HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-01-2015 Item 7 - Appeal of Tree Committee Decision - 1680 El Caserio Court
Meeting Date: 9/1/2015
FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Public Works
Prepared By: Ron Combs, Urban Forest Supervisor - City Arborist
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF TREE COMMITTEE DECISION TO DENY A TREE REMOVAL
APPLICATION AT 1680 EL CASERIO COURT
RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Tree Committee, adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, denying an appeal of the Tree Committee
decision to deny a tree removal request at 1680 El Caserio Court.”
DISCUSSION
On April 27, 2015, the Tree Committee reviewed a Tree Removal Application for six palm trees
at 1680 El Caserio Court. The palms on the west (left of the driveway facing the home from the
street) were approved for removal. Three palms on the east (right of the driveway) were denied.
On June 5, 2015, the City received a second Tree Removal Application from Charles Miller, the
owner of 1680 El Caserio Court. The Application was for the removal of the three remaining
palm trees to the east side with an additional landscape plan sketch attached. On June 22, 2015,
the Tree Committee reviewed the revised application. The application discussed removing the
lawn and installing synthetic grass and cited driveway issues with roots as the reasons for
removal (Attachment 1).
The City Arborist can approve certain tree removals per Municipal Code Section 12.24.090.D.1.
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 hazard;
b. The tree is dead or dying or damaged beyond reclamation;
c. The tree is causing severe root damage to public or private property, and removing the
tree is the only feasible way to eliminate the damage.
In this case, the City Arborist reviewed the condition of the trees upon receipt of the removal
application. In this case, the City Arborist was not able to approve the removal as no major
defect, disease, or damage was observed on the trees. The City Arborist did not find that the trees
7
Packet Pg. 119
presented an imminent danger or were causing severe root damage that feasibly could be
remedied only by removal of the tree (Attachment 2).
Tree Committee Decision
Per the City’s Municipal Code Section 12.24.090, the Tree Committee reviews Tree Removal
Applications referred to them by the City Arborist, 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.
On June 22, 2015, the Tree Committee considered the removal request. All Tree Committee
members present at the meeting inspected the trees prior to the meeting. This is standard protocol
for all tree removal requests so that the members can make an informed decision at the public
hearing. Based on their onsite review and testimony received at the hearing, t he Committee
members felt regular pruning could mitigate the risk of falling debris, sewer issues were not
likely a result of the shallow rooting of the palms, the trees were not currently causing damage
and these healthy specimens were skyline trees and removing them would harm the character of
the neighborhood.
The Tree Committee voted unanimously to deny the request for removal of three palm trees at
1680 El Caserio Court (Attachments 3 & 4), finding that:
a. The trees are not causing undue hardship;
b. The removal would not promote good arboricultural practices,
c. Removal would harm the character of the surrounding neighborhood.
Appeal
On June 26, 2015, the City Clerk’s office received an appeal of the Tree Committee’s decision of
June 22, 2015, from Charles Miller. Tree Committee decisions are appealable to the City Council
by anyone within 10 days from the date of the decision. In the appeal, Mr. Miller stated that the
trees are overgrown and damaging the property (Attachment 5).
According to Municipal Code Section 1.20 the Council can consider any information it deems
necessary to make its decision after the appellant is given the opportunity to explain why the
Tree Committee’s decision should be overturned.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact realized by the City in the denial of the appeal.
7
Packet Pg. 120
ALTERNATIVES
Uphold the appeal. The City Council could choose to uphold the appeal for tree removal,
thereby allowing removal of the 3 palm trees and replacement with 4 trees, as proposed by the
owner’s application.
Attachments:
a - Application & Map 6-15
b - Tree comm letter 6-15
c - 6-22-2015 TC Minutes
d - Tree comm denial 6-15
e - 06-26-2015 TC Appeal - Miller
f - Resolution Deny - 1680 El Caserio Court
g - Resolution Uphold - 1680 El Caserio Court
7
Packet Pg. 121
AT
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
1
-
1
7.a
Packet Pg. 122
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
a
-
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
&
M
a
p
6
-
1
5
(
1
0
8
4
:
1
6
8
0
E
l
C
a
s
e
r
i
o
C
o
u
r
t
P
a
l
m
T
r
e
e
A
p
p
e
a
l
)
AT
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
1
-
2
7.a
Packet Pg. 123
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
a
-
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
&
M
a
p
6
-
1
5
(
1
0
8
4
:
1
6
8
0
E
l
C
a
s
e
r
i
o
C
o
u
r
t
P
a
l
m
T
r
e
e
A
p
p
e
a
l
)
June 9, 2015
Charles Miller
1680 El Caserio Ct.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Your application for tree removal at 1680 El Caserio Ct. has been reviewed by the City of San
Luis Obispo Arborist. Since the existing conditions did not allow the City Arborist to make a
favorable finding regarding removal of the tree(s), the matter has been forwarded to the City of San
Luis Obispo Tree Committee, pursuant to City Ordinance No. 1153, Section 12.24.180.
In cases such as this when the City Arborist cannot authorize a tree removal, the Tree Committee,
which is comprised of seven members, will review your application and inspect the tree(s) in
question. The Tree Committee may authorize removal if it finds one of the following
circumstances: (a) the tree is causing undue hardship to the property owner, (b) removing the tree
promotes good arboricultural practice, (c) removing the tree will not harm the character or
environment of the surrounding neighborhood.
Therefore, members will then take up the issue at the next Tree Committee meeting scheduled for
June 22, 2015 at 5:00 pm , in Conference Room A at the City Corporation Yard, 25 Prado Road.
A copy of the agenda will be sent prior to the meeting and you, or your agent, are required to
attend the meeting in order for the Committee to take action on your request.
At the meeting, the City Arborist will provide a brief overview of the circumstances surrounding
your proposed removal of the trees, after which you will be given an opportunity to explain your
reasons for requesting the removal. The Committee members will then address your concerns and
deliberate the facts to determine whether they should, in fact, grant or deny your request or provide
you with other options.
Any decision rendered by the Tree Committee can be appealed to the City Council if you are not
satisfied with the Tree Committee's decision.
If you have any questions regarding this process, you may contact Ron Combs at (805) 781-7023,
Monday through Friday.
Sincerely,
Ron Combs
City Arborist - Urban Forester
7.b
Packet Pg. 124
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
b
-
T
r
e
e
c
o
m
m
l
e
t
t
e
r
6
-
1
5
(
1
0
8
4
:
1
6
8
0
E
l
C
a
s
e
r
i
o
C
o
u
r
t
P
a
l
m
T
r
e
e
A
p
p
e
a
l
)
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ben Parker, Jane Worthy, Patty Andreen,
Scott Loosley
STAFF PRESENT: Ron Combs
EXCERPT OF MINUTES
4. 1680 El Caserio (3 Mexican fan palms)
Chuck Miller, applicant, discussed the removal request that was a returning item and
discussed the landscaping plan proposed for the property, which would include removal all
of the lawn and installing artificial turf. He discussed the problems he had been having with
the palms regarding driveway damage, sewer issues and frond litter, and that the bulb base
and roots interfered with the turf implementation. He noted that the neighbors supported
removing the trees.
Mr. Combs reported that he could not make the necessary findings for removal.
The Committee discussed the removal request and agreed that the sewer issues were not
likely as result of the shallow rooting of the trees and that these healthy specimens were
skyline trees and removing them would harm the character of the neighborhood. They felt
the turf installation would work around any issues that retaining the trees would create.
Mr. Loosley moved to deny the request, as he could not make the necessary findings for
removal.
Ms. Worthy seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
Minutes
Tree Committee
Corporation Yard Conference Room, 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo
Monday, June 22, 2015 at 5:00 pm
7.c
Packet Pg. 125
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
c
-
6
-
2
2
-
2
0
1
5
T
C
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
1
0
8
4
:
1
6
8
0
E
l
C
a
s
e
r
i
o
C
o
u
r
t
P
a
l
m
T
r
e
e
A
p
p
e
a
l
)
June 23, 2015
Charles Miller
1680 El Caserio Ct.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Your application for removal of a tree at 1680 El Caserio Ct., was reviewed by the City of San
Luis Obispo Tree Committee on June 22, 2015. 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 Thursday, 7:00 – 4:00 PM.
Respectfully,
Ron Combs
City Arborist - Urban Forester
7.d
Packet Pg. 126
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
d
-
T
r
e
e
c
o
m
m
d
e
n
i
a
l
6
-
1
5
(
1
0
8
4
:
1
6
8
0
E
l
C
a
s
e
r
i
o
C
o
u
r
t
P
a
l
m
T
r
e
e
A
p
p
e
a
l
)
ATTACHMENT 5 - 17.e
Packet Pg. 127
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
e
-
0
6
-
2
6
-
2
0
1
5
T
C
A
p
p
e
a
l
-
M
i
l
l
e
r
(
1
0
8
4
:
1
6
8
0
E
l
C
a
s
e
r
i
o
C
o
u
r
t
P
a
l
m
T
r
e
e
A
p
p
e
a
l
)
ATTACHMENT 5 - 27.e
Packet Pg. 128
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
e
-
0
6
-
2
6
-
2
0
1
5
T
C
A
p
p
e
a
l
-
M
i
l
l
e
r
(
1
0
8
4
:
1
6
8
0
E
l
C
a
s
e
r
i
o
C
o
u
r
t
P
a
l
m
T
r
e
e
A
p
p
e
a
l
)
ATTACHMENT 5 - 37.e
Packet Pg. 129
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
e
-
0
6
-
2
6
-
2
0
1
5
T
C
A
p
p
e
a
l
-
M
i
l
l
e
r
(
1
0
8
4
:
1
6
8
0
E
l
C
a
s
e
r
i
o
C
o
u
r
t
P
a
l
m
T
r
e
e
A
p
p
e
a
l
)
ATTACHMENT 5 - 47.e
Packet Pg. 130
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
e
-
0
6
-
2
6
-
2
0
1
5
T
C
A
p
p
e
a
l
-
M
i
l
l
e
r
(
1
0
8
4
:
1
6
8
0
E
l
C
a
s
e
r
i
o
C
o
u
r
t
P
a
l
m
T
r
e
e
A
p
p
e
a
l
)
ATTACHMENT 5 - 57.e
Packet Pg. 131
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
e
-
0
6
-
2
6
-
2
0
1
5
T
C
A
p
p
e
a
l
-
M
i
l
l
e
r
(
1
0
8
4
:
1
6
8
0
E
l
C
a
s
e
r
i
o
C
o
u
r
t
P
a
l
m
T
r
e
e
A
p
p
e
a
l
)
ATTACHMENT 5 - 67.e
Packet Pg. 132
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
e
-
0
6
-
2
6
-
2
0
1
5
T
C
A
p
p
e
a
l
-
M
i
l
l
e
r
(
1
0
8
4
:
1
6
8
0
E
l
C
a
s
e
r
i
o
C
o
u
r
t
P
a
l
m
T
r
e
e
A
p
p
e
a
l
)
ATTACHMENT 5 - 77.e
Packet Pg. 133
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
e
-
0
6
-
2
6
-
2
0
1
5
T
C
A
p
p
e
a
l
-
M
i
l
l
e
r
(
1
0
8
4
:
1
6
8
0
E
l
C
a
s
e
r
i
o
C
o
u
r
t
P
a
l
m
T
r
e
e
A
p
p
e
a
l
)
ATTACHMENT 5 - 87.e
Packet Pg. 134
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
e
-
0
6
-
2
6
-
2
0
1
5
T
C
A
p
p
e
a
l
-
M
i
l
l
e
r
(
1
0
8
4
:
1
6
8
0
E
l
C
a
s
e
r
i
o
C
o
u
r
t
P
a
l
m
T
r
e
e
A
p
p
e
a
l
)
ATTACHMENT 5 - 97.e
Packet Pg. 135
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
e
-
0
6
-
2
6
-
2
0
1
5
T
C
A
p
p
e
a
l
-
M
i
l
l
e
r
(
1
0
8
4
:
1
6
8
0
E
l
C
a
s
e
r
i
o
C
o
u
r
t
P
a
l
m
T
r
e
e
A
p
p
e
a
l
)
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2015 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE TREE
COMMITTEE DECISION TO DENY A TREE REMOVAL REQUEST AT
1680 EL CASERIO COURT
WHEREAS, the Tree Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing
on June 22, 2015, and denied the Property Owner’s request to remove three palm trees located at
1680 El Caserio Court, San Luis Obispo, California (“Property”); and
WHEREAS, on September 1, 2015 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
three palms at the Property.
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 appeal of the San
Luis Obispo Tree Committee’s action, staff recommendations and reports thereon, and public
testimony, makes the following findings:
The three palm trees requested for removal (as depicted in Exhibit A hereto) are not
causing undue hardship to the property owner
a. The removal of the trees will not promote good arboricultural practice because the trees
are healthy and attractive.
b. The removal of the trees will harm the character or environment of the surrounding
neighborhood because they are large and attractive trees within the public street view.
SECTION 2. Action. The appeal of the Tree Committee’s decision to deny the removal
of three palm trees at 1680 El Caserio Court, San Luis Obispo, California is hereby denied, the
action of the Tree Committee is upheld in its entirety, and the property owner may not remove
the three trees that are the subject of this appeal.
7.f
Packet Pg. 136
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
f
-
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
D
e
n
y
-
1
6
8
0
E
l
C
a
s
e
r
i
o
C
o
u
r
t
(
1
0
8
4
:
1
6
8
0
E
l
C
a
s
e
r
i
o
C
o
u
r
t
P
a
l
m
T
r
e
e
A
p
p
e
a
l
)
Resolution No. _____ (2015 Series) Page 2
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2015.
____________________________________
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Anthony Mejia
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
______________________________
Anthony J. Mejia
City Clerk
7.f
Packet Pg. 137
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
f
-
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
D
e
n
y
-
1
6
8
0
E
l
C
a
s
e
r
i
o
C
o
u
r
t
(
1
0
8
4
:
1
6
8
0
E
l
C
a
s
e
r
i
o
C
o
u
r
t
P
a
l
m
T
r
e
e
A
p
p
e
a
l
)
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2015 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE TREE
COMMITTEE DECISION TO DENY A TREE REMOVAL REQUEST AT
1680 EL CASERIO COURT
WHEREAS, the Tree Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing
on June 22, 2015, and denied the Property Owner’s request to remove three palm trees at 1680 El
Caserio Court, San Luis Obispo, California (“Property”); and
WHEREAS, on September 1, 2015 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
three palm trees at the Property.
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 property owner’s
appeal, from the San Luis Obispo Tree Committee’s action, staff recommendations and reports
thereon, and public testimony, makes the following findings:
a. The three palm trees requested for removal (as designated in Exhibit A hereto) are
causing undue hardship to the property owner.
b. The removal of the two Eucalyptus trees is reasonable because the trees will continue to
damage the driveway.
c. The removal of the trees will not harm the character or environment of the surrounding
neighborhood.
SECTION 2. The appeal of the Tree Committee’s decision to deny the property owner’s
request to remove three palm trees at 1680 El Caserio Court, San Luis Obispo, California is
hereby upheld, and therefore removal of all three trees requested for removal is approved subject
to the condition that the appellant plant replacement trees per their landscape plan as directed by
the City Arborist.
7.g
Packet Pg. 138
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
g
-
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
U
p
h
o
l
d
-
1
6
8
0
E
l
C
a
s
e
r
i
o
C
o
u
r
t
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
1
]
(
1
0
8
4
:
1
6
8
0
E
l
C
a
s
e
r
i
o
C
o
u
r
t
P
a
l
m
T
r
e
e
A
p
p
e
a
l
)
Resolution No. _____ (2015 Series) Page 2
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2015.
____________________________________
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Anthony Mejia
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
______________________________
Anthony J. Mejia
City Clerk
7.g
Packet Pg. 139
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
g
-
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
U
p
h
o
l
d
-
1
6
8
0
E
l
C
a
s
e
r
i
o
C
o
u
r
t
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
1
]
(
1
0
8
4
:
1
6
8
0
E
l
C
a
s
e
r
i
o
C
o
u
r
t
P
a
l
m
T
r
e
e
A
p
p
e
a
l
)
Clay Of
San Luis OBISPO
Filing Fee
Tree Appeal: $109.00
All Other Appeals: $273.00
Paid
APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Date Received
JUN 2 6 2015
SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION
Name Mailing Address and Zip Code 71 zt 0 f
Phone Fax
Representative's ame 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:
of Officer, Committee or Commission decision being appealed)
2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: C — p /
3. The application or project was entitled: L 1 v od L
4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member:
on
(Staff Member's Name and Department) (Date)
5. Has this matter been the subject of a previous appeal? If so, when was it heard and by whom:
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
Reason for Appeal continued
SECTION 4. APPELLANT'S RESPONSIBILITY
The San Luis Obispo City Council values public participation in local government and
encourages all forms of citizen involvement. However, due to real costs associated with City
Council consideration of an appeal, including public notification, all appeals pertaining to a
planning application or project are subject to a fflinstfee of $273', which must accompany the
appeal form.
Your right to exercise an appeal comes with certain responsibilities. If you file an
appeal, please understand that it must be heard within 45 days from filing this form. You will be
notified in writing of the exact date your appeal will be heard before the Council. You or your
representative will be expected to attend the public hearing, and to be prepared to make your
case. Your testimony is limited to 10 minutes.
A continuance may be granted under certain and unusual circumstances. If you feel you
need to request a continuance, you must submit your request in writing to the City Clerk. Please be
advised that if your request for continuance is received after the appeal is noticed to the public, the
Council may not be able to grant the request for continuance. Submitting a request for continuance
does not guarantee that it will be granted; that action is at the discretion of the City Council.
I hereby agree to appear and /or send a representative to appear on my behalf when
said appeal is scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council.
'C
(Signature 6f Appellant) (Date)
Exceptions to the fee: 1) Appeals of Tree Committee decisions are $109. 2) The above -named appellant has
already paid the City $273 to appeal this same matter to a City official or Council advisory body.
This item is hereby calendared for
cc:
07/13
•~ City Attorney
'City Manager
�pepartment Head
Advisory Body Chairperson
,'Advisory Body Liaison
City Clerk (original)
Page 2 of 3
Chapter 1.20
APPEALS PROCEDURE
Sections:
1.20.010
Title.
1.20.020
Right to appeal.
1.20.030
Time within which to file an appeal.
1.20.040
Hearing - Notice.
1.20.050
Hearing - Appellant to show cause - Council's determination final.
1.20.010 Title.
This chapter shall be known as the "Appeals Procedure" for the city. (Prior code § 1400)
1.20.020 Right to appeal.
A. Except where an appeals procedure is otherwise specifically set forth in this code, any person
objecting to the approval, denial, suspension or revocation of a license, permit or entitlement of any
nature, the determination or issuance of which is under any of the provisions of this code, or to any
administrative decision made by any city official, if the approval, denial, suspension or revocation of such
license, permit or entitlement or the determination of such administrative decision involves the exercise of
administrative discretion or personal judgment exercised under any of the provisions of this code, may
appeal in writing to the council by filing with the city clerk a written notice of such appeal, stating the
specific grounds for the appeal.
B. No appeal may be taken to any such administrative decision made by a city official under the
provisions of this chapter unless such decision to appeal has been first taken up with the department
head concerned, and where an appeals board is empowered to consider interpretation and enforcement
questions, unless such decision to appeal has been considered by such appeals board.
C. No right of appeal to the council from any administrative decision made by a city official under any of
the provisions of this code shall exist when such decision is ministerial and thus does not involve the
exercise of administrative discretion or personal judgment exercised under any of the provisions of this
code, whether the administrative decision involves the approval, denial, suspension or revocation of a
license, permit, entitlement or any other administrative decision. (Ord. 1044 § 1, 1985: prior code § 1401)
1.20.030 Time within which to file an appeal.
The appellant shall file a notice of appeal with the city clerk within ten calendar days after the date upon
which the administrative decision appealed from is made. In the event the last day of the filing period falls
on a nonbusiness day, the appeal period shall be extended to include the next business day, and this rule
shall apply whenever an appeal procedure is specifically set forth elsewhere in this code. (Prior code §
1402)
1.20.040 Hearing - Notice.
Upon receipt of the filing of the notice of appeal in its proper form, the city clerk shall place the matter on
the council agenda. Except in cases of emergency, when the council may determine the matter
immediately, or where state law prescribes a different appeal process, the clerk shall set the matter for
hearing at 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. The city clerk shall cause
written notice of such hearing to be given to the applicant not less than five business days prior to such
hearing, unless such notice is waived in writing by the applicant. (Ord. 1252 § 1, 1994: prior code § 1403)
1.20.050 Hearing - Appellant to show cause - Council's determination final.
At such hearing the appellant shall show cause on the grounds specified in the notice of appeal why the
action appealed from should not be approved. The council may continue the hearing from time to time,
and its findings on the appeal shall be final and conclusive in the matter. (Prior code § 1404)
Page 3 of 3
07/13
Chuck & Denise Miller
1680 El Caserio Court
San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401
To whom it may concern;
As seen in the attached map & photos these three Palms are directly over my sewer line, I do
not want to wait until damage is done then have to remove them and replace water & sewer
lines. One of the palms is approx 3 feet from the corner of my house. Two of the three Palms are
well within ten feet of my house; all three are within 2 feet of the driveway. 30 years ago these
palms were much smaller for this small area and probably ok, unlike to today they are massively
over grown this area.
It is our intent to remove the three Palms and replace with 3 new drought tolerant 15 gallon
trees from the city's approved list, which will enhance the neighbor hood and my home. The
three palms that are there now have grown to the point that it looks like three telephone poles in
front of my house. I have discussed this with majority of my neighbors all are 100% in favor of
the removal and replacement of more aesthetic looking trees and much less messy trees.
I have taken this before the tree committee and they do not seem to care about the mess,
potential damage to driveway, sewer and or water lines or parts falling on to the house and cars
in the driveway. This does not say anything of the expense to try in take care of them annually. I
am pursuing with my home owners insurance to see if I am forced to keep the palms, who will
be liable for any potential damage as a result of keeping them? At this time I am willing to pay
for all removal and replacement today's cost to avoid any potential issues.
We are planning on removing the lawn in this area and two other areas at the same time to
reduce water usage as requested by the city. These areas highlighted are being scheduled for
removal and new landscaping drought tolerant installed back in all of the areas.
These palms have caused the ground to swell approx six to eight inches above my driveway; this
area will be reduced approx 6" to 8" below the drive for the new landscaping. This will be approx
10 to 14 inches difference than it is now some areas more depending on the swelling. These
Palms are so tall I cannot trim or service them myself and it is expensive to have them serviced
every year being the heights they are.
Comments below were taken directly of the internet when I was doing the research for this
request.
1. Palm tree roots can cause an extensive damage when the tree has been planted near utility
lines of home foundations. Chopping off the top of them may not be enough to eliminate the
problem. In fact, the palm can grow back or the roots can become a hospitable environment for
pests. It is essential for the health of your yard to kill the palm tree's roots and have them
removed from the yard.
2. Trees with thick root structures often lift concrete walkways and may damage underground
pipes as they search for soil moisture. With many palm trees stretching more than 20 feet tall,
you may be concerned about their roots destroying your pipes. Palms, however, have distinctly
narrow roots that stretch mainly in a horizontal direction rather than exclusively downward into
the deep earth.
3. If you plant a small to medium -size palm tree, such as a needle palm, it is possible to locate it
above underground pipes. To be cautious, large palm's, like cabbage palms & others, should be
located between 11 and 12 feet away from known pipe work. This wide spacing provides a large
enough growing area for sturdy root establishment without harming your pipes. Although most
roots are horizontal for moisture and nutrient uptake, palms also have some vertical roots for
stability in high winds.
I would appreciate your approval to have the Tree Service Contractor Bunyan to schedule ASAP
to remove the Palms so we can get the palms & lawn removed work done sooner than later. I am
available to attend any type of city committee meeting if required.
Thank you in advance for your consideration and hopefully your approval,
Chuck Miller
805 - 550 -2312
�o
Q R
`\
St,rclw-vg,
UC
BUILDING PRODUCTS, LLC
�s
V
%vk �
f � '
c.
�7
A
�t R�
4
f
G
R`
w
St-
775 E BLITHEDALE AVI iUITE 345 MILL VALLEY, CA 94941 P (877) 405 -4452
Varestone Mark Newman – mnewmangstrate4pcbp corn
Barney Lehane – blehane.@strategicbpcorn
UI — -- �� Chuck Milder – cmiller®strategicbp cam
Jesse Beane – jbeane@strategicbp com
Ito
In
}
1 S
R1 �`
•
`J.
�4
G
4*
Z
UIN
w
tr �
F (877) 405 -4454 WWW.STRATEGICBP.COM
1FIrestone
METAL PR DUCTS
d
:A
j
tiny
�7
A
�t R�
4
f
G
R`
w
St-
775 E BLITHEDALE AVI iUITE 345 MILL VALLEY, CA 94941 P (877) 405 -4452
Varestone Mark Newman – mnewmangstrate4pcbp corn
Barney Lehane – blehane.@strategicbpcorn
UI — -- �� Chuck Milder – cmiller®strategicbp cam
Jesse Beane – jbeane@strategicbp com
Ito
In
}
1 S
R1 �`
•
`J.
�4
G
4*
Z
UIN
w
tr �
F (877) 405 -4454 WWW.STRATEGICBP.COM
1FIrestone
METAL PR DUCTS
4f /
AA ,
Am
OZ
1A �
City Administration
r:
990 Pilllll Stith[, San t_iits Obispo CA 9;3401 -324x)
Ci05 781 7114
July 21, 2015
Charles Miller
1680 El Caserio Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING — APPEAL OF TREE COMMITTEE'S DECISION TO
DENY PALM TREE REMOVAL AT 1580 EL CASERI0 COURT
Dear Mr. Charles Miller:
This letter shall serve to advise you that your appeal for the above matter was received in the City Clcrk's
Office on June 26, 2015. This item shall be placed on the agenda for the City Council meeting of Tuesday,
September 1, 2015 for Public Hearing at 6:00 p.m. The agenda and Council Agenda Report will be available
on the City's website at www,slo6ty.are4j,,enda and in the Office of the City Clerk by Wednesday,
September 26, 2015.
As the appellant, you are invited to attend this meeting. City Council meetings are held in the City Council
Chamber, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, 93401. During; the Public Nearing,
appellant(s) are permitted to speak for up to ten minutes to provide testimony to the City Council.
Please don't hesitate to contact the City Clerk's Office at (805) 781 -7100 if you have any questions or
concerns.
Sin • rely,
��� axe
�4ntho J. M Ha
City Cler
cc: City ana8er's Office
City Attorney's Office
Public Works Department
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO) SS.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO j
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE OF PUBLIC
HEARING —1680 EL CASERIO COURT
I, ANTHONY J. MEDIA, declare as follows:
That I am the City Clerk of the City of San Luis Obispo; that copies of the Notice of Public
Hearing before the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, in conjunction with the above -
referenced project, were mailed to each and every person set forth on the attached list on the
20th day of August, 2015. A copy of said Notice is attached.
Said mailing was completed by causing a copy of said Notice, with postage prepaid, and
depositing same in the U.S. Mail at San Luis Obispo, California.
I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on the 20th day of August, 2015 at San Luis Obispo, California.
ANTS NY J. EJIA
CITY CL K
Meeting Date- 09/01/2015
Re- Appeal of 1680 El Caserio Court
LINE2
LINE4
OCCUPANT
1643 CARLA
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
93401 -6053
OCCUPANT
1658 COLNA
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
93401 -6057
OCCUPANT
1691 COLINA
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
93401 -6056
OCCUPANT
1620 EL CASERIO
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
93401 -6001
ASEF - VAZIRI ARMAN ETUX:
3240 FLORA ST
SLO CA 93401 -6052
BIERING RAYMOND A & RUTH M
1645 EL CASERIO CT
SLO CA 93401 -6001
COOK WILLIAM H THE ETAL
1632 CARLA CT
SLO CA 93401 -6053
DATTA SAMIR K THE ETAL
1274 FERNWOOD DR
SLO CA 93401 -5909
FIORITO BASIL A THE ETAL
1635 EL CASERIO CT
SLO CA 93401 -6001
GARD JOHN. E THE ETAL
1626 CARLA CT
SLO CA 93401 -6053
GOOSSEN THOMAS 1 & TERESA T
1625 CARLA CT
SLO CA 93401 -6053
GREENELSH SHAWN S & DEANNIE J
1630 EL CASERIO CT
SLO CA 93401 -6001
IMREM DIANE TIRE ETAL
1648 COLINA CT
SLO CA 93401 -6057
IOFIS LEV ETUX
1663 COLINA CT
SLO CA 93401 -6056
JENKINS JON M & MARTHA N
1650 EL CASERIO CT
SLO CA 93401 -6001
MALLAREDDY HARAPANAHALLI THE ETAL
1640 EL CASERIO CT
SLO CA 93401 -6001
MAY RICHARD A & LYNN E
1635 KNOLL DR
SLO CA 93401 -6013
MEAD DONALD A THE ETAL
1672 COLINA CT
SLO CA 93401 -6057
MILLER CHARLES A THE ETAL
1680 EL CASERIO CT
SLO CA 93401 -6001
MORABITO RODNEY L THE ETAL
1660 EL CASERIO CT
SLO: CA 93401 -6001
MORRIS F BYRON THE ETAL
1637 CARLA CT
SLO CA 93401 -6053
PENDERGAST WILLIAM R THE ETAL
25765 KNOLLS DR
CARMEL CA 93923 -
PICCARDO TERI THE ETAL
1631 CARLA CT
SLO CA 93401 -6053
PULTS STEVEN D THE ETAL
1655 EL CASERIO CT
SLO CA 93401 -6001
RICE LAURETTA A THE ETAL
1638 CARLA CT
SLO CA 93401 -6053
RUDNICK DANIEL R
1644 CARLA CT
SLO CA 93401 -6053
SILVA ROBERT A THE ETAL
1666 COLINA CT
SLO CA 93401 -6057
SMEE KENNETH E THE ETAL
1681 COLINA CT
SLO CA 93401 -6056
THORNE RICHARD R ETUX
3230 FLORA ST
SLO CA 93401 -6052
TIMMONS JOSEPH C THE ETAL
650 COLUMBIA #114
SAN DIEGO CA 92101 -
UYTTEWAALJOHAN & KIMBERLY
1675 EL CASERIO CT
SLO CA 93401 -6001
VAUDREY KENNON D THE ETAL
1685 EL CASERIO CT
SLO CA 93401 -6001
WILIMFK JAMES P II ETUX
1625 EL CASERIO
SLO CA 93401 -6001
City of san lull OBlspo
MY council puBllc heaulnc
The San Luis Obispo City Council invites all interested persons to attend a public hearing,
relative to the following:
What: An appeal of the Tree Committee's decision to deny a tree removal application.
The committee approved the removal of three palms to the west (left of the
driveway facing the home from the street) and denied removal of three palms to
the east (right of the driveway). Address of Applicaxion: 168U E! Caserta Court
Where: City Hall Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
When: September 1, 2015 at 6:00 P.M.
For questions, contact:
Ron Combs, City Arborist • (805) 781 -7023 • rcombs@Elodty.org
Written comments are encouraged. if you challenge the above proposed action in court, you may be limited to raising those
issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the
City Council at, or prior to the public hearing. The Agenda and Reports for this meeting are available in the Ciry Clerk's off'ce
and online at wcvsv.slotitv_.orqlagendas.
THE
Newspaper of the Central Coast
EIVED
AUG 2 6 2015
C r% rrry JI-
3825 South Higuera • Post Office Box 112 • San Luis Obispo, Californi
Anthony J. Melia
City Clerk
City of San Luis Obispo
Augu5t21,2015 1914158
In The Superior Court of The State of California
01WRLM15002M
In and for the County of San Luis Obispo
LUIS OBISPO CITY
SAN NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEAR NGSL
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
The San tole Obispo City Gcunclt lrnittes
all Interested persons to attend publtc hear-
ings on Tuesday. September 1, x2015, at
6.00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chem -
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
California, relative to the following:
1. 1680 EI MERIO COURT - _APPEAL
PF THE_TfiEE COM I nIL 4 _W1119 N
745. aEMY It Tii FiQMQVAkAPpLfCA.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
XIQN
ss.
A public hearing to consider an appeal of
County of San Luis Obispo
the Tree Committee's decision to deny a
tree application at 1680 El Caserio Court.
The Committee approved the removal of
three palms to the west (left of the drive -
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the
way facing the home from the street) and
County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen and not
denied removal of three palms to the east
(right of the driveway). The Tree Commit-
interested in the above entitled matter; am now and at
>
tee considered this matter on April 27,
2015 and June 22, 2015.
all times embraced In the publication herein mentioned
was, the principal clerk of the printers and publishers of
This application is on file at the City of Luis
Obispo City Clerk's Office, 990 Palm
THE TRIBUNE a newspaper of general Circulation
>
Street. For more information, you are It, at
ed to contact Ron Combs, City Arborist, at
printed and published daily at the City of San Luis
( 805 ) 781 -7023 or by emailrcombsGslo
Obispo in the above named county and state; that notice
clly.arg.
at which the annexed clippings is a true copy, was
OF TH T PRINCETON PLACE - APPEAL
E PLANNING COMMISSION'S DE-
published in the above -named newspaper and not in any
cisiON TO DENY THE USE OF PARK -
supplement thereof — on the following dates to wit;
ING IN THE FRONT YARD
AUGUST 21, 2015 that said newspaper was duly and
A public hearing to consider an ci appeal a1
the Planning Commission's decision to de-
regularly ascertained and established a newspaper of
ny use of vehicle parking In the front yard
general circulation by Decree entered in the Superior
at 598 Princeton Place. The Plan ring Com-
mission considered this matter on May 13,
Court of San Luis Obispo County, State of California, on
2015.
June 9, 1952, Case #19139 under the Government Code
This application is on file at the City of Luis
of the State of California.
Obispo Comrmunity Development Depart-
ment, 819 Paim Street. For more informa-
tion, you are Invited to contact Annel
Schneider, Chief Bullding 0111cla1, at (805)
I certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the
781a572orbysmall schrie1derQs10C1 .
foregoing is true and correct.
axg.
The City Council may also discuss other
hearings business items before or Otter
the items listed above. If you challenge the
listed
proposed project in court, you may be ilmll-
ture Princi al Clerk)
( S I g na p k )
ed to raising only those Issues you or
DATED: AUGUST 21, 2015
someone else raised at the public hearing
described In this notice, or In written corre.
AD COST: $213.40
spondence delivered to the City Council at,
or prior to, the public hearing.
Reports for this meeting will be available
for review in the City Clerk's Office and on-
line al www.slocVty,aTg on Wednesday, Au-
gust 26, 2015, Please call the City Clerk's
Office at (805) 781 -7100 for more Informa-
tion. The City Council meeling will be lele-
vlsed [Iva on Charter Cable Chennel 20
and live streaming on www.slocity.ora.
Anthony J. Melia
City Clerk
City of San Luis Obispo
Augu5t21,2015 1914158
Appeal of Tree Committee Decision
1680 El Caserio Court
City Council Meeting
September 1, 2015
Background
Applicant submitted a Tree Removal Application for 6
Palms on March 16, 2015
First of two Removal Applications
City Arborist could not make finding for removal
Trees were not dead or dying
Not in imminent danger of failure
Not causing undue hardship
Tree Committee Hearing
April 27, 2015
Tree Committee hears removal application
Applicant’s concerns
Risk from falling debris
Sewer concerns
Potential driveway damage
Landscape revisions
Tree Committee Hearing Decision
April 27, 2015
Approved request for removal of 3 Palm trees on the
west side:
(3) 15 gallon size replacements or (1) 24” box
Denied request for removal of 3 Palm trees on the
east side :
The trees were not causing undue hardship
Removal would not promote good arboricultural practice
Removal would harm the character of the environment of
the surrounding neighborhood
Resubmittal
Applicant resubmits revised application
June 5, 2015
Improved Landscape plan added
Applicant adds additional trees to plan to
be replanted and specific species are
identified
Tree Committee Hearing
June 22, 2015
(Application resubmitted and reviewed)
Tree Committee hears resubmitted removal
application
Applicant information
Further description of concerns with driveway sewer and
debris
Reviews revised Landscape plan
7
Tree Committee Decision
June 22, 2015
Tree Committee denies remaining three
palms
Recommends maintenance pruning
Notes damage to driveway is minor
Basis of Tree Committee Decision
The trees were not causing undue hardship
Removal would not promote good
arboricultural practice
Removal of the remaining 3 trees would harm
the character of the environment of the
surrounding neighborhood
Appeal by Property Owner
Appeal of Tree Committee decision received June 26,
2015
Property owner concerns cited:
Damage to driveway, sewer, utilities
Trees are messy
Trees have a telephone pole appearance
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution denying the
appeal of the Tree
Committee’s decision to deny
the removal of three Palm
trees at 1680 El Caserio Court