The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06/15/2004, PH1 - APPEAL OF TREE COMMITTEE DECISION TO APPROVE TREE REMOVAL REQUEST councilJu u ne 15,2004 acenaa RePoat "®N C I T Y OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: Michael McCluskey,Public Works Director Prepared By: Todd Beights,Parks&Urban Forest Supervisor SUBJECT: APPEAL OF TREE COMMITTEE DECISION TO APPROVE TREE. REMOVAL REQUEST CAO RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution denying the appeal of the Tree Committee's decision to approve the removal request at 1670 Phillips Lane. DISCUSSION On March 17, 2004, staff received tree removal application from Michael di Milo of 1670 Phillips Lane in San Luis Obispo. (Attachment 1) The application was for the removal of one Liquidamber tree located in the back yard at that address. The request was based on claims that 1) the tree had been "topped" by a previous owner and looked terrible, 2) the tree overwhelms the small backyard, 3) the tree does not allow the lawn to grow (due to shading), 4) surface roots from the tree were causing problems. The applicant also stated he planned to replace the tree with a Japanese Maple. Upon receiving Mr. di Milo's application, staff inspected the tree. Staff noted that the tree was fairly healthy, but some decay was evident and the improper "topping of the tree had caused an imbalance in the shape of the tree. Staff also noted that the sucker growth was weakly attached which could pose hazard issues, and the problems with the surface roots would only continue to worsen. After inspecting the tree, staff determined that the Liquidamber tree did not meet the criteria for immediate tree removal as described in section 12.24.180 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. The City Arborist may authorize a tree removal without notice 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. Due to the fact that the tree did not meet these criteria, the Arborist then proceeded with posting the property with a public notice of its proposed removal. A neighbor, Roger Suiker, appealed the removal application and the tree removal request was placed on the Tree Committee agenda. The applicant was notified that the removal request would be placed on the April 26, 2004, Tree Committee agenda for consideration. l - 1 Appeal of Tree Committee Decision to Approve Tree Removal Request Page 2 Municipal Code Section 12.24.180 C-6 provides guidance for approval or denial of tree removal requests by the Tree Committee. The Tree Committee shall review the application and may authorize removal 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, Pete Dunan, Jim Lopes and Chairperson Steve Caminiti. After taking into consideration the concerns of the applicant, the Committee members voted unanimously 5-0 in favor of approving the request.. The applicant was present at the April 26th meeting, but the appellant was not. (See minutes, Attachment 2). The Committee's decision to allow the removal was based on undue hardship on the property owner, promoting good arboricultural practice, and that the removal would not harm the character of the neighborhood. The Committee required the planting of one 15 gallon replacement tree within 45 days of issuance of the permit. On May 7, 2004 the City Clerk's office received two appeals of the Tree Committee decision. One from Mr. Larry Smith of 1641 Phillips Lane, San Luis Obispo, CA. (Attachment 3) and one from Mr. Roger Suiker of 1666 Phillips Lane, San Luis Obispo,CA. (Attachment 4) 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 determine that the Tree Committee's finding was 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 denied is borne by the applicant. ALTERNATIVES Adopt a resolution upholding the appeal. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location of property 2. Tree Removal Application dated March 17, 2004 3. Photo of tree proposed for removal 4. Tree Committee Minutes of meeting April 26, 2003 5. Appeal to the City Council received May 7,2004 6. Appeal to the City Council received May 7,2004 7. Resolution denying appeal of the Tree Committee 8. Resolution upholding appeal of the Tree Committee IAI Council Agenda Reports\2004 agenda reports\Engineering and Maintenance Services(Walter)\Parks and Trees Maintenance(Beights)\1650 Phillips Appeal of Tree Committee.DOC r y� E t J Ir ,1,L Li s'`f r' '� '•yL y y .t E� I r fY t4 ! 1 L' J , , 't l ; •1 { � t I t 1 t•44 �r f ' t - 3 03/17/2004 13: 31 Boo 12QHE: CITY SLO,' ` UTIL Attachment YA- �� II VIIIII III III III�IIV ��III city osAn tuis 25 Prado Road • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 IMPORTANT- A tree removal application will PLEASE NOTE: If your tree is approved for \ , only be considered If accompanied by a removal and posted, please call the office at y sketch/!napshowing the street, structure(s) the end of your posting period to arrange to location and location of all trees proposed for pick up your permit. The Permit fee is $37. removal, Please draw on the back of this payable when-you-pick up your permit (cash form or fax on a separate sheet of paper, or check payable to City of San Luis Obispo). along with your application. **SEE NOTE BELOW TREE REMOVAL APPLICATION re S 3 8'ZJ-t7 Owner: fYl I Ghagj CL1 y�� '(�i l U Telephone Owner`s Mailing Address. /670- Moi 7 Applicant (if different tha Owner): Telephone; Applicant's Mailing Addre iP Location of tree(s). rACj4.%ja1W Please indicate nearest cross street: Park- Tree species: LiwircQ m(mr• S+%jrarj-F/ua L�c�.��daw►bar Botanle-1 Name Common Name Reasons for removing: �.. TreL wuS ``+O '' -b �/r7h1 a 2: looks 3• Teta c,t oes r►o-�- // Iu-n -Lzv o aate- Compensatory replacement proposed:4 01eG�G' _Qftn A v i� Application will be considered only if entirely filled out and signed by owner. If consideration of this application goes to Tree Committee,you are encouraged to attend the meeting and will be so notified. "NOTE: Any required%replacement trees"must be installed within 045 days of issuance of permit", Since tree removal permits are good for 6 months,you miry wish to hold off picidng up your.permit until you are sure you will be able to install the repkeeii.ent tree(s)within the 45 day period. **MAIL. OR FAX completed form to: City Arborist, 25 Prado Rd., San Luis Obispo, CA 93401, Phone: 781-72220 QFox- 54.29868 U Owner:�r; �� -�C -Dfi� `.�!/ bate 3�/7 d T Applicant. Dates , T fgroupe/trw/forw/tree rewuwl appliearian L i The city of San 6uii DeVlue elf is a9 Deaf to i cl 7410e disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Request to remove backyard tree: 1670 Phillips Ln Backyard raaRa - Tree Proposed For Removal fence/property lin House ap rFrontard Phillips Ln f -� t i.,♦_ yy � v. . . 'Ili � � y � - � t `. 117 4 .{' !.r J-• �*.A Y t �t; �} rj i}� :trues +�.�• ]I'= C-, +;' •tr d K'.% a,..c•'Y'y� �{�{y�}'1'�' i !hS P a r T f. ; Y yG � �♦ ,.t R •' i yr t r. * [.. r.�L, Y it •'iw4, '. T y 1: Ilk rat 0. } � w � _ mow✓ t 'X.+ 31 A t F V It �'��.� R ! •!j /� V+�,r� I fP'�.,Ay — ly ��v r�Jr�•„ y i 1I J?' '\ (!Ij If Ir •: -i N77,t�� r`�w�T J'�!~K rfl��rw.�f-�`}t'C')ITf�' �? `1e7 "•II'�!r I''` SIY (+j} i!'y 1 1 ylr7�' •'� I!r ' y + r Y lY. ar,11 J Ak T; ..�<i ..1kT - -1 , tt I5J1- I 1 f V I Vr r 3+.. �v1.11�r �'• 1 y ✓ yr t1 yl I Ip^ .I K . Y1 j.SA vffw rl ♦r1V 1� t ��' J. _z..4 rr r tF 1 ` l1yJ�4J � - �t ^ �.��'♦•lJ�.�'+1 ��yl `� y 1 J+I � .I r i. 5�C t:��pj�.".��1�/�; �)`a♦ \:� / 355 .� tZl � }�i!'t4' r 1'I Y.. f .�� 1! ! /rt'X?!.Y{• tyt. 2. ��` >� :;^.a �.p1=�� Y MYr /.+ s.jlJr � I�I'tI +. \ t ..F-� /✓iyr+� y��( ' litw�.>.��.'x\XLi�.v\/' `fi{y`yr� Ay ' S .•` 4.7* 'Cx "fytil-:S ,w`� :"IK lt�y1/-' ✓ l f ` +� '� p A ,.; yr17`� J! �(i 1!)i .l ♦. 4� .Y `'1 ( ..�: � nrr-1F 4y��1.j• r '1 /` (! \> 1 �rt><t' { ♦ � � aCr ✓ � "! �(�'/ I :. y1f ! _..`� ~V t [ �.. • 'Y: � c a .+ Fr 1: ✓7*. ).^ I' Ill 1 v � ., - .'i •� '5� 1f.,. 4Tla��iii..�,ll d I, w I '.rV-' 't. �, `r M`'-ti 1•—i 'X'}r r 11}1 {t ..r! 14� 71 � r•) � ,( I'1 SIM R tea/ �...SI/"`•�-Y 4� ��tiA1tl r..I rr tare l/ il_�� I �,'� � i�l�rI if �'(� 7�1 Y�91F +W r♦♦ ,!.{�1, y,� i:• p •.f :�.1 �!t �� rrl. t :n Yi > 1.'�7 fFfftt c'fi> /'.tYPv ��a/�` 1\4i♦ X'7 e-,' r 4 �:1 1plll` �1" AR��i �, = � r .._ 'k 9i' / ht lx 1>a', ,•h x` 11 / 1r I�I f"'S/(V ry 1� ♦� �P��.t` .V7✓ � �9 !' � t � ItL r1. �1►- "��v 1 j�f' t�.SiA•1 'i%{�(k,'��°,d �`�11` A+ � / 7 �'w�@, 'a 3 alp U . .r.1✓ i fL '� 4 f' L .q!- tl.a_ \c'i. alr F-t�..IL'c�J\1 !t `?t�!y7yft• •�I'J ta(I '?141i i ^ • _ - �1�� I �IWr ♦;��A%iJ7 +'rV Kr{�' '7��.. fr/�.� � w[�^; yA t° ,S Ji�� K r r 1 � /� 1�.1R iYY 1. s. ! �{/ •fir 5 � ': t� { � 1,'r' \� r� - - • n�rs,. �'7i1.y.�l/.� �y��r,"a �F�9�'r1� ` � 'x �'�iw' y�/' f l�j'7 � �� i ! i. .. y �'w•,�.. �1Y aw(��t+ '�' ri'1�A�, / µ 1 I/i.. \� .-f � ,P�'� ai ,r.�Z•' ` � -�i a "'` 'A T!.�I°/,�.' �b :��„ .w.l '.�,—•�. 'oj Ir i'�� S9.t= �N .�';1'�'C:`:' V`? y'rrl.;_� . ,..r 1'.F •' ' �-s ".'�"i � x"\. � '.!� A:f i�Y 1'V}til. ! �►'7� 'i��4�i°� a. �4': /•�. 1♦ ♦ 1 Yjr}., '�/(1/i •J�M► A I 5'�it !4�.':,l I..�`VY��✓r.i� ��i ��L� T �/ 1 �I� it( l a�, wwv �„` ��i� 11\'1. , S/(� ; •r kS Z '!,^•ryy es}Fr5':I I _ t rf� i .P 'f �}; � it :� 1�'`�.g�`y�� -1• . 1/Y.>1/✓'lo3"k{ r .�." 3 �/ �•��'7/T vz. t ,Z1 #"1"^ �. y�T'�ttti. (• -'��}F 1L ✓•..` i.. � •^ ' yr1S:r�t '` (jA'P.�:` v `h ' r •. �...' zo �' A! '.'�r 'K"'r. 1:• rt✓. {IY � \ �+r`�t.YYI�+RAL.. I b d.Gv � �� )%..• T 't...•s r. ,-y 7' aa- �'�ts w�:> �/ ! .. r w I :�r J �J�r�"�� Y/!'G' hC• i t^'a'fly.�•S1Irw•r r. + 1T�r�>t-- �' Vi..�' _ •.� �Y y ♦y r'e1• •S. !a a+{ s y�,1ry�4� Yr -.lS� t -�7.•'.' %'�Ya.�'/�i,$S!:'•L :•. ..C. lr`T�..�aSYw.'-"5- �'�.:n: _ _ • .. Attachment CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TREE COMMITTEE MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 26, 2004 MEMBERS PRESENT: Laura Rice, Pete Dunan, Steve Caminiti, Laura Hauss, Jim Lopes STAFF PRESENT: Ron Combs, Lisa Woske, Todd Beights 1. REVIEW MINUTES OF MARCH 22,2004 The minutes were approved as submitted. 2. TREE REMOVAL REQUESTS ■ 1670 PHILLIPS LANE(Liquid Amber) Michael DiMilo, 1670 Phillips Lane, distributed pictures and discussed the removal request. He cited undue hardship,based on the tree being too large for the location, lack of ability to landscape underneath it, and problems with surface roots. He also noted the tree had been topped and was unsightly. He did not think the removal of the backyard tree would adversely affect the neighborhood, as most of the tree could not be seen from the street. He wanted to replace the tree with a Japanese maple. Mr. Combs noted that the tree was fairly healthy,but some decay was evident and agreed the tree had been poorly topped. He stated the succor growth was weakly attached,which could pose a liability, and felt that the problems with the surface roots would just get worse. He reported that the item was before the Committee because a neighbor had protested the removal when the property was posted. Ms. Hauss felt the tree was crowded within the heavy vegetation and agreed with the hardship issues cited by the applicant. She favored removal with replacement of a Japanese maple. Mr. Lopes agreed that removing the tree would not harm the character of the neighborhood and that the tree was crowded,with surface roots causing problems and hazards. Mr. Caminiti agreed with the comments. Mr. Lopes moved to approve the removal request, based on undue hardship on the property owner, promoting good arboricultural practice, and that removal would not harm the character of the neighborhood. He required one 15-gallon replacement tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of issuance of permit. Mr. Caminiti seconded the motion. - -- -- — I The motion passed unanimously. Attachment .5 Filing Fee: $100.00 Paid FWR9ftIVED NIAMP.Y u '� 2004 CI REFER TO wa&san lues owpo SECTION 4 SLO CITY CLERK APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION Roger Suiker 1666 Phillips Lane, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Name Mailing Address and Zip Code 805-542-0469 Phone Fax Representative's Name Mailing Address and Zip Code Title Phone Fax SECTION 2. SUBJECT OF APPEAL 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: City Tree Council (Name of Officer, Committee or Commission decision being appealed) 2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: April 26,2004 3. The application or project was entitled: Removal of liquid amber tree 4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member: Ron Combs on May 6,2004 (Staff Member's Name and Department) (Date) 5. Has this matter been the subject of a previous appeal? If so, when was it heard and by whom: No SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL 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 additional pages, if necessary. This form continues on the other side. Page 1 of 3 Reason for Appeal continued I, Roger Suiker, am a next-door neighbor of Mr. Mike Demilo. He wants to cut down a liquid amber tree which is estimated to be at least 50 years old. It is my hope that the council will reconsider the decision to have the tree removed. Besides the aesthetic loss,the removal of the tree would also mean a loss of habitat for much bird-life,and shade for my property(the tree's limbs extend over my property line), and there is also a significant concern that the tree's root structure may add support to the already-leaning concrete retaining wall which divides our properties. Mr. Demilo moved into the property approximately 6 months ago. In the 8 years prior,the previous homeowners never indicated the tree was any kind of liability.Therefore the concern over dangerous limbs seems unfounded, and also that of providing too much shade as it sits on the north-side of the property. I understand that Mr. Demilo would like to grow a lawn,so I offered,as a compromise,that if he were to keep the tree,that I would bring in soil, level the ground,whatever was needed,to make the area more conducive for a lawn, but he was not receptive. The proposed replacement tree,a slow-growing Japanese maple could never come close to being comparable to the liquid amber. Thank you for considering this appeal. SECTION 4. APPELLANTS RESPONSIBILITY The San Luis Obispo City Council values public participation in local government and encourages all forms of citizen involvement. However, due to real costs associated with City Council consideration of an appeal, including public notification, all appeals pertaining to a planning application or project are subject to a filing fee of$100,which must accompany thw appeal form. Your right to exercise an appeal comes with certain responsibilities. If you file an appeal, please understand that it must be heard within 45 days from filing this form. You will-be notified in writing of the exact date your appeal will be heard before the Council. You or your representative wilt be expected to attend the public hearing, and to be prepared to make your case. Your testimony is limited to 10 minutes. A continuance may be granted under certain and unusual circumstances. If you feel;you , need to request a continuance,you must submit your request in writing to the City Clerk. Please bid.' advised that if your request for continuance is received after the appeal is noticed to the publl 4w Council may not be able to grant the request for continuance. Submitting a r+equestfor corfliht i2 v does not guarantee that it will be granted, that action is at the discretion of the City Council I hereby agree to appear and/or send a representative to appear on my behalfwhO.. said appeal is schedule for a ublic hearing before the City Council .. May 7,2004 (Si re of Appellant) (Date) .- , - Exceptions to the tee: 1)Appeals of Tree Committee decisions. 2)The above-namertappellanthasalreaft y paled the City$100 to appeal this same matter to a City official or Council advisory body. tip i'Pl This item is hereby calendared for c: City Attorney City Administrative Officer Department Head Advisory Body Chairperson City Clerk(original) ,} (`r •��t:)� Page 2of3 ,��rlCi eht=)i-1FS umv Attachment !c Fling Fee: $100.00 Pai d Date Received wA LZRECEIVED MAY 0 7 2004 HEFW TO SECnON 4 $LO CITY CLERK san lues OBISPO APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION /a1 �� /�y1 71/ Marling Address and Zip Code Name �5' X39 /r�S 3 �S`•7�'�-Zo Fax S'Sl Phone Representative's Name Mailing Address and Zip Code Title Phone Fax 71. ION 2. SUBJECT OFAPPEAL In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (copy attached), I hereby appeal the decision of the: C nm (Name of Officer,Committee or Commission decision being appealed) 2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: 3. The application or project was entitled: 4. I discussed the matter with the following City staff member: �. _ 1 „ Pl�l ' on c'�S-D�o �N (Date) (Staff Members Name and Department) 5. HEthis matter been the subject of a previous appeal? If so,when was it heard and by whom: SECTION I REASON FOR APPEAL Explain specifically what actions you are appealing and why you believe the Council should consider your appeal. Include what evidence you have that supports your appeal. You may attach add pages, if necessary. This form continues on the other side. Page 1 of 3 Reason for Appeal continued A$EC7ION'' RLAMSfESP0J1iS/BILITY ;T i. r #�kl'e Sarilais�bis q G'ity Counctl'values bL0 aifici ationjn, loc P Pu P R tgovemmerrtapdr `} .04TOO a(C#orms f cituminvolvement I owescer,due�to Ye I Ids assoc�a dwvi Cath , '� ; Couna1 cQnsl eratlon t?f a appeal;.7ncluding pablic riotificatrgn,g��ap�eatspertGnug�to / -,-,,p arm rigapplicafJgn or project are subJect fo a'filinci fee df t00,�rfiich rt ust accompany the t k r a_,pea form: P C v�'`. Z _ t ' YoRr r�igrht eta n app:"eal'comes wrth cerUin. onsibilitles Tf:you 1166h" appeal, 7eess nd rstandShW t romafilin ttaisforrri You noU#iec]itrw ng bfrlfie ex da a your appeal wil!beThe k:6e"fofe the Court it XQu For yqu r r representative annll !ie exoectbd#o.attend the public hearing;=and to,e prepared td rnafse your WSW, You[>_t@stunonyts9imited o 1.0 minutes w = Yt < 11 cbntftauance maybe grantecunder certalantl unusua1rc�rcumstangeS Iyotifeet +ou � need#a 5 ueet a can�nuar�ce,�+ou''fn�st subeut your regpest� wwntmg#oAthe}Ga ler�k� Please W, ad used is rf�rour request far continuance as Ceceived after the appeal jeftficed. the CquncJ may,ttothe ab etc grant then equesf,for of finuanae r 15rrbm�ttlrl a requ t orcantfrluance does Jttlf gu�rpn ge haf r� wiq be granted, that ai;`tion F at tha d�scret�on o�Me Ct11!, 7 �"'��e ` d'g y �o;�ppe�rrand/orsanda r'epresentatl ioap�ear�on m}�ehalfer� saTda a etlu/ed or a publia nearing'beforethe r r Cavndl K x,} 4 Iw^ .4- } .+. 3 "�i �"'yt '`S•a� .'-" 4.. Y 1 t �s^i" �� i/w�ri� t��:�"".i 4M. �.,pt(o" ., th�fee ��}Appeala�f�cee�otnmtttee decTsibns.a2�The ebpve-na��d appelran�2�as,aU�pa a �t!"►fl:✓C . o-nPpl�a,�ah�s3;�n�`rttter"to`�a'CICyntti`cfsl}oou c Iadvlsory ErodX �3 ��'-�� w ,�` .x _.+1: r-.. '.3•u..r..6 a ..ay..t'.n..a 14 a.. A .:i:4.?h ,_......... '""..- �..;i„m ... �,:... .'2 ZY h }+nM.a This Item is hereby calendared for c: City Attorney City Administrative Officer Department Head Advisory Body Chairperson City Clerk(origginal) I�lt-rl ('r MA Page 2 of 3 arcs J C' ATTACHMENTf RESOLUTION NO. (2004 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 26, 2004 and approved the applicant's request to remove one (1) Liquidamber tree located in the backyard at 1670 Phillips Lane, San Luis Obispo,California; and WHEREAS, on June 15, 2004, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing to consider the appeal of the approval to remove one (1)Liquidamber tree, NOW, THEREFORE, 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, makes the following finding: a. The removal of one (1) Liquidamber tree and planting one (1) replacement tree will promote good arboricultural practice. b. The tree is causing undue hardship to the property owner. c. Removing the tree will not harm the character of the surrounding neighborhood. SECTION 2. The appeal of the Tree Committee's decision to approve the tree removal request at 1670 Phillips Lane is hereby denied, 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 15th day of June 2004. Mayor David F. Romero 2 ATTEST: Lee Price, C.M.C. City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jo ath . Lowell,City Attorney l - l3 ATTACHMENT.8_ RESOLUTION NO. (2004 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 26, 2004 and approved the applicant's request to remove one (1) Liquidamber tree located in the back yard at 1670 Phillips Lane, San Luis Obispo, California; and WHEREAS, on June 15, 2004, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing to consider the appeal of the approval to remove one (1)Liquidamber tree, NOW, THEREFORE, 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, makes the following finding: a. The removal of one (1) Liquidamber 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 approve the tree removal request at 1670 Phillips Lane is hereby upheld, and the tree removal request is denied. Upon motion of seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this 15th day of June 2004. Mayor David F. Romero o 2 ATTEST: Lee Price,C.M.C. City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jonathan P. Lowell, City Attorney � - ice Tree Removal Replacement Request Mike di Milo 1670 Phillips Lane 1. Undue Hardship A. Tree roots (surface) are colliding with decking. B. Foundation specialist (Spencer Construction) recommends concrete barrier to divert water from foundation area. Difficult to do with surface roots in this area. C. People trip on the surface roots. D. Seed balls (thousands) stick to dog and end up in house. E. Turf will not grow in part of yard, soil stays muddy in winter. 2. Removing Tree Promotes Good Arboricultural Practice: A. Tree has been topped resulting in potential hazard as identified by city arborist. B. Tree removal and replacement have been granted at 1604 Hillcrest and 1600 block of Wilson.. 3. Removing The Tree Will Not Harm The Character Of The Surrounding Neighborhood. A. From the center of the street directly in front of the property the tree is not visible. B. Most of the tree is not visible from the street when viewed from other angles. C. This is not a Heritage Tree June 12, 2004 Tree Committee City of San Luis Obispo To Members of the Tree Committee:. This letter is in support of the removal of the liquid amber tree in the rear yard of 1670 Phillips Lane, San Luis Obispo. We will be taking ownership of this property July 6t', 2004. Due to substantial water damage caused by poor drainage, the home's foundation needs to be replaced, as it structurally unsound. The foundation replacement will require removal of a significant amount of soil from underneath and around the perimeter of the house. The work required will adversely affect the tree. In addition to the structural work on the home, we are planning to complete additional grading work to improve the water runoff away from the structure. This work involves the creation of a drainage and water distribution system from the rear-yard and roof toward the front of the property. The liquid amber is located in the area that will require grading in order to create the proper run off. The roof of this structure has small drainage holes to allow water to travel from the roof to the downspouts. These drainage holes are regularly blocked by the leaf mass from this tree, thus creating the need for frequent trips up to the roof for the removal of the leaves. Replacement of the tree with an alternative species would be recommended. Thank you for your consideration. Phil Dauterman Kathryn Booth 06/02/2004 15:15 80554391 ' J R SPENCER CON97RUC PAGE 03 i mom s SIS �!+�"ONS-T,UC I -- — FOUNDATIONAND 77EBACKRE'PAIR 'T'E'CHNOLOGY ESTABLISHED: 1977 LICENSES: A— GENERAL ENGINEERING CONTRACTOR B — GENERAL BUILDING CONTRACTOR C 10 — ELECTRICAL C36 — PLUMBING C61 — LIMITED SPECIALTY DOG — CONCRETE RELATED SERVICE 030 PILE DRIVING /PRESSURE FOUNDATION JACKING CERTIFICATIONS: A.B. CHANCE INSTALLATION CONTRACTOR INSURANCE: LIABILITY INSURANCE' WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE EXPERIENCE: RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LEVELING AND STABILIZATION COMMERCIAL BUILDING LEVELING AND STABILIZATION RETAINING WALL STABILIZATION SEA WALL STABILIZATION SPECULATIVE HOME CONSTRUCTION CUSTOM HOME CONSTRUCTION MULTWAWLY HOME CONSTRUCTION REMODELING ORGANIZATIONS: SEAOSC —STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASCE —AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS CCGA— CENTRAL COAST GEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION ICBG —INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BUILDING OFFICIALS SCBE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY BUILDERS EXCHANGE DFI — DEEP FOUNDATIONS INSTITUE S_ UMM_ARY: WE AT J.R. SPENCER CONSTRUCTION TAKE PRIDE 1N OUR COMPANY AND IN THE QUALITY OF SERVICE WE PROVIDE EACH CLIENT. THROUGH THE YEARS WE HAVE BUILT A REPUTATION ON THIS QUALITY. OUR REPUTATION HAS ALLOWED US TO PERFORM IN EXCESS OF 135 SPECIALTY SETTLEMENT/STABILIZATION PROJECTS THROUGHOUT THE STATE DURING THE LAST TWELVE YEARS ALONE.THE MAJORITY OF OUR WORK NOW COMES FROM REFERRALS FROM STRUCTURAL AND CIVIL ENGINEERS, GEOLOGICAL ENGINEERS, ATTORNEYS, REAL ESTATE AGENTS, CONTRACTORS AND PAST CLIENTS, WITH ALL OF THE ABOVE QUALIFICATIONS WE FEEL THAT J.R. SPENCER CONSTRUCTION IS THE MOST QUALIFIED FOUNDATION AND TIEBACK REPAIR SPECIALIST IN SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY. 351 HIGHLAND DRIVE PHONE805.543-9165 SAN LUIS OMSPO CA 93405 FAX 805-543-9167 E-AfAIL JRSPENGERGpTHE'GRID.NE-r LICENSENO. 412180 � "a"k" x9 ,v#e.' Rae" 9 +•� n" '� 'N'�r*. x ;�a: .` Vol fi '"."'"<,� aw^.: w„...�sd. w ,, ;�.�•.,-„ pyx iM"" s+" m �,r°: u IT 0 WW 64, Oak MEW Nq TO L d �4. i } +� La '��` `�� <k•�^ • `e �tr ,. e La2�<w `rk�tv,:°w- d e �' �';,. � '�y'w �' r� t „p�3r ��`�°'.t � -4,; I i��ay�(C"t4.t>, 4 ti` 'p;� � � s` �` `��: � •".��.tf� +�'�� ,�1� ?�. ,>��^ `'y- "" i'q� g (r . ff?73 ,Fla W 4 aj ,,�• fact°' a's�t. t ; ,�, § m ';- r t '�' y 'x ; i l < �� ir�s `� � ✓ rr. � � y.`� w � �"` `" rel� ` '� t 4 y.�KH k i� -.dxts kY F' 0":A, *; #x t ' ' To :t S by ly�., "fix" _, y a t'� w .4 rIT all gg ( .� `4 'c 4'€T•.. rt �,.• F' C.y:'?" a` i & r 'a S '$r x.p` ±,n ='S. eele x k Fps x fm3`at d! iris: f tr"a- ,� b{ '^:. R�j" -ttcv� "^x WX wa i ra atr l.,A 3n now t a NAM WW f w a CA s 3Z a, To r s � *" a 'rte � r Y b � 4: v ' N,e Ail, ap �A` � � 3r x - r e a eta r a e ' e 't)"'JI, , I TION u a 1 4•i�, < b ,�•� 5 .•d �`.�a � �a�a'.' -��q `��"p`x.s .. Pil a � x 3q, £ + 1 pr`s s l S x n w by RED FILE FRECEIVED MEETING AGENDA 1004 . TEM #�ELERK - ,�' tZli1"�if^� r�../ ��.�,� !� ✓'tel ,��1��=°. ZZ ?® �� ''- z� ! / / _r - Q� jrDIR /SAO .?'FIN DIR J/ACAO %r IN CHIEF 'ATTORNEY ,DPW DIR CLERK/ORIG Z'POLICE CHF =i DEPT HEADS 2'R=C DiR � �U'PIt' N 1 .. Im' RECEIVED JUN 14 2004 June 9, 2004 RED FILE SLO CITY CLERK MEETING AGENDA DATEITEM # RE: Removal of Liquid Amber Tree on Phillips Lane To Whom It May Concern: We are writing to express our disapproval of the removal of a mature tree in our neighborhood. We own the house at 1663 Phillips Lane and,can see the tree from our house. San Luis Obispo is unique in character and in part due to it landscape of mature trees. We chose to retire in this neighborhood particularly due to its location on the hill, its unique homes and its beautiful trees. It is especially troubling that the owner is considering cutting the tree down and selling the home shortly. We trust you will help to retain the unique atmosphere of our neighborhood. Thank you, - CUh:CIL _ !et"CDD DLR �CA'0.. FIN DIR ACAO r —FIRE CHIEF ,Z-'ATTORNEYN!DIR Carol &,Jerry.Tuckera'cLERK'ORIG -E'?OLICE CHF 0'DJ HEADS SEC DIA %- �'� i�uTIL DIR Thank y( iembers of the council for hearing This. _)1me an issue for my wife and I when, my appeal. My name is Roger Suiker, and I without any consultation or warning, he EGEIVED am appealing the city tree council's approval defoliated the chain link fence which divides to remove a liquidambar tree on the property our properties. We'd previously had a SUN 15 2004 of Mr. Michael di Milo at 1670 Phillips Lane. beautiful privacy fence of greenery,and now I live next door to Mr. di Milo. we can see right into his backyard, and he into SLO CITY CLERK ours. Good neighbors should consult with one another when they wish to take an action that would affect the other. The previous owner I am sorry I missed the meeting of the tree had checked with us about planting a trumpet council on April 26. I misheard the date and vine to grow on the fence and we thought it arrived at the correct time on the following was a great idea. This was another plant Mr. day. I was very disappointed when Jane di Milo had simply cut off at its base,leaving Johansen, secretary for the Public Works me the task of removing dozens of feet of dead Department, informed me of this. However, vines. When I brought this up to him, he said given what has happened since,am thankfuf to he would plant something to replace it,but still have the opportunity to be here today. hasn't. I only have a concrete slope on my side of the fence, so am unable to plant there. Before I address each of my reasons for the appeal,the council should know that less than Mr. di Milo is welcome to argue this,but I'm a month after Mr. di Milo met with the tree certain, given his actions,that if it hadn't been council (on April 26),he put his house up for fora reputable tree surgeon,one day my wife sale. This fact should have prompted him to and I would have come home to the withdraw his tree removal application,but liquidambar being gone. He never even surprisingly he's still determined to cut it approached me about his intention. Instead I down. He has even stated within earshot that found about it from the public notice the city the removal is a"done deal." I don't think it's posted in his front yard. appropriate for him to presume the council's decision on this matter. I have owned my The following are my responses to Mr. di home for 8 years, enjoying the liquidambar Milo's reasons for wanting the tree removed tree the entire time. According to City (please see page I-4) Arborist Ron Combs,the tree is approximately 50 years old, so it's a fixture in the 1.Tree was topped by previous owner: looks neighborhood. Whereas Mr. di Milo has only terrible been in his home 6 months, and soon moving. How the tree looks is subjective. This is the Having once been a prospective homebuyer first negative thing I've heard said of it. I think myself,I would prefer a property that had it's looked great through all of the seasons in mature,established trees. It only seems the last 8 years. reasonable to keep the tree, and allow the new homeowner to make their own judgment on it. 2.Tree overwhelms small backyard The tree resides on the left boundary of his When Mr. di Milo moved in, he immediately property and its habit is to grow up,not out. began having large amounts of plant life in Mr. di Milo has.already had its lower limbs both his front and back yards cut or removed. removed. RED FILE *;�;o-i-iCOUNC u �:;?CDD CAC -2 FIN DIR - MEETING AGENDA '2'ACAO t' FIRE CHIEF DATE ITEM # "I 1,TATTCRNEY 1~e'PW OR I-CLERK/ORIG �POLICECHF l El �T_ C RTC DIR .QUTILDIR DIR 3. Tree C not allow lawn to grow (too _,he presence of mature trees such as much shade) this one that give our neighborhood its special There is no evidence that Mr. di Milo has ever character." attempted to grow a lawn under the tree. A short walk or drive around town will show that "The magnitude and stateliness of this tree, there are numerous lush lawns growing under coupled with the others,promotes tranquility shade producing trees, including liquidambars. in this portion of our city." 4. Tree roots head toward deck "San Luis Obispo is unique in character and in Mr. Combs indicated that the roots could be part due to its landscape of mature trees. We covered with soil or cut chose to retire in this neighborhood particularly due to its location on the hill, its Mr. di Milo later told me he didn't want the unique homes and its beautiful trees. It is tree because he wants more sunlight, but it's especially troubling that the owner is the hill—the downslope of which our houses are considering cutting the tree down and selling on,that obstructs the sun in the late afternoon, the home shortly." not the tree.Earlier in the day,the tree casts its shadow onto our property. It loses its leaves in the fall. As we live very close to Highway 101,it also He wishes to replace the tree with a Japanese contributes as a sound barrier. maple,a tree which is extremely slow growing, and since his yard is at least 3 feet lower than The tree is also host to numerous birds as a mine, I'd likely never see it. habitat. Right now, amongst its limbs, Band tailed Pigeons are nesting. According to the There are numerous reasons why I believe the Audubon Society, the bird is North America's tree should be spared. Personally,the tree largest pigeon,and its biggest threat is the loss produces much-appreciated shade on my and degradation of its habitat,of which the property since its branches extend over it. removal of this tree would be. (over 8 feet)I am also concerned,that if it's removed,the concrete retaining wall which divides our properties and is already leaning, will Iosesupport from the tree's root.structure. In 1996 or 1997,the city was giving away As I mentioned, it is a fixture in our trees,4 of which are planted on my property. I neighborhood,and can be seen from just about probably won't be around long enough to see anywhere on our block,including as one enters the day when any one of them is near the the neighborhood from both Grand Avenue stature of the liquidambar. and California Boulevard. Besides my wife and myself,I know of at least 5 neighbors who On behalf of fellow neighbors and myself,.I agree. hope Mr. di Milo will take this opportunity in a show of goodwill,to withdraw his application. I submitted yesterday letters for the council to review, but the following are just a few If that's not the case, I implore the council to excerpts: uphold this appeal, RECEIVED Larry L. Smith JUN 14 2004 1641 Phillips Lane SLO CITY CLERK San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401 June 11,2004 City Council City of.San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo,Ca.93401 Re: Appeal of the Tree Committee's Decision to Approve the Tree Removal Request at 1670 Phillips Lane. Dear Council Members, Please allow this letter to serve in my absence as a testimonial to my request to appeal the decision allowing the removal of old growth forestation located at 1670 Phillips Lane. The removal of this tree will greatly alter,to the negative,the quality of the "viewscape"currently enjoyed from the front of my residence. I have enclosed pictures depicting the tree as a back-drop in the view of my neighbor's houses. There are several other old trees in this neighborhood. The magnitude and stateliness of-this tr coupled with the others, promotes tranquility in this portion of our city. Thank yon f onsidering this request, _ COUNCIL CDD DIR ��CAO FIN DIR a - ACAO FIRE CHIEF TTORNEY D j� PW DIR krCLERKIORIG ,a POLICE CHF ❑ DEPT HEADS e;e REC DIR -�EZ UTIL DIR —_ -E rIR DIR RED FILE MEETING AGENDA DATE � s r ITEM # u� 4W, & R'Q�L" Front Viewscape i 3 y., c M l � iJn m, �l ilr �a �. s. r < !y r gt 1f 1 � Awl lamNO. �e ♦' yy Its A Al 1. yid f l t3 {{{ , s 2 �. Ori 04 x a. , } D o r � . ,\� ' e P• ', "�� f � �i..., A,7I Ilk J'� I lb 11191 a t � t e a A N µ rrt2 s €� ',�r � k%.s1��`,�P��^' '�•p€�' ,gyp�� N �e� t aT' _ t 6•+ .d F s � "'a AA��v::•vex fY� ,. ��' Ivx, � 40 a T P- 2�51 { )H 1 ,.s gr