The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10/18/2005, PH2 - APPEAL OF TREE COMMITEE DECISION TO DENY TREE REMOVAL REQUEST council ' '°`October 18,2005 acEnaa Repoin .N.6w CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: Jay Walter, Public Works Directo ohs Prepared By: Todd Beights, Parks rban Forest Supervisor 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 1250 Palm Street. DISCUSSION On August 11, 2005; staff received a tree removal application from Michael Dubin of 1250 Palm Street in San Luis Obispo (Attachment 2). The application was for the removal of one Date Palm located.in the front yard at that address. The request was based on claims that the tree "had grown dangerously tall for a species with a large heavy canopy and thin trunk and that it poses a hazard to neighbor's life and limb". The applicant also stated he planned to replace the tree with a.smaller replacement Palm tree. Upon receiving Mr. Dubin's application, staff inspected the tree. Staff noted that the tree in question was in fairly good health, was a large specimen, however appeared to be in need of maintenance pruning. (Attachment 3-photograph of tree). After inspecting the trees, staff determined that the Palm tree did not meet the criteria for immediate 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 tree did not meet these criteria, the Arborist could not authorize the removal. 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 y 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 heard this request at their August 22, 2005 meeting. The Committee members present were,Linda Hauss, Sara Young, Ben Parker. and Chairperson Jim Lopes. The applicant was also present for this meeting. After taking into consideration the concerns of the applicant and additional public testimony, the Committee members voted unanimously 40 in_ favor of denying the request. Based on the testimony of the applicant that no maintenance pruning had been performed on the tree in the .18 years that he has owned the property; the Committee clearly indicated that pruning would be of great benefit and would mitigate the concerns of falling fronds from the tree. (Attachment 4-Tree Committee Minutes) On August 29, 2005 the City Clerk's office received an appeal of the Tree Committee's decision from the applicant (Attachment 5). 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.IMFACT There is no fiscal impact to the City for denial of the appeal. The cost of removing the tree and installing replacement trees, if the appeal is upheld, is borne by the applicant, ALTERNATIVES Adopt a resolution upholding the appeal. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location photograph of property 2. Tree Removal Application dated August 11, 2005 3. Photograph of tree proposed for removal 4. Minutes of August 22, 2005 Tree Committee meeting 5. Appeal to the City Council received August 29;2005 6. Resolution denying appeal of the Tree Committee 7. Resolution upholding appeal of the Tree Committee L\-Council Agenda Repom\2005 agenda repotts\Engineering and Maintenance services(Lynch)\Parks and Trees Maintenance(Beights)\1250 Palm Appeal of Tree Committee.DOC IN 4 'yam ATTACHMENT 1 1 14 / G I O ^+ �1 � \ �N Al r rr op Kl l I ATTACHMENT Z' {11pill ��IIII II � vv ��,n I�� illl8�� cityo san tuis oBiapo . 5m.- ozig ��-�--- :jt� 25 Prado Road • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 IMPORTANT: A treeremoval 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.$39. 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. TREE REMOVAL APPLICATION Owner: / ��/. .C/ / Telephone: Owners Mailing Address: ��• �� 3 SS' �G Zip: 93-1��3 Applicant (if different than Owner): 'IV Telephone: Applicant's Mailing Address: -Zip:- Location 1P:.Location of tree(s): please indicate nearest cross street: _b09 in yard? Yes_. NaX Tree Species: ,W'e!�- 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 or your agent are required to attend the meeting and will he notified. ' If lane closure is required to perform the tree removal work,an encroachment permit must be obtained from the City Engineering Department. ' 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., Son Luis Obispo, CA 93401. Phone: 781-7220 Fax: - -986 Owner: !y07 Applicant: _ Date: Tna cay a San wto Obispo is oom acne oo Mclude the disabled i,di a services.programs and adivilies. Teleoommunia woin Device tot the Deaf(8051 781-7410. aY Ir .. wot,.. v TT lof Y r 4 .. � 1 ` st I - 2 61 r _ S a t • 'F a; im* Y � Z 77 - ` --ATTACHMENT 4 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TREE COMMITTEE MEETING MONDAY,AUGUST 22; 2005 MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Lopes;Ben Parker,Linda Hauss, and Sara Young . STAFF PRESENT: Ron Combs and Lisa Woske PUBLIC COMMENTS: Christine Mulholland was concerned with the verification of replacement plantingsactually being done and maintained. She was concerned with the lack of enforcement for mitigations, plantings, and maintenance.. Mr. Lopes told her that the Committee had begun discussions on these issues at their last meeting and suggested that mitigation measures become part of the ordinance so staff has something to enforce. Ms. Hauss agreed that fines need to be reinforced for illegal removals. Mr. Parker suggested a 5-year follow-up inspection of plantings to ensure they were maintained and survived. Staff agreed to check with CDD regarding condition parameters and consequences and would bring the information back to Committee at the next meeting, 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JULY 259 2005 The minutes were approved as submitted. 2. TREE REMOVAL REQUESTS — 1066 MONTEREY (Ficus) Mr. Combs noted that the city would be replacing the curb/street/gutter due to root damage and that the tree was already in a state of decline. He favored removal and noted that the city proposed to replace the tree with tree well and grate standards and the species would be determined from the Master Street Tree List. Mr. Parker agreed the tree was declining and favored removal. Ms. Young suggested replacing it with a larger.24"box specimen. 1, Mt. Parker moved to approve the removal request,based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required a 24"box replacement tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree List. Ms. Hauss seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 1250 PALM(Date palm) The applicant submitted an explanatory letter; outlining his strong concerns about the liability of the 60' tree, citing the dropping fronds posing a safety liability and his concern for pedestrians and his tenants. He also noted it was expensive to maintain. Ms. Hauss asked the applicant when he last had it pruned and he stated that since owning the home in 1987, he had not had any work done. Mr. Combs stated the tree was in fairly good health and was a large species and that he could not make his required findings for removal He estimated the tree might live 50+ years more. Bob and Pam Seeley, Downtown Association, asked whether it mattered in terms of responsibility whether the tree had been intentionally planted or was a volunteer. Mr: Combs stated the responsibility was with the property owner for any on site issues, whether intentionally placed there or not. Mr. Parker stated he was rehictant to set a precedent in removing trees because they posed.a possible liability, as that issue was true for all tall trees in the city. And he did not feel that this tree, especially if professional pruned,presented an unusual hardship. Ms. Young agreed the tree was in good health and needed to be trimmed; since it had not been done for almost 20 years. Ms. Hauss agreed with the need for trimming and felt that would mitigate concerns about falling fronds and felt that the tree was a skyline tree:_. She stated she could not make the findings for removal Mr. Lopes agreed with Committee comments. Mt. Combs agreed that professional pruning would make a difference and would also give the owner proof of due diligence in maintaining the tree and doing what was possible_to mitigate liability, short of removal The applicant again stressed his concerns for liability and physical harm and stated trimming was a financial hardship. z -7 R�aCHMEM� Ms. Young moved to deny the removal request, as she could not make the findings necessary for removal Ms. Hauss seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Lopes reiterated the need for maintenance to reduce the liability and applicant concerns. 3. NEW BUSINESS Bob and Pam Seeley, Downtown Association,reported that the Downtown Association Design Committee had been formed and was interested in details of the downtown core planting processes and revamping of the Master Street Tree List. The Committee discussed progress on those items with the Seeleys. Mr. Lopes discussed the California ReLeaf statewide conference and outlined Urban Forestry organizations and funded activities for non-profit groups. Mr. Combs reported he wanted to organize an education seminar on planting young trees and networking opportunities and was looking to hold it on October 15, 2005. He wanted to develop a Citizen Forester group to maintain newly planted trees to alleviate burden on staff crews to do so and to get more trees into the community. Ms..Hauss discussed the local Master Gardening group. Mr. Parker stated he hada contact at UC Extension. Mr: Lopes discussed communications with neighbors concerning the tree removals and lack of plantings,per permit conditions, at 148 Broad Street. Mr. Combs discussed the applicant fining situation and payment process, as well as discussions with applicant on the planting plan. He noted that at this time, the city would not force owners to maintain trees.. Ms. Mulholland, Council rep, discussed the appeal brought to Council by Mr. Navarez at Loomis/Graves Streets and reported that the Council upheld the Tree Committee's denial of the request. Mr. Combs distributed Parliamentary Procedure handbooks and schedule training information for October re Advisory Bodies. 4. OLD BUSINESS ATTACHMENT 4 There was no business to discuss at this time. 5. ON-GOING BUSINESS There was no business to discuss at this time. The meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m. to the next regular meeting of September 26, 2005. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske Recording Secretary z - 9 '.ATTACHMENT 5 FiUng Fee: $100.00- Pa1d RE vii wn AUG 2 s 2005 'REFER TO SECTION 4 =s a1tnY1UjS-PNSx. ;SLO CITY CLERK .. APPEAL TO THE.CITY COUNCIL .'.... SECTION 1.. APPELLANTWFORM RON Name Mailing(Add�and Zip Code , -Phone . Fax. .. /,� ' 17 R resentative's Name Mang Address and Zip Code &4 We Phone Fax SECTION2 SUBJECTOFAPPEAL 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: (Name of Officer, Committee or Commission decision ing appealed)/%I:; ^/ _ 2. The date the decision being appealed was renderedL/�'!/5��2 3. The application or project was entitled: " !/L S 5Gi° 4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member 1A an � embet's Name and Departrnerl��lT (Date}. S. Has this the sAect of a previous appeal?.if so,when was It heard and by whom: ON 3 REAS N FOR APPEAL /me, /'� /.• ��s /mss�14d'�Ci Q .r1�!?f'�Gii�ii// rtpspe�cally what a FMP u are appealing ycw heli the o�dfdcons►der appeal. Include what evidence you have that supports your You n a Mona/pages, if necessary. This form continues on the other. side. 29 Page 1 of 3 z �o F .To _ r / W��IWOQI i F A.+c '.j+r I "'.": i r + >� � .ry ` {raC _ �C i � 7v T E I i "^ ✓^ 1; �LL�rr/ Jy I :r � �w J l5� 1Fl J .,� '! Ir ly'll,l lr l+l 1' �• YJI'ai{r � !l>I �✓' ( x} 4l /'{ ai 'tyYn-w.n J�a.y KEY, r>..i 11 I. ye: r`tn M1 'li:Nj iffilu -'t lc.il.', ' �. �(J'• .wi r t i I) —`� 3r1 3Cri I cY/ r tt`r , i t % r�cl a• 1�5 I { ,.�t >ir,+ai Y IFq STrf� iti..it ' ' ,�,, j ..cam, p.� 1 J� �?c(-rR ✓.y} 'nx ar r r "" ..v _ x-y�. .1 I '. S Tat'I c'� 45-"m_ ✓`F W ��ti 0,r yc 2`J✓.�''+Ic fv��,.. ayPrf�rci �]�4,.#. �'' ] fx 1 r 4 " Ct na.> rT� x✓{a' y, N .'3 -i( 1 M1_7 7 1 fr !- i,rJlr J!1{;M1 i �w(+err 1..J .5 n ]o td' ..> t r t p r yi tSH ✓ r�k�..�xZP, u ��+ 101 J ?Ya f il'1 f.15rc '(' x 3 u i .✓' d i ,r .. Of v vc7 i r 1 TFC r r M1! 't1' !t� n is tt h F 1 "•''�F4..G rt e., ^M1 { t i i r s e r.-r. - lei r`< .7 1 If >4 " r.li 7i � �;.t✓�'cS5(Cl�yi 1 tt'f�R�:?N" t IC II hl� � Ihlt .f FOI S� r�`N it ttr Cir{ r]Y�r �c�aa4x- i�.� wr ': xY J!'t a SCi rS +• ✓S� lir N, � rr�t;l� tia22 t } tpc.. e r 9e i _.a rc+ a, �4uTyr Y , ♦. � r f rr, i � � 1 Li 2 .y � { 4 .. r i I A-7 a+di 2n I � i 7 r fi 1 �.� � t y, 't!Y`...7 t S .+ •M1 4. ..t Y.�. � I� '.1J !f✓!,/.�. ( f ] / Y i r r r C El � 1^rail,'' �t 7 1F 7 !{ 7'i Ufr) J re`p� / / r .i.y r!� y ma �iy. : I r 1 Y i , � t� a A h J1 1 ,r 1 �. J� l a.F a�"u la';✓ J 1 M1 � x 1,t + r„4.y� 1,1 � t 7 1, ,. ✓ ( 7 1 � M1/y!'y ra c + I . ! r kr`'e�� Ir 7/IAt iur yam, / flolY (r f�YJ1Gt ] -re��j Yr 1.�oT x�} �'1�7 ! rra�'�..f rf � elf ie fA, i i. tr,( ✓1 7 E,1'11t e 4 i ( 'i _ �,r M1 l T .._.a.. _....:w:_a. . _... ...:.. ...___. .c.s _S�e..:._ _ .....'_..:..��_,.a..:: . .. .r.�.�...t.'1�. ��.t..u_........_•..at�....'..."4`__,..,:3._..10...:1C'.'. 1 • F . .•I f F: 1 :11" �1�� _ r I< ATTACHMENT 6 RESOLUTION NO. (1005 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF A TREE REMOVAL REQUEST AT 1250 PALM STREET WHEREAS, the Tree Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing on August 22, 2005 and denied the applicant's request to remove one (1) Date Palm tree located in the front yard at 1250 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,California; and WHEREAS, on October 18, 2005, theCity Council of the City of San Luis Obispo held a i I public hearing to consider the appeal of the denial to remove one (1)Date Palm 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)Date Palm tree will not promote good aboricultural practice. b. The tree is not causing undue hardship to the property owner P. 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 1250 Palm Streetis hereby denied. 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 R Resolution No. - - — --- --(2005 Series) Page 2 ATTEST: Audrey Hooper City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jon . Lowell_ City Attorney z�� ATTACHMENT 7 RESOLUTION NO. (2005 Series) . A_ RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF A TREE REMOVAL REQUEST AT 1250 PALM STREET WHEREAS, the Tree Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing on August 22, 2005 and denied.the applicant's request to remove one(1) Date Palm tree located in the front yard at 1250 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California; and' WHEREAS,, on October 18, 2005, 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)Date Palm 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.Lus Obispo Tree Committee's action, staff recommendations and reports thereon,makes the following finding: a. The removal of one (1)Date Palm tree will promote good aboricultural 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 deny the tree removal request at 1250 Palm Street is hereby upheld,and the removal request is approved. 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 R 2 �� Resolution No. (2005 Series) Page 2 - ATTEST: Audrey Hooper City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jonadm P. Lowell - ---— -- ----- - ------ - City Attomey � r Filing Fee: $100.C, i Paid Date Rec RECENW � Rwa AUG 2.9 2005 _.._ �, r a�{lx1rkl Cly 0 ' u. REFERTO SEC77ON 4 san lues O_Bispo .�•, ` , SLO CITY CLERK -�_ APPE ►L.-T.O_THE.CITY COUNCIL SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION. — / WK Name •Mailing Add�d Zip Code 191 �. :Phone`-,' Fax. Re resentative's Name ^ Mailing Address and Zip Code N//rl 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 of Officer, Committee or Commission decision -eing appealed) 444 5� 2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: �QD9- 3. The application or project was entitled: /moi 4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member,• _ Staff Member's Name and Departrne - ' (Date). 5. Has this matter been the subject of a previous appeal? If so, when was it heard and by whom: ECT70N 3. REAS N FOS A_ PPEAL I^�'� /yl/ �� r�i1!¢v7 � �' .. /•��ll�G°i� fp>'.t��i1��n !��/ ain spec4fically what acti6n/s ou are appealing�v�you believ the Coun ' o consider y appeal. Include what evidence yyou have that supports your appe -. You a h a itional pages, if necessary. This form continues on the otherside. 29 � Page 1 of 3 r� Reason for Appeal continued 12 ZI �st�� 6r/f �`i .G �oi4�f�B2✓� L�P/7�/,GZ/ s SECTION 4. APPELLANT'S 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 the 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 will 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 be advised that if your request for continuance is received after the appeal is noticed to the public,the Council may not be able to grant the request for continuance. Submitting a request for continuance 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 behalf when said appeal is s ed f a public hearing before the City Council. 'rd '2 ,o (Signature of App nt) (Date) Exceptions to the fee: 1)Appeals of Tree Committee decisions. 2)The above-named appellant has already paid the City$100 to appeal this same matter to aCCittyQo'i�ci•,al or Council advisory body. This item is hereby calendared for V l 7rV,�-+ I?,• `-'OOT c: City Attorney 4'. C*Administrative Officer :- �• Department Head Advisory Body Chairperson — (4 LM 9-c,� C" Clerkoriginal Page 2 of 3 8/03 -- __ ......................... Elaina Ca arfie Committee Appeal �� _ Page 1 ; 1 From: Elaina Cano To: Beights,Todd; COMBS, RON; Hampian, Ken; Hooper,Audrey; jlopes@co.slo.ca.us; Lowell,Jonathan P; Walter,Jay Date: 8/29/05 9:31 AM Subject: Tree Committee Appeal Attached is a Tree Committee Appeal that is scheduled for the October 18, 2005 meeting. I have put it on the 60 day agenda as a Public Hearing with an allotted time of 30 minutes. Todd, if you feel that this time is not sufficient please let me know and I'll adjust the 60 day accordingly. ryl, ok-- e t s'` - C v a� Ccs 4-0 -- -- j j7 �( �r/�/��j J 61" Le 3—a L K104-f 13 � � e/6