Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/06/2005, PH 4 - APPEAL OF TREE COMMITTEE DECISION TO APPROVE TREE REMOVAL REQUEST 1 councilDm December 6,2005 j acEnaa pepoin CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: Jay Walter, Public Works Direct Prepared by Todd Beights, Parks rban Forest Supervisor SUBJECT: APPEAL OF TREE COMMITTEE DECISION TO APPROVE TREE REMOVAL REQUEST CAO RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution denying the appeal of the Tree Committee's decision to approve the removal of trees at 1500 Lizzie Street, otherwise known as the Bowden Ranch project. DISCUSSION Background . On October 13, 2005 staff received a tree removal application from Carol Florence, representative for Bowden Ranch, LP. (Attachment 1). The application was for the removal of numerous trees located within the building envelopes on lots 1 through 7 of the proposed development (map, Attachment 2). The trees being proposed for removal are located on the individual lots being processed for building permits, and had not been reviewed previously as part of the subdivision approval Because Architectural Review Commission approval of the original Tentative Tract Map was not necessary (Municipal Code Section 12.24.180 D2b states: "If no architectural review is required for the development, the Tree Committee shall approve or deny the application"), the Tree Committee became involved in the removal process for the individual lots, visiting the site with the City Arborist to inspect the trees. After inspecting the trees, the Arborist determined that the trees did not meet the criteria for immediate removal as described in section 12.24.180 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code: Under that Code section, the City Arborist may authorize a tree removal without further notice after finding any of the following circumstances:. A. The tree is a hazard, and removing it is the only feasible way to eliminate the hazard; B. The tree is dead or dying or damaged beyond reclamation; C. The tree is causing severe root damage to public or private property, and removing the tree is the only way feasible to eliminate the damage. Because of this lack of finding, the request was brought before the Tree Committee for their consideration. The applicant was notified that the removal request would be placed on the October 24, 2005 Tree Committee Agenda for consideration. Appeal:of Tree Committee Decision to.Approve Tree Removal.Request Page 2 The Tree Committee convened at its scheduled time & date with the following members present; Ben Parker, Linda Hauss, Don Dollar, Sara Young and Chairman Jim Lopes. The applicant was also present for this meeting. Carol Florence, applicant representative, discussed the original EIR for the tentative tract map and the trees that had been identified for removal as part of the construction of the public improvements. She reported that for the individual lots to be developed several other trees needed to be removed and the revised tract map had been worked on in coordination with Neil Havlik, Natural Resource Manager. She noted the trees were mainly eucalyptus, with some oaks, and stated that the removal request for two oaks on Lot 5 had been withdrawn from the application. Mr. Havlik discussed the background of the request and the mitigations and site plantings of Coast Live oak and Bay oaks, which were included, along with some California sycamores. It was estimated that approximately 50 trees would be removed and the applicant stated they were willing to replace them on a ltl basis. A subsequent field investigation by Mr. Havlik revealed that the 50 trees included in the application were actually 70, when counting all,of the individual trunks emanating from the same stump. The impact due to the loss of these recounted 70 trees was determined to be no greater than the impact of the.50 trees as originally counted. Mr. Lopes moved to approve the removal request for trees outside the setbacks within Lots 1-7, excepting the two oaks on Lot 5, one oak on Lot 6, and 4 oaks on Lot 7 as indicated. He required replacement plantings to be provided on a 1:1 ratio for any trees removed that were 6" (dbh) diameter at breast height or larger and required that two replacement trees be provided in addition to the required street trees on Lots 1-7, with the remainder of required replacement trees to be planted in the open space lot. The motion was seconded and approved by the committee. (Minutes, Attachment 3) Appeal An appeal of the Tree Committee decision was received on November 7, 2005 from Mr. Richard A. Hendricks of 1643 Woodland Drive (Attachment 4), based on the loss of the trees and the subsequent effects of loss of habitat for Monarch Butterfly, owls, and light pollution from the nearby High School athletic fields. Staff Evaluation of Appeal Staff has made the following evaluation of the points raised in Mr. Hendricks' appeal: 1. Loss of habitat for monarch butterfly. The project EIR looked at the impacts of the project on monarch butterflies in some detail. Specifically, the EIR identified an area near lot 7 that for some years has served as an overwintering site for monarchs and recommended certain changes to the subdivision to ensure that this site was protected. Those changes were made by the applicant and the site remains in basically the same condition as it was before the project. The trees in lots 1-4 were not identified as being important from this standpoint. 2. Impact to owls. The project EIR investigated the potential impact of the project on birds, including raptors (hawks and owls). Evidence of nest activity by great horned owls was observed within the eucalyptus trees north of Lot 12, in the open space lot. No other y-a Appeal of Tree Committee Decision to Approve Tree Removal Request Page 3 evidence of nesting activity by raptors was noted, although use of eucalyptus trees throughout the site by red-tailed hawks was observed. Mitigation measures designed to protect nesting _birds were incorporated into the project and those measures..would allow tree removal outside of the nesting season, that is, September through mid-March, 3. Light pollution. The project EIR evaluated increase in the incidence of light from the sports fields north of the project site as a result of the project's tree removals, and determined that enough trees would remain to continue to provide "substantial filtering" of light from the sports fields. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact to the City for denial of the appeal. The cost of tree removals and replacements, if the appeal is denied;is borne by the applicant. ALTERNATIVES Adopt a resolution upholding_ the appeal; thereby overturning'the 'Tree Committee decision to allow the tree removals. ATTAC)ELVVIENTS 1. Tree Removal application dated October 13,2005 Z. Area Map 3. Tree Committee Minutes of meeting October 24, 2005 4. Appeal to the City Council received November 7, 2005. 5. Resolution denying the appeal of the Tree Committee decision 6. Resolution upholding the appeal of the Tree Committee decision I:LCAR Reports\2005Tuks-Trus\1500liTve Appeal\Council Agenda Report-Bowden Ranch.DOC y� ATTACHMENT - �����nIIfl 11111111�1111h1°1°°°I il citlyO SAntulS OBISPO 25 Prado Road • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 IMPORTANT: A tree removal application will PLEASE-NOTE: If your tree is approved for only be considered if accompanied by a removal and posted, please call the office at sketch/map showing the street, structure(s) the end of your posting period to arrange to location and location of all trees proposed for pick up your permit. The permit fee is $39. removal. Please draw on the back of this payable when you pick up your permit (cash form or fax on of separate sheet of paper, or check payable to City of San Luis Obispo). along with your application. TREE REMOVAL APPLICATION Owner: Bowden Ranch, LP Telephone: (805). -544-7343 Owner's Mailing Address: 805 -Aerovista Place, #202 San Luis Obispo, CA Zip: 93401 Applicant (if different than Owner):C.M: Florence, AICP Agent Telephone: (805)- 541.-4509 Applicant's Mailing Address: 3427 Miguelito Court San Luis_Obispo, CA Zip: 93401 Location of tree(s): 1500 Lizzie Street Lots 1 2 ` ` 7 r." Please indicate nearest cross street: Wilding Lane_ Dog in yard? yes= No=X Tree Species: Eucalyptus sp Blue gum Botanical Name Common Name Reasons for removing: These trees are located within the building envelope_on- these. lots. Coordination_ with. the- city's Natural Resource Manager regardinq this tree removal_has ocurred. Compensatory replacement proposed:_- None _ Application will be considered only if entirely filled out and signed by owner. If consideration of this application goes to Tree Committee,you or your agent are required to attend the meeting and will be notified. If lane closure is required to perform the tree removal work,an encroachment permit must be obtained from the City Engineering Department. • Any required'replacement trees"must be.installed within'45 days of issuance of permit. Since tree removal permits are good for 6 months,you may wish'to hold off picking up your permit until you are sure you will be able to install the replacement tree(s)within the 45 day period. MAIL OR FAX completed form to: City Arborist, 25 Prado Rd., San Luis Obispo; CA 93401, Phone:41 F : 542-9868 Owner: Die 13 October.2005 - - Applica Date: - 13 October 2005 The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services..programs and activities. Telecommuniditioni Device for the Deaf(805)781.7410. - — ATTACHMENT Z 00 Ch i Fn $, d Www? f O m � \ -77 C � / �\ LOi ---- - .._vim;,• ✓ .•'�•. \ Y Y ',a k,•�� .. tip l _\. _\ .. 1 Y e �t\ 1 li 1 'I � I Y�.�:'S I„ .tII' •'lt[tt� _ ti v �'., ����Isl,� I�I�t�li � ,;? tl' �',#lll�:,I.�,, ,,���,$-V�l�^jIl"::I }�� `!�•-,. I1I�����"I��tII�FIII>�I�111.i �I(�� I 'illi til,, elf x IIIIJ 1.1111:^ III 11'L�t'�. `� ��!L`I ;! ,�,��LI�'E.,�,II I� ,� `II� I �It� e �lllllJ,,,';11 i' ,II t,,��.� � -. �,•� a�� ` 11illllil IZ Ili Ii(IPII` a elif r''IIIlIII3 lil,ll t ITiI li tl el Ilil�lYvi1 (IIS•• Vt. •,1�.` Ir I.. 1 ��I-: ill l lI •l (�� �, 1 .r.f I II Yl Il 3!It I;I�t tl 1 /�tl� =ill Ell ill�lij��l�� • 'I�If Till �i 1, • IIL.II4II ;I, j ;li;:�, ,lII I:lil,,, .ilial, L L,.I l; I ,i,,;I�IEL.,I,III, Irl . _ , � -`41IIs t Y h f• ,��, -i 11 III s��' flll�Ililllll��,�':IIh b'•y�l,��j�;,i•g1=ll�l:.Ili iilllllll"III+,I li 111 IIII illi I�IIItIIIiI Sl, I { i a `t /! ..;'',L''jr��lll:i y'�tl,,, Ili,.iIII�II'i111'I;t plllilll E:)...II�`I;7III5III Jill (IIIItII I� YI E l_ 't I19IIl:t��I�II ��I�P,`II'll �lill+ ttlT jl I(I I'l l` t l�IIII�I,�IIFIIIIIIIiI ItI I�III'11`` ~ uIIf � 1ll�l l ,Ile 11 lllh' Il ti�'�;II �lllllyell.I�II III��I IIIytl�I lila 11��t}In 'i1.. 4�I I I It, Ili :11 I j�l,T I. I ,a <Illlli�lli .11 I'�II Ill,III�II4 II ` ':� '1 � •:• Ill ll�;l If'flll :f. III ' i 11 lis Ii,DU, tl IQ illi iIIr i/ , ` Ilz a ) Ipl IYI) �zlz :,Il 1 Ilf II 1IIh illltill II'III�IIIIi.I,L m jyll�ill.'I I� li j { I I J n I ll,jj�;:� Itl�T;I �I�III.i Il.talljijlllt Iii i��l,(i li tllhl. I'``{~�I�l�lalh,.1II�I- 9� ,s't' ,l{ i 1 Iillh.IT Ili II:I I i ills. lll�l.!4,,��,�Y— 'lilii � :tllltli:�l,.11. 11 (Ii.11; 11 1 Illi�. y '' `,r I it 'sl l i!il.��filli�l...�; i gll��i �tll�Itlin(�� (�� I���I���( �'���)I��►�ti�l �{ � •, l { � � � i 'I'� 'III � �tx �I� ��:I Ilii U ✓.{ i►�'lll��.� i �II��I 1� 11"III► � I�I��.��✓I i i'I�..' lid LII,I i 1 �� ► �� �;I ;al :I I �i I � I 'i• ( ' �` 4i;l p'i � Ijll!LI� II':I:illli' III_(ll'Lli I!II . .y � � f I � 1 i l i (l�lliiSll II I I•'1 �I,�,t,� :'ll�•tllill.,l 11111 iIIl.I�I: ,: !I .11 ,_::. "an .I�I{III IIIII,Illt1111'i1'lell I It � Il� I (�)I IFIII I� li t 1�.1,', Ij :11,1 ►I ( a 1 -i ' j I I s S I (hl� (I II''u � 1ST �'I�i� :` p . Ir� � a II l I a I 1.. ';I II ,'� a{ II ' Ili I►�!l S t 1 I �y 1( �II°(� � l r I ll�" ►e � t IL i� 11 II 'flit° :III !!' ' i ,qI III �►� I►I' ''�~ L i,; � I Ij q �� tl ll;,. , , , II I I I,►' /I 'IIRII ( ^1tl II,I ,�,It II ' ''1 'ii �li �1i�11 ,1111 II1�{I YI U�A I{,i)�r � ' ( ll I I l II III ) :, I r 1L I II '�`✓. s z .y� a 1 �1 I iit1���;ll l I ,'i� I'll `'III'(�IIII ' Itl►� 'I� i.'' �II'"� 1 I i� WSJ, I I I.. '3 fl ' '"•�U �L:I - i, (�: 4 II:J>`11�j I•'l 1111;11;1",t: �>�IIt I,I .al' ,�: I 1 t � �' :'lid .L:J•" :,I�: �-1=,1.11-II Il,li:)ul.i'a„� ,� a� �► it , ' { � illi h�I�:i I � 111 � lI VIII' �Iti..��.oil JON II i. ` i ,;`', l I III i 11-',;. , 1 ,1� i11• (1 - ,IP LI i i ,li.. rf i Ii1 '1 ' ?III:"1{Il illllf'I Lfllh '"4 II'j i ►rI11�I,'I lil :Ii: t i � iii�I � { Ii f { 11111 llylll{Illi�... '1{►Ij ��(�'IIII�'III,� t � I� � �'I� ,I ik ll t I �II;�'ur11�{III=�� �,�. �{-y ► t� �II► �II� If l l;i�.l� �✓ II'tllllll,llii II��1,11 � �,��", F 11,.. • `_ r((IIIII''l I� III��!II�' ,!ILII'• • �,'�� Ilil�'lll3`�iU9 I ! ISI I Ii�ll IISIit E 7 ► III � i Ili S ::• t,.�Iltl I�IfIEI �II.� -� j 1 ; j! _ 'I , I4 � � 3� I$ ' 'f, 'I i li�Il�llll I..1+1{I'�1111y111•III511.I 1t1 ` I ► ISI I� 'I I� .IIII I , a, ] LI�$ IIII nitl 11: ! i IIh�I II .11 1, I I II � 1 �I� I II €►IfIII7{ 'lll'I III I yIi ►,III rII rill-IIIP��I� ►1 I.II�iIII��ih;' IIIiIIIiI hIII�,{I I►II$ ! I I I Ir'i�{I,..��IIh S•II'I VIIIA IIII d! I''Ic IIJ1 I I oI' I I>.1 � �' I i fI( f I II l�I�. ILII+I ;ill''Iilll]III IIIr`I I'I tl:lr ll'�I' ►► llI I I II� I��III��lltlll lllp II 11,. q 3 II q II q IIS I I II {. nl1~I o Igf1lt I IIII . P l t ! I I t 1 II III II I I I I SII I 1' PI I ' 14II� 1 I 1111-'t'i I �.. IIIiI IPI I' SI Il IIII) yI , $ I 7`I�I .I 'll`IIi_II`.IIII' III'lli �,' ,ITIS rII'�ill�Il�IItIII�IIIlI'+I illy I'Ilfl ,IiIIIiV ! I t I till. /l 1-laIII11SI 'tl,Y1:il i 1 I . I I q IIII 11 I t IjIII4llil la _t i •i.. LII q,la,:.:11�;IIIIIIIa L r 'll�i.=.I 1�1 $I�i Ill,il �I II �,hl I ! . Idl ['I• i;l i;illi 11 ?II,fI I ,! I I►%.'Il:.0 .I Ili I 1�, I I l Id {I r II►, ,I�:, 11 ! llll. '. .Ill Il Il�oll' ► 4111,III>I IIII II I7 f 11► f Mill;.,11 tll,�l� 11 MIL I:I :�►: li' ' �J�NIL, i ut �ll i t q �• ,' ':I .I q I, 1 Ill�i 'illl,l1. � .II .r.. I i111 IPA �Il l lai llulul•I L Il 1 ! ► •I I !�I•I'; 111'IIQI��` rv'rt t -�i II�IIh li��� 1 ISI f 411�IIli 7j. (,1: �� Ilil� I : i II. $ L. 1 IIII( S��• i 1 -P ' 1 t f 7 j{ IR : ,:I lel I i. II Il.l ,•I' 1 i � i IIII•I I, I'.Itlll; ,II tllll illklll�dl.III IIII lII{I I]I 1 �1 � ] L Ii 7 lull► xl Ill iIl$I IIII:q�, 'II jl I�I ? a 1 II IIII III�III1.1'�I._,I]IIcIIHt .. h. ►1 31 I1111I• I' q1I• �ll'-. `t lill; ( r -I�.ti l•~ ' �I:I�h'Ir'I'tI Ii j9 I I�: III �I ' I.I hIIIi I l,'I q4w 1111G till I - 1 I ! t 1 r I.1 lT 1 lily� ;131,1••.. ItII�II t I�l 1 I r Ili.� .If. h1 i � 1 Ilse I'. 4 I f����lll I'll IIII II':I�s ll'►Tit 11:;�:,I 1{ '1 I• II IIS�i�� I�I � 1 11111�'�ij�: q I1 I� !'{ r ' Illi 'ti II I' l �!�►191!' al II ► I I It � I i U.II.. t dY:L 1 'II,IIf?III< ,ih'71 [I'3.I�;1 ' III= I��1 I•'►$I� t I `1 �.� IIIlI1 i ►I',�.,I�IIj1U..hII,IIIs► ;'II:Illll141V'al� Illsl'I►�„II . _ �l 1 11 EI IZ I a I jlGy"�l.�•lid h(Ie�llil l ql I I IaIU�, n r� � lll��l ; I�il"v11 I�IG�';II44 I"�►ffl��illll!'illll��lr,l�u :- .� ;II1I1�41111II�II�l1i;',VlI IUlll►�IURI �. 11 . IIIIIl 11 �,IlL I1 , - -- — -ATTACHMENT _ Z s / 1A 'f I o � G -0�v OgoO f/' ti - - -- � ---- -- - - ATTACHMENT Z 4 _�`♦ M LO ` > / � S tJ� / y.�b ATTACHMENT - i . ch O. .e e tom,•�•� / / / yJi� ti h ry . v r+ f �jlY -{'I,I,Iii FII{ i +I la li 1 ; I { iI'Iii , IIT ' lair � ;jll�Il` . .',I all? II Iglu. illhllh wile I!I ° I° ISI II i l f 1 �' �I ,� -tet .r, � ;�i � I� ���;Il;Ili;;j1 {��li�cl�`�I I°ill�il�� `•�I 7i I � � � ;,I' ss I{II C3 1 ..� ': ,I EI'I II•>i�l: ,:I! I: �LI , i ,I I � _.II i 1 i {�•\,L { � j1�,{p llr' -'•.{� l t SII(� Iall�lilt�t II .I�Ij�Ihl I� •�►'li. � lII�' .,'+'�I'y III' i. 7I ! � 1�,,il�II• y lilljE s � � � i• ��l ISI '!I � 1 ���'`III��I1`l.'f I'•III.I I.;'lll I1.11I1,f II�IIjl 111�I 11.�1• � � ;I ( �•. I# le��+ II IjI�I,t1IlyIII� Ir r 1'1 e I I1 II', F SI �I ill' i�•• r,II::I,'Ili 'la;Ib. � iS� ail I`11jI�Il.4 F I p I}IIII � F S � (� �I. ���� 7 ?? �`•'' '��i�riilf Mall?li. ilhijl lilily?�jNi!I�,II'I�'I DSI l +li�l ISXI .�.',r _ (!Ila i '•II{ iitr Sll, i Sl El�li.I:II1 t I R � SI I• I9I I( '� h ;I r�;�•1.�,11�;1 l5,I' ; 3 •SII' I + � � , � III l}I , II. ;.i� a'�I���'I toy' Y ATTACHMENT 3 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TREE COMMITTEE MEETING_ MONDAY, OCTOBER 24,2005 MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Lopes,Ben Parker,Linda Hauss,Don Dollar and Sara Young STAFF PRESENT: Ron Combs,Todd Beights,and Lisa Woske PUBLIC COMMENTS: Roger Suiker, 1616 Phillips, asked how replacement tree plantings were mo tored. Mr. Combs responded that there was not currently a monitoring procedure, bu a need for implementing one is being discussed by staff: 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 26,2005 Mr. Dollar noted that the minutes did not reflect that he was ' attendance at the meeting_. The minutes were approved as amended. 2. TREE REMOVAL REQUESTS -683 MITCHELL (Live oak) Vinicio Muracchiolo,pending new property ner, noted there was no foundation to the house and the tree was growing against the ear wall, where he wanted.to install a. perimeter foundation. He stated such co truction would kill the tree. He submitted a letter from the current owner; requestin that the tree be removed. Mr. Combs agreed that the foundati in the existing footprint would kill the tree, which was medium-aged in good conditi Mr. Parker suggested noted the ee could add significant value to the property and it could be retained if the existi g house itself were to be removed. He did agree that if the. house were staying in its pr ent location, the tree would have to be removed. Ms. Hauss confirmed th the sale of the property had gone through. Mr. Parker moved to pprove the removal requests based on undue hardship to the property owner. Ms..Young seconded the motion. ATTACHMENT 3 removing the stand of trees. She urged city staff to provide a information as soon as possible and to notify Ms. Floyd when information was.re ived. Mr. Lopes seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.. = 313 PATRICIA (California sycamore There was no applicant to speak to th item: Mr. Combs noted the tree was a n 've species. Ms. Hauss felt the brick/step nstruction could be reworked to mitigate any trip hazards. Mr. Dollar moved to deny a request, as he could not make the necessary findings for removal. Ms. Young seconde, a motion. The motion passe unanimously.. - 1500 LIZZIE (Misc. trees) Carol Florence; applicant representative, discussed the original EIR for the tentative tract map and the trees that had been identified for removal. She reported that now several other trees needed.to be removed and the revised tract map had been worked on in coordination with.Neil Haylik,Natural.Resource Manager. She noted the trees were mainly eucalyptus, with some oaks, and stated that the removal request for two oaks on Lot 5 had been withdrawn from the application. The Committee discussed the individual lot removal plans. Mr. Havlik discussed the background on the request and the mitigations and site plantings of Coast Live oak and Bay oaks, which were included, along with some.California sycamores. Mr. Lopes was concerned with the large sycamore at the intersection, believing that significant root cutting"would take place when the culverts were installed. Mr. Havlik agreed the tree might be compromised. Mr. Combs stated that any time large roots were cut, a tree would be adversely affected. However, he said that 85% of the root system of that tree would be intact and that safety pruning could mitigate concerns as well. 4-W ATTACHMENT Mr. Dollar was concerned that the general construction activity.would need a tree protection,plan.for some of the trees, e.g..the oaks on Lot 7: The Committee clarified that they were reviewing trees within setback designations. Mr. Havlik estimated that approximately 50 trees would be removed and stated the applicant was willing to replace them on a 1:1 basis. Mr. Lopes moved to approve the removal request for trees outside.the setbacks within Lots 1-7, excepting the two oaks on Lot 5; one oak on Lot 6, and 4 oaks on Lot 7 as indicated. He required replacement plantings to be provided on a lc 1 ratio for any trees removed that were 6" dbh or larger and required that two replacement trees be provided in addition to the required street trees on Lots 1-7, with the remainder of required replaceirient trees to be planted in the open space lot. Mr.Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Parker was concerned about the stand of eucalyptus at the back of the development, feeling they needed to,be safety pruned. Mr. Havlik stated that would be addressed at the ARC level and agreed there was also a need for continual clean up and maintenance for fire prevention mitigations. 3. NEW BUSINESS There was no business to discuss at this time. 4. OLD BUSINESS Mr. Lopes recapped the recent City Council meeti item regarding the Duban application. Mr. Combs discussed the Young Tree Car orkshop.. 5. ON-GOING BUSINESS A work session was set for Nov ber 3, 2005 at the Corp Yard to review the Master Street tree lists. The meeting adjourned at :15 p.m. to the next regular meeting of November 28, 2005: ATTACHMENT -i- Flling Fee: $100.00 Paid Date Received _�: RECEIVED city Or 7iEFER TO SEC7fON4 NOV 0 7 2005 ag%san IUIS owpO APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMAnON l/ /� c�3 c✓aoflz yo �i le6dd i ,f7�•oG�c S l Name Mailing Address and Zip Code Phone Fax -- -- - Representative's Name Mailing Address and Zip Code. Title Phone Fax SECTIONZ SUBJECTOFAPPEAL 1.. In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code(copy attached), I hereby appeal the decision of the: l_�lfE --�r.s•., rrE�- - (Name of Offioer,Committee or Commission decision being appealed) - 2. The date the decision.being _ _ appealed was rendered: 3. The application or project was entitled: 4, I disaissed the matter with the following.City staff member: (Staff Member's Name and Departrnent) (pate) S. Has this matter"n the subject of a previous appeal? If so,when was it heard and by whom: l o-- SECTFON I REASON FOR APPEAL - - EXPtain specifically what actioNs you are appealing and vVnv you believe the Council should consider your appeal. Include what evidsna you have tbat supports your appeal. You may auam admona/pages,if necessary. This form continues on tho otherside. Page 1 of 3 ATTACHMENT 4 Reason for Appeal continued Li _ - jit-a G'r ��f �cL��rr,L- l�"�.f/"c`z'� 4� 4- /G4I ti a t7 el cf r6 1)let-4i l I /'vot �f V( J 1 fes'•`Ji^^C'^ 7 a, r. .J (� i i h SECTION 4. APPELLANTS RESPONSIBILITY The San Luis Obispo City.Council values public participation in local government and encourages all forms of citizen involvement. However, due to real costs associated with City Council consideration of an appeal, including public notification, all appeals pertaining to a planning application or project are subject to a filing fee of$100 ,which must accompany the appeal form. Your right to exercise an appeal comes with certain responsibilities. If you file an appeal, please understand that it must be heard within 45 days from filing this form. You will be notified in writing of the exact date your appeal will be heard before the Council. You or your representative will be expected to attend the public hearing, and to be prepared to make your case. .Your testimony is limited to 10 minutes. A continuance may be granted under certain and unusual circumstances. If you feel you need to request a continuance,you must submit your request in writing to the City Clerk. Please be advised that if your request for continuance is received after the appeal is noticed to the public, the Council may not be able to grant the request.for continuance. Submitting a request for continuance does not guarantee that it will be granted,that.action is at the discretion of the City Council. I here to appear and/or send a representative to appear on my behalf when said appe is SCM ed d for a pub a ng b fore the City Council. SOV O5� (Signre of Appellant) (Date) Exceptions to fee: 1)Appeals of Tree Committee decisions. 2)The above-named appellant has already paid the City$100 to appeal this same matter to a Cityofficialor Council advisory body. This item is hereby calendared for OQ CSI v-� V- c: City Attorney City Administrative Officer Department Head- DA ("A L�art Advisory Body Chairpefson - J Ctvu kzp es City Clerk(original) 0 ., tCc. , - C`C �uc C � &A- LWr.. Page 2of3 8/03 ATTACHMENT 4 Chapter 1.20 APPEALS PROCEDURE Sections: 120.010 Title. 120.020 Right to appeal. 1.20.030 Time within which to file an appeal. 1.20.040 Hearing-Notice. 120.050 Hearing-Appellant to show cause-Councirs determination final. 120.010 Title. This chapter shall be known as the"Appeals Procedure"for the city.(Prior code§ 1400) 120.020 Right to appeal. A. Except where an appeals procedure is otherwise specifically set forth in this code, any person objecting to the approval, denial, suspension or revocation of a license, permit or entitlement of any nature, the determination or issuance of which is under any of the provisions of this code, or to any administrative decision made by any city official, if the approval, denial,suspension or revocation of such license,permit or entitlement or the determination of such administrative decision involves the exercise of administrative discretion or personal judgment exercised under any of the provisions of this code, may appeal in writing to the council by filing with the city clerk a written notice of such appeal, stating the specific grounds for the appeal. B. No appeal may be taken to any such administrative decision made by a city official under the provisions of this chapter unless such decision to appeal has been first taken up with the department head concemed, and where an appeals board is empowered to consider.interpretation and enforcement questions,unless such decision to appeal has been considered by such appeals board. C. No right of appeal to the council from any administrative decision made by a city official under any of the provisions of this code shall exist when such decision is ministerial and thus does not involve the exercise of administrative discretion or personal judgment exercised under any of the provisions of this code, whether the administrative decision involves the approval, denial, suspension or revocation of a license, permit,entitlement or any other administrative decision. (Ord. 1044§ 1, 1985:prior code§1401) 120.030 Time within.which to file an appeal. The appellant shall Me a notice of appeal with the city clerk within ten calendar days after the date upon which the administrative decision appealed from is made. In the event the last day of the filing period falls on a nonbusiness day,the appeal period shall be extended to include the next business day,and this rile s�apply whenever an appeal procedure is specifically set forth elsewhere in this code. (Prior code § 120.040 Hearing-Notice. Upon receipt of the filing of the notice of appeal in Its proper form,the city clerk shall place the matter on the council agenda Except in cases of emergency, when the council may determine the matter immediately, or where state law prescribes a different appeal process, the clerk shall set the matter for hearing at the next reasonably available council meeting,.but in no event later-than forty-fire calendar days after the date of the filing of such notice of appeal with the city clerk. The city dark shall cause written notice of such hearing to be given to the applicant not less than five business days prior to such hearing,unless such notice.Is waived in writing by the applicant. (Ord. 1252§ 1, 1994:prior oode-§1403) 120.050 Hearing-Appellant to show cause=Council's determination final. At such hearing the appellant shall show cause on the.grounds specified in the notice of appeal why the action appealed from should not be approved The council may continue the hearing from time to time, and its findings on the appeal shall be final and conclusive in.the matter. (Prior code§ 1404) Page 3 of 3 8ro3 ATTACHMENT 5 RESOLUTION NO. (2005 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF A TREE REMOVAL REQUEST AT 1500 LIZZIE STREET WHEREAS,the Tree Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing on October 24, 2005 and approved the applicant's request to remove numerous trees located on individual lots of the Bowden Ranch project, 1500 Lizzie Street, San Luis Obispo, California; and WHEREAS, on December 6, 2005, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing to consider the appeal of the approval to remove said trees, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings: That this Council, after consideration of the applicant's appeal, and the San Luis Obispo Tree Committee's action, staff recommendations and reports thereon, makes the following finding: a. The removal of numerous trees will promote good arboricultural practice. b. The trees are causing undue hardship to the property owner. c. Removing the trees will not harm the character of the surrounding neighborhood. SECTION 2. The appeal of the Tree Committee's decision to approve the tree removal request at 1500 Lizzie Street is hereby denied. Upon motion of seconded by and on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 2005. Mayor David F. Romero R �1,i9 ATTACHMENT 5 Resolution No. (2005 Series) Page 2 ATTEST: Audrey Hooper City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jon-at . Lowell City Attorney y' zD � f ATTACHMENT 6 RESOLUTION NO. (2005 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF A TREE REMOVAL REQUEST AT 1500 LIZZIE STREET WHEREAS,the Tree Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing on October 24, 2005 and approved the applicant's request to remove numerous trees located on individual lots of the Bowden Ranch project at 1500 Lizzie Street, San Luis Obispo, California; and WHEREAS, on December 6, 2005, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo field a public hearing to consider the appeal of the approval to remove said trees, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the. Council of the C_ ity of San Luis Obispo as follows- SECTION 1. Findings: That this Council, after consideration of the applicant's appeal, and the San Luis Obispo Tree Committee's action, staff recommendations and reports thereon, makes the following finding: a. The removal of.numerous trees will not promote good arboricultural practice: b. The trees are not causing undue hardship to the property owner. c. Removing the trees will harm the character of the surrounding neighborhood. .SECTION 2. The appeal of the Tree Committee's decision to approve the tree removal request at 1500 Lizzie Street is_hereby upheld, and the removal request is denied. Upon motion of ;seconded by and on the following voter AYES- NOES-. ABSENT' The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 2005: Mayor David F. Romero R ("�� ATTACHMENT (o Resolution No. (2005 Series) Paget ATTEST: Audrey Hooper City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jonathan P. Lowell City Attomey �E�''Cano-RE:SLO City Council Ager ' Item d-4 � - _ Page 1 j From: "Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club"<sierra8 @charter.net> IREDTo <ecano@slocity.org>Date: 12/6/05 2:44PM 95Subject: RE: SLO City Council Agenda Item d-4 ERK [transmitted on behalf of] December 6, 2005 0 P COUNCIL K- CDD DIR Betty Winholtz IR CAO C4 FIN DIR 405 Acacia ® ACAO Lz FIRE CHIEF RED FILE Morro Bay, CA 93442 ®ATTORNEYt PW DIR 97 CLERK/ORIa POLICE CHF MEETING AGENDA TO: ❑ DEPT HEADS REC DIR DATE-9t/''TEM #2 f/ �' UTIL DIR SLO City Council San Luis Obispo, CA Dear Mayorand Council Members: I was disturbed to read in this morning's TRIBUNE that an appeal to save an over-wintering Monarch butterfly site was being made at this meeting. It was deja vu, only in.SLO instead of Morro Bay. In 2003, 56 eucalyptus in our city were removed to build 30 houses. In 2004, 24 eucalyptus were removed to build 2 houses. In 2005,the last of 67 eucalyptus were cut to build 16 houses. What was a frequent and beloved visitor to Morro Bay is now gone. It happened one project at a time--not intentionally, yet deliberately. We, the City,did it with our eyes wide open. Attached are two maps..They show the overlay of the lots on-the ESHA.This project has 13 acres with 23 houses.These are large lots wifh large houses.. This project can afford to share with the current residents=Monarchs;Red Shoulder Hawks, and Great Horned Owls-=all of whom live in this acknowledged forest.,It is common knowledge that the cutting of just a few trees in the wrong spot spoils an over-wintering grove. There must be a significant buffer. In addition, raptors need staging trees around their nesting trees in order to successfully raise their young. The EIR acknowledges that all these species will lose in this project. Mitigation measures limit timing of destruction; but don't prevent or even replace the loss. In fact, the EIR does not mention the very raptors that exist there. It states "the likely"species to be found there, intimating that a site visit had not been made.As a result of the appeal, a site visit was actually made and the 2 raptor species observed there were not even listed on the "likely" list.The replacement trees will create a different habit;in eliminating existing habitat, these replacements will not support the continuation of existing habitat values. .The number of trees being cut vanes depending on which part of the EIR you read, varying between 35 and 70. Mature trees only are counted, not including anything under 6"diameter, which comprise a significant portion of this and every other forest. These are slated for destruction without replacement or mitigation in t-he EIR: Please uphold the appeal. �Elaina`Cano - RE: SLO City Council Age Item d-4 Pagglil No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.371 /Virus Database:267.13.12/193- Release Date:12/6/2005 CC: <winholtz@kcbx:net> VO .�.. �\i�' G. �.' nDOC M,: 1 I�`\F' 1•' ^+fps fR Jam.;{ Y ` L�� ` /•= t♦ 7�6�x r �.,/- Yom. f '•fa �' 1 7{Yt�� ��R?Y�'t�,Y'Z y"?'C♦ t -.� --• •`� r.�?'-'��•�is Cozs�I U=c � ��. 'iS �v I� � o+ - w\.. i.t'vjfJ,..1X7�..y'S..00- '� I i ,' T l4 2 ,H •' �i � ,. R � a t.= •� ,}`.r'.:� �. T Vis!".�_^„c�r�t *��. ,T ,L wAr- b' r ✓6^ � a r. 1 _ �t 1 �C.• dr.. •'6' .d �_.�d�l V, c''.� ^' s. � --y, +ice -:E �y„�,t�e� e «, �.• . � . '�'5,.�^j .qtr_ '�` '�-' ,��z. \� 1 �T-•�xC ���+�` l M r "tJ � SFr' 1 - '�{'' � 1 ©� . �.� - �=�s- 3:.ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES Figure 33-2:Sensitive Resources of the Project Area /0-7- W 13 13 � W Z� a: �.-------- 3\ nn � 4 ° .M SOURCE Morro Group 2002 and MHA 2003 , Bowden_Ra , 3-36 MHA Inc. u' .4,J city of san LUIS OBISp0 memo RECEIVED DFC 0 6 2005 To: City Council SLO CITY-CLERK Ya: Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer From John Mandeville, Community Development Directo� _ Date: December 6,2005 Re: Red File, Public Hearing Item#4, Previous Responses Involving Bowden „ Ranch Tree Removals Several questions regarding the proposed tree removals at the Bowden Ranch have been raised in the last few days.. Similar questions were asked in early November. Staff responded to the earlier questions with the attached email, items#3 and#4 in particular. This information may address some of the questions Council members have for their consideration of Public Hearing Item#4. r ¢ cDD D;R RED FILE FIN DIR MEETING AGENDA FIRE CHIEF FE # �PW DIR DAT POLICE CHF REC DIR T UTIL DIR i Page 1 of 6 John 'Mandeville - Re: Bowden Ranch Development From: John Mandeville To: DeMarco, Maria Date: 11/22/2005 3:13 PM Subject: Re: Bowden Ranch Development CC: Council; George, Wendy; Hampian, Ken; Havlik, 'Neil; Lowell, Jonathan P; O'Connor, Julie; Whisenand, Ron i Dear Ms. DeMarco, City Council member Christine Mulholland asked city staff to respond to the questions you raise in your November 7 email to her. Your email covered subjects that are the responsibility of three different City departments (Community Development, Public Works and Administration/Natural Resources). I am coordinating the responses from these three departments. To make the responses as readable as possible, I have consolidated the issues raised in your letter and grouped the staff responses accordingly. 1. "The property wi/1 be developed as a semi-custom tract rather Than parcel by parcel custom homes, I am uncertain what neighborhood review will be available under this "package deal, All lots within the development are considered "sensitive" and as conditioned by the subdivision approval, will require.Administrative Use Permit and Architectural Review approvals prior to construction of homes. Notification of the surrounding neighbors is a part of these processes. Note, the adopted City Council Resolution allows staff to determine which applications need Architectural Review Commission (ARC) review and those that may qualify for Minor or Incidental staff level review. Full ARC review would notify all property owners within 300 feet of the.parcel to be developed. Minor or Incidental review would only alert adjacent property owners and tenants unless we specify a larger notification boundary. All architectural review decisions can be appealed, whether the initial decision is made by the staff or the Commission. 2. Theseasonal creek was to be protected and the damage to the vegetation in the riparian area was to be minimized by a drop in bridge for the Woodland Court and open creek fhrough one of the lots. Instead trees have been damaged and the drop in badge has been replaced by a built in place bridge with covered culvert through the lots. The sycamore tree located at the intersection of!Woodland and Woodland Court has been hit by equipment and limbs have been broken. Digging has occurred through Hie drip line area and roots disturbed. The EIR did have specific tree protection mitigation measures: Mitigation Measure 3.3-17 states; "Prior to any ground disturbing activity within the project site, the applicant shall erect enclosure fencing around all significant trees (defined here as all native trees in excess of 3 inches diameter-breast-height) with a reasonable chance for damage during site development." file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\slouser\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW)00001_HTM 12/6/2005 Page 2 of 6 Mitigation'Measure 3.3-19 also states; "Excavation, including trenching and boring, shall not be allowed within the enclosed areas of significant trees." Mitigation Measure 3.3-20 allows some alternatives when avoidance is not "feasible." Those measures call for boring, etc. Fencing was installed around the edge of the creek area paralleling Lizzie Street extension and the back of lots 1-7. Fencing was installed at lots 8-12 as well. Some of this fencing has been removed as infrastructure has been completed in those areas. The culvert installation went closer to the sycamore tree than was anticipated, possibly because of the identification of the sycamore as only a point on the map engineers map. However, this was discovered and changes were made to avoid significant impacts to the sycamore. In the end two fairly large roots of the sycamore were cut but the tree, in staff's judgment, will not be adversely affected by this. However, we are recommending that some minor pruning be done to "balance" the loss of roots. Regarding the culvert: The culvert replaces natural bottom that would have remained had the bridge been installed. However, there was no riparian vegetation to speak of and would not be any whether the bridge or culvert was used. The creek in question is ephemeral, that is, only running for a short period during and after storm, as opposed to seasonal, which means running fairly steadily through the wet season. The main creek.by contrast, is spring fed and is permanent. The project calls for a riparian enhancement program along the tributary creek, and those improvements are currently underway. a 70 additional trees have been requested for removal, In my copy of the ETR, the 35 trees initially to be removed were to be replaced by 140 indigenous plants. I understand that the 70 bees to be removed will only be replaced.by 70 tree& The ratio of replacementseems to have been diminished. The tree removals will only diminish further fhe declining use of the site by wildlife A tree removal plan dated 8/30/01 shows 35 trees that would be removed. A majority of those are within the public right of way. The plan also shows several other references to trees within the buildable areas of the lots (+/- 30 Euc saplings, 14 Euc trees within Lot 1; +/- 10 Euc saplings, 3 Euc trees within lot 3; 2 olives, +/- 11 Euc saplings within lot 4; etc). There is no reference to whether.those trees would be removed or saved. However, since they are clearly within the buildable areas of the lots, it is assumed that some of those trees would be removed as well. The EIR states that "approximately 48 trees will be removed. The photo analysis in the EIR clearly showed tree removals beyond the 35 with houses shown on Lots 1-7. The EIR did recognize that subsequent development of the individual lots may result in additional tree removals. The following quote is located in the visual impact analysis; "Since many of the existing trees are proposed to be part of the individual lots and thus privately owned, the potential exists for continuing tree removal well beyond that proposed as part of this initial project. At some future point, this potential collective loss of existing trees may have an adverse.affect on the wooded visual character of the site." The Tree Committee (and Council on appeal) will need to determine whether the tree removals proposed for home construction file://C:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\slouser\Local%2OSettings\Temp\GW}000O1.HTM 12/6/2005 Page 3 of 6 will have an "adverse effect" and what the proper level of tree replacement should be (1:1 or 4:1). The EIR identified certain trees that would be removed and this list grew somewhat due to additional removals needed to accommodate the storm drain inlet structure at the lower end of the project. This included several small trees--all eucalyptus--and resulted in the larger amount of mitigation plantings, which at this time totals approximately 210 trees of 5 different native species. Approximately 99% of these plantings are surviving, although some are experiencing damage from deer browsing. This is being addressed. Removal of the additional trees was authorized by the Tree Committee at its meeting of October 24, 2005. It was originally estimated that about 50 trees larger. than 6" diameter breast height (DBH) would be removed; however, a closer count after the hearing showed that a number of the trees were multi-trunked, and that the total of stems larger than 6" DBH was closer to 70; therefore the figure of 70 has been used for mitigation purposes. Mitigation of 1:1 was authorized by the Tree Committee after being proposed by the applicant. Finally, it should be remembered that this project only occupies 13 acres of a 220 acre property. The balance of that property (94%) has now been dedicated to public ownership and permanent conservation. This tradeoff was recognized by the Planning Commission and the City Council when it approved the subdivision and in subsequent actions, most recently accepting the donation of fee title to the open space portion of the property. e. Related to the removal of trees is the water runoff and night lighting issues. Since fhe initial trees have been removed, the amount of light from the school fields has increased to the Woodland/Skylark neighborhood. Previous to the tree removal this area was screened from light pollution, Now, aftr the initial tree removals, we are receiving light from the filed lights. If further trees,, especially eucalyptus are removed, this will increase the light impact to our neighborhood, My recollection of the City Council discussion about the field lights was that future owners on the school side of the trees would be advised of the light impacts at the time of purchase No discussion of the light impact was made about the Woodland/Skylark side of the trees because that side was completely sheltered from the light: ' That is no longer the case and wNh further tree removal the problem will increase. The removal of trees and increased light from the ball fields was evaluated in the EIR. However the significant amount of tall trees within the creek corridor that are to remain were determined sufficient to provide proper filtering. Regarding how tree "removal affects runoff.- while eucalyptus trees are noted for their ability to take up water, this is not a phenomenon likely to affect storm runoff. Runoff in the area is much more affected by the steep hillsides above the site with their shallow soils which quickly reach saturation, plus existing roads and other impervious surfaces. There are several hundred acres above the Bowden site which contribute to this flow, compared to the area of cut eucalyptus which is less than one acre. S. Another concern to the neighborhood is drainage The neighborhood has known flooding and inadequate storm drain capacity for many years. There was a file://C \Documents%20and%20Settings\slouser\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}000O1.HTM 12/6/2005 Page 4 of 6 tremendous amount of discussion in the develapinent stage about the increased runoff from the new hard surface sheets and driveways. Since the storm drain capacity was not_going to be increased, the extra runoff was to be accommodated by the on-site retention tanks. I understand that these on-site retention tanks have been abandoned and the concrete water retention wall constructed at the entrance appears taller than present ed in the EIR. Ksually this is an eyesore to the neighborhood. Driving up Lime and facing a huge concrete wall is not visually pleasing and detracts from the natural setting that the neighborhood has valued over the years. The EIR identified the drainage improvement you mention and the raising of the headwall an additional 3 feet to address flooding from the increased flow resulting from the development. This was an improvement that would address the additional runoff as well as deal with an existing deficiency in the headwall height. As excerpted by the Certified EIR: Mitigation Measure 3.8-3. Prior to recordation of the Final Map the applicant -shall submit to the Director of Public Works for review and approval a plan to mitigate increases in peak discharge. All drainage improvements must be constructed in accordance with Section 7.2 of the City's Drainage Design Manual. The plan shall adhere to one of several design alternatives: Alternative 1: Improve the entrance to the Lizzie Court culvert entrance so that 10— year event or greater would not over top the culvert headwall and/or creek banks (this improvement is proposed by the project applicant). The EIR then lists out two alternatives (one of which was the detention tanks you recall) that could be investigated by the developer as an alternative to the headwall raising. The detention tanks you recall were initially proposed by the applicant as a possible alternative but the system as an alternative were considered problematic by the City due to maintenance issues and lack of a demonstrated need. Therefore Alternative 1 of the EIR was the chosen by the City and the applicant as the most appropriate to address individual and area wide improvements. No visual impacts regarding the raised headwall were identified in the EIR. . 6. It is very disturbing to me that the development can undergo changes to the basic character of what was presented to the neighborhood without any neighborhood notification or input: The basic parameters of the development have not changed. The building envelopes have not changed. Additional tree removals were anticipated in the EIR. Though tree removals are being proposed one application rather than many separate applications, the results will be the same whether processed individually or as a group. In fact, grouping all of the tree removals may make it easier to consider the cumulative effect of all of the removals. Finally, and in summary, I don't expect that the foregoing information will make you feel significantly better about the development. The fact is that an attractive piece of undeveloped property is being developed and that the undisturbed viewshed where the development is occurring is changing. The information the staff has presented does not change this. What I hope the information will tell you is that the decisions being made by the City regarding the file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\slouser\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}000O1.HTM 12/6/2005 Page 5 of 6 r development are thoughtful and based on cumulative project approvals and applicable city standards. .If you have any further questions, I can refer you to the staff person best qualified to answer them. John Mandeville, AICP Community Development Director City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA.93401 805/781-7170 >>> Marla DeMarco <mad-slo-cpa@sbcglobal.net> 11/07/05 12:10PM >>> Christine, Thank you for responding to my recent inquiry about the Bowden Ranch Development. It is my understanding that the property has been sold by the original developers to Westpac and that the property will be developed as a semi-custom tract rather than.parcel by parcel custom homes. If this is the case, all of the parcel-by-parcel City and neighborhood review that was discussed in the initial plan development is being packaged into one proposal. I am uncertain what neighborhood review will be available under this "package deal". Already the development as presented to the neighborhood has been changed. For example the seasonal.creek was to be protected and the damage to the vegetation in the riparian area was to be minimized by a "drop in bridge" for the new Woodland Court and open creek through one of the lots. Instead trees have been damaged and the drop in bridge has been replaced by a built in place bridge with covered culvert through the.lots. Of concern is the sycamore tree located at the intersectionof Woodland and Woodland Court. This tree has been hit by equipment and limbs have been broken. Digging,has occurred through the drip line area. and roots disturbed. In my copy of the EIR, fencing was to be place around the trees and "boring through root zones, rather than trenching"was to occur. This protection does not appear to have been followed with this sycamore. I also understand that 70 additional trees have been requested for removal. In my copy of the EIR the 35 trees initially to be removed were to be replaced by 140 indigenous plants. I understand that the 70 to be removed will only be replaced by 70 trees. The ratio of replacement seems to have been diminished. Related to the removal of trees is the water runoff and night lighting issues. Since the initial trees have been removed the amount of light from the school fields has increased to the Woodland/Skylark neighborhood. Previous to the tree removal this area was screened from light pollution. Now, after the initial tree removals, we are receiving light from the field lights. If further trees, especially eucalyptus, are removed this will increase the light impact to file://C:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\slouser\Local%2OSettings\Temp\GW}OOOOI.HTM 12/6/2005 Page 6 of 6 our neighborhood. My recollection of the City Council discussion about the field lights was that future owners on the school side of the trees would be advised of the light impact at the time of purchase. No discussion of the light impact was made about the Woodland/Skylark side of the trees because that side was completely sheltered from the light. That is no longer the case_ and with further tree removal the problem will increase. Another concern to the neighborhood is drainage. This neighborhood has known flooding and inadequate storm drain capacity for many years. There was a tremendous amount of discussion in the development stage about the increased runoff from the new hard surface streets and driveways. Since'the storm drain capacity was not going to be increased, the extra runoff was to be accommodated by onsite retention tanks. As I understand it these onsite tanks Have been abandoned and the concrete water retention wall has been increased at the entrance to the development. I assume that is why the concrete wall constructed at the entrance appears taller than presented in the EIR report. Visually this is a eyesour to the neighborhood. Driving up Lizzie and facing a huge concrete wall is not visually pleasing and detracts from the natural setting that the neighborhood has valued over the years. The eucalyptus trees are huge water users. With their removal, the amount of expected runoff will increase. With the request for more tree.removals, this will increase the drainage problem. What will the solution be? Increase the concrete wall again? Over the past year, I have noticed a marked decrease;in the animal life in the Li22ie/Woodland Drive area. The number of deer and other small animals have decreased. The reduction of tree cover and narrowing of riparian habitat I am sure has been a factor. More tree removal will only impact the wildlife further. It is very disturbing to me that the development can undergo changes to the basic character of what was presented to the neighborhood without any neighborhood notification or input. As neighbors to this development we are impacted by changes made by the City to the development. It impacts our environment and our enjoyment of our homes. It also impact the value of our homes when the new homes go from "custom" to "tract". Please forward this e-mail to any appropriate departments or committees that are involved with this development process. Thank you for your interest, Christine. file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\slouser\Local%20Setungs\Temp\GW}000O1.HTM 12/6/2005 Filing Fee: $10C Paid Date Received N/A RECEIVED t A city 0 - -REFER To sECTFON a N Q V 0 1 2005 vida f san tins owpo SI a C1321-01 E APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SECTION.f. APPELLANT INFORMATION' 16 ,1-3 Name Mailing Address and Zip Code Phone Fax f Representative's Name Mailing Address and Zip Code Idle - Phone Fax - - - SECTION2 SUBJECT OFAPPEAL 1. In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (copy attached), I hereby appeal the decision of.the: (Name of Officer, Committee or Commission decision being appealed) 2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: 3. The application or project was entitled: `3ew o•v 4. 1 discussed the matter with the following C' staff member:' (Staff Member's Name and Department) (Date) 5. Has this matter b the subject of a previous appeal? If so, when was it heard and by whom: 0 SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL Explain specifically what action/s you are appealing and why you believe the Council should consider your appeal. Include what evidence.you have that:suppoits your appeal. You may attach adddional pages, if necessary. This form continues on the other side. Page 1 of 3 t . Reason for Appeal contin//ued q�,D( oLr-Z-,�rs 744 - ou--Z s41& ZA-11 to u2e SECTION 4. APPELLANTS RESPONSIBILITY The San Luis Obispo City Council values public participation in local government and encourages all forms of citizen involvement. However, due to real costs associated with City Council consideration of an appeal, including public notification, all appeals pertaining to a planning application or project are subject to a filing fee of$100%which must accompany the appeal form. Your right to exercise an appeal comes with certain responsibilities. If you file an appeal, please understand that it must be heard within 45 days from filing this form. You will be notified in writing of the exact date your appeal will be heard before the Council. You or your representative will be expected to attend the public hearing, and.to be prepared to make your case. Your testimony is limited to 10 minutes. A continuance may be granted under certain and unusual circumstances. If you feel you need to request a continuance, you must submit your request in writing to the City Clerk. Please be advised that if your request for continuance is received after the appeal is noticed to the public,the Council may not be able to grant the request for continuance. Submitting a request for continuance does not guarantee that it will be granted,that action is at the discretion of the City Council. I hereto appear and/or send a representative to appear on my behalf when said app is sc ed"pubJiF he ing fore the City Council. / 1 WVo�S' (Sig re of Appellant) (Date) Exceptions to the fee: 1)Appeals of Tree Committee decisions. 2)The above-named appellant has already paid the City$100 to appeal this same matter to a City official or Council advisory body. This item is hereby calendared for U IM In.l! V— F aid c - c: City Attorney 11 I$I OS �lO spo nt City Administrative Officer Department Head- D I Ys WA L7%atm +0 a r C/ 1r(ec Advisory Body Chalrpe on - ,1tw kzp*a Arp Or t%A.J. l PIC-OY fO4 CnyClerk(original) � C . -4_ Td cJ c' CSE i 6 NT S,moo Cowry_c . (1 eL(, rk J l c K, Pageeftel Chapter 1.20 APPEALS PROCEDURE Sections: 1.20.010 Title. 120.020 Right to appeal. 1.20.030 Time within which to file an appeal. 120.040 Hearing - Notice. 1.20.050 Hearing -Appellant to show cause-Council's determination final. 1.20.010 Title. This chapter shall be known as the"Appeals Procedure"for the city. (Prior code § 1400) 1.20.020 Right to appeal. A. Except where an appeals procedure is otherwise specifically set forth in this code, any person objecting to the approval, denial, suspension or revocation of a license, permit or entitlement of any nature, the determination or issuance of which is under any of the provisions of this code, or to any administrative decision made by any city official, if the approval, denial, suspension or revocation of such license, permit or entitlement or the determination of such administrative decision involves the exercise of administrative discretion or personal judgment exercised under any of the provisions of this code, may appeal in writing to the council by filing with the city clerk a written notice of such appeal, stating the specific grounds for the appeal. B. No appeal may be taken to any such administrative decision made by a city official under the provisions of this chapter unless such decision to appeal has been first taken up with the department head concerned, and where an appeals board is empowered to consider interpretation and enforcement questions, unless such decision to appeal has been considered by such appeals board. C. No right of appeal to the council from any administrative decision made by a city official under any of the provisions of this code shall exist when such decision is ministerial and thus does not involve the exercise of administrative discretion or personal judgment exercised under any of the provisions of this code, whether the administrative decision involves-the approval, denial, suspension or revocation of a license, permit, entitlement or any other administrative decision. (Ord. 1044§ 1, 1985: prior code§ 1401) 1.20.030 Time within which to file an appeal. The appellant shall file a notice of appeal with the city clerk within ten calendar days after the date upon which the administrative decision appealed from is made. In the event the last day of'the filing period falls on a nonbusiness day, the appeal period shall be extended to include the next business day, and this rule shall apply whenever an appeal procedure is specifically set forth elsewhere in this code. (Prior code § 1402) 1.20.040 Hearing - Notice. Upon receipt of the fling of the notice of appeal in its proper form, the city clerk shall place the matter on the council agenda. Except in cases of emergency, when the council may determine the matter immediately, or where state law prescribes a different appeal process, the clerk shall set the matter for hearing at the next reasonably available council meeting, .but in no event later than forty-five calendar days after the date of the filing of such notice of appeal with the city clerk. The city clerk shall cause written notice of such hearing to be given to the applicant not less than five business days prior to such hearing, unless such notice is waived in writing by the applicant. (Ord. 1252§ 1, 1994: prior code§ 1403) 120.050 Hearing -Appellant to show cause-Council's determination final. At such hearing the appellant shall show cause on the grounds specified in the notice of appeal why the action appealed from should not be approved. The council may continue the hearing from time to time, and its findings on the appeal shall be final and conclusive in.the matter. (Prior code § 1404) . Page 3 of 3 8/03 city of son tuffs omspo 25 Prado Road • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 IMPORTANT: A tree removal application will PLEASE NOTE: If your tree is approved for- only oronly be considered if accompanied by a removal and posted, please call the office at sketch/map_shawing the street, structure(s) the end of your posting period to arrange to location and location of all trees proposed for pick up your permit. The.oerinit fee is $39. removal. Please draw on the back of this payable when you pick up your permit (cash farm or fax an a separate sheet of paper, or check payable to City'of San Luis Obispo). along with your application. TREE REMOVAL. APPLICATION Owner: Bowden ,Ranch, LP Telephone: -(805) 544-7343 - Owners Mailing Address: 805 Aerovista Place, #202 San Luis Obispo, CA Lp: 93401 Applicant (if different than Owner)-C.M. Florence, AICD. Aqent Telephone: (805) 541-4509 Applicant's Mailing Address: 3427 Miguelito Court San._Luis Obispo,. CA Zip: 93401 Location of tree(s): 1500 Lizzie-Street Lots 1 2,3,4,5,6 7 GQPP ar-t•Ar-hM PYh,hit•a) Please indicate nearest moss street: Wilding Lane bog in yard? Yes__ Wo X ® Tree Species: Eucalyptus so Blue qum Botanical Name. Common Name Reasons for removing' These trees.are located within the building enyelope on these lots._ coordination with the City's Natural Resource Manager regarding this tree-removal has ocurred- Compensatory replacement proposed: None - ' Application will be considered only if entirely filled out and signed by owner: If consideration of this appiication goes to Tree Committee,you or your agent are.required to attend the meeting and will be notified. * If lane closure is required to perform the tree removal work,an encroachment permit must be obtained from the City Engineering Department. * Any required replacement trees'must be installed within'45 days of issuance of permit'. Since tree removal permits are good for 6 months,you may wish to hold off picking up your permit until you are sure you will be able to install the replacement trees)within the 45 day period. MAIL OR FAX completed form to: City Arborist, 25 Prada Rd., San Luis Obispo, CA 93401, Phone: F : 5424868 Owner: _ We 13 October 2005 Applica bate: 13 October 2005 ® The Ory of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, Programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7414.