HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/17/2006, PH 4 - APPEAL OF TREE COMMITTEE DECISION TO DENY TREE REMOVAL REQUEST council M.
January 17,2006
j Ac,Enba Report VA
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: Jay D. Walter, Public Works Director
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 tree removal
request at 313 Patricia Drive.
DISCUSSION
On September 1, 2005, staff received a tree removal application from Ned Wood of 313 Patricia
Drive in San Luis Obispo (Attachment 2). The application was for the removal of one Sycamore
tree located in the front yard at that address. The request was based on the claim that the tree
"was planted too close to the house" and is "creating a tripping hazard due to its roots pushing
portions of the walkway up". The applicant stated on their application that they were "willing to
replace the tree with two Sycamore trees in the planting strip next to the street".
Upon receiving the application, staff inspected the tree. Staff noted that the tree in question was
in good health with average canopy and a sound root structure. (Attachment 3-photograph of
tree).
After inspecting the tree, staff determined that the Sycamore 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, or when a tree removal is not part of
property development, 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:
A. The tree is causing undue hardship to the property owner.
B. Removing the tree promotes good arboricultural practice.
�r/
i
Appeal of Tree Committee Decision Page 2
C. Removing the tree will not harm the character or environment of the surrounding
neighborhood.
The Tree Committee heard this request at their September 26, 2005 meeting. The Committee
members present were Linda Hauss, Sara Young, Ben Parker and Chairman Jim Lopes. Ms.
Janice McBride was also present as representative for the applicant. The Committee heard
testimony from Ms. McBride in which she stated the tree roots had caused damage to the brick
driveway and path as well as exterior walls of the structure. The Committee Chairman moved to
continue the item to the next regular meeting to allow further investigation of the alleged
damage, as well as clarification of the species and diameter of the tree. The motion to continue
the item passed unanimously and the item was placed on the October 24, 2005 Tree Committee
Agenda. (Attachment 4-Tree Committee Minutes from September 26, 2005).
On October 24, 2005 the Tree Committee convened for its regular meeting with all Committee
members present. Neither the applicant nor a representative for the applicant was present. The
Committee clarified both the species and diameter of the tree. They also felt the applicant could
mitigate the alleged hazards caused by the tree roots by simply reworking the bricks and possibly
performing some minor root pruning. A motion was made to deny the request on the grounds
that they couldn't make the necessary findings for the removal. The motion passed unanimously.
(Attachment 5-Tree Committee Minutes from October 24, 2005).
On November 4, 2005 the City Clerk's office received an appeal of the Tree Committee's
decision from the applicant (Attachment 6).
To uphold the decision of the Tree Committee and deny the appeal, the Council must find that at
least one of the Committee findings in support of its decision was correct. To uphold the appeal,
the Council must make at least one of the findings in section 12.24.180(C)(6) in order to justify
removal of the trees.
FISCAL IMPACT
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 (Attachment 8). Staff does not recommend this
alternative based upon the justification provided above.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Aerial photograph of the property
2. Tree Removal Application dated September 1, 2005
3. Photograph of tree proposed for removal
4. Minutes of September 26, 2005 Tree Committee meeting (Excerpt)
5. Minutes of October 24, 2005 Tree Committee meeting (Excerpt)
Appeal of Tree Committee Decision Page 3
6. Appeal to the City Council received November 4, 2005
7. Resolution denying appeal of the Tree Committee
8. Resolution upholding appeal of the Tree Committee
IACAR Reports\2006\Parks-Trees\Wood Tree Appeal\313 Patricia Drive Appeal of Tree Committee-Council Agenda Report.doc
Attachment 1
Wood Tree Appeal Vicinity Map
CF
a _
r
,3 L r `rZ_
r
rrJ
313 Patricia Drive
i �r7
'y
-
r
MBt215
0 25 50 100 150 200
�I
Attachment 2
111 I�h
city O
son IUIS owspo
10ii&W 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 $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 yaw application.
TREE REMOVAL.APPLICATION
_
Owner: bvED Vsoo`D Telephoner (;is-UA-47M
Owner's Mailing Address: 3343 PN Rftwa �t?tE"ex-CE x-CA Zip: g-A.5'41
Applicant (if different than Owner): Telephone:
AppiicoWs Mailing Address: Zip.
Location oftree(s): 3l3 -iRmti
Please indicate nearest cross street: -CVU-h%6%.WAS Dog in yard? Yes_ NoX
Tree Species: S�uvr..oRts
Botanical Name Common Name
Reasons for removing:
�tc&FS 4ZoaiS � �5�lcray�r�C-► bt'�c.k. Lun{.�._Wn�f !�0 �••n.+�+= cttrs�2�
A� -TctNpP"h kjrpyz .D
�stoewnik
Compensatory replacement proposed: P�Pv-T N>✓rt S�O. � �v1 ��atnr� s ,p d-
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 be 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;, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401,
Phone: 781-7220/F -9868
Owner:
Applicant: Date:
=Out
oSen.Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of Its service&programs and activities.
® to Outf the beef(805)781.7410. y
i i . 1015 '0N - leuoi }euialul s:aillo� Wblb ll SOOZ 'l 'd3S
1 FyA -'' �•'J Y _ I '
}
r
�,b•' T,Yt 1
-la
Vit\•�Py, q +�\iv.�� M '; ��� �
Or
zo
It
�.30_o �-f��;�� �► ;�t ��' t�r' i ��., ;_3., ..',� ��I
N�� ♦ d l," K I� � CI
AO
71
fir., t f IIII
it .W}1J'r cVv y,. � rte• ry"T' Y'.. i try '`%= rl
� � r
r r
i
ATTACHMENT 4
EXERPT FROM SEPTEMBER 26,2005 TREE COMMITTEE MINUTES
313 PATRICIA
Janice McBride, applicant representative,discussed the trip hazard liability and
replacement options for the removal. She noted the driveway was damaged and was
concerned about the foundation and porch damage. She stated there were new cracks in
the house and the doorway had shifted and been replaced.
Mr. Combs stated the tree was-healthy,but planted a little close to the house. Heagreed a
good percentage of the driveway damage was due to the roots.
Mr. Lopes noted the driveway apron damage did not seem to be related to the roots. He
was also unclear as to the dbh of the tree and whether it did in fact require approval for
removal.
Mr. Lopes moved to continue the item to the next regular meeting to allow the
determination of the tree's dbh and if the removal request did need to come back to
Committee,that review of the root problems needed to be more extensive.
Mr. Parker seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
ATTACHMENT 5
EXCERPT FROM OCTOBER 24,2005 TREE CONIlVIITTEE MINUTES
- 313 PATRICIA(California sycamore)
There was no applicant to speak to the item.
Mr. Combs noted the tree was a native species.
Ms. Hauss felt the brick/step construction could be reworked to mitigate any trip hazards.
Mr.Dollar moved to deny the request, as he could not make the necessary findings for removal.
Ms. Young seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
- 15 (Misc. trees)
Carol Floren applicant representative,discussed the original EIR for the tentative tract map and the tree
that had been i tified for removal. She reported that now several other trees needed to be removed and
the revised tract ma been worked on in coordination with Neil Havlik,Natural Resource Manager.
She noted the trees w ' y eucalyptus, with some oaks, and stated that the removal request for two
oaks on Lot 5 had been wi drawn from the application.
The Committee discussed the in ' 'dual lot removal plans.
Mr. Havlik discussed the background o the request and the mitigations and site plantings of Coast Live o,
and Bay oaks, which were included,along 'th some California sycamores.
Mr. Lopes was concerned with the large sycamo at the intersection, believing that significant root cuttinj
would take place when the culverts were installed.
Mr. Havlik agreed the tree might be compromised.
Mr. Combs stated that any time large roots were cut, a tree woul a adversely affected. However, he said
that 85%of the root system of that tree would be intact and that saf X
ate concerns as
well.
Mr. Dollar was concerned that the general construction activity would n plan for some
of the trees, e.g.the oaks on Lot 7.
0�
Todd Be�gn wood. Tree Appeal.pdf _;. i Attachment 6
=ECE
Vos- oil L-07 toq
:, =§
Data Receive
Sari LUIS oaspo
APPEAL TOTHE CITY COUNCIL
F;1ftan,nww
APPELLANTINFORMA770N SSA-b �1Ct�$¢ ov
L1,1:M TVl Cft 945419
eiling Address and71PConeqZ5- 46So-ta�Fax
S.P►. R S 1�. {�
,0uve s Name Melling Address and Zlp Code
T�tie Phone Fax
S&RON2 SllBJFCT OFAPPEAL
1. In accordance with the PmCedums set forth In Title 1,Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code(copy attached),I hereby appeal the decision of the:
• _._ul_... . nu,nucv or a.nmrn,oern.. c- -
oj,
u�un
Doing appealed)
2. The g&the decision being appealed was rendered:
3. The application or project was entitled: _3 I QJ �AwGt A �Dd Va
4. 1 drse k%W the matter with.the following City staff member
on \\j� O
(Stall INember's Name and Departrnent)
(Data)--
5. Has this matter been the subject of a Previous aPPeai? if so,when was it heard and by whortx
SECTION 3 REASON FORAPPEAL
Expiam sPecificaitytai actionis you are appealing and w y you believe the Council should consider your
appeal. Include what You have that suPPorts your appeal. You may attach additional.
necessary This form continues on the other side. Pages,If
Page 1 of 3
>/l 'd_9llI 'ON •1111 UIT1101 waic:i 6nn7 b ,nu
�� 9
Reason fbr cor Www
3 U-tw►5 Asr ul i'eW An. skwnD,.M. tt
c"
job Az
%n4 Ao 11L
drt» GOwwr►.1� i�,L�
aa6. jens
-K... b
:r
mole** 13
ca
yob :r' .. +:'-'r-•;� .r•
Ag
sli
.. : ' � : • • .. •� l° < 4
.:h'L: - ..1-• '3.1^":(.•''.!_�w�p y-�••,;P �'.r•-.. •g+• '-Jam`'..'.•:6(•' 1�+. 1,�.
Thte ftM hi hereby=Mdaned for 719 rtlu44 /99 2= 6
C. CHy Afbomey
CUyA*nWb&ativeGf w
Dgmtf d Head —'Ti4P V wf LTe .L
AdOmy —..IiM jL.ep.s
0 .� b!H?S+ �JlAri C yr16 l�lil�L� !c Pap 2of3
aro3 /)
�v
£/Z 'd 911 i 'ON '1NI SS3I11O0 Wd$£:l 900Z 'tr 'AON
:NOV
�iVED I
4 r��+ 1�t -�►09 � --'
4 2005 Filing Fee: $100.00SY CLERK Paid Date Received
CI N/A
ty Of
j` san tuis owpo *11111114
APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION ISO Mord .. Q4 D
CD eee Lp+ nlel , Cit 945gg
Name Mailing Address and Zip Code
9Z5 • 124 —(20 StS - 46 S- 0-7 4*7
Phone Fax
S . (\- Pt .S, N,
Representative's Name Mailing Address and Zip Code
Title one Fax
SECTION Z 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 being appealed)
2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: _ %0 1, 10i
3. The application or project was entitled: �j
4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member.
Zowt ca"'s on "IZ�Os
(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:
SECTION 3. 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 additional pages, if
necessary. This form continues on the other side.
Page 1 of 3
Ut 'd_9l l l 'ON 'AI H3I1100 ABLE : [ 5002 'b 'AON
Reason for Appeal continued
.� 11w5 �1er..ee� M-4
cotL a.L� "low vex cng, ao.
��,� �►�,�d d� �„ �� cdaA��4
.,5�:,
k,fA\L WW61 Lip
gg6tc.
�, �1. t�...s h -�4.. as l t n s�-ttr► -k b
SECTION 4. APPELLAl2ESPQ71f51BJ :TY
MTS
The.San Luis Obispo qty foul ncil valuesp fbiie participation m local goverrlment.and
ericourages.all forms°of citizen involVWithl ity
Council consideraUgn of an eppeel, inclUrng p�blio ticiflcatioh,ail appeals pert8ining to.8
planning application:orpro}ectare sukijpct to a;flHi,pee of 5100,lnihich mustiaccompany
_;appea[.form.
Your right to exercise,an appaal cc}rnes wifll certarn tesponsibilities If yoi,file am.°
appeal, please understated that it must;be heard within;45 days from filing this form Youwall be
noi[fied in writing ofthe eicaet ata yoUrappeal::WII]be:kieard before tbe;Ceuncil; .You oryour.
representative will be exoscted to attend the,pupMio healing, and to be:prepared to make.;Vo
rase:: imony s irte64 , IinW* e Your testrx .
continuance may be;grted'uridirr certain a rte unusual circumstances If you fea'1 you '
nee¢to request a coiitinuanire yQu must Kb 11 "bur request in writing to the.City 41erk.,;Blease be
adyiseelthat if your:reques# !> dorttnae asi,t3ceivedf}>Sr tje appea)is noticed fo the 0_4 he.
CoWncil may rtot be able to tarn', reg4 st fE�f 4 1 I'uari'ce Strbmrtfir�g a requesffor ctiQFntia ae
doesAot guaranfee,ttijf rtyi7Gbetted,frypf:ackror�ts:af ttie diirretra>l`of the city t',otrnc�F
-
h@i�eby agreelo appear aTldlI IMSMtll�i riepr SPrttalifke ta'aprpear on,ny behalf yiJ,en
sat appeal:is sr,Jradaled frit/Ii heatf_tgt #.o►e_t# Oy Cofrni H,
(Signature ,, pellatlf)
(13a e
s t9`the fee ;3)ApAeafs,q
Ittee decision§ $► r1,b aba%�vemarned appeltanttias 4Iready
the�I;Y S1Oo to appeal fhissamla-iil�a ,i^�O a,Gi}y ofttdtal or'�otincnadvis`ory ,ody. N:
This Item is hereby calendared for V/9 rv� / t 290 :6
c: City Attorney
City Administrative Officer 1
Department Head — 'TATy W,7 4,7'c,,12
Advisory Body Chairperson —,t rvt� "pas Vu- l�b�
City Clerk(original) -�yi✓� LL)00,:l
'70 4 6/ 6*Ts• pjtjL4 Ic
Page�qf 3
8/03
r
tom. j�ch
r�➢�+r 4U 1 J�
E/Z 'd 9lll 'ON '1NI H3I1100 ME : [ SOOZ 'b 'ICON �--/
r'
�.��-i.� �e/� iii
�III�INI�I�IIIBII���������� �IIIIIIIIIIIII�
city of sAn
1115 oaspo
25 Prado Road • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
October 25,2005
Ned Wood
3343 Moraga Blvd.
Lafayette,CA 94549
Your application for removal of a tree at 313 Patricia.was reviewed by the City of San Luis Obispo
Tree Committee on October 24,2005. After careful consideration of the facts provided by you and an
- on-site inspection of the tree,the Committee members have voted,in compliance with Municipal Code "
Section 12.24.180.C.6,to deny your request based on the following findings:
• a. The tree is not causing undue hardship.
•b. Removal would not promote good arboricultural practice.
O C. Removal would harm the character of the environment of the surrounding neighborhood.
The decision of the Committee is final unless an appeal,in accordance with Municipal Code Section
1.20.020- 1.20.050, is filed with the City Clerk's office within ten(10)days of the Committee's decision.
An appeal may be filed by any person aggrieved by a decision of the Committee.
You are reminded that the Tree Ordinance(#1392-2001 Series), Section 12.24.130,Protection of Trees,
reads in part:
C.No person shall willfullyinjure,disfigure,or intentionally destroy by any means any tree
growing within the planting area or elsewhere within the jurisdiction of this ordinance,except
with permits described elsewhere in this chapter.
G.Any person deemed responsible for damaging a tree or removing a tree without a permit as
described in this chapter shall be liable for civil damages to the city in the amount adopted,by
resolution by the City Council,or for the value of the tree as determined by methods established
by the International Society of Arboriculture,whichever is greater as determined by the City
_. Arborist.
If you have any questions regarding this matter,you may contact Ron Combs at(805)781-7023,Monday
through Friday, 7:00-4:30 PM.
Respectfully,
Ron Combs
Urban Forester
commdenial
OThe City of San Luis Obispo Is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
Telecommunications Devlce for the Deaf(e05)781-7410.
EA 'd 91WON l 'ON 'AI H3I110O ME : l SOOZ 'ti 'AON
-+ill�l!I��IIIIII�II�����������I�II`�IIIIIIIIIIII' IIIA
City Of SAn luiS OBISPO
-rZ 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
RECEIVED
November 9, 2005 Nov 18 2005
SLO CITY CLERK
Mr. Ned Wood
3343 Moraga Blvd.
Lafayette, CA 94549
RE: Appeal to the Tree Committee
Dear Mr. Wood:
In reference to your appeal being heard by the City Council, City code requires an appeal
to be set for the next reasonably available council meeting, but in no event later than
forty-five calendar days after the date of the filing of such notice of appeal with the City
Clerk.
Although you have agreed by email to permit us to schedule your appeal after the 45 day
deadline (i.e. January 17, 2006), we require a signed acknowledgement.
Therefore, please sign and return this letter to the City Clerk's Office no later than
November 18`h. An envelope has been enclosed for your convenience.
Ned Wood
Sincerely, //
,&, ,(Sf
Elaina Cano
Administrative Assistant
® The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410.
ATTACHMENT 7
RESOLUTION NO. (2006 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
October 24, 2005 and denied the applicant's request to remove one Sycamore tree located in the
front yard at 313 Patricia Drive, San Luis Obispo,California; and
WHEREAS, on January 17, 2006, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo field 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. 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) Sycamore tree will not promote good aboricultural 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 vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 2006.
Mayor David F. Romero
Resolution No. (2006 Series)
Page 2
ATTEST:
Audrey Hooper
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
cq�!t [��p
Jona well
City Attomey
i
ATTACHMENT 8
RESOLUTION NO. (2006 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
October 24, 2005 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 January 17, 2006, 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. 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) Sycamore 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 313 Patricia Drive 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 2006.
Mayor David F.Romero
Resolution No. (2006 Series)
Page 2
ATTEST:
Audrey Hooper
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jonathan P.Lowell
City Attorney