision being appealed)
2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: n ei' G I o2
3. The application or project was entitled: ire" a w. ( os 3 '& 1) kk +mfts a
katlt f 99(M60% 3e "Sl : 70S9 ktt_1t*La'
4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member:
(Staff Member's Name and
SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL
on ( e 0 f` t- o L
(Date)
Explain specifically what action/s you are appealing and why you believe the Council should consider your
appeal. Include what evidence you have that supports your appeal. You may attach adbWonal pages, if
necessary . This form continues on the other side.
Page 1 of 3
p( 'O
k
r
ATTACHMENT 3
Reason for Appeal continued
rewL( 4bKk -6 C +, A l kA 764 -ivy. 1A.6 golt I Ab I1.w e.lE
&Lgy:D tallAe& D4 ZR1i1 1`94 4t rut. f� M-4— A&L tKTR�L&J APig [Mjw 'FAK�'
� �1,, -�- ale OJt 1141t�et,44s00 ��R�Cf.IA '�t�tl�" (AI►tp �'� �$t�F1JfeL --
rt,&±•l — w )[Lo PAL 41(b M doa.s's 4 5#M S . 14 1:� 4&0% - c
LuS 6&,It 4%,c. c >yAkat ij-
A 9iit_.k.1 � 1g:5 A* LL �KS"%b eR
qkv cl h) Vkf i$ art C,
10 QPi -� W%Jh4 ft `F -F- c-1 +NV LwI Lk a IL_�4 R ub.$.� l I b Lou w a ba.
r � - � -
,�EICt7 0I1F�; PELLANr -g, ESPONSIBIL-1TYr
V P� r{r „Y_ �t
yr r'w'yG: � r J. y Vim. � ♦ A .i � � y? y . x sV�
�Th Sansluls Oblspo CityWCounal`va ues pubtiaclpat+�nrm -local government and r
encourages a11;�ofins Uf cfizer9' involvernerat Tf�e Cy;unlike most m �Gairfomia, does not "
.ham" �x S _ . � �r °� ' ' Lf ''
urge a ee forzfTng an appeal Ho�we�er, placing ari appeal before t ie CIy Counat,Tequlrek "rte
coCnsldera le =*6tk and cost, !nc1Udng agenda; fdport �ropparafion nand p'ubUc notrficai)on 1 z`}
; T ereforey' Youl right to exercise an ap�pea eorries�with {cei in�r`esporasib es: 1f yoU ate ant r;
;:a pear pleaserunderstand thattt must. a head Hn hin 4 �c3aaj§flomrSling t iis:,form' ,1rou vuill'be' }
Ynotlfiet! m of the exact date yolar a pea�i,wall be scheduled to,t@ die rd;.tiefore ihe; ,
Council You
your representatroe .wille5b&dted to attend the pdbl�c. hearing, and td be .
-y iC :' s rc c -s,._� r
;prepared to make you[ =case Your testtmorry is luhdecil0 minutes,'�<
�0,
•.^ n G « L a a •Ni ,� 9�� A moo..,.^ „ ,,•i . -4 i � ^.i_ a',' '�!+ r� .:e n �. : : � Ji � �% r� �
A continuance may be: grantedzunder.certaln anc7{unusual circumstances If you feel you
need to request a oont!nuance, you myst submd Xour request in,wrng to theC�ty Clerk Please be.
advised that rf your request fob continuance isrecewed after #tie appeal is noticed�ta the public, the
Councit-nay nod be able td grant the request for ,continuance Su�imd#rng a reyuestcfor confinuanee
doesnot guan3ntee t>iat it w�l! his graded, ttiafaction u sr the c��scre6on of�the Cdy,`CouncvLl r
` -wti `{.
` ;.. � -v ..:[. a <} ..Y r: t.,.'l. `"Y♦* -vd� ,; .¢. Jar .«`"yr;{ P r f � r
J 1 a lei ..
l hereby_ agree <fo ap ar and/or send,a representatvetto'appe�r on my behalf when
cardImp r 17 IS v .
P� ti s public hearingysbef- zne, fq y,C64 cf!
� r
a
r
L o
Z i f Appellant)' ^(Date)
This item Is hereby calendared for `�/ `'/ 0%
c: City Attomey
City Administrative Officer
Department Head
C lerk (original
('tin ivb
1oro1
Page 2 of 3
4 -47
ATTACHMENT 4
RESOLUTION NO. (2003 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF A
TREE REMOVAL REQUEST AT 2389 HELENA STREET
WHEREAS, the Tree Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing on
December 16, 2002, and approved the applicant's request to remove three (3) Modesto Ash trees
located in the parkway at 2389 Helena Street, San Luis Obispo, California; and
WHEREAS, on February 4, 2003, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo held a
public hearing to consider the appeal of the removal of three (3) Modesto Ash trees,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. Fes: That this Council, after consideration of the applicant's appeal,
and the San Luis Obispo Tree Committee's action, staff recommendations and reports thereon,
makes the following finding:
a. The removal of three (3) Modesto Ash trees and replanting of three (3) trees will promote
good arboricultural practice because age and species diversity is desirable within a healthy
urban forest.
SECTION 2. The appeal of the Tree Committee's decision to allow the tree removal
request at 2389 Helena Street is hereby denied.
Upon motion of
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this
seconded by
day of , 2003.
Mayor David F. Romero
a - iu
Resolution No. (2003 Series)
ATTEST:
Lee Price, City Clerk
APPR D AS TO FORM:
ilbert A. T , Acting City Attorney
a ^iI
ATTACHMENT 5
RESOLUTION NO. (2003 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF A
TREE REMOVAL REQUEST AT 2389 HELENA STREET
WHEREAS, the Tree Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing on
December 16, 2002, and approved the applicant's request to remove three (3) Modesto Ash trees
located in the parkway at 2389 Helena Street, San Luis Obispo, California; and
WHEREAS, on February 4, 2003, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo held a
public hearing to consider the appeal of the removal of three (3) Modesto Ash trees,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City 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,
makes the following findings:
a. The three (3) trees are not causing undue hardship to the property owner because
the City sprays, prunes and repairs infrastructure.
b. Removal of the three (3) trees will not promote good arboricultural practice
because large mature trees are maintained by City staff.
C. Removing the three (3) trees will harm the character of the environment of the
surrounding neighborhood because large mature trees are desirable.
SECTION 2. The appeal of the Tree Committee's decision to allow the tree removal
request at 2389 Helena Street is hereby upheld, and the tree removal request is denied.
Upon motion of
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this
seconded by
day of
Mayor David F. Romero
2003.
Resolution No. (2003 Series)
ATTEST:
Lee Price, City Clerk
APP VED AS TO FORM:
Gilbert A. Trujillo, AEFmg City Attorney
a -13