Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4a. 163 Serrano Heights Appeal of Municipal Code Violation Fines TREE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT FROM: Matt Horn, Public Works Director Prepared By: Anthony Whipple, City Arborist SUBJECT: APPEAL OF MUNICIPAL CODE VIOLATION FINES BACKGROUND The City of San Luis Obispo has a long-standing tradition of valuing and protecting the urban forest. This occurs through policies, regulations, and specifications necessary to govern the installation, maintenance, removal, and preservation of trees to beautify the city, purify the air, provide shade, provide wind protection, add environmental and economic value, and to preserve trees with historic or unusual value. The City’s Tree Regulations address, among other things, the protection of trees. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (SLOMC) section 12.24.150 includes the following language: 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. DISCUSSION On August 16, 2021, the City received a complaint that alleged the property owner at 163 Serrano Heights had removed native trees without a permit. That same day, staff from the Public Works and Community Development Departments inspected the property and determined multiple trees had been removed or pruned. At the time of inspection, staff identified seven removals and three trees that were recently pruned. Of the seven removals, five were well under the size that would require a permit and approval to remove, and two were questionable in size; however, staff were unable to measure the diameter of the trees at the required Diameter Shoulder Height (DSH) (approximately 4.5’ above grade), and therefore none of the seven tree removals were included in the enforcement case. Meeting Date: 1/22/2024 Item Number: 4a. Time Estimate: 45 minutes Page 9 of 38 Three Quercus agrifolia Coastal Live Oak trees were found topped , disfigured, and pruned not in conformance with International Society of Arboriculture standards, which is a violation of the City’s Tree Regulations (SLOMC 12.24.150.) The property owner was advised of the violations. Subsequently, the property owner obtained the services of a private arborist to develop a Crown Restoration Plan. City staff was supportive of the of the initial crown restoration plan but has not recently inspected the trees to know the status of the current restoration measures. ENFORCEMENT Enforcement action was taken against the property owner for pruning the three Quercus agrifolia Coastal Live Oak trees not in conformance with the International Society of Arboriculture standards and in violation of the City’s Tree Regulations. The Public Works Department is responsible for enforcement of City’s Tree Regulations. For violations of the Tree Regulations, SLOMC Section 12.24.170 states: A. 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) https://sanluisobispo.municipal.codes/Code/12.24.170(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. After review of the violations, and interpretation of the City’s Tree Regulations, a civil penalty of four times the value ($16,040) of the trees was issued to the property owner as there was a pending planning application on file for the property. Staff later determined the illegal pruning was not connected to the planning application on file for the property. After this discovery, a reduced penalty was issued for two times the value of the tree s ($8,020) as required by the Tree Regulations. The Property Owner has appealed the civil penalty issued by the Public Works Department and is entitled to an appeal hearing. The Tree Committee’s role in this appeal is to determine whether the appellant violated the City’s Tree Regulations by pruning the subject trees not in conformance with the International Society of Arboriculture. The Tree Committee must issue a written decision with its findings (SLOMC 1.24.130), either upholding the administrative citation and fine or revoking the citation. The Tree Committee’s decision will be final. The appellant may seek judicial review of the Tree Committee’s decision by filing a further appeal or a petition for writ with the San Luis Obispo Superior Court. Page 10 of 38 ATTACHMENTS A - City Arborist's Tree Report dated April 20, 2023.pdf B - Correspondence with Property Owner.pdf C - Photos from the Site.pdf D - Greenvale Tree Company Report - Canopy Restoration.pdf E - SLOMC 12.24.170 (Enforcement).pdf F - SLOMC 12.24.150 (Protection of Trees).pdf G - Replacement Cost Method Report ($16,040).pdf H - Adjusted Replacement Cost Method Report ($8,020).pdf I - Administrative Fine Letter to Property Owner dated 10 -20-2021.pdf. Page 11 of 38 Page 12 of 38 City Arborist Report Damage or Disfigured Trees City of San Luis Obispo Urban Forest Services Location: 163 Serrano Heights FROM: Anthony Whipple, City Arborist/Urban Forest Supervisor SUBJECT: Improper tree Pruning of the Coastal live oaks On August 16, 2021, I inspected several Coast live oak trees (Quercus agrifolia) located at 163 Serrano Heights in response to a complaint that alleged the removal and damage of trees. The complaint specifically cited violations of the San Luis Obispo Tree Regulations, Municipal Code 12.24.150 and 12.24.170, which prohibit the removal or improper pruning of trees without proper permits. This report addresses the improper pruning of several Coast live oak trees (Quercus agrifolia) located on 163 Serrano Heights, San Luis Obispo, CA. These native trees are valuable assets to the property and provide numerous benefits to the community, including clean air, shade, and habitat for wildlife. Unfortunately, the improper pruning has significantly damaged the trees, affecting their health and appearance. This report will assess the extent of the damage and recommend appropriate restoration measures, considering the specific regulations outlined in the City of San Luis Obispo's Tree Regulations (Municipal Code 12.24.150 and 12.24.170). It’s not as smple as the top limbs were eliminated. This act started a chain reaction, making the trees respond in many predictable ways. The upper portion of the canopy protects the vascular system of the tree by shading it. The trees’ reaction to this problem is to rapidly produce dense growth known as epicormic shoots. These shoots, or branches, if allowed to develop, are weakly attached, and often fail. Coast live oak trees in their juvenile phase of life grow fast. This is the way trees in a forest environment compete for sunlight. This developmental phenomenon is linked to the growth substance auxin. Auxin is produced primarily in shoot tips or buds. The improper pruning techniques used at this site removed the central leaders and disrupted this dynamic equilibrium. The absence of the dominate central leader allow the lateral buds to develop faster than they normally would. This will cause these trees to grow in a form as not true. They will be misshaped and prone to breakage. The natural form that the undisturbed trees would have had will not be achieved without specialized trimming. The course of action required to repair the damage shall be outlined and performed by a certified arborist (or under their direct supervision). They shall include a crown restoration process which Public Works - Urban Forestry 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 Page 13 of 38 City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle will reestablish the crown of the tree. This shall be over many pruning cycles, optimally at one-, three- and five-year intervals; more if needed due to heavy growth seasons. Anthony Whipple, City Arborist/Urban Forest Supervisor (805) 781-7023 awhipple@slocity.ord Page 14 of 38 1 Whipple, Anthony From:Whipple, Anthony Sent:Tuesday, August 31, 2021 12:08 PM To:John Rourke Subject:RE: Serrano Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed 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> Page 15 of 38 1 Whipple, Anthony From:Whipple, Anthony Sent:Thursday, September 9, 2021 8:07 AM To:John Rourke Cc:Bell, Kyle; Codron, Michael; Wallace, Christine Subject:RE: Serrano Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed 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 Page 16 of 38 1 Whipple, Anthony From:Whipple, Anthony Sent:Tuesday, September 21, 2021 9:14 AM To:John Rourke Cc:Bell, Kyle; Codron, Michael; Wallace, Christine Subject:RE: Serrano Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed 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. Page 17 of 38 2 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 Page 18 of 38 Before After Public Works - Urban Forestry 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 805.781.7220 slocity.org Page 19 of 38 B- 1. 163 Serrano Hights pictures of site visit day of Page 20 of 38 Page 21 of 38 Page 22 of 38 Page 23 of 38 Page 24 of 38 Arborist Report - Canopy restoration September 23, 2021 For: John Rourke 163 Serrano Heights San Luis Obispo, CA Plant ID Quercus agrifolia – Coast Live Oak Task Canopy Restoration Plan Background: Owner pruned four (4) Coast Live Oaks (CLO) for view. Trees are extensively pruned leaving stubs and large pruning wounds. The city of San Luis Obispo has required a canopy restoration plan to grow the canopy back. The average canopy width (diameter) would have likely been 12 feet. The average height likely 12 feet from bottom of canopy to top of canopy. Observations as a group: Extensive canopy reduction was done on all four trees. The tree closest to the neighbor’s house has more structure and canopy remaining than the other three, and will likely recover more rapidly than the other three. Very large cuts were made, and stubs were left as trees were topped. Two trees have very little foliage left. The trees with less foliage are also currently under a very large Bark Beetle attack as holes and ooze are noted all over trunks and scaffold. Vehicles have been driven and parked below these trees and the soil is quite compacted. Conclusion: Much work will need to be done to restore the canopy. The two trees that have Bark Beetle may not survive and the city will likely require mitigation if these die, because the Bark Beetle infestation is a result of improper pruning. Recommendations made will need to be followed carefully in order to restore the canopy. Recommendations for five years: Immediate – 1) There shall be no parking, vehicle or foot traffic, storage or other activity that can compact soil within the tree’s Critical Root Zone (CRZ). Soil may need to be physically aerated with a soil auger if the soil is already too compacted. 2) Trees that have Bark Beetle shall have trunks treated with a bark beetle insecticide and bark penetrant to kill larvae and prevent more damage. 3) Soaker hoses or in line drip emitter drip line shall be used so that the entire CRZ is moistened to a depth of no less than 16 inches every month. This type of watering shall occur until rainfall adequately moistens soil to that depth. If drought continues, this type of watering may need to continue through 2022 per arborist’s guidance. 2022 – 1) Watering may need to continue this year, especially if we are in a drought. Arborist will make the decision of when and how much water. 2) Trees shall be reassessed in March for health and progress. All four trees shall be treated with soil injected nutrient and beneficial microorganism root zone treatment. 3) Bark Beetle insect treatment shall be made in April. This treatment shall be applied to all four trees as a preventative. Page 25 of 38 4) A late summer inspection shall be made to assess progress and health. 2023 – 1) Watering will likely be done on an as need basis. 2) Trees shall be reassessed in March for health and progress. 3) All four trees shall be treated with soil injected nutrient and beneficial microorganism root zone treatment. 4) A late summer inspection shall be made to assess progress and health. At this time trees can also be assessed for late season pruning. 2024 – 1) Trees shall be reassessed in March for health and progress. 2) At this time if the arborist feels there is enough progress (growth, health, canopy size etc.) a final report will be made, and guidelines given for future care and pruning. If trees have not sufficiently progress, the 2023 schedule schedule will be followed. Guidance and recommendations will be given after each assessment. These guidelines and recommendations shall be followed as directed. Under no circumstance is any pruning to be done without the authorization of the arborist. Canopy growth will come slowly at first and gradually increase. The arborist will set guidelines and timing for any pruning done. Failure to follow these guidelines may reduce the chances of the trees’ survivability or complete restoration of the canopy. Any questions that arise concerning following these guidelines or deviating from them shall be addressed to the arborist. These guidelines/recommendations are meant to restore the canopy that was destroyed. The City of San Luis Obispo can choose to fine or request mitigation measures such as tree replacement or other requirements if these guidelines/recommendations are not followed. It is incumbent on the owner of these trees to follow what the arborist has requested. Sincerely Chris Stier, ISA Certified Arborist, #WE9262-A *Assessment was made with observation, history and sound arboricultural and horticultural knowledge. It is always possible that other, or different problems exist that may contribute to the destabilization, decline and death of trees. Further evaluation may be warranted if the steps above do not work. Pathology tests and other lab analysis are available. Page 26 of 38 ‘ The canopy of this tree was likely 12’x12’. The recommendations and guidelines are meant to restore that size canopy. Page 27 of 38 These spots are damage and resulting ooze caused by Bark Beetle. Over pruning attracts these pests. Heavy populations can kill trees. The city may choose to mitigate in some way if the tree dies. Page 28 of 38 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. 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) Page 29 of 38 Page 30 of 38 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. 2. Interfere, or cause any other person to interfere, with employees of the city who are engaged in planting, maintaining, treating or removing any tree or removing any material detrimental to the tree. 3. Willfully injure, disfigure or intentionally destroy by any means any tree, except with permits described elsewhere in this chapter. 4. Construct concrete, asphalt, brick or gravel sidewalk, or otherwise fill up the ground area near any tree, to shut off air, light or water from the roots, except under written authority from the public works department. 5. Place building material, equipment or other harmful substance near any tree, which might cause injury to the tree. 6. Post any sign on any tree, tree-stake or guard, or fasten any guy wire, cable or rope to any tree, tree-stake or guard, except when said activity relates to slack lining (the act of balancing and tight rope style walking on a suspended line) and is conducted in an area designated by city council resolution for slack lining. 7. Plant any street tree except according to policies, regulations and specifications established pursuant to this chapter or any currently applicable ordinances or code sections. B. Tree-stakes or guards may be placed around street trees by property owners for the purpose of protecting or training the trees, with approval of the director. C. It shall be unlawful for a property owner to maintain a tree or shrubbery hazard as described in Section 12.24.100 and identified by city inspection. D. Any tree required to be planted must be maintained in good health or replaced by the property owner. E. Any person or contractor deemed responsible for damaging any tree in violation of this chapter shall be liable for penalties to the city according to Section 12.24.170, Enforcement. F. Slacklining shall be allowed in city parks, but not in city open space areas, as follows: 1. For the purposes of this section the following are not considered city parks and slacklining is therefore prohibited in them: a. Community gardens; b. Damon-Garcia Sports Fields; c. Historic Jack House and Gardens; Page 31 of 38 d. Laguna Lake Golf Course; e. Mission Plaza; f. All open space areas; g. All mini parks. 2. At all times slacklining shall require the following tree protections: a. Protection shall be placed between slackline and tree of sufficient thickness to protect the tree from wear damage (e.g., carpet, cardboard, towels, felt padding, etc.). b. Protection shall be at least ten inches wide so the entire anchor (minimum one inch of material) is prevented from contacting the tree. c. Protection shall wrap all the way around the tree. d. Protection shall not be attached to the “anchor” (i.e., knotted portion), so if the anchor were to move, the bark would not be affected. e. All anchors shall be attached in a manner so that the slackline is no more than four feet above the ground when in use. 3. Slacklines shall not: a. Be attached to trees less than twelve inches in diameter at attach point. b. Cross walkways, sidewalks, bike paths, streams, or drainage areas. c. Interfere or displace any existing activities planned for or occurring in parks. d. Be left unattended or remain affixed to any tree overnight. e. Be attached to trees adjacent to group activity areas, picnic areas, and or play equipment. f. Be attached between anything other than trees. 4. Slacklining shall be allowed only during daylight hours and lines shall at all times when affixed to any city tree be designated with ribbons or streamers attached thereto for visibility. (Ord. 1596 § 1, 2014; Ord. 1544 § 1 (part), 2010) Page 32 of 38 Replacement Cost Method Date: October-13-2021 Appraised Value (Installed Plant Cost x Species % x (Condition) % x (Location %) + (Staff cost) Installed Plant Cost = Replacement Plant Cost + Installation Cost Case #__188__ Address of Illegal Removal: 163 Serrano Hight’s Dr Appraiser: Anthony Whipple Certified Arborist # WE-7237-ATM Field Observations 1. Species Cost Live Oak (quercus agrifolia) 2. Condition 75 % 3. Trunk size: Inches in Diameter at 4.5 feet above grade = 3 x 10-inch Diameter =30 inch 4. Location % = [Site 60 % + Contribution 60 % + Placement 60 % ÷ by the number of trees =__60__% 5. (staff time rate $72.00 per hour): 3 hours X $72.00 = $___217.00________ Regional Plant Appraisal Committee and/or Appraiser-Developed or Modified Information 6. Species Rating 90 % 7. Replacement Plant Size (diameter) _1 Inches X number of trees__30_____=___30__________ 8. Replacement Plant Cost __30____inches X $__$96_____ =$____2,880_____ 9. Installation Cost $_____2,880___ X_2.44____ number of trees =$___7,027______ 10. Other Regional Information: Readily available in 15 (gallon) size _1” trunk diameter Calculations by Appraiser Using Field and/or Regional Information 11. Installed Plant Cost = Plant Cost (#8) $__2,880 + Installation Cost (#9) =$__7,027_ = $9,907 12. Adjusted Installed Plant Cost = Installed Plant Cost (#11) $ 9,907 X Species rating (#6) _90___ % X Condition (#2) _75__% X Location (#4) __60___% = $ _4,012___ 13. Add Removal and Clean-up Costs (#5) $__200 (and or staff time) $200 = $ ___200_____ 14. The Appraised Value is either #12 or #13. =$ __4,012__ 15. If Appraised Value (#14) is $5,000 or greater, round nearest $100; If less than $5,000 round to the nearest $10 = $ _4,010__ 16. Appraised Value (#15) = $__4,010_ 17. Per City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 12.24.170 A $_4,010 X 4 = $ 16,040____ 18. Replacement value: = $ 16,040 *A median cost is the most appropriate cost to use because there are an equal number of costs greater than and less than the median. Equally important, plants and installation are available at those specific costs. G:\Asset-Management\Trees-Urban Forestry\Illegal Removals\Template Forms & Letters\TEMPLATE Replacement Cost Method.doc Page 33 of 38 Page 34 of 38 Replacement Cost Method Date: October-13-2021 Appraised Value (Installed Plant Cost x Species % x (Condition) % x (Location %) + (Staff cost) Installed Plant Cost = Replacement Plant Cost + Installation Cost Case #__188__ Address of Illegal Removal: 163 Serrano Hight’s Dr Appraiser: Anthony Whipple Certified Arborist # WE-7237-ATM Field Observations 1. Species Cost Live Oak (quercus agrifolia) 2. Condition 75 % 3. Trunk size: Inches in Diameter at 4.5 feet above grade = 3 x 10-inch Diameter =30 inch 4. Location % = [Site 60 % + Contribution 60 % + Placement 60 % ÷ by the number of trees =__60__% 5. (staff time rate $72.00 per hour): 3 hours X $72.00 = $___217.00________ Regional Plant Appraisal Committee and/or Appraiser-Developed or Modified Information 6. Species Rating 90 % 7. Replacement Plant Size (diameter) _1 Inches X number of trees__30_____=___30__________ 8. Replacement Plant Cost __30____inches X $__$96_____ =$____2,880_____ 9. Installation Cost $_____2,880___ X_2.44____ number of trees =$___7,027______ 10. Other Regional Information: Readily available in 15 (gallon) size _1” trunk diameter Calculations by Appraiser Using Field and/or Regional Information 11. Installed Plant Cost = Plant Cost (#8) $__2,880 + Installation Cost (#9) =$__7,027_ = $9,907 12. Adjusted Installed Plant Cost = Installed Plant Cost (#11) $ 9,907 X Species rating (#6) _90___ % X Condition (#2) _75__% X Location (#4) __60___% = $ _4,012___ 13. Add Removal and Clean-up Costs (#5) $__200 (and or staff time) $200 = $ ___200_____ 14. The Appraised Value is either #12 or #13. =$ __4,012__ 15. If Appraised Value (#14) is $5,000 or greater, round nearest $100; If less than $5,000 round to the nearest $10 = $ _4,010__ 16. Appraised Value (#15) = $__4,010_ 17. Per City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 12.24.170 A $_4,010 X 2 = $ 8,020____ 18. Replacement value: = $ 8,020 *A median cost is the most appropriate cost to use because there are an equal number of costs greater than and less than the median. Equally important, plants and installation are available at those specific costs. G:\Asset-Management\Trees-Urban Forestry\Illegal Removals\Template Forms & Letters\TEMPLATE Replacement Cost Method.doc Page 35 of 38 Page 36 of 38 John Rourke 163 Serrano Heights Dr. San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401 October 20, 2021 Subject: Illegal Pruning at 163 Serrano Mr. Rourke: On August 30, 2021, City of San Luis Obispo Urban Forestry staff inspected property you own at 163 Serrano Heights Dr. (the “Property”) in response to a complaint alleging that trees had been illegally removed and pruned on the Property. After inspection of the Property, I identified three Oak trees that had more than one-third of the tree’s canopy removed, which is a violation of section 12.24.150 of the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (the “Violation”). During my inspection, I also observed the remaining stumps of the removed trees. All removed trees appeared to be under the diameter of size that would have required a removal permit per Municipal Code Section 12.24.090. On September 9, 2021, I emailed you and requested you obtain a private arborist to prepare an Oak Tree Canopy Restoration Plan for all trees disfigured on the northern side of your property. At this time, I also made you aware the City could assess civil penalties in response to the Violation. After further review of the Violation with Public Works staff and the City Attorney’s Office, it has been determined the following municipal code section applies to the Violation and has no discretion to waive imposition of civil penalties. • San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 12.24.170 Enforcement 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. 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. 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. Thank you for submitting your Oak Tree Crown Restoration Plan in accordance with Section 12.24.170(A)(5). The restoration plan submitted includes a three-year plan to mitigate the illegal Page 37 of 38 pruning, which must be adhered to. Failure to do so will result in escalating enforcement by the City. In September of 2023, you shall have an evaluation completed by a private arborist to ensure the trees are reestablishing as intended. Should the trees not recover as expected, the private arborist will need to extend the restoration plan as necessary, or proposed replacement trees to the satisfaction of the City . Pursuant to San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 12.24.170(A)(3), t he penalty for the Violation is $16,040 and has been submitted to the Finance Department and is due to the City no later than November 22, 2021. Enclosed you will find the civil penalty, International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) tree cost sheet, and applicable code sections. Please feel to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, Anthony Whipple Acting City Arborist Enclosure: Fine, ISA Cost Worksheet, Tree Regulations, Invoice Page 38 of 38 Tree Committee Meeting – January 2024 Tree Ordinance Violation – Appeal Hearing 163 Serrano Drive 163 Serrano Drive – Appeal Hearing Recommendation: •Staff recommends upholding the civil penalties issued to the property owner of 163 Serrano for improper pruning and violation of SLO MC 12.24.150(A) •Deny the appeal by the property owner 163 Serrano Drive – Appeal Hearing San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 12.24.150(A) Protection of Trees 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. 163 Serrano Drive – Appeal Hearing Urban Forrest received a complaint in of 2021 for unpermitted removals and improper pruning. City Arborist identified: •7 removed trees •5 trees less than 10” at Diameter Shoulder Height •2 trees at or close to 10”, but not included in the enforcement case •3 trees pruned in violation of SLO MC 12.24.150 163 Serrano Drive – Appeal Hearing Before After 163 Serrano Drive – Appeal Hearing Staff requested the property owner have a Canopy Restoration Plan prepared by a private arborist. •In addition to fines, this plan is required by SLO MC 12.24.170 (A(5)) •The property owner obtained the initial report and submitted this to the City Arborist, but the required 2022 and 2023 progress assessments have not been submitted to the City. 163 Serrano Drive – Appeal Hearing A Notice of Violation was issued for tree ordinance violations with fines •Original fine computation citing the 12.24.170(A). 4x trees valuation ($16,040) calculated by using Guide for Plant Appraisal 9th Edition,International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) publication •Fine reduced using 2x trees valuation per the 12.24.170(A).1 once staff determined the violation was not connected to the planning application on file ($8,020) •Property appealed owner filed Public Records Request. •Fines placed on hold while Public Records Request completed. •Public Works does not have the ability to negotiate fines per the municipal code. 163 Serrano Drive – Appeal Hearing Staff Considerations: 1. Could the property owner have cut down the trees? •Yes, however, that too would have led to civil penalties because the trees were greater than 10”. 2. Would the pruning have been a violation under the former City Arborist? •Yes, the tree ordinance clearly states all pruning shall conform to ISA Standards. Current staff is also working under a recent interruption of the existing ordinance. 3. Does staff have the ability to reduce or eliminate civil penalties. •No, the ordinance does not grant staff or the tree committee the authority to reduce or eliminate civil penalties. Doing so would take a revision of the Tree Ordinance and be approved by the City Council. 163 Serrano Drive – Appeal Hearing Tree Committee Role: •Determine whether the appellant violated the City’s Tree Regulations by pruning the subject trees not in conformance with the International Society of Arboriculture standards. •The Tree Committee’s role is to decide if the pruning was a violation of 12.24.150 based on the evidence included by the City Arborist. •Uphold or Deny the appeal •Reduction or alteration of the fines is not within the purview of the Tree Committee. 163 Serrano Drive – Appeal Hearing Questions?