Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/05/2009, PH5 - APPEAL THE TREE COMMITTEE'S DECISION TO DENY HOMEOWNERS REQUEST TO REMOVE ONE TREE EACH AT 1745 AND council j acenaa nepo]Zt ]�Nuh 5 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: Jay D. Walter, Public Works Direct Prepared By: Keith Pellemeier, Urban orest Supervisor SUBJECT: APPEAL THE TREE COMMITTEE'S DECISION TO DENY HOMEOWNERS REQUEST TO REMOVE ONE TREE EACH AT 1745 AND 1750 DE ANZA COURT. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt a resolution denying the appeal of the Tree Committee's decision to not allow the homeowner to remove one Monterey pine tree (Pinus radiata) at 1745 De Anza Court. 2. Adopt a resolution denying the appeal of the Tree Committee's decision to not allow the homeowner to remove one Monterey pine tree (Pinus radiata) at 1750 De Anza Court. DISCUSSION Background On January 27, 2009, Mr. Robert Nunn, 1745 De Anza Court, filed a Tree Removal application for a Monterey pine stating the "Pine is very large and unsightly and unsafe." The City Arborist inspected the tree and could not find that the tree met the necessary criteria for approving a tree removal so it was scheduled for next Tree Committee Meeting. On January 31, 2009, Mr. Charlie Herrera, 1750 De Anza Court, filed a Tree Removal application for a Monterey pine stating "...the tree is cracking and lifting a drainage culvert...my neighbors at 1810 Castillo Ct. asked me to remove the tree due to overhanging branches". The City Arborist inspected the tree and could not find that the tree met the necessary criteria for approving a tree removal so it was scheduled for the next Tree Committee meeting. Both trees are very similar, as reported by the City Arborist. Each tree is a large healthy Monterey pine with the potential to grow much larger. No major defects; disease or damage was noted on either tree. The City Arborist is able to approve tree removals following Municipal Code 12.24.180.C.5. When tree removal is not related to property development, the city arborist may authorize a tree removal after finding any of the following circumstances: a. The tree is a hazard to life or property, and removing it is the only feasible way to eliminate the hazards 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 feasible way to eliminate the damage. ��Is - 1 I Appeal of Tree Removal Decision for 1256 and 1268 Sydney Paye 2 Per the City's Municipal Code 12.24.180.C.6. when the city arborist cannot authorize a tree removal, 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. Normal routine maintenance does not constitute a hardship, i.e., cleaning of gutters, leaf raking, or root intrusion into a failed sewer lateral, etc.:. b. Removing the tree promotes good arboricultural practice: c. Removing the tree will not harm the character or environment of the surrounding neighborhood. Tree Committee Decisions On Monday, February 23, 2009 the Tree Committee heard both homeowners' tree removal requests. Both tree removal requests were denied by the Tree Committee and both homeowners have appealed the decision. The Tree Committee members all inspected the tree locations at 1745 and 1750 De Anza Court the weekend before the public hearing. This is standard protocol for all tree removal requests so that the members can make an informed decision after listening to all concerned parties at the public hearing. At the meeting, the owner of 1745 De Anza Court told the Committee that he is afraid the large tree may fall and he does not like the mess the pine needles make. The City Arborist stated it is a healthy tree, with shallow roots and no visible indication it may fall. Monterey pines normally have shallow roots and our heavy clay soils lend themselves to shallow tree roots because the roots have a hard time penetrating the clay. The Tree Committee felt it was a healthy tree and voted 5-0 to deny the tree removal. During the hearing for 1750 De Anza Court, the owner stated he did not want to be liable for damaging the "city culvert." City staff determined it was not a City culvert and informed Mr. Herrera. The tree is cracking the culvert; however, the culvert is working as designed, with water flowing through the culvert. Mr. Herrera also stated the tree is blocking the sunlight to his yard and his young oak trees are not getting enough light. His neighbors, David and Anita Shanks, spoke in favor of removing the tree. They are concerned because it leans towards their property and is blocking the light to their yard. The Tree Committee once again felt it was a healthy pine tree and voted 4-1 to deny the tree removal. Member Allen Root was the lone dissenting vote citing the potential for the tree to double in size in the future. Appeal On March 4, 2009, the City Clerk's office received an appeal of the Tree Committee's decision at 1745 De Anza Court, from Mr. Nunn, the property owner. In his appeal, Mr. Nunn claimed to be a little concerned the tree could fall on his house in a windstorm because the tree leans towards his house and there appears to be a small rotten area at the base of the tree. See Attachment 6. On March 3, 2009, the City Clerk's office received an appeal of the Tree Committee's decision at 1750 De Anza Court, from Mr. Herrera, the property owner. In his appeal he claims that the tree I J Appeal of Tree Removal Decision for 1256 and 1268 Sydney Page 3 is directly next to a drainage culvert, which he is responsible for, which is cracked and lifted. His neighbor is concerned about the tree, because it is shading his yard as well. See Attachment 7. On March 4, 2009, Mr. Herrera provided additional information on why he feels the City Council should consider his appeal of the Tree Committee's decision. See attachment 8. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact realized by the City in the denial of the appeal. ALTERNATIVES Uphold the appeals. The City Council could choose to uphold the appeal for either or both of the trees located on De Anza Court, thereby allowing the homeowner to remove their trees. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1. Tree Removal Application, 1745 De Anza Court (2 pages) Attachment 2. Tree Removal Application, 1750 De Anza Court (2 pages) Attachment 3. Tree Committee meeting excerpt, February 23, 2009 (2 pages) Attachment 4. Letter to 1745 to deny tree removal application(1 page) Attachment 5. Letter to 1750 to deny tree removal appeal (1 page) Attachment 6. Appeal 1745 De Anza to the City Council (2 pages) Attachment 7. Appeal 1750 De Anza to the City Council (4 pages) Attachment 8. Addendum to Appeal 1750 De Anza(2 pages) Attachment 9. Vicinity Map (1 page) Attachment 10. Resolution denying appeal from the Tree Comm., 1745 De Anza(2 pages) Attachment 11. Resolution upholding appeal from the Tree Comm., 1745 De Anza(2 pages) Attachment 12. Resolution denying appeal from the Tree Comm., 1750 De Anza(2 pages) Attachment 13. Resolution upholding appeal from the Tree Comm., 1750 De Anza(2 pages) 3i^t� �I�.d�(�(Y`f��fo��` 1 4 � � -J x w�,<,, 4��i'`"tis" �}ry',a. i; •`��7`u" �E;..;�"`" i`rt''ta '� .i: a^"{`+ p GIStaH-Repwts,Agendas-Minutes\ CAR120091Tree511745 a 1750 Da CC71174581750Dek=CTCAR.dmc '� '�`'`�"p��'�'`' �I�IVIIII �I Illglq Cider Attachment 1 city of san Luis ost sp o 25 Prado Road 0 Sen Luis Obispo,CA 93401 SCgNNEp 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 *sketah/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 $0 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 aodlications must be received bx the second Monday of the month to be considered for the meeting an the.fourth Monday of the month Owner: pl�.�- tJ�, Telephone: jgpt�7 %01 3q-2; ' Owner's Mailing Address: aj+r ccs an7x� C,k- Zip Code: 17�y,@ _ Applicant (if other than owner)k Telephone: Applicant's mailing address: Zip Coder Location of tree(s): o,.,r` ,,, el C 2y Nearest cross street: Dog in yard? Yes Q No a Tree species (Common names): ,,,,, Reasons for requesting removal: t t �i T �+ 1 N e, i S t1 c'i�c i 1 a�,�a ama u`m�W3 i:w 7'�� y �lnnn rZi C-Ll�p t v jy ^ wNfrl' h.�'Y' 1'7"Jlf�ly W 111 -r- I MN &A IiOQ .W .u..• eA- W Replacement tree planting proposed: * Application will be considered only if entirely filed 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 ��r< removal permits are good for 6 months,you may wish to hold off picking up your permit unci l you are sure you iItAbe able to install the replacement trees)within the 45 day period, v d ' y/pp3 111c • - )^ �yC`�� 201 Z�i�i c� Ov C:pww,. rWVNP� 1W 110 M� � r " MAIL OR FAX completed form to: City=rist; 25 Prado Rd., San Luis Obispo, CA 93401, Phone: 781-7220 Fax: 542-9868 Owner: -- �D�. 9.f Date: Applicant: Daft. r i The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of it smvices,programs and activities- Telec ommuniadions Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. Rev.10.08 Attachment 1 3()"Pine to be removed and stump cut Existing wood fence �J 1745 De Anza Ct De Anza Ct Cul-d sac NORTH i��►�►►►�����ollllllll��""'�� Ili G®���rr� �� d9 Attachment 2 101. city of san lugs oBmspo - 25 Prado Road 0 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 TREE REMOVAL APPLICATION **I your tree removal is related to property development or a remodel,submit your request through t�ORTANT.the Planning Department at 919 Palm Street as part of your Planning Application.** , - A tree removal application will only PLEASE.NOTE: If your tree is approved for be considered if accompanied by a *sketch/mac 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 $43 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 Mo nd nayof the month. Owner: e'14' k jF— 1TegK 4?'A Telephone: 51/0 -a061 Owner's Mailing Address: 1750 ,e/7nv-4+ C,7- Zip Code: 9SfI40 Applicant (if other than owner): Telephone: Applicant's mailing address: — ��'.-�AQ�.�,J /Z�,ip Code: -' � Location of tree(s): �7c /`fes 6T vpjwr -W� C:I�P MW- dLG 07- Nearest cross street: D'L 9/ Dog in yard? Yes E:] No P Tree species (Common names): Reasons for questing removal: $re 1"AV� Z!0U - W C0 Fat golv7E 7"iME T#-T 7#F- 7R&- z-5 &Af4;V4 hAD �LiF i 6 A '"AA4E c11.v�2T C; rwMp , AE& ` /vl NE,6 C AF /610 i 40 LT_ ASKS ME 70ROWtE 7#6 7CAE TUE 7b ©daz"k6 8Ri4�b Rep acemOWEtree planting proposed: ent * 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 F : 542-9868 / Owner: pate: 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 FPS '-k Deaf(805)781-7410. Rev. 110,08� 'o r - Attachment 2 C UL Existing wood fence 30" Pine to be removed and stump cut 1750 De Anza Ct Existing wood fence 1750 De Ania Ct I Driveway Driveway De Anza Ct Cul-de-sac NORTH , r P �5�-� 3 Attachment 3 5& 7- 1745 & 1750 De Ann.Ct. (Monterey pines) Robert Nunn, 1745 De Anza, discussed the large overgrown trees, stating they littered heavily,prevented any additional landscaping around them, had shallow roots and therefore posed a toppling liability and possible limb drop hazard. Charles Herrera, 1750 De Anza, agreed with Mr.Nunn's concerns and-also was concerned about the city culvert cracking. He noted the nearby oak seedlings would thrive if the trees were removed. David Shanks, 1810 Castillo, favored removal because the trees were suffocating his Black Acacia and he was concerned about safety concerns with the trees' falling/limb breakage. Mr. Combs stated the trees were relatively healthy and could grow much larger. Mr. Pellemeier stated that the city public works department would investigate the issues with the cracking culvert and repair, if necessary; if the trees were an issue,the city could request removal at that point. Ms. Young felt that both trees were healthy and agreed the city could repair the culvert to mitigate those concerns. Mr. Parker moved to deny the request as he could not find any of the three criteria for approving a tree removal. Mr. Root disagreed stating the tree has the potential to get much larger. Ms. Young seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Mr. Root voting against. 6.288 Hermosa Way Kay Wardell,neighbor at 292 Hermosa Way, spoke on the applicants behalf. Mr. Combs stated it was a large Stone pine in declining health. Ms. Young moved to approve removal because the tree is unhealthy. The motion passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS Audrey Hooper, City Clerk,requested that the Tree Committee plan on updating their by- laws on a bi-annual basis. i 1 Attachment 4 February 24,2009 Robert Nunn 1745 De Anza Ct. San Luis Obispo,CA 93405 Your application for removal of a tree at 1745 De Anza Ct.,was reviewed by the City of San Luis Obispo Tree Committee on February 23,2009. 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. • 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 willfully injure, 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 oommdenlal �Of S�� I Attachment 5 February 24,2009 Charlie Herrera 1750 De Anza Ct. San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Your application for removal of a tree at_1750 De Anza Ct.,was reviewed by the City of San Luis Obispo Tree Committee on February 23, 2009. 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. • 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 willfully injure, 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 00 2 Attachment 6 Filing Fee: $100.00' Paid Date Received NIA '7� RECEIVED 4 , � ,Cq 0r *REFERMAR o 4 2009 Sd111UIS OBiSpO TO SECTION 4 sLo C1JXQE1C3K APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SEC77ON 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION Name Mailing Addressand Zip Co e 5444- Q,�-12 i-1 2,0 ��+ -z� CeA1 Phone Fax Representative's Name Mailing Address and Zip Code Title Phone Fax SECTION 2. SUBJECT OFAPPEAL 1. In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (copy attached), I hereby appeal the decision of the: u ►r2�� (43 vi 1kew- (Name of Officer, Committee or Commission decision being appealed) 2. The date the decision being �appealedN s rendered: 2—?..3-XD9 3. The application or project was entitled: 4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member: (Staff Memberons Name and Department) (Date) 5. Has t!hjs matter been the subject of a previous appeal? If so,when was it heard and by whom: LJ� 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 " Pis-el 404 Attachment 6 Reason for Appeal c ontinued 1 ''rr '' L QRMA. G:. �lTlfNi C cTW Gt'�Mt ��1� 'G�/��, r �St s"_�•Q Sr s �\ ba. ttom'' 1 ! Y't^` eAu 0.610- ic� brie ✓1 ci l� I Yew f L�i trv� .L w1G rY1n aw v wu __ W is .i"!A- �i. amd L km,' U6z& _ CIPAA'M_J 1n .i w Y P r T►'G'� a �12wM� �l z +r Vj � � jy�r { x'yy_,7��p x' Lri.i3 f �' li �•'! 'f� �'a �+ C;Id. +E ,y,�} i,'.y yq� �.;lL� .. K7 p� y7m. �� Y'�f��+.�✓ �� -q�`�ip,�a�.-� a b: �` �"tit ?'t"7#+ '� y � 'A�'. '°z �ix S��` +y�' i^y k+�,fir.`Srjt� � i :. kl° '�101 Me U }YtTpaw. = 1.fjf a : �M f , . ; !vqq r� Y: �. ` t �'�°L7V �' � kp� g a #h. e�a1�u nsiliea 'fite a m : 16 1 ?� ;. rri ' i"" i . fiifif�ttisaS aX IWrt�em IsaafzN�� > iiii f q 10 y ! ueX Hei d th i�esra ►e.�i m nd b ,� � q �• �� v. x,r, ,tF k� � �t�s� ktt �� , ,�JG � .r��.� ,� � ��._ � �sw�+U.,_ � ��,"',, `�*f*�.�"in� T ., rain a�vn i �tanw�'AvXoVI.P0z ei"'to TO aaVitracre ° . ' fa �sertol3r► , '� � ` Yt �fraita `•• fi.a.� e ttw nt j r�+r �.0.r �.' t� '•g.�.r} '�;.`ai�i��r°�o,�* - �4`e-Fi�#V,� ;:�i"'1E�a - g�,, �`.�'. i F.� < s k a, a v �'ro�. P sY. a,,;°S � '<,�x-e., a. •�;.t ;r��ti�' x{llYnc ai i�y >� ;s3;;.'T�. ��,a*`°� �, ,� �t�wt�'+'�-�r� This item is hereby calendared for AllowL pYJ a c: City Attorney City Administrative Officer Department Head Advisory Body Chairperson City Clerk(original) Page 2 of 3 8103 PHS-1�- Attachment 7 _. Filing Fee: $100.00 PaidREP RPne90 N/A_)__C MAR _ 3 2008 san lues o��spo *REFER TO SECTION 4 SLO CITY CLERK APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION CI'[htk voif -0?- 67- 4 Name Mailing Address and Zip Code Phone Fax Representative's Name Mailing Address and Zip Code Title Phone Fax SECTIi(Na UBJECT OFAPPEAL 1. rdance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo al Code(copy attached), I hereby appeal the decision of the: of Officer, Committee or Commission decision being apnnpealed) 2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: "0� 3. The application or project was entitled: )MZA-7-/GFJ Lr 17S-0 m L°r- 4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member: (Staff Member's Name and Department) (Date) 5. Has thigomatter been the subject of a previous appeal? If so, when was it heard and by whom: Fnecwssaq. REASON FOR APPEAL cally what action/s you are appealing and�you believe the Council should consider your e what evidence you have that supports your appeal. You may attach additional pages, if is form continues on the other side. Page 1 of 3 Attachment 7 Reason for Appeal continued I Art RP9A4nJ(P, 77/8 `DF,699 6A� 7f gF_ -jo �Fiv MV 9F.-Qt}4EsS9_ TO 9&-V(lk A _'NE 7R-i,-_0 X 774E C;-rl d)UAX L 9 C�o�us� A4X AsVPE,+1._ CAu6E /ice TREE _rS P;WZrLyN�)ct`7o 4� -1Z41NA64 JAC�, 4S Jr Air I� r�,glE Cop- YOECvim- 66vc4m Ai utq r& r v SFC7iON 4. APPELLANiris. gSPONS/B/UTY The San Luis Obispo CityCouncil values public participationiri local govemment and encourages all forms of citizen.involvement. However, due to real•costs associated with City. Council consideration'of an appeal, including public notification,SII appeals pertamirto to R planning application orproject are sul tectto,a filiii it aif$1:O1);which tntistacco pang tfie appeal form. Your right to exercise an appeal comes with certain responsib pities. -M.you file an 2ppeal, please understand that d just be.heard within 45 days from•fifing,this`form: You e notified in writing of the exact date your appeal will be Heard before the Council. You or yourwll4 representative will.be expected to attend the public hearing; and to.be prepared to matte your ' case. Your testimony�s lirrilted•to 10 mPnutes.s. A continuance may be-granted under certain and unusual circumstances If you feel you need to request a continuance, you•must submit your'regyest in w-dting'to the City r:lark. Plebe 6� ;advised that:if your-request for continuance.is.received,after the appeal.is troticed to ttie pupils, tr Gouncil array not be able to grant-the request,for continuance. 5ubirtlttirrg a request dor contirivarrca ' does not guarantee that k will be granted;Mat-action is at the discretion of the City Council /hereby agree to appear and/or send a representative to appear on may:behalf,lwhep said app is scheduled for a public hearing before the fifty Council. L (ftnature of Appellant] (Date) gxcepbons tb the fee: 1)Appeals of Tree Committee deetIlons z)file above�r�amed appeiiant has alres�yi{��y(f the City;1,00.to appear this same mattei to a olty alla- ar Counclladvlsgry;bcdy. This item is hereby calendared for /7 PV.I L c: City Attorney City Administrative Officer Department Head Advisory Body Chairperson City Clerk(original) Page 2 of 3 8/03 ( P Attachment 7 Iryp► i�illl� hill I �D city Of SM 1UIS OBISPO 25 Prado Road • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 February 24,2009 Charlie Herrera 1750 De Anza Ct. San Luis Obispo,CA 93405 Your application for removal of a treeat 1750 De Anza Ct.,was reviewed by the City of San Luis Obispo Tree Committee on February 23,2009. 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. • 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 willfully injure,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 © The City of San Luis 0bisp0 is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. Attachment 7 March 2,2009 City Clerk's Office City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm St San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Subject: Appeal—Tree Committee decision Dear Clerk's office: In accordance with our Municipal Code I am hereby appealing a recent decision by the Tree Committee in which Mr. Charlie Herrera. 1750 De Anza Ct.,was denied permission to remove a pine tree on his property. We are neighbors to the South of Mr. Herrera, and it is we who are under hardship. The trunk of the tree in question has grown at such an angle as to hang well over our property. In particular large branches of this tree are disrupting the growth of our Blackwood Acacia tree. At committee meeting the previous applicant who is a neighbor of Mr. Herrera,based his appeal to remove DIFFERENT pine trees in HIS yard on the spread of pine needles which, although unattractive to him,NOT a reason to remove a tree. We believe the Committee confused THAT issue with Mr. Herrera's. As this was the end of a lengthy meeting,careful consideration was NOT given to our issue. There are several trees that define the skyline in this area. Removal of Mr.Herrera's tree would thus,NOT harm the environment of the neighborhood. Finally we support his planting of native replacement trees(on our mutual property line) which IS good arboricultural practice. Thank you for responding to our appeal in this matter. Sincerely, t David and Anita Shanks 1810 Castillo Ct. San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 805 784 0511 PSS->� _' -_ ' � � - ��; �, ��' .�, y'_, , ` , 1 i � _ �� � �� � �'1 : � \ ' % l�- ,��,. r �''.; ` s� / � ,,ti -� � � } i ��� i �✓ �., f �..f d :��\ `:..`. � r � .� •- t � _�, '� , /� \ i . , ;' ...< r , . _ ., .. _ �.: .. :: ...::...'3..... _. :. . ' r l v, �.. ,:p: A C�+�V ' *` 1� K' J 3.. `. 'SC Q �� � c ...r � _F �..,. .. u+ �- _ r .c aT+o a ie.F. >-: /�. � } .. L 't ...': ..i.. ..- .. .f... �:��..... i M. M 1I v ai y .... .a. . Pak •ti s,.?. -.fi Y r �y+f `4'� �h -byi.y Y,.x� r�."•.Y'i � x r Y t "S r I _ i '✓ y � :-1 11 u- �1_ 4 1 (� I 1 rat � _Y�,`..�.1 I � >.4 r h: 'x d1/. r I f r1 'y4.F , , r t , r .r too,AWM; wK of- w;:= 14 /' _ l 1 _ 1 \. Y P Attachment 8 ��BI�III�N��� Illi[II! - li�llll I (� I I j city of sAn luis oBispo 25 Prado Road • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 February 24,2009 Charlie Herrera 1750 De Anza Ct. San Luis Obispo,CA 93405 Your application for removal of a tree at 1750 De Anza Ct,was reviewed by the City of San Luis Obispo Tree Committee on February , e 23,2009. After careful consideration of the facts provided by you an an on-site inspection o e Co mbers 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. •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 Clerks 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 willfully injure, 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 © 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(865)781.7410. Attachment 8 Charlie Herrera 1750 De Anza Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 March 4,2009 Honorable Mayor Dave Romero,Vice Mayor Allen Settle,Council members John Ashbaugh,Andrew Carter,and Jan Howell Marx: I am asking for your permission to remove a Monterey pine tree from my yard due to the damage it is causing to a neighborhood drainage culvert(pictures enclosed),and my neighbor's yard On February 2P the Tree Committee denied my request to remove the tree,and I will use the committee's letter of February 20(enclosed)to outline some of the shortcomings of their decision. 1. "After careful consideration." My request was clearly not carefully considered The committee was unclear as to the extent of damage to the.culvert,and was unaware of who owns the culvert. . 2."The tree is not causing undue hardship." Public Works Maintenance Supervisor Keith Peflemeier informed me the culvert does not belong to the city, and the city will not repair it,therefore I contend the damage to the neighborhood-owned culvert represents a hardship to the owner of the tree. Urban Forester Ron Combs claims this tree will grow twice as tall,which would cause untold damage to the culvert and greatly increase the cost of removing the tree. 3. "Removal of the tree would not promote good arboricultural practice." The committee famed to take into account my neighbor's trees,which are being smothered by this leaning,non=native,disease-prone Monterey pine,or thejuvenile native oaks in my yard which need additional sunlight. 4. "Removal would harm the character of the environment of the surrounding neighborhood" My neighbors who are affected by this tree are requesting that it be removed These neighbors are the best judges of the"character of the environment of the surrounding neighborhood." My neighbors have many trees growing on their property,and I have 22 on mine. Thank you for your time and the opportunity to bring this concern before you. Respectfully, Charlie Herrera 1745 DE ANZA �` 7 5 b ,,- A N Z Co Attachment 9 053-245-02� 17so 3 1745 t1I" CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO a 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 celled upon as an 955 MORRO STREET dal 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 aterial is not guaranteed and users assume responsibility for independent verification of any and all Information contained.herein prior to 605 UIS O67 se or reliance upon such Information for any official purpose.The City San Luis Obispo disclaims any responsibility or liability for any direct r indirect damages resulting from the use of this data. 319=9 09:26 4 Attachment 10 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 1745 DE ANZA COURT WHEREAS, the Tree Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing on February 23, 2009 and denied the Applicant's request to remove one Monterey pine tree located in the back yard at 1745 De Anza Court, San Luis Obispo, California; and WHEREAS, on April 7, 2009, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing to consider the appeal of the Tree Committee's decision to deny the removal of one Monterey pine 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 of the San Luis Obispo Tree Committee's action, staff recommendations and reports thereon, and public testimony, makes the following findings: a. The tree is not causing undue hardship to the Applicant's property, i.e. damaging curbs, gutter, sidewalks and sewer plumbing. b. The removal of one Monterey pine tree located in the back yard at 1745 De Anza Court will not promote good arboricultural practice. c. The removal of one Monterey pine tree will harm the character or environment of the surrounding neighborhood. SECTION 2. The appeal from the Tree Committee's decision to not allow the Applicant to remove one Monterey pine tree at 1745 De Anza Court is hereby denied and the Applicant may not remove the tree. Upon motion of, seconded by, and on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this 7th day of April, 2009. Attachment 10 Resolution No. (2009 Series) Page 2 Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: JogAttomey Lowell i C:Staff-RepoeIs-Agendas4&utes CAR 2009 Trees 1745 1750 DeAnraCT Attachments Attachl0-1745 ResDeny.doc I I Attachment 11 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 1745 DE ANZA COURT WHEREAS, the Tree Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing on February 23, 2009 and denied the Applicant's request to remove one Monterey pine tree located in the back yard at 1745 De Anza Court, San Luis Obispo, California; and WHEREAS,on April 7, 2009, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing to consider the appeal of the denial to remove one Monterey pine 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 tree is causing undue hardship to the Applicant's property, i.e. damaging curb, gutters, sidewalks and water lines. b. The removal of one Monterey pine tree in the back yard at 1745 DE Anza Court will promote good arboricultural practice. c. Removing the tree will not harm the character or environment of the surrounding neighborhood. SECTION 2. The appeal from the Tree Committee's decision to deny the Applicant's request to remove one Monterey pine tree at 1745 De Anza Court is hereby upheld, and therefore removal of the Monterey pine tree is approved with a replacement tree required to be planted as directed by the City Arborist. Upon motion of , seconded by and on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this 7th day of 2009. Attachment 11 Resolution No. (2009 Series) Page 2 Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jonathan P. Lowell City Attomey G:Staff-Reports-Agendas-Minutes CAR 2009 bees 170.5 1750 DeA=CT Attachments Attachl l-1745 ResUphold.doc i Attachment 12 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 1750 DE ANZA COURT WHEREAS, the Tree Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing on February 23, 2009 and denied the Applicant's request to remove one Monterey pine tree located in the back yard at 1750 De Anza Court, San Luis Obispo, California; and WHEREAS, on April 7, 2009, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing to consider the appeal of the Tree Committee's decision to deny the removal of one Monterey pine 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 of the San Luis Obispo Tree Committee's action, staff recommendations and reports thereon, and public testimony, makes the following findings: a. The tree is not causing undue hardship to the Applicant's property, i.e. damaging curbs, gutter, sidewalks and sewer plumbing. b. The removal of one Monterey pine tree located in the back yard at 1750 De Anza Court will not promote good arboricultural practice. c. The removal of one Monterey pine tree will harm the character or environment of the surrounding neighborhood. SECTION 2. The appeal from the Tree Committee's decision to not allow the Applicant to remove one Monterey pine tree at 1750 De Anza Court is hereby denied and the Applicant may not remove the tree. Upon motion of, seconded by, and on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this 7th day of April, 2009. V"'rl t d(J Attachment 12 Resolution.No. (2009 Series) Page 2 Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jo . Lowell City Attorney G:Staff-Repor6- andas-Minutes CAR 2009 Trees 1745 1750 Dek=CT Attachments Attach121750 Res Deny.doc Attachment 13 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 1750 DE ANZA COURT WHEREAS, the Tree Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing on February 23, 2009 and denied the Applicant's request to remove one Monterey pine tree located in the back yard at 1750 De Anza Court, San Luis Obispo, California; and WHEREAS, on April 7, 2009, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing to consider the appeal of the denial to remove one Monterey pine 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 tree is causing undue hardship to the Applicant's property, i.e. damaging curb, gutters, sidewalks and water lines. b. The removal of one Monterey pine tree in the back yard at 1750 De Anza Court will promote good arboricultural practice. c. Removing the tree will not harm the character or environment of the surrounding neighborhood. SECTION 2. The appeal from the Tree Committee's decision 'to deny the Applicant's request to remove one Monterey pine tree at 1750 De Anza Court is hereby upheld, and therefore removal of the Monterey pine tree is approved with a replacement tree required to be planted as directed by the City Arborist. Upon motion of , seconded by and on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this 7th day of 2009. ��s-3b Attachment 13 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:StaRRepo"rrwm-"nutes CAR 2009 Trees 1745 1750 DMMCT Attachments Alta&13 1750 Res Uphc4d,dw council memoRAnOum Date: April 29, 2009 TO: City Council VIA: Ken Hampian, City Manager FROM: Jay Walter, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Tree Appeal 1745 and 1750 De Anza Court Item PH-5 As a follow up to the Council meeting on April 7, 2009, the homeowners were advised to seek professional opinions about the condition of trees at 1745 and 1750 De Anza Court which are the subject of the appeal request. Staff was directed to return with more information about the function of the drainage swale behind the property that is being disrupted by the roots of one of the trees. Attached are separate Arborist Reports for 1745 and 1750 De Anza Court, and the response from Engineering staff on the drainage swale. If there are questions. Please contact Public Works Director Jay Walter. Attachments C'hCOUNCIL B'CDD DIR RED FILE fftAt)'GtR1/u6e FIN DIR �'A �ORNIFY DIR— MEETING AGENDA I LfrRK/©fel® w DIRICE CHP DA� ITEM #_ 5 �DEPT ��a0 of Y,111-DIR HR DIR �CoZc r�cr� cry �x6zL council memoizAnbum ,�osg Date: April 29, 2009 TO: City Council VIA: Ken Hampian, City Manager FROM: Jay Walter, Public Works Director SUBJECT: 1750 De Anza Court Drainage Swale 1750 De Anza Court was developed as part of Tract Number 444, Cuesta Highlands approved for construction in 1975. As part of the public improvements, Tract 444 installed two drainage facilities within the property boundary of 1750 De Anza Court with'in easements dedicated to and accepted by the City. One drainage facility is an 18 diameter corrugated metal pipe and the other is a triangular concrete drainage swale 15 deep,and 5 feet wide. The triangular drainage swale carries slope drainage along the rear of the properties located to the south end of the cul-de-sacs of Jalisco, De Anza, and La Luna. At each cul-de-sac is a storm drain pipe that carries the water from the drainage swale to the street. At 1750 De Anza there is a tree that has cracked the concrete drainage swale. The tree is located 72 feet downstream of one the storm drain pipes and 164 feet upstream of the next storm drain pipe, as measured along the concrete drainage swale. The entire concrete channel drainage area between these two pipes is 15,000 square feet, 4,000 square feet of which is between the storm drain pipe and the cracked drainage swale. As can be seen on the attached display, the total drainage area for this swc1le is very small, and its primary purpose is to carry runoff from the slope area to the downstream pipe. If the tree fell over, causing the swale to be disrupted, no severe flooding would occur as a result. It is the opinion of Engineering staff that the disruption of the swale is not a strong reason to justify removing the tree in question. Attachment: De Anza Court Drainage Area Map ATTACHMENT �D �J 1 ?O d4 r Direction of drainage flow(typical) S Drainage Area Concrete Channel Ate Lree f y g E a o u i w < 5 � g r� DEL RID O < w m S sm NDRI IO ... tASRfS MR WA d0 I l � rap* i i i i Tree Evaluation i i Bob Nunn i 1745 De Anza Court,, 1 Ataveadere CA. 93442- ��a 93 yo/ i Prepared by Henry Curtis j (805) 674-8147 i H CurtisArborigg*hoo com i :............ I Henry S.Curtis Arborist WE 6345A i i 100121 StOM2208 %V4 TO:ZT 600Z/LZ/60 r t I Project Summary concerning: 1 Monterey Pine (pinus radiata) i Location: 1745 De Anza Court, Atascadero Backyard-rear- right hand corner of the property This Monterey Pine has a major lean towards the residence at this property. The C.R.Z. (Critical Root Zone) has visible fill, excess mulch stored which can be problematic causing root rot and decay. The trunk of this tree has major decay from the ground to about 8 feet up its trunk. This decay alone is grounds for removal. This decay is proof that the tree will potentially fail causing a hazard to the owners and the residence. Additionally, there are old cuts that have not healed properly which are red flags for declining tree health. Also, all lower branches have been removed as high as twenty feet up the trunk, making the tree extremely top heavy and prone to failure. On a scale of one to ten, ten being the most hazardous-,-I give t-his tree an. eight: Any questions, Henry Curtis 805- 674-8147 Arborist #WE- 6345-A es Z00@J .of dd Z 9YOE86SS08 %1+3 TO=ZT 600Z/LZ/60 Whit's Turn Tree Care Reid Evaluation Report ' Prepared by Henry Curds:Certified Arborlst#WE-6345 PROJECT: PATE: IACATION: /7�l�" �� n z�. G�' .SLU oriE 80 1- 3 y2 S' CItrT--: (fib Nunn�nn I� TRUNCWO BOTANICAL.SPF)=: f l•nvs Xf4t,(, I(A& i NUMBEtTRUNKS comMON NAME: me 4ef-&y DBIi 28" , I�i(iFiT:.$o' CANDPY SPREAD: ,Z 0 FNWPI�H NS qD 1 E SE S Diiplinc Measunstnerits 4 I Rnrrl g7CAMlNATION YES NO M. A N YES NO RaoRProblems Bvideirt Delixts 13vndeat Fulk Wdr Balanced DainapdRoots Loss of'Vigor ' (wed Roots N Roots BPMa Tissue Covered SoillDeods Margin IAd Scarch Disomed Roots vim Insect Damage A m X. Exp IVioisnae Abnormal Leddbuds Rodent Da=pIA vit9 Growth Cras/l mucids ISOM bran h Diftck Other Branch Cavities Il.BUNK XAb fflLA LON X 1 Sound a Solid Dead Wood X verFissmX DWtiBranclus. &aIes Eimdations Broken Branches Buriad N7 Torn Branch Scars (�vity Mec]tanical WOZY Eraxssive Pruning Size Bommic Growth Parasitic Fhngi Unhealed wvmrds lntaiw Dow ..Poo:celn Ho11ow Tnmk Exudations >s Multiple Stern/Included Bark x x Conks Fire Damage 3 DeadB Euvironmeuta1 Sum i Tann Branch Scars Structural Wealmess anical Lrjmy Major Dieback Mocb Previous Pruning Other Poor Callus Unhealad wounds ' Stump/Nm Gww04 E,doliaft Bark xI Fire Damage x Other -- I i £00fB OTa,1Bss 91rO£B1+4908 IVa zo:zl 600valt0 i f t t H ` Tree Evaluation 1 750 De Anza Court, Atascadero, CA. 93422 Prepared by Henry Curtis (805) 674-8147 H.CurtisArbori g@yghoo_com x...%.. %............... Henry S. Curtis Arborist WE 6345A RECEIVED APR 2 8 2009 SLO CITY CLERK I r , Project summary concerning: 1 Monterey Pine (pinus radiata) Location: 1 750 De Anza Court, Atascadero Backyard-rear- left hand corner of the property This Monterey Pine appears to be healthy and strong however, it is leaning towards the neighbors residence. Another problem is that the invasive roots of this tree are lifting up the concrete drainage ditch. This tree will continue this pattern of growth as long as it is alive. It is really up to the city and/ or property owner to decipher whether to save the tree or the drain. This tree has never been pruned; if you decide to keep the tree then I recommend a full trim by a certified arborist to reduce tip weight and wind-sail. On a hazard scale from 1 -10, 10 being extremely hazardous, I give this Pine a 4. This tree has little chance of complete failure the only major damage is the growing root system. Any questions, Henry Curtis 805- 674-8147 Arborist #WE- 6345-A Wh. , Turn Tree Care Field Evaluation Repm PreDared by Henry Curtis: Certified Arborlst# WE-6345 PROJECT: DATE: LOCATION: i 75'cj 1)eAfNX-&, C� S 1-U CONTACT:. Gh^rb c-- CLIENT: TELEPHONE Sy3-,2061 BOTANICAL SPECIES: P^V y Ya'A'O"f°". TREE NUMBER: COMMON NAME: Man{erdy A v- NUMBER TRUNKS Apf ox HEIGHT: SQ CANOPY SPREAD:,2 5 DBH:23 " N N NWNE NW NE W + E W + E SW SE SW SE S S Driplinc Measurements Low Branches L ROOT EXAMINA71 'YES NO M. CROWN EXAMINATION YES NO Root Problems Evident - - .- -- Damaged Roots Full,Well'Balanced Edd Roots Loss of Vigor Girdled Roots Sparse Foliage X Covered SoMebris Necrotic Tissue X Diseased Roots X. Margin Leaf Scorch Insect Damage Wilt Excess Moisture Chlorotic Rodent DamagetActivity Abnormal L aWbuds Gas/Herbicide Injury Annual Twig(growth Other TwilpBranch Dieba& X II. TRUNK EXAMINATION Branch Cavities Sound&Solid Dead Wood Vertical Fissures Dead B anchcs X Exudations Broken Branches Buried X Tom Branch Scars Cavity Mechanical Injury Size Excessive Pruning Parasitic Fungi Epicormic Growth Interior Decay X Unhealed Wounds Hollow Tnmk X . Poor Callus Multiple Stem/Included Bark X Exudations Conks X Fire Damage Insects X Diseased Tissue Leaning Insectswites Dead Blanches Environmental Stress Tom Branch Scars X St ru dural Weakness Mechanical Injury MAjor Dieback Previous Pruning Other Poor Callus Unhealed Wounds Stump/Ncw Growth X Exfoliating Bark Fire Damage Other cX&Jxx �L&O- Tree Evaluation 1 750 De Anza Court, Atascadero, CA. 93422 Prepared by Henry Curtis (805) 674-8147 H.CurtisArborist@yahoo.com i x... ........... Henry S. Curtis Arborist WE 6345A RECEIVED APR 2 8 2009 SLO CITY CLERIC Project summary concerning: 1 Monterey Pine (pinus radiata) Location: 1750 De Anza Court, Atascadero Backyard-rear- left hand corner of the property This Monterey Pine appears to be healthy and strong however, it is leaning towards the neighbors residence. Another problem is that the invasive roots of this tree are lifting up the concrete drainage ditch. This tree will continue this pattern of growth as long as it is alive. It is really up to the city and/ or property owner to decipher whether to save the tree or the drain. This tree has never been pruned; if you decide to keep the tree then I recommend a full trim by a certified arborist to reduce tip weight and wind-sail. On a hazard scale from 1 -10, 10 being extremely hazardous, I give this Pine a 4. This tree has little chance of complete failure the only major damage is the growing root system. Any questions, Henry Curtis 805- 674-8147 Arborist #WE- 6345-A Whit' Turn Tree Care Field Evaluation Report- Pre,_A by Henry Curtis: Certified Arborist=WE-6345 PROJECT: / DATE: LOCATION: /7S-0 oeAnz , c� S LCA CONTACT:. GhArl e— CLIENT: TELEPHONE S'y 3—a06 I BOTANICAL SPECIES: Pn" Yo�►�`� TREE NUMBER: COMMON NAME: A&%6'ey NUMBER TRUNKS, /�pvoa:HEIGHT:.so/ CANOPY SPREAD:,2 S � DBH:a23 " N N NW NE NW NE W + E W + E SW SE SW SE S S Dripline Measurements Low Branches I. ROOT EXAMBIATION YES NO III. CROWN EXAMINATION YES NO Root Problems Evident Defects Evident Damaged Roots Fall,Welt Balanced Exposed Roots Loss of Vigor IX Girdled Rpm Sparse Foliage X Covered Soil/Debris K Necrotic Tissue X Diseased Roots X Margin Leaf Scorch Insect Damage Wilt Excess Moisture Chlorotic Rodent Damage/Activity Abnormal Leafs/buds Gas/Herbicide Injury Annual Twig Growth Other Twig/Branch Dieback k II. TRUNK EXAMINATION Branch Cavities Sound&Solid Dead Wood Vertical Fissures Dead Branches X Exudations X Broken Branches Buried XTom Branch Scars Cavity A Mechanical Injury Size Excessive Pruning Parasitic Fungi Epicormic Growth. Interior Decay X Unhealed Wounds Hollow Trunk X ..Poor Callus Multiple Stem/Included Bark X Exudations Conks X Fire Damage je Insects Diseased Tissue Leaning owua a Aly,15 Insect miites Dead Branches Environmental Stress Tom Branch Scars X Structural Weakness Mechanical Injury k Major Dleback Previous Pruning X Other Poor Callus Unhealed Wounds Stump/New Growth X Exfoliating Baric Fire Damage I I X Other r '^ 1 .��� � •,.x. ��/.'I .^ice.-•:�,\�.a•! 1 Il��'� ruw+ � ,,• 1y \ i 1 1 _ 7-IT Qz- ✓���"e�i:�yt; �*� a -"�F.:e�+:fir" `?,1—y`2,��' . t�..♦ •'� l` `�i J �• .'.� � �/ Vii' Y n .•� ��aa �J�9• �y�d r ,�, � �Y. �� � •�'�.'� Vie; y.�`yam-���• � `$!."M.:].� 4.\1 l.yf J d. 4;`1 r J ��� Y/i vet .irS.•. {�. ,:e3 fJ f�' � ,�Y• ,' 1 4 7 c• ; >,:( �►i^ Sa- 1 a is � .. n 5y`y YY �r 4'. t. � � � _��1�!' Jr`.41 �!� `., � °�'t>f1�^�rs`r.r 1e•J'�1 ✓-. {y"i �.!r'Y. .4�oT�•Yy f4�F,,•�f`�ra>} ZS `L ..tp ,may,^� t, L�� i �yy r 1� t 1 �I ` ^�• , ���!),,ti c.rr� �Sr_,�jlFi. �,•-iXl.�fn.^j r +" ^R, L � <} � � ��^ L i �lJw 'r♦a +%•'?' 1C 'Y�',y�yyi'x\•Y �'y 51 •t v-f fie.�` ,�9�cc~ v1i Mc 45•f ��nf,++� '11tH' - �j� • '� `- v 1 �.£C ` i'►M .y{'�a r r'({� ( ..i''yly.i r"I1751 St n tl . y/ >u blre}t T �/q+ ?�y to1� � *a �lA �i j7/ altY 1•�' �. r "j a ,low '.4•^ ^�„rT yr J" l '��ca'� •F�,v�� s?5l� y"v". �7G{��• J��D'�G�'�w}�� •k ell �.r1' {IE.r� »�l7A�n�a GIS- F-f ^ICir l�r�\,n1,�1�`F"AMdt '�•J � x�.,•;'-bl b{^ II�y r��'n t�ii�t��,yL�� r �^x��I)� ` y. y (�+� r •,✓ .�vj'..-eft ir �l�•••j�. �,'� U,y" "�}yah' y, "� ` •I k IM".rr•� y�^}���T'rid ''' �ST�.9lx�'���}�f��'C�ip1G� •-C.7 rft .�.�;�'.{'E' r, + * i `rsa�r,Ls.'3 }S%Fl rw•X+CIT'ti,^./ � � �£" FT�ic'I.Y69 • l o 173 �. A �"aya` «lam `�� •n ,a"l' �' � m 5 �,P ' 11 i e•�{ 1•�'�t �{ �'� �•��"F v�� YbP��l�iy IEC.. �� I•• ,A � '� �y ','t4.4� �t 1; ^Kr'n7tic- ~CS•~; .ifr�'jJyy^.'' �Cj ar,M4 ��Fnr �C�h�•c �`�J 4'sF 4�'-,.(^.�'�•�r.T�i�t�t4�yy`7; v$��y�i�n� W'fav G s �• f}F'y�>��F dr�dQ y�.��x, ai� 1, � rsr rs3F �""p '� '.'' r 1'64W,•{W ., Asn•�'�32 ��,'�^�`�pr 0.".i 1��.Y ".Pf+,°:F"P�c rr Ra'i�rryY >rr S•G� .r ?i^Sy^y Y..A• � 4C'''• +�yd '' Z . Y �``•y. p't aMn� �R�*iw i�'� �s•� �,r, �„1� •m��fd�i y1;,y C f�a.�w`'JT ke Ise 31. f Y•C3 l�r . � •d lv°W s!.0°r5��y/�lJv ,Y:� 4' i#�;r'S�^.T (� b p �4 • �y S 7 ti 'C`._.��y. i•�!':.a r sy"„+ .sr .,,,.ryJrir��j�{7f� ��r��� n.�}.°�� 5> V114.4zi, � y�- %A', Q�A'� e eW •° ° .deg , B l ♦ AVo' a°y B '" v � T IV 4 � i Cti r°'� Diu It , •/ yJ A�:v ° o l� V C, f •l�"of c T •i "{ fit-a t`OR� A`�KJ 4 �'O��Sa ,� y ha'Y � Y of �ayy��4 �\\� �"!•�{ �����-'. ir ep �' ��b Y � k�f � ti�YRj.,y� ;l ria.^�� ir+. y�: `; y`�• 0.11 q P (p - f uY 1� •H p yb ---GG�ggCi 7i�`�ufl :e 'f5° `. $.�`}�1 ;L,. 1'���1�y'�•t�s�P}�wt4.��. Odle �1�1"1 � y.'i+{,fi� `7'•rN C.r i, y"'(�t ,� - ?yY{* }ty �r��u Y.v�^"j+tL�.�i�'(!.,'e!r� � S� , �.,,"�,•. •'. � ` n'S. JI rfV3 �l�v>y� roa"twLti Jt2�' ?�Cr6 �iG'�-'�)y..Gs i'r t• ��?y .�� '•')t. 4 wffVt`�~��{•-�J�vnw�,a�'� 4 r.6�t3yr t.� Lr. ,a, . n'�F.�1.kY�.� •��.�`t<' ,tyL�'v'}+^r t{l'' rL?�S���l akv rs '���-� t•�f i T r•-�•+y]�1�Q� r � �� ,r ,rbc •tom '" 'l- q ➢ - m ti<'