Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/20/2009, PH1 - APPEAL THE TREE COMMITTEE'S DECISION TO ALLOW HOMEOWNERS AT 1256 SYDNEY AND 1268 SYDNEY TO REMOVE S council "'.°°` January 20,2009 j acEnaa Report 1�Nba CITY OF SAN LU I S O B I S P O FROM: Jay D. Walter, Public Works Director Prepared By: Keith Pellemeier, Urban Forest Supervisor SUBJECT: APPEAL THE TREE COMMITTEE'S DECISION TO ALLOW HOMEOWNERS AT 1256 SYDNEY AND 1268 SYDNEY TO REMOVE STREET TREES AND REPLACE WITH NEW TREES. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt a resolution denying the appeal of the Tree Committee's decision to allow the removal of one Shamel Ash (Fraxinus Uhdei) tree at 1256 Sydney Street, thereby authorizing removal of the tree. 2. Adopt a resolution denying the appeal of the Tree Committee's decision to allow the removal of one Shamel Ash (Fraxinus Uhdei) tree at 1268 Sydney Street, thereby authorizing removal of the tree. DISCUSSION Background In September 2007, during preventative maintenance and repairs in Pavement Management Area 2, the Street Maintenance crew repaired the sidewalk at 1268 Sydney Street. The City crew pruned roots and performed custom sidewalk replacement work to preserve the Shamel Ash tree. The roots completely surrounded the main water line to the residence. This custom work was performed at the request of the Tree Committee to preserve as many of the neighborhood trees as possible. However, at the time of their decision, the Tree Committee was not aware of the damage to private property utilities. The sidewalk at 1256 Sydney appears to have been repaired in a similar fashion during a previous year. The sidewalk has been narrowed at the tree and the concrete is newer. The sidewalk has also been ground down at this site already where the tree root has raised it since the repair. On Monday, November 24, 2008 at the regular meeting of the Tree Committee, two tree removal requests were heard for property owners on Sydney Street. Both tree removal requests were approved by the Tree Committee and have been appealed by a resident of an adjacent street. Removal Requests The issues for both the trees are similar. The adjacent property owners have cited infrastructure damage. Specifically the owners of 1256 Sydney cited "extensive root damage to existing sidewalk, curb cracked and sinking, tripping hazard" in their application and stated at the Tree Committee meeting that the tree roots were in their sewer line and had damaged the hardscape. (See Attachment 1) The owner of 1268 Sydney cited "sidewalk & curb damage, utility pole leaning due to tree and water main to house" in their request. (See Attachment 2) NI - � I Appeal of Tree Removal Decision for 1256 and 1268 Sydney Page 2 In both cases, the City Arborist reported the Shamel Ash tree to be large, currently located in the small parkway, and in moderate health. The trees have the potential to double in size and would cause increasing damage to surrounding sidewalks, roadways and utilities. The sidewalk width has already been reduced at both these locations to accommodate the trees. The trees are not thriving in this environment but could live another 50 years. The Shamel Ash is no longer a species recommended as a street tree. The Tree Committee voted unanimously in both cases to approve the removal request based on undue hardship to the property owner and required two replacement trees to be planted. (See Attachment 3) The owners have agreed to do replanting. Appeal On December 4, 2008 the City Clerk's office received an appeal of the Tree Committee's decision at both 1256 and 1268 Sydney from a resident at 2566 Santa Clara Street. The appeal claimed that 1) "The request for the removal of one of these Shamel Ash trees was `disallowed' last year," and 2) "This whole complex (Sydney, Helena, Santa Clara streets, etc) were planted with Modesto Ashes in 1951 with the proviso the city would care for them. This past year the city has begun to do so again and they are gorgeous. Removal of these large shade trees for minor complaints is disastrous for all of us." (See Attachment 4) Basis of Recommendation Staff has spent considerable time and effort in this location to come up with a solution.While the tree removals would be a loss of larger neighborhood trees, the replanting of younger juvenile trees are needed to replace the older trees and to maintain a healthy balance within the`complex. Both homeowners requesting tree removals are willing to plant and maintain new young trees. The Tree Committee has previously recommended smaller trees for the neighborhood within the narrow planting strips. All trees in this neighborhood are of a similar age and species. While staff does not advocate for the removal of healthy trees, there are benefits to beginning the replacement process. One of the goals for a healthy Urban Forest is to promote a mix of young, medium and mature trees as well as a diverse mix of tree species. It is ideal to have young trees mixed in with mature trees, so a neighborhood does not lose all its trees at one time. These tree removal requests result from the wrong species of tree being planted in a narrow parkway..The parkway is too small for this particular species of tree and currently, would not be a recommended species for this small planting area. At 1268 Sydney, damage has included the property owner's water service as well as the sidewalk. It is consistent with City practice to permit tree removals on a case-by-case basis where it is determined appropriate. The removal and replanting supports the overall goal of increasing diversity in age and species, thereby achieving a healthier Urban Forest, and begins the renewal process for this neighborhood. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact realized by the City in the denial of the appeal. The costs associated with tree removal, repairs of the sidewalk, curb, gutter and driveway approach and installing a replacement tree will be bome by the property owners. I - a. Appeal of Tree Removal Decision for 1256 and 1268 Sydney Page 3 ALTERNATIVES Uphold the appeals. The City Council could choose to uphold the appeal for either or both of the trees located on Sydney Street, thereby eliminating their removal. This action is not recommended by City Staff due to the poor suitability of the trees in the planting area and the high likelihood of continued damage to the surrounding infrastructure. If the trees are not removed, fiscal impacts are likely to occur from additional pruning, sidewalk repairs and possible injury claims against the City. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1. Tree Removal Application, 1256 Sydney Street Attachment 2. Tree Removal Application, 1268 Sydney Street (2 pages) Attachment 3. Tree Committee meeting November 24, 2008 (2 pages) Attachment 4. Appeal to the City Council received December 4, 2008 (2 pages) Attachment 5. Vicinity Map (1 page) Attachment 6. Resolution denying appeal from the Tree Comm., 1256 Sydney St. (2pages) Attachment 7. Resolution upholding appeal from the Tree Comm., 1256 Sydney St. (2 pages) Attachment 8. Resolution denying appeal from the Tree Comm., 1268 Sydney St. Attachment 9. Resolution upholding appeal from the Tree Comm., 1268 Sydney St. G:\Staff-Reports-Agenda Minutw\_CAR\2009\Parks-Trees\1256_1268 SydneyAppeals\1256_126BSydneyCAR.doe P9, I _ 2) "�il�llllu'j'lllllll r Attachment 1 M 25 Prado Road e San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SCANNED /b o TREE_ REMOVAL APPLICATION **If your tree removal is related to property development or a remodel, submit your request through the Planning Department at 919 Palm Street as part,of your Planning Application.** IMPORTANT: A tree removal application will only. PLEASE NOTE: If your tree is approved for be considered if accompanied by a *sketch/map* removal and posted, please call the office at the showing the street, structure(s) location and end of your posting period to arrange to pick up location of all trees proposed for removal. Please. your permit. The permit fee is $41 payable when draw on the back of this form or fax on a separate you pick up your permit (cash .or check payable to sheet of paper; along with your application. City of San Luis Obispo). Tree removal applications must.be received by the second Monday of the month to be considered for the meeting on the fourth Monday of the month Owner: 1 .S C,A a 1 C%A C6 WGiN,I o-S Telephone: - I P 5q> - I�i� Owner's Mailing Address: I&i n 14 5 w Zip Code: Cj 340,t T Applicant (if other than owner): b }f Telephone; Applicant's moiling address: 0.6 a,,je_, Zip Code: r� Location of tree(s): S.6, 6}�,,_ �6 4 S,% dwal l� %n yror�' �J i rA Veit 4 rr,a,l bud ,crest cross street: A Q` Dog in yard? Yes E-1 No Tree species (Common names): Reasons for requesting removal: 1 V� oc Replacement tree planting proposed: T J oL C-cl.V Qr\4A c, * 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 Public Works Department at 919 Palm Street. * 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 ax: 542-9868 per: Date: - 0 j Z) a p Applicant. Date: The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of it services,programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. Rev.5-08 P -4 �nlmaa�►IIIII�I� 9111 I'll' Attachment 2 MEN 25 Prado Road i San Luis Obispo. CA-93401 ... _....._... ....... . . _.. :. -- ._.._..__..... _ SCANNED TREE REMOVAL APPLICATION Af your tree removal is related to property development or a remodel,submit your request through the Planning Department at 919 Palm Street as part of your Planning Application.** IMPORTANT: A tree removal application will only. PLEAS_ E NOTE: If your tree is approved for be considered if accompanied by a *sketch/map* removal and posted, please call the office at the showing the street, structure(s) location and end of your Posting period to arrange to pick up location of all trees proposed for removal. Please, your permit. The permit fee is $41 payable when draw on the back of this form or fox on a separate you pick up your permit(cash.or check payable to - .. .sheet of paper; along with your application. City of San Luis Obispo). Tree removal applications must be received by the second Monday of the month to be considered for the meeting on the fourth Monday of the month Owner. e l f9 Telephone-, Owner's Mallin Address: P �yy^ /3 9. /o�6 c St.�� r Zip Code: 5/'c '70 / Applicant (if other than owner): Telephone: Applicant's mailing.address: S.4M L Zip Code: Location of tree(s): A', - ''a rest cross street: ugDog in yard? Yes F No Tree species (Common names): Reasons for r nesting removal:4 61 4L / 14V2A e- Replacement tree planting proposed: * Application willbe 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,on.encroachment permit must be obtained from the City Public Works Department at 919 Palm Street. * 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 tier: _ Date: AD// Applicant: CaAk,9 a&4if_ Date: of 1F The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of it services,programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781.7410. Rev.5-08 T —� Attachment 3 i j Mr. Kincaid seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 1268 SYDNEY (Modesto ash) The applicant discussed the removal request and the problems with sidewalk and curb damage. He stated that the utility pole was leaning due to the tree. He felt + that the problems with the tree would only get worse as the tree gets larger. He stated he was willing to replace it. Mr. Combs reported it was a large ash in a small parkway in moderate health with some insect infestation. He felt the tree could double in size during its lifetime and that the ash was no longer on the street tree list of recommendations. Mr. Root moved to approve the removal request based on undue hardship to the property owner and required replacement planting of one 15-gallon tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of issuance of permit. Mr. Kincaid seconded the motion. 4 The motion passed unanimously. Ill, 4340 SUNFLOWER WAY(California sycamore) The applicant discussed the removal request and distributed pictures. She discussed the root problems, stated that it was destroying the sprinkler system and the hardscape. She felt there was potential for driveway damage and that the tree was too large for its space. She said the lean of the tree caused potential problems with the neighbors, who favored removal of the tree; the I homeowner's association favored the removal as well. She did not feel another tree should be planted in that area. Mr. Combs agreed the area theme tree had a fair lean and large surface roots and that there could be smaller roots under the driveway. He said there was evidence of disease. I The Committee discussed urban forest issues. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request based on undue hardship to the property owner and required replacement planting of one 15-gallon tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of issuance of permit. Ms. Young seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 258 ALBERT (Coast live oak) 011 FriI-� Attachment 3 1256 SYDNEY (Modesto ash) The applicant discussed the removal request and reported the tree's roots were in the sewer line and had damaged the hardscape. He proposed replacing the tree with two jacaranda trees. He also discussed the anticipated concrete work that is proposed on site and the issues of the tree's location. He noted that-the City had originally proposed the tree for removal, but the neighbors had protested its removal. He stated there was major damage to the curb/sidewalk and that no car could park under the tree due to sap. Mr. Pellemeier stated that the City would not remove the tree, as the sidewalk/ curb damage had been addressed with bulb-outs and future repairs would be made to the hardscape. Carl Abaloe, 1268 Sydney, discussed the previous issues with the tree's roots in the sewer line and felt the City should re-visit the issue of removing the tree. Terry Mohan, 2416 Santa Clara, discussed the sidewalk repair and noted the tree was in excellent condition and its removal would harm the character of the neighborhood. Charlene Abaloe, 1268 Sydney, felt the tree was in a poor location and impacted the sewer and utility lines and should be removed. Mr. Combs reported it was a large ash in a small parkway in moderate health with some insect infestation. He felt the tree could double in size during its lifetime and that the ash was no longer on the street tree list of recommendations. Ms. Young noted the Greta St. trees thrived without a sidewalk area; she further noted that jacarandas were not a great species in small spaces. Ms. Dollar noted a large tree represented a good volume of environmental enhancements and that if it were removed, it should be replaced with two trees. Mr. Kincaid felt the City should re-evaluate removing the tree since it was I originally proposed for removal. I� Mr. Pellemeier stated that the Committee needed to only evaluate whether the I removal request itself met their required criteria and that the issue of who pays for the removal would be handled at staff level. Ms. Dollar moved to approve the removal request based on undue hardship to the property owner and required replacement plantings of two 15-gallon trees to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of issuance of permit. Attachment 4 Filing Fee: $100.00*,-- C1ty eamOf WA DEC - '� 2008 'REFER TO SECTION 4 jSLO CITY CLERK San LUIS OBISPO APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SECTION 1. APPELLANTINFORMATION Name Mailing Address and Trp Code 9057 ' 3 he Fax ' Representative's Name Mailing Address and Trp Code Title Phone Fax SECTIONZ 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)),,yI 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: 6 4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member. Jam; oT �s on J (Staff Member's Name and Department) (Date) 5. Has this matter been thesubject f a previous appeal? If so,when was it;heard and byWhom: Jq - SECTION 3 REASON FOR APPEAL Explain specifically what action/s you are appealing and,why you believe the Council should consider your appeal. Include what evidence you have that supports your appeal. You may attach additional pages, if necessary. This form continues on the other side. Page 1 of 3 P9 i —F Reason for Appeal continued 0,0 W#0 4% VIP, M01 , IM ®R E+41 AI FI HLLacnmenL 5 1256 SYDNEY 004-781-012 g CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO rhe information contained in this database Is intended for informational use only. This information is provided for the convenience of users, GEODATA SERVICES Dut does not necessarily constitute precise property ownership or legal descriptions of any property,and should not be relied upon as an 955 MORRO STREET ficial property record.The City of San Luis Obispo makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of this data:however,the accuracy of this SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401 material is not guaranteed and users assume responsibility for independent verification of any and all information contained herein prior to se or reliance upon such information for any official purpose.The City San Luis Obispo disclaims any responsibility or liability for arty direct 805 781-7167 3r indirect damages resulting from the use of this data. 12/12/2008 09:32 PH I I _ 10 Attachment 6 RESOLUTION NO. (2009 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL FROM THE TREE COMMITTEE'S DECISION UPON A TREE REMOVAL REQUEST AT 1256 SYDNEY STREET WHEREAS, the Tree Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing on November 24, 2008 and approved the Applicant's request to remove one Shamel Ash tree located in the street parkway at 1256 Sydney Street, San Luis Obispo, California,and WHEREAS, on January 20, 2009, the Qty Council of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing to consider the appeal of the r est to remove one Shamel Ash tree at this location, 'TCS aPProU NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings: The City Council, after consideration of the appellant's appeal of the San Luis Obispo Tree Committee's action, staff recommendations and reports thereon, and public testimony, makes the following findings: a. The removal of one Shamel Ash tree in the street parkway at 1256 Sydney Street will promote good arboricultural practice. b. The tree is causing undue hardship to the Applicant's property, i.e. damaging curbs, gutter, sidewalks and sewer plumbing. SECTION 2. The appeal from the Tree Committee's decision to allow the Applicant to remove one Shamel Ash tree at 1256 Sydney Street is hereby denied and the Applicant may proceed with tree removal and tree replacement consistent with the Tree Committee's previous approval. Upon motion of , seconded by and on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 2009. Attachment 6 Resolution No. (2009 Series) Page 2 Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jonathan P. Lowell City Attorney G:1Sta6-RepodsAgendas-Minutes\CAR1200MPerks-Tn 11256&1268 SydneyAppmKAttachmentsAMch6-1256 Re Deny.doc P4 I� 1 ;L Attachment 7 RESOLUTION NO. (2009 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL FROM THE TREE COMMITTEE'S DECISION UPON A TREE REMOVAL REQUEST AT 1256 SYDNEY STREET WHEREAS, the Tree Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing on November 24, 2008 and approved the Applicant's request to remove one Shamel Ash tree located in the street parkway at 1256 Sydney Street, San Luis Obispo, California; and WHEREAS, on January 20, 2009, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing to consider the appeal of the approval to remove one Shamel Ash tree at this location. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings: The City Council, after consideration of the appellant's appeal, from the San Luis Obispo Tree Committee's action, and staff recommendations and reports thereon, and public testimony makes the following findings: a. The removal of one Shamel Ash tree in the street parkway at 1256 Sydney Street will not promote good arboricultural practice. b. The tree is not causing undue hardship to the Applicant's property, i.e. damaging curb, gutters, sidewalks and water lines. SECTION 2. The appeal from the Tree Committee's decision to approve the Applicant's request to remove one Shamel Ash tree at 1256 Sydney Street is hereby upheld, and therefore removal of the Shamel Ash tree is denied. Upon motion of , seconded by and on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 2009. Attachment 7 Resolution No. (2009 Series) Page 2 Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jonathan P. Lowell City Attorney G:lStafl-Reports-Agendas mimtesl_G1R120081Parks-Ti %125881268 SydneyAppeaMBachmentSWtlach7-1258 ResUphold.doc Attachment 8 RESOLUTION NO. (2009 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL FROM THE TREE COMMITTEE'S DECISION UPON A TREE REMOVAL REQUEST AT 1268 SYDNEY STREET WHEREAS, the Tree Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing on November 24, 2008 and approved the Applicant's request to remove one Shamel Ash tree located in the street parkway at 1268 Sydney Street, San Luis Obispo, California; and WHEREAS, on January 20, 2009, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing to consider the appeal of the r�st to remove one Shamel Ash tree at this location, -r 's �Pp✓avI NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings: The City Council, after consideration of the appellant's appeal of the San Luis Obispo Tree Committee's action, staff recommendations and reports thereon, and public testimony, makes the following findings: a. The removal of one Shamel Ash tree in the street parkway at 1268 Sydney Street will promote good arboricultural practice. b. The tree is causing undue hardship to the Applicant's property, i.e. damaging curbs, gutter, sidewalks and plumbing. SECTION 2. The appeal from the Tree Committee's decision to allow the Applicant to remove one Shamel Ash tree at 1268 Sydney Street is hereby denied and the Applicant may proceed with tree removal and tree replacement consistent with the Tree Committee's previous approval. Upon motion of seconded by , and on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 2009. Attachment 8 Resolution No. (2009 Series) Page 2 Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jonathan P. Lowell City Attorney G:1Staf1-Reports-Apmdas-Mnutesl_CAR120081Parks-Tmes\1256&1268 SydneyAppeaMtlschmmtslAttach8-1268 ResDeny.dm Attachment 9 RESOLUTION NO. (2009 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL FROM THE TREE COMMITTEE'S DECISION UPON A TREE REMOVAL REQUEST AT 1268 SYDNEY STREET WHEREAS, the Tree Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing on November 24, 2008 and approved the Applicant's request to remove one Shamel Ash tree located in the street parkway at 1268 Sydney Street, San Luis Obispo, California; and WHEREAS, on January 20, 2009, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing to consider the appeal of the approval to remove one Shamel Ash tree at this location. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings: The City Council, after consideration of the appellant's appeal, from the San Luis Obispo Tree Committee's action, and staff recommendations and reports thereon, and public testimony makes the following findings: a. The removal of one Shamel Ash tree in the street parkway at 1268 Sydney Street will not promote good arboricultural practice. b. The tree is not causing undue hardship to the Applicant's property, i.e. damaging curb, gutters, sidewalks and water lines. SECTION 2. The appeal from the Tree Committee's decision to approve the Applicant's request to remove one Shamel Ash tree at 1268 Sydney Street is hereby upheld, and therefore removal of the Shamel Ash tree is denied. Upon motion of , seconded by , and on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 2009. Attachment 9 Resolution No. (2009 Series) Page 2 Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jonathan P. Lowell City Attorney G.lStaffAepmU agendas-Mmutesl_CAR120081Parks Tm=11256&1268 SydmyAppeaMttachmmts'At ach31268 Re Uphold.doc Jane Shoemaker 2548 Santa Clara Street San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Phone: 805.544.0334 email: janeshoemaker®sbcglobal.net January 20, 2009 San Luis Obispo City Council 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: Tree Committee Appeal— 1256 Sydney and 1268 Sydney Council Members: I regret being unable to attend tonight's meeting in person. However, I want you to know of my concerns regarding the appeal for tree removal at the Sydney properties referenced above. 1. Each permitted tree removal increases the precedent being set that will encourage other property owners"to get rid of"a tree that is sometimes a nuisance. There has never been a tree planted or sprouted up near a building or underground utility, that is not a nuisance at various times of year. 2. We think of these curb side trees as"ours"but we do not own them. We are only the beneficiaries of the shade and attractive streetscape the City created for us years ago. The City owns the trees and is responsible for the health and maintenance of them. 3. The Tree Committee's statement that our neighborhood trees "...might live another 100 years" is troubling. They seem to view this as a negative. The attitude that a healthy tree which is an inconvenience, should be replaced with something younger is a bit unsettling to those of us who are even older than the trees. I hope the City will take responsibility and work with the owners of the Sydney properties so they will want to keep their shade trees. Everyone who visits me comments on what a lovely neighborhood it because of the magnificent trees. We are fast losing them. Thank you for considering my concerns. Sincerely, Shoemaker 1,7d'os w de IIS ZL II! 11I II . III III II _ III li^ III 1 .5 !I! I III 04- 1 > �o � Ili C/V —rte i. v -qt v f • -`^>,y,.�'�} _-,:nl-C�e_r2_'S} �C„�j1..-�~.n• .r.�.�`.'^ � !�� c a 2�y��' �``7,;? ,a .70 .l'•^•yamf.i•, � .rte _._� � �`�_� � � � �\"�o �fg°Lam'<. _: '!li_e,'� �- -.•' 1041 JjA u • � r /,> > -`_-...._ 'Oi11�+1`C A� gn+, L 1�1��� 1� �S'�'tYL 11„�L '�• � �7 ��f. �i � S� •-� \ � �7 . (� i F F X h Q�G 'tea y .+ U - �Q%R.. 'i>• ` `� � 'L i u� �.�.�} �, � _ tea•. �� r � .� F� � ��.i.S�h A/ `����j�,��(�"[�.q 10 aJ9 ��••f C�� v L By-• /.�1 0 ° c /r,,,r. Y��l1f I��f f ' 'jjf ifN�yy�� ii• �h\� / Wp..9 n ��`�^ )•1�) ` _ l�.e 1. � Fi...*Lf" \ � / 41C•�T � ( /r` �ii���Y 1� 1�, �f •�- c �' _ .. Irl V �J�f`N���'M�)�)�T�.���r f���• � d'„-/, �."1���'�+I��'i.,.i����a r 1 y� _ �:. - " 1,t���J/. ��//r" 111 /f���� „' ����^l` •) � Q'�!1 ��` �l� � O �" "�I' 1�,;•�1,//�,��Il.e��ln�y;_ /�4�?�.Pc�QrY.-fo ,� S�P �` �� „ PGS 3�S_ 1 p �, � f -•� . � ,� Via!:yr��•.:.•-.;ale Aw 17 �. t :r.�• tie. ate: d�^St Samr.� � �l ' ' ` y _. '�.i,.�,(.y.- a w y •`0 yy J\r" ��G A f� tp"-E t.s• Ow + N 4 ,v r R r' 1 SIM _ dip o,.' "` > ' '_ �,� "�''' ° fit'• .� °� -" ` ` �,,. i r a�` 1 _.:�41 Mv IN It oY��i. +..e' t,�' � 4: a.�c-.o-,1�+}�YL'�••�1`, Stirl R -...� �r,.:e' CTI ! c f^.�� C t .'t� •'4 _ :4roSoF4- �'F+Q� 7.�i-� .- a g r7✓ v 'r'P�c�,.y, � 1• rte.�. -•�z � 4w 1. ,.fLJ�.(/, § ' - J i(} S w•, {C. . .- r-say •'_ y a � o ,i ����,j��'��l�c+�(`"� �4 �1 � •�,,,(�F• � �'`� � fid- � p �� ZL �� y �•� �� t;i �f �Ic�''J� 1 a January 20, 2008 Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council members, I am writing to express my support for the removal and replacement of two mature trees on the 1200 block of Sydney Street. These trees have outgrown the parking strip, significantly buckled the sidewalk and curb and have caused considerable and repeated damage to the water and sewer lines of my neighbors. While my utilities have not yet been impacted, I expect that they may be soon as one of the trees is within a few feet of my water meter. While I hate to see mature trees removed, I also can appreciate the impacts that these trees have had on neighboring properties. I strongly support the replacement of these two trees with a few more appropriate species, placed such that they will not impact utilities or the right of way improvements. Thanks for our i 'on, Sim Du 1276 Sydne Street San Luis Obispo CA 93401 January 16, 2009 City Council of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear City Council Members, We are writing to encourage you to grant tree removal requests for 1268 Sydney St. and 1256 Sydney St., San Luis Obispo. We live within a block of this site on Reba Ct. While both trees pose hazards,the 1268 Sydney St. tree has already severely buckled the sidewalk and is a threat to water lines, a utility pole, and possibly sewer lines within the area. In our opinion,the tree is causing severe root damage to public property(sidewalk, underground infrastructure,and power pole infrastructure) and the city should remove it to prevent finther damage. The city has already had to make efforts to extensively repair the sidewalk. The tree is also very likely to cause undue hardship for the property owner at 1268 Sydney if not removed soon. In addition,these are both non-native ash trees. While they are mature,they are by no means the largest trees or only habitat of their kind within a 2 block radius. The neighborhood would be better served by replacing these 2 trees with 2 native, more pedestrian-friendly and infiastructure-friendly varieties of tree. Thank you for your consideration, Judith Hildinger&Eric Meader 1268 Reba Ct. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 January 15,2009 To: City of San Luis Obispo From: -Regan M.Candelario 1284 Sydney Street San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Re.: STREET TREE REMOVAL ON SYDNEY City Representatives: Please consider my support-for any property owner that requests street tree removal on Sydney, particularly the block from Augusta to Helena. The trees on our street have been a problem for water and sewer systems for all property owners. I support replacement of mature large trees that can provide the canopy and coverage that provide many benefits for our neighborhood. 1 would like to return the canopy coverage from large mature street trees as soon as possible...and hopefully they will be replanted property and steps will be taken to ensure that they do not hider the water and sewer services. Once again, l support tree removal requests from property owners on Sydney Street. Thank You, v( Regan M.Candelario 1284 Sydney Street,San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 January 18,2009 To Whom It May Concern: Re: Tree removal at 1268 and 1256 Sydney Street I have been a resident of the Greta/Sydney Street neighborhood for over forty years. In that time, I've observed the deteriorating condition of the trees located at 1268 and 1256 Sydney Street. The trees are currently in poor condition. Their large roots have caused damage to the sewer and water lines. I am also concerned about the hazardous condition of the sidewalk, which is a safety concem for children as well as adults. It is my recommendation that the removal of these trees be allowed to proceed. Thank you for my consideration regarding this matter. Sincerely, Mrs. Mary Flores 2516 Greta Place San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401 To whom it may concern, as a resident of 1250 Sydney, I have recently been made aware of Mr. and Mrs . Hayes and Mr. and Mrs . Abeloe ' s desire to remove a tree from in front of each of their homes -located at 1. 256 Sydney and 1268 Sydney, respectively. I strongly support the Hayes ' and Abeloe ' s right to protect their property by removing the two trees in question. It is clear that these non-native trees are causing damage to the Hayes ' and Abeloe ' s property and also pose potential threats to the adjacent public road and sewer lines. Please grant the removal of these trees, both in the interest of the Hayes ' and Abeloe ' s, and in the interest of San Luis Obispo taxpayers-. Regards, Owen W. Hackleman Page 1 of 1 Council, Slocity From: Judith Hildinger Ohildinger@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Sun 1/18/2009 5:53 PM To: Council, SloCity Cc: Subject: Tree removal Sydney St. Attachments: January 16, 2009 City Council of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo; CA 93401 Dear City Council Members, We are writing to encourage you to grant tree removal requests for 1268 Sydney St. and 1256 Sydney St., San Luis Obispo at your meeting on January 20, 2009. We live within a block of this site on Reba Ct. While both trees pose hazards, the 1268 Sydney St. tree has already severely buckled the sidewalk and is a threat to water lines,a utility pole, and possibly sewer lines within the area. In our opinion, the tree is causing severe root damage to public property (sidewalk, underground infrastructure, and power pole infrastructure) and the city should remove it to prevent further damage. The city has already had to make efforts to extensively repair the sidewalk. The tree is also very likely to cause undue hardship for the property owner at 1268 Sydney if not removed soon. In addition, these are both non-native ash trees. While they are mature, they are by no means the largest trees or only habitat of their kind within a 2 block radius. The neighborhood would be better served by replacing these 2 trees with 2 native, more pedestrian- friendly and infrastructure-friendly varieties of tree. Thank you for your consideration, Judith Hildinger & Eric Meader 1268 Reba Ct. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 CTCOUNCIL ❑''CD DIR U'CAf�"CirfInc/Z D'FIN DIR O'AGAeftrC4"c,eLF-FIRE CHIEF REED FILE p'ATTORNEY aPw DIR - MEETING AGENDA Q1CLERK/ORIG D'POLICE CHF ❑ DEPT HEADS aAEC DIR DATE I T CP:9 [YUTIL DIR C, HR DIR _ ni�a rimEs .�DUNtrL - iC c..4C-2tG https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycouhciVInbox/Tree%20removal%2OSydney%2OSt... 1/20/2009 PIED FILE - MEETIK_ AGES 1D.t1 - DATE ao ITEo. J� Pµ 1 nD coP i�+,� G COUNCIL 7ECH DIR From: Terry Mohan [mailto:catsdad@sbcglobal.net] "� "�� ;[�Y_Fl IR Sent:Tuesday, January 20, 2009 5:43 AM � Q" �"' CHIEFCrATTORNEY IRTo: Council, SloCity aCLERK/ORIGCE CHFCc: Hooper, Audrey d ❑ DEPT HEADSDIRSubject: AgendaItem PH-1, January 20, 2009 P�P'__ DIRY'r2 ig"=�LI( Agenda Item PH-1 January 20, 2009 _ ^'�"nf4e_5 e tee« I objection to the destruction of the two Modesto Ash trees in front of"ter MG2 LC�yLK 1256 & 1268 Sydney Street. This type of tree is prominent throughout the �C Goldtree development adjacent to Sinesheimer Park. If you have not visited the area the photos included attempt to show how the removal of these two trees would change the character of this street as an entrance to Sinesheimer Park. You can also see that the sidewalks, curbs and street adjacent to these trees are in very good condition contrary to the homeownerEl s claims. The only hardship stated from the tree at 1256 Sydney is the roots intruded into the hardscape of his sewer. Mr. Hayes intends to replace the lateral under the city program eliminating any leakage which will stop the migration of the roots to his sewer. His conjecture that the roots could still intrude the lateral is highly unlikely and should never have been considered as a reason to remove this tree.. Last year extensive work was performed around the tree at 1268 Sydney removing roots and repairing the sidewalk. Now there is a claim that the main water line to the residence is being affected. The light pole next to it will have to be replanted and straightened and possible adjustment to the water meters at the foot of the tree may have to be done. Both of these repairs could be completed with the tree remaining and these items moved farther from it. What is needed is a.report from the utilities department determining the extent of the damage to these residences and their remedies before these trees are considered for removal. All of the Ash trees in this neighborhood have insect infestation which emit a white gooey excretion during summer months after heavy rainy seasons. The city used to spray to prevent this and it is not a reason to destroy a tree according to the city arborist. If locations are needed to replant the urban forest there are already several openings in this block alone that could be used. I am disappointed that the city arborist would support the removal of these trees without adequate proof of hardship to the residents and what appears to be nothing more than a desire to eliminate the aesthetics and nuisance of these trees. Until a hardship is proven to exist concerning these trees I ask that you support the appeal of this Tree Committee decision. Terry Mohan 2416 Santa Clara San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Yyl 1' ,t -72 --'.-. �.: I ,{� ��r', raj'+ R7?..: �• .. ,_ ` r/t t Ell • e a I,s+ 4r � ,.te�a�,,�yy ":AY. �, r• �, tf .,•... y 40- jW i -I ;\ LI M C... .FIA C _ G J - Filing Fee: $100.001` raid meftfvev NIA DEC - 4 2008 .�uh"',A it�,ty O `REFER TO SECTION 4 Miasan WIS OB1sp0 SLO CITY CLERK APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION 12 Name Mailing Address and Zip Code 'Phone ? Fax Representative's Name Mailing Address and Zip Code Title Phone Fax SECTION 2. SUBJECT OF APPEAL 1. In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (copy -attached) I ohereby 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: 6,4i;Q 4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member: IL ,2�C. i. cirn�p� on / —� (Staff Member's Name and Department) (Date) 5. Has this matter been the subject f a previous appeal? If so, when was it heard and by whom: SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL Explain specifically what action/s you are appealing and why you believe the Council should consider your appeal. Include what evidence you have that supports your appeal. You may attach additional pages, if necessary. This form continues on the other side. Page 1 of 3 ♦ t• Reason for Appeal continued O � / � vte- - - r SECTION 4. APPELLANTS RESPONSIBILITY The San Luis Obispo City Council values public participation in local government and encourages all forms of citizen involvement. However, due to real costs associated with City Council consideration of an appeal, including public notification, all appeals pertaining to a planning application or project are subject to a filing fee of $100,which must accompany 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 a peal is scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council. r (Signature of Appellant) (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. This item is hereby calendared for .l 1. dc. l D-0, �)zn c: City Attomey s City Administrative Officer 2-00u1 N"� 3 0�caw Department Head— J a-,a U-ktl-4-c-✓ w bw vfw'Qa L1 4-`t�-� Advisory Body Chairperson e12 _ _ &Lij 2-c��L. City lerk (original) a ,._n� L� a Fed- �Page2of3 8/03 Page 1 of 1 J Cano, Elaina From: Cano, Elaina Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 10:44 AM To: Pellemeier, Keith; Combs, Ron; Lynch, Barbara Cc: Hampian, Ken; Lowell, Jonathan P; Hooper, Audrey; 'ersayoung@yahoo.com'; Chippendale, Sue Subject: Tree Committee Appeal Attachments: Botwin - 1-20-09.pdf Attached is a Tree Committee appeal from Dr. &Mrs. Michael Botwin. I have scheduled this public hearing to be heard at the January loth Council meeting with a time of 30 minutes. If you feel this is not adequate time, please adjust on the 6o day. Also, Dr. Botwin has verbally agreed to hear this appeal after the 45 day deadline and will sign and send back a written agreement by December 19th. I will email the written agreement as soon as it is received. Thanks, Elaina 12/8/2008 �i���I�I Ilill lHll II II��� DIIIII���IIIIII Niscity of San IuIS OBISPO 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 December 8, 2008 Dr. & Mrs. Michael Botwin 2566 Santa Clara San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: APPEAL OF TREE COMMITTEE DECISION REGARDING 1256 & 1268 SYDNEY. (30 MINUTES) Dear Dr. & Mrs. Michael Botwin: 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 phone to permit us to schedule your appeal after the 45 day deadline(i.e. January 18, 2009), we require a signed acknowledgement. Therefore, please sign and return this letter to the City Clerk's Office no later than December 19th. An envelope has been enclosed for your convenience. If you have any questions, please give me a call at 781-7104. Mrs. Caroline Botwin Dr. Michael Botwin Sincerely, Audteyoper City Clerk OThe 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. 111111! IIIII city Of SAn luisoBIsPO 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 December 8, 2008 Dr. & Mrs. Michael Botwin 2566 Santa Clara San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: APPEAL OF TREE COMMITTEE DECISION REGARDING 1256 & 1268 SYDNEY. (30 MINUTES) Dear Dr. & Mrs. Michael Botwin: 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 phone to permit us to schedule your appeal after the 45 day deadline (i.e. January 18, 2009), we require a signed acknowledgement. Therefore, please sign and return this letter to the-City Clerk's Office no later than ; December 19`h. An envelope has been enclosed for your convenience.. If you have any questions, please give me a call at 781-7104. Mrs. Caroline Botwin Dr. Mi hael Botwin Sincerely, RECEIVED Audrey ooper City Clerk- DEC 1.1 7-008 $LO CITY CLERK ® 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. Page 1 of 1 Cano, Elaina From: Cano, Elaina Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 1:17 PM To: Pellemeier, Keith; Lynch, Barbara; Combs, Ron Subject: Tree Committee Appeal Agreement Attachments: Botwin Letter- 1 20-09.pdf Attached is the signed agreement from Dr. Botwin regarding the Tree Committee Appeal — 1256 & 1268 Sydney. Thanks, Elaina 12/16/2008