HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/26/2021 cc - Hanlon (150 Chorro Citrus Tree)
From:jhanlon <jhanlon510@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday,
To:Whipple, Anthony; Advisory Bodies
Cc:Cruce, Greg; Sabatini, Hayley
Subject:Re: 150 Chorro Citrus Tree
Thanks Anthony. Did the City remove the tree? I had assumed that the property owner did.
If it was removed by the owner, then the permit requirements are spelled out in MC 12.24.090:
Permit Not Required. Removing a tree in R-1 and R-2 zones does not require a permit if ALL of the following
conditions exist:
1. The tree is a designated native species and the trunk is less than ten inches in diameter as measured by diameter
standard height (DSH, four feet, six inches per International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) standards) (see Section
12.24.030, Definitions; native trees), or when the tree is nonnative and the trunk is less than twenty inches DSH; and
2. The tree is not located within a creek setback area (see Section 17.70.030); and
3. The tree is not a designated street tree, and is not located within ten feet of the back of the sidewalk; and
4. Planting or retention of the tree was not a condition of development; or
5.. The tree is a palm and the trunk is less than twelve inches DSH.
My understanding of this is that even though it was not a street tree, because it was within 10 feet of the BOS, it does
not meet the criteria for "Permit Not Required."
Secondly, per the photos I provided, the tree was in declining health because of the Owner's previous violation of muni
code by pruning more than 30% of the canopy....exactly what happened with the 36-inch Walnut.
I understand that if the owner had applied for a permit, it would likely have been granted due to the line of sight issue,
but the point is that this owner has a habit of illegally removing trees, and the City takes no action against these
repeated violations. There is an established code for applying for tree removal, and there is an established code for
enforcement (12.24.170). The Walnut removal should have resulted in penalties 2X the tree value (it was sold to a local
business for the wood), plus staff costs AND he should have been required to plant up to three trees under the direction
of the city arborist. Same goes for the orange tree - rather than simply "working with a City non Profit and the
property owner to get a tree close by" the owner should be conditioned to provide replacement trees, plus the
fine, at his expense rather than sticking ECO-SLO with the financial burden of mitigating the Owner's violation of
the municipal code. By the way, Mr. Combs previously stated that conditioning the owner to provide replacement trees
throughout the neighborhood to help reestablish the urban forest over time would be an appropriate mitigation to the
removal of the Walnut tree. Of course, he never implemented this measure either, so my confidence in the City
following through with this plan is not high.
I appreciate the time you took looking into this and responding to my email. I do not however feel that the City is
consistent in following the established rules that we, as CIty residents, have ALL agreed to, and are ALL expected to
abide by. My expectations to have the City uphold the established codes in the City should not be trumped by another
citizen's desire to ignore the codes. There is an established process for this and the City has a responsibility to follow the
1
municipal code, particularly when a citizen is specifically requesting it. I ask that you take another look at the code, and
the City's responsibilities to follow the enforcement procedures which are spelled out in detail. If there is some other
document used by the City to address permits and enforcement, please let me know where I can review this so that I
have a better understanding of what the CIty's responsibilities are and what my expectation should be.
On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 2:35 PM Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> wrote:
John,
After researching this location, I have determined this Street tree (Citrus species) was in decline and
was not on the approved Master list for the City of San Luis obispo, and removed due to it being Dead, Dying,
Diseased or Damaged beyond reclamation. We are not recommending a replant in this location due to the line
of sight rule at residential corners and a meter box.
Diagram attached:
However, We will work with a City non Profit and the property owner to get a tree close by without
competing/conflicting with the Coast live Oak (Quercus agrifolia). I will try and get the Oak tree pruned for
Side walk and street clearance, sooner than later.
Your passion for trees and your patience is greatly appreciated.
Let me know if you have any questions
Thank you,
"The wind is rising, and the air is wild with leaves. We have had our summer evenings; now for
October eves!" - Humbert Wolft
Anthony Whipple
Acting City Arborist
Public Works
2
Urban Forest Services
25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-7314
E awhipple@slocity.org
T 805.781.7021
C 805.431.0398
slocity.org
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19
From: jhanlon <
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2021 3:04 PM
To: Advisory Bodies <advisorybodies@slocity.org>; Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org>
Subject: Tree Committee - 150 Chorro
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Dear Mr. Whipple and Tree Committee,
in November 2019 I submitted a letter (attached) regarding the systematic unpermitted tree removals at 150 Chorro
Street. At that time, a 36 inch black walnut had been removed without a permit. I attended a Committee Meeting and
the Committee subsequently found that a violation had occurred. They moved for the City Arborist (Ron Combs) to
seek mitigation measures and replacement plantings. Despite this direction, Mr. Combs accepted a few trees that had
previously been planted on the property prior to removal of the oak as mitigation. At the public meeting, Mr. Combs
had recommended that a specimen tree be required as replacement to mitigate the loss of such a large tree that was
important to the community. I provided the letter below expressing my dissatisfaction and disappointment at the
conclusion of this effort.
Mr. Combs' decision demonstrated to the property owner and others that illegal tree removals, even when repeated,
egregious, and associated with large skyline trees, will be tolerated by the City.
Since that time, tree removals have continued at this property. Please see the attached photos of the orange tree
removed from the green belt. Like the walnut, the orange tree was systematically pruned hard (>30% of the canopy
and against muni code) and ultimately removed as the tree health declined. I have not seen this tree on the agenda and
3
so I assume the removal was unpermitted. In that the tree was within 10 feet of the back of sidewalk, it does not
appear to be exempted from a permit under MC 12.24.080.
Now, of course, the tree is gone. Could the City please investigate this removal? If a violation has occurred I would ask
that mitigation measures and replacement trees be required. There are very few trees left on the property.
Thank you.
4