Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResponsive Batch 4From:Whipple, Anthony Bcc:Cruce, Greg Subject:FW: Serrano Date:Monday, November 15, 2021 3:20:00 PM BCC From: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 12:14 PM To: Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> Cc: Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Serrano Hi Michael and Anthony, I just received your letter regarding fees for the tree trimming, obviously I don't agree and believe that the city has acted in bad faith. Please let me know how I appeal this decision. Thank you John On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 5:41 PM John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Anthony, Thanks for the response, Based on your answers I'm still confused on legality of cutting trees. Is it illegal or against code to over trim the trees. Only reason I'm asking is I've been in several situations where city employees state I'm doing something illegal while it is actually against code, not a law being broken. Let me know if I'm incorrect. Also under what circumstances would fines be inforced? I'm assuming it is if we didn't do the canopy plan but wanted to confirm that. Greenvale has prepared the plan I'll forward it after this email. On another note I recently purchased the property at 500 westmont that was approved for multiple tree removals. Can that start? Is there something that needs to be done prior to starting? Thanks John On Tue, Sep 21, 2021, 9:14 AM Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> wrote: Hello John, Thank you for your email regarding the issues at 163 Serrano. You had some questions regarding my previous email, which I have answered for you below. Could you please confirm that the 3 oak trees you refer to are mine and on my property? The three oaks at issue appear to be on your property based on the City’s permitting and asset management system. The City’s systems are pretty substantially accurate, but having the property line surveyed is the most precise way to determine property boundaries. Could you also change your wording, they were not illegally pruned, they were pruned in violation of the citys Tree Ordinance which I didnt know was so severe on pruning. Illegally pruned suggests that it is illegally to prune the trees while I belive it is just against an ordinance. Section 12.24.015 of the Tree Ordinance states: A . No person shall: 1. Trim, prune or cut any tree unless such work conforms to this chapter and is performed in accordance with all International Society of Arboriculture standards. In no case shall more than one-third of the tree canopy be removed. Can you clarify the possible fines? How are they determined? In what circumstance are they inforced? MC Section 12.24.170 states: The public works department shall be responsible for enforcement of this chapter. A. Any person deemed responsible for damaging a tree, failing to plant trees required as a condition of a tree removal or other permit, 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 in subsection (A)(1) of this section. 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. 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. The size of the tree shall be determined by the city arborist and may be up to a forty-eight-inch box tree. 5. For damaged trees, in addition to civil penalties, the property owner will be required to obtain the services of an ISA certified arborist to determine the future viability of the tree and, if salvageable, create a maintenance plan to restore the tree. 6. The city council may adopt, by resolution, alternate civil damage amounts to be assessed against any person deemed responsible for damaging, harming or removing a tree without a permit. (Ord. 1589 § 2, 2013: Ord. 1544 § 1 (part), 2010) If you have additional questions after you review my email, please feel free to contact me. Thank you, Anthony Whipple Acting City Arborist Public Works 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: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 9, 2021 8:38 AM To: Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> Cc: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org>; Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org>; Wallace, Christine cwallace@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Serrano Thank you for your response Anthony, as we are obviously going to be in a civil case with the neighbors could you clarify a few things. You state Three oak trees (Quercus agrifolia) trees were pruned illegally in violation of ISA pruning standards and in violation of City Tree Ordinance" Could you please confirm that the 3 oak trees you refer to are mine and on my property? Could you also change your wording, they were not illegally pruned, they were pruned in violation of the citys Tree Ordinance which I didnt know was so severe on pruning. Illegally pruned suggests that it is illegally to prune the trees while I belive it is just against an ordinance. Can you clarify the possible fines? How are they determined? In what circumstance are they inforced? On Thu, Sep 9, 2021, 8:07 AM Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> wrote: John, I understand your concerns and wanted to clarify. After Careful review of your property and our conversation the City will be requiring you to complete the following to mitigate your violation. Provide the City of San Luis Obispo an Arborist Report within 45 days from the date of this email to include an Oak Tree Canopy Restoration Plan for all trees disfigured on the northern side of property. This will mitigate damages that has occurred in violation of our City of San Luis Obispo Tree Ordinance 12.24.170 & 12.24.090 and provide a net benefit to your property and the community. Quick Summary: Three oak trees (Quercus agrifolia) trees were pruned illegally in violation of ISA pruning standards and in violation of City Tree Ordinance which references the ISA pruning standards. Possible fines could be $9,710.00 for the value of the trees. Staff is requiring property owner to hire a Certified Arborist to come up with a long term management plan to save the trees that are salvageable and to oversee the care of the trees for their long term health. Let me know if you have any questions Thank you, Anthony Whipple Acting City Arborist Public Works 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: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 1, 2021 8:04 AM To: Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Serrano Hi Anthony, I read through about canopies, I wasnt aware of the 1/3rd rule prior to our interactions. I agree about the canopy restoration and I have reached out to Ron Combs about doing the restoration. I disagree about the removal diameter of the two trees and the required mitagation. Let me know what we need to do from here. Thanks John On Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 12:08 PM Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> wrote: Hi John, Per our conversation on yesterday, We discussed some improper oak tree pruning and some uncertain 10 inch Diameter Oak tree removals. I’m requiring mitigation be set with planting four fifteen gallon Oak trees within 45 days and maintained as a condition for the questionable trees removed. I am also requiring an Arborist Report within 45 days to include a Oak Tree Canopy Restoration Plan for all trees disfigured on the northern side of property. I feel this approach will mitigate damage that has occurred in violation of our City of San Luis Obispo Tree Ordinance 12.24.170 & 12.24.090 and provide a net benefit to your property and the community. Let me know if you have any questions Thank you, Anthony Whipple Acting City Arborist Public Works 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: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2021 10:44 AM To: Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> Cc: Cruce, Greg <gcruce@slocity.org>; Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Serrano Hi Anthony, Thanks for the Email, I assure you both trees you are referring to were less than 10" at chest height. We will be more mindful when trimming canopies, one question, in an effort to not cut down some trees (ones less than 10") we cut the canopy way down and may go lower, would you rather us cut them down completely or top them and see if they will grow from the cut? The photo example you sent are the trees im referring to. If we cant top them we are better off cutting them down while they are still under the 10". Let me know your thoughts, Thanks John On Fri, Aug 20, 2021, 10:20 AM Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> wrote: Hi John, The city values trees as an important part of the natural, urban and economic environment and efforts shall be made to protect, preserve, and create the conditions that will promote the preservation of trees. The chief complaint was about the 2 trees on the fence line at a low stump measured 15 inch in diameter which may or may not be a violation of the over 10 inch native regulation. Moreover, the pruning photos attached are of concern. This is a friendly reminder to review our City Tree Regulations with respect to sections 12.24.150 and 12.24.170 Before After Tree topping of Coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia) this practice reduces its food-making capacity, and creates large wounds that are susceptible to insect invaders and severe fungal decay. Proper care is based on a thorough understanding of tree physiology and tree biomechanics. Trees need foliage to manufacture food. Removing all or most of the foliage puts the tree on a starvation diet. To grow new foliage the tree depends on sugars stored in the roots and stem. In order to continue manufacturing food for itself the tree will activate growth from epicormic buds which we observe as “water sprouts”. These epicormic branches, or water sprouts, must grow vigorously and quickly to replace lost foliage if the tree is not to starve. As they grow they are significantly more prone to breakage and failure than normal branches. Also, large wounds can compromises the tree’s chemical defense system. Attacks from insects, disease, and fungal pathogens can follow. With mature trees that have too little space to thrive. One option of reasonably reducing a tree’s overall height and width is crown reduction. Crown reduction is a typical pruning technique, but one that should be employed judiciously. 12.24.150 Protection of trees. A. No person shall: 1. Trim, prune or cut any tree unless such work conforms to this chapter and is performed in accordance with all International Society of Arboriculture standards. In no case shall more than one-third of the tree canopy be removed. 3. Willfully injure, disfigure or intentionally destroy by any means any tree, except with permits described elsewhere in this chapter. 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, failing to plant trees required as a condition of a tree removal or other permit, or removing a tree without a permit as described in this chapter shall be liable for civil penalties to the city. 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 in subsection (A)(1) of this section. Let me know if you have any questions Thank you, Anthony Whipple Acting City Arborist Public Works 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: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2021 8:23 AM To: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Cc: Trees <trees@slocity.org>; Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Serrano I will probably do trimming this weekend sp please get me any advice before then. I Met with Ron Combs on site before he retired and feel like I know what I can and cant do. Please let me know where I am mistaken. As far as conditions of Subdivision it call for protection of any oak 4" or greater in the building envelope, there were no oaks in the proposed building envelopes only in the side yards and setbacks. The pile of wood chips is not construction or dirt work and therfore doesnt meet the requirements for stockpiles either. Mike Ive begun including you on these emails because the only neighbor who spoke out against my Subdivision is now using city resourses to harass me. At this point Id appreciate all contact and communication to be through email (no more surprise visits). Thank you for all of your time, sorry to always be the squeaky wheel. John On Thu, Aug 19, 2021, 7:57 AM Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> wrote: Hey John, Can you hold off on any more trimming, we are working on a write up for you about best practices that need to be addressed, and it would seem that at least two of the trees you cut down were Oaks over 10-inches in diameter. It would be wise to hold off on any other improvements at this time, until we address the complaints we have received. However, it would be helpful if you could do something about the wood chip pile. Kyle Bell CDD Associate Planner T 805.781.7524 From: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2021 7:31 AM To: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org>; Trees <trees@slocity.org> Subject: Serrano This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi guys we will be doing more trimming and clearing, never heard back about the last round. Did I miss anything. Subject:FW: Westmont Modification to Tentative Tract Date:Wednesday, September 29, 2021 9:17:56 AM Attachments:Westmont_sd_210915.pdf 21146_WestmontSubdivision_Opt1_2021-09-13.pdf From: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 1:06 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org>; Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org> Subject: Westmont Modification to Tentative Tract This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi Kyle and Michael, Just wanted to send you a rough idea of what we are planning at Westmont, We would like to do a Modification to the Tentative Tract Map we will be using density bonus subdivision shooting for 40 lots we would like to make the road private here is some prelim sketches, let me know if you would like to meet next week to go over it and make sure we aren't missing something. From:Whipple, Anthony Subject:Fwd: Serrano Date:Monday, November 15, 2021 3:38:30 PM Bcc Get Outlook for iOS From: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 3:37 PM To: Whipple, Anthony Cc: Codron, Michael Subject: Re: Serrano I jus sent an administrative citation appeal to the city clerk but I'm not sure if that is what this is, your letter states the amount and gives the estimate and invoice but doesn't give me an actual citation. Is there one? I agreed to the canopy restoration plan after it was agreed there would be no fees. On Mon, Nov 15, 2021, 12:13 PM John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Michael and Anthony, I just received your letter regarding fees for the tree trimming, obviously I don't agree and believe that the city has acted in bad faith. Please let me know how I appeal this decision. Thank you John On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 5:41 PM John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Anthony, Thanks for the response, Based on your answers I'm still confused on legality of cutting trees. Is it illegal or against code to over trim the trees. Only reason I'm asking is I've been in several situations where city employees state I'm doing something illegal while it is actually against code, not a law being broken. Let me know if I'm incorrect. Also under what circumstances would fines be inforced? I'm assuming it is if we didn't do the canopy plan but wanted to confirm that. Greenvale has prepared the plan I'll forward it after this email. On another note I recently purchased the property at 500 westmont that was approved for multiple tree removals. Can that start? Is there something that needs to be done prior to starting? Thanks John On Tue, Sep 21, 2021, 9:14 AM Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> wrote: Hello John, Thank you for your email regarding the issues at 163 Serrano. You had some questions regarding my previous email, which I have answered for you below. Could you please confirm that the 3 oak trees you refer to are mine and on my property? The three oaks at issue appear to be on your property based on the City’s permitting and asset management system. The City’s systems are pretty substantially accurate, but having the property line surveyed is the most precise way to determine property boundaries. Could you also change your wording, they were not illegally pruned, they were pruned in violation of the citys Tree Ordinance which I didnt know was so severe on pruning. Illegally pruned suggests that it is illegally to prune the trees while I belive it is just against an ordinance. Section 12.24.015 of the Tree Ordinance states: A . No person shall: 1. Trim, prune or cut any tree unless such work conforms to this chapter and is performed in accordance with all International Society of Arboriculture standards. In no case shall more than one-third of the tree canopy be removed. Can you clarify the possible fines? How are they determined? In what circumstance are they inforced? MC Section 12.24.170 states: The public works department shall be responsible for enforcement of this chapter. A. Any person deemed responsible for damaging a tree, failing to plant trees required as a condition of a tree removal or other permit, 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 in subsection (A) 1) of this section. 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. 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. The size of the tree shall be determined by the city arborist and may be up to a forty-eight-inch box tree. 5. For damaged trees, in addition to civil penalties, the property owner will be required to obtain the services of an ISA certified arborist to determine the future viability of the tree and, if salvageable, create a maintenance plan to restore the tree. 6. The city council may adopt, by resolution, alternate civil damage amounts to be assessed against any person deemed responsible for damaging, harming or removing a tree without a permit. (Ord. 1589 § 2, 2013: Ord. 1544 § 1 (part), 2010) If you have additional questions after you review my email, please feel free to contact me. Thank you, Anthony Whipple Acting City Arborist Public Works 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: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 9, 2021 8:38 AM To: Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> Cc: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org>; Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org>; Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Serrano Thank you for your response Anthony, as we are obviously going to be in a civil case with the neighbors could you clarify a few things. You state Three oak trees (Quercus agrifolia) trees were pruned illegally in violation of ISA pruning standards and in violation of City Tree Ordinance" Could you please confirm that the 3 oak trees you refer to are mine and on my property? Could you also change your wording, they were not illegally pruned, they were pruned in violation of the citys Tree Ordinance which I didnt know was so severe on pruning. Illegally pruned suggests that it is illegally to prune the trees while I belive it is just against an ordinance. Can you clarify the possible fines? How are they determined? In what circumstance are they inforced? On Thu, Sep 9, 2021, 8:07 AM Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> wrote: John, I understand your concerns and wanted to clarify. After Careful review of your property and our conversation the City will be requiring you to complete the following to mitigate your violation. Provide the City of San Luis Obispo an Arborist Report within 45 days from the date of this email to include an Oak Tree Canopy Restoration Plan for all trees disfigured on the northern side of property. This will mitigate damages that has occurred in violation of our City of San Luis Obispo Tree Ordinance 12.24.170 & 12.24.090 and provide a net benefit to your property and the community. Quick Summary: Three oak trees (Quercus agrifolia) trees were pruned illegally in violation of ISA pruning standards and in violation of City Tree Ordinance which references the ISA pruning standards. Possible fines could be $9,710.00 for the value of the trees. Staff is requiring property owner to hire a Certified Arborist to come up with a long term management plan to save the trees that are salvageable and to oversee the care of the trees for their long term health. Let me know if you have any questions Thank you, Anthony Whipple Acting City Arborist Public Works 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: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 1, 2021 8:04 AM To: Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Serrano Hi Anthony, I read through about canopies, I wasnt aware of the 1/3rd rule prior to our interactions. I agree about the canopy restoration and I have reached out to Ron Combs about doing the restoration. I disagree about the removal diameter of the two trees and the required mitagation. Let me know what we need to do from here. Thanks John On Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 12:08 PM Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> wrote: Hi John, Per our conversation on yesterday, We discussed some improper oak tree pruning and some uncertain 10 inch Diameter Oak tree removals. I’m requiring mitigation be set with planting four fifteen gallon Oak trees within 45 days and maintained as a condition for the questionable trees removed. I am also requiring an Arborist Report within 45 days to include a Oak Tree Canopy Restoration Plan for all trees disfigured on the northern side of property. I feel this approach will mitigate damage that has occurred in violation of our City of San Luis Obispo Tree Ordinance 12.24.170 & 12.24.090 and provide a net benefit to your property and the community. Let me know if you have any questions Thank you, Anthony Whipple Acting City Arborist Public Works 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: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2021 10:44 AM To: Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> Cc: Cruce, Greg <gcruce@slocity.org>; Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Serrano Hi Anthony, Thanks for the Email, I assure you both trees you are referring to were less than 10" at chest height. We will be more mindful when trimming canopies, one question, in an effort to not cut down some trees (ones less than 10") we cut the canopy way down and may go lower, would you rather us cut them down completely or top them and see if they will grow from the cut? The photo example you sent are the trees im referring to. If we cant top them we are better off cutting them down while they are still under the 10". Let me know your thoughts, Thanks John On Fri, Aug 20, 2021, 10:20 AM Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> wrote: Hi John, The city values trees as an important part of the natural, urban and economic environment and efforts shall be made to protect, preserve, and create the conditions that will promote the preservation of trees. The chief complaint was about the 2 trees on the fence line at a low stump measured 15 inch in diameter which may or may not be a violation of the over 10 inch native regulation. Moreover, the pruning photos attached are of concern. This is a friendly reminder to review our City Tree Regulations with respect to sections 12.24.150 and 12.24.170 Before After Tree topping of Coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia) this practice reduces its food-making capacity, and creates large wounds that are susceptible to insect invaders and severe fungal decay. Proper care is based on a thorough understanding of tree physiology and tree biomechanics. Trees need foliage to manufacture food. Removing all or most of the foliage puts the tree on a starvation diet. To grow new foliage the tree depends on sugars stored in the roots and stem. In order to continue manufacturing food for itself the tree will activate growth from epicormic buds which we observe as “water sprouts”. These epicormic branches, or water sprouts, must grow vigorously and quickly to replace lost foliage if the tree is not to starve. As they grow they are significantly more prone to breakage and failure than normal branches. Also, large wounds can compromises the tree’s chemical defense system. Attacks from insects, disease, and fungal pathogens can follow. With mature trees that have too little space to thrive. One option of reasonably reducing a tree’s overall height and width is crown reduction. Crown reduction is a typical pruning technique, but one that should be employed judiciously. 12.24.150 Protection of trees. A. No person shall: 1. Trim, prune or cut any tree unless such work conforms to this chapter and is performed in accordance with all International Society of Arboriculture standards. In no case shall more than one-third of the tree canopy be removed. 3. Willfully injure, disfigure or intentionally destroy by any means any tree, except with permits described elsewhere in this chapter. 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, failing to plant trees required as a condition of a tree removal or other permit, or removing a tree without a permit as described in this chapter shall be liable for civil penalties to the city. 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 in subsection (A)(1) of this section. Let me know if you have any questions Thank you, Anthony Whipple Acting City Arborist Public Works 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: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2021 8:23 AM To: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Cc: Trees <trees@slocity.org>; Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Serrano I will probably do trimming this weekend sp please get me any advice before then. I Met with Ron Combs on site before he retired and feel like I know what I can and cant do. Please let me know where I am mistaken. As far as conditions of Subdivision it call for protection of any oak 4" or greater in the building envelope, there were no oaks in the proposed building envelopes only in the side yards and setbacks. The pile of wood chips is not construction or dirt work and therfore doesnt meet the requirements for stockpiles either. Mike Ive begun including you on these emails because the only neighbor who spoke out against my Subdivision is now using city resourses to harass me. At this point Id appreciate all contact and communication to be through email (no more surprise visits). Thank you for all of your time, sorry to always be the squeaky wheel. John On Thu, Aug 19, 2021, 7:57 AM Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> wrote: Hey John, Can you hold off on any more trimming, we are working on a write up for you about best practices that need to be addressed, and it would seem that at least two of the trees you cut down were Oaks over 10- inches in diameter. It would be wise to hold off on any other improvements at this time, until we address the complaints we have received. However, it would be helpful if you could do something about the wood chip pile. Kyle Bell CDD Associate Planner T 805.781.7524 From: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2021 7:31 AM To: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org>; Trees <trees@slocity.org> Subject: Serrano This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi guys we will be doing more trimming and clearing, never heard back about the last round. Did I miss anything. From:John Rourke To:Codron, Michael Cc:Whipple, Anthony; Cruce, Greg Subject:Re: Serrano Date:Monday, November 15, 2021 7:46:34 PM It is being misinterpreted and improperly utilized. Please let me know how to appeal. Thanks for your input. On Mon, Nov 15, 2021, 7:22 PM Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org> wrote: Yes, I believe the ordinance dictates how that fine is calculated. Michael Codron pronouns he/him/his Director of Community Development City of San Luis Obispo Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E mcodron@slocity.org T 805.781.7187 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 7:05 PM To: Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org> Cc: Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org>; Cruce, Greg <gcruce@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Serrano Thanks for reaching out Mike, just so you know, they sent me a fine for over 16000 dollars because they think I over trimmed my trees. Does that seem reasonable? On Mon, Nov 15, 2021, 5:10 PM Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org> wrote: Hey there, John. I don’t have any background on this particular one so just including Greg who supports Anthony and together they can get you going in the right direction. I’m happy to help as needed, but this letter didn’t come from CDD code enforcement since it falls under a different part of our local code (Tree Ordinance). Thanks! -Michael From: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 3:37 PM To: Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> Cc: Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Serrano I jus sent an administrative citation appeal to the city clerk but I'm not sure if that is what this is, your letter states the amount and gives the estimate and invoice but doesn't give me an actual citation. Is there one? I agreed to the canopy restoration plan after it was agreed there would be no fees. On Mon, Nov 15, 2021, 12:13 PM John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Michael and Anthony, I just received your letter regarding fees for the tree trimming, obviously I don't agree and believe that the city has acted in bad faith. Please let me know how I appeal this decision. Thank you John On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 5:41 PM John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Anthony, Thanks for the response, Based on your answers I'm still confused on legality of cutting trees. Is it illegal or against code to over trim the trees. Only reason I'm asking is I've been in several situations where city employees state I'm doing something illegal while it is actually against code, not a law being broken. Let me know if I'm incorrect. Also under what circumstances would fines be inforced? I'm assuming it is if we didn't do the canopy plan but wanted to confirm that. Greenvale has prepared the plan I'll forward it after this email. On another note I recently purchased the property at 500 westmont that was approved for multiple tree removals. Can that start? Is there something that needs to be done prior to starting? Thanks John On Tue, Sep 21, 2021, 9:14 AM Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> wrote: Hello John, Thank you for your email regarding the issues at 163 Serrano. You had some questions regarding my previous email, which I have answered for you below. Could you please confirm that the 3 oak trees you refer to are mine and on my property? The three oaks at issue appear to be on your property based on the City’s permitting and asset management system. The City’s systems are pretty substantially accurate, but having the property line surveyed is the most precise way to determine property boundaries. Could you also change your wording, they were not illegally pruned, they were pruned in violation of the citys Tree Ordinance which I didnt know was so severe on pruning. Illegally pruned suggests that it is illegally to prune the trees while I belive it is just against an ordinance. Section 12.24.015 of the Tree Ordinance states: A . No person shall: 1. Trim, prune or cut any tree unless such work conforms to this chapter and is performed in accordance with all International Society of Arboriculture standards. In no case shall more than one-third of the tree canopy be removed. Can you clarify the possible fines? How are they determined? In what circumstance are they inforced? MC Section 12.24.170 states: The public works department shall be responsible for enforcement of this chapter. A. Any person deemed responsible for damaging a tree, failing to plant trees required as a condition of a tree removal or other permit, 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 in subsection (A)(1) of this section. 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. 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. The size of the tree shall be determined by the city arborist and may be up to a forty-eight-inch box tree. 5. For damaged trees, in addition to civil penalties, the property owner will be required to obtain the services of an ISA certified arborist to determine the future viability of the tree and, if salvageable, create a maintenance plan to restore the tree. 6. The city council may adopt, by resolution, alternate civil damage amounts to be assessed against any person deemed responsible for damaging, harming or removing a tree without a permit. (Ord. 1589 § 2, 2013: Ord. 1544 § 1 (part), 2010) If you have additional questions after you review my email, please feel free to contact me. Thank you, Anthony Whipple Acting City Arborist Public Works 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: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 9, 2021 8:38 AM To: Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> Cc: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org>; Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org>; Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Serrano Thank you for your response Anthony, as we are obviously going to be in a civil case with the neighbors could you clarify a few things. You state Three oak trees (Quercus agrifolia) trees were pruned illegally in violation of ISA pruning standards and in violation of City Tree Ordinance" Could you please confirm that the 3 oak trees you refer to are mine and on my property? Could you also change your wording, they were not illegally pruned, they were pruned in violation of the citys Tree Ordinance which I didnt know was so severe on pruning. Illegally pruned suggests that it is illegally to prune the trees while I belive it is just against an ordinance. Can you clarify the possible fines? How are they determined? In what circumstance are they inforced? On Thu, Sep 9, 2021, 8:07 AM Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> wrote: John, I understand your concerns and wanted to clarify. After Careful review of your property and our conversation the City will be requiring you to complete the following to mitigate your violation. Provide the City of San Luis Obispo an Arborist Report within 45 days from the date of this email to include an Oak Tree Canopy Restoration Plan for all trees disfigured on the northern side of property. This will mitigate damages that has occurred in violation of our City of San Luis Obispo Tree Ordinance 12.24.170 & 12.24.090 and provide a net benefit to your property and the community. Quick Summary: Three oak trees (Quercus agrifolia) trees were pruned illegally in violation of ISA pruning standards and in violation of City Tree Ordinance which references the ISA pruning standards. Possible fines could be 9,710.00 for the value of the trees. Staff is requiring property owner to hire a Certified Arborist to come up with a long term management plan to save the trees that are salvageable and to oversee the care of the trees for their long term health. Let me know if you have any questions Thank you, Anthony Whipple Acting City Arborist Public Works 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: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 1, 2021 8:04 AM To: Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Serrano Hi Anthony, I read through about canopies, I wasnt aware of the 1/3rd rule prior to our interactions. I agree about the canopy restoration and I have reached out to Ron Combs about doing the restoration. I disagree about the removal diameter of the two trees and the required mitagation. Let me know what we need to do from here. Thanks John On Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 12:08 PM Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> wrote: Hi John, Per our conversation on yesterday, We discussed some improper oak tree pruning and some uncertain 10 inch Diameter Oak tree removals. I’m requiring mitigation be set with planting four fifteen gallon Oak trees within 45 days and maintained as a condition for the questionable trees removed. I am also requiring an Arborist Report within 45 days to include a Oak Tree Canopy Restoration Plan for all trees disfigured on the northern side of property. I feel this approach will mitigate damage that has occurred in violation of our City of San Luis Obispo Tree Ordinance 12.24.170 & 12.24.090 and provide a net benefit to your property and the community. Let me know if you have any questions Thank you, Anthony Whipple Acting City Arborist Public Works 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: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2021 10:44 AM To: Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> Cc: Cruce, Greg <gcruce@slocity.org>; Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Serrano Hi Anthony, Thanks for the Email, I assure you both trees you are referring to were less than 10" at chest height. We will be more mindful when trimming canopies, one question, in an effort to not cut down some trees (ones less than 10") we cut the canopy way down and may go lower, would you rather us cut them down completely or top them and see if they will grow from the cut? The photo example you sent are the trees im referring to. If we cant top them we are better off cutting them down while they are still under the 10". Let me know your thoughts, Thanks John On Fri, Aug 20, 2021, 10:20 AM Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> wrote: Hi John, The city values trees as an important part of the natural, urban and economic environment and efforts shall be made to protect, preserve, and create the conditions that will promote the preservation of trees. The chief complaint was about the 2 trees on the fence line at a low stump measured 15 inch in diameter which may or may not be a violation of the over 10 inch native regulation. Moreover, the pruning photos attached are of concern. This is a friendly reminder to review our City Tree Regulations with respect to sections 12.24.150 and 12.24.170 Before After Tree topping of Coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia) this practice reduces its food-making capacity, and creates large wounds that are susceptible to insect invaders and severe fungal decay. Proper care is based on a thorough understanding of tree physiology and tree biomechanics. Trees need foliage to manufacture food. Removing all or most of the foliage puts the tree on a starvation diet. To grow new foliage the tree depends on sugars stored in the roots and stem. In order to continue manufacturing food for itself the tree will activate growth from epicormic buds which we observe as “water sprouts”. These epicormic branches, or water sprouts, must grow vigorously and quickly to replace lost foliage if the tree is not to starve. As they grow they are significantly more prone to breakage and failure than normal branches. Also, large wounds can compromises the tree’s chemical defense system. Attacks from insects, disease, and fungal pathogens can follow. With mature trees that have too little space to thrive. One option of reasonably reducing a tree’s overall height and width is crown reduction. Crown reduction is a typical pruning technique, but one that should be employed judiciously. 12.24.150 Protection of trees. A. No person shall: 1. Trim, prune or cut any tree unless such work conforms to this chapter and is performed in accordance with all International Society of Arboriculture standards. In no case shall more than one-third of the tree canopy be removed. 3. Willfully injure, disfigure or intentionally destroy by any means any tree, except with permits described elsewhere in this chapter. 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, failing to plant trees required as a condition of a tree removal or other permit, or removing a tree without a permit as described in this chapter shall be liable for civil penalties to the city. 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 in subsection (A)(1) of this section. Let me know if you have any questions Thank you, Anthony Whipple Acting City Arborist Public Works 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: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2021 8:23 AM To: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Cc: Trees <trees@slocity.org>; Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Serrano I will probably do trimming this weekend sp please get me any advice before then. I Met with Ron Combs on site before he retired and feel like I know what I can and cant do. Please let me know where I am mistaken. As far as conditions of Subdivision it call for protection of any oak 4" or greater in the building envelope, there were no oaks in the proposed building envelopes only in the side yards and setbacks. The pile of wood chips is not construction or dirt work and therfore doesnt meet the requirements for stockpiles either. Mike Ive begun including you on these emails because the only neighbor who spoke out against my Subdivision is now using city resourses to harass me. At this point Id appreciate all contact and communication to be through email (no more surprise visits). Thank you for all of your time, sorry to always be the squeaky wheel. John On Thu, Aug 19, 2021, 7:57 AM Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> wrote: Hey John, Can you hold off on any more trimming, we are working on a write up for you about best practices that need to be addressed, and it would seem that at least two of the trees you cut down were Oaks over 10-inches in diameter. It would be wise to hold off on any other improvements at this time, until we address the complaints we have received. However, it would be helpful if you could do something about the wood chip pile. Kyle Bell CDD Associate Planner T 805.781.7524 From: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2021 7:31 AM To: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org>; Trees <trees@slocity.org> Subject: Serrano This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi guys we will be doing more trimming and clearing, never heard back about the last round. Did I miss anything. From:Codron, Michael To:John Rourke Cc:Whipple, Anthony; Cruce, Greg Subject:Re: Serrano Date:Monday, November 15, 2021 7:22:31 PM Yes, I believe the ordinance dictates how that fine is calculated. Michael Codron pronouns he/him/his Director of Community Development City of San Luis Obispo Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E mcodron@slocity.org T 805.781.7187 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 7:05 PM To: Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org> Cc: Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org>; Cruce, Greg <gcruce@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Serrano Thanks for reaching out Mike, just so you know, they sent me a fine for over 16000 dollars because they think I over trimmed my trees. Does that seem reasonable? On Mon, Nov 15, 2021, 5:10 PM Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org> wrote: Hey there, John. I don’t have any background on this particular one so just including Greg who supports Anthony and together they can get you going in the right direction. I’m happy to help as needed, but this letter didn’t come from CDD code enforcement since it falls under a different part of our local code (Tree Ordinance). Thanks! -Michael From: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 3:37 PM To: Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> Cc: Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Serrano I jus sent an administrative citation appeal to the city clerk but I'm not sure if that is what this is, your letter states the amount and gives the estimate and invoice but doesn't give me an actual citation. Is there one? I agreed to the canopy restoration plan after it was agreed there would be no fees. On Mon, Nov 15, 2021, 12:13 PM John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Michael and Anthony, I just received your letter regarding fees for the tree trimming, obviously I don't agree and believe that the city has acted in bad faith. Please let me know how I appeal this decision. Thank you John On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 5:41 PM John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Anthony, Thanks for the response, Based on your answers I'm still confused on legality of cutting trees. Is it illegal or against code to over trim the trees. Only reason I'm asking is I've been in several situations where city employees state I'm doing something illegal while it is actually against code, not a law being broken. Let me know if I'm incorrect. Also under what circumstances would fines be inforced? I'm assuming it is if we didn't do the canopy plan but wanted to confirm that. Greenvale has prepared the plan I'll forward it after this email. On another note I recently purchased the property at 500 westmont that was approved for multiple tree removals. Can that start? Is there something that needs to be done prior to starting? Thanks John On Tue, Sep 21, 2021, 9:14 AM Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> wrote: Hello John, Thank you for your email regarding the issues at 163 Serrano. You had some questions regarding my previous email, which I have answered for you below. Could you please confirm that the 3 oak trees you refer to are mine and on my property? The three oaks at issue appear to be on your property based on the City’s permitting and asset management system. The City’s systems are pretty substantially accurate, but having the property line surveyed is the most precise way to determine property boundaries. Could you also change your wording, they were not illegally pruned, they were pruned in violation of the citys Tree Ordinance which I didnt know was so severe on pruning. Illegally pruned suggests that it is illegally to prune the trees while I belive it is just against an ordinance. Section 12.24.015 of the Tree Ordinance states: A . No person shall: 1. Trim, prune or cut any tree unless such work conforms to this chapter and is performed in accordance with all International Society of Arboriculture standards. In no case shall more than one-third of the tree canopy be removed. Can you clarify the possible fines? How are they determined? In what circumstance are they inforced? MC Section 12.24.170 states: The public works department shall be responsible for enforcement of this chapter. A. Any person deemed responsible for damaging a tree, failing to plant trees required as a condition of a tree removal or other permit, 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 in subsection (A)(1) of this section. 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. 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. The size of the tree shall be determined by the city arborist and may be up to a forty-eight-inch box tree. 5. For damaged trees, in addition to civil penalties, the property owner will be required to obtain the services of an ISA certified arborist to determine the future viability of the tree and, if salvageable, create a maintenance plan to restore the tree. 6. The city council may adopt, by resolution, alternate civil damage amounts to be assessed against any person deemed responsible for damaging, harming or removing a tree without a permit. (Ord. 1589 § 2, 2013: Ord. 1544 1 (part), 2010) If you have additional questions after you review my email, please feel free to contact me. Thank you, Anthony Whipple Acting City Arborist Public Works 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: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 9, 2021 8:38 AM To: Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> Cc: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org>; Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org>; Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Serrano Thank you for your response Anthony, as we are obviously going to be in a civil case with the neighbors could you clarify a few things. You state Three oak trees (Quercus agrifolia) trees were pruned illegally in violation of ISA pruning standards and in violation of City Tree Ordinance" Could you please confirm that the 3 oak trees you refer to are mine and on my property? Could you also change your wording, they were not illegally pruned, they were pruned in violation of the citys Tree Ordinance which I didnt know was so severe on pruning. Illegally pruned suggests that it is illegally to prune the trees while I belive it is just against an ordinance. Can you clarify the possible fines? How are they determined? In what circumstance are they inforced? On Thu, Sep 9, 2021, 8:07 AM Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> wrote: John, I understand your concerns and wanted to clarify. After Careful review of your property and our conversation the City will be requiring you to complete the following to mitigate your violation. Provide the City of San Luis Obispo an Arborist Report within 45 days from the date of this email to include an Oak Tree Canopy Restoration Plan for all trees disfigured on the northern side of property. This will mitigate damages that has occurred in violation of our City of San Luis Obispo Tree Ordinance 12.24.170 & 12.24.090 and provide a net benefit to your property and the community. Quick Summary: Three oak trees (Quercus agrifolia) trees were pruned illegally in violation of ISA pruning standards and in violation of City Tree Ordinance which references the ISA pruning standards. Possible fines could be $9,710.00 for the value of the trees. Staff is requiring property owner to hire a Certified Arborist to come up with a long term management plan to save the trees that are salvageable and to oversee the care of the trees for their long term health. Let me know if you have any questions Thank you, Anthony Whipple Acting City Arborist Public Works 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: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 1, 2021 8:04 AM To: Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Serrano Hi Anthony, I read through about canopies, I wasnt aware of the 1/3rd rule prior to our interactions. I agree about the canopy restoration and I have reached out to Ron Combs about doing the restoration. I disagree about the removal diameter of the two trees and the required mitagation. Let me know what we need to do from here. Thanks John On Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 12:08 PM Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> wrote: Hi John, Per our conversation on yesterday, We discussed some improper oak tree pruning and some uncertain 10 inch Diameter Oak tree removals. I’m requiring mitigation be set with planting four fifteen gallon Oak trees within 45 days and maintained as a condition for the questionable trees removed. I am also requiring an Arborist Report within 45 days to include a Oak Tree Canopy Restoration Plan for all trees disfigured on the northern side of property. I feel this approach will mitigate damage that has occurred in violation of our City of San Luis Obispo Tree Ordinance 12.24.170 & 12.24.090 and provide a net benefit to your property and the community. Let me know if you have any questions Thank you, Anthony Whipple Acting City Arborist Public Works 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: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2021 10:44 AM To: Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> Cc: Cruce, Greg <gcruce@slocity.org>; Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Serrano Hi Anthony, Thanks for the Email, I assure you both trees you are referring to were less than 10" at chest height. We will be more mindful when trimming canopies, one question, in an effort to not cut down some trees (ones less than 10") we cut the canopy way down and may go lower, would you rather us cut them down completely or top them and see if they will grow from the cut? The photo example you sent are the trees im referring to. If we cant top them we are better off cutting them down while they are still under the 10". Let me know your thoughts, Thanks John On Fri, Aug 20, 2021, 10:20 AM Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> wrote: Hi John, The city values trees as an important part of the natural, urban and economic environment and efforts shall be made to protect, preserve, and create the conditions that will promote the preservation of trees. The chief complaint was about the 2 trees on the fence line at a low stump measured 15 inch in diameter which may or may not be a violation of the over 10 inch native regulation. Moreover, the pruning photos attached are of concern. This is a friendly reminder to review our City Tree Regulations with respect to sections 12.24.150 and 12.24.170 Before After Tree topping of Coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia) this practice reduces its food-making capacity, and creates large wounds that are susceptible to insect invaders and severe fungal decay. Proper care is based on a thorough understanding of tree physiology and tree biomechanics. Trees need foliage to manufacture food. Removing all or most of the foliage puts the tree on a starvation diet. To grow new foliage the tree depends on sugars stored in the roots and stem. In order to continue manufacturing food for itself the tree will activate growth from epicormic buds which we observe as “water sprouts”. These epicormic branches, or water sprouts, must grow vigorously and quickly to replace lost foliage if the tree is not to starve. As they grow they are significantly more prone to breakage and failure than normal branches. Also, large wounds can compromises the tree’s chemical defense system. Attacks from insects, disease, and fungal pathogens can follow. With mature trees that have too little space to thrive. One option of reasonably reducing a tree’s overall height and width is crown reduction. Crown reduction is a typical pruning technique, but one that should be employed judiciously. 12.24.150 Protection of trees. A. No person shall: 1. Trim, prune or cut any tree unless such work conforms to this chapter and is performed in accordance with all International Society of Arboriculture standards. In no case shall more than one-third of the tree canopy be removed. 3. Willfully injure, disfigure or intentionally destroy by any means any tree, except with permits described elsewhere in this chapter. 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, failing to plant trees required as a condition of a tree removal or other permit, or removing a tree without a permit as described in this chapter shall be liable for civil penalties to the city. 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 in subsection (A)(1) of this section. Let me know if you have any questions Thank you, Anthony Whipple Acting City Arborist Public Works 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: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2021 8:23 AM To: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Cc: Trees <trees@slocity.org>; Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Serrano I will probably do trimming this weekend sp please get me any advice before then. I Met with Ron Combs on site before he retired and feel like I know what I can and cant do. Please let me know where I am mistaken. As far as conditions of Subdivision it call for protection of any oak 4" or greater in the building envelope, there were no oaks in the proposed building envelopes only in the side yards and setbacks. The pile of wood chips is not construction or dirt work and therfore doesnt meet the requirements for stockpiles either. Mike Ive begun including you on these emails because the only neighbor who spoke out against my Subdivision is now using city resourses to harass me. At this point Id appreciate all contact and communication to be through email (no more surprise visits). Thank you for all of your time, sorry to always be the squeaky wheel. John On Thu, Aug 19, 2021, 7:57 AM Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> wrote: Hey John, Can you hold off on any more trimming, we are working on a write up for you about best practices that need to be addressed, and it would seem that at least two of the trees you cut down were Oaks over 10- inches in diameter. It would be wise to hold off on any other improvements at this time, until we address the complaints we have received. However, it would be helpful if you could do something about the wood chip pile. Kyle Bell CDD Associate Planner T 805.781.7524 From: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2021 7:31 AM To: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org>; Trees <trees@slocity.org> Subject: Serrano This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi guys we will be doing more trimming and clearing, never heard back about the last round. Did I miss anything. To:John Rourke Cc:Bell, Kyle; Codron, Michael; Wallace, Christine Subject:RE: Serrano Date:Thursday, September 9, 2021 1:59:26 PM John, I can provide a link for you to find an ISA Certified Arborist ISA find an Arborist From: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 9, 2021 11:00 AM To: Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> Cc: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org>; Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org>; Wallace, Christine cwallace@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Serrano Also I haven't been able to get a hold of Ron Combs. Can you give me a list of arborists that have worked with the city? On Thu, Sep 9, 2021, 8:38 AM John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> wrote: Thank you for your response Anthony, as we are obviously going to be in a civil case with the neighbors could you clarify a few things. You state Three oak trees (Quercus agrifolia) trees were pruned illegally in violation of ISA pruning standards and in violation of City Tree Ordinance" Could you please confirm that the 3 oak trees you refer to are mine and on my property? Could you also change your wording, they were not illegally pruned, they were pruned in violation of the citys Tree Ordinance which I didnt know was so severe on pruning. Illegally pruned suggests that it is illegally to prune the trees while I belive it is just against an ordinance. Can you clarify the possible fines? How are they determined? In what circumstance are they inforced? On Thu, Sep 9, 2021, 8:07 AM Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> wrote: John, I understand your concerns and wanted to clarify. After Careful review of your property and our conversation the City will be requiring you to complete the following to mitigate your violation. Provide the City of San Luis Obispo an Arborist Report within 45 days from the date of this email to include an Oak Tree Canopy Restoration Plan for all trees disfigured on the northern side of property. This will mitigate damages that has occurred in violation of our City of San Luis Obispo Tree Ordinance 12.24.170 & 12.24.090 and provide a net benefit to your property and the community. Quick Summary: Three oak trees (Quercus agrifolia) trees were pruned illegally in violation of ISA pruning standards and in violation of City Tree Ordinance which references the ISA pruning standards. Possible fines could be $9,710.00 for the value of the trees. Staff is requiring property owner to hire a Certified Arborist to come up with a long term management plan to save the trees that are salvageable and to oversee the care of the trees for their long term health. Let me know if you have any questions Thank you, Anthony Whipple Acting City Arborist Public Works 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: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 1, 2021 8:04 AM To: Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Serrano Hi Anthony, I read through about canopies, I wasnt aware of the 1/3rd rule prior to our interactions. I agree about the canopy restoration and I have reached out to Ron Combs about doing the restoration. I disagree about the removal diameter of the two trees and the required mitagation. Let me know what we need to do from here. Thanks John On Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 12:08 PM Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> wrote: Hi John, Per our conversation on yesterday, We discussed some improper oak tree pruning and some uncertain 10 inch Diameter Oak tree removals. I’m requiring mitigation be set with planting four fifteen gallon Oak trees within 45 days and maintained as a condition for the questionable trees removed. I am also requiring an Arborist Report within 45 days to include a Oak Tree Canopy Restoration Plan for all trees disfigured on the northern side of property. I feel this approach will mitigate damage that has occurred in violation of our City of San Luis Obispo Tree Ordinance 12.24.170 & 12.24.090 and provide a net benefit to your property and the community. Let me know if you have any questions Thank you, Anthony Whipple Acting City Arborist Public Works 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: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2021 10:44 AM To: Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> Cc: Cruce, Greg <gcruce@slocity.org>; Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Serrano Hi Anthony, Thanks for the Email, I assure you both trees you are referring to were less than 10" at chest height. We will be more mindful when trimming canopies, one question, in an effort to not cut down some trees (ones less than 10") we cut the canopy way down and may go lower, would you rather us cut them down completely or top them and see if they will grow from the cut? The photo example you sent are the trees im referring to. If we cant top them we are better off cutting them down while they are still under the 10". Let me know your thoughts, Thanks John On Fri, Aug 20, 2021, 10:20 AM Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> wrote: Hi John, The city values trees as an important part of the natural, urban and economic environment and efforts shall be made to protect, preserve, and create the conditions that will promote the preservation of trees. The chief complaint was about the 2 trees on the fence line at a low stump measured 15 inch in diameter which may or may not be a violation of the over 10 inch native regulation. Moreover, the pruning photos attached are of concern. This is a friendly reminder to review our City Tree Regulations with respect to sections 12.24.150 and 12.24.170 Before After Tree topping of Coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia) this practice reduces its food- making capacity, and creates large wounds that are susceptible to insect invaders and severe fungal decay. Proper care is based on a thorough understanding of tree physiology and tree biomechanics. Trees need foliage to manufacture food. Removing all or most of the foliage puts the tree on a starvation diet. To grow new foliage the tree depends on sugars stored in the roots and stem. In order to continue manufacturing food for itself the tree will activate growth from epicormic buds which we observe as “water sprouts”. These epicormic branches, or water sprouts, must grow vigorously and quickly to replace lost foliage if the tree is not to starve. As they grow they are significantly more prone to breakage and failure than normal branches. Also, large wounds can compromises the tree’s chemical defense system. Attacks from insects, disease, and fungal pathogens can follow. With mature trees that have too little space to thrive. One option of reasonably reducing a tree’s overall height and width is crown reduction. Crown reduction is a typical pruning technique, but one that should be employed judiciously. 12.24.150 Protection of trees. A. No person shall: 1. Trim, prune or cut any tree unless such work conforms to this chapter and is performed in accordance with all International Society of Arboriculture standards. In no case shall more than one-third of the tree canopy be removed. 3. Willfully injure, disfigure or intentionally destroy by any means any tree, except with permits described elsewhere in this chapter. 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, failing to plant trees required as a condition of a tree removal or other permit, or removing a tree without a permit as described in this chapter shall be liable for civil penalties to the city. 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 in subsection (A)(1) of this section. Let me know if you have any questions Thank you, Anthony Whipple Acting City Arborist Public Works 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: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2021 8:23 AM To: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Cc: Trees <trees@slocity.org>; Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Serrano I will probably do trimming this weekend sp please get me any advice before then. I Met with Ron Combs on site before he retired and feel like I know what I can and cant do. Please let me know where I am mistaken. As far as conditions of Subdivision it call for protection of any oak 4" or greater in the building envelope, there were no oaks in the proposed building envelopes only in the side yards and setbacks. The pile of wood chips is not construction or dirt work and therfore doesnt meet the requirements for stockpiles either. Mike Ive begun including you on these emails because the only neighbor who spoke out against my Subdivision is now using city resourses to harass me. At this point Id appreciate all contact and communication to be through email (no more surprise visits). Thank you for all of your time, sorry to always be the squeaky wheel. John On Thu, Aug 19, 2021, 7:57 AM Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> wrote: Hey John, Can you hold off on any more trimming, we are working on a write up for you about best practices that need to be addressed, and it would seem that at least two of the trees you cut down were Oaks over 10-inches in diameter. It would be wise to hold off on any other improvements at this time, until we address the complaints we have received. However, it would be helpful if you could do something about the wood chip pile. Kyle Bell CDD Associate Planner T 805.781.7524 From: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2021 7:31 AM To: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org>; Trees <trees@slocity.org> Subject: Serrano This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi guys we will be doing more trimming and clearing, never heard back about the last round. Did I miss anything. From:Cruce, Greg To:Whipple, Anthony Subject:RE: Serrano Date:Thursday, September 9, 2021 8:08:00 AM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png Nice work. From: Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, September 9, 2021 8:07 AM To: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Cc: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org>; Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org>; Wallace, Christine cwallace@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Serrano John, I understand your concerns and wanted to clarify. After Careful review of your property and our conversation the City will be requiring you to complete the following to mitigate your violation. Provide the City of San Luis Obispo an Arborist Report within 45 days from the date of this email to include an Oak Tree Canopy Restoration Plan for all trees disfigured on the northern side of property. This will mitigate damages that has occurred in violation of our City of San Luis Obispo Tree Ordinance 12.24.170 & 12.24.090 and provide a net benefit to your property and the community. Quick Summary: Three oak trees (Quercus agrifolia) trees were pruned illegally in violation of ISA pruning standards and in violation of City Tree Ordinance which references the ISA pruning standards. Possible fines could be $9,710.00 for the value of the trees. Staff is requiring property owner to hire a Certified Arborist to come up with a long term management plan to save the trees that are salvageable and to oversee the care of the trees for their long term health. Let me know if you have any questions Thank you, Anthony Whipple Acting City Arborist Public Works 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: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 1, 2021 8:04 AM To: Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Serrano Hi Anthony, I read through about canopies, I wasnt aware of the 1/3rd rule prior to our interactions. I agree about the canopy restoration and I have reached out to Ron Combs about doing the restoration. I disagree about the removal diameter of the two trees and the required mitagation. Let me know what we need to do from here. Thanks John On Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 12:08 PM Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> wrote: Hi John, Per our conversation on yesterday, We discussed some improper oak tree pruning and some uncertain 10 inch Diameter Oak tree removals. I’m requiring mitigation be set with planting four fifteen gallon Oak trees within 45 days and maintained as a condition for the questionable trees removed. I am also requiring an Arborist Report within 45 days to include a Oak Tree Canopy Restoration Plan for all trees disfigured on the northern side of property. I feel this approach will mitigate damage that has occurred in violation of our City of San Luis Obispo Tree Ordinance 12.24.170 & 12.24.090 and provide a net benefit to your property and the community. Let me know if you have any questions Thank you, Anthony Whipple Acting City Arborist Public Works 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: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2021 10:44 AM To: Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> Cc: Cruce, Greg <gcruce@slocity.org>; Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Serrano Hi Anthony, Thanks for the Email, I assure you both trees you are referring to were less than 10" at chest height. We will be more mindful when trimming canopies, one question, in an effort to not cut down some trees (ones less than 10") we cut the canopy way down and may go lower, would you rather us cut them down completely or top them and see if they will grow from the cut? The photo example you sent are the trees im referring to. If we cant top them we are better off cutting them down while they are still under the 10". Let me know your thoughts, Thanks John On Fri, Aug 20, 2021, 10:20 AM Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> wrote: Hi John, The city values trees as an important part of the natural, urban and economic environment and efforts shall be made to protect, preserve, and create the conditions that will promote the preservation of trees. The chief complaint was about the 2 trees on the fence line at a low stump measured 15 inch in diameter which may or may not be a violation of the over 10 inch native regulation. Moreover, the pruning photos attached are of concern. This is a friendly reminder to review our City Tree Regulations with respect to sections 12.24.150 and 12.24.170 Before After Tree topping of Coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia) this practice reduces its food- making capacity, and creates large wounds that are susceptible to insect invaders and severe fungal decay. Proper care is based on a thorough understanding of tree physiology and tree biomechanics. Trees need foliage to manufacture food. Removing all or most of the foliage puts the tree on a starvation diet. To grow new foliage the tree depends on sugars stored in the roots and stem. In order to continue manufacturing food for itself the tree will activate growth from epicormic buds which we observe as water sprouts”. These epicormic branches, or water sprouts, must grow vigorously and quickly to replace lost foliage if the tree is not to starve. As they grow they are significantly more prone to breakage and failure than normal branches. Also, large wounds can compromises the tree’s chemical defense system. Attacks from insects, disease, and fungal pathogens can follow. With mature trees that have too little space to thrive. One option of reasonably reducing a tree’s overall height and width is crown reduction. Crown reduction is a typical pruning technique, but one that should be employed judiciously. 12.24.150 Protection of trees. A. No person shall: 1. Trim, prune or cut any tree unless such work conforms to this chapter and is performed in accordance with all International Society of Arboriculture standards. In no case shall more than one-third of the tree canopy be removed. 3. Willfully injure, disfigure or intentionally destroy by any means any tree, except with permits described elsewhere in this chapter. 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, failing to plant trees required as a condition of a tree removal or other permit, or removing a tree without a permit as described in this chapter shall be liable for civil penalties to the city. 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 in subsection (A)(1) of this section. Let me know if you have any questions Thank you, Anthony Whipple Acting City Arborist Public Works 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: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2021 8:23 AM To: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Cc: Trees <trees@slocity.org>; Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Serrano I will probably do trimming this weekend sp please get me any advice before then. I Met with Ron Combs on site before he retired and feel like I know what I can and cant do. Please let me know where I am mistaken. As far as conditions of Subdivision it call for protection of any oak 4" or greater in the building envelope, there were no oaks in the proposed building envelopes only in the side yards and setbacks. The pile of wood chips is not construction or dirt work and therfore doesnt meet the requirements for stockpiles either. Mike Ive begun including you on these emails because the only neighbor who spoke out against my Subdivision is now using city resourses to harass me. At this point Id appreciate all contact and communication to be through email (no more surprise visits). Thank you for all of your time, sorry to always be the squeaky wheel. John On Thu, Aug 19, 2021, 7:57 AM Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> wrote: Hey John, Can you hold off on any more trimming, we are working on a write up for you about best practices that need to be addressed, and it would seem that at least two of the trees you cut down were Oaks over 10-inches in diameter. It would be wise to hold off on any other improvements at this time, until we address the complaints we have received. However, it would be helpful if you could do something about the wood chip pile. Kyle Bell CDD Associate Planner T 805.781.7524 From: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2021 7:31 AM To: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org>; Trees <trees@slocity.org> Subject: Serrano This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi guys we will be doing more trimming and clearing, never heard back about the last round. Did I miss anything. From:Whipple, Anthony To:John Rourke Cc:Bell, Kyle; Codron, Michael; Wallace, Christine Bcc:Cruce, Greg Subject:RE: Serrano Date:Thursday, September 9, 2021 8:07:00 AM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png John, I understand your concerns and wanted to clarify. After Careful review of your property and our conversation the City will be requiring you to complete the following to mitigate your violation. Provide the City of San Luis Obispo an Arborist Report within 45 days from the date of this email to include an Oak Tree Canopy Restoration Plan for all trees disfigured on the northern side of property. This will mitigate damages that has occurred in violation of our City of San Luis Obispo Tree Ordinance 12.24.170 & 12.24.090 and provide a net benefit to your property and the community. Quick Summary: Three oak trees (Quercus agrifolia) trees were pruned illegally in violation of ISA pruning standards and in violation of City Tree Ordinance which references the ISA pruning standards. Possible fines could be $9,710.00 for the value of the trees. Staff is requiring property owner to hire a Certified Arborist to come up with a long term management plan to save the trees that are salvageable and to oversee the care of the trees for their long term health. Let me know if you have any questions Thank you, Anthony Whipple Acting City Arborist Public Works 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: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 1, 2021 8:04 AM To: Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Serrano Hi Anthony, I read through about canopies, I wasnt aware of the 1/3rd rule prior to our interactions. I agree about the canopy restoration and I have reached out to Ron Combs about doing the restoration. I disagree about the removal diameter of the two trees and the required mitagation. Let me know what we need to do from here. Thanks John On Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 12:08 PM Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> wrote: Hi John, Per our conversation on yesterday, We discussed some improper oak tree pruning and some uncertain 10 inch Diameter Oak tree removals. I’m requiring mitigation be set with planting four fifteen gallon Oak trees within 45 days and maintained as a condition for the questionable trees removed. I am also requiring an Arborist Report within 45 days to include a Oak Tree Canopy Restoration Plan for all trees disfigured on the northern side of property. I feel this approach will mitigate damage that has occurred in violation of our City of San Luis Obispo Tree Ordinance 12.24.170 & 12.24.090 and provide a net benefit to your property and the community. Let me know if you have any questions Thank you, Anthony Whipple Acting City Arborist Public Works 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: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2021 10:44 AM To: Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> Cc: Cruce, Greg <gcruce@slocity.org>; Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Serrano Hi Anthony, Thanks for the Email, I assure you both trees you are referring to were less than 10" at chest height. We will be more mindful when trimming canopies, one question, in an effort to not cut down some trees (ones less than 10") we cut the canopy way down and may go lower, would you rather us cut them down completely or top them and see if they will grow from the cut? The photo example you sent are the trees im referring to. If we cant top them we are better off cutting them down while they are still under the 10". Let me know your thoughts, Thanks John On Fri, Aug 20, 2021, 10:20 AM Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> wrote: Hi John, The city values trees as an important part of the natural, urban and economic environment and efforts shall be made to protect, preserve, and create the conditions that will promote the preservation of trees. The chief complaint was about the 2 trees on the fence line at a low stump measured 15 inch in diameter which may or may not be a violation of the over 10 inch native regulation. Moreover, the pruning photos attached are of concern. This is a friendly reminder to review our City Tree Regulations with respect to sections 12.24.150 and 12.24.170 Before After Tree topping of Coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia) this practice reduces its food- making capacity, and creates large wounds that are susceptible to insect invaders and severe fungal decay. Proper care is based on a thorough understanding of tree physiology and tree biomechanics. Trees need foliage to manufacture food. Removing all or most of the foliage puts the tree on a starvation diet. To grow new foliage the tree depends on sugars stored in the roots and stem. In order to continue manufacturing food for itself the tree will activate growth from epicormic buds which we observe as water sprouts”. These epicormic branches, or water sprouts, must grow vigorously and quickly to replace lost foliage if the tree is not to starve. As they grow they are significantly more prone to breakage and failure than normal branches. Also, large wounds can compromises the tree’s chemical defense system. Attacks from insects, disease, and fungal pathogens can follow. With mature trees that have too little space to thrive. One option of reasonably reducing a tree’s overall height and width is crown reduction. Crown reduction is a typical pruning technique, but one that should be employed judiciously. 12.24.150 Protection of trees. A. No person shall: 1. Trim, prune or cut any tree unless such work conforms to this chapter and is performed in accordance with all International Society of Arboriculture standards. In no case shall more than one-third of the tree canopy be removed. 3. Willfully injure, disfigure or intentionally destroy by any means any tree, except with permits described elsewhere in this chapter. 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, failing to plant trees required as a condition of a tree removal or other permit, or removing a tree without a permit as described in this chapter shall be liable for civil penalties to the city. 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 in subsection (A)(1) of this section. Let me know if you have any questions Thank you, Anthony Whipple Acting City Arborist Public Works 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: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2021 8:23 AM To: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Cc: Trees <trees@slocity.org>; Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Serrano I will probably do trimming this weekend sp please get me any advice before then. I Met with Ron Combs on site before he retired and feel like I know what I can and cant do. Please let me know where I am mistaken. As far as conditions of Subdivision it call for protection of any oak 4" or greater in the building envelope, there were no oaks in the proposed building envelopes only in the side yards and setbacks. The pile of wood chips is not construction or dirt work and therfore doesnt meet the requirements for stockpiles either. Mike Ive begun including you on these emails because the only neighbor who spoke out against my Subdivision is now using city resourses to harass me. At this point Id appreciate all contact and communication to be through email (no more surprise visits). Thank you for all of your time, sorry to always be the squeaky wheel. John On Thu, Aug 19, 2021, 7:57 AM Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> wrote: Hey John, Can you hold off on any more trimming, we are working on a write up for you about best practices that need to be addressed, and it would seem that at least two of the trees you cut down were Oaks over 10-inches in diameter. It would be wise to hold off on any other improvements at this time, until we address the complaints we have received. However, it would be helpful if you could do something about the wood chip pile. Kyle Bell CDD Associate Planner T 805.781.7524 From: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2021 7:31 AM To: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org>; Trees <trees@slocity.org> Subject: Serrano This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi guys we will be doing more trimming and clearing, never heard back about the last round. Did I miss anything. From:John Rourke To:Whipple, Anthony Subject:Re: Serrano Date:Wednesday, September 1, 2021 8:05:08 AM Attachments:image003.png Hi Anthony, I read through about canopies, I wasnt aware of the 1/3rd rule prior to our interactions. I agree about the canopy restoration and I have reached out to Ron Combs about doing the restoration. I disagree about the removal diameter of the two trees and the required mitagation. Let me know what we need to do from here. Thanks John On Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 12:08 PM Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> wrote: Hi John, Per our conversation on yesterday, We discussed some improper oak tree pruning and some uncertain 10 inch Diameter Oak tree removals. I’m requiring mitigation be set with planting four fifteen gallon Oak trees within 45 days and maintained as a condition for the questionable trees removed. I am also requiring an Arborist Report within 45 days to include a Oak Tree Canopy Restoration Plan for all trees disfigured on the northern side of property. I feel this approach will mitigate damage that has occurred in violation of our City of San Luis Obispo Tree Ordinance 12.24.170 & 12.24.090 and provide a net benefit to your property and the community. Let me know if you have any questions Thank you, Anthony Whipple Acting City Arborist Public Works 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: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2021 10:44 AM To: Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> Cc: Cruce, Greg <gcruce@slocity.org>; Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Serrano Hi Anthony, Thanks for the Email, I assure you both trees you are referring to were less than 10" at chest height. We will be more mindful when trimming canopies, one question, in an effort to not cut down some trees (ones less than 10") we cut the canopy way down and may go lower, would you rather us cut them down completely or top them and see if they will grow from the cut? The photo example you sent are the trees im referring to. If we cant top them we are better off cutting them down while they are still under the 10". Let me know your thoughts, Thanks John On Fri, Aug 20, 2021, 10:20 AM Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> wrote: Hi John, The city values trees as an important part of the natural, urban and economic environment and efforts shall be made to protect, preserve, and create the conditions that will promote the preservation of trees. The chief complaint was about the 2 trees on the fence line at a low stump measured 15 inch in diameter which may or may not be a violation of the over 10 inch native regulation. Moreover, the pruning photos attached are of concern. This is a friendly reminder to review our City Tree Regulations with respect to sections 12.24.150 and 12.24.170 Before After Tree topping of Coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia) this practice reduces its food- making capacity, and creates large wounds that are susceptible to insect invaders and severe fungal decay. Proper care is based on a thorough understanding of tree physiology and tree biomechanics. Trees need foliage to manufacture food. Removing all or most of the foliage puts the tree on a starvation diet. To grow new foliage the tree depends on sugars stored in the roots and stem. In order to continue manufacturing food for itself the tree will activate growth from epicormic buds which we observe as “water sprouts”. These epicormic branches, or water sprouts, must grow vigorously and quickly to replace lost foliage if the tree is not to starve. As they grow they are significantly more prone to breakage and failure than normal branches. Also, large wounds can compromises the tree’s chemical defense system. Attacks from insects, disease, and fungal pathogens can follow. With mature trees that have too little space to thrive. One option of reasonably reducing a tree’s overall height and width is crown reduction. Crown reduction is a typical pruning technique, but one that should be employed judiciously. 12.24.150 Protection of trees. A. No person shall: 1. Trim, prune or cut any tree unless such work conforms to this chapter and is performed in accordance with all International Society of Arboriculture standards. In no case shall more than one-third of the tree canopy be removed. 3. Willfully injure, disfigure or intentionally destroy by any means any tree, except with permits described elsewhere in this chapter. 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, failing to plant trees required as a condition of a tree removal or other permit, or removing a tree without a permit as described in this chapter shall be liable for civil penalties to the city. 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 in subsection (A)(1) of this section. Let me know if you have any questions Thank you, Anthony Whipple Acting City Arborist Public Works 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: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2021 8:23 AM To: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Cc: Trees <trees@slocity.org>; Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Serrano I will probably do trimming this weekend sp please get me any advice before then. I Met with Ron Combs on site before he retired and feel like I know what I can and cant do. Please let me know where I am mistaken. As far as conditions of Subdivision it call for protection of any oak 4" or greater in the building envelope, there were no oaks in the proposed building envelopes only in the side yards and setbacks. The pile of wood chips is not construction or dirt work and therfore doesnt meet the requirements for stockpiles either. Mike Ive begun including you on these emails because the only neighbor who spoke out against my Subdivision is now using city resourses to harass me. At this point Id appreciate all contact and communication to be through email (no more surprise visits). Thank you for all of your time, sorry to always be the squeaky wheel. John On Thu, Aug 19, 2021, 7:57 AM Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> wrote: Hey John, Can you hold off on any more trimming, we are working on a write up for you about best practices that need to be addressed, and it would seem that at least two of the trees you cut down were Oaks over 10-inches in diameter. It would be wise to hold off on any other improvements at this time, until we address the complaints we have received. However, it would be helpful if you could do something about the wood chip pile. Kyle Bell CDD Associate Planner T 805.781.7524 From: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2021 7:31 AM To: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org>; Trees <trees@slocity.org> Subject: Serrano This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi guys we will be doing more trimming and clearing, never heard back about the last round. Did I miss anything. From:Bell, Kyle To:Whipple, Anthony Subject:RE: Serrano Date:Thursday, September 2, 2021 7:53:00 AM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png image005.png image006.png The new survey markers were done by the neighbor not Mr. Rourke. I guess I will go back out there and take some photos. Kyle Bell CDD Associate Planner T 805.781.7524 From: Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, September 2, 2021 6:09 AM To: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Serrano I could not determine the property lines as it appeared to have been moved or at the rock wall from what appeared to be new survey markers installed from Mr. Rourke? AW From: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 1, 2021 3:45 PM To: Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> Cc: Cruce, Greg <gcruce@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Serrano Also, do you have any notes about which of the 10 trees you identified in your email below were located on the neighbor’s property? Kyle Bell CDD Associate Planner T 805.781.7524 From: Bell, Kyle Sent: Wednesday, September 1, 2021 3:40 PM To: Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> Cc: Cruce, Greg <gcruce@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Serrano Any updates from your meeting last Monday? Kyle Bell CDD Associate Planner T 805.781.7524 From: Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 11:09 AM To: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Cc: Cruce, Greg <gcruce@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Serrano Kyle, I will be meeting with John on Monday the 30th to review his trees and complete my inspection report. I would like to get a vision of what Mr. Rourke is trying to accomplish. From my field inspection notes I have 7 trees total removed and 3 disfigured starting at Steven Stelfox property West roaming Eastbound toward Serrano Hight’s. Tree #1. Quercus agrifolia Coastal Live Oak 6 inches at base under native DBH. Tree #2. Quercus agrifolia Coastal Live Oak 8 inches at base under DBH. Tree #3. Quercus agrifolia Coastal Live Oak 8 inches at base under DBH. Tree #4 Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon 6 inches at base under DBH. Tree #5 Quercus agrifolia Coastal Live Oak 8 inches at base under DBH. Tree #6 Quercus agrifolia Coastal Live Oak 15 inches at base without measuring prior to removal will be problematic to enforce disputed DBH. Tree #7 Quercus agrifolia Coastal Live Oak 15 inches at base without measuring prior to removal will be problematic to enforce disputed DBH. We discovered the three Coast live oaks # 8,9,and10 Topped and disfigured. However, I will need to remeasure with the Property owner present, to help him comprehend ISA standards/ our City Tree Regulations. Tree #8 Quercus agrifolia Coastal Live Oak DBH? Topped and disfigured. Tree #9 Quercus agrifolia Coastal Live Oak DBH? Topped and disfigured. Tree #10 Quercus agrifolia Coastal Live Oak DBH? Topped and disfigured. I sent John an email notifying him of our tree regulations. Urban Forest Services will continue monitoring this property for any disputed tree violations. Let me know if you have any questions Thank you, Anthony Whipple Acting City Arborist Public Works 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: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2021 5:39 PM To: Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> Cc: Cruce, Greg <gcruce@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Serrano Hey Anthony, Does this write up include any evaluation of the trees that were removed on the neighbors property? They were saying that there were trees removed over 10-inches on their property. Did you note that on our site visit? Kyle Bell CDD Associate Planner E KBell@slocity.org T 805.781.7524 From: Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2021 10:20 AM To: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Cc: Cruce, Greg <gcruce@slocity.org>; Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Serrano Hi John, The city values trees as an important part of the natural, urban and economic environment and efforts shall be made to protect, preserve, and create the conditions that will promote the preservation of trees. The chief complaint was about the 2 trees on the fence line at a low stump measured 15 inch in diameter which may or may not be a violation of the over 10 inch native regulation. Moreover, the pruning photos attached are of concern. This is a friendly reminder to review our City Tree Regulations with respect to sections 12.24.150 and 12.24.170 Before After Tree topping of Coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia) this practice reduces its food-making capacity, and creates large wounds that are susceptible to insect invaders and severe fungal decay. Proper care is based on a thorough understanding of tree physiology and tree biomechanics. Trees need foliage to manufacture food. Removing all or most of the foliage puts the tree on a starvation diet. To grow new foliage the tree depends on sugars stored in the roots and stem. In order to continue manufacturing food for itself the tree will activate growth from epicormic buds which we observe as “water sprouts”. These epicormic branches, or water sprouts, must grow vigorously and quickly to replace lost foliage if the tree is not to starve. As they grow they are significantly more prone to breakage and failure than normal branches. Also, large wounds can compromises the tree’s chemical defense system. Attacks from insects, disease, and fungal pathogens can follow. With mature trees that have too little space to thrive. One option of reasonably reducing a tree’s overall height and width is crown reduction. Crown reduction is a typical pruning technique, but one that should be employed judiciously. 12.24.150 Protection of trees. A. No person shall: 1. Trim, prune or cut any tree unless such work conforms to this chapter and is performed in accordance with all International Society of Arboriculture standards. In no case shall more than one-third of the tree canopy be removed. 3. Willfully injure, disfigure or intentionally destroy by any means any tree, except with permits described elsewhere in this chapter. 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, failing to plant trees required as a condition of a tree removal or other permit, or removing a tree without a permit as described in this chapter shall be liable for civil penalties to the city. 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 in subsection (A)(1) of this section. Let me know if you have any questions Thank you, Anthony Whipple Acting City Arborist Public Works 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: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2021 8:23 AM To: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Cc: Trees <trees@slocity.org>; Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Serrano I will probably do trimming this weekend sp please get me any advice before then. I Met with Ron Combs on site before he retired and feel like I know what I can and cant do. Please let me know where I am mistaken. As far as conditions of Subdivision it call for protection of any oak 4" or greater in the building envelope, there were no oaks in the proposed building envelopes only in the side yards and setbacks. The pile of wood chips is not construction or dirt work and therfore doesnt meet the requirements for stockpiles either. Mike Ive begun including you on these emails because the only neighbor who spoke out against my Subdivision is now using city resourses to harass me. At this point Id appreciate all contact and communication to be through email (no more surprise visits). Thank you for all of your time, sorry to always be the squeaky wheel. John On Thu, Aug 19, 2021, 7:57 AM Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> wrote: Hey John, Can you hold off on any more trimming, we are working on a write up for you about best practices that need to be addressed, and it would seem that at least two of the trees you cut down were Oaks over 10-inches in diameter. It would be wise to hold off on any other improvements at this time, until we address the complaints we have received. However, it would be helpful if you could do something about the wood chip pile. Kyle Bell CDD Associate Planner T 805.781.7524 From: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2021 7:31 AM To: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org>; Trees <trees@slocity.org> Subject: Serrano This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi guys we will be doing more trimming and clearing, never heard back about the last round. Did I miss anything. From:John Rourke To:Whipple, Anthony Subject:Re: Serrano Date:Tuesday, August 31, 2021 3:03:12 PM Attachments:image001.png Hi Anthony, There may be some confusion after our conversation yesterday. The trees in question that were uncertain were not over 10". Requiring mitigation and me agreeing would suggest otherwise. As we talked about im ok with planting more trees but if they are "required" as "mitigation" I am not. I will read 12.24.170 & 12.24.090 as im not familiar with them and get back to you on those. I believe what we talked about yesterday was more voluntary and this seems more like punishment which im not sure I agree with. I will get back to you after reading the ordnance. Thanks John On Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 12:08 PM Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> wrote: Hi John, Per our conversation on yesterday, We discussed some improper oak tree pruning and some uncertain 10 inch Diameter Oak tree removals. I’m requiring mitigation be set with planting four fifteen gallon Oak trees within 45 days and maintained as a condition for the questionable trees removed. I am also requiring an Arborist Report within 45 days to include a Oak Tree Canopy Restoration Plan for all trees disfigured on the northern side of property. I feel this approach will mitigate damage that has occurred in violation of our City of San Luis Obispo Tree Ordinance 12.24.170 & 12.24.090 and provide a net benefit to your property and the community. Let me know if you have any questions Thank you, Anthony Whipple Acting City Arborist Public Works 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: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2021 10:44 AM To: Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> Cc: Cruce, Greg <gcruce@slocity.org>; Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Serrano Hi Anthony, Thanks for the Email, I assure you both trees you are referring to were less than 10" at chest height. We will be more mindful when trimming canopies, one question, in an effort to not cut down some trees (ones less than 10") we cut the canopy way down and may go lower, would you rather us cut them down completely or top them and see if they will grow from the cut? The photo example you sent are the trees im referring to. If we cant top them we are better off cutting them down while they are still under the 10". Let me know your thoughts, Thanks John On Fri, Aug 20, 2021, 10:20 AM Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> wrote: Hi John, The city values trees as an important part of the natural, urban and economic environment and efforts shall be made to protect, preserve, and create the conditions that will promote the preservation of trees. The chief complaint was about the 2 trees on the fence line at a low stump measured 15 inch in diameter which may or may not be a violation of the over 10 inch native regulation. Moreover, the pruning photos attached are of concern. This is a friendly reminder to review our City Tree Regulations with respect to sections 12.24.150 and 12.24.170 Before After Tree topping of Coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia) this practice reduces its food- making capacity, and creates large wounds that are susceptible to insect invaders and severe fungal decay. Proper care is based on a thorough understanding of tree physiology and tree biomechanics. Trees need foliage to manufacture food. Removing all or most of the foliage puts the tree on a starvation diet. To grow new foliage the tree depends on sugars stored in the roots and stem. In order to continue manufacturing food for itself the tree will activate growth from epicormic buds which we observe as “water sprouts”. These epicormic branches, or water sprouts, must grow vigorously and quickly to replace lost foliage if the tree is not to starve. As they grow they are significantly more prone to breakage and failure than normal branches. Also, large wounds can compromises the tree’s chemical defense system. Attacks from insects, disease, and fungal pathogens can follow. With mature trees that have too little space to thrive. One option of reasonably reducing a tree’s overall height and width is crown reduction. Crown reduction is a typical pruning technique, but one that should be employed judiciously. 12.24.150 Protection of trees. A. No person shall: 1. Trim, prune or cut any tree unless such work conforms to this chapter and is performed in accordance with all International Society of Arboriculture standards. In no case shall more than one-third of the tree canopy be removed. 3. Willfully injure, disfigure or intentionally destroy by any means any tree, except with permits described elsewhere in this chapter. 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, failing to plant trees required as a condition of a tree removal or other permit, or removing a tree without a permit as described in this chapter shall be liable for civil penalties to the city. 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 in subsection (A)(1) of this section. Let me know if you have any questions Thank you, Anthony Whipple Acting City Arborist Public Works 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: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2021 8:23 AM To: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Cc: Trees <trees@slocity.org>; Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Serrano I will probably do trimming this weekend sp please get me any advice before then. I Met with Ron Combs on site before he retired and feel like I know what I can and cant do. Please let me know where I am mistaken. As far as conditions of Subdivision it call for protection of any oak 4" or greater in the building envelope, there were no oaks in the proposed building envelopes only in the side yards and setbacks. The pile of wood chips is not construction or dirt work and therfore doesnt meet the requirements for stockpiles either. Mike Ive begun including you on these emails because the only neighbor who spoke out against my Subdivision is now using city resourses to harass me. At this point Id appreciate all contact and communication to be through email (no more surprise visits). Thank you for all of your time, sorry to always be the squeaky wheel. John On Thu, Aug 19, 2021, 7:57 AM Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> wrote: Hey John, Can you hold off on any more trimming, we are working on a write up for you about best practices that need to be addressed, and it would seem that at least two of the trees you cut down were Oaks over 10-inches in diameter. It would be wise to hold off on any other improvements at this time, until we address the complaints we have received. However, it would be helpful if you could do something about the wood chip pile. Kyle Bell CDD Associate Planner T 805.781.7524 From: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2021 7:31 AM To: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org>; Trees <trees@slocity.org> Subject: Serrano This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi guys we will be doing more trimming and clearing, never heard back about the last round. Did I miss anything. From:Bell, Kyle To:Whipple, Anthony Cc:Cruce, Greg Subject:RE: Serrano Date:Wednesday, September 1, 2021 4:21:31 PM Attachments:Rourke, 163 Serrano Heights.pdf image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png image005.png image006.png I also found this old Arborist Report associated with the project from 2019, but it didn’t really have anything to do with our review. Just thought you might want it for your records. Kyle Bell CDD Associate Planner T 805.781.7524 From: Bell, Kyle Sent: Wednesday, September 1, 2021 3:45 PM To: Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> Cc: Cruce, Greg <gcruce@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Serrano Also, do you have any notes about which of the 10 trees you identified in your email below were located on the neighbor’s property? Kyle Bell CDD Associate Planner T 805.781.7524 From: Bell, Kyle Sent: Wednesday, September 1, 2021 3:40 PM To: Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> Cc: Cruce, Greg <gcruce@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Serrano Any updates from your meeting last Monday? Kyle Bell CDD Associate Planner T 805.781.7524 From: Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 11:09 AM To: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Cc: Cruce, Greg <gcruce@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Serrano Kyle, I will be meeting with John on Monday the 30th to review his trees and complete my inspection report. I would like to get a vision of what Mr. Rourke is trying to accomplish. From my field inspection notes I have 7 trees total removed and 3 disfigured starting at Steven Stelfox property West roaming Eastbound toward Serrano Hight’s. Tree #1. Quercus agrifolia Coastal Live Oak 6 inches at base under native DBH. Tree #2. Quercus agrifolia Coastal Live Oak 8 inches at base under DBH. Tree #3. Quercus agrifolia Coastal Live Oak 8 inches at base under DBH. Tree #4 Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon 6 inches at base under DBH. Tree #5 Quercus agrifolia Coastal Live Oak 8 inches at base under DBH. Tree #6 Quercus agrifolia Coastal Live Oak 15 inches at base without measuring prior to removal will be problematic to enforce disputed DBH. Tree #7 Quercus agrifolia Coastal Live Oak 15 inches at base without measuring prior to removal will be problematic to enforce disputed DBH. We discovered the three Coast live oaks # 8,9,and10 Topped and disfigured. However, I will need to remeasure with the Property owner present, to help him comprehend ISA standards/ our City Tree Regulations. Tree #8 Quercus agrifolia Coastal Live Oak DBH? Topped and disfigured. Tree #9 Quercus agrifolia Coastal Live Oak DBH? Topped and disfigured. Tree #10 Quercus agrifolia Coastal Live Oak DBH? Topped and disfigured. I sent John an email notifying him of our tree regulations. Urban Forest Services will continue monitoring this property for any disputed tree violations. Let me know if you have any questions Thank you, Anthony Whipple Acting City Arborist Public Works 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: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2021 5:39 PM To: Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> Cc: Cruce, Greg <gcruce@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Serrano Hey Anthony, Does this write up include any evaluation of the trees that were removed on the neighbors property? They were saying that there were trees removed over 10-inches on their property. Did you note that on our site visit? Kyle Bell CDD Associate Planner E KBell@slocity.org T 805.781.7524 From: Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2021 10:20 AM To: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Cc: Cruce, Greg <gcruce@slocity.org>; Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Serrano Hi John, The city values trees as an important part of the natural, urban and economic environment and efforts shall be made to protect, preserve, and create the conditions that will promote the preservation of trees. The chief complaint was about the 2 trees on the fence line at a low stump measured 15 inch in diameter which may or may not be a violation of the over 10 inch native regulation. Moreover, the pruning photos attached are of concern. This is a friendly reminder to review our City Tree Regulations with respect to sections 12.24.150 and 12.24.170 Before After Tree topping of Coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia) this practice reduces its food-making capacity, and creates large wounds that are susceptible to insect invaders and severe fungal decay. Proper care is based on a thorough understanding of tree physiology and tree biomechanics. Trees need foliage to manufacture food. Removing all or most of the foliage puts the tree on a starvation diet. To grow new foliage the tree depends on sugars stored in the roots and stem. In order to continue manufacturing food for itself the tree will activate growth from epicormic buds which we observe as “water sprouts”. These epicormic branches, or water sprouts, must grow vigorously and quickly to replace lost foliage if the tree is not to starve. As they grow they are significantly more prone to breakage and failure than normal branches. Also, large wounds can compromises the tree’s chemical defense system. Attacks from insects, disease, and fungal pathogens can follow. With mature trees that have too little space to thrive. One option of reasonably reducing a tree’s overall height and width is crown reduction. Crown reduction is a typical pruning technique, but one that should be employed judiciously. 12.24.150 Protection of trees. A. No person shall: 1. Trim, prune or cut any tree unless such work conforms to this chapter and is performed in accordance with all International Society of Arboriculture standards. In no case shall more than one-third of the tree canopy be removed. 3. Willfully injure, disfigure or intentionally destroy by any means any tree, except with permits described elsewhere in this chapter. 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, failing to plant trees required as a condition of a tree removal or other permit, or removing a tree without a permit as described in this chapter shall be liable for civil penalties to the city. 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 in subsection (A)(1) of this section. Let me know if you have any questions Thank you, Anthony Whipple Acting City Arborist Public Works 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: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2021 8:23 AM To: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Cc: Trees <trees@slocity.org>; Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Serrano I will probably do trimming this weekend sp please get me any advice before then. I Met with Ron Combs on site before he retired and feel like I know what I can and cant do. Please let me know where I am mistaken. As far as conditions of Subdivision it call for protection of any oak 4" or greater in the building envelope, there were no oaks in the proposed building envelopes only in the side yards and setbacks. The pile of wood chips is not construction or dirt work and therfore doesnt meet the requirements for stockpiles either. Mike Ive begun including you on these emails because the only neighbor who spoke out against my Subdivision is now using city resourses to harass me. At this point Id appreciate all contact and communication to be through email (no more surprise visits). Thank you for all of your time, sorry to always be the squeaky wheel. John On Thu, Aug 19, 2021, 7:57 AM Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> wrote: Hey John, Can you hold off on any more trimming, we are working on a write up for you about best practices that need to be addressed, and it would seem that at least two of the trees you cut down were Oaks over 10-inches in diameter. It would be wise to hold off on any other improvements at this time, until we address the complaints we have received. However, it would be helpful if you could do something about the wood chip pile. Kyle Bell CDD Associate Planner T 805.781.7524 From: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2021 7:31 AM To: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org>; Trees <trees@slocity.org> Subject: Serrano This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi guys we will be doing more trimming and clearing, never heard back about the last round. Did I miss anything. From:John Rourke To:Whipple, Anthony Cc:Cruce, Greg; Bell, Kyle Subject:Re: Serrano Date:Friday, August 20, 2021 10:45:28 AM Attachments:image003.png Hi Anthony, Thanks for the Email, I assure you both trees you are referring to were less than 10" at chest height. We will be more mindful when trimming canopies, one question, in an effort to not cut down some trees (ones less than 10") we cut the canopy way down and may go lower, would you rather us cut them down completely or top them and see if they will grow from the cut? The photo example you sent are the trees im referring to. If we cant top them we are better off cutting them down while they are still under the 10". Let me know your thoughts, Thanks John On Fri, Aug 20, 2021, 10:20 AM Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> wrote: Hi John, The city values trees as an important part of the natural, urban and economic environment and efforts shall be made to protect, preserve, and create the conditions that will promote the preservation of trees. The chief complaint was about the 2 trees on the fence line at a low stump measured 15 inch in diameter which may or may not be a violation of the over 10 inch native regulation. Moreover, the pruning photos attached are of concern. This is a friendly reminder to review our City Tree Regulations with respect to sections 12.24.150 and 12.24.170 Before After Tree topping of Coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia) this practice reduces its food- making capacity, and creates large wounds that are susceptible to insect invaders and severe fungal decay. Proper care is based on a thorough understanding of tree physiology and tree biomechanics. Trees need foliage to manufacture food. Removing all or most of the foliage puts the tree on a starvation diet. To grow new foliage the tree depends on sugars stored in the roots and stem. In order to continue manufacturing food for itself the tree will activate growth from epicormic buds which we observe as “water sprouts”. These epicormic branches, or water sprouts, must grow vigorously and quickly to replace lost foliage if the tree is not to starve. As they grow they are significantly more prone to breakage and failure than normal branches. Also, large wounds can compromises the tree’s chemical defense system. Attacks from insects, disease, and fungal pathogens can follow. With mature trees that have too little space to thrive. One option of reasonably reducing a tree’s overall height and width is crown reduction. Crown reduction is a typical pruning technique, but one that should be employed judiciously. 12.24.150 Protection of trees. A. No person shall: 1. Trim, prune or cut any tree unless such work conforms to this chapter and is performed in accordance with all International Society of Arboriculture standards. In no case shall more than one-third of the tree canopy be removed. 3. Willfully injure, disfigure or intentionally destroy by any means any tree, except with permits described elsewhere in this chapter. 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, failing to plant trees required as a condition of a tree removal or other permit, or removing a tree without a permit as described in this chapter shall be liable for civil penalties to the city. 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 in subsection (A)(1) of this section. Let me know if you have any questions Thank you, Anthony Whipple Acting City Arborist Public Works 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: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2021 8:23 AM To: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Cc: Trees <trees@slocity.org>; Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Serrano I will probably do trimming this weekend sp please get me any advice before then. I Met with Ron Combs on site before he retired and feel like I know what I can and cant do. Please let me know where I am mistaken. As far as conditions of Subdivision it call for protection of any oak 4" or greater in the building envelope, there were no oaks in the proposed building envelopes only in the side yards and setbacks. The pile of wood chips is not construction or dirt work and therfore doesnt meet the requirements for stockpiles either. Mike Ive begun including you on these emails because the only neighbor who spoke out against my Subdivision is now using city resourses to harass me. At this point Id appreciate all contact and communication to be through email (no more surprise visits). Thank you for all of your time, sorry to always be the squeaky wheel. John On Thu, Aug 19, 2021, 7:57 AM Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> wrote: Hey John, Can you hold off on any more trimming, we are working on a write up for you about best practices that need to be addressed, and it would seem that at least two of the trees you cut down were Oaks over 10-inches in diameter. It would be wise to hold off on any other improvements at this time, until we address the complaints we have received. However, it would be helpful if you could do something about the wood chip pile. Kyle Bell CDD Associate Planner T 805.781.7524 From: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2021 7:31 AM To: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org>; Trees <trees@slocity.org> Subject: Serrano This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi guys we will be doing more trimming and clearing, never heard back about the last round. Did I miss anything. From:John Rourke To:Bell, Kyle Cc:Trees; Codron, Michael Subject:Re: Serrano Date:Thursday, August 19, 2021 8:22:50 AM I will probably do trimming this weekend sp please get me any advice before then. I Met with Ron Combs on site before he retired and feel like I know what I can and cant do. Please let me know where I am mistaken. As far as conditions of Subdivision it call for protection of any oak 4" or greater in the building envelope, there were no oaks in the proposed building envelopes only in the side yards and setbacks. The pile of wood chips is not construction or dirt work and therfore doesnt meet the requirements for stockpiles either. Mike Ive begun including you on these emails because the only neighbor who spoke out against my Subdivision is now using city resourses to harass me. At this point Id appreciate all contact and communication to be through email (no more surprise visits). Thank you for all of your time, sorry to always be the squeaky wheel. John On Thu, Aug 19, 2021, 7:57 AM Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> wrote: Hey John, Can you hold off on any more trimming, we are working on a write up for you about best practices that need to be addressed, and it would seem that at least two of the trees you cut down were Oaks over 10-inches in diameter. It would be wise to hold off on any other improvements at this time, until we address the complaints we have received. However, it would be helpful if you could do something about the wood chip pile. Kyle Bell CDD Associate Planner T 805.781.7524 From: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2021 7:31 AM To: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org>; Trees <trees@slocity.org> Subject: Serrano This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi guys we will be doing more trimming and clearing, never heard back about the last round. Did I miss anything. From:Whipple, Anthony To:John Rourke Bcc:Cruce, Greg; Bell, Kyle Subject:RE: Serrano Date:Tuesday, August 31, 2021 12:08:00 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png Hi John, Per our conversation on yesterday, We discussed some improper oak tree pruning and some uncertain 10 inch Diameter Oak tree removals. I’m requiring mitigation be set with planting four fifteen gallon Oak trees within 45 days and maintained as a condition for the questionable trees removed. I am also requiring an Arborist Report within 45 days to include a Oak Tree Canopy Restoration Plan for all trees disfigured on the northern side of property. I feel this approach will mitigate damage that has occurred in violation of our City of San Luis Obispo Tree Ordinance 12.24.170 & 12.24.090 and provide a net benefit to your property and the community. Let me know if you have any questions Thank you, Anthony Whipple Acting City Arborist Public Works 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: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2021 10:44 AM To: Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> Cc: Cruce, Greg <gcruce@slocity.org>; Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Serrano Hi Anthony, Thanks for the Email, I assure you both trees you are referring to were less than 10" at chest height. We will be more mindful when trimming canopies, one question, in an effort to not cut down some trees (ones less than 10") we cut the canopy way down and may go lower, would you rather us cut them down completely or top them and see if they will grow from the cut? The photo example you sent are the trees im referring to. If we cant top them we are better off cutting them down while they are still under the 10". Let me know your thoughts, Thanks John On Fri, Aug 20, 2021, 10:20 AM Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> wrote: Hi John, The city values trees as an important part of the natural, urban and economic environment and efforts shall be made to protect, preserve, and create the conditions that will promote the preservation of trees. The chief complaint was about the 2 trees on the fence line at a low stump measured 15 inch in diameter which may or may not be a violation of the over 10 inch native regulation. Moreover, the pruning photos attached are of concern. This is a friendly reminder to review our City Tree Regulations with respect to sections 12.24.150 and 12.24.170 Before After Tree topping of Coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia) this practice reduces its food-making capacity, and creates large wounds that are susceptible to insect invaders and severe fungal decay. Proper care is based on a thorough understanding of tree physiology and tree biomechanics. Trees need foliage to manufacture food. Removing all or most of the foliage puts the tree on a starvation diet. To grow new foliage the tree depends on sugars stored in the roots and stem. In order to continue manufacturing food for itself the tree will activate growth from epicormic buds which we observe as “water sprouts”. These epicormic branches, or water sprouts, must grow vigorously and quickly to replace lost foliage if the tree is not to starve. As they grow they are significantly more prone to breakage and failure than normal branches. Also, large wounds can compromises the tree’s chemical defense system. Attacks from insects, disease, and fungal pathogens can follow. With mature trees that have too little space to thrive. One option of reasonably reducing a tree’s overall height and width is crown reduction. Crown reduction is a typical pruning technique, but one that should be employed judiciously. 12.24.150 Protection of trees. A. No person shall: 1. Trim, prune or cut any tree unless such work conforms to this chapter and is performed in accordance with all International Society of Arboriculture standards. In no case shall more than one-third of the tree canopy be removed. 3. Willfully injure, disfigure or intentionally destroy by any means any tree, except with permits described elsewhere in this chapter. 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, failing to plant trees required as a condition of a tree removal or other permit, or removing a tree without a permit as described in this chapter shall be liable for civil penalties to the city. 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 in subsection (A)(1) of this section. Let me know if you have any questions Thank you, Anthony Whipple Acting City Arborist Public Works 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: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2021 8:23 AM To: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Cc: Trees <trees@slocity.org>; Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Serrano I will probably do trimming this weekend sp please get me any advice before then. I Met with Ron Combs on site before he retired and feel like I know what I can and cant do. Please let me know where I am mistaken. As far as conditions of Subdivision it call for protection of any oak 4" or greater in the building envelope, there were no oaks in the proposed building envelopes only in the side yards and setbacks. The pile of wood chips is not construction or dirt work and therfore doesnt meet the requirements for stockpiles either. Mike Ive begun including you on these emails because the only neighbor who spoke out against my Subdivision is now using city resourses to harass me. At this point Id appreciate all contact and communication to be through email (no more surprise visits). Thank you for all of your time, sorry to always be the squeaky wheel. John On Thu, Aug 19, 2021, 7:57 AM Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> wrote: Hey John, Can you hold off on any more trimming, we are working on a write up for you about best practices that need to be addressed, and it would seem that at least two of the trees you cut down were Oaks over 10-inches in diameter. It would be wise to hold off on any other improvements at this time, until we address the complaints we have received. However, it would be helpful if you could do something about the wood chip pile. Kyle Bell CDD Associate Planner T 805.781.7524 From: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2021 7:31 AM To: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org>; Trees <trees@slocity.org> Subject: Serrano This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi guys we will be doing more trimming and clearing, never heard back about the last round. Did I miss anything. From:Bell, Kyle To:John Rourke; Trees Subject:RE: Serrano Date:Thursday, August 19, 2021 7:57:22 AM Hey John, Can you hold off on any more trimming, we are working on a write up for you about best practices that need to be addressed, and it would seem that at least two of the trees you cut down were Oaks over 10-inches in diameter. It would be wise to hold off on any other improvements at this time, until we address the complaints we have received. However, it would be helpful if you could do something about the wood chip pile. Kyle Bell CDD Associate Planner T 805.781.7524 From: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2021 7:31 AM To: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org>; Trees <trees@slocity.org> Subject: Serrano This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi guys we will be doing more trimming and clearing, never heard back about the last round. Did I miss anything. From:Purrington, Teresa To:John Rourke; Kersten, Markie Cc:Whipple, Anthony; Cruce, Greg; Codron, Michael; Horn, Matt; Dietrick, Christine; CityClerk Subject:Re: Serrano Date:Thursday, November 18, 2021 6:20:20 PM Mr. Rourke, If you plan on coming to city hall tomorrow Friday, please email cityclerk@slocity.org to let us know when you will be here because we are only open by appointment on Fridays. Thank you, Teresa Purrington City Clerk Get Outlook for iOS From: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2021 5:58:26 PM To: Jorgensen, Markie <mjorgens@slocity.org> Cc: Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org>; Cruce, Greg <gcruce@slocity.org>; Codron, Michael mcodron@slocity.org>; Horn, Matt <mhorn@slocity.org>; Dietrick, Christine cdietric@slocity.org>; CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Serrano Thank you for your response, I will take a check to the clerks office. On Thu, Nov 18, 2021, 4:40 PM Jorgensen, Markie <mjorgens@slocity.org> wrote: Hi John, The City accepts your November 17 email as your appeal of the civil penalties imposed for your violation of SLMC 12.24.150 and is considered timely under the City’s Tree Ordinance. Appeal of the violation and the associated civil penalties will be heard by the Tree Committee. Per the City’s Comprehensive Fee Schedule, there is a $125.71 fee for appeals to the Tree Committee. Please remit payment of the fee to the Clerk’s Office, who will then schedule your appeal hearing. See page 14 of the City’s Comprehensive Fee Schedule: https://www.slocity.org/home/showpublisheddocument/30592/637643568009700000 Thank you, Markie From: Jorgensen, Markie Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2021 9:53 AM To: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Cc: Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org>; Cruce, Greg <gcruce@slocity.org>; Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Serrano Hi John, I’m confirming receipt of your email. I am tied up today, but will respond to you tomorrow with next steps. Best, Markie From: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2021 6:08 AM To: Jorgensen, Markie <mjorgens@slocity.org> Cc: Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org>; Cruce, Greg <gcruce@slocity.org>; Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Serrano Hi Markie, Please confirm receipt of this email I've included you since I haven't heard from Anthony or Greg and the citation I received doesn't explain how to appeal. I received the notice only a few days ago and it was the first I've heard of it. Please accept this as my appeal, or instruct me how it needs to be submitted. upon further reading of the tree ordinance I found that I am not in violation. the three trees that are said to have been damage were trimmed several times over the course of several months. At no one time was the canopy trimmed over 1/3. I would estimate that each instance of trimming resulted in a 1/10 to 1/8 removal of the canopy. The city is fining based on the assumption that it was all done at once. That is inaccurate. I disagree that the trees are damaged and believe that the trees will thrive having removed the upper branches that had noticeable rot from a tree fungus that is present on most of the trees on the property. Please let me know the next steps, my plan is to try to resolve this myself but if we are unable to come to an agreement I will hand it off to my lawyer Paul Beard. Please confirm receipt of this email Thanks John Mon, Nov 15, 2021, 7:46 PM John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> wrote: It is being misinterpreted and improperly utilized. Please let me know how to appeal. Thanks for your input. On Mon, Nov 15, 2021, 7:22 PM Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org> wrote: Yes, I believe the ordinance dictates how that fine is calculated. Michael Codron pronouns he/him/his Director of Community Development City of San Luis Obispo Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E mcodron@slocity.org T 805.781.7187 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 7:05 PM To: Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org> Cc: Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org>; Cruce, Greg <gcruce@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Serrano Thanks for reaching out Mike, just so you know, they sent me a fine for over 16000 dollars because they think I over trimmed my trees. Does that seem reasonable? On Mon, Nov 15, 2021, 5:10 PM Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org> wrote: Hey there, John. I don’t have any background on this particular one so just including Greg who supports Anthony and together they can get you going in the right direction. I’m happy to help as needed, but this letter didn’t come from CDD code enforcement since it falls under a different part of our local code (Tree Ordinance). Thanks! -Michael From: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 3:37 PM To: Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> Cc: Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Serrano I jus sent an administrative citation appeal to the city clerk but I'm not sure if that is what this is, your letter states the amount and gives the estimate and invoice but doesn't give me an actual citation. Is there one? I agreed to the canopy restoration plan after it was agreed there would be no fees. On Mon, Nov 15, 2021, 12:13 PM John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Michael and Anthony, I just received your letter regarding fees for the tree trimming, obviously I don't agree and believe that the city has acted in bad faith. Please let me know how I appeal this decision. Thank you John On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 5:41 PM John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Anthony, Thanks for the response, Based on your answers I'm still confused on legality of cutting trees. Is it illegal or against code to over trim the trees. Only reason I'm asking is I've been in several situations where city employees state I'm doing something illegal while it is actually against code, not a law being broken. Let me know if I'm incorrect. Also under what circumstances would fines be inforced? I'm assuming it is if we didn't do the canopy plan but wanted to confirm that. Greenvale has prepared the plan I'll forward it after this email. On another note I recently purchased the property at 500 westmont that was approved for multiple tree removals. Can that start? Is there something that needs to be done prior to starting? Thanks John On Tue, Sep 21, 2021, 9:14 AM Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> wrote: Hello John, Thank you for your email regarding the issues at 163 Serrano. You had some questions regarding my previous email, which I have answered for you below. Could you please confirm that the 3 oak trees you refer to are mine and on my property? The three oaks at issue appear to be on your property based on the City’s permitting and asset management system. The City’s systems are pretty substantially accurate, but having the property line surveyed is the most precise way to determine property boundaries. Could you also change your wording, they were not illegally pruned, they were pruned in violation of the citys Tree Ordinance which I didnt know was so severe on pruning. Illegally pruned suggests that it is illegally to prune the trees while I belive it is just against an ordinance. Section 12.24.015 of the Tree Ordinance states: A . No person shall: 1. Trim, prune or cut any tree unless such work conforms to this chapter and is performed in accordance with all International Society of Arboriculture standards. In no case shall more than one-third of the tree canopy be removed. Can you clarify the possible fines? How are they determined? In what circumstance are they inforced? MC Section 12.24.170 states: The public works department shall be responsible for enforcement of this chapter. A. Any person deemed responsible for damaging a tree, failing to plant trees required as a condition of a tree removal or other permit, 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 in subsection (A)(1) of this section. 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. 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. The size of the tree shall be determined by the city arborist and may be up to a forty-eight-inch box tree. 5. For damaged trees, in addition to civil penalties, the property owner will be required to obtain the services of an ISA certified arborist to determine the future viability of the tree and, if salvageable, create a maintenance plan to restore the tree. 6. The city council may adopt, by resolution, alternate civil damage amounts to be assessed against any person deemed responsible for damaging, harming or removing a tree without a permit. (Ord. 1589 2, 2013: Ord. 1544 § 1 (part), 2010) If you have additional questions after you review my email, please feel free to contact me. Thank you, Anthony Whipple Acting City Arborist Public Works 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: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 9, 2021 8:38 AM To: Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> Cc: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org>; Codron, Michael mcodron@slocity.org>; Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Serrano Thank you for your response Anthony, as we are obviously going to be in a civil case with the neighbors could you clarify a few things. You state Three oak trees (Quercus agrifolia) trees were pruned illegally in violation of ISA pruning standards and in violation of City Tree Ordinance" Could you please confirm that the 3 oak trees you refer to are mine and on my property? Could you also change your wording, they were not illegally pruned, they were pruned in violation of the citys Tree Ordinance which I didnt know was so severe on pruning. Illegally pruned suggests that it is illegally to prune the trees while I belive it is just against an ordinance. Can you clarify the possible fines? How are they determined? In what circumstance are they inforced? On Thu, Sep 9, 2021, 8:07 AM Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> wrote: John, I understand your concerns and wanted to clarify. After Careful review of your property and our conversation the City will be requiring you to complete the following to mitigate your violation. Provide the City of San Luis Obispo an Arborist Report within 45 days from the date of this email to include an Oak Tree Canopy Restoration Plan for all trees disfigured on the northern side of property. This will mitigate damages that has occurred in violation of our City of San Luis Obispo Tree Ordinance 12.24.170 & 12.24.090 and provide a net benefit to your property and the community. Quick Summary: Three oak trees (Quercus agrifolia) trees were pruned illegally in violation of ISA pruning standards and in violation of City Tree Ordinance which references the ISA pruning standards. Possible fines could be $9,710.00 for the value of the trees. Staff is requiring property owner to hire a Certified Arborist to come up with a long term management plan to save the trees that are salvageable and to oversee the care of the trees for their long term health. Let me know if you have any questions Thank you, Anthony Whipple Acting City Arborist Public Works 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: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 1, 2021 8:04 AM To: Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Serrano Hi Anthony, I read through about canopies, I wasnt aware of the 1/3rd rule prior to our interactions. I agree about the canopy restoration and I have reached out to Ron Combs about doing the restoration. I disagree about the removal diameter of the two trees and the required mitagation. Let me know what we need to do from here. Thanks John On Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 12:08 PM Whipple, Anthony awhipple@slocity.org> wrote: Hi John, Per our conversation on yesterday, We discussed some improper oak tree pruning and some uncertain 10 inch Diameter Oak tree removals. I’m requiring mitigation be set with planting four fifteen gallon Oak trees within 45 days and maintained as a condition for the questionable trees removed. I am also requiring an Arborist Report within 45 days to include a Oak Tree Canopy Restoration Plan for all trees disfigured on the northern side of property. I feel this approach will mitigate damage that has occurred in violation of our City of San Luis Obispo Tree Ordinance 12.24.170 & 12.24.090 and provide a net benefit to your property and the community. Let me know if you have any questions Thank you, Anthony Whipple Acting City Arborist Public Works 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: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2021 10:44 AM To: Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> Cc: Cruce, Greg <gcruce@slocity.org>; Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Serrano Hi Anthony, Thanks for the Email, I assure you both trees you are referring to were less than 10" at chest height. We will be more mindful when trimming canopies, one question, in an effort to not cut down some trees (ones less than 10") we cut the canopy way down and may go lower, would you rather us cut them down completely or top them and see if they will grow from the cut? The photo example you sent are the trees im referring to. If we cant top them we are better off cutting them down while they are still under the 10". Let me know your thoughts, Thanks John On Fri, Aug 20, 2021, 10:20 AM Whipple, Anthony awhipple@slocity.org> wrote: Hi John, The city values trees as an important part of the natural, urban and economic environment and efforts shall be made to protect, preserve, and create the conditions that will promote the preservation of trees. The chief complaint was about the 2 trees on the fence line at a low stump measured 15 inch in diameter which may or may not be a violation of the over 10 inch native regulation. Moreover, the pruning photos attached are of concern. This is a friendly reminder to review our City Tree Regulations with respect to sections 12.24.150 and 12.24.170 Before After Tree topping of Coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia) this practice reduces its food-making capacity, and creates large wounds that are susceptible to insect invaders and severe fungal decay. Proper care is based on a thorough understanding of tree physiology and tree biomechanics. Trees need foliage to manufacture food. Removing all or most of the foliage puts the tree on a starvation diet. To grow new foliage the tree depends on sugars stored in the roots and stem. In order to continue manufacturing food for itself the tree will activate growth from epicormic buds which we observe as “water sprouts”. These epicormic branches, or water sprouts, must grow vigorously and quickly to replace lost foliage if the tree is not to starve. As they grow they are significantly more prone to breakage and failure than normal branches. Also, large wounds can compromises the tree’s chemical defense system. Attacks from insects, disease, and fungal pathogens can follow. With mature trees that have too little space to thrive. One option of reasonably reducing a tree’s overall height and width is crown reduction. Crown reduction is a typical pruning technique, but one that should be employed judiciously. 12.24.150 Protection of trees. A. No person shall: 1. Trim, prune or cut any tree unless such work conforms to this chapter and is performed in accordance with all International Society of Arboriculture standards. In no case shall more than one-third of the tree canopy be removed. 3. Willfully injure, disfigure or intentionally destroy by any means any tree, except with permits described elsewhere in this chapter. 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, failing to plant trees required as a condition of a tree removal or other permit, or removing a tree without a permit as described in this chapter shall be liable for civil penalties to the city. 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 in subsection (A)(1) of this section. Let me know if you have any questions Thank you, Anthony Whipple Acting City Arborist Public Works 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: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2021 8:23 AM To: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Cc: Trees <trees@slocity.org>; Codron, Michael mcodron@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Serrano I will probably do trimming this weekend sp please get me any advice before then. I Met with Ron Combs on site before he retired and feel like I know what I can and cant do. Please let me know where I am mistaken. As far as conditions of Subdivision it call for protection of any oak 4" or greater in the building envelope, there were no oaks in the proposed building envelopes only in the side yards and setbacks. The pile of wood chips is not construction or dirt work and therfore doesnt meet the requirements for stockpiles either. Mike Ive begun including you on these emails because the only neighbor who spoke out against my Subdivision is now using city resourses to harass me. At this point Id appreciate all contact and communication to be through email (no more surprise visits). Thank you for all of your time, sorry to always be the squeaky wheel. John On Thu, Aug 19, 2021, 7:57 AM Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> wrote: Hey John, Can you hold off on any more trimming, we are working on a write up for you about best practices that need to be addressed, and it would seem that at least two of the trees you cut down were Oaks over 10-inches in diameter. It would be wise to hold off on any other improvements at this time, until we address the complaints we have received. However, it would be helpful if you could do something about the wood chip pile. Kyle Bell CDD Associate Planner T 805.781.7524 From: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2021 7:31 AM To: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org>; Trees <trees@slocity.org> Subject: Serrano This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi guys we will be doing more trimming and clearing, never heard back about the last round. Did I miss anything. From:John Rourke To:Bell, Kyle; Trees Subject:Serrano Date:Thursday, August 19, 2021 7:31:38 AM This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi guys we will be doing more trimming and clearing, never heard back about the last round. Did I miss anything. From:Kristopher Couch To:John Rourke Cc:Scott Stokes; Bell, Kyle; Danielle Lauinger Subject:Re: 281 broad Date:Wednesday, December 2, 2020 8:51:29 AM I actually can’t make that time, but don’t let me hold it up. I’ll touch base after the meeting and get the details. Kris Kristopher Couch kris@refreshmedia.com On Dec 1, 2020, at 4:09 PM, John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> wrote: Yep, im good with that, Kris? On Tue, Dec 1, 2020, 3:30 PM Scott Stokes scott@abovegradeengineering.com> wrote: Kyle - Do you want to send out a meeting request/Zoom call for Thursday afternoon? John - Are you available after 3pm on Thursday? Thanks To comply with San Luis Obispo's COVID-19 Shelter at Home ordinance our office at 245 Higuera Street will be temporarily closed to the public until further notice. During this time our team continues to be available via phone and email to discuss your projects. We apologize for any delays you may experience during this time. Your patience is greatly appreciated. Scott Stokes, PE President Main: (805) 540-5115 X 302 | Direct: (805) 548-1172 245 Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 3:28 PM Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> wrote: Thursday sounds good, I can be available after 3 pm. I am also very aware of the State Density Bonus Law so I see where you are going with this. One thing to note, if you want to utilize the density bonus law you will need to provide a minimum of 5 units, otherwise the project won’t qualify, and you won’t be able to designate any ADUs as affordable units. Which means we are looking at a 5 lot subdivision which is no longer a minor subdivision and will be reviewed as a Tract Map, it will be difficult to design the lots in a way that will still provide a minimum of 1 density unit per lot (inclusive of the bonus). You will need to be strategic in your request for incentives versus waivers. One big issue that may come up is that cramming the site with 5 units on a steep slope could have potential for findings of a specific, adverse impact which is the avenue that a City would have to deny the project. A “specific, adverse impact” is defined to mean a “significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.” Government Code § 65589.5(j)(1). After I look into this more I may have more to share about the process and I will try to identify all the risks. Kyle Bell CDD Associate Planner T 805.781.7524 From: Scott Stokes <scott@abovegradeengineering.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 2:52 PM To: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Cc: Kristopher Couch <kris@refreshmedia.com>; Danielle Lauinger dlauinger@abovegradeengineering.com>; John Rourke rourkefam@gmail.com> Subject: Re: 281 broad Kyle I am available on Thursday afternoon but Wednesday is booked already. The state density bonus law creates a lot of flexibility and overrules any of your standards that physically limit the development to get the most units possible. We have processed a few projects with it recently in SLO, Paso, and SLO County so I am very familiar with the law and I am happy to walk you through it. Corey Tyler and Walter were involved in a recent project on Higuera where we used the density bonus law. Thanks To comply with San Luis Obispo's COVID-19 Shelter at Home ordinance our office at 245 Higuera Street will be temporarily closed to the public until further notice. During this time our team continues to be available via phone and email to discuss your projects. We apologize for any delays you may experience during this time. Your patience is greatly appreciated. image001.jpg>Scott Stokes, PE President Main: (805) 540-5115 X 302 | Direct: (805) 548-1172 245 Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 2:43 PM Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> wrote: Oh that is an interesting idea, might be more manageable than the PD route. Lets set up a meeting Wednesday or Thursday afternoon and I will bring a few other staff members to join the discussion. I’ll do a little research and see if there is anything that might complicate the process. Kyle Bell CDD Associate Planner T 805.781.7524 From: Scott Stokes <scott@abovegradeengineering.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 12:34 PM To: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Cc: Kristopher Couch <kris@refreshmedia.com>; Danielle Lauinger dlauinger@abovegradeengineering.com>; John Rourke rourkefam@gmail.com> Subject: Re: 281 broad Kyle We are talking about the State's density bonus law and we wanted to set up a conference call to discuss how that would work on this project. Not sure how familiar you are with the density bonus law and if we need to pull in anyone else for the discussion. Thanks To comply with San Luis Obispo's COVID-19 Shelter at Home ordinance our office at 245 Higuera Street will be temporarily closed to the public until further notice. During this time our team continues to be available via phone and email to discuss your projects. We apologize for any delays you may experience during this time. Your patience is greatly appreciated. image001.jpg>Scott Stokes, PE President Main: (805) 540-5115 X 302 | Direct: (805) 548-1172 245 Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 12:07 PM John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Kyle, Scott suggested we use the states affordable housing bonuses as a way to continue the subdivision process. Im assuming this will give us the flexibility need to continue and may even give us additional lots. Scott can you chime in on this? Thanks John On Thu, Nov 19, 2020, 5:27 PM Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> wrote: PD’s within the City limits require a PD Overlay to denote that they are subject to different standards. We would need to revise the initial study to recognize this change. PD’s in the City are kind of a nightmare compared to the County. Kyle Bell CDD Associate Planner T 805.781.7524 From: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 5:26 PM To: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Subject: Re: 281 broad Why would it require a rezone? On Thu, Nov 19, 2020, 5:06 PM Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> wrote: Hey John, I floated this by all the planners and got a pretty universal no on this. The PD regulations for the City are very different than the County, part of the intent of allowing flexibility from development standards through this process is to allow more innovative and higher quality design (among other things), one of the required findings for the PD is specifically related to consistency with the Community Design Guidelines. Therefore, the flexibility from the Design Guidelines would not be available to PD project. Then on top of that are those mandadory project features affordablility, LEED, open space, or significant public plaza), which this project would have a hard time meeting these requirements. I believe a PD is not the way to go for this project, it would also require rezoning of the property and a development plan for each lot. This would be far more expensive and time consuming than the current process. Kyle Bell CDD Associate Planner T 805.781.7524 From: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2020 7:39 AM To: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Subject: 281 broad Good morning Kyle, I was wondering if you got any feedback on doing a PD. From:Becky Keehn To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Subject:RE: NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING TO INTERESTED PARTIES Date:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 3:13:13 PM Attachments:image006.png image007.png image008.png image009.png This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi Kyle, Is there a ZOOM link for the meeting tonight? I can’t find it on the website. Thank you! Becky Becky Keehn – Client Relations bkeehn@cosmed.com | direct 1-925-222-3732 | fax 1-925-676-6005 COSMED USA, Inc. - Concord, CA USA | www.cosmed.com Facebook - Twitter - Linkedin - Youtube - Instagram - Pinterest - Flickr Privacy Disclaimer From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2021 1:41 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING TO INTERESTED PARTIES Good Afternoon, This email is being provided as an additional notice for the project at 468/500 Westmont Avenue, Planning Application SBDV-0169-2020. Please do be aware that this is a teleconference public hearing. What: The City Council will review a Tentative Tract Map (Tract 3157) to create 23 residential lots on a 4.98-acre site within the Low-Density Residential (R-1) zone. Project includes the extension of Stanford Drive, which will connect to an extension of Cuesta Drive. An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed for adoption (CEQA). Address of Application: 468/500 Westmont Drive (SBDV-0169-2020 & EID-0170- 2020) Where: While the Council encourages public participation, growing concern about the COVID- 19 pandemic has required that public meetings be held via teleconference. Meetings can be viewed on Government Access Channel 20 or streamed live from the City’s YouTube Channel at http://youtube.slo.city. Public comment, prior to the start of the meeting, may be submitted in writing via U.S. Mail delivered to the City Clerk’s office at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 or by email to emailcouncil@slocity.org When: September 7, 2021, at 6:00 p.m. For questions, contact: Kyle Van Leeuwen - (805) 781-7091 - kvanleeu@slocity.org - or - (805) 781-7170 BCC: Interested Parties List Kyle Van Leeuwen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From:Becky Keehn To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Subject:RE: NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING TO INTERESTED PARTIES Date:Wednesday, August 25, 2021 4:19:43 PM Attachments:image006.png image007.png image008.png image009.png Thanks Kyle, I’ll pass this along to some folks on Stanford Drive. Have a nice evening! Becky Becky Keehn – Client Relations bkeehn@cosmed.com | direct 1-925-222-3732 | fax 1-925-676-6005 COSMED USA, Inc. - Concord, CA USA | www.cosmed.com Facebook - Twitter - Linkedin - Youtube - Instagram - Pinterest - Flickr Privacy Disclaimer From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2021 3:36 PM To: Becky Keehn <bkeehn@cosmed.com> Subject: RE: NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING TO INTERESTED PARTIES Hello Becky, While this will not be in person, any member of the public that wishes to make a statement on the project will have options to do so. Either through mailed/emailed correspondence or live during the hearing (similar or the same as the first online hearing). My understanding is that once you are logged into the hearing through zoom or similar program, you will be able to “raise your hand” once the public comment period has started and the clerk will unmute your mic when it is your turn to comment. I do recommend sending in correspondence, even if you are planning to speak at the hearing. Just in case technical issues arise at the time of the hearing. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Becky Keehn <bkeehn@cosmed.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2021 2:44 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: RE: NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING TO INTERESTED PARTIES This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi Kyle, Thanks for the update. So this will be a view only venue where we cannot speak at the meeting as we did with the other meetings on Zoom? Just wanting to clarify… Thank you! Becky Keehn From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2021 1:41 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING TO INTERESTED PARTIES Good Afternoon, This email is being provided as an additional notice for the project at 468/500 Westmont Avenue, Planning Application SBDV-0169-2020. Please do be aware that this is a teleconference public hearing. What: The City Council will review a Tentative Tract Map (Tract 3157) to create 23 residential lots on a 4.98-acre site within the Low-Density Residential (R-1) zone. Project includes the extension of Stanford Drive, which will connect to an extension of Cuesta Drive. An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed for adoption (CEQA). Address of Application: 468/500 Westmont Drive (SBDV-0169-2020 & EID-0170- 2020) Where: While the Council encourages public participation, growing concern about the COVID- 19 pandemic has required that public meetings be held via teleconference. Meetings can be viewed on Government Access Channel 20 or streamed live from the City’s YouTube Channel at http://youtube.slo.city. Public comment, prior to the start of the meeting, may be submitted in writing via U.S. Mail delivered to the City Clerk’s office at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 or by email to emailcouncil@slocity.org When: September 7, 2021, at 6:00 p.m. For questions, contact: Kyle Van Leeuwen - (805) 781-7091 - kvanleeu@slocity.org - or - (805) 781-7170 BCC: Interested Parties List Kyle Van Leeuwen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From:Becky Keehn To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Subject:RE: NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING TO INTERESTED PARTIES Date:Wednesday, August 25, 2021 2:43:53 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi Kyle, Thanks for the update. So this will be a view only venue where we cannot speak at the meeting as we did with the other meetings on Zoom? Just wanting to clarify… Thank you! Becky Keehn From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2021 1:41 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING TO INTERESTED PARTIES Good Afternoon, This email is being provided as an additional notice for the project at 468/500 Westmont Avenue, Planning Application SBDV-0169-2020. Please do be aware that this is a teleconference public hearing. What: The City Council will review a Tentative Tract Map (Tract 3157) to create 23 residential lots on a 4.98-acre site within the Low-Density Residential (R-1) zone. Project includes the extension of Stanford Drive, which will connect to an extension of Cuesta Drive. An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed for adoption (CEQA). Address of Application: 468/500 Westmont Drive (SBDV-0169-2020 & EID-0170- 2020) Where: While the Council encourages public participation, growing concern about the COVID- 19 pandemic has required that public meetings be held via teleconference. Meetings can be viewed on Government Access Channel 20 or streamed live from the City’s YouTube Channel at http://youtube.slo.city. Public comment, prior to the start of the meeting, may be submitted in writing via U.S. Mail delivered to the City Clerk’s office at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 or by email to emailcouncil@slocity.org When: September 7, 2021, at 6:00 p.m. For questions, contact: Kyle Van Leeuwen - (805) 781-7091 - kvanleeu@slocity.org - or - (805) 781-7170 BCC: Interested Parties List Kyle Van Leeuwen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From:Codron, Michael To:John Rourke; Van Leeuwen, Kyle Cc:Scott Stokes; Klaus Strobel Subject:RE: Westmont Modification to Tentative Tract Date:Wednesday, September 29, 2021 9:36:54 AM Attachments:RE Westmont Modification to Tentative Tract.msg The attached e-mail was sent at the same time as your e-mail below came in. We are working on a formal response to your inquiry. Let’s see if we can stop the e-mail back and forth and formalize our communications on this project. I believe you have clear guidance on how to proceed at this time. Much appreciated, -Michael From: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 9:34 AM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org>; Scott Stokes <scott@abovegradeengineering.com>; Klaus Strobel <klausstrobel@mac.com> Subject: Re: Westmont Modification to Tentative Tract we still disagree that this is a new application. That is what I'd like to talk about. We see this as a modification of the existing application. Can you provide some information as to why this would not qualify for a modification to an existing tenantive Tract map? Please provide documentation so that we can review. We will continue to work on a modification to the existing tenantive tract map and have something to submit to you in the near future. Thanks John On Wed, Sep 29, 2021, 8:49 AM Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> wrote: Hello John, The best approach to get feedback on this proposal is to submit for a pre-application meeting, as there is likely more feedback needed than can really be covered in a conference call. This will allow for all City departments to provide meaningful feedback. The pre-ap submittal should include a detailed project description that includes what density bonus calculation and incentives are being requested, and all other exceptions the project would be asking for. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 5:24 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org>; Scott Stokes <scott@abovegradeengineering.com> Subject: Re: Westmont Modification to Tentative Tract Hi Kyle, I haven't heard back from you. Could we schedule a conference call to discuss. It doesn't make sense for this to be a resubmital, under density bonus law infill projects under 5 acres do not require additional studies. We will have the grading plan and storm water plan in a few weeks. How do you want to proceed? Thanks John On Fri, Sep 24, 2021, 5:15 PM John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Kyle, We would like to do it as a modification to the existing tentative track map and change it to a density bonus law subdivision which would preclude it from any additional enviormental review. Ive included Scott Stokes from Above Grade who will be helping facilitate. Let me know if you would like to have a conference call. Thanks John On Fri, Sep 24, 2021, 4:52 PM Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> wrote: Hello John, The subdivision you are proposing is new project, which would require a new environmental review. My recommendation would be to submit for a pre-application review so that all reviewing departments can provide feedback specific to your project: https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-element- cse&cx=014272426406783312333:0eri3djcyq4&q=https://www.slocity.org/home/sho wpublisheddocument/2484/637625534512170000&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwj6x9LK5pjz AhX9HjQIHf0iBY4QFnoECAMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1hRADehqUPnUK2mauunoKF Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 1:06 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org>; Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org> Subject: Westmont Modification to Tentative Tract This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi Kyle and Michael, Just wanted to send you a rough idea of what we are planning at Westmont, We would like to do a Modification to the Tentative Tract Map we will be using density bonus subdivision shooting for 40 lots we would like to make the road private here is some prelim sketches, let me know if you would like to meet next week to go over it and make sure we aren't missing something. From:Codron, Michael To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle; John Rourke Cc:Scott Stokes; Corey, Tyler; Kersten, Markie; Scott, Shawna Subject:RE: Westmont Modification to Tentative Tract Date:Wednesday, September 29, 2021 9:34:36 AM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png Hello John and Scott, We are working to provide you with a formal response on your inquiry related to processing a modification for the Westmont tract map. In the meantime, Kyle’s guidance regarding the pre-application process is going to be the best method for you to get feedback and input on the proposal. The fee for the pre-application request would be applied to the new application – whether that turns out to be a modification or, as we anticipate, a new tentative map. Thank you, -Michael From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 8:50 AM To: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Cc: Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org>; Scott Stokes <scott@abovegradeengineering.com> Subject: RE: Westmont Modification to Tentative Tract Hello John, The best approach to get feedback on this proposal is to submit for a pre-application meeting, as there is likely more feedback needed than can really be covered in a conference call. This will allow for all City departments to provide meaningful feedback. The pre-ap submittal should include a detailed project description that includes what density bonus calculation and incentives are being requested, and all other exceptions the project would be asking for. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 5:24 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org>; Scott Stokes <scott@abovegradeengineering.com> Subject: Re: Westmont Modification to Tentative Tract Hi Kyle, I haven't heard back from you. Could we schedule a conference call to discuss. It doesn't make sense for this to be a resubmital, under density bonus law infill projects under 5 acres do not require additional studies. We will have the grading plan and storm water plan in a few weeks. How do you want to proceed? Thanks John On Fri, Sep 24, 2021, 5:15 PM John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Kyle, We would like to do it as a modification to the existing tentative track map and change it to a density bonus law subdivision which would preclude it from any additional enviormental review. Ive included Scott Stokes from Above Grade who will be helping facilitate. Let me know if you would like to have a conference call. Thanks John On Fri, Sep 24, 2021, 4:52 PM Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> wrote: Hello John, The subdivision you are proposing is new project, which would require a new environmental review. My recommendation would be to submit for a pre-application review so that all reviewing departments can provide feedback specific to your project: https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-element- cse&cx=014272426406783312333:0eri3djcyq4&q=https://www.slocity.org/home/show publisheddocument/2484/637625534512170000&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwj6x9LK5pjzAh X9HjQIHf0iBY4QFnoECAMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1hRADehqUPnUK2mauunoKF Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 1:06 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org>; Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org> Subject: Westmont Modification to Tentative Tract This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi Kyle and Michael, Just wanted to send you a rough idea of what we are planning at Westmont, We would like to do a Modification to the Tentative Tract Map we will be using density bonus subdivision shooting for 40 lots we would like to make the road private here is some prelim sketches, let me know if you would like to meet next week to go over it and make sure we aren't missing something. From:Van Leeuwen, Kyle To:Corey, Tyler; Codron, Michael Cc:Scott, Shawna Subject:RE: Westmont Modification to Tentative Tract Date:Thursday, September 16, 2021 3:58:55 PM I spoke with John this morning before he sent this. I will be out of office after today until Thursday 23rd. I let him know that we would discuss further after I got back. Seems like this would have to be proposed as a new PD project. Too many exceptions otherwise, also is not compliant with mitigation measures (creek setback specifically), let alone the project scope of the IS. KVL From: Corey, Tyler <tcorey@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 2:16 PM To: Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org>; Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: Scott, Shawna <sscott@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Westmont Modification to Tentative Tract Totally new and looks like many exceptions some of which might be afforded thru density bonus law. They should submit a pre-application if they have specific questions on subdivision/project approach. From: Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 1:24 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: Corey, Tyler <tcorey@slocity.org>; Scott, Shawna <sscott@slocity.org> Subject: FW: Westmont Modification to Tentative Tract Looks like a brand new project to me… From: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 1:06 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org>; Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org> Subject: Westmont Modification to Tentative Tract This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi Kyle and Michael, Just wanted to send you a rough idea of what we are planning at Westmont, We would like to do a Modification to the Tentative Tract Map we will be using density bonus subdivision shooting for 40 lots we would like to make the road private here is some prelim sketches, let me know if you would like to meet next week to go over it and make sure we aren't missing something. From:Codron, Michael To:John Rourke; Van Leeuwen, Kyle Cc:Scott Stokes; Corey, Tyler; Kersten, Markie; Scott, Shawna; Klaus Strobel Subject:RE: Westmont Modification to Tentative Tract Date:Thursday, October 21, 2021 10:44:40 AM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png Hi John, Jumping in here to say that we continue to encourage you to submit a pre-app for the new project. We will not accept the submittal as a modification for the reasons previously stated. If your attorney can cite authority to the contrary, please have them share that information directly with Markie Jorgenson copied on this e-mail. We don’t need to engage further on that question, and we are not going to move forward with that question hanging out there. Once you are comfortable with the process we’ve outlined, we welcome your applications and we’ll get started on the review. Until then, it doesn’t make any sense for us to continue the back and forth. All the best, -Michael Michael Codron pronouns he/him/his Director of Community Development Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E mcodron@slocity.org T 805.781.7187 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2021 5:36 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org>; Scott Stokes <scott@abovegradeengineering.com>; Corey, Tyler <tcorey@slocity.org>; Jorgensen, Markie <mjorgens@slocity.org>; Scott, Shawna sscott@slocity.org>; Klaus Strobel <klausstrobel@mac.com> Subject: Re: Westmont Modification to Tentative Tract Thank you for the response, We disagree with your interpretation of the modification process and the intent of our modification. We are not trying to get building entitlements, just modifying the Tenative tract map to include more lots using density bonus subdivision. Since you are unwilling to speak about our proposal I suggest we submit it as a modification and you can respond how you see fit, If it is rejection we will be using litigation. Please forward me the application for modification. We will address your concerns in the application and will demonstrate how density bonus law gives us exemption. On Wed, Oct 20, 2021, 4:51 PM Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> wrote: Good Afternoon, Please see responses to your questions below. The questions from your previous emails have been restated in GREEN with staff response following. Can you please provide the section of code that determines what can and can't be done with a modification? Is there something that's says that additional planning reviews cannot be done through a modification? There is not a specific code section that defines or provides thresholds for a subdivision modification beyond “minor modifications”, that can only be considered when: 1. No lots, units or building sites are added or deleted; 2. The proposed changes are consistent with the intent and spirit of the original tentative map approval; and 3. The proposed changes are consistent with the zoning regulations and the building code, the general plan and the Subdivision Map Act (Municipal Code 16.10.160). It is our stance and practice that if a project changes to such a degree that it requires new and different planning applications/entitlements with required review before a new advisory body, the new project is not considered a modification to the previous project. This is supported by the section you highlighted (16.10.160), which states Corrections and amendments to tentative maps and conditions of approval which are not deemed by the Director to be minor shall be reviewed at a public hearing by the Planning Commission upon submittal of the appropriate modification application. This section only allows for “corrections and amendments” to maps that are not considered minor to be reviewed by Planning Commission as a modification. The fact that your project proposes structures, among several other significant changes, means that this is not a correction or an amendment, but a new project with a different project scope that requires more than just Planning Commission review. What triggers "major development review"? Major Development Review is required for projects that are multi-unit developments with more than 10 units (Chapter 17.106.030 (D.) & 17.106.040 of the Zoning Regulations). Projects that include more than 10 units require Development Review with a public hearing before the Architectural Review Commission with a recommendation to the Planning Commission. Its been over a month since I first reached out and I feel like I don't have any answer except because we say so. assuming we applied for a preapp meeting today who far out would it be? Pre-Application meetings are typically scheduled approximately four weeks from pre- application submittal. Can we schedule a meeting to discuss the current tract map? I am happy to discuss the currently approved map anytime. However, specific questions regarding your proposal needs to be answered and documented through the pre- application process. I don't believe we are requesting a common interest subdivision; I think Density Bonus Law allows us to do things that are more consistent with common interest subdivision. Section 16.26.070 of the Subdivision Regulations defines a Common Interest Subdivision as one that, includes subdivided lands which include a separate interest in real property combined with an interest in common with other owners. This type of subdivision is required for shared aspects of a project such as a private street. I believe density bonus law infill projects that are less than 5 acres are exempt from CEQA, but we can cross that bridge when we get to it. As previously stated, the proposed project is not exempt from CEQA and would require a new environmental review (Table 1, Subdivision Regulations). The scope of the previous environmental document is not consistent with the new project or with the identified mitigation measures of the previous environmental review. We would do 20% affordable to avoid arch review. Can you send me the code section the defines that? A 20% affordable housing project must be deed restricted to low-income households and can only be reviewed ministerially for development review if the project is consistent with all applicable development standards. Your proposed project appears to be inconsistent with many development standards and would not qualify for this review process. See Chapters 17.16 and 17.70 for information on development standards for the R-1 zone. The recommended next step for your conceptual project is to submit a pre-application. Best Regards, Kyle Van Leeuwen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 1:16 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org>; Scott Stokes <scott@abovegradeengineering.com>; Corey, Tyler <tcorey@slocity.org>; Jorgensen, Markie <mjorgens@slocity.org>; Scott, Shawna sscott@slocity.org>; Klaus Strobel <klausstrobel@mac.com> Subject: Re: Westmont Modification to Tentative Tract This is the only thing I can find about modification 16.10.160 CORRECTION AND AMENDMENT OF APPROVED TENTATIVE MAPS A. Minor corrections or amendments to approved tentative maps or conditions of approval may be granted by the Director provided that all of the following are true: 1. No lots, units or building sites are added or deleted; and 2. The proposed changes are consistent with the intent and spirit of the original tentative map ap proval; and 3. The proposed changes are consistent with the zoning regulations and the building code, the General Plan and the Subdivision Map Act. B. Approval of minor corrections or amendments shall not change any expiration dates. Corrections and amendments to tentative maps and conditions of approval which are not deemed by the Director to be minor shall be reviewed at a public hearing by the Planning Commission upon submittal of the appropriate modification application, materials, and fees by the subdivider. Obviously we will need to use B. the director has determined that the changes aren't minor so we will need to go to Planning Commission. Please send a link to the modification application. We will be submitting this way, If you refuse to accept our Modification Application please detail why so our lawyer can determine the next step. On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 12:55 PM John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> wrote: Thanks for sending the pre app forms, we would like to do a modification to the existing Tentative Track Map even if we have to modify our current plan I feel like my other requests are being ignored. Can you please provide the section of code that determines what can and can't be done with a modification? Is there something that's says that additional planning reviews cannot be done through a modification? What triggers "major development review"? Its been over a month since I first reached out and I feel like I don't have any answer except because we say so. assuming we applied for a preapp meeting today who far out would it be? can we schedule a meeting to discuss the current tract map? Thanks John On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 7:14 AM John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Kyle, How do we schedule a Preapp meeting, I'm worried if we don't all get face to face staff won't take this seriously. Can you please provide the documents I requested. It would be really helpful if staff would provide documentation to back up it's decisions. To be clear we believe that density bonus law can be applied to an existing Tenantive Tract Map if you have code that says otherwise please provide it. We will be consulting with our lawyer to see if you have grounds to deny us from doing so but we need you to provide back up for your stance. We are reasonable, if this is just an additional fees thing let us know, for us it's not trying to save on fees, it's about not starting over a project that has already been reviewed for two years. Please schedule us for your earliest available Preapp meeting and send me an invoice. Please respond to this email to acknowledge receipt. Thank you John On Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 5:13 PM John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Kyle, Thanks for the response, Can you please forward the code section that defines what can and can't be done with a modification? Is there something that's says that additional planning reviews cannot be done through a modification? What triggers "major development review"? I don't believe we are requesting a common interest subdivision, I think Density Bonus Law allows us to do things that are more consistent with common interest subdivision. I believe density bonus law infill projects that are less than 5 acres are exempt from CEQA, but we can cross that bridge when we get to it. We would do 20% affordable to avoid arch review. Can you send me the code section the defines that. From what I can tell the only thing we would trigger is additional planning review which seems like it would be consistent with modification. Please send me the code sections as soon as you can so we can determine the best way to proceed. Thanks John On Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 12:33 PM Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> wrote: Hello John, The Community Development Department has determined that your concept for subdivision and development of the property at 500 Westmont is not a modification to the previous tentative tract map entitlement. I Don't believe we need Arc review if we provide 20% or more affordable. The project you have shown is not a modification for the following reasons: 1. The previous entitlement was a tentative tract map only with no exceptions, no development of structures, and included public rights-of-way for the street connection, consistent with the general design requirements of the Subdivision Regulations (16.18). The proposed project appears to be a density bonus project with concessions/incentives, development of structures, and a private street. The proposed project would require new and different planning applications/entitlements for “Major Development Review”, “Common Interest Subdivision” and an “Affordable Housing Incentive Request” with review before the Architectural Review Commission and Planning Commission. A modification process would be for a project with the same type of entitlement and application review process as the previous entitlement. 2. The proposed project is not exempt from CEQA and would require a new environmental review (Table 1, Subdivision Regulations). The scope of the previous environmental document is not consistent with the new project or with the identified mitigation measures of the previous environmental review. This response has been provided in coordination with the City Attorney’s Office. Regards, Kyle Van Leeuwen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 11, 2021 10:34 AM To: Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org> Cc: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org>; Scott Stokes scott@abovegradeengineering.com>; Corey, Tyler <tcorey@slocity.org>; Jorgensen, Markie <mjorgens@slocity.org>; Scott, Shawna <sscott@slocity.org>; Klaus Strobel klausstrobel@mac.com> Subject: Re: Westmont Modification to Tentative Tract Hi All, Haven't heard anything yet. We will submit it as a modification to the existing Tenantive Tract map for now, if you have something that shows this is beyond the tolerances for a modification to an existing Tenative Tract Map please forward it to us. Thanks John On Wed, Sep 29, 2021, 9:46 AM John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> wrote: Thanks for the quick response, I've included my partner Klaus on this email. Thanks for the clarification on pre app fees applying to the project either way, that is a good suggestion. I think we should wait till we read your formal response so that we all have somewhere to start. Thank you all for your time, looking forward to working with you. John On Wed, Sep 29, 2021, 9:34 AM Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org> wrote: Hello John and Scott, We are working to provide you with a formal response on your inquiry related to processing a modification for the Westmont tract map. In the meantime, Kyle’s guidance regarding the pre-application process is going to be the best method for you to get feedback and input on the proposal. The fee for the pre-application request would be applied to the new application – whether that turns out to be a modification or, as we anticipate, a new tentative map. Thank you, -Michael From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 8:50 AM To: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Cc: Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org>; Scott Stokes scott@abovegradeengineering.com> Subject: RE: Westmont Modification to Tentative Tract Hello John, The best approach to get feedback on this proposal is to submit for a pre- application meeting, as there is likely more feedback needed than can really be covered in a conference call. This will allow for all City departments to provide meaningful feedback. The pre-ap submittal should include a detailed project description that includes what density bonus calculation and incentives are being requested, and all other exceptions the project would be asking for. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 5:24 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org>; Scott Stokes scott@abovegradeengineering.com> Subject: Re: Westmont Modification to Tentative Tract Hi Kyle, I haven't heard back from you. Could we schedule a conference call to discuss. It doesn't make sense for this to be a resubmital, under density bonus law infill projects under 5 acres do not require additional studies. We will have the grading plan and storm water plan in a few weeks. How do you want to proceed? Thanks John On Fri, Sep 24, 2021, 5:15 PM John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Kyle, We would like to do it as a modification to the existing tentative track map and change it to a density bonus law subdivision which would preclude it from any additional enviormental review. Ive included Scott Stokes from Above Grade who will be helping facilitate. Let me know if you would like to have a conference call. Thanks John On Fri, Sep 24, 2021, 4:52 PM Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> wrote: Hello John, The subdivision you are proposing is new project, which would require a new environmental review. My recommendation would be to submit for a pre-application review so that all reviewing departments can provide feedback specific to your project: https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-element- cse&cx=014272426406783312333:0eri3djcyq4&q=https://www.slocity. org/home/showpublisheddocument/2484/637625534512170000&sa=U ved=2ahUKEwj6x9LK5pjzAhX9HjQIHf0iBY4QFnoECAMQAQ&usg=A OvVaw1hRADehqUPnUK2mauunoKF Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: John Rourke <rourkefam@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 1:06 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org>; Codron, Michael mcodron@slocity.org> Subject: Westmont Modification to Tentative Tract This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi Kyle and Michael, Just wanted to send you a rough idea of what we are planning at Westmont, We would like to do a Modification to the Tentative Tract Map we will be using density bonus subdivision shooting for 40 lots we would like to make the road private here is some prelim sketches, let me know if you would like to meet next week to go over it and make sure we aren't missing something. From:Codron, Michael To:Corey, Tyler Subject:Westmont Date:Tuesday, May 4, 2021 11:07:52 AM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png How is this coming? Do we have a PC date? Michael Codron pronouns he/him/his Director of Community Development Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E mcodron@slocity.org T 805.781.7187 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:webmaster@slocity.org on behalf of City of San Luis Obispo, CA To:Corey, Tyler Subject:Email contact from City of San Luis Obispo, CA Date:Monday, June 7, 2021 1:58:58 PM This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Message submitted from the <City of San Luis Obispo, CA> website. Site Visitor Name: Robert Schroeter Site Visitor Email: Hi Tyler, I wanted to inform you that my neighbors and I just received your postcard today (6/7/21) for the May 26th meeting for the Planning Commissions agenda item for the 500 Westmont Development tentative tract map. The postcard is date stamped 6/4/21. This was likely a followup to my request to be included on the mailing list, but I want to make sure that it is clear to all involved that there were gaps in your notification process for the original May 26th meeting, as many of my neighbors and some in the audience can attest to. I only found out about the meeting through a friend about a week before the meeting. I respectfully request that all affected parties for this and future agenda items be properly notified, starting with the June 23rd meeting. This will allow them to effectively take part in the public process and to state their position on this significant project that will shape the future of our neighborhood and the wildlife habitat on the northern edge of SLO. FYI - I will also forward this email to Kyle Van Leeuwen, as well to let him know I received the postcard. Thanks for your time. Rob Schroeter From:Corey, Tyler To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Subject:FW: Agenda Correspondence for 05/26/2021 PC Meeting Date:Monday, May 24, 2021 10:58:01 AM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png Need to confirm notices went out and that this person was sent a postcard if within 300 feet. From: Wilbanks, Megan <mwilbanks@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2021 10:54 AM To: CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org> Cc: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: Agenda Correspondence for 05/26/2021 PC Meeting Hello, Linked below is Agenda Correspondence for the Planning Commission meeting on May 26, 2021. Item 2 - SBDV-0169-2020 & EID-0170-2020 (468 & 500 Westmont) Wight Bcc: Planning Commission Group Megan Wilbanks Deputy City Clerk City Administration 990 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E mwilbank@slocity.org T 805.781.7103 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:Corey, Tyler To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Cc:Scott, Shawna Subject:FW: Westmont Subdivision - PC Schedule Date:Wednesday, February 17, 2021 3:47:08 PM Please confirm whether 7/6 or 7/20 would be best for a CC meeting. Those are the earliest Council dates available. From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 1:18 PM To: Corey, Tyler <tcorey@slocity.org> Subject: Westmont Subdivision - PC Schedule Tyler, Can please add this to the PC hearing for April 14? SBDV 0169-2020 500 Westmont EID 0170-2020 500 Westmont Thank you, KVL From:Allen Root To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Subject:Re: Westmont preview. Date:Tuesday, May 11, 2021 10:36:06 AM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png My only scheduled commitment on Friday is an SLO DR. appt. at 10:30, so sure. On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 10:21 AM Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> wrote: Hello Allen, I am checking about this. Just in case, I believe you had mentioned that you would be free earlier in the day. Would you be free at 4:00 on Friday for the visit? Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 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: Allen Root <allen.t.root@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 10:14 AM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: Westmont preview. This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Kyle, I'm a little confused as to our meet time of 5:00 PM on Friday the 14th. If we are all there at the same time, actually if three or more of us are present, does that not violate the Brown Act? Thanks, Allen From:Corey, Tyler To:Codron, Michael Subject:RE: Westmont Date:Tuesday, May 4, 2021 11:12:55 AM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png Ready to go. PC 5/26 & CC 7/6. From: Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, May 4, 2021 11:08 AM To: Corey, Tyler <tcorey@slocity.org> Subject: Westmont How is this coming? Do we have a PC date? Michael Codron pronouns he/him/his Director of Community Development Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E mcodron@slocity.org T 805.781.7187 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:Codron, Michael To:Corey, Tyler Subject:RE: Westmont Date:Tuesday, May 4, 2021 11:13:46 AM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png Thanks! From: Corey, Tyler <tcorey@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, May 4, 2021 11:13 AM To: Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Westmont Ready to go. PC 5/26 & CC 7/6. From: Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, May 4, 2021 11:08 AM To: Corey, Tyler <tcorey@slocity.org> Subject: Westmont How is this coming? Do we have a PC date? Michael Codron pronouns he/him/his Director of Community Development Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E mcodron@slocity.org T 805.781.7187 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:Codron, Michael To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Subject:Westmont Date:Tuesday, May 4, 2021 11:24:48 AM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png Hi Kyle, do you have an electronic plan set that you can shoot over to me. Can you also give me a heads-up on any issues that have come up during the course of review on this project (e.g. neighbor input, ADU’s, design/lot size, street connections, creek preservation, etc.). No rush, we can just chat in the hall if that is easiest. Thank you! Michael Codron pronouns he/him/his Director of Community Development Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E mcodron@slocity.org T 805.781.7187 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:Van Leeuwen, Kyle To:Katie Rollins Subject:RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 Date:Wednesday, May 26, 2021 2:15:29 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png Katie, I did speak with our fire Marshall and he did not see a need for a change in that mitigation measure. He also reminded me that removal of non-native species is also to enhance the area for native species to survive in. So I do have some answers lined up for this. One question that came up from a commissioner is about the retention areas within the creek setback. They are interested to know how much excavation installation of the retention basin involves. If you can be ready for that question, that would be great. Thank you, KVL From: Katie Rollins <KatieR@CannonCorp.us> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2021 1:35 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 Hi Kyle, I spoke with Jim Nueman our the gentleman who wrote our fire protection plan. He deferred to the city fire Marshall. Just wondering what you got from him so we know what to expect. Thanks, Katie Katie Rollins, PE, QSDCivilAssociateEngineer Cannon 11900 West Olympic Blvd,Suite 530,Los Angeles,CA.90064T310.382.5133F310.664.8877 E KatieR@CannonCorp.usCannonFacebookTwitterLinkedIn From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2021 2:13 PM To: Katie Rollins <KatieR@CannonCorp.us> Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ** Katie, I will still be making some final touches to the presentation over the next day but attached is my presentation. Still receiving questions about tree removals and work within or adjacent to the creek. If you can answer how the subdivision was designed to protect the creek area or why certain improvements are place in that area that would be helpful for commissioners. One Planning Commissioner asked if we could show a map with the tree removals with the lot lines overlayed on it. If that is something that is easy to put together it may help facilitate discussion tomorrow night. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 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: Katie Rollins <KatieR@CannonCorp.us> Sent: Friday, May 21, 2021 9:35 AM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 Hi Kyle, Could you remind me how long the applicant team will have to present after your presentation? And if we have an allotted time for rebuttal after public comment? Thanks, and Happy Friday! Katie Katie Rollins, PE, QSDCivilAssociateEngineer Cannon 11900 West Olympic Blvd,Suite 530,Los Angeles,CA.90064T310.382.5133 C 310.487.2136F310.664.8877 E KatieR@CannonCorp.usCannonFacebookTwitterLinkedIn From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2021 8:37 AM To: Katie Rollins <KatieR@CannonCorp.us> Cc: 'James M. Flagg' <jflagg@ophot.com>; 'Andrew Meinhold' <Tim Meinhold' < Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ** Good Morning Katie and Applicant Team, City staff is working on wrapping up the Planning Commission staff report and I wanted to pass along an update to you. Specifically the added request for the review or eventual recording of the map to incorporate the possibility of keeping structures, or portions of structures, that are on site. Through the last few weeks of review and conditioning the project, it has become clear that this will not be an realistic option for the project. This essentially comes down to the end execution of the project being consistent with the Initial Study and the scope of the project that study covered. This is made especially cumbersome because of the location of the existing structures in relation to proposed lot lines, and the fact that the structure would be inconsistent with setback requirements and other aspects of property development standards. Approval of the structures to stay with non-compliant setbacks would have needed to be incorporated in the larger project description, which it was not. Last night we did have a successful Tree Committee hearing and the project will move forward to next weeks Planning Commission hearing. I am working on incorporating the tree committee recommendation into the staff report. Thank you Katie for being available to answer the questions posed last night. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 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: Katie Rollins <KatieR@CannonCorp.us> Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 9:29 AM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: 'James M. Flagg' <jflagg@ophot.com>; 'Andrew Meinhold' <Tim Meinhold' < Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 Hi Kyle, Thanks for the call. Please reach out to Tim at regarding the best way to coordinate visits for the tree committee members. Katie Katie Rollins, PE, QSDCivilAssociateEngineer Cannon 11900 West Olympic Blvd,Suite 530,Los Angeles,CA.90064T310.382.5133 C 310.487.2136F310.664.8877 E KatieR@CannonCorp.usCannonFacebookTwitterLinkedIn From: Katie Rollins Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2021 7:12 AM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: 'James M. Flagg' <jflagg@ophot.com>; 'Andrew Meinhold' <Tim Meinhold' < Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 Hi Kyle – Lets do Friday May 14th! Katie Katie Rollins, PE, QSDCivilAssociateEngineer Cannon 11900 West Olympic Blvd,Suite 530,Los Angeles,CA.90064T310.382.5133 C 310.487.2136F310.664.8877 E KatieR@CannonCorp.usCannonFacebookTwitterLinkedIn From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 4:43 PM To: Katie Rollins <KatieR@CannonCorp.us> Cc: 'James M. Flagg' <jflagg@ophot.com>; 'Andrew Meinhold' <Tim Meinhold' < Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ** Hello Katie, I just spoke with the Arborist again and its sounding like the 17th is actually the date that works better for most committee members and would have a more secure chance of having a quorum for the meeting. With that, I believe we may try to arrange the site visit the week of the 10th (possible the 14th). Sorry for the quick change on that. This will still leave the PC and Council dates in place. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 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: Katie Rollins <KatieR@CannonCorp.us> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 9:19 AM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: 'James M. Flagg' <jflagg@ophot.com>; 'Andrew Meinhold' <Tim Meinhold' < Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 Hi Kyle, Tim Meinhold will be onsite May 7 in the afternoon to meet the tree committee. Let me know if you’d also like to have a representative from Cannon there, otherwise we’ll keep it simple with just Tim. He’ll also get the mitigation check in the mail next week, so you’ll have that ready to go. Katie Katie Rollins, PE, QSDCivilAssociateEngineer Cannon 11900 West Olympic Blvd,Suite 530,Los Angeles,CA.90064T310.382.5133F310.664.8877 E KatieR@CannonCorp.usCannonFacebookTwitterLinkedIn From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 8:37 AM To: Katie Rollins <KatieR@CannonCorp.us> Cc: 'James M. Flagg' <jflagg@ophot.com>; 'Andrew Meinhold' <Tim Meinhold' < Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ** Hello Katie, The arborist has let me know that the tree committee will be able to accommodate this meeting on the 10th. The tree committee members are interested in visiting the property some time leading up to the hearing. Would this be on with the applicants? And is there a certain day or time of day that would work best for them? Maybe next Friday afternoon, the 7th? We would likely only have two or three on site at a time. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 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: Katie Rollins <KatieR@CannonCorp.us> Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2021 3:54 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: 'James M. Flagg' <jflagg@ophot.com>; 'Andrew Meinhold' <Tim Meinhold' < Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 Hi Kyle, Thanks for your call just now and for clarifying that the intent of the biological easement is that it will be for the extents of the riparian edge, thus the creek setback shown on the approved TTM is accurate and the easement will have no affect on the building areas as shown on the TTM. Please find the signed mitigation agreement attached. When do you need the check by in order to not slow us down? And thanks for pushing this project along! Katie Katie Rollins, PE, QSDCivilAssociateEngineer Cannon 11900 West Olympic Blvd,Suite 530,Los Angeles,CA.90064T310.382.5133 C 310.487.2136F310.664.8877 E KatieR@CannonCorp.usCannonFacebookTwitterLinkedIn From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2021 4:58 PM To: Katie Rollins <KatieR@CannonCorp.us> Cc: 'James M. Flagg' <jflagg@ophot.com>; 'Andrew Meinhold' <Tim Meinhold' < Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ** Good Afternoon, Attached is the Mitigation Agreement Letter and Draft Mitigation Agreement for the project. I will send the final draft of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Deceleration in a following email. I also want to let you know that the City Arborists has agreed to hold a special hearing of the Tree Committee. We are waiting on confirmation from Tree Committee Members that enough can attend to make quorum. This is tentatively set for the 10 of May. We are still in line with the timing to have this project go to council on July 6th. We will need to have the mitigation agreement signed by noon of Friday to file the Environmental Documents to keep this schedule. I know that is a quick turnaround, but please let me know if you have any questions on that agreement. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 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: Katie Rollins <KatieR@CannonCorp.us> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 3:12 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: 'James M. Flagg' <jflagg@ophot.com>; 'Andrew Meinhold' <Tim Meinhold' < Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 Hi Kyle, Yup! Please see modified map. Katie Katie Rollins, PE, QSDCivilAssociateEngineer Cannon 11900 West Olympic Blvd,Suite 530,Los Angeles,CA.90064T310.382.5133F310.664.8877 E KatieR@CannonCorp.usCannonFacebookTwitterLinkedIn From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 12:44 PM To: Katie Rollins <KatieR@CannonCorp.us> Cc: 'James M. Flagg' <jflagg@ophot.com>; 'Andrew Meinhold' <Tim Meinhold' < Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ** Hello Katie, Than you, This will be a big help. The only thing I noticed is that none of the palms are identified as subject to discretionary review. While they are not native, Palms are only exempt if under 12” DSH. Can you please modify the map to include those palms that are 12” or more? Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 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: Katie Rollins <KatieR@CannonCorp.us> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 12:06 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: 'James M. Flagg' <jflagg@ophot.com>; 'Andrew Meinhold' <Tim Meinhold' < Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 Hi Kyle, Please find attached at Tree exhibit you requested and the tree inventory list I pulled from the bio report. Please let me know if you have any questions or would like anything else. We are looking forward to the council meeting on July 6 and are readily available to help out with whatever you need in the meantime. Thanks, Katie cannonassoc.com\dfsroot1\Public\proj\2019\190306\5 Deliverables\Exhibits and Sketches\2021- 04-15-Tree Committee Exhibit to City Katie Rollins, PE, QSDCivilAssociateEngineer Cannon 11900 West Olympic Blvd,Suite 530,Los Angeles,CA.90064T310.382.5133F310.664.8877 E KatieR@CannonCorp.usCannonFacebookTwitterLinkedIn From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 10:59 AM To: Katie Rollins <KatieR@CannonCorp.us> Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ** Hello Katie, Thanks for taking my call. As I mentioned we will need an additional exhibit to clearly show the tree removals. This exhibit should show all trees on site as previously shown in the subdivision submittal, with specific call outs/highlights of trees within the riparian corridor that will be removed as recommended in the fire protection plan (Attached), and those to be removed outside the creek area that are subject to discretionary review. Trees that are excluded from discretionary review are described in municipal code as follows: 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. Please have the totals available on the exhibit. Thanks for help in keeping this moving forward. I will be providing a large update later today. KVL From: Katie Rollins <KatieR@CannonCorp.us> Sent: Wednesday, April 7, 2021 9:29 AM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org>; James M. Flagg <jflagg@ophot.com> Cc: Andrew Meinhold <Tim Meinhold < Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 Thank you Kyle, We would prefer to keep our current planning commission date if at all possible as we’ve already been pushed back. We appreciate your time and hard work on this. Katie Katie Rollins, PE, QSDCivilAssociateEngineer Cannon 11900 West Olympic Blvd,Suite 530,Los Angeles,CA.90064T310.382.5133F310.664.8877 E KatieR@CannonCorp.usCannonFacebookTwitterLinkedIn From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, April 7, 2021 8:52 AM To: Katie Rollins <KatieR@CannonCorp.us>; James M. Flagg <jflagg@ophot.com> Cc: Andrew Meinhold <Tim Meinhold < Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ** Hello Katie, SWCA is working on edits that were identified during review. I do expect to get the document back soon and hopefully finalize soon after. Yes, we are coming up against the deadline for the 30 day review prior to PC hearing. I will also look into an alternate date for PC in case that is needed. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 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: Katie Rollins <KatieR@CannonCorp.us> Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 12:38 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org>; James M. Flagg <jflagg@ophot.com> Cc: Andrew Meinhold <Tim Meinhold < Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 Hi Kyle, I hope you had a restful and fun Easter. Just checking in on this project. I believe we the 30 day circulation should be starting very soon in order to meet our hearing date. Are we still tracking? Thanks, Katie Katie Rollins, PE, QSDCivilAssociateEngineer Cannon 11900 West Olympic Blvd,Suite 530,Los Angeles,CA.90064T310.382.5133 C 310.487.2136F310.664.8877 E KatieR@CannonCorp.usCannonFacebookTwitterLinkedIn From: Katie Rollins Sent: Thursday, April 1, 2021 9:08 AM To: 'Van Leeuwen, Kyle' <KVanLeeu@slocity.org>; 'James M. Flagg' <jflagg@ophot.com> Cc: Andrew Meinhold <Tim Meinhold < Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 Hi Kyle, Please find the completed checklist attached. Thanks, Katie cannonassoc.com\dfsroot1\Public\proj\2019\190306\5 Deliverables\Miscellaneous Documents\2021-04-01-GHG Checklist\GHG-CAP Checklist-Complete.pdf Katie Rollins, PE, QSDCivilAssociateEngineer Cannon 11900 West Olympic Blvd,Suite 530,Los Angeles,CA.90064T310.382.5133F310.664.8877 E KatieR@CannonCorp.usCannonFacebookTwitterLinkedIn From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2021 8:22 AM To: Katie Rollins <KatieR@CannonCorp.us> Cc: Ed Collins <edc@CannonCorp.us> Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ** Hi Katie, With no buildings planned some of these will be N/A, like all-electric and waste pick-up. If we can get this back by the end of the week, that should be fine. On it’s items about consistency, we have routed the project to reviewing departments and any significant inconsistencies should have already been brought up and addressed. I hope that helps, Kyle Van Leeuwen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 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: Katie Rollins <KatieR@CannonCorp.us> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2021 7:58 AM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: Ed Collins <edc@CannonCorp.us> Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 Thank you Kyle, I will begin to fill this out. Looks like some of the questions – like the organic waste pickup – require letters/information from outside groups. Do you have a contact for San Luis Garbage for us to address this item? When do you need this by as to not delay our scheduled planning commission date? On items regarding the project’s consistency with the city’s plans and ordinances, I suppose staff has reviewed the project for consistency and that’s why it’s being recommended for approval correct? Thanks, Katie Katie Rollins, PE, QSDCivilAssociateEngineer Cannon 11900 West Olympic Blvd,Suite 530,Los Angeles,CA.90064T310.382.5133 C 310.487.2136F310.664.8877 E KatieR@CannonCorp.usCannonFacebookTwitterLinkedIn From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2021 9:57 AM To: Katie Rollins <KatieR@CannonCorp.us> Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ** Good Morning Katie, One additional item that we need from you is a completed is the GHG emission checklist. This is something new that was developed last year in connection to our GHG reduction goals. Please let me know if you have any questions. KVL From: Katie Rollins <KatieR@CannonCorp.us> Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 11:05 AM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org>; James M. Flagg <jflagg@ophot.com> Cc: Andrew Meinhold <Tim Meinhold <John Rourke' rourkefam@gmail.com>; Scott, Shawna <sscott@slocity.org> Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Thank you for the update Kyle. Katie Katie Rollins, PE, QSDCivilAssociateEngineer Cannon 11900 West Olympic Blvd,Suite 530,Los Angeles,CA.90064T310.382.5133 C 310.487.2136F310.664.8877 E KatieR@CannonCorp.usCannonFacebookTwitterLinkedIn From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 2:41 PM To: Katie Rollins <KatieR@CannonCorp.us>; James M. Flagg <jflagg@ophot.com> Cc: Andrew Meinhold <Tim Meinhold <John Rourke' rourkefam@gmail.com>; Scott, Shawna <sscott@slocity.org> Subject: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ** Good Afternoon, I wanted give a comprehensive update on the process timeline for the project. We have hit some delays recently due to current staffing levels and having to review a number of Initial Studies for different projects. I was able to discuss this with my supervisor, Shawna Scott, who also is tasked with final reviews of all initial studies, to get a realistic timeline. At this time, City staff and consultant will still need at least 15 working days to get the document finalized. Given the 30 day public review of the environmental document, it is necessary to move the Planning Commission hearing date to May 12, 2021. We are also circulating the proposed phasing plan to necessary departments to make sure they have an opportunity request any additional information need to condition the project appropriately with the phasing. While the phasing plan is not directly causing any delays on its own, this additional time will also ensure that appropriate review and conditioning of the phasing can be fully accommodated. None of this changes the final Council Hearing date which is scheduled for July. We appreciate your flexibility and patience as we work through the reviews. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 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:Van Leeuwen, Kyle To:Katie Rollins Subject:RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 Date:Friday, May 21, 2021 10:35:29 AM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png Hi Katie, The allotted time is ten minutes for the applicant presentation. Typically, they do allow the applicant to reserve some of that time, if unused, for rebuttal after public comment. KVL From: Katie Rollins <KatieR@CannonCorp.us> Sent: Friday, May 21, 2021 9:35 AM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 Hi Kyle, Could you remind me how long the applicant team will have to present after your presentation? And if we have an allotted time for rebuttal after public comment? Thanks, and Happy Friday! Katie Katie Rollins, PE, QSDCivilAssociateEngineer Cannon 11900 West Olympic Blvd,Suite 530,Los Angeles,CA.90064T310.382.5133 C 310.487.2136F310.664.8877 E KatieR@CannonCorp.usCannonFacebookTwitterLinkedIn From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2021 8:37 AM To: Katie Rollins <KatieR@CannonCorp.us> Cc: 'James M. Flagg' <jflagg@ophot.com>; 'Andrew Meinhold' <Tim Meinhold' < Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ** Good Morning Katie and Applicant Team, City staff is working on wrapping up the Planning Commission staff report and I wanted to pass along an update to you. Specifically the added request for the review or eventual recording of the map to incorporate the possibility of keeping structures, or portions of structures, that are on site. Through the last few weeks of review and conditioning the project, it has become clear that this will not be an realistic option for the project. This essentially comes down to the end execution of the project being consistent with the Initial Study and the scope of the project that study covered. This is made especially cumbersome because of the location of the existing structures in relation to proposed lot lines, and the fact that the structure would be inconsistent with setback requirements and other aspects of property development standards. Approval of the structures to stay with non-compliant setbacks would have needed to be incorporated in the larger project description, which it was not. Last night we did have a successful Tree Committee hearing and the project will move forward to next weeks Planning Commission hearing. I am working on incorporating the tree committee recommendation into the staff report. Thank you Katie for being available to answer the questions posed last night. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 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: Katie Rollins <KatieR@CannonCorp.us> Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 9:29 AM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: 'James M. Flagg' <jflagg@ophot.com>; 'Andrew Meinhold' <Tim Meinhold' < Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 Hi Kyle, Thanks for the call. Please reach out to Tim at regarding the best way to coordinate visits for the tree committee members. Katie Katie Rollins, PE, QSDCivilAssociateEngineer Cannon 11900 West Olympic Blvd,Suite 530,Los Angeles,CA.90064T310.382.5133 C 310.487.2136F310.664.8877 E KatieR@CannonCorp.usCannonFacebookTwitterLinkedIn From: Katie Rollins Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2021 7:12 AM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: 'James M. Flagg' <jflagg@ophot.com>; 'Andrew Meinhold' <Tim Meinhold' < Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 Hi Kyle – Lets do Friday May 14th! Katie Katie Rollins, PE, QSDCivilAssociateEngineer Cannon 11900 West Olympic Blvd,Suite 530,Los Angeles,CA.90064T310.382.5133 C 310.487.2136F310.664.8877 E KatieR@CannonCorp.usCannonFacebookTwitterLinkedIn From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 4:43 PM To: Katie Rollins <KatieR@CannonCorp.us> Cc: 'James M. Flagg' <jflagg@ophot.com>; 'Andrew Meinhold' <Tim Meinhold' < Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ** Hello Katie, I just spoke with the Arborist again and its sounding like the 17th is actually the date that works better for most committee members and would have a more secure chance of having a quorum for the meeting. With that, I believe we may try to arrange the site visit the week of the 10th (possible the 14th). Sorry for the quick change on that. This will still leave the PC and Council dates in place. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 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: Katie Rollins <KatieR@CannonCorp.us> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 9:19 AM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: 'James M. Flagg' <jflagg@ophot.com>; 'Andrew Meinhold' <Tim Meinhold' < Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 Hi Kyle, Tim Meinhold will be onsite May 7 in the afternoon to meet the tree committee. Let me know if you’d also like to have a representative from Cannon there, otherwise we’ll keep it simple with just Tim. He’ll also get the mitigation check in the mail next week, so you’ll have that ready to go. Katie Katie Rollins, PE, QSDCivilAssociateEngineer Cannon 11900 West Olympic Blvd,Suite 530,Los Angeles,CA.90064T310.382.5133 F 310.664.8877 E KatieR@CannonCorp.usCannonFacebookTwitterLinkedIn From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 8:37 AM To: Katie Rollins <KatieR@CannonCorp.us> Cc: 'James M. Flagg' <jflagg@ophot.com>; 'Andrew Meinhold' <Tim Meinhold' < Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ** Hello Katie, The arborist has let me know that the tree committee will be able to accommodate this meeting on the 10th. The tree committee members are interested in visiting the property some time leading up to the hearing. Would this be on with the applicants? And is there a certain day or time of day that would work best for them? Maybe next Friday afternoon, the 7th? We would likely only have two or three on site at a time. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 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: Katie Rollins <KatieR@CannonCorp.us> Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2021 3:54 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: 'James M. Flagg' <jflagg@ophot.com>; 'Andrew Meinhold' <Tim Meinhold' < Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 Hi Kyle, Thanks for your call just now and for clarifying that the intent of the biological easement is that it will be for the extents of the riparian edge, thus the creek setback shown on the approved TTM is accurate and the easement will have no affect on the building areas as shown on the TTM. Please find the signed mitigation agreement attached. When do you need the check by in order to not slow us down? And thanks for pushing this project along! Katie Katie Rollins, PE, QSDCivilAssociateEngineer Cannon 11900 West Olympic Blvd,Suite 530,Los Angeles,CA.90064T310.382.5133 C 310.487.2136F310.664.8877 E KatieR@CannonCorp.usCannonFacebookTwitterLinkedIn From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2021 4:58 PM To: Katie Rollins <KatieR@CannonCorp.us> Cc: 'James M. Flagg' <jflagg@ophot.com>; 'Andrew Meinhold' <Tim Meinhold' < Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ** Good Afternoon, Attached is the Mitigation Agreement Letter and Draft Mitigation Agreement for the project. I will send the final draft of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Deceleration in a following email. I also want to let you know that the City Arborists has agreed to hold a special hearing of the Tree Committee. We are waiting on confirmation from Tree Committee Members that enough can attend to make quorum. This is tentatively set for the 10 of May. We are still in line with the timing to have this project go to council on July 6th. We will need to have the mitigation agreement signed by noon of Friday to file the Environmental Documents to keep this schedule. I know that is a quick turnaround, but please let me know if you have any questions on that agreement. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 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: Katie Rollins <KatieR@CannonCorp.us> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 3:12 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: 'James M. Flagg' <jflagg@ophot.com>; 'Andrew Meinhold' <Tim Meinhold' < Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 Hi Kyle, Yup! Please see modified map. Katie Katie Rollins, PE, QSDCivilAssociateEngineer Cannon 11900 West Olympic Blvd,Suite 530,Los Angeles,CA.90064T310.382.5133F310.664.8877 E KatieR@CannonCorp.usCannonFacebookTwitterLinkedIn From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 12:44 PM To: Katie Rollins <KatieR@CannonCorp.us> Cc: 'James M. Flagg' <jflagg@ophot.com>; 'Andrew Meinhold' <Tim Meinhold' < Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ** Hello Katie, Than you, This will be a big help. The only thing I noticed is that none of the palms are identified as subject to discretionary review. While they are not native, Palms are only exempt if under 12” DSH. Can you please modify the map to include those palms that are 12” or more? Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 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: Katie Rollins <KatieR@CannonCorp.us> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 12:06 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: 'James M. Flagg' <jflagg@ophot.com>; 'Andrew Meinhold' <Tim Meinhold' < Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 Hi Kyle, Please find attached at Tree exhibit you requested and the tree inventory list I pulled from the bio report. Please let me know if you have any questions or would like anything else. We are looking forward to the council meeting on July 6 and are readily available to help out with whatever you need in the meantime. Thanks, Katie cannonassoc.com\dfsroot1\Public\proj\2019\190306\5 Deliverables\Exhibits and Sketches\2021- 04-15-Tree Committee Exhibit to City Katie Rollins, PE, QSDCivilAssociateEngineer Cannon 11900 West Olympic Blvd,Suite 530,Los Angeles,CA.90064T310.382.5133F310.664.8877 E KatieR@CannonCorp.usCannonFacebookTwitterLinkedIn From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 10:59 AM To: Katie Rollins <KatieR@CannonCorp.us> Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ** Hello Katie, Thanks for taking my call. As I mentioned we will need an additional exhibit to clearly show the tree removals. This exhibit should show all trees on site as previously shown in the subdivision submittal, with specific call outs/highlights of trees within the riparian corridor that will be removed as recommended in the fire protection plan (Attached), and those to be removed outside the creek area that are subject to discretionary review. Trees that are excluded from discretionary review are described in municipal code as follows: 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. Please have the totals available on the exhibit. Thanks for help in keeping this moving forward. I will be providing a large update later today. KVL From: Katie Rollins <KatieR@CannonCorp.us> Sent: Wednesday, April 7, 2021 9:29 AM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org>; James M. Flagg <jflagg@ophot.com> Cc: Andrew Meinhold <Tim Meinhold < Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 Thank you Kyle, We would prefer to keep our current planning commission date if at all possible as we’ve already been pushed back. We appreciate your time and hard work on this. Katie Katie Rollins, PE, QSDCivilAssociateEngineer Cannon 11900 West Olympic Blvd,Suite 530,Los Angeles,CA.90064T310.382.5133F310.664.8877 E KatieR@CannonCorp.usCannonFacebookTwitterLinkedIn From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, April 7, 2021 8:52 AM To: Katie Rollins <KatieR@CannonCorp.us>; James M. Flagg <jflagg@ophot.com> Cc: Andrew Meinhold <Tim Meinhold < Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ** Hello Katie, SWCA is working on edits that were identified during review. I do expect to get the document back soon and hopefully finalize soon after. Yes, we are coming up against the deadline for the 30 day review prior to PC hearing. I will also look into an alternate date for PC in case that is needed. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 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: Katie Rollins <KatieR@CannonCorp.us> Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 12:38 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org>; James M. Flagg <jflagg@ophot.com> Cc: Andrew Meinhold <Tim Meinhold < Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 Hi Kyle, I hope you had a restful and fun Easter. Just checking in on this project. I believe we the 30 day circulation should be starting very soon in order to meet our hearing date. Are we still tracking? Thanks, Katie Katie Rollins, PE, QSDCivilAssociateEngineer Cannon 11900 West Olympic Blvd,Suite 530,Los Angeles,CA.90064T310.382.5133 C 310.487.2136F310.664.8877 E KatieR@CannonCorp.usCannonFacebookTwitterLinkedIn From: Katie Rollins Sent: Thursday, April 1, 2021 9:08 AM To: 'Van Leeuwen, Kyle' <KVanLeeu@slocity.org>; 'James M. Flagg' <jflagg@ophot.com> Cc: Andrew Meinhold <Tim Meinhold < Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 Hi Kyle, Please find the completed checklist attached. Thanks, Katie cannonassoc.com\dfsroot1\Public\proj\2019\190306\5 Deliverables\Miscellaneous Documents\2021-04-01-GHG Checklist\GHG-CAP Checklist-Complete.pdf Katie Rollins, PE, QSDCivilAssociateEngineer Cannon 11900 West Olympic Blvd,Suite 530,Los Angeles,CA.90064T310.382.5133F310.664.8877 E KatieR@CannonCorp.usCannonFacebookTwitterLinkedIn From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2021 8:22 AM To: Katie Rollins <KatieR@CannonCorp.us> Cc: Ed Collins <edc@CannonCorp.us> Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ** Hi Katie, With no buildings planned some of these will be N/A, like all-electric and waste pick-up. If we can get this back by the end of the week, that should be fine. On it’s items about consistency, we have routed the project to reviewing departments and any significant inconsistencies should have already been brought up and addressed. I hope that helps, Kyle Van Leeuwen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 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: Katie Rollins <KatieR@CannonCorp.us> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2021 7:58 AM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: Ed Collins <edc@CannonCorp.us> Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 Thank you Kyle, I will begin to fill this out. Looks like some of the questions – like the organic waste pickup – require letters/information from outside groups. Do you have a contact for San Luis Garbage for us to address this item? When do you need this by as to not delay our scheduled planning commission date? On items regarding the project’s consistency with the city’s plans and ordinances, I suppose staff has reviewed the project for consistency and that’s why it’s being recommended for approval correct? Thanks, Katie Katie Rollins, PE, QSDCivilAssociateEngineer Cannon 11900 West Olympic Blvd,Suite 530,Los Angeles,CA.90064T310.382.5133 C 310.487.2136F310.664.8877 E KatieR@CannonCorp.usCannonFacebookTwitterLinkedIn From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2021 9:57 AM To: Katie Rollins <KatieR@CannonCorp.us> Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ** Good Morning Katie, One additional item that we need from you is a completed is the GHG emission checklist. This is something new that was developed last year in connection to our GHG reduction goals. Please let me know if you have any questions. KVL From: Katie Rollins <KatieR@CannonCorp.us> Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 11:05 AM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org>; James M. Flagg <jflagg@ophot.com> Cc: Andrew Meinhold <Tim Meinhold <John Rourke' rourkefam@gmail.com>; Scott, Shawna <sscott@slocity.org> Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Thank you for the update Kyle. Katie Katie Rollins, PE, QSDCivilAssociateEngineer Cannon 11900 West Olympic Blvd,Suite 530,Los Angeles,CA.90064T310.382.5133 C 310.487.2136F310.664.8877 E KatieR@CannonCorp.usCannonFacebookTwitterLinkedIn From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 2:41 PM To: Katie Rollins <KatieR@CannonCorp.us>; James M. Flagg <jflagg@ophot.com> Cc: Andrew Meinhold <Tim Meinhold <John Rourke' rourkefam@gmail.com>; Scott, Shawna <sscott@slocity.org> Subject: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ** Good Afternoon, I wanted give a comprehensive update on the process timeline for the project. We have hit some delays recently due to current staffing levels and having to review a number of Initial Studies for different projects. I was able to discuss this with my supervisor, Shawna Scott, who also is tasked with final reviews of all initial studies, to get a realistic timeline. At this time, City staff and consultant will still need at least 15 working days to get the document finalized. Given the 30 day public review of the environmental document, it is necessary to move the Planning Commission hearing date to May 12, 2021. We are also circulating the proposed phasing plan to necessary departments to make sure they have an opportunity request any additional information need to condition the project appropriately with the phasing. While the phasing plan is not directly causing any delays on its own, this additional time will also ensure that appropriate review and conditioning of the phasing can be fully accommodated. None of this changes the final Council Hearing date which is scheduled for July. We appreciate your flexibility and patience as we work through the reviews. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 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:Van Leeuwen, Kyle To:Katie Rollins Cc:"James M. Flagg"; "Andrew Meinhold"; "Tim Meinhold" Subject:RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 Date:Monday, May 10, 2021 3:15:14 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png RE EXTWestmont Subdivision - Notice of AvailabilityIntent to Adopt ISMND.msg 468-500 Westmont Avenue Tentative Tract Map.pdf Hello Katie, Linked below is the Environmental Review on the City website, and a link to the Tree Committee report. https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community- development/documents-online/environmental-review-documents https://www.slocity.org/government/advisory-bodies/agendas-and-minutes/tree-committee. Attached are the correspondence we received so far from the Initial Study Comment Period. These are very typical responses from the reviewing agencies and they have been sent the consultant to make sure no changes to the draft document are needed. Let me know if you have questions about this. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 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: Katie Rollins <KatieR@CannonCorp.us> Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 9:29 AM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: 'James M. Flagg' <jflagg@ophot.com>; 'Andrew Meinhold' <Tim Meinhold' < Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 Hi Kyle, Thanks for the call. Please reach out to Tim at regarding the best way to coordinate visits for the tree committee members. Katie Katie Rollins, PE, QSDCivilAssociateEngineer Cannon 11900 West Olympic Blvd,Suite 530,Los Angeles,CA.90064T310.382.5133 C 310.487.2136F310.664.8877 E KatieR@CannonCorp.usCannonFacebookTwitterLinkedIn From: Katie Rollins Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2021 7:12 AM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: 'James M. Flagg' <jflagg@ophot.com>; 'Andrew Meinhold' <Tim Meinhold' < Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 Hi Kyle – Lets do Friday May 14th! Katie Katie Rollins, PE, QSDCivilAssociateEngineer Cannon 11900 West Olympic Blvd,Suite 530,Los Angeles,CA.90064T310.382.5133 C 310.487.2136F310.664.8877 E KatieR@CannonCorp.usCannonFacebookTwitterLinkedIn From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 4:43 PM To: Katie Rollins <KatieR@CannonCorp.us> Cc: 'James M. Flagg' <jflagg@ophot.com>; 'Andrew Meinhold' <Tim Meinhold' < Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ** Hello Katie, I just spoke with the Arborist again and its sounding like the 17th is actually the date that works better for most committee members and would have a more secure chance of having a quorum for the meeting. With that, I believe we may try to arrange the site visit the week of the 10th (possible the 14th). Sorry for the quick change on that. This will still leave the PC and Council dates in place. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 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: Katie Rollins <KatieR@CannonCorp.us> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 9:19 AM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: 'James M. Flagg' <jflagg@ophot.com>; 'Andrew Meinhold' <Tim Meinhold' < Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 Hi Kyle, Tim Meinhold will be onsite May 7 in the afternoon to meet the tree committee. Let me know if you’d also like to have a representative from Cannon there, otherwise we’ll keep it simple with just Tim. He’ll also get the mitigation check in the mail next week, so you’ll have that ready to go. Katie Katie Rollins, PE, QSDCivilAssociateEngineer Cannon 11900 West Olympic Blvd,Suite 530,Los Angeles,CA.90064T310.382.5133F310.664.8877 E KatieR@CannonCorp.usCannonFacebookTwitterLinkedIn From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 8:37 AM To: Katie Rollins <KatieR@CannonCorp.us> Cc: 'James M. Flagg' <jflagg@ophot.com>; 'Andrew Meinhold' <Tim Meinhold' < Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ** Hello Katie, The arborist has let me know that the tree committee will be able to accommodate this meeting on the 10th. The tree committee members are interested in visiting the property some time leading up to the hearing. Would this be on with the applicants? And is there a certain day or time of day that would work best for them? Maybe next Friday afternoon, the 7th? We would likely only have two or three on site at a time. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 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: Katie Rollins <KatieR@CannonCorp.us> Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2021 3:54 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: 'James M. Flagg' <jflagg@ophot.com>; 'Andrew Meinhold' <Tim Meinhold' < Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 Hi Kyle, Thanks for your call just now and for clarifying that the intent of the biological easement is that it will be for the extents of the riparian edge, thus the creek setback shown on the approved TTM is accurate and the easement will have no affect on the building areas as shown on the TTM. Please find the signed mitigation agreement attached. When do you need the check by in order to not slow us down? And thanks for pushing this project along! Katie Katie Rollins, PE, QSDCivilAssociateEngineer Cannon 11900 West Olympic Blvd,Suite 530,Los Angeles,CA.90064T310.382.5133 C 310.487.2136F310.664.8877 E KatieR@CannonCorp.usCannonFacebookTwitterLinkedIn From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2021 4:58 PM To: Katie Rollins <KatieR@CannonCorp.us> Cc: 'James M. Flagg' <jflagg@ophot.com>; 'Andrew Meinhold' <Tim Meinhold' < Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ** Good Afternoon, Attached is the Mitigation Agreement Letter and Draft Mitigation Agreement for the project. I will send the final draft of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Deceleration in a following email. I also want to let you know that the City Arborists has agreed to hold a special hearing of the Tree Committee. We are waiting on confirmation from Tree Committee Members that enough can attend to make quorum. This is tentatively set for the 10 of May. We are still in line with the timing to have this project go to council on July 6th. We will need to have the mitigation agreement signed by noon of Friday to file the Environmental Documents to keep this schedule. I know that is a quick turnaround, but please let me know if you have any questions on that agreement. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 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: Katie Rollins <KatieR@CannonCorp.us> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 3:12 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: 'James M. Flagg' <jflagg@ophot.com>; 'Andrew Meinhold' <Tim Meinhold' < Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 Hi Kyle, Yup! Please see modified map. Katie Katie Rollins, PE, QSDCivilAssociateEngineer Cannon 11900 West Olympic Blvd,Suite 530,Los Angeles,CA.90064T310.382.5133F310.664.8877 E KatieR@CannonCorp.usCannonFacebookTwitterLinkedIn From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 12:44 PM To: Katie Rollins <KatieR@CannonCorp.us> Cc: 'James M. Flagg' <jflagg@ophot.com>; 'Andrew Meinhold' <Tim Meinhold' < Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ** Hello Katie, Than you, This will be a big help. The only thing I noticed is that none of the palms are identified as subject to discretionary review. While they are not native, Palms are only exempt if under 12” DSH. Can you please modify the map to include those palms that are 12” or more? Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 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: Katie Rollins <KatieR@CannonCorp.us> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 12:06 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: 'James M. Flagg' <jflagg@ophot.com>; 'Andrew Meinhold' <Tim Meinhold' < Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 Hi Kyle, Please find attached at Tree exhibit you requested and the tree inventory list I pulled from the bio report. Please let me know if you have any questions or would like anything else. We are looking forward to the council meeting on July 6 and are readily available to help out with whatever you need in the meantime. Thanks, Katie cannonassoc.com\dfsroot1\Public\proj\2019\190306\5 Deliverables\Exhibits and Sketches\2021- 04-15-Tree Committee Exhibit to City Katie Rollins, PE, QSDCivilAssociateEngineer Cannon 11900 West Olympic Blvd,Suite 530,Los Angeles,CA.90064T310.382.5133F310.664.8877 E KatieR@CannonCorp.usCannonFacebookTwitterLinkedIn From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 10:59 AM To: Katie Rollins <KatieR@CannonCorp.us> Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ** Hello Katie, Thanks for taking my call. As I mentioned we will need an additional exhibit to clearly show the tree removals. This exhibit should show all trees on site as previously shown in the subdivision submittal, with specific call outs/highlights of trees within the riparian corridor that will be removed as recommended in the fire protection plan (Attached), and those to be removed outside the creek area that are subject to discretionary review. Trees that are excluded from discretionary review are described in municipal code as follows: 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. Please have the totals available on the exhibit. Thanks for help in keeping this moving forward. I will be providing a large update later today. KVL From: Katie Rollins <KatieR@CannonCorp.us> Sent: Wednesday, April 7, 2021 9:29 AM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org>; James M. Flagg <jflagg@ophot.com> Cc: Andrew Meinhold <Tim Meinhold < Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 Thank you Kyle, We would prefer to keep our current planning commission date if at all possible as we’ve already been pushed back. We appreciate your time and hard work on this. Katie Katie Rollins, PE, QSDCivilAssociateEngineer Cannon 11900 West Olympic Blvd,Suite 530,Los Angeles,CA.90064T310.382.5133F310.664.8877 E KatieR@CannonCorp.usCannonFacebookTwitterLinkedIn From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, April 7, 2021 8:52 AM To: Katie Rollins <KatieR@CannonCorp.us>; James M. Flagg <jflagg@ophot.com> Cc: Andrew Meinhold <Tim Meinhold < Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ** Hello Katie, SWCA is working on edits that were identified during review. I do expect to get the document back soon and hopefully finalize soon after. Yes, we are coming up against the deadline for the 30 day review prior to PC hearing. I will also look into an alternate date for PC in case that is needed. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 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: Katie Rollins <KatieR@CannonCorp.us> Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 12:38 PM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org>; James M. Flagg <jflagg@ophot.com> Cc: Andrew Meinhold <Tim Meinhold < Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 Hi Kyle, I hope you had a restful and fun Easter. Just checking in on this project. I believe we the 30 day circulation should be starting very soon in order to meet our hearing date. Are we still tracking? Thanks, Katie Katie Rollins, PE, QSDCivilAssociateEngineer Cannon 11900 West Olympic Blvd,Suite 530,Los Angeles,CA.90064T310.382.5133 C 310.487.2136F310.664.8877 E KatieR@CannonCorp.usCannonFacebookTwitterLinkedIn From: Katie Rollins Sent: Thursday, April 1, 2021 9:08 AM To: 'Van Leeuwen, Kyle' <KVanLeeu@slocity.org>; 'James M. Flagg' <jflagg@ophot.com> Cc: Andrew Meinhold <Tim Meinhold < Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 Hi Kyle, Please find the completed checklist attached. Thanks, Katie cannonassoc.com\dfsroot1\Public\proj\2019\190306\5 Deliverables\Miscellaneous Documents\2021-04-01-GHG Checklist\GHG-CAP Checklist-Complete.pdf Katie Rollins, PE, QSDCivilAssociateEngineer Cannon 11900 West Olympic Blvd,Suite 530,Los Angeles,CA.90064T310.382.5133F310.664.8877 E KatieR@CannonCorp.usCannonFacebookTwitterLinkedIn From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2021 8:22 AM To: Katie Rollins <KatieR@CannonCorp.us> Cc: Ed Collins <edc@CannonCorp.us> Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ** Hi Katie, With no buildings planned some of these will be N/A, like all-electric and waste pick-up. If we can get this back by the end of the week, that should be fine. On it’s items about consistency, we have routed the project to reviewing departments and any significant inconsistencies should have already been brought up and addressed. I hope that helps, Kyle Van Leeuwen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 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: Katie Rollins <KatieR@CannonCorp.us> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2021 7:58 AM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Cc: Ed Collins <edc@CannonCorp.us> Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 Thank you Kyle, I will begin to fill this out. Looks like some of the questions – like the organic waste pickup – require letters/information from outside groups. Do you have a contact for San Luis Garbage for us to address this item? When do you need this by as to not delay our scheduled planning commission date? On items regarding the project’s consistency with the city’s plans and ordinances, I suppose staff has reviewed the project for consistency and that’s why it’s being recommended for approval correct? Thanks, Katie Katie Rollins, PE, QSDCivilAssociateEngineer Cannon 11900 West Olympic Blvd,Suite 530,Los Angeles,CA.90064T310.382.5133 C 310.487.2136F310.664.8877 E KatieR@CannonCorp.usCannonFacebookTwitterLinkedIn From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2021 9:57 AM To: Katie Rollins <KatieR@CannonCorp.us> Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ** Good Morning Katie, One additional item that we need from you is a completed is the GHG emission checklist. This is something new that was developed last year in connection to our GHG reduction goals. Please let me know if you have any questions. KVL From: Katie Rollins <KatieR@CannonCorp.us> Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 11:05 AM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org>; James M. Flagg <jflagg@ophot.com> Cc: Andrew Meinhold <Tim Meinhold <John Rourke' rourkefam@gmail.com>; Scott, Shawna <sscott@slocity.org> Subject: RE: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Thank you for the update Kyle. Katie Katie Rollins, PE, QSDCivilAssociateEngineer Cannon 11900 West Olympic Blvd,Suite 530,Los Angeles,CA.90064T310.382.5133 C 310.487.2136F310.664.8877 E KatieR@CannonCorp.usCannonFacebookTwitterLinkedIn From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 2:41 PM To: Katie Rollins <KatieR@CannonCorp.us>; James M. Flagg <jflagg@ophot.com> Cc: Andrew Meinhold <Tim Meinhold <John Rourke' rourkefam@gmail.com>; Scott, Shawna <sscott@slocity.org> Subject: 468 &500 Westmont SBDV-169-2020 WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ** Good Afternoon, I wanted give a comprehensive update on the process timeline for the project. We have hit some delays recently due to current staffing levels and having to review a number of Initial Studies for different projects. I was able to discuss this with my supervisor, Shawna Scott, who also is tasked with final reviews of all initial studies, to get a realistic timeline. At this time, City staff and consultant will still need at least 15 working days to get the document finalized. Given the 30 day public review of the environmental document, it is necessary to move the Planning Commission hearing date to May 12, 2021. We are also circulating the proposed phasing plan to necessary departments to make sure they have an opportunity request any additional information need to condition the project appropriately with the phasing. While the phasing plan is not directly causing any delays on its own, this additional time will also ensure that appropriate review and conditioning of the phasing can be fully accommodated. None of this changes the final Council Hearing date which is scheduled for July. We appreciate your flexibility and patience as we work through the reviews. Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 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:webmaster@slocity.org on behalf of City of San Luis Obispo, CA To:Horn, Matt Subject:City of San Luis Obispo, CA: Planning Commission Public Hearing Date:Wednesday, May 12, 2021 12:30:24 PM This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Planning Commission Public Hearing Post Date: 05/12/2021 12:08 PM The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission will hold a Regular Meeting, Wednesday, May 26, 2021, at 6:00 p.m., via teleconference, on the items listed below. While the City encourages public participation, growing concern about the COVID-19 pandemic has required that public meetings be held via teleconference. Meetings can be viewed on Government Access Channel 20 or streamed live from the City’s YouTube channel at http://youtube.slo.city. Public comment, prior to the start of the meeting, may be submitted in writing via U.S. Mail delivered to the City Clerk’s Office at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 or by email to advisorybodies@slocity.org. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 1. Review of a Tentative Tract Map (Tract 3157) to create 23 residential lots on an existing 4.98-acre site within the Low-Density Residential (R-1) zone. Project includes the extension of Stanford Drive, which will connect to an extension of Cuesta Drive. An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed (CEQA); Project Address: 500 Westmont. Case #: SBDV-0169-2020 & EID-0170-2020; Alice Jo Meinhold Survivors Trust/Andrew G. Meinhold, owner/applicant. Contact Information: Kyle Van Leeuwen– (805) 781-7091 – kleeuwen@slocity.org 500 Westmont Site Map 2. Review of the City’s Public Draft Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 (Parks and Recreation Plan and General Plan Element Update) that will supersede the 2001 Parks and Recreation Master Plan and General Plan Element. A Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is recommended for the project; Project Address: Citywide; Case #: GENP-1942-2018 & EID-0150-2021; Zone: Citywide; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. Contact Information: Shawna Scott – (805) 781-7176 – sscott@slocity.org The Planning Commission may also discuss other hearing or business items before or after the item(s) listed above. If you challenge the proposed action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. The report(s) will be available for review online in advance of the meeting at http://www.slocity.org/government/advisory-bodies/agendas-and- minutes/planning-commission. Please call The Community Development Department at 805-781-7170 for more information, or to request an agenda report. The Planning Commission meeting will be televised live on Charter Cable Channel 20, beginning at 6:00 p.m. Having trouble viewing this email? View on the website instead. Change your eNotification preference. Unsubscribe from all City of San Luis Obispo, CA eNotifications. From:Allen Root To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Subject:Re: Westmont preview. Date:Tuesday, May 11, 2021 3:21:36 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png I would say yes, and yes. I'll be at the end of Stanford this Friday at 4:00. On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 12:33 PM Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> wrote: Hello Allen, Thank you for bringing this up. I will be reaching out to all tree committee members to set up a time that will work for them and will inform the property owner of those times. For you Allen. I am going to schedule for you to be on site between 4:00 and 4:30. Does that work for you and is that enough time? Thank you, KVL From: Allen Root < Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 10:36 AM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Westmont preview. My only scheduled commitment on Friday is an SLO DR. appt. at 10:30, so sure. On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 10:21 AM Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> wrote: Hello Allen, I am checking about this. Just in case, I believe you had mentioned that you would be free earlier in the day. Would you be free at 4:00 on Friday for the visit? Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 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: Allen Root < Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 10:14 AM To: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Subject: Westmont preview. This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Kyle, I'm a little confused as to our meet time of 5:00 PM on Friday the 14th. If we are all there at the same time, actually if three or more of us are present, does that not violate the Brown Act? Thanks, Allen From:alan bate To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Subject:Re: Tree Committee Site Visit Westmont Date:Wednesday, May 12, 2021 12:43:42 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png Works for me. Thanks Alan On Tuesday, May 11, 2021, 12:35:25 PM PDT, Van Leeuwen, Kyle <kvanleeu@slocity.org> wrote: Hello Alan, I will be reaching out to all tree committee members to set up a time that will work for them and will inform the property owner of those times. For you Alan. I am going to schedule for you to be on site between 5:00 and 5:30. Does that work for you and is that enough time? Thank you, Kyle Van Leeuwen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 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: alan bate < Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 4:26 PM To: Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> Cc: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org>; Cruce, Greg <gcruce@slocity.org>; Wilbanks, Megan <mwilbanks@slocity.org>; Sabatini, Hayley <hsabatin@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Tree Committee Site Visit Westmont This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Kyle, I will meet you onsite Friday 5/14/21 @ 5:00. Thanks Alan On Thursday, May 6, 2021, 02:16:22 PM PDT, Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> wrote: Dear Tree Committee Members, I have updated information that will with a bit of luck accommodate all in accessing the 468 Westmont site visit. Please see our conversation below from CDD Planner Kyle Van Leeuwen CC on this email. Kyle’s email KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org Please, coordinate your inspection times with Kyle, if you wish to meet with him onsite. I would encourage all to respect our(no more than three person rule) to stay in compliance with the brown Act. Thank you, Anthony Whipple Acting City Arborist Public Works Urban Forest Services 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-7314 E awhipple@slocity.org T 805.781.7023 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: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 1:07 PM To: Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> Subject: Tree Committee Site Visit Westmont Anthony, I was able to speak with the property owner. I would like to propose that for those that can make it that we meet on site at 5:00 on Friday. I will be there to walk the site as well. For those that cannot make it on Friday the 14th. The property owner is fine with induvial members walking the site on Saturday the 15th between 10:00 am and 3:00 pm. I hope that works for the committee members.Again, members can reach out to me with any questions about this. Kyle Van Leeuwen Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 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:Emily Rosten To:Whipple, Anthony Subject:Re: Special tree Committee request Date:Friday, April 23, 2021 10:58:17 PM This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. May 10th or 17th can work for me. Best, Emily On Apr 20, 2021, at 3:29 PM, Whipple, Anthony <awhipple@slocity.org> wrote: Tree Committee, The Community Development Department is requesting a special meeting on a larger than normal project located at 468 Westmont Avenue. This special request is due to a planning commission deadline and a City Council agenized meeting that has been scheduled for some time. Please reply if you would be willing to review on May 10th @ 5:30 pm Alternative date of May 17th @ 5:30 pm This would give City Staff enough time to generate their report and submit to planning Commission. I have attached all the information given to me. Thank you for your time, Anthony Whipple Urban Forester image001.png> Public Works Urban Forest Services 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-7314 E awhipple@slocity.org T 805.781.7023 C 805.431.0398 slocity.org image002.png> image003.png> image004.png> 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 Tree Table.pdf> 2020-08-17 190306 TTM 3157 Biological Report KMA.pdf> 2021-04-15-Tract 3157 Westmont - Tree Committee Exhibit.pdf> From:Allen Root To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Subject:468 Westmont Date:Thursday, May 6, 2021 3:30:14 PM This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Kyle, I'm wide open on that day, pick a time that works me into a useful slot, and let me know. Allen From:webmaster@slocity.org on behalf of City of San Luis Obispo, CA To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle Subject: Date:Thursday, June 24, 2021 3:00:30 PM This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Message submitted from the <City of San Luis Obispo, CA> website. Site Visitor Name: Genevieve Czech Site Visitor Email: Hello, Kyle: re: Westmont Parcel Project We have only recently learned that a meeting of the PC which had been scheduled for the 23rd June, was moved forward to the end of July, tentatively. While we appreciate that summer vacation times might indeed be making a common agreeable date more difficult, it would have been helpful if we had been so advised. One family was planning their camping trip with a view to being present for the dates assumed. Some of my neighbors received cards from the City staff advising them of the PC May 26th meeting, having been franked on the 4th June, and arriving the 7th June. We never received notice, nor other interested residents, while one resident received 3 card notices. You will want to know this as there seems to be a problem of effective communication. Please ensure we are properly informed of the next relevant PC meeting, as you and Mr. Codron had promised such communication in the interim. Gratefully, Genevieve Czech From:Allen Root To:Codron, Michael; Johnson, Derek Subject:Advisory body liaisons Date:Monday, August 23, 2021 9:52:30 AM This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Gentlemen, Happy Monday to you both! I would like to bring up something that I've spoken to a couple of Planning staff members about in the last few years, I'm going to the top of the heaps because I think it deserves some deeper consideration. In March, I will have completed my 16th year serving on the ARC, I started my first term in 2001. I have twice served as the liaison from ARC to the Tree Committee, and am doing so presently. I have spoken about this with several past and present members of the ARC and Tree Committee, and there is general agreement: It doesn't make sense to have a liaison from ARC to the Tree Committee. I am pretty well suited to serve on the ARC, I know very little, compared to most of the members about trees. I go out and do my homework, looking at trees, then at the meetings I must wait for the arboreal experts to express their observances to inform mine. In my mind, it makes much more sense to have an expert from the Tree Committee to attend or at least be on call to the ARC when a project with a high number of tree removals are approved, or, when a significant landmark tree is involved. Tonight, for instance, the Tree Committee is reviewing a major development at 600 Tank Farm Road, I think it has 57 tree removal requests and has already been approved as is by the ARC. It would have been useful to have an arboreal expert at the ARC meeting. Likewise regarding the liaison from Parks and Recreation Committee, I can't see the value of having a member of a committee that oversees playgrounds, swimming pools, and public events weigh in on the tree removal applications regarding a private residence. It makes more sense to me to have the tree expert sit in when Parks and Rec are discussing the expansion of a playground, or the Skate Park, something that might have an effect on our urban forest. Thank you for your consideration, Allen Root From:Allan Cooper To:Whipple, Anthony; "Allen Root Subject:Fwd: Tree Committee Meeting - Public Hearing Item Number #1: 468 & 500 Westmont Ave. Date:Saturday, May 15, 2021 11:58:56 PM Attachments:305_13_21...lettertotreecommittee.pdf This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Forwarded message --------- From: Allan Cooper <allancoope@gmail.com> Date: Thu, May 13, 2021 at 5:09 PM Subject: Tree Committee Meeting - Public Hearing Item Number #1: 468 & 500 Westmont Ave. To: <advisorybodies@slocity.com> Dear City Clerk - Would you kindly forward the letter attached below to the Tree Committee? This letter pertains to their May 17, 2020 meeting where they will be reviewing a project involving the removal of 51 onsite trees. Thank you! Allan From:Allan Cooper To:Whipple, Anthony Subject:Fwd: Tree Committee Meeting - Public Hearing Item Number #1: 468 & 500 Westmont Ave. Date:Monday, May 17, 2021 12:34:27 AM Attachments:305_13_21...lettertotreecommittee.pdf This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Forwarded message --------- From: Allan Cooper <allancoope@gmail.com> Date: Thu, May 13, 2021 at 5:09 PM Subject: Tree Committee Meeting - Public Hearing Item Number #1: 468 & 500 Westmont Ave. To: <advisorybodies@slocity.com> Dear Mr. Whipple - Would you kindly forward the letter attached below to the Tree Committee? This letter pertains to the only agenda item coming before you at your Monday, May 17 special meeting. This letter was sent to "advisorybodies@slocity.org" last Thursday but has bounced twice. As of this date there are no other letters in the City's correspondence file addressing this somewhat controversial agenda item. I find this remarkable and suspect that many others are having the same problem getting letters to your committee as well. Thank you! Allan Cooper Dear City Clerk - Would you kindly forward the letter attached below to the Tree Committee? This letter pertains to their May 17, 2020 meeting where they will be reviewing a project involving the removal of 51 onsite trees. Thank you! Allan