Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-28-2011 TC Packetuirdllll'IIIPJIII�I�1°j�j!����� city Of sAn luis oBispo TREE COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA MONDAY, February 28, 2011, at 5:00 pm Corporation Yard Conference Room 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, people may address the Committee about items not on the agenda. Persons wishing to speak should come forward and state their name and address. Comments limited to five minutes per person. Items raised at this time are generally referred to staff, and if action by the Committee is necessary, may be scheduled for a future meeting. MINUTES: Approval of Minutes of January 24, 2011. TREE REMOVAL APPLICATIONS 1. 1390 Oceanaire 2. 1100 Leff St. 3. 3122 Flora St. 4. 1085 Bluebell 5. 1015 Bluebell 6. 4146 Morning Glory 7. 4156 Morning Glory 8. 967-969 Bluebell 9. 983-985 Bluebell 10. 919 Bluebell 11. 933-935 Bluebell 12. Appeal on 3583 S. Higuera NEW BUSINESS Advisory Body Recognition Event- Thursday March 3 at 5:30 pm City hall Council Chamber OLD BUSINESS LIAISON REPORT 1. Sidewalk complaint- update 2. Sewer line replaced 3. No show for tree removal application -Hear the application and make a decision 4. PG&E update ARBORIST REPORT ADJOURN to next meeting scheduled for Monday, March 28, 2011, at 5:00 p.m. in the Corporation &j' C�onoftnce JZ$o�n, 25 Pradto Road.im UThe ity o San Lws bispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410. TREE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES MONDAY, January 24, 2011 Corporation Yard Conference Room 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo MEMBERS PRESENT: David Hensinger, Ben Parker, David Savory, Suzan Ehdaie and Matt Ritter STAFF PRESENT: Keith Pellemeier and Ron Combs PUBLIC COMMENT Peg Pinard, 714 Buchon, made a brief presentation regarding historic neighborhoods and structural preservation. She discussed the PG&E pruning of two palms on her property and noted that it destroyed owl habitats and that the trees had an uneven distribution of weight. She requested the Tree Committee assist in helping to protect trees from PF&E severe pruning practices and to urge Council to pursue underground power line programs. The Committee agreed to put the discussion item on a future agenda. Greg Saenz, PG&E rep, requested that the Committee include PG&E participation in the upcoming Arbor Day program. MINUTES: Approval of Minutes of November 22, 2010 Mr. Parker moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Savory seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. TREE REMOVAL APPLICATIONS 1. 1260 LAUREL LANE (2 podocarpus) Amy Voorhies, Parks & Rec Dept. representative, discussed the garden area and the new generator enclosure, as well as previous tree removals. She requested the remaining trees be removed, as they were providing too much shade for the vegetable garden and creating too much debris for the area. She asked to replace them with fruit trees. Mr. Combs noted that although the tree was small in diameter, he could not make his findings for removal because it was a request being made by the City. He stated the trees were healthy, would get bigger and create even more shade issues. Mr. Savory agreed the Community Garden needed to have minimal shading and favored removal of the trees, with replacement. The other members agreed. 2 Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice and that removing them would not harm the character of the neighborhood and agreed with replacement planting of two fruit trees, to be planted within 45 days of issuance of permit. Mr. Savory seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 2. 1110 ORCUTT (2 eucalyptus) This was the third time there was no applicant or representative to speak to this item. 3. 1167 & 1169 ISLAY (2 eucalyptus) Karen Mason, owner, discussed the roots raising the sidewalk and her concerns about the roots damaging the foundation. She.reported roots caused expensive continual sewer issues and that she had already participated in the sewer lateral replacement program. She discussed limb breakage and that the trees were interfering with power lines and blocking the street light. She was concerned with liability and sidewalk trip hazard issues with disabled neighbors. She wanted to replace with marina madrones. Mr. Combs reported that the large eucalyptus were creating some sidewalk lifting and were affecting the bricks. He noted that the new sewer lines should not allow root intrusion and suggested maybe some of the pipes were not sealed correctly. Mr. Parker agreed the trees were causing displacement and would only get bigger. He felt the trees might be the wrong species for the location. Ms. Ehdaie agreed the one larger tree was creating a trip hazard and was too close to the power lines. She did not think the smaller tree was posing a problem at this time. Mr. Savory agreed with Ms. Ehdaie. Mr. Ritter suggested a Chinese fringe tree as a replacement at 1169. Ms. Ehdaie moved to 1) approve the removal request for the tree at 1160 Islay, based on promoting good arboricultural practice and undue hardship on the property owner, and required one 15-gallon tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of issuance of permit; and 2) move to deny the removal request at 1167 Islay, as she could not make the necessary findings for removal. Mr. Ritter seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 4. 1145 CALLE JOAQUIN (Pyrus kawakamii) Mr. Combs reported that the City was making the following seven requests, as the trees had vast roots that were causing continual problems with sidewalks, curbs, and/or gutters. He stated all replacement trees would be coordinated with property owners, planted by the City, and added to the watering programs. The Committee discussed the tree at 1145 Calle Joaquin. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required one 15-gallon tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of issuance of permit. Ms. Ehdaie seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 5. 1986 OCEANAIRE (Liquid ambar) Mr. Combs reported some buttress decay and that crews had already performed temporary repairs and did some root pruning. Jim Gregory, property owner, stated the tree was healthy at the last street repair and that the crews had used root killer and he believed that substance caused the decay problem. He felt the whole sidewalk area needed to be repaired and he strongly favored retaining the tree. Mr. Combs agreed that the tree would be stable enough and rescinded the removal request on behalf of the City. 6. 1940 VINCENTE (Liquid ambar) Mr. Combs reported that too much root pruning was needed and that the tree would not remain stable. Mr. Ritter noted that it appeared that recent work was performed on the curb/gutter/sidewalk already. The Committee requested staff re -visit the address to determine if removal were still required. 7. 1958 VICENTE (Liquid ambar) Mr. Combs reported that too much root pruning was needed and that the tree would not remain stable. He stated the property owner favored removal. Mr. Savory noted there was a gash and evidence of rot at the base of the tree. C! Mr. Savory moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required one 15-gallon tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of issuance of permit. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 8. 1735 PICO COURT (Liquid ambar) Mr. Combs reported that too much root pruning was needed and that the tree would not remain stable. He stated the property owner favored removal. Mr. Parker noted there were weak attachments. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required one 15-gallon tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of issuance of permit. Mr. Savory seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 9. 1448 GARCIA (Liquid ambar) Mr. Combs reported that too much root pruning was needed and that the tree would not remain stable. He stated the property owner favored removal. Mr. Savory and Mr. Ritter felt the displacement was minor and the tree was an asset to the neighborhood. Mr. Ritter moved to deny the removal request, as he could not make the findings necessary for removal. Ms. Ehdaie seconded the motion. The motion passed by 5-0 vote to keep the tree. 10. 1449 GARCIA (Liquid ambar) Cheryl Linhart, property owner, felt the tree was an important asset to the neighborhood and favored retaining it if at all possible with the sidewalk repairs needed. She stated she would grant an easement and work with the City to work around the tree. Mr. Combs was concerned that root pruning would cause instability, but agreed to re-examine the request for removal. He rescinded the removal request at this time. 11. 1625 CARLA (2 pines) 12. 1560 TANGLEWOOD (2 pines) 5 Mr. Pellemeier reported that PG&E was the applicant on both requests and that there was some legal question about the parameters of PG&E's authority over tree removals as a superior agency and recommended the Committee table the items until further determinations of authority could be made. Xiomara and Martin Elias, owners at 1560 Tanglewood, stated they favored the removal at their property. The Committee agreed to table both items to a date uncertain. NEW BUSINESS 1. Update on Advisory Body Luncheon Mr. Parker and Ms. Ehdaie attended the luncheon. Mr. Parker noted that Elena Cano requested the Tree Committee member emails be forwarded to her and that Katie Lichtig stated should be would making the rounds at various Advisory Board meetings. 2. Two trees recommended for upper Monterey St.: Chinese Fringe and Gold Medallion Mr. Pellemeier reported that the project would begin next week and that 27 new tree wells would be installed with 24" box specimens. OLD BUSINESS There were no items to discuss. LIAISON REPORT Mr. Pellemeier discussed the Cypress Island project, as well as recent history of clear -cutting. He stated he sent an illegal removal letter to the property owner and to the construction company who performed the removals. He discussed an alternate proposal of requiring 12 replacement trees to be maintained for five years by the owner in lieu of their $20K fine. He recommended either requiring the same 12 tree -planting requirement against the construction company if they did not want to pay the $20K fine. The Committee favored the replacement planting options and discussed various planting areas for the suggested replacement trees; they favored cypress framing the street, with spacing to be determined by staff. Mr. Ritter suggested adding in some acacia for spot colors. Mr. Pellemeier discussed the press release for the events on April 7 and April 9, 2011 and agreed to email the releases to members. I ARBORIST REPORT Mr. Combs discussed the eucalyptus at Mission Plaza and the diseased trees in the Chorro St. planters. He stated they would need to be removed. Mr. Ritter suggested finding a space by the new silk floss to plant one young eucalyptus but not "bury it" or overwater it. Mr. Combs also noted a removal at 1022 Islay of a diseased liquid ambar. He stated the City would replace with two trees and the property owner will water the trees. MEMBER COMMENTS Mr. Hensinger discussed ideas for specimen trees planted in larger open spaces. Mr. Ritter agreed that when a new round of revisions were discussed for the Master Street Tree list, the "specimen tree" category could be included. The Committee discussed possibilities for planting on the vacant lot at the gateway of Highway One and Highland. The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. to next regular meeting, scheduled for 5 p.m. on Monday, February 28, 2011. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske, Recording Secretary 25 Prado Road . San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 TREE REMOVAL APPLICATION go �, **If your tree removal is related to property development or a remodel, submit your request through the Planning Department at 919 Palm Street as part of your Planning Application.** IMPORTANT: A tree removal application will only ,PLEASE NOTE: If your tree is approved for be considered if accompanied by a *sketch/map* -removal and posted, please call the office at the showing the street, structure(s) location and end of your posting period to arrange to pick up location of all trees proposed for removal. Please ' your permit. The permit fee is $81 payable when you draw on the back of this form or fax on a separates pick up your permit (cash or check payable to City r. sheet of paper, along with your application. -.Qf San Luis Obispo). Tree removal applications must be received b j the second Monday of the month to be considered for the meeting on the fourth Monday of the month. Owner: lAA Telephone: 5-17,23 Owner's Mailing Address: �S CI () C) Q eWt`tA-tP_ Zip Code: Applicant (if other than owner):, ..�� t�AU� qj,�� Telephone:�e q'y�.(� Applicant's ma4liYig,address ` Zip Code: Location of tree(s): AfL� Nearest cross street: CA—r—ieVS411 Dog in yard? Yes 0 No Tree species (Common names): F"IQf Reasons for requests movnl: I W i Replacement tree la ing proposed (REQUIRED))i QA" aAW * 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 removal permits are good for 6 months, you may wish to hold off picking up your permit until you are sure you will be able to install the replacement tree(s) within the 45 day period. MAIL OR FAX completed form to: City Arborist, 25 Prado Rd., San Luis Obispo, CA 93401, Phone: 781-7220 Fax: 542-9868 Owner: Date: Applicant: Date: Iolv The City of San Luis O ispo is committed to include the disabled in all of it services, programs and activities. the Deaf (805) 781-7410. J9--/1 Telecommunications Device for Rev. 7-09 L4% a I ®CC�� co vv\1 January 31, 2011 Mr. Ron Combs, Urban Forester/City Arborist City of San Luis Obispo 25 Prado Road San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (0 0 Subject: Tree Removal due to Damage to House at 1390 Oceanaire Drive; San Luis Obispo Dear Mr. Combs: Our application for a permit to remove this tree should be processed without need to meet with the Tree Committee as stated in your January 20, 2011 letter. The tree was planted in our backyard by my parents about 35 years ago (my family has had this property since 1968). • As the tree has grown, its roots have extended well under our concrete pad floor causing major cracks in the floor that could be a hazard even to someone walking on the carpet. The tree is 4 feet from the house exterior wall (less to the edge of eave and the shallow roots are visible from the tree to the house foundation edge. • A few years back another tree located near our property line fell due to disease and rodent infestation at the base of the tree. Fortunately, the tree fell away from our house. We do not want to risk this tree falling on our house. • The branches have rubbed against the roof and caused damage to our roof. • The tree deposits a large amount of debris on the roof. • The overhang of branches provides a route for rodents to get onto our roof (we live next to Laguna Lake and have occasional problems with rodents). Attached are photographs of the tree. Partly as a result of the damage to our house, we have a remodel planned for the near future. A delay to removal of this tree is not warranted and would delay the remodel efforts. Approval of this tree removal is necessary. We appreciate your response to this request. Very truly yours, Timothy S. leath 805-543-1755 home/805-543-1413 office � �. � �' .<. q8 0 � I r SCANNED 25 Prado Road . San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 1 i l TREE REMOVAL APPLICATION �I�11i **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 be considered if accompanied by a *sketch/map* showing the street, structure(s) location and location of all trees proposed for removal. Please draw on the back of this form or fax on a separate sheet of paper, along with your application. PLEASE NOTE: If your tree is approved for removal and posted, please call the office at the end of your posting period to arrange to pick up your permit. The permit fee is $91 payable when you 1. pick up your permit (cash or dboick payable to City of San Luis Obispo). Tree removal applications must be received by the second for the meeting on the fourth Monday of the month]_., . Owner: Lk2a Owner's Mailing Address: ,_ A Telephone: Zip Code: Applicant if o� hneer han owner): ,y� � � Telephone Applicant's mailing ddress. 02 l `� -PN7W I&SW S / D Zip Codwee.''p s Location of tree(s)4dnl ' v i-------------- ``60 NeaAe-t t` sire t: � J Dog in ynr�d? YesEl No Tree species (Com Reasons for requesting removal: " * Apo�i ti P.e, consi, r`ed only if entir� filled out and signed by owner. If consideration of this application goes to Tree Carpt%lk oyou or your agent are required to attend the meeting and will be notified. fi..lane �l,°�s e is required to ptr ,prm the tree removal work, an encroachment permit must be obtained from r the (city Pu6f c'*U De °a n `q�t 919 Palm Street. * Ahy-required "r*acement trees must be installed within "45 days of issuance of permit". Since tree removal per4i4W, 9ood4or 6, r6Jnths, you may wish to hold off picking up your permit until you are sure you will be able to install the replacement tree(s) within the 45 day period. MAIL OR FAX completed form to: City Arborist, 25 Prado Rd., San Luis Obispo, CA 93401, Phone: 781-7220 Fax: 542-9868 Owner: //�%/� �1C ,fS Date: Applicant: Date: The City of San Luis Obispo is committe o include the disabled in all of it services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410. Rev. 7- 9 Soo 25 Prado Road . San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ��r�',� , ,\ 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 be considered if accompanied by a *sketch/maa* showing the street, structure(s)location and location of all trees proposed for removal. Please draw on the back of this form or fax on a separate sheet of paper, along with your application. PLEASE NOTE: If your tree is approved for removal and posted, please call the office at the end of your posting period to arrange to pick up your permit. The permit fee is $81 payable when you pick up your permit (cash or check payable to City of San Luis Obispo). Tree removal applications must be received by the second Monday of the month to be considered for the meeting on the fourth Monday of the month. Owner: Owner's Mailing Address: *31X--4r(e-re, St, Applicant (if other than owner): -------- Applicant's mailing address: 3 1 >.)- -Fl,, Location of tree(s): _ j- ► -DvA Telephone: 71(-, _ '/ 7 V 5 Zip Code: 93 Y(o I Telephone: Zip Code: d 3 qC I Nearest cross street: �� ri v� i �' , f Dog in yard? Yes No a Tree species (Common names): 6v�' Reasons for requesting removal: 0 C..- 1s2.rr to C e�A w►�. re.9� is )G L. )OIA L 1JS' f Ye e:f- v J Replacement tree planting proposed (REQUIREW:'7 Y'V- S.0 * 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., Son Luis Obispo, CA 93401, Phone: 781-7220 Fax: 542-9868 �/ Owner: Date: Applicant: Date: The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of it services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410. Rev. 7-09 FED-14-2011 10:26R FROM:NORRINGTON �IP IYYY'/ll.'i: (805)528-1728 TO:5429868 P.2 R 'r> '1, O '1Z-e Text' -Tb" 7t 4 L_�. �s"S - So 3 4- G� �� cay °G 4A, 25 Prado Road San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 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 ,be considered if accompanied by a *sketch/mag showing the street, structure(s)location and location of all trees proposed for removal. Please draw on the back of this form or fax on a separate sheet of paper, along with your application. PLEASE NOTE. If your tree is approved for removal and posted, please call the office at the end of your posting period to arrange to pick up your permit. The permit fee is $81 payable when you pick up your permit (cash or check payable to City of San Luis Obispo). Tree removal applications must be received by the seEond Mondav of the Month to be considered for the meeting. on the fourth Mondgy of the month. ' hME—ANks hoar, a-for-r �awa�ie.�".-ssacre-Tor. -- G�o�T� IyI��L`�.1.�-Y Ownert".'�.Z-vy 5a �atit4t.�Y �T iephone�: DF. .1�..1Lr''�q.�► Owners Mailing Address: �C, Fj toe06 4y 0,T Zip Code: r ( b Applicant (if other than owner): Ooe-T4 1''rb�N 2�1.>*�7' Telephone. Applicant's mailing address: 15G-5 F-�OLzo 5r. Su,ig Zip Code: 54-0 C.-, . Ict 3 01 Location of tree(s): Nearest cross street: JA AJV— Dog in yard? Yes a No Lplk Tree species (Common names): Reasons for esting removal: = At- 5 0- AT7A,e-- * Application will be considered only if entirely filled out and signed by own&. If considerbttion of this application goes to Tree Committee, you or your agent are required to attend the meeting and will be noti f ied * If lane closure is required to perform the tree removal work, an encroachment permit must be obtained fi the City Public Works Department at 919 Palm Street. * Any required "replacement trees" must be installed within "45 days of issuance of permit". Since tree removal permits are good for 6 months, you may wish to hold off picking up your permit until you are sure you will be able to install the replacement tree(s) within the 45 day period. MAIL. OR FAX completed form to: City Arborist, 25 Prado Rd., Son Luis Obispo, CA 93401, Phone: 7 1- 2 ax: 542-9868 Owner: 4Date: Au Applicant: Date: The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include disabled in all of it services, programs and activities. T lecommunicatians Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410. j Rev. 7-09 �(d y.16r7 a 3 �0,60 tl FED-14-2011 10:26R FROM:NORRINGTON (805)528-1728 TO:5429868 P.1 9Ix E60611,5 YOH sjPtRuRung laumo loj Tua2B `AajxapuLW zlaoO lle Aoj9ut;Z uinaQ itaa -P£05-89t, MIotiddr. `uol$uiaxoK a -a I I OZ kmtuga,4 notmilddV iueaMa-d aaJJL ro C Q ro •f �W H ro "C W CD to o � a C o O � ro '1 0 �� C W� N G7 h'+ •7 GII eD 4M 4 ro cr rr ro cr a ra > ro n ro O C. CL m 0 m O b f 0. Q'Q ao a M CL 'O N y a O o w M �`' Z ►-� fD 7 0' Cu13 °1 ° ro Q < ^� m a s. -9 CMm It o. ro a nroi G. O I m p m a i a a m 0) m p R. � a 0. ca S 0 I G -+ U1 1 cu N ip C � C z o v a t m ro re (D Qj CD LA J / /4 .a �" 61111- Viii3sNiod kvm BMIG > PC �d CD a CD 0 00 CD a (DCD (D r ca K CD CD CD a � C �n O 0 rt PD CD CDCD a a CD CD y CD a n. CD O x �. w 0 m; m p. CD o, C o � ea (D .� r� o - fb a+ bd to 0 W 00 V 0) 0 P. W !v r tD t0 tD .P p. I'c0 tro w Ln 03 rn C) Ln t i'o4 w o c00i+ tc o o = c c fcr D c c o m rn Cr- c c. aoa oa — — ro — — 0 o— Ua � D -n 70 o Q 0 C p— C 0 0 0 (D o ro o a. oa M a a = Q rn c� obi -� 0 O' Z ~' O' CL �. nT as a r+ a. n a N m ` CD CL 0 a) :. M. = '*0. a o m 0 .e CL .r m -3 G CD CL 0 '4 CD 0 va m Q. c. o o 0 m cr rt "OJ 6o o� r+ CD o o �_ x fy C N 0 0O `c0n'v`1 0 0 y 0 o CD o o m 3 "a (D m(D m ¢, CD 0 b ,. 0 ,-, 0 0 CD r CD (� CD �iii���������llllllllllll�1°��IIIIII city of san luis oBispo APPEAL TO THE TREE COMMITTEE Date Received: SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION�/� Name Mailing Address & Zip Code P one Fax Representative's Name Mailing Address & Zip Code Title Phone Fax SECTION 2. SUBJECT OF APPEAL 1. In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, I hereby appeal the decision of the: Sr .z2 (Name of Staff, Officer, Committee .or C mmission decision being appealed) 2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: 3 The application or project was entitled: �3 19 e s, ®� 4.1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member: 5 4 (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: 0 71.,._- 7 _r7 SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL Explain specifically what actions you are appealing and why you believe the Tree Committee should consider your appeal. Include what evidence you have that supports your appeal. You may attach additional pages, if necessa . SECTION 4..APPELLANT'S RESPONSIBILITY The San Luis Obispo City Tree Committee values public participation inlocal government and encourages all forms of citizen involvement. Your right to exercise an appeal comes with certain responsibilities. Ifyou 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 Tree Committee. 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 Staff Liaison. Please be advised that if your request for continuance is received after the appeal is noticed to the public, the Tree Committee 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 Tree Committee. 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 Tree Committee. (Signa re.o . ppellant) (Date) This item is hereby calendared for: Monday Road cc: City Attorney Advisory Body Chairperson AdvisoryBody Liaison \\chstore4\groups%publicworks\reference-library\fonns4emplates\trees\free appeal.doc 2011 at 5 pm at the City Corporation Yard, 25 Prado n__.. 11 ..ram December 16, 2010 Mr. Keith Pellemeier, Urban Forest Supervisor and Tree Committee Appeal Board 25 Prado Road San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: 3583 S. Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Mr. Pellemeier: have received your certified letter, dated December 7, 2010, on December 16, 2010 and am attaching my appeal applicationto your decision. On November 5, 2010 the property changed ownership from Midas Muffler Inc. to Frank Freda. As of September 15, 2010,1 had several contacts with the planning and building department at 919 Palm Street over the counter. The purpose was to establish the feasibility and cost of improving the rear portion of the property. It was determined by staff that the undeveloped portion qualified for an approx 3400 sq.ft. future bldg. engaged an architect for some renderings to submit to the planning and building dept. for preliminary conceptual approval. In order to proceed I needed to find the property corners, which was impossible due to the condition of the property. The rear portion was overgrown and neglected for several years. The homeless population was living there, leaving food remains, human waste, broken liquor bottles and cans, drug needles, etc. In addition, the adjacent rear neighbor, had trespassed to store their large industrial pipes for years, in which and under which the homeless found shelter. Everything hazardous has now been removed. The subject area was a liability, being unhealthy, hazardous and a public nuisance to me and the City. It needed to be cleaned and cleared swiftly. 1. To discourage future unauthorized use. 2. To retain my commercial liability and fire insurance. 3. To find the property corners for soil test. 4. To layout the future building and study it. No one in the planning or building department informed me, that I could not clear, clean or remove any trees where the future building would be. I had no idea that a tree removal permit was required for future development that was approved in concept. The trees were not oak trees, but pine trees which were never trimmed with branches growing in all crooked directions at the rear of my commercial property, out of sight from Higuera. There was no way for any trimming to make it look attractive or safe, even for the time being. The Brisbane Box tree, behind the building was removed, because it was blocking the rear entrance, leaning into the building. The tree was in my opinion a safety and fire hazard. The removal of the trees were done in good faith to clean the property, to gain pride of ownership, as the new owner and to plan for the future building. It is my desire to follow the rules and City Codes. Had I known, I would have applied for a permit. I am aware of the preservation of oak trees, but not of any other tree. This is my first property in San Luis Obispo City or County and I had no knowledge of your tree removal procedure. I enjoy creating nicely landscaped commercial sites. The City of Santa Maria awarded my Plaza in 2004, where I planted 20 Pine trees. (Copy attached) To my knowledge, Santa Barbara County has no restrictions on tree removal on private properties, except for oak trees. In order to guarantee the planting of replacement trees on my site, I am willing to post a tree deposit. In addition, I am willing to donate multiple pine trees to the City in the right-of-way on Higuera, in front of my property, where the Cypress trees have died. It is my goal to impress on you, that my intensions are in the right place, public safety and make my contribution to the beautification of the City of San Luis Obispo. On December 2, 2010, my plans for the rear building were submitted to the planning department for official approval and the fee in the amount of $1,039.00 was paid. (copy attached) V t Contacts with the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the project were made with the following persons: Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planner Tina Slusher, Permit Coordinator, for estimated fees Hal Hannula, Supervising Civil Engineer David Fogg, Building Inspector Tyler Corey Associate Planner Brian Leveille Associate Planner Ron Munos Utilities Conservation Manager Robert Armat Plans Examiner Your consideration in waving the penalty for the unfortunate, untimely removal of the trees will be most appreciated. I am looking forward to be working with Mr. Keith Pellemeier and other interested parties to install some additional Pine Trees on Higuera Street and move forward on a positive note. Sincerely, Frank Freda (805) 969-7 0 Exhibits enclosed: 1. Award from Santa Maria 2. Planning application 3. Right- of- Way on S. Higuera St. in front of subject property. Copies to: J. Christine Dietrick, City Attorney Barbara Lynch, City Engineer APPEAL Tb THE T1i�E.COIVINIITTEE SECTION, 2. SUBJECT OF APPEAL 1. In accordance with the procedures set foffh in Title 1, Chapter 1.20of the San •Luis Obispo Municipal Code, I hereby appeal the decision of the: U i o L( 1caV14 OF. ttU Kt ei L 0,pD '- 7N. PS— S-h Z-: ER,. (Name of Staff, Officer, Conunittee or Commission decision being appealed) 2. The date :the decision being appealed vvas rendered: v� T� {� �' (�712010 3. The; application or project was entitled: FAD To Md�Lr. SECTION3. REASON FOR APPEAL . - Explain specireally whatactions you are appealing and.i by you>beheve'the Tree.Committee should consider your appeal. Incl'ude:what evidence'you have that supports yours eal. You may , attach :additional pages, if necessary. Mr. Frank Freda, the property owner, asked me to help him clean and haul away all the debris on the rear of the property at: 3583 S. Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo: My trade is underground utilities not cleaning,.clearing and hauling trash. Since I am out of work and needed to earn some money to meet my financial obligations I agreed to help Mr. Freda. Because I was not ,doing any underground utilities installations, I did not need a. permit. It was totally .unknown to me that a permit was necessary for cleaning, clearing and hauling in my dump truck. I am asking to be excused, as I was only doing a job for Mr. Freda to make a few dollars to make ends meet. Myonly interest was some paid work. Mr. Freda was in charge and I was glad to help him. SECTION 4..APPELLANT'S RESPONSIBILITY Tlie San' Luis Obispo City Tree Committee: values public participation in.aocal government' and.encourages all forms of ortizen involvemelft. 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 Tree Committee.`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 submityouur request in writing to .the City Staff Liaison. Please be advised that if your request for continuance is received after the appeal is noticed to the public, the Tree Committee may not be able to.: grant the request. for continuance. Submitting a request for continuance does not guarantee that; t will be granted, that action is at the discretion of the Tree `.Committee: I -hereby agree ao :appear and/or send a representative..to .a ear on my behalf when: said appeal is scheduled for a public hearing before the City Tree Committee. .---- 1j--2oIC� (Signature of A pellant)' -Date) This item is: hereby calendared for: Monday 2011 ,at 5 pm at the City Corporation Yard, 25 Prado Road cc: City Attorney Advisory Body Chairperson Adviso y'Body Liaison Nchst6te4\groupslpublicworkskeference-library\forms-templateslt ees*ee.appeal.doc t REPORT TO TREE COMMITTEE OF SAN LUIS OBISPO February 8, 2011 FROM: Prepared By: Keith Pellemeier, Urban Forest Supervisor SUBJECT: TWO SEPARATE APPEALS OF STAFF FINE FOR REMOVAL OF FOUR TREES WITHOUT A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT RECOMMENDATION Deny Frank Freda's appeal of staff administrative fine and leave fine at $20,600.00. Deny Willie Cook's appeal of staff administrative fine and leave fine at $20,600.00. DISCUSSION Background On Friday, November 12, 2010 the Urban Forest Maintenance Supervisor was informed by a citizen that trees were being removed in the back lot of the Midas Muffler property at 3583 South Higuera Street. Urban Forest staff responded on Friday morning to investigate the report. Staff found the Contractor, Willie Long and a helper loading the last of the stumps into a dump truck. Staff photographed the area and spoke with Mr. Long. He stated he did not have any.permits and had relied on the owner of the property to get any permits needed. He stated he was working for Mr. and Mrs. Freda to clear the lot in preparation to build. Staff then checked with the Planning and Building Department and could not find any records of permits to do any work. Staff returned to 3583 South Higuera and informed Mr. Long to stop all work until the proper permits were obtained through the Planning Department. At this time staff met with Mrs. Alida Freda who had preliminary drawings of what she and her husband, Frank Freda planned to do with developing the rest of the property. They wanted to clear the lot of all trees and shrubs and build two more units on the property. Staff advised Mrs. Freda to stop work until they had submitted plans to the Planning Department and received approval to do their building project/development. Mrs. Freda was also advised there would be a forthcoming fine for illegally removing trees without permits. Staff Response Staff then reviewed the aerial pictures and determined that three large pines and one tristanium tree had been removed without any permits or plans submitted. The pines were healthy and over the minimum size to require a permit. The tristaneum was part of the original landscape plan of the building. Aerial photographs show the pines were a theme tree for this area when the properties were originally developed. On December 13t" staff sent a certified letter informing the owner that 4 trees had been removed illegally and the value of the trees was $5,150.00. Since it was a part of a development, in accordance with the requirements of the City's Tree Ordinance, the fine was set at four times the value of the trees, $20, 600.00. (Attachment 1, Letter dated December 7, 2010) on Appeal To Staff Administrative Fine Page 2 Staff has been in communication with Mr. & Mrs. Freda in the hope of working out an equitable compromise to the staff fine. Staff feels that if proper permits were obtained before the trees were removed by the owners the city planning staff would have allowed the trees to be removed with some kind of offsite mitigation of trees planted elsewhere in the city. Proposals to do mitigation planting have not been acceptable to the Freda's and staff is placing this issue before the Tree Committee to provide final direction. Council Direction April 20, 2010 the San Luis Obispo City Council, by a vote of 5-0, approved the revised Tree Ordinance. At the time of the Ordinance approval, the Council directed staff to increase the fines for trees removed as part of development to four times the value of the tree. Council indicated they wanted developers to know that tree removals would not be allowed unless it was in the approved plans. (Attachment 2, Final adoption of Tree Ordinance) Tree Ordinance The tree ordinance states in 12.24.170 Enforcement, A. 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 penalties to the city. A. (2) The property owner shall also be held responsible for damaging or removing a tree on the owner's properly without a permit as described in this chapter and be liable for additional civil penalties to the city as described above 12:24.170A(1) A. (3) If the tree removal or damaged tree is related to any development or subdivision then the civil penalties shall be the value of the tree times four, plus all related staff costs. A. (4) In addition to civil penalties the property owner will be required to plant up to three trees under the direction of the city arborist. ALTERNATIVES 1. Reduce the administrative fine for each appeal to the value of the trees removed, $5,150.00. 2. Reduce the administrative fine for each appeal to the value of the trees times two, $10,300.00. 3. Reduce the fine of Willie Cook to $5,150 as he is not the developer and therefore does not stand to gain by the tree removals as it relates to development. Leave the fine for the Freda's at $20,600. 4. Reduce the fine for Mr. Freda to $1000.00 to cover administrative costs and allow Mr. Freda to replant 12 cypress trees, 24 inch box, on Cypress Island and water the trees for five years until they can survive on their own. The owner has suggested planting trees on Cypress Island in lieu of paying a fine. Staff agrees this is an acceptable alternative, under the following conditions 1. The owner is solely responsible to plant, maintain, and ensure the trees survive in a healthy condition for five years. 2. Mr. Freda will assume the billing for the water meter to water the trees for five years. (The rest of Cypress Island is not being irrigated by the City as a cost savings measure.) Report on Appeal To Staff Administrative Fine Page 3 3. Mr. Freda will install a new irrigation system to water the trees and Mr. Freda will maintain the irrigation system from the meter to the valves and irrigation lines. 4. Tree staff working with park staff will mark where the trees are to be placed and all irrigation line, valves, etc. 5. At the end of five years the trees will need to pass inspection by the City Arborist or else the full fine shall be reinstated. 5. Reduce the fine for Mr. Cook to $1000.00 to cover administrative costs and require Mr. Cook to plant 10 hymenosporum flavum (sweet shade), 15 gallon size to the back of the new building on the neighboring property to screen the building. Mr. Cook will hook up irrigation and ensure the trees survive for five years. These trees will be on the neighbor's property in a narrow two foot strip of land, between the new building and the neighbor's outdoor pipe racks. The property owner, Andy Maddelena, has given approval to plant the trees on his property. At the end of five years the trees will need to pass inspection by the City Arborist or else the full fine shall be reinstated. 6. Any other reasonable and equitable alternative that the Tree Committee may desire that the property owner will agree to and abide by. ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter dated December 7, 2010 2. Copy of Final adoption of Tree Ordinance, April 20, 2010 3. Aerial photograph of site before trees removed and site was cleared. 4. Photo from Google earth prior to trees being removed. 5. Three photos taken by staff of last of the stumps before they were removed. 6. Correspondence between Mr. and Mrs. Freda and city staff A. Letter December 16, 2010 B. Letter January 6, 2011 (Two pages) C. Letter January 12, 2011 D. Letter January 19, 2011 E. Staff email January 25, 2011 F. Letter January 30, 2011 7. Letter to Mr. Freda inviting him to present his appeal at next Tree Committee meeting \\chstore4\Groups\PublicWorks\Permits\StreetAddresses\higuera s\3583\trees\ReportToTCappealofFine.doc �IIIII IIIII load . IN (uly Public Works Department - 25 Prado Road , San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-7314 December 7, 2010 Frank and Alida Freda 345 Ridgecrest Drive Santa Barbara, CA 93108 RE: NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION FOR VIOLATION OF MUNICIPAL CODE Mr. and Mrs. Freda: On November 12, 2010, you were notified that you committed a violation of the City's Municipal Code in the removal of three Pine and one Brisbane Box trees on your property at 3583 South Higuera without a tree removal permit or approved building plans. No person shall willfully injure, disfigure or intentionally destroy by any means any tree, except with permits described elsewhere in this chapter [violation of Section 12.24.150 (A3) of the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code]. The penalties for violating the above section are covered in the following section: 12.24.170 Enforcement. The public works department shall be responsible for enforcement of this chapter. A. 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 penalties to the city. (1) The civil penalties shall be the value of the tree times two, plus all staff costs related to the illegal tree removal or tree damage. The city arborist will compute the value of the tree using methods established by the International Society of Arboriculture. (2) The property owner shall also be held responsible for damaging or removing a tree on the owner's property without a permit as described in this chapter and be liable for additional civil penalties to the city as described above 12.24.170A(1). (3) If the tree removal or damaged tree is related to any development or subdivision then the civil penalties shall be the value of the tree times four, plus all related staff costs. The city arborist has determined the value of the four trees removed as follows: Pine tree 41, $1480.00 Pine tree #2, $1380.00 Pine tree #3, $1170.00 Brisbane Box tree, $1120.00 The total value of the four trees removed is $5,150.00. You are liable for civil penalties for the value of the trees removed times four in accordance with Section 12.24.170 A. (3) above. The City has determined that the cost to you is $20,600.00. Payment is due within 30 days and should be made to City of San Luis Obispo, 25 Prado Rd., San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401 Attn: Keith Pellemeier. Per San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Section 12.120, Appeals, you may appeal any staff decision within 10 days. 12.24.180 Appeals. A. In accordance with the provisions of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Chapter 1.20, any person aggrieved by an act or determination of the staff in exercising the authority herein granted shall have the right to appeal to the tree committee, whose decisions are appealable to the city council. B. Appeals received by the city clerk within ten calendar days from the date of determination or act shall cause the public works director to withhold tree removal permits and stop any construction or demolition activity affecting the subject tree until the appeal is heard and a decision is reached. If you have any questions please contact me. Yours truly, Ron Combs Keith Pellemeier Urban Forester Urban Forest Supervisor Attachments enclosed: Appeal To The Tree Committee form cc: City Attorney City Engineer 2 December 16, 2010 To: Mr. Keith Pellemeier, Urban Forest Supervisor From: Frank Freda, Property Owner Re: 3583 S. Higuera Street, S.L.O.93401 Dear Mr. Pellemeier: I have received your certified letter today December 16, 2010 and am in the process of preparing the appeal. In addition, Mr. Willie Cook, the dump truck driver, received the same letter by certified mail. The purpose of this letter is to ask you to remove Mr. Willie Cooks from this process, as 1 personally hired him to use his dump truck to remove all the trash and debris from the property. He only was a hired truck driver, not a contractor. Any responsibility under the municipal code is my sole responsibility as the property owner. Please excuse him from this action in writing. Sincerely, Frank Freda 345 Ndgecrest Drive Santa Barbara, CA 93108 Phone: (805) 969-7500, Fax: (805) 969-7600 Cl a of sanr ims om s c p Public Works Department 25 Prado Road • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-731, December 20, 2010 Frank Freda 345 Ridgecrest Drive Santa Barbara, CA 93108 RE: DENY TREE REMOVAL APPLICATION Mr. Freda: "On December 20; 2010 I received your application to remove a tree on your property at 3583 South Higuera °Sireet. I am forwarding your request to the Planning Department as this should be part of your development plans and should be included in your current architectural review submittal. If you have any questions please contact me. Yours truly, Keith Pellemeier Public Works Supervisor, Urban Forest .805-781-7022 25 Prado Road San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 cc: City Engineer Plannng-Departinent 1 January 6, 2011 To: Mr. Keith Pellemeier From: Frank Freda, Property Owner Re: 3583 S. Higuera Street, S.L.O. CA 93401 Dear Mr. Pellemeier: The trees at the above address are ready to be thinned, trimmed and shaped by a certified local arborist, as you suggested. The Internet only lists one local arborist, Solid Oak Tree Management. Could you please fax me a list of approved, licensed and insured local arborist, in order for me to get a couple of bids to complete the job. Fax: (805) 969-7600 My next question is, do I have to ask for your permission to culture the trees? Do I need to file and pay for a permit ? My application to remove one tree by the trash area so it can be enlarged for a trash bin plus recycle bin, was denied by you and forwarded to the Planning Department, as per attached letter, dated December 20, 2010. I am at a total loss what I can do and what I cannot do regarding the trees on my property and who has the final jurisdiction? Your reply will be appreciated, i Frank Freda Copies to: J. Christine Dietrick, City Attorney Barbara Lynch, City Engineer January 12, 2011 To: Mr. Keith Pellemeier, Urban Forest Supervisor From: Frank Freda, Property Owner Re: 3583 S. Higuera Street, S.L.O.93401 Dear Mr. Pellemeier: Thanks for your time and interest in finding a win -win solution for all parties involved. I discussed the matter with my wife and I agree in concept. The time table makes me feel uncomfortable, as a couple of growing seasons should be sufficient to establish the trees. Your remarks to entertain possibly Eucalyptus trees seems to be positive for several reasons: 1. They do not obstruct the view for the businesses 2. Drought resistant. 3. Minimum maintenance in future years 4. Not subject to occasional freeze The Eucalyptus tree appears to be a much better choice than a Pine Tree or Ficus Nitida. If we can come to an agreement, we like to have 90 days for the planting, as I am in the middle of a 2417 time consuming project in Santa Maria. I can submit to you, in the meanwhile, a good faith deposit for the planting of the trees and drip line irrigation. Thanks again for the meeting it was very productive. This is the way I prefer to resolve serious matters. Frank Freda Copy to: none January 19, 2011 To: Keith Pellemeier From: Frank Freda Thanks for your update and I am looking forward to hear from you after you meet with the Tree Committee. As mentioned, Mr. Willie Cook was just my dump truck driver and I hired him by the hour to help him financially during these difficult economic times. His intensions are the same as mine to do what we can what is best for the City and everybody involved. Although, I feel it is totally my responsibility, he has offered to help me dig the holes for the trees and help'me with the drip irrigation. You should feel comfortable that all of us, including Mr. Willie Cook, are on the same page to enrich the Cypress Island with trees, to enjoy for many generations in the future. With your input and the best choice of trees from the Tree Committee, we can all be proud with our contribution to this well worthwhile beautification project. Sincerely, Frank Freda Page 1 of 2 Pellemeier, Keith From: Pellemeier, Keith Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 9:29 AM To: 'Alida Freda' Cc: 'Frank Freda'; Lynch, Barbara; Combs, Ron Subject: RE: SLO TREE UPDATE Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red Frank & Alida Freda I received the following input from the Tree Committee at their meeting: 1. Cypress trees (12) along the street tree parkway 2. In this climate the trees will need watering for five years. 3. They feel the fine is appropriate but would waive the fine if Mr. Cooks would plant 12 trees also. Thank you, Keith Pellemeier Maint. Supervisor/Urban Forest/Contracts/Special Events City of San Luis Obispo 805-781-7022 phone 805-542-9868 fax From: Pellemeier, Keith Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 9:01 AM To: 'Alida Freda' Cc: 'Frank Freda' Subject: RE: SLO TREE UPDATE Frank and Alida Freda Thank you for coming in and meeting with me. 1. I will discuss the trees to be planted on Cypress Island with the Tree Committee at their next meeting. I will let them guide me on what they think will be the best choice of trees for that location. 2. As far as two growing seasons being adequate, I will discuss again with the Tree Committee and let them decide on two years or 5 years of watering to get the trees established. 3. 1 am uncomfortable with not fining Mr. Willie Cooks anything. I will discuss with the Tree Committee and see what they suggest is an appropriate fine. will be able to give you more information and meet with you after next week. Thanks for your patience and help in resolving this matter in a productive way. Thank you, Keith Pellemeier Maint. Supervisor/Urban Forest/Contracts/Special Events City of San Luis Obispo 805-781-7022 phone 805-542-9868 fax 1 /27/2011 January 30, 2011 To: Keith Pellemeier From: Frank Freda Re: 3583 S. Higuera Street, SLO Your latest proposal is unacceptable. I feel strongly about thefact that I did not nothing wrong in clearing the 40' x 80' rear portion of my property. Especially after several meetings with the City Building Department and no mention of tree permits. However, in order to move along, I am willing to concede to the following. Furthermore I want you to know this is causing a considerable amount of stress and strain in my life. In my opinion, our original oral tentative agreement was reasonable, and it would serve well to avoidlengthy, expensive litigation. During our personal meeting, I made it very clear that I will not consider any agreements unless my helper/dump truck driver is released.ln addition, I did not agree to 3 to 5 years of tree maintenance. In talking to various arborists, two growing seasons is understood to be a safe, sufficient length of time to establish a tree, It appears that you are coming back again at what seems to meto be double dipping, requiringan additional twelve trees from Mr. Cook. An acceptable agreementto me would be: 1. Twelve — 24" boxes to be planted 2. Drip irrigation to be installed 3. Pay for the water for 2 growing seasons. 4. Release Mr. Willie Cook. I feel strongly compelled, on principle, to argue forwhat I feel is fair and just. Lengthy litigation will cost all sides a considerable sum of money, as well as time and effort. If the above -proposed agreement is not acceptable, I may not have any choice other than to proceed with the appeal. If the appeal is not successful, then I will pursue my legal remedies. For your information, the plans for my new proposed commercial building were approved in writing on January 24,2011. Had I known about your ordinance and tree permit process, I most certainly would have secured the proper permit. The tree removal would likely have been approved for this new commercial building in the rear of the property. Planting twelve trees in the Cypress Island for many generations to enjoy, will be a win -win situation for everybody involved. Sincerely, Frank Freda city of SM Luis OBISPO February 3, 2011 Frank Freda 345 Ridgecrest Dr. Santa Barbara, CA 93108 Your application to appeal the Administrative fine for 3583 S. Hieuera St., has been reviewed. You will need to appear at the next Tree Committee meeting so the members can review your appeal. Please bring any additional supporting documentation with you to the meeting. Members of the committee will take up the issue at the next Tree Committee meeting scheduled for February 28, 2011 at 5:00pm , 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 appeal, after which you will be given an opportunity to explain your side. 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. If you have any questions regarding this process, you may contact Keith Pellemeier at (805) 781- 7022, Monday through Friday. Sincerely, -� zlc'<-- Keith Pellemeier Urban Forest/Contract Services Supervisor OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410. 70 FROM: SUBJECT: council AQenba R.Epom CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Minting Dote Apri120 2010 Item Number Jay D. Walter, Director of Public Works Prepared By: Keith Pellemeier, Maintenance Supervisor FINAL ADOPTION OF TREE ORDINANCE RECOMMENDATION Adopt Ordinance No. 1544, replacing Section 12.24 of the Municipal Code. DISCUSSION On April 6, 2010 the City Council voted 5 to 0 to introduce Ordinance No.1544, replacing Section 12.24 of the Municipal Code, with modifications as follows: 1. Addition of language to section 12,24.010 D. Purpose and Intent to convey an emphasis on native and drought tolerant species of trees. 2. Addition of language to section 12.24.030 E. Definitions to more clearly define the boundaries of the downtown district. 3. Addition of language to section 12.24.090 G. Tree Removal, to more clearly articulate that City funded projects will follow the same process for removal as is used for private property owners. 4. Revision of the penalty language in section 12.24.170 A.(3) Enforcement to increase the penalties for illegal tree removal or damage related to development from three times the value of the tree to four times the value. The modifications to the previous Ordinance were completed to update the existing Tree Ordinance to better reflect the City requirements. Ordinance No. 1544 has been published in the local newspaper and is now ready for adoption and will become effective 30 days after the date of its final passage. ATTACHMENTS 1. Ordinance No. 1544 2. Legislative Draft of Ordinance T:\Council Agenda Reports\Public Works CAR\2010\Trees\Tree0rdinance\CAR AdoptTreeOrdinance.doc