HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/17/2003, PH1 - APPEAL OF TREE COMMITTEE DECISION TO DENY TREE REMOVAL REQUEST councit "°�
June 17,2003
aclEnba aEpont � .
C I T Y O F S A N L U I S O B I S P O
FROM: Michael McCluskey,Public Works Director t*�
Prepared By: Ron Combs,Interim 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 313 Patricia Drive.
DISCUSSION
On March 17, 2003, staff received a tree removal application from Ned Wood of 3343 Moraga
Boulevard, Lafayette, CA. (Attachment 1) The application was for the removal of one Mulberry
tree in the back yard and one Sycamore tree in the front yard at 313 Patricia Drive. The request was
based on claims that the front yard tree was creating a tripping hazard and the back yard tree was
planted too close to the house and causing damage to the patio.
Upon receiving Mr. Woods's application, staff inspected the trees. Staff identified damage to the
back yard patio and noted that the Mulberry tree had been improperly pruned over the years, was
surrounded by smaller trees and was in moderate health. Staff noted that the Sycamore tree in the
front was in good health and caused minor displacement of the brick path.
After inspecting the trees, staff determined that the Mulberry tree in the back yard met the criteria
for tree removal while the Sycamore tree in the front did not, as described in section 12.24.180 of
the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. (Staff will present photos of the tree condition at the Council
meeting.)According to the 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.
Root damage, although evident, was not severe and the City Arborist could not authorize the
removal. Per policy, when the City Arborist cannot approve removal, the Tree Committee shall
review the application. The applicant was notified that the removal request would be placed on the
April 28, 2003, Tree Committee agenda for consideration.
Municipal Code Section 12.24.180 C-6 provides guidance for approval or denial of tree removal
requests. It states that the Tree Committee shall review the application and may authorize removal
Council Agenda Report-APPEAL OF TREE COMMITTEE DECISION
Page 2
if it finds one of the following circumstances:
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 were Laura Rice, Linda Hauss, Jim Lopes and Chairperson
Steve Caminiti. After discussing the feasibility of root pruning, the members voted 4-0 to approve
the removal of the Mulberry tree based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and deny the
removal of the Sycamore tree, as they could not make the necessary findings for removal.
(Attachment 2)
On May 7, 2003 the City Clerk's office received an appeal of the Tree Committee decision from
Mr. Ned Wood of 3343 Moraga Boulevard, Lafayette, CA. (Attachment 3)
To uphold the decision of the Tree Committee and deny the appeal, the Council must find that the
Committee decision was correct. To uphold the appeal,the Council must find the Tree Committee's
finding in error.
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 upheld, is bome by the applicant.
ALTERNATIVES
Adopt a resolution upholding the appeal.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Tree Removal Application dated March 17,2003
2. Tree Committee Minutes of meeting April 28,2003
3. Appeal to the City Council received May 7,2003
4. Resolution denying appeal of the Tree Committee
5. Resolution upholding appeal of the Tree Committee
I:\—Council Agenda Reports\2003 agenda reports\CAR Appeal of Tree Committee Decision 313 Patricia doc
ATTACHMENT 1
"AR-17-03 04:23PN FRW-COLLI NTENNATIONAL 8254630747 T-481 P-01/01 F-488
•� Gsm�.fi`�� J ���
i
C ! O� -WUS
25 Pr6w Road• San Luo Oow;po,CA 93401
IMPORTANT: A tree removal application will PLEASE NOTE: If your tree is approved fo
only be considered if aeeeatpanled by a remaval and pasted, please call the office at
eketch/ gp showing the street, structure(s) the end of your posting period to arrange To
location and k"Tion of ag trc" proposed for Pick up yoLw permit.
regiaral. Please draw on the back of this "SEE NOTE Se-OW
fa m or fax on a separate sheet of paper.
along with your application.
TREE RFMOVAJ- APPL.XCdATiON W �ZS- ZZ7-6ODf=,
Owner•:_hIm 14"12 Telephone: 925- 284-;i.Uq
Owners Malang Address: X3'4'3 MOIL H, �J jp 6tet ierT,-1(A xi,;-200
Applicant(If different than Oimw): Tckphone -
Appkant's Mailing Address �P=
Location of trWs)-Sit '✓it'fFf CjfF v12- .L.0 usfQ&nT -%iMD (0).0 SfvM%/ARZb
Pkasm:i 4wre nearest cross wen:
Tea speties: C syr
Batmrk a) Ngmc i' ' jj T('
� V GiIJ�.
aea9ans forrem. �
1ri7M-T7 re c -)`ayr:FE1041rt wmxt-_6bgr i o0 kc�rIA rite
Compensatory replocemem prvposed:M _�`�_-" -
hppucahan will be considered*y if creircly fdled our and signed by avow. If considwation of this
appbcarwn goer to Tree Cammitltee,you.are encow+agcd to attend The meeting and will be:so nottfred
""NUM: Any r g&vd'repbc&%P r Triter roar be V*Talicd withai'45 doys of ommnce of pveat-. Sore+roe r wraww I
permva are good fa 6 mwmtht.you"owsh to hold off prdw up your-permit um,l you are sine you rill be abk To instal l me
replmaement ftvdz)rrtAw1 the 45' period
"AAMC OR FAX c=Wlctzdlfarm to: city Amorist. 25 Prado Rd., San Lula Obispo, CA
98 01. Phare: 77511--772220 !Fax: 542-9868
Owner: Cate` 3//7
ApplteaaT= _Cate
fyrapiAmrrmnunrr nrorwvmcono. �1
Tim a7 a rw 4 oom mrw to mow"m•Comm n as ars MV.- ,piowamc am eavotea. '
t6wonmmwrrraoam Dowo 6r ar wu OW 70400 Vr
�
ATTACHMENT
-7:44AM FRON-MLLIERS W.-ATIORAL 9254630747 T-578 PAL/)] F-588 �.
CI o :aan 1s CBI
i y J
1 2s Pritoo Raaa • San lets Qo spo. CA 93401
NOTE: City Arborisfs criteria for reviewing applications for tree remcwt
per Municipal Code Chapter 12.24. Tree Regulations, Section 12.24.180.C.°
When tree removal is not related to p-operty development, the Cit .
Arborist may authorize a tree removal after finding any of she following
circumstances:
(a) The tree is a hazard to life nr property, and removing it is the wily
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
prop",and removing the tree is the only feasible way to
eliminate the damage.
t i
! f
l
t �
a
Y�
r
ATTACHMENT 2
TREE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 4-28-03
Mr. Caminiti felt the removal request was premature, as the remodeling plans needed o
be approved first to determine what removal needs were required.
Mr. Lopes discussed the existing parking space availability in reference to the roposed
additional parking area.
The applicant requested a continuance of the item to allow time for re deling plan
drafting and the plan approval process.
Ms. Hauss moved to continue the item to allow applicant time r drafting the remodeling
plans and pursuing the plan approval process with the City.
Mr. Caminiti seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
■ 114 FEL MAR(2 Eucalyptus)
The applicant discussed re-landscaping p and the removal of the parkway concrete for
replanting. He felt one of the trees was seased and both trees had a significant lean. He
also noted the sidewalk had been rep ' due to root damage.
Mr. Combs stated he favored r val and the landscaping plan proposal,but could not
make the necessary findings f removal at his level.
Ms. Hauss agreed that on of the trees was diseased and both had limited lifespan
remaining. She favor emoval with replacement planting.
The rest of the Co 'ttee agreed with Ms. Hauss.
Mr. Lopes mo ed to approve the removal request,based on promoting good
arboricul practice, and required two 15-gallon replacement trees to be chosen from
the Mast Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of issuance of removal permit.
Ms. auss seconded the motion.
motion-passed manimously. —
�E 313 PATRICIA(London Plane and Mulberry)
l 5 yr-
There
cThere was no applicant present.
The Committee discussed the application and did not feel the house damage was due to
tree roots.
ARACHMENT2 .;
Mr. Combs noted that the mulberry tree was very invasive and badly pruned and stated
the buckling issues could easily be mitigated.
Mr. Lopes agreed with Mr. Combs.
Ms. Hauss was concerned that any new replacement planting would not be watered or
maintained by renters.
Mr. Lopes moved to approve the removal request for the mulberry tree, based on
promoting good arboricultural practice, and required no replacement planting; and moved
to deny the removal request for the London plane tree, as he could not make the necessary
findings for removal.
Mr. Caminiti seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
on erey pmes; I Erffdf������
The item deferred until the City could submit a site plan to support the removal
request
4. NEW BUSINES
There were no items discussed.
5. ARBOR DAY
There was general Committee review and discussi on the recent or Day activities.
The meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. to the next special-date meetin f Tuesday,May
27, 2003 at 5 p.m. (Re-scheduled due to holiday.)
Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Woske
Recording Secretary
� _ LP
ATTACHMENT 3
-MAY-07-2003 11:54 FROM:CQLLIEPS INTL TQ:8057817109 P.001/004
RECEIVED
mss- 7,8 t - 'l hof MAY 0 7 2003
SLO CIYLILENKId
CTL /Of
Oftablesan WIS OBISPO
IL APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION
tletD W Grp S94 �� CA
Name Mailing Address aft Zip Code q4 5Qj
X125 -227-6Zo6 c17 —4 6-074"7
Phone Fax
%01\0 ra. ' rDtt4%-Yf` _ 3 t3 `?.ala.+cA a
Representative's Name Mailing Address and Zip Code
-t131
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:
S
(Name of 01111cer,CommR,lea or Commission decision being appealed)
2. The 9&the decision being appealed was rendered: Ataf2-i Z?-,99A)
3. The application cr project was entitled. S12;
I�i�r1, r "prZ
4. I discussed the matter with the following City staff member:
sc
OO Cny-%
(Staff MembWe Name and De)artment) ( s)
SECTION 3. REJiSON FOR APPEAL
Explain specifically MtW actlaWs you are appealing and mfty you believe the Council should consider your
appeal. Include what evidence you have that supports your appeal. You may attach eddlllonal pegeA if
necessary. This fonm 000tlnue8 crr fhe odw s1da.
Page 1 of 3
� � 9
MAY-07-2063 ii:55 FROM:M I IERS INTL TO:...-M71O9117ACHMEIVT 62.004
Rwwn for Appeal continued
rv� Cea
^n
IN �t7Oh� C� `1�►.tS Mo�.+tt, t'�� wla e,��4►�+-. SMI 11�.
ock
6a-c:Y..- uri►llL. t it. u�,J�r�. �
C�eQ ti 4-� OP1a.Y,�— &N- re,%,� +n-". 1,J ms- �.a.
.5E �7Q&.4-MPf—'E l�Pl'$RESPO h91E o•�:�.::,. F';�:b' }:; • ' ;. :;�i;;l:
••t..: •;7.,.47`,1' ''i1,YS:� i' ': .. ti; 1.�•.
11 rr. yy 1 1
Trie31,
h�{�LL�aObip ougcll� lw s'pyblic•Rai{i.�ii st�d�t�nlocal'gdverc�rrxeht{�r(�i'J.;:f' . ;:•.,,
enco1.
.ga4 -'c""
t nscf IL olverl�ityit,':7ha. It ,•uhf jtrosttrf,,Cafhb�ia;doeS� 1. ;¢ "'
pppPPt9Nngaui`�ppeh t„ r;9 P15"e�i ` CQ.3H r�qN.
Hp�e�re Placl art'a3 betti; �`i21f}I• ricit
;gonl'detabfawork; i�il ,inc(udirig•a®ends reb 'pniparatl¢n snci`�t��l :ii flan::..:..:w:.s,,i.s,.
t41 ?ydur rlgt 'toicarriss 6f r f�pPeal itie�wtfh cbrE�t 'rAcnslliih89s '�f yau'�fe2n 1�
ep dal, (aase.unit'dratand that#t '6e.it'', ri1 bi+ithln .¢¢ $ tn�lling'tttfs.artn,Wtki-VAll bel?
r [igd in'writm,'' the'a dt&)i youl ep xat will tie Ach u @ to be hoard befard'$
(3ti I, 'Yqu tiAur rep se ! I wring; iid'ta.be 1t 13
ii(uol Rftllve the tllic.
testljnplfy is E(mlf d to ld r.jlnutA 'i1' it:+'•:�, :: r
•. h. .� .. ' ti ♦. 1�T..i "• 1�' pal•1 '4,J11� -•, IIl •'NI'•t'!•
�;.�1 t,!•'��6 '}••' li ,r, ?�k••,: ' '�i',Q a•.ti � ^'�'•bY ;I
I j t' ;A tinttrtua $ say gnadtilndef:orain and uqus �rcurficde.,:If. u� to > • :i
n fc requestihtliivance,prou mystbluBlk your�e *r Ig to t6 City spade b ;?;
edv.aed that iF.j(biu cecjues for cq 1#1pur�jio ;9s reCcelve�l, dppeat is rrotiow Atd31 e;puwic,the-
r olincil may h�C(4 bib able�Wirik&s*rebitdsEfor rxrttfrlii "^ �bmitErng .nsq fa�;i6reontinua»ce ':
.. .,�.•n... A:.
41 ilpt�u�ralltoo that.11 iy laid pryWOUI.-imat ect� 79 at,• a�11�crerrgii:ef u b`t�,councn: 4
'• IY, � ..�R ''y"'J, •. I,"�.. 4 Ai I.' ..: 1. rill' L`iS.•1�•j l-.i''�jt A
!� '� eilabyagiY eAbdappaaraorsendts iesentatiq�tb:a b" 'idyll haH.prhi l
sh'Fd sip dl Is scf}oMad for e'.,oijk)c hearkni:
,iL... I .• � + l.r fF t.l,.. . . .;;11,:rt�y` 'I' a
J.
'�t •, Fi,• .i1. i' .t�I:�'nI�•, •ld..,-ql•Y is��>!n;'•' t � 'i 'I' 't:ryl.,
AWM,>i;!Y'�Y•I 7:•,1IrybN:.; ' +�• �,Su' " �• i�I. :'tl.•.'t �rFl. , ( ,JA
•' i• 'at�,
This hem Is hereby calanderad fore�ITtb {11 d�.c13
as City Attorney V
City Admintstrativo Cftleey,
Department Head— 1 ""
Advisory Body Chatrparson —QUt CAMULll t
ClbClark(WaInan
j CE3f(1 Page 2 of 3
I _g
�JMENT3
MY-07-2003 1155 FROM:f" I IERS INTL / MrB05761T109 P.003,004
!; •��1• CEJ i• � I�; -��.. .. rgf�,�^r,�`7�i�.� '• '.•• ..
viit .�x. � :. :1.. .:...'' : . •' : :; . .
i � •w'« it ,•L•al �:. y♦ frJr... 1;,'Y.•...,:• � `w.�'
f I 'Jt/i•t�.w�l.�•J'• kh.t .:. •I' r i.,^r7:J, �.�•
.y,• 1l. l�r�r �''�.�4f4•( :..• .�� t ! „,F• { yTiM•; ,'.t,I� i ...'�.:f•,; i'i ..
..r...; . •1•�Y• ::�.Yf• fC:: .., !;" •\'i.r J � r.1:Y.1. N a t•:.•:::•1•.• r•,i%:�. '
'*•: ;',t;. r; :;' •' : .fess oilo, SYa ve of i7 otu�t'• asrestme�a�
f .!'•..'• I ,
114.
•%_�' r� .:� i ••+ 4,'.•�.'•.(.••'• � .� •.{.., ;..\',. i.l 1, �} J ^!•'
... t'i I� 1. . � 't, ': 1'5:1.ti it ^ � t .:11.•-•I r ...• • '
"r11 •r1t• •• •\. 'f�A t•"1 .. . .: I.t'''::4.�•i 1. I•.' � � •'1. ..
y...L i• ll.t f�' 'I ,� "e�.'�♦ .•.'i:l. Jt., •M1 :1. '1�'
'r'� �:�+ ;t, '1. -,I< � �r�1..::1' i'!t•t IMtr•' et'
'•',' .♦p� �,�rlY�1yr'* fir.,- 'S.�;,..1 , .,." ,. `r • 1
'a.. :;.r': •, :;:.i; .. :;. .�:, :'' .,..,,: 'asp. .Sel-vices,.]
:,r ,'. '•� ,F fig,, : •':•�`yl' :, �'.�i. '��,
moi• . r i .. 'S, }.,. ';:. j I •+"+�"
-.sl�.• 'Iv •;,v, .•' .:1 r •y
{
�•y '� ,tp•��/:�./.iy[}�,,.
r 4r •' 1 '`••i' T'Fa�fwv,W� Qrx,•�•! C7
�7I� IS `
;;t.,;:,:'.' ' .�;-:t..' '� ;:$06�;'-X31!•-2Ya.9.4..' `.;, ..�• • , '�' � ' ..
I-�q
:
a MAY-07-2003 11:56 FROM:COLLIERS INTL TO:e2578171139
•Ctigrdxa•apA?lllc�linArnJsAetgRa!'udj,other'bnRs�rctimi►cri.ei!p�+? •'" ,;.,.. ,� � .:+'.: e':;
good —0min Unk _Wrou(7ht lro.
M di h+sedsd: A Fencer an sefeage not Inspected —Stang Block _Wire —Stucco
AM
,;'.::•, A This aampany doss net Inspect fences J"gree ��L%overdrawn with Tallage(unimpacted)
d)nwtfencing aid and wornC Q Pow/Merry relied/Iowa postsC O Wrought Iron rusted/comidedC
O Apparmd ksect I moisture demegec Q Few/Many broken/lease/mlastng bwnbC D Masonry fencing local et:B
D cixenesae adjusnmm�r m�u etC L7 Latch missing/needs adjustment et C
Senna needs leDUAtlhtg al: 0 Loose I Missing I Cr ec aed blocks J brfgksC D Pool/Spa fame missing I too law far mtety�
(3 Femlerg leaning et•C /Cranked asps notedC Q Pool/spa gate elaser(s)missing/not woTlam
Nptea;•
Q Flow/apv syafem not lnaPeclad• alLegalwomanf i for POW/aim(acres very.Consub 6=1 munedpal y for sq
si�ziiatw Concrete, —Wood°�' . '` Reoommerta mwdrodng Bryc Stucco —Seeowall
%overgrown with Migge(uninopeetad) Z
(J!'NbilApptfaed+��„"': y,.' .. Recommend rovlaw by englnser/ongbiandi p adAlog stah
I:lids+ce of past/active water seepage_
Q Common area lm mtad D Large arack(s)/displacement wtO D No apparent weep holes
Q Apparent failure of wall etB O Moderato leaning at: 0 QuardrnA(a)loose sI:A
D Moisture damage to wood/atuccoc D severe leaning eCB d Guardrae(a)advised aCD
Nessa:
r • concrord Qravel _Unpaved
R
.' D ecoman cracks —AspAAft 8nck ,_771e
11avW/�P!b1�9i D Recommend rapavingb O Recommend sealantC
D At/Nearing and of life axpectoncy 0 Numarew crocks notedC D Asphalt oraded In placesC ❑Evidence
D Pethole(s)notadC Q taros cracks up to °C Q Rout damage nmedC D Evidence of drainage Into garage
Q Trip esairds obsorvadA D Lifting IBattling noted up tc d DII stains notodC U Domed/Missing I Lowal woad specersC
Notes.'
Q F peescPCnol ' D Gammen cracksr l Gondrete _The F/egafn/ro�
t[ft pad *Na 0 R r t9local municipality for repairs to public sidewalks Bnck —Brevet _AepAAIf
.d
Na A*sUmMis • 13 roe cracks up to `at:C A /unable to Inspect al.
Q Domed I local wood apace Lifting/Settling up to-Nz at. rd(e)at A
0 Evidence of drainage toward )wilding still - T- (denaa of Pbnding t. ..
G
1211'Appeni AigoNkod• -:- '• Q Weethartrrg noted r t Caveat root(Tyne' _ '
m Heeded O Earth to woad contact aC �OAen Deaigvr_Sahm
as bu/ld (ase
O.Not D Malsture/Insaat damage ata D reetnp J MMaI testeners advised at cont
Nacrse
or liareni,;>:.;... ; D Weatherna noted dill = • wont —watarprdatcoeltnA
• fiYir)�Eepoll"s.Mlea�ddl D Racce mend rage I"mr i C —Composite 777e Cdacrofa
I e ` "r"• D popped salla/loom bwrdeC ( to ease"below/smWskaRiam/mm fully Inspect aL�
!C�•Mdf�Rpnba�li`. ! .�
pvniapritimrlp al. 0 Creaked/Dote
now noratod membrane eCB
w Q Qverdrag(e)reaemmendid m••A _ D Evidence of lockage ot:B
-• 0 Guamra"(s)local at'A -_ 0 No secondary dralne 00
• 0 Quardrall(s)too low dt•A Ck Inadequate drainage otB
'4. Cl La /Damaged balusters sL•A D Cracked/Loose J Missing tb(s)m:B
Q J1�parem Insect demago et:B D Quardmll openings e,meed current atenaera of 4'aCU —.
,�Appamnt moisture damage at Q Earth to wood contact aCB
/aoam
.CasduM.a ar aaNror ba arksbakamiaN 406M"r'')'
i`p, +•" 0 Weathering noted • _Gancrde 'U��Nvcod _waterpf
` / k m Meddmr;U Cacan cracks Q Popseped nallal Loobe.r _ rim „�'Ildaeonry
f:
1 47�1Na K`typlianbk :•:::;:'. 'Al O Seal caps at C A No amass Oelew/8~Covered/can't fully Inspect At
Q Quardrell(e)recommandod al.
..• Q Cracked/Deteriorated membrane aCB
0 Qwrerarf(a)focus CIA D Loons/Damaged balusters at:A
D Quertlnll(s)too low SIA D Guardrail openings exceed crmentalanmrd a}4�aC
•�' 'Q Mafsture/Insect do... a at:6 QEarth to wood contact oCB
•�y Neraa: PEST
Wn!zMUt?,5,)
fcris�fi'll :-) Q weelherinp tintedCD/xvet Wand M3S0dnY_W )Reoelr4aiHwded:: 0LowhvrldelaaranmaC taatlDli) -A&W -Me -Slam
M :..•;: .. Q Obmman mum A No saoeal below/eurfam covered/can't fully Inspect at
recclmtre--a1:A' D UndoralmdD/Missing landing eeA
0 Nan(Irell(s)lovas" Q Improper rise I run of atep(e)MI:A
Q Handndl(s)too law stA Q Handrall not graspable OLD
0 flendraA(s)short al top/bottarack alaps ata' CA Honore"appoplie socondseurrent standard of 40 at:D
Q Moisture/Insect damage at:R Q Earth to wood conmot st:
Akdew
r 01991-2001 Independent InapaClon Srsw-•Some hart om CA.All rights rover"d I1/
. Ir � V
i
i
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 313 PATRICIA DRIVE
WHEREAS, the Tree Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing on
April 28,2003 and denied the applicant's request to remove one (1) Sycamore tree located in the
front yard at 313 Patricia Drive San Luis Obispo, California; and
WHEREAS, on June 17, 2003, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo held a
public hearing to consider the appeal of the denial to remove one(1) Sycamore tree,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. Fines: 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 one (1) Sycamore tree and planting one (1) replacement tree will not
promote good arboricultural practice.
b. The tree is not causing undue hardship to the property owner.
c. Removing the tree will harm the character of the surrounding neighborhood.
SECTION 2. The appeal of the Tree Committee's decision to deny the tree removal request
at 313 Patricia Drive is hereby denied.
Upon motion of seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of , 2003.
Mayor David F. Romero
MACHME94
Resolution No. (2003 Series)
ATTEST:
Lee Price, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
JoP. Lowell, City Attorney
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 313 PATRICIA DRIVE
WHEREAS, the Tree Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing on
April 28,2003 and denied the applicant's request to remove one (1) Sycamore tree located in the
front yard at 313 Patricia Drive, San Luis Obispo, California; and
WHEREAS, on June 17, 2003, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo held a
public hearing to consider the appeal of the denial to remove one (1) Sycamore tree,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Fines 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 one (1) tree is causing undue hardship to the property owner because the walkway
bricks are being displaced.
b. Removal of the one (1) tree will promote good arboricultural practice because one (1)
replacement tree will be planted.
C. Removing the one (1) tree will not harm the character or the environment of the
surrounding neighborhood because the tree will be replaced.
SECTION 2. The appeal of the Tree Committee's decision to deny the tree removal request
at 313 Patricia Drive is hereby upheld, and the tree removal request is approved
Upon motion of , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of , 2003.
Mayor David F. Romero
1 - 13
ATTACHMENT " 5
Resolution No. (2003 Series)
ATTEST:
Lee Price,City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jon . Lowell, City Attorney