Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/16/2005, PH 3 - APPEAL OF TREE REMOVAL PERMIT CONDITIONS REQUIRED BY TREE COMMITTEE DECISION council ` August 16,2005 acEnaa izEpojA V 3 CITY OF SAN LUIS O B I S P O FROM: Jay Walter,Public Works Directo Prepared By: Todd Beights, Parks Urban Forest Supervisor SUBJECT: APPEAL OF TREE REMOVAL PERMIT CONDITIONS REQUIRED BY TREE COMMITTEE DECISION CAO RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution denying the appeal of the Tree Committee's decision to phase the replacement of the two(2) American elm trees located at 1990 Loomis Street. DISCUSSION On April 15, 2005, staff received a tree removal application from Mr. Guillermo Nevarez of 1990 Loomis Street in San Luis Obispo (Attachment 2). The application was.for the removal of two (2) American elm trees located in the front yard at that address. The request was based on claims that; 1) "Power lines cross through the trees" and 2) Mr, Nevarez "Does not like trees too close to house". Upon receiving Mr. Nevarez's application, staff inspected the trees. Staff noted that the trees in question were fairly healthy but improper pruning had contributed to an imbalance in the shape of the trees. The trees are located directly beneath utility lines and the periodic "topping" for line clearance caused this imbalance. After inspecting the trees, staff determined that the Elim trees 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 further 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 trees did not meet these criteria, the Arborist could not authorize the removals. When the City Arborist cannot approve removal, the request shall be brought before the Tree Committee for their consideration. 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: 3--! Appeal of Tree Committee Decision=1990 Loomis St Page 2 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 heard this request at their April 25, 2005 meeting. The Committee members present were Linda Hauss, Sara Young, Ben Parker, Don Dollar, and Chairperson Jim Lopes. After taking into consideration the concerns of the applicant and the testimony of neighboring property owners, the Committee members voted unanimously 5-0 in favor of approving the request. The applicant was present at the April 25`h meeting as well as a small group of neighbors. (See minutes, Attachment.4) The Committee's decision to allow the removal was based on promoting good arboricultural practice. The Committee required the planting of a total of four (4) 15-gallon replacement trees to be chosen from the Master Street Tree List and coordinated with the City Arborist. The Committee further decided that two (2)of the trees should be planted immediately and then allow the removal of the American elm trees in two years. The removal would then be followed with the planting of the remaining two (2) replacement trees on the property. The intent of the Committee was to allow a grow-in period for the initial two (2) replacement trees to reduce the visual impact created when the larger trees were removed. On May 5, 2005 the City Clerk's office received an appeal of the Tree Committee's decision from the applicant (Attachment 5). A clarification to the original appeal included in Attachment 3 indicates an objection to the condition of a phased replacement approach and the two (2) year establishment period. 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 removing the trees and installing replacement trees, if the appeal is denied, is borne by the applicant. ALTERNATIVES Adopt a resolution upholding the appeal. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location photograph of property 2. Tree Removal Application dated April 14, 2005 3. Photographs of trees proposed for removal 4. Minutes of April 25, 2005 Tree Committee meeting 5. Appeal•to the City Council received May 5, 2005 3 -2- Appeal of Tree Committee Decision_-1990 Loomis St Page 3 6. Resolution denying appeal of the Tree Committee 7. Resolution upholding appeal of the Tree Committee 1:\-Council Agenda Repmts\2005 agenda reports\Engineering and Maintenance Services(Lynch)\Parks and Trees Maintenance(Beights)\1990 Loomis Appeal of Tree Committee:DOC' 3 -3 l ! r. 11 j r � � � �'V I' 1 se►+-•yam (. — yy 1 • II• • FI II� F 'W •_ r Aw yyM� ' r �• ry � • �t - M � A��j J a l l or Id /(J/( fit. ,,•;�} .1_ �� � 7. - ` rr. _ _,.. 'fir �•h��� ••(.� ., 4} .� :,i•. ��,� ��.•f r I �III�II�11�111881111II�������IhIII1111IIIII I���� city of SAn Ills oBispo 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 sketch/map showing 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 $38. removal. Please draw on theback 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 TT -7 Owner: .0 1S 1 ZI E 6/)')TJ /(AF iIf-7 2 Z Telephone: go-5- ,q Owner's Mailing Address: E c2 K /�SrS SArc 0Zp: Applicant (if different than-Owner): Telephone,. - Applicant's Mailing Address: �7 D Lm­k -,d - Zip: - Location of tree(s): ,k 1& 0 AJ 'n. Please indicate nearest cross street: - - - Tree Species: -- Botanical Name Common Name Reasons for removing: Compensatory replacement proposed: -- 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 to notified. **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 Owner: "Cv dlf'/Can �� o.4910_ z Date Ix L -oZ Applicant: 2 Date: - f:groups/trVes/foams/"=removal application The City of San Lads Obispo k committed to Include the disabled in all of its services, p►oprams and activities- ions Device br the Deal(MM 781-7410. _ J �w L co i tr �'yil I '.t r Iii. r•'�f�`� `<I 4." ,< L i 19 i 4 1 , 1.t �'.try -1�`;�•��;. 7-1 . •�7�ysy,�� �n:�y�-j�•' rPC • �r/' f f T. f X 1 J •Svf+ O� ZakJ��+ • ttW�I.El�y.iZ r I0 ' 77 —10 5th� t+ h ]4 fel • -. r. _•�,':;•- �;?kms • �C ' ; w • i �. . 1a 4 1 :`P6 i a J/ �• x;11:. � cv. !TG` -cam Y "tl RZ A AIM VA Ir it y tV � Y :. •• Y �,• :!. A1C?� `�... 4 .• � . �:. .. � • � v art 'di ! r Vh a a CT4..: l,Y.• GTS far r _-era�: � - .< -'•` I al1�f' r• 4 p� � t �, I A'~ +'•art �`S t ♦ }� �' _ ,', .._'y w+, f � !]j` �'1 t+.'- � jjtt� � ,�^� ..I•cr�`, V 'r�'•'y`q��� f '� •�+';. �-�'` +1V1. x'�' . "'f}. .ter•' � '" ,,�,� �'_L>�., `�.^C-�'��>J� c��;' R .:; -_ I RTRU 4 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TREE COMMITTEE MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 25, 2005 . � MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Lopes, Don Dollar, Ben Parker, Sara Young, and Linda Hauss STAFF PRESENT: .. Ron Combs, Lisa Woske,Todd Beights OATH OF OFFICE: Ben Parker and.Sara Young were sworn in and took the Oath of Office. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no public comments. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 28,2005_1 The minutes were approved as submitted. 2. TREE REMOVAL REQUESTS 0 1990 McCOLLUM (Star pine) There was no applicant representative to speak to the item Bob Salem, 2106 Santa Ynez, asked•for clarification as to why the tree was being removed. Mr. Lopes read the details from the applicant's removal request, citing that the tree was too large for the property,was lifting the concrete, and posed a hazard to the property's tenants. Mr. Salem did not favor removal of the tree, as it was a prominent skyline tree and an asset to the neighborhood. Jan Salem, 2106 Santa Ynez, and Dana Justeson, 2057 McCollum, agreed with Mr. Salem, did not favor removing the tree, and felt there were mitigation measures that could be taken to preserve the tree and address owner's concerns. Mt. Combs reported that it was a large,.healthy tree and was lifting the slabs with large surface roots. He did not see any evidence of foundation damage and did not feel there 3 -� ATTACHMEW4 was presently any undue hardship. He suggested that the large pavers could.be lifted to allow for root pruning and then re-set. Ms. Young noted that removing the tree would negatively impact the hardscape and,that some pruning and.mulching around the tree would be less expensive than removal Mr. Lopes agreed it was a significant skyline tree and stated he could not make the findings necessary for removal Mr. Dollar moved to deny thexem_oval request, as he could not make the findings necessary for removal Ms. Young seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. P__1 99 0 LOOMIS (Two Amencan.elms) ' The applicant discussed the request, stating the power lines were splitting the trees and he was very concerned that the trees were creating a hazard to his tenants. He said the one in the front was leaning into the house and the other one was leaning.over the street. He was concerned that roots would begin to interfere with waterline. He noted.PG&E had not trimmed the trees in a long time. He agreed that a larger specimen replacement planting would be acceptable. Mr. Combs felt the trees were too large and were the wrong trees_ in the wrong location, with very large surface roots., Mr. and Mrs. Salem felt that pruning might mitigate his concerns and that the trees weren't causing problems at this time. Mn Combs noted that the danger potential was minimal at this time and that bottom weight of the trees needed to be professionally pruned. Ms. Hauss determined that there was room on property to have a phased removal/ replanting. She also felt planned maintenance would mitigate applicant's concerns. Mr. Dollar agreed that the trees were significant to the neighborhood,but did not think that the trees would ever realize their potential due to PG&E's pruning efforts that have ruined the shape of the trees. He favored replacement trees. Mr. Parker agreed that the trees' health had been compromised and replacement trees would be more suitable. Mr. Lopes agreed with previous comments and felt 2-3 replacement trees could be planted on the property. ATTACIN4 Ms. Young agreed that the trees would eventually have to be removed as they got larger and failed in health. Ms. Justeson spoke in favor of the Committee's phased replacement approach. Ms. Hauss moved to approve the removal request,based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and requiring four 15-gallon replacement trees to be chosen from the.Master Street Tree List and coordinated with the City Arborist. She moved that two trees be planted now and then allow the removal of the American elm trees in two years, with replacement planting of two more trees on the property. Mr. Dollar seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 532DANA The item w drawn. 3436 ZACA LANE; 21 ZACA LANE (Misc. trees) Dan Rutl e, applicant's representative, discussed to the submitted arborist report by Wes Conn t outlined the removal of30 trees and pruning of 19 others. The goal was to have the dpus trees removed. Mr. Combs discusse the site visit made by himself and the Committee and he agreed with the indicated removals the replacements suggested, e.g. Bay or Live Oak native species. He also agreed th the removal of the slash,woo_d chips, and brush as it will help establish new plantings. Mr. Lopes noted that Neil Hav also suggested Black Walnut as a replacement species. Wes Conner, arborist, felt all the re vals should be chipped and stumps ground to retard re=growth and requested to be on site manage the removal process, if approved. Mr. Dollar agreed with the safety concerns d felt removals and replacement planting should be shifting toward a long-term view, more foresting and safety issues in mind. Mr. Lopes outlined what he saw to be three issues. removal, maintenance, and restoration of the creek. He felt all should be considered within item. Ms. Young was concerned about the lack of submitted re . ration plan,but agreed the safety removals should,move ahead: She requested a genera estoration plan be submitted for review for replacement plantings after the remov had taken place. Ms. Hauss agreed with Ms. Young's comments. 2r`! I s. ATTACHME`7 ,5 Filing Fee: $100.007 Paid.- Date Received W _ �/ RECEI�IED I � Or �srcnoNa q� MAY 0 5 2005 San tws mispo ' _ -- ref CLERK APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SECHdN L APPELLANT WFORU4WN _ �:1 rgmo- -Ali¢'- N F✓ Z '7�t ��SS'�Sa�thr!?D?yli9 �'v: 9,3 Name —�T - Mailing Address and Zip Code' - Phone Fax Representative's Name - Mailing Address and Zip Code Tile Phone Fax SECTION2. SUBJECT OFAPPEAL _ 1. In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 120 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code(copy attached), I hereby appeal the decision of the: 1'►-k7 � Ile, &~7.,Ar/ 7 �L (Name of Officer,Committee or-Commission decision be'►ng appealed) 2 The date the decision being appealed was rendered: S - 3. The application or project was entitled: %s41Aa - 4: 1 the following City staff member. on , _ (Staff Members Name and Department) ( ) 5. Has this rriatter been the subject of a previous appeal? if so, when was it heard and by whom: SECTION I REASON FOR APPEAL ren specificalty what actionts you are appealing and mhv you believe the Council should consider your appeal. Include w o evidencs you have that supports your appeal. You may attach additional pages, if rreaessery. This form ommues on the odwside. Page 1 of 3 43 . . .. - .. -. - ATTACHMP,. � 1. Reason for Appeal oontlntred Zrc'�ffd�i i49a ae.�i! �5T + AGAPI 'TLS T.�n,ilu �/ems od"Psu)Fp It,1g is �Q4�.J �££S ) mnlf c w ,� S F ILO a OF Teti S YO1V PFLUNrS ESPQNSIB(L `Y ilstsiObt' Couhca voltie bt'ic ptitp2�tioe : i tDc1.ff I all-�ot :csf Win:mvofvsrd. tfav�r,di6lsb attQi s ofn planning appiieation ter project are suimima to`a fhMdt t:Si0d7 W k�6t t► I moped,tltriRi.. . YImr:dgft to.exercw.an appeal comas h•tertaih respansiblli if ,afie an appeab please uneettand thdt*M&be heard W(thin 45 days frorrr;fil�t tfttmt Yon vdil# nol�fieet in tiVing of the exacE date your appeet'a►ill�e Mp�rd before Etirlcl �Fdwlu yepr reprEtitabt►e 1 ax ected.to attend the pl'u�t►earingy.and fip beVOW ..:; cx :, -a r,testimor�y t§Tun ed to . fl rhmutas A ►6nitanoe.may be granted under certain'and uqusryat cutr tariCes, 1i ya i 1, ni cl tat�egites4 a,co (tittuance;.you must sut�mit yOdr.Y$queat fta t ig tkis etfs.. �e a6dswifsEl't-:you['request for.cont ra ano6 is`recseivedaftarthe p l:istwtidt�$tattia'pti6 e. .Coert 4*not be ble to�rsnt the"uet or contfnuanoe.l Seibmft rage# r+4 +6 ddb tastaarmnle ► fat It r►�Ul:be gra�tteGl;dpi Burr r �i tube�gn >he 11 a„ nd: v +odi�; 1 ` J. ehY agree tv R. appear and/ar se yepn# 1 fkt i sa�cf,ajgp 'fsulerd p ii ngb4fai��e',t�ty����. ''`;' ±; SLI} .. : _.'. , i 4 Y1Ih,a UJI 1 This Item is hereby calendared for r. City Attorney City Adminisbative Officer Department Read — f Advisory Body Chairperson — � �` '�+�t�_ Page 2 of 3 eros S -/3 90 �II Apj r ra C- rz I F 0971 lq�ap.< a / © �- i rrly m IEC7lP N �1 I V♦ { :; LL rvoz T ✓A� �yr0 rJ� 1� S •.t ,t j ' t� it i� t tl: t1� i etE tt� 11� is`; ATTACH- C� RESOLUTION NO. (2004 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN .APPEAL OF THE TREE COMMITTEE'S CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF A TREE REMOVAL APPLICATION AT 1990 LOOMIS STREET WHEREAS, the Tree Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing on March 28, 2005 and conditionally approved the applicant's request to remove two (2) American.Elm trees located at 1990 Loomis Street, San Luis Obispo, California; and WHEREAS, on August le, 2005, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing to consider the appeal of the conditions imposed in the approved removal permit, 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 planting of two (2) approved replacement trees now, followed by a two (2) year establishment period; and b. The planting of two (2) additional approved trees at the time of removing the two (2) existing American Elm trees will promote good aboricultural practice. SECTION 2. The appeal of the Tree Committee's decision for a phased replacement approach at 1990 Loomis Street is hereby denied, and the applicant must follow the conditions imposed by the Tree Committee. Upon motion of , seconded by — > and on.the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 200x. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper City Clerk R ATTACHME1r Resolution No. (199x Series) Page 2 APPROVED AS TO FORM:. Jonath well City Attorney ATTACK',,', RESOLUTION NO. (2004 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING , AN APPEAL OF THE TREE_ COMMITTEE'S CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF A TREE REMOVAL APPLICATION AT 1990 LOOMIS STREET- WHEREAS, the Tree Committee of the Cityof San Luis Obispo held a public hearing on . March 28, 2005 and conditionally approved the applicant's request to remove two (2) American Elm trees located at 1990 Loomis Street, San Luis Obispo, California;and WHEREAS, on.August 16`h, 2005, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing to consider the appeal of the conditions imposed in the approved removal permit, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RES OL-VED,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 planting of two (2) approved replacement trees now, followed by a two (2) year establishment period; and b. The planting of two (2) additional approved trees at the time of removing the two (2) existing American Elm trees will not promote good aboricultural practice and imposes an undue hardship to the property owner. SECTION 2. The appeal of the Tree Committee's decision for a. phased replacement approach at 1990 Loomis Street is hereby upheld, and the applicant is not required to follow the conditions imposed by the Tree Committee: Upon motion of - -- seconded by And on the following vote: AYES: NOES. ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this.--_ day of -- - - =- - 200x. Mayor David F.Romero. ATTEST: Audrey Hooper R 3 -i7 ATTACHM Resolution No. (199a Series) Page 2 City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jonathan P.Lowell City Attomey