The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03/06/2007, PH2 - APPEAL OF TREE COMMITTEE DECISION TO DENY TREE REMOVAL REQUEST i ` • council °°e°� March 6,2007 ac cn as wpoM CITY OF SAN LU I S O B 1 S P 0 I FROM: Jay D. Walter; Public Works Direct ra �Al).lv Prepared By.-. Keith Pellemeier, Urbane orest 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 2191 Santa Ynez Street. DISCUSSION On January 4, 2007, staff received a tree removal application from Ben Kulick of 2191 Santa Ynez Street in San Luis Obispo (Attachment 1). The application was for the removal of two trees, a pine tree located in the side yard and a eucalyptus tree in the back yard. The removal request was based on claims that the eucalyptus was "in very small area-threat to foundation and retaining wall" While the .pine tree "has signs of disease and is near water and natural gas piping." The applicant stated they would plant new trees according to an attached landscape plan. Upon receiving Mr. Kulick's application, staff inspected the trees. Staff noted that the eucalyptus tree should be removed. The pine tree is a large healthy native Monterey Pine. After inspecting the tree, staff determined the Pine tree did not meet the criteria for immediate removal as described in section 12:24.180 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. Per the Code, the City Arborist may only 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 pine tree did not meet these criteria, the Arborist did not authorize the removal. When the City Arborist cannot approve removal, or when the tree removals are not part of property development, the request is 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 reviews the application and may authorize removal if one of the'following findings can be made: A. The tree is causing undue hardship to the property owner. B. Removing the tree promotes good.arboricultural practice. Tree Removal Appeal—2191 Santa Ynez Page 2 C. Removing the tree will not harm the character or environment of the surrounding neighborhood. The Tree Committee heard this removal request at their January 22, 2007 meeting. Roseanne Blackwell was present, along with Arborist Robert Shriver, representing owner Ben Kulick. The Tree Committee members present were Jim Lopes, Don Dollar, Sara Young, and Ben Parker. The Committee discussed the application and, while approving the removal of the eucalyptus, denied the removal request for the Monterey Pine for the following reasons: Mr. Lopes did not think the pine was an undue hardship to the property owner and felt that the tree was a healthy specimen. Mr. Dollar agreed with Mr. Combs about the tree's health, stating that the pine has good color and vigor,is a native species,and stated that he wanted it to remain. Ms. Young agreed with the other committee member's comments, and added that to her it appeared that the noticeable pitch on the trees was from pruning, not boring insects. She was not in favor of removing the pine. Ms Young made a motion to allow removal of the eucalyptus, but not the pine. The motion passed with three approvals, one opposed. See Attachment 2 for the meeting minutes. On January 30, 2007 the City Clerk's office received an appeal of the Tree Committee's decision from the applicant. None of the reasons stated in the appeal were brought up during the Tree Committee meeting, nor were they included in the original application for removal. The Tree Committee members and the City Arborist are of the opinion that the pine tree is in good health, poses no undue hardship for the property owner, and is not obviously endangering the utility lines mentioned. See Attachment 3 for the full appeal submittal. 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 The City Council could choose to uphold the appeal. The Council would need to make at least one of the findings in Section 12.24.180(C) (6) listed above in order to justify removal of the trees. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1. Vicinity Map and Tree Removal.Application dated January 4, 2007 Attachment 2. Minutes (Excerpt) of January 22, 2007 Tree Committee meeting. Attachment 3. Appeal to the City Council received January 30,2007 Attachment 4. Photograph of tree proposed for removal. Attachment 5. Photograph of tree proposed for removal. Attachment 6. Resolution denying appeal of the Tree Committee. Attachment 7. Resolution upholding appeal of the Tree Committee. Tree Removal Appeal—2191 Santa Ynez Page 3 g:�Sraff-reportsagendarmiMAes\_cae=70 parks-"m*ulick Vee removal appeal.doc12191santaynezkulick tree appeal iar.doc i3 ATTACHMENT 1-1 r - co 1 l 1 � 1 � 1 � J 1 c l j I ff f I J ' r� f ,? 1 1 1 z � f f �1t ATTACHMENT 1 -2 doll' A", City Of SAn luis omspo 25 Prado Road• San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 IMPORTANT: A tree removal application will MASE NOTE• If your ins is approved for only be considered if accompanied by a removal and posted. please call the office at sktt�h k4p showing the street, structure(s) the uod of yaw posting period to orrage to location aid location of all tress proposed for Pick up your permit. The permit fee 61.6 9'75P removal. Please draw on the bock of this payable when you pick up your permit (rxfsh farm or fax on a separate sheet of paper, or check payable to City of Son Luis Obispo). clafg with your application. TREE REMOVAL APPLICATION Owner: G/!J e-U LIi`!G Tslophons: Owner's Mailing Address: -,7 / J&A)T, `�i(J�7 Zip; go ): IJTtKTw dt �RSrOf�Tetcphont Applicant's Mailing Address: Location of tree(s): IO/AJC NCI 6i DC- f� D E�fe/�LS�plT//j' /RI ARtt Sl/I'3Li� Please kidiccte nearest crass street: 2/V Al it;—t4 C=L.. 009 in yard?Yss No,& Tree Species: t,LOAJ M&.e C-N�RL�/OTI�l S Botanical Now Common Names Reasons for removing: R 7= h9h Si6AIS OF- A15c�}SG e9n1 S rUl 7 uiRrr_V 1'9Tiy /;A-r- 6r" P,a K)'-, replacement propossd:_�cr_ BF�1'►�c&=D M&2sl QJc= A-AA/ ' Application will be considered only if entirely filled out and signed by owner. If comideration of this application goes to Tree Committee,you or your agent we required to attend the meeting and will b6 notified. ' If Ione closure is required to perform the tree removal work,on enavachment permit must be obtained from the tarty Engineering Department. ' Any required'repincemmt 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 Obispa, tat 93401, Phone: 781- f : 542-9868 Owner: Dat? a Applicant; .Date: 77ra CiRy of San Lub OCiapo la Cammiaed ro include ft disabled in an d Na.aem"s.pmorams and aeWNiso. Toleoonenunlcagons Davia9 for Me DOd(805)787-7410 �� ATTACHMENT 1-3 L -ldE3 C3 oil O —_^ ._ i3oowowuMiei €Itt:b {�i tji P J ' I . L � a 'f z c t { t 'd , � aonnao• - r —Fj CDC Q— \ 1 i � Pow i I 1 t; ' � I 4 I I i J % O t i C I 1 , Z i r I I 4 ..�.._.._._—.._.._.._tea.. .. Cj v. 1S' 5'4100 7 `z • • ATTACHMENT 2 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TREE COMMITTEE CORPORATION YARD MONDAY, JANUARY 22, 2007 Excerpt of Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Lopes,Don Dollar,Ben Parker,and Sara Young STAFF PRESENT: . Ron Combs, Keith Pellemeier,and Barbara Lynch 2. TREE REMOVALS 2191 SANTA YNEZ Roseanne Blackwell was present, representing owner Ben Kulick. She passed out a letter from Robert Vessely explaining that he believes the eucalyptus is pushing the retaining wall, causing it to lean and the house to settle in one comer. The roots were also cut while fixing the foundation. The pine tree in the back yard has roots that are growing over the gas and water lines. They submitted a landscape plan that includes 5 ' replacement trees. Robert Shriver, arborist for this projects, explained that the co- dominate leader is about 8" off the ground and he had noticed borers in this tree and that the tree is too close to hard surfaces. Mr. Combs stated that if removal was only for the eucalyptus he could have given permission but he could find no reason for removal of the pine. Mr. Lopes doesn't think the trees are an undue hardship and explained his reasoning. Owner stated that they have done quite a bit of pruning. He told the applicant that if they have future problems that they could re-apply. Mr. Dollar agreed with Mr. Combs and stated that the pine has good color and vigor and is a native. He would like the pine to be retained and approves of removal of the eucalyptus. Ms. Young agrees and says she believes the pitch that is noticeable, is from old prunings, not borers. She motioned for approval of the Red Ironbark and deny the removal request of the Monterey Pine. Mr. Dollar seconded that motion. The motion passed with 3 approvals, one opposed.. ATTAC' UMENT 3 Filing Fee: $46= 1704/ Paid Cate Received RECEIVED .'A WA-- JAN .18 2001 v Al ckgl Cllr/ 0f 'REFER TO SECnON 4 awasSan IDIS OBISp0 ISLO CITY CLERK APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SEC77ON 1. APPELLANT 1NFORMA77ON h 'K-AA� C.Vl w S1. i -100 SL4D CA g3401 Name ailing Address and Zip Code (gftis� sya �as�, f�nsl seta. c�ei� Phone Fax Sw CA W%.40S. Representative's Name Mailing Address and Zip Code lila, C4�f5� r,Ltx oK36 CgUS> SK'>L 0%3-4- Title Phone Fax SECT/DN-2. SUBJECTOFAPPFAL. 1. fn accordance.with the procedures set forth in 1-106,1,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: . 3. The application or project was entitled: 4..}.un.IS. cc,, (?3ZIO 5- 4. 4. 1,discussed the matter with the following City staff member on (Staff Membees Name and Department) .: (Date) S. Has this matter been the sqW. of a previous.appeal?.If so,when was it heard and by whom: We SEMON3 REASON FORiAPPEAL' Explain spedlipally wliat:ac6oWs you are appealing and w1„youbelieve the CoLmcilshotMoortsider your appeal, include diat:+evid�reen you have that supports your appeal: You may attach additional pages, if neoessaty.. 7799 fiorm continues on the other side. Page 1 of 3 . • ATTAC�M E N T 3 Reason for Appeal continued SECTION 4. APPELL UrS 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 lexercise 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�theexact date your appeal will be heard before the Council. You or your representative will.besxDected to attend the public hearing, and to be prepared to make your . case. Your testimony isli ltm ed to to 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 foroontinuance 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. 1 hereby agree to appear.and/or send a representative to appear on my behalf when said appeal is schedul fora public hearing before the City Council. (ftnaturgr6f pellant) (Date) Exceptions to the fee. 1)Appeels.of Tree Comnil tmdecisions. 2)The above-named.appellant has already paid the City S1 Mto,appeal this same mattertooa City offidal or Coundl advisory body. This Item Is hereby calendared for Znz/ 't'_/� c: City Attomey City Administrative Officer Department Head C�ALTE.2- Advisory Body Chairperson City Clerk(orlglnaQ Page 2 of 3 . 2=G[EJYiEii2 eros T- 13 E/6 /Y7--S • ATTqC H M E N T 3 � 3 Appeal to the City Council City of San Luis Obispo Subject of Appeal: Single Pine Tree Removal 2191 Santa Ynez San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Obligation of Tree Removal, Basis of Removal 1) Tree is sick as indicated by a licensed and practicing arborist and the tree should be removed before it becomes a hazard. Letter Attached 2) Mass of branches hangs over property lines into adjoining property. Potential damage from tree evident and property owner will not accept liability for damage to neighboring property due to dying tree. 3) Mass of branches hangs over city sidewalk. Limbs are weak and sick. Potential damage to parked cars and/or pedestrians due to tree health. Property owner will not accept liability to damage to persons or property owned by the city if tree is left intact. Property owner will need a written statement from the city accepting liability for damage to pedestrians or vehicles due to the tree health. 4) Pine has critically damaged underground plumbing with root mass. A majority of the root system will be removed to replace the edsting utility line. This will further weaken the integrity of a tree that has already a liability. Letter from Plumbing Company attached. 5) City has allowed the building of two homes across the street on a hill with direct visibility into the yard and building structure. Pine tree provides no privacy and because of the topicality of the needles does not allow the growth of other species. Owner will replace the eAsting tree with(3)three trees and additional. green-scape. This will allow the property owner privacy from homes built since his residence. 6) Tree is not a native species and will be replaced by species desired in the city of San Luis Obispo. 7) Root structure is destroying city property and sidewalk. Sidewalk has become cracked and uneven and a potential hazard to the pedestrian population. Neighborhood population is predominantly elderly. 8) There are NO neighbor concerns or resistance to the removal of the tree. The City of San Luis Obispo and City Council can see the validity of this appeal and understand the concern for Immediate removal of this species. Respectfully Submitted, Ben Kulick r=- - �. { rr C 5 - 4��ir 4 o=gX,� l�333333PP�, U i 4 „v�e(t ib' < 4- Ya Y y. 4^7*� co r I ell {[ yyyy t I g r � { Ii[ . •r h•,� i ��•� �..' <3i •� � s � � '• is w ' k _+ . ,. � •;,Mit /rs �'" �+ �+'C... my �'}r •4 H �t t yNt 'k �.a AR Id .. �.. . ?. A 'Sf e ;r i 10 t. .a + — 4r_ wr L .y M'wwr I ATTACHMENT 6 RESOLUTION NO. (2007 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF A TREE REMOVAL REQUEST AT 2191 SANTA YNEZ STREET WHEREAS, the Tree Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing on January 22, 2007 and denied the applicant's request to remove one (1) Montery pine tree located in -the side yard at 2191Santa Ynez Street, San Luis Obispo, California; and WHEREAS, on March 6, 2007, 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) Monterey pine 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 findings: a. The removal of one (1) Monterey Pine tree will not promote good aboricultural practice. b. The tree is not causing undue hardship to the property owner. c. Removing the trees 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 2191 Santa Ynez Street is hereby denied. Upon motion of seconded by and on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 2007. Z-lug • Resolution No. (2007 Series) Page 2 Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jon than owell City Attorney g.\staf1-reports-agendas-minutesLraA2007\parks-trees*ulick tree removal appeal.cloc09lwntaynez.resdeny.dw ATTACHMENT 7 RESOLUTION NO. (2007 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF A TREE REMOVAL REQUEST AT 2191 SANTA YNEZ STREET WHEREAS, the Tree Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing on January 22, 2007 and denied the applicant's request to remove one (1) Monterey Pine tree located in the side yard at 2191 Santa Ynez Street, San Luis Obispo, California; and WHEREAS, on March 6, 2007, 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)Montery pine tree. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findines: That this Council, after consideration of the applicant's appeal, and the San Luis Obispo Tree Committee's action, staff recommendations and reports thereon, makes the following findings: a. The removal of one (1) Monterey pine 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 2191 Santa Ynez 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 2007. Resolution No. (2007 Series) Page 2 Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jonathan P. Lowell City Attorney g:\stall-reportsagendasrr inutw\-mrt2W7\parks-tre \kulick tree removal appeal.doc12191santaynez-resuphold.doc Filing Fee: $ = • Date Received RECEIVED i ? N/A JAN 3 0 2001 cityOf 'REFER TO SECTION 4 - san lues OBISPO SLO CITY CLERK APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION FJEN - l(lfe6 Vky.c.'. SX. r." 1100) SL-0 CA 111,401 Name Mailing Address and Zip Code [�vs� s�►a U�s� Csos) r.tia, aea-V Phone Fax pko-%M -% a.tR1 �q�L3�- Sw C_4 asLLVS Representative's Name Mailing Address and Zip Code. ow'v� /ate SLA;),- 05'-G Cees) 54-1 ossa--- Title Phone Fax SECTION2. SUBJECTOFAPPEAL 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: . -t 3. The application or project was entitled: a 14 l Sant 4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member: on (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: NU SECTION& REASON FOR APPEAL = Explain spec'rfically 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 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 schedul d for a public hearing before the City Council. 1- O'er (Signatur of pellant) (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 a City official or Council advisory body. 1/7 This item is hereby calendared for c: City Attorney City Administrative Officer Department Head GVRUEZ Advisory Body Chairperson - 4zPFS City Clerk(original) Page 2 of 3 8/03 ?_ B E/6 1747-_S �► 0 Appeal to the City Council City of San Luis Obispo Subject of Appeal: Single Pine Tree Removal 2191 Santa Ynez San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Obligation of Tree Removal: Basis of Removal 1) Tree is sick as indicated by a licensed and practicing arborist and the tree should be removed before it becomes a hazard. Letter Attached 2) Mass of branches hangs over property lines into adjoining property. Potential damage from tree evident and property owner will not accept liability for damage to neighboring property due to dying tree. 3) Mass of branches hangs over city sidewalk. Limbs are weak and sick. Potential damage to parked cars and/or pedestrians due to tree health. Property owner will not accept liability to damage to persons or property owned by the city if tree is left intact. Property owner will need a written statement from the city accepting liability for damage to pedestrians or vehicles due to the tree health. 4) Pine has critically damaged underground plumbing with root mass. A majority of the root system will be removed to replace the existing utility line. This will further weaken the integrity of a tree that has already a liability. Letter from Plumbing Company attached. 5) City has allowed the building of two homes across the street on a hill with direct visibility into the yard and building structure. Pine tree provides no privacy and because of the topicality of the needles does not allow the growth of other species. Owner will replace the existing tree with (3)three trees and additional green-scape. This will allow the property owner privacy from homes built since his residence. 6) Tree is not a native species and will be replaced by species desired in the city of San Luis Obispo. 7) Root structure is destroying city property and sidewalk. Sidewalk has become cracked and uneven and a potential hazard to the pedestrian population. Neighborhood population is predominantly elderly. 8) There are NO neighbor concerns or resistance to the removal of the tree. The City of San Luis Obispo and City Council can see the validity of this appeal and understand the concern for immediate removal of this species. Respectfully Submitted, Ben Kulick RECEIVED Appeal to the City Council MAR 0 2 2�� City of San Luis Obispo SLO CITY CLERK Subject of Appeal: -SED FILE Single Pine Tree Removal 2191 Santa Ynez ME ING AGENDA San Luis.Obispo, CA 93405 DATE, eITEM # �. Obligation of Tree Removal: Basis of Removal 1) Tree is sick as indicated by a licensed and practicing arborist and the tree should be removed before it becomes a hazard. Letter Attached 2) Mass of branches hangs over property lines into adjoining property. Potential damage from tree evident and property owner will not accept liability for damage to neighboring property due to dying tree. 3) Mass of branches hangs over city sidewalk. Limbs are weak and sick. Potential damage to parked cars and/or pedestrians due to tree health. Property owner will not accept liability to damage to persons or property owned by the city if tree is left intact. Property owner will need a written statement from the city accepting liability for damage to pedestrians or vehicles due to the tree health. 4) Pine has critically damaged underground plumbing with root mass. A majority of the root system will be removed to replace the existing utility line. This will further weaken the integrity of a tree that has already a liability. Letter from Plumbing Company attached. 5) City has allowed the building of two homes across the street on a hill with direct visibility into the yard and building structure. Pine tree provides no privacy and because of the topicality of the needles does not allow the growth of other species. Owner will replace the existing tree with (3)three trees and additional green-scape. This will allow the property owner privacy from homes built since his residence. 6) Tree is not a native species and will be replaced by species desired in the city of San Luis Obispo. 7) Root structure is destroying city property and sidewalk. Sidewalk has become cracked and uneven and a potential hazard to the pedestrian population. Neighborhood population is predominantly elderly. 8) There are NO neighbor concerns or resistance to the removal of the tree. The City of San Luis Obispo and City Council can see the validity of this appeal and understand the concern for immediate removal of this species. Respectfully Submitted, am caw Lco&� COUNCIL 'F.0®®Iii Ben Kulick AOFIN DIR ja'ACAO FIRE CHIEF RATTORNEY ZPW DIR �CLPNK/OpA 2'POLICECHF d'9T' Eaes 6"REc Gip e UTIL 61R � J y X Y f `fie+. v rSL. � <• � vy' —;+F v r Ir WA 4F fib sa d. OWN , IF Robert Schreiber 170 Terra Street Morro Bay, CA 93442 (805) 441-3715 Certified Arborist Report 2191 Santa Ynez San Luis Obispo, Ca 93422 Roseanne Blackwell For: 2191 Santa Ynez San Luis Obispo, CA 93422 Contractor: Jeff Casada- 305-0703 Landscape Architect:Jeff Smith- 528-2118 This report includes analysis of tree hazard and proposed mitigation measures for one Monterey pine (Pinus radiata) tree located adjacent to underground utilities at 2191 Santa Ynez in the City of San Luis Obispo. The City denied a tree removal request applied for by the applicant. This report is intended for use by the City of San Luis Obispo and the property owner(s)and/or agent. Analysis/Recommendations The DSH is 27 inches, it is 48 inches tall with a 45 foot wide canopy. The Monterey pine tree has co- dominant leaders at 5 %2 feet and the co-dominant leader showing signs of a crack developing. The color is on the lighter side and included bark is present at the co-dominant leader. The tree is also oozing of pitch (see attached photos). The existing gas line as shown in the attached plan goes directly underneath the roots of the tree. This tree has a Hazard rating of at least 10, with 12 being the worst. The tree is nearing the end of its life cycle due to existing environmental impacts. During site disturbance is an appropriate time to remove this hazardous tree and replace with appropriate replacement species as determined by the City of San Luis Obispo, The applicant would be willing to plant with replacement mitigation trees off site if adequate space is not available on the project site. Robert F. Schreiber ISA Certified Arborist #FL0314A (805)441-3715 a • . tla fit' st � r r Cv �, H J j� 1 l'1` 1•�ST11 At 1 _ V Y 4 Ft I t �•yl"�A�y 1 •• 1j1 M11+ � �,A�-a<f, 1��yV_ +�,�" +, � :��y +� ��f' `£M`.i �•'��{�r�•iif,c � fi b�T. 1 ''ej« lr.>f i r .::� r. rtl SY:J j♦ !+�N��]�}`��r l�.,.. 4� n i 9Z"�'1 i '�'�`i '�"y,! ,fir 1� �, •��,�AI: Ayye r i jI t`�rf. 'Ll +l �F}�� .'�tRr'.S".,<,p,• �I S,t.. .. . • ja ' �,+fiy 1 1 1 i � 1 I 1 1 I 11 II 1 1 1 ' cx � � V ri r 1 G � J / LA 28._1• mm X N � Z J N A Z m N [P I *C" Ur Abblt MMILN I The following terms and conditions apply to all oral and written reports and correspondence pertaining to the consultations inspections and activities of Arbor First: I. All property lines and ownership of property,trees,and landscape plants and fixtures are assumed to be accurate and reliable as presented and described to the consultant,either verbally or in writing. The consultant assumes no responsibility for verification of ownership or locations of property lines,or for results of any actions or recommendations based on inaccurate information. 2. it is assumed that any property referred to in any report or in compunction with any services performed by Arbor First, is not in violation of any applicable codes,ordinances, statutes, or other governmental regulations, and that any titles and ownership to any property are assumed to be good and marketable.Any existing liens and encumbrances have been disregarded, and any and all property is appraised and/or assessed as though free and clear,under responsible ownership and competent management. 3. All reports and other correspondence are confidential and are the property of Arbor First and its named clients and their assigns or agents. Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply any right of publication or use for any purpose, without the express permission of the consuhant and the client to whom the report was issued. Loss, removal or alteration of any part of a report invalidates the entire appraisal/evaluation. 4. The scope of any report or other correspondence is limited to the trees and conditions.specifically mentioned in those reports and correspondence. Arbor First and the consultant assume no liability for the failure of trees or parts of trees,either inspected or otherwise, The consultant assumes no responsibility to report on the condition of any tree or landscape feature not specifically requested by the named client. 5_ All inspections are limited to visual examination of accessible parts,without dissection,excavation,probing boring or other invasive procedures, unless otherwise noted in the report,and reflect the condition of those items and features at the time of inspection.No warrantee or guarantee is made,expressed or implied,that problems or deficiencies of the plants or the property will not occur in the future,from any cause.The consultant shall not be responsible for damages caused by any tree defects,and assumes no responsibility for the correction of defects or tree related problems. 6. The consultant shall not be requited to provide further documentation give testimony,be deposed,or to attend court by reason of this appraisal/report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made, including payment of additional fees for such services as described by the consultant or in the fee schedules or contract. 7. Arbor First makes no warrantee,either expressed or implied,as to the suitability of the information contained in any reports or correspondence,either written or verbal, for any particular purpose.It remains the responsibility of the client to determine applicability to his/her particular case. S. Any report and the values,observations,and recommendations expressed therein represent the professional opinion of the consultant and the fee for services is in no manner contingent upon the reporting of a specified value nor upon any particular finding to be reported. 9. Any photographs,diagrams,graphs,sketches,or other graphic material included in any report,being intended solely as visual aids,are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering reports or surveys,unless otherwise noted in the report.Any reproductions of-graphic material or the work product of any other persons is intended solely for the purpose of clarification and ease of reference.. Inclusion of said information does not constitute a representation by Arbor First or the consultant as to the sufficiency or accuracy of that information. 10. Payment terms are net payable upon receipt of invoice. All balances due beyond 30 days of invoice date will be charged a service fee of 1.5 percent per month(18.% APR).All checks returned for insufficient funds or any other reason will be subject to a$30.00 service fee. Advance payment of fees may be required in some cases. ARBOR FIRST Page Robert Schreiber Febuary 25, 2007 Mr. Jeff Casida, Contractor 841 Grove Street San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401 Re: 2191 Santa Ynez, San Luis Obispo Mr. Casida Upon complete inspection of the plumbing project at 2191 Santa Ynez it is my reccomendation that both the water and gas pipes be replaced coming from the main connection at the street. These pipes run under the big pine tree in the back yard and damage to the root system will bP unavoidable. Replacing these pipes are necessary to accommodate all the new pipes inside and outside the house. I would not.advise using the old supply lines on such an extensive and expensive remodel project. It is also possible that the root system of the pine tree is uplifting the pipes, and could cause damage to them. Sincerely,, 1 Mitch Viera Lic.#432746 i i wKegmim+n _ _ Oldedpuol lDnIdeOuoD ��w« eeueaIsea m3I11 0 3 c0� u Z oa yN �Z 8= 0 oIr z CO LLI W UU f O , w IL0 IL l Z _ Q 0 0Wo = b I- N RECEIVED MAR 0 6 2007 SLO CITY CLERK To The Tree Committee, March 6, 2007 1 think if the property owner, Mr. Kulick, could achieve some of his landscaping goals and at the same time preserve the large pine at 2191 Santa Ynez it would be beneficial to the whole neighborhood. The large eucalyptus on the property is already slated for removal and if the pine is cut down there will be no skyline trees left on his comer. Also, Mr Kulick's arborist cut the limbs off one side of'the neicghbor's pine to complement the pine he is now trying to remove, which would leave the neighbors with a one -sided pine. If you allow this pine, which doesn't fall under any of the tree removal guidelines, to be cut down, you allow a precedent in the neighborhood for other trees to be removed at the owner's whim. During a quick poll of some of the neighbors I learned most of them never saw the appeal posted and would prefer to see the tree remain as it hides some of the power lines across the street and would leave a one sided pine on the adjoining lot. They said they appreciate the ambiance and value the large pine adds to the neighborhood. Below is a partial list of the neighbors I spoke to who wish to see the tree remain. Thank you foryour time, Jan Sale Teddy Burton 2152 Santa Ynez Ave Sara Cress 2134 Santa Ynez Ave U Bob Salem 2106 Santa Ynez Ave Sharon Deuel and Gary Steinmann 423 Buena Vista The Rittenhouses 2183 Santa Ynez Ave [They would have the lop-sided pine remaining on their property] rATTORNEY -� CDD DIR -1N DIR RED FILE -eFIRE CHIEF MEETING AGENDA DPW DIR POLICE CHFITEM # PAZ T �; REC DIR iZ UTIL DIR HR DIR C6t,.�oc t�. r jectAmend, Inc. 6 7,5-((xcncy Lane San Luis Obispo. C,a 9.3-101 805-782-9600fay.805-781-9602 March 6, 2007 Mayor Dave Romero and Council Members City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Dear Mayor Romero and Council Members: Because of recent publicity about the meth epidemic, San Luis Obispo County communities have gained an awareness of the need for drug and alcohol detox/treatment. It is one thing to read newspaper articles about the "meth menace" but it is a totally different experience when it affects your home and family. As people call Project Amend, looking for a residential facility in which their loved ones can get desperately needed help, they are literally shocked to learn there are currently no treatment centers in this county. They never thought their family would need such a place but, once the critical need has been identified,they just assumed such a facility would be available. Project Amend has been serving San Luis Obispo County as a Sober Living Environment for more than five years, with more than 400 men coming through our doors for help and support. We have been working for the past two years to move up to a higher level of care to help address our county's need for residential treatment and detox services. To this end, we have completed most of the licensing requirements with the California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs. We have developed our goals and procedures, as well as our daily treatment schedule for a 12-step based, social model treatment/detox facility. Our application has received preliminary review by the California Association of Addiction Recovery Resources and found to be exemplary. The only item still required before submittal of our licensing application is receiving the Fire Marshal's clearance, which is contingent on installing fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems, including a backflow valve and upgrade to the water service. The total cost for the systems has been quoted at approximately$20,000. We have just signed a contract with County Drug/Alcohol Services to provide beds for Proposition 36 participants. We are also working with the County Departments of Mental Health, Parole and Probation,as well as the Drug Court Program. With the City's financial support, Project Amend will achieve a license to provide a 16-bed residential treatment facility including up to six beds designated for social-model detox. We ask for your help to make in-county residential drug and alcohol treatment a reality for men in San Luis Obispo County. Sincerely, Michael Axelrod Executive Director