Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/17/2008, PH 1 - APPEAL FROM TREE COMMITEE'S DECISION TO ALLOW CITY REMOVAL OF A STREET TREE LOCATED AT 1275 FERNWOO J council M.�g°` June l7,2008 j agenda REpoRt �N� I CITY O F SAN LU I S 08 I S.P O FROM: Jay D. Walter,Public Works Director Prepared By: Keith Pellemeier,Urban.Forest Supervisor SUBJECT: APPEAL FROM TREE COMMITTEE'S DECISION TO ALLOW CITY REMOVAL OF A STREET TREE LOCATED AT 1275 FERNWOOD CAO RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution denying the appeal from the Tree Committee's decision to allow the removal of one Shame] Ash (Fraxinus Uhdei) tree at 1275 Fernwood Drive, thereby authorizing removal of the tree. DISCUSSION The City is divided into nine pavement management areas. Every year the street maintenance staff surveys one pavement management area and makes a list of all areas that need sidewalk repairs as a result of street tree damage. In the summer of 2007,Area 2 was surveyed. There are approximately 2,000 street trees in Area 2; of those, 120 had significantly damaged the sidewalk nearby. The street maintenance staff met and reviewed the damaged locations with the City Arborist to determine the best approach for repair with a goal of saving the maximum number of trees while correcting tripping hazards and excessive slopes on the sidewalks. Root pruning and special sidewalk construction could allow for repair in some situations and preserve the tree. Of the 120 original locations, it was determined by the City Arborist that some of the trees would be adversely affected by the work and should probably be removed. The street maintenance staff submitted a removal application to the Tree Committee for 21 trees. The application. was considered at the Tree Committee meeting on September 24, 2007. There was public protest at this meeting about removal of seven of the trees.At that meeting,the Tree Committee asked staff to reevaluate and see if any more trees could be preserved. (Attachment 1) The Shamel Ash tree at 1275 Fernwood was one of the 21 trees originally recommended for removal. Many options were studied by staff and the Tree Committee to repair the sidewalk and preserve this tree. A bulbout into the street, shifting the sidewalk onto private property and special sidewalk construction were all considered. The tree's large size, the small parkway, street drainage needs, drainage to private property and the limited amount of space between the two driveways in the vicinity of the tree were all issues taken into consideration. From September 2007 to April 2008 this tree removal has been discussed at five Tree Committee meetings. (Attachments 1-5) After significant discussion and investigation, staff recommended the removal of the tree at the Tree Committee meeting on April 28, 2008. The Shamel Ash tree will continue to grow and Appeal of Tree Removal Decision-1275 Femwood Drive Page 2 cause further damage to the street, curb, gutter and sidewalk. It would be best to remove the tree now and replace with a more appropriate tree suitable for this small parkway. The Tree Committee unanimously approved the removal request. On May 7, 2008 the City Clerk's office received an appeal from the Tree Committee's decision from the resident of 1275 Fernwood Drive. The appeal cited the Shamel Ash tree to be the largest in the neighborhood and in reasonably good health The resident stated in the appeal a willingness to contribute towards sidewalk repairs in order to avoid removal of the tree. The resident further added that the Shamel Ash tree adds to the aesthetic beauty of the neighborhood. (Attachment 6) CONCURRENCES The City Engineer has reviewed this location and the tree with urban forestry staff. It was agreed that the long-term health of the urban forest would be best served by removing the tree,repairing all the infrastructure damage and replacing the tree with a smaller species of tree more suited to the small planting area. FISCAL EWPACT There is no additional fiscal impact realized by the City in the denial of the appeal. The costs associated with tree removal, repairs of the sidewalk, curb, gutter and driveway approach and installing a replacement tree are all inclusive of the Public Works department operating budget for typical sidewalk maintenance costs. ALTERNATIVES Uphold the appeal. The City Council could choose to uphold the appeal, thereby eliminating its removal. This action is not recommended due to the poor suitability of the tree to the area and the high likelihood of continued damage to the surrounding infrastructure. If the tree is not removed, fiscal impacts are likely to occur from additional pruning,sidewalk repairs and possible injury claims against the City. ATTACEMIENTS Attachment 1. Excerpt Tree Committee meeting September 24,2007(4 pages) Attachment 2. Excerpt Tree Committee meeting November 26,2007(1 page) Attachment 3. Excerpt Tree Committee meeting January 28,2008(2 pages) Attachment 4. Excerpt Tree Committee meeting February 25,2008(2 pages) Attachment 5. Excerpt Tree Committee meeting April 28, 2008(2 pages) Attachment 6. Appeal to the City Council received May 7,2008(2 pages) Attachment 7. Vicinity Map(1 page) Attachment 8. City Arborist Report(2 pages) Attachment 9. Resolution denying appeal from the Tree Committee. (2pages) Attachment 10. Resolution upholding appeal from the Tree Committee. (2 pages) Appeal of Tree Removal Decision-1275 Femwood Drive Page 3 COUNCIL READING FILE Photos of Tree, Damage to surrounding area T:1Caaxdl Agwift RepwWVub ie YYorla CARR$$-TreesN275 FwwMW Tree Appeafk1275 Femwood Tree appeal-CARdx 113 Attachment 1 Page 1 Tree Committee Meeting September 24, 2007 i 1 F j City of SLO Multiple Addresses Ed Humphrey, City Street Dept. representative, discussed the Area #2 repairs to curb/gutter/sidewalk: He stated these trees on the removal list were identified for removal due to trip/fall hazards and that criteria/mitigation. He rioted that 120 locations(out of 2000 locations) in Area #2 needed repairs and that I% of them i were requesting replacement plantings. He discussed the limitations of root pruning for these removals, noting that Liquid Ambers were a TREE COMMITTEE MINUTES 1 PAGE FIVE i I problematic tree and that with root pruning, continual repairs would still be needed. j He stated staff had narrowed the removal requests down to 17, from over 100 trees. Attachment 1 Page 2 Mr. Combs reported that most of the posted trees were Liquid Amber and that their root penetration was difficult in the clay soil, which created lifting. He stated this was an on-going.problern with large trees in narrow parkways and that removal/replacement process with more appropriate species was the best overall plan. He discussed the list that property owners were given to choose the trees that would be replanted. 2399 DEL CAMPO The diameter of the Pepper tree prevented root pruning. The property owner asked if there were any other engineering ideas to mitigate root issues outside of removal/replacement. Ms. Lynch discussed ramping, ADA compliance issues, and the "rubber" type sidewalk material. She stated that some property owners grant easements to allow sidewalk re-configuring into the edge of their property to avoid the growing area. She noted that bulbing out into the street reduced parking areas. She suggested that'if a particular tree's removal was being protested, perhaps adjacent property owner(s) could be approached about easements and bulb=outs from their land. Several area residents were concerned with the.skyline being affected by the removals. Mr. Parker spoke about the long-term health of the urban forest and the need to renew/replace for future growth. 1219 WOODSIDE The property owner and a neighbor both stated they favored the removal of the eucalyptus. The Committee then discussed the details of the original letter sent to residents and agreed that the language and call to action wasn't substantive enough to satisfy residents' questions and concerns. TREE COMMITTEE MINUTES PAGE SIX Staff agreed to send out a second letter that would also discuss various engineering options, as recently discussed, to elicit feedback, and offer options if an owner did not want a tree removed and some optional °fixes." Mr. Combs stated he would need to re-visit each proposed tree with options in mind and bring back a revised list outlining same. � _ S Attachment 1 Page 3 1283 WOODSIDE Andrew Carter, owner, discussed the sidewalk and gutter damage but requested the tree be retained. He stated the property had lost a lot of trees and he did not want to lose one of the larger ones making up the skyline. He stated a bulb-out at his address would be acceptable. 1202 BRIARWOOD Mr. Carter also spoke on this item, stating there had been no curb damage and only minor damage to the sidewalk and therefore, he felt the tree could be retained. Mr. Humphrey noted those sidewalk sections needed to come around the base of the tree, which created watershed issues. 1275 FERNWOOD Mr. Carter noted the removal of the large ask would leave a hole in the skyline and felt the area could be re-designed to retain it. Jay Johnson, 1296 Femwood, supported the retention of the ash at 1275 Femwood and would give up a parking space on the street to accommodate it. He also discussed CEQA laws and ID class exemptions.' MISC. LAWNWOOD CT. James Benson, 3674 Lawnwood, spoke on the various addresses, stating.that . there was only minor sidewalk lifting at 3658 Lawnwood and that the sidewalk had been repaired at 3688 Lawnwood, but the root had not been removed and now it was creating a problem at that address. TREE COMMITTEE MINUTES PAGE SEVEN 1399 KENTWOOD Mr. Carter felt there was only minor curb damage and felt the tree should be retained. Mr. Combs noted that the tree had weak co-dominant limbs that were likely to fail. i Attachment 1 Page 4 Mr. Parker reiterated his earlier statement of long-term urban forest preservation, stating that resources and efforts should be put into new, more appropriate species for the area instead of into trying to salvage problem trees. Mr. Combs discussed the concept of diversity within the urban forest, using healthy age/species staggering and planting. Ms. Young moved to continue the discussion and action on the request to a date uncertain and directed staff to re-send revised letters with new text direction, based on suggestions made at the meeting. Mr. Kincaid seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. ji �f Attachment 2 Tree Committee Meeting November 26, 2007 CITY OF SLO MULTIPLE ADDRESSES Mr. Pellemeier discussed the proposed list of trees to be allowed for removal, due to sidewalk/curb damage. He stated all trees had been re-evaluated and all owners had agreed to the removal and some had chosen replacement species. already. He stated three had been removed from the original list, pending further evaluation and discussion. The three trees pending: 3658 Lawnwood, 1283 Woodside, and 1275 Femwood. He requested the Committee approve the list of proposed trees for removal and stated the repair work would begin in the near future, post removal. Andrew Carter, 1283 Woodside, stated he did not favor the removal of the tree at 1202 Briarwood. He did not feel there was evidence that the tree was the cause of the subsidence of the sidewalk and did not favor removing two significant adjacent trees in the area. Mr. Scoker suggested installing rubber sidewalk in the area. Mr. Combs explained how the entire sidewalk section was tilting away from the trunk and towards the property,. creating drainage issues. He stated that root pruning was not feasible. Mr. Pellemeier agreed to pull 1202 Briarwood from the list of proposed removal requests to allow further discussion with homeowner regarding bulb-outs, etc. to retain that tree. He also noted that two additional trees were slated to be planted in that area already. Mr. Boudreau moved to approve the current list of proposed tree removals, excluding 1202 Briarwood, based on promoting good arboricultural practice and undue hardship. 5 77 Mr. Parker seconded the motion. V� The motion passed unanimously. —0 Attachment 3 Page 1 Tree Committee Meeting January 28, 2008 3658 LAWNWOOD Mr. Pellemeier reported that the owner was contacted and he was willing to let the sidewalk be moved in order for the tree to be preserved when the sidewalk is repaired. Staff suggested this be done. Mr. Parker moved to accept the staff recommendation. Mr. Kincaid seconded the motion. The•motion passed unanimously. 1275 FERNWOOD/1283.WOODSIDE Staff asked for Committee input for the best option: remove the existing tree, repair the sidewalk and replace with smaller species of tree or retain the tree and do bulb-outs? The trees would have about a 70-75% rate of survival after the installation. The Committee felt the removal/replacement option was more feasible. Mr. Pellemeier agreed to bring the tree back as a removal application at the next meeting. 1202 BRIARWOOD (Modesto ash) Mr. Pellemeier reported that the property owner was contacted and did not want the sidewalk moved and still wanted the tree removed. They were also concerned about a possible aphid problem. Staff recommended removal and .repairing the sidewalk and replant with three trees, two planted along Woodside. Ms. Young was concerned that replacement trees should be similar in canopy and she did not think a Flowering Orchid, as proposed,, was a large enough species. She suggested one Raywood ash and two Flowering Orchids. Staff agreed. Mr. Kincaid moved to approve the removal request as outlined. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Attachment 3 Page 2 Tree Committee Meeting, January 28,2008, add to front of Tree Removal Applications: 1. 3658 Lawnwood Court. Homeowner has agreed to allow the City of San Luis . Obispo to move the sidewalk.onto their property to preserve the tree. Staff will recommend this be done.. 2. 1202 Briarwood. Homeowner will not allow the City of San Luis Obispo to move the sidewalk to his property.Homeowner further states that he wants the tree removed because it is a hazard with the yearly white fly infestation(white aphids) it makes the driveway and sidewalk very slippery for pedestrians. The homeowner,Ken Zeider has picked a replacement tree and has agreed to having two more trees planted on the Woodside side of his property as long as we do not block the parking for his boat access. Staff will recommend removal of the tree, repair the sidewalk and replant the desired tree and plant two more trees along Woodside. 3. 1275 Fernwood, shamel ash and 1283 Woodside, liquid amber. The Tree Committee needs to decide at this meeting: Would it be best arboricultural practice to remove tree now and replant with the"right tree for the right place"or go to extra measures by building bulbouts on the street and sidewalk to preserve the trees? Staff asked at Tree Committee Meeting on Monday, September 24,2007 to remove trees, repair sidewalk and replant with tree of homeowners choosing. Both homeowners protested and wanted to preserve the existing trees. Ron Combs, City Arborist, was asked to reevaluate the trees chances of survival if extra ordinary measures were taken to preserve the trees while repairing the sidewalk, curbs, gutters and streets. The extra measures would be bulbouts on sidewalks and streets. See enclosed report by Ron Combs. The next step for Staff would be to get property owners approval to move sidewalk onto their property and to see if the street and sidewalk bulbouts can be engineered. The property owners on both addresses have already stated they will allow the City of San Luis Obispo to move the sidewalk onto their property. The tree on 1275 Femwood would involve the adjacent property owner giving their approval to move the sidewalk also. i / /D Attachment 4 Page 1 Tree Committee Meeting February 25, 2008 1283 WOODSIDE (Liquid amber) Mr. Peller'neier recapped the history of the removal request for sidewalk repair work. He stated that retaining the tree and re-configuring the sidewalk would be too labor-intensive. Jay Johnson, 1296 Femwood, suggested bulb outs and parkway widening, as he was concerned about losing significant specimens. Mr. Pellemeier reported that the bulb out option would present a 70% survival rate for the tree and the option would encroach too far out into the street. He noted most of the trees in the area are being retained—only 18 trees were slated for removal out of 200 trees that were identified as causing problems. He also discussed the concept of diversity planning for species and age stages. Mr. Kincaid moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, requiring a 15-gallon replacement.tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and,planted within 45 days of issuance of permit. Ms. Young seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Yl Attachment 4 1275 FERNWOOD (Shame) ash) Page 2 Mr. Pellemeier recapped the history of the removal request for sidewalk repair work. He stated that retaining the tree and re-configuring the sidewalk.would be too labor-intensive and would not prove a long-term option. He stated bulb outs would not be an option, as there was not enough room. He also said they were trying to abide by ADA federal regulationsregarding pitch. Linda Gardner, 1275 Femwood, did not favor removal and felt the sidewalk damage was minimal. Pam Cosart, 1282 Femwood, did not favor removal and.stated that the neighbors were willing to work with the city to allow the city.to support efforts that would make the pitch more moderate. . Mr. Combs was concerned about how vigorously the roots grew and that any hardscape mitigation measures would be temporary and that the city would not be able to provide continuous maintenance that would be required. Mr. Johnson did not favor removal of the tree. He wanted to find an interim solution, Ms. Gardner felt the tree was a neighborhood asset and a "visual anchor" to the street. Ms. Cosartstated that if the tree were removed, her second story sightline screening would be opened up and the 24-hour lighting system of Las Brisas Care Center would adversely.affect her property. She also felt the lack of screening would affect other parts of the surrounding area. Ms. Young was concerned about getting the hardscape into ADA compliance without hurting the root structure. Mr. Kincaid moved to continue the item to allow staff and residents to explore cooperative resolutions to possibly retain the tree. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 1 Attachment 5 Page 1 Tree Committee Meeting April 28, 2008 2. TREE REMOVALS 1275 FERNWOOD (Modesto Ash) Mr. Pellemeier discussed the history of the removal process in Area 2. He reported that the tree was re-evaluated and deemed too large for the tree well and was creating extensive hardscape lifting and driveway damage. He stated the area around the tree was not ADA compliant and posed a trip hazard and that ramping the area would create continuous maintenance problems. He stated that a bulb-out and property encroachment solution would adversely affect the viability of the tree and would create drainage issues. He noted that there were 11 mid-sized trees in the view line, so removing this tree would not adversely affect the neighborhood. He stated that the City requested to remove the tree, repair the damage, and replant with a more appropriate species. Mr. Combs noted that the tree had achieved only 50% of its possible growth size and had very large roots. Mr. Parker determined through discussion with staff that all retention options had been considered and that none of them proved a long-term solution. Ms. Young moved to approve the removal request, based on undue hardship to the City's infrastructure and maintenance crews, and approved the City's recommendation for replanting plan. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The'motion passed unanimously. Attachment 5 Page 2 April 28, 2008 San Luis Obispo Tree Committee Re: 1275 Fernwood On Friday, March 7, 2008 the City Engineer and staff inspected the tree at this address. It is a large mature ash tree that is too big for it's tree well or planting area. It is doing extensive lifting of hardscape and damaging the sidewalk, curb, both driveways and both driveway approaches. 1. If the area is left as it is staff feels it would not be ADA compliant and would leave the City liable if someone were to trip. 2. If we ramp or fix hardscape without removing the tree then the problem will just keep reoccurring and we will be continually fixing this area. 3. To prune the roots.and repair the sidewalk may create another hazard with an unstable tree. The tree is so big this would also create a reoccurring maintenance cycle. 4. From this location there is eleven medium size trees within view on either side of this tree. All within four houses either side of this tree. So r cA4-ri � Staff recommends the best solution for this address and the best long term solution for the Urban Forest is to remove the tree, repair the hardscape t damage and replant with a tree that is better suited for the small planting area. Sincerely, Keith Pellemeier Public Works Maintenance Supervisor, Urban Forest i A-i-TA 14 m ev%,-r sr x RECEIVED Filing Fee: $100.00" MAY 7 _ 2008 Paid Date Received C $IEQ(1CITY CLERK NIA San��t`uis owpo "REFER TO SECTION 4 APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SECTION I. APPELLANT INFORMATION . 1-i n d L G o rj n er Fern t o akar Dry y q 'x•01 Name Mailing Andress and Zip Code 5��-R'7G7 Phone Fax �2 M 00- - 1a� Pr rat 1 r)A J)hyo ct3q c)) Representative's Namea�N iling Address and Zip Code Title U Phone Fax j SECTION Z. SUBJECT OF APPEAL 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: iY•en_ Op m m I -'p P (Name of Officer,Committee or Commission decision being-appealed) 2'. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: Al2 r, I 3. The application or project was entitled: Tr-.ca RQm o VrJ i a,4 /a7_;' Fern waocd Drive i 4. I discussed the matter with the following City staff member. Kei+L,, i'ilemerer + -R.6n Combs on Votriotj__.; D s (Staff Members Name and Department) (Date) 5. Has this matter been the subject of a previous appeal? If so,when was it heard and by whom: i SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL t Explain specifically what actioNs-you are appealing and why you believe the Council should consider your appeal. Include what evidence you have that supports your appeal. You may attach adddional pages, if cessary. This form continues on the other side. °V . I Page 1 of 3 i Reason fbrAppeal confinued Al vii f-w va-I of 44z e- b- Y-a ie, A,eir 4 •. Mrr l g tP 0 r�:- ul -F .......... WA 1275 FERNWOOD �- ` " 004-572-006 kr" oQ a BRIARWOOD CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO he information contained in this database is intended for informational use.only. This information Is providedfor the convenience of users, GEODATA SERVICES Dut does not necessarily constitute precise property ownership or legal descriptions of any property,and should not be relied upon as an 955 MORRO STREET fficial property record.The City of San Luis Obispo makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of this data;however,the accuracy of this SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401 material is not guaranteed and users assume responsibility for independent verification of any and all information contained herein prior to se or reliance upon such information for any official purpose.The City San Luis Obispo disclaims any responsibility or liability for any direct 805 781-7167 Dr indirect damages resulting from the use of this data. / /� 5/21/2008 08:16 Fage 1 of 1 Pellemeier; Keith From: Combs, Ron Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 12:49 PM To: Pellemeier, Keith Cc: Lynch, Barbara Subject: 1274 Fernwood, 1283 Woodside. Keith, This short report was written from the point of view of, "what could be done to retain the parkway tree's" at 1275 Fernwood and 1283 Woodside. Survival percentages were derived assuming all property owners are in agreement with the proposal to bulb out sidewalks and curbs and engineering can archive the design parameters needed including retaining walls and drainage issues. The feasibility of design, material and staff time coast are not considered in this report. However, subsequent maintenance required after this work is completed is discussed SHAMEL ASH 1275 Fernwood. If permission is granted from the adjacent property owner to remove the planter/retaining wall and start the sidewalk bulb out at the driveway of the adjacent property continuing the bulb out to ark approximately 25 lineal feet onto the driveway of 1275 Fernwood we may be able to retain some of the critical root zone. The bulb out on the street side will require some of the adjacent properties driveway approach to be manipulated. This bulb out would start in the driveway approach of the two properties if drainage issues can be met. The grade within the tree well must remain unchanged and no roots cut in the bulb out area on all sides to retain the critical roots. There will still be significant root loss and the possibility of toppling over would increase by at least 15%. Symptoms that will occur after completion of this work will be dye back of limbs due to water absorption losses and the possibilities of decay when large roots are cut. This trees survival rate will depend on cooperation from the two property owners allowing manipulation of driveway approaches, retainer wall removal, sidewalk bulb outs reaching well into there properties, street drainage issues, a comprehensive engineering plan working with the city arborist, some TLC and luck. If all of these items are followed through with, this tree could have up to a 70% chance of survival. Any deviations will dramatically reduce survival. New sidewalk/hardscape issues due to the re growth of roots will need to be dealt with well before the next maintenance cycle roughly eight years from now. LIQUIDAMBAR 1283 Woodside: This tree will require retainer walls to be installed on to the property at this address for the sidewalk bulb out due to the slope of the yard. The curb bulb out will need to be fairly long and will have similar drainage issues as the Ash on Fernwood .The grade will need to remain undisturbed with in this circle or bulb out tree well. 11/5/2007 �'�� • Page 2 of 2 � ,iL�.w•�irfi 8 �a�.0 Z The survival rate of this tree will depend on similar design parameters as the previous tree. Any deviations will result in a dramatic reduction of survival. I would give this tree a slightly higher survival rate 75 %, if all design aspects can be met. Liquidambars reputation of vigorous surface roots will cause the same problems as the ash and will require some maintenance being performed before the next scheduled maintenance cycle. Is survival possible? Only if all the design aspects discussed within this report are implemented and the time and expense approved. Ron, 1.1/5/2007 / �� Attachment 9 Page 1 RESOLUTION NO. (2008 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL FROM THE TREE COMMITTEE'S DECISION UPON A TREE REMOVAL REQUEST AT 1275 FERNWOOD DRIVE WHEREAS, the Tree Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing on April 28, 2008 and approved the City's request to remove one Shamel Ash tree located in the street parkway at 1275 Femwood Drive, San Luis Obispo,California; and WHEREAS,on June 17,2008, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing to consider the appeal of the request to remove one Shamel Ash tree at this location, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings: The City Council, after consideration of the appellant's appeal of the San Luis Obispo Tree Committee's action, staff recommendations and reports thereon, and public testimony,makes the following findings: a. The removal of one Shamel Ash tree in the street parkway at 1275 Fernwood Drive will promote good arboricultural practice. b. The tree is causing undue hardship to City property, i.e. damaging curbs, gutter and sidewalks, and to neighboring property owners, i.e. damaging driveways. SECTION 2. The appeal from the Tree Committee's decision to allow the City of San Luis Obispo to remove one Shamel Ash at 1275 Fernwood Drive is hereby denied and the City may proceed with tree removal consistent with the Tree Committee's previous approval. Upon motion of seconded by and on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 2007. /,moo Attachment 9 Page 2 Resolution No. (2007 Series) Page 2 Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jo athan P. ell City ey G:15tW RBPwm,Agwda Mtr utm\—CAR120081PaiksT a \1275 FEm 0d Tree AppeaJCAR\1275 Femwwd ResDwy.wc Attachment 10 Page 1 RESOLUTION NO. (2008 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL FROM THE TREET COMMITTEE'S DECISION UPON A TREE REMOVAL REQUEST AT 1275 FERNWOOD DRIVE WHEREAS, the Tree Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing on April 28, 2008 and approved the City's request to remove one Shamel Ash tree located in the street parkway at 1275 Fernwood Drive, San Luis Obispo,California; and WHEREAS,on June 17,2008, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing to consider the appeal of the approval to remove one Shamel Ash tree at this location. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings: The City Council, after consideration of the appellant's appeal, from the San Luis Obispo Tree Committee's action, and staff recommendations and reports thereon, and public testimony makes the following findings: a. The removal of one Shamel Ash tree in the street parkway at 1275 Femwood Drive will not promote good arboricultural practice. b. The tree is not causing undue hardship to the City property, i.e. damaging curb, gutter and sidewalks, and to property owners, i.e. damaging driveways. SECTION 2. The appeal from the Tree Committee's decision to approve the City of San Luis Obispo request to remove one Shamel Ash tree at 1275 Femwood Drive is hereby upheld, and therefore removal of the Shamel Ash tree is denied. Upon motion of seconded by and on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 2007. /'tea" Attachment 10 Page 2 Resolution No. (2008 Series) Page 2 Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST Audrey Hooper City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jonathan P. Lowell City Attorney G:\Staff-Repa%,AWdas-Wuffi\_CAR12 WPadc4Tre 11275 FEmwood Tree AppeoICAM1275 FemwoodRmUpho d.dw J REG. .4ED Filing Fee: $100.00 MAY 7 _ 2008 Paid Date Received N/A� to ( f VN Cl lTY CLERK Sd11 LUIS O�)Sp0 "REFER TO SECTION 4 J APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION 1 -i nJ a, C7arAner I .;I Fern wond Dy-;de g3*6I Name Mailing Address and Zip Code _ 54b - A767 Phone Fax �42c) l 2&� Fent. Mnnl J�)h V o,, 134 OJ Representative's Name �7 1 Mailing Address land Zip Code / SLY e i�V),�( Title Phone Fax SECTION 2. 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: !rem (°,o m m i -*e-e (Name of Officer, Committee or Commission decision being appealed) 2. The date the decision being appealed was.rendered: A02 ri t 3. The application or project was entitled: �r�o_ /Z evn v Va a 1 j a.'i'1q- Fe-no Fern wood .D6'ye 4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member: kei+l, Pellemeler + Ron Cnvnlo.s on Varrol.`s Dates (Staff Member's Name and Department) (Date) 5. Has this matter been the subject of a previous appeal? If so, when was it heard and by whom: 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 supports your appeal. You may attach additional pages, if necessary. This form continues on the other side. Page 1 of 3 Reason for Appeal continued ri-IM i re m o vcd &F e e hy A_s I, free i n fryvit of M house. '1"i,P +r e e i 5 la raesf 4ree on the s-�ree-1- mh d oLdd in 4> f-- l and Sr_a4lha Df- Our neaQAbor hood , -Tam 1J); l/;,Ar, in rpalaee rnV nl rivewaV -Io make if level .v�tl., Anp Si dp ,.A)" and r a nv -Hniw4 e15e 4-Lr24 SECTION 4. APPELLANT'S 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 exoected 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 hereby agree to appear and/or send a representative to appear on my behalf when said appeal is scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council. (Signature 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 Rem is hereby calendared for I(LiLf� / Z d(/ / c: City Attorney City Administrative Officer Department Head Advisory Body Chairperson —.S yDU-'+i 6 City Clerk(original) l�E/LEiy/ Page 2 of 3 8/03 Page 1 of 1 C i� Cano, Elaina From: Cano, Elaina Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 11:27 AM To: Hampian, Ken; Stanwyck, Shelly; Lowell, Jonathan P; Hooper, Audrey; Mandeville, John; 'ersayoung@yahoo.com'; Pellemeier, Keith; Combs, Ron Subject: Tree Committee Appeal - 1275 Fernwood Drive Attachments: Gardner-6-17-08.pdf Attached is a Tree Committee Appeal. It is scheduled to be heard at the June int' Council meeting for 30 minutes. Please adjust the time on the 6o day if necessary. Thanks, Elaina 5/8/2008 Page 1 of 1 C J -? Attachments can contain viruses that may harm your computer.Attachments may not display correctly. Settle Allen From: Pam [pamcosart@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Fri 6/13/2008 2:04 PM To: Romero, Dave; cmullholland@slocity.org;Settle,Allen; Brown, Paul;Carter,Andrew Cc: Subject: Save the tree on 1274 Femwood Drive-Ash Tree-Agenda item Attachments: n OurTree.ipg(2MB) ❑ Petition.ipg(1MB) Dear Mayor Romero and Councilmember's Mr. Settle, Ms. Muliholland, Mr. Brown and Mr. Carter, My name is Pam Cosart. I live at 1282 Fernwood Drive. I live directly across from the tree that you will be voting on this Tuesday evening. First, my neighbors and I would like to invite you to come by and see this magnificent 49-year-old tree before the meeting. We want to keep this healthy landmark tree. If you would like to meet with my neighbor and I before the meeting please come by anytime or call 543-8824. Thank you for your time. We will see you on Tuesday evening. RECEIVED JUN 16 2008 Pam Cosarf �EE SLO CITY CLERK L tCDG DIR FIN DIR IE FIRE CHIEF Zr PW DIR RED FILE R POLICE CHF _ MEETING AGENDA '�'REC DIRUTIL DIR DA L / d91iTEM #R DIR � L'vtwe c C G� https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/asettle/Inbox/Save%20the%20tree%20on%201274%20F... 6/16/2008 41 +A• �[ n, a, f g l' f L u.. Mac e a , 4JJI p wh 00 AV I 4 ' r ✓ 1 � • i diw ro y. K �• 1'xl+ .. , .f�-��/y�t.r� F� �' iXW�X j�SY"i.P�� ��y,.�` w.rn � <�u,�,'�`Y'- `a'ta l,•e'f,��� .�r�.qµ.'�v� ;�''„�,�+ ,. r 's Page 1 of 1 From: Linda Gardner[lindagardner_ee@yahoo.coml Sent: Mon 6/16/2008 2:59 PM To: Romero, Dave; cmullholland@slocity.org; Settle,Allen; Brown, Paul; Carter,Andrew Cc: Igardner; Linda Gardner; Pam Cosart EIRRECEIVEDSubject: Tree Committee Appeal- 1275 Fernwood Drive,San Luis Obispo Attachments: 008Dear Mayor Romero and Council Member's Settle, Mullholland, Brown and Carter, LERK My name is Linda Gardner. I live at 1275 Fernwood Drive. I filed the appeal to try to save the Ash tree in front of my house. I would like to thank Mayor Romero and Council Members Mullholland and Carter for taking the time to come by and see the tree last week or this weekend and talk with either my neighbor Pam Cosart or both of us. I would like to invite Council Members Paul Brown and Allen Settle to meet with myself or Pam before the City Council meeting tomorrow. The tree is really majestic and pictures do not do it justice. I work full-time and can be reached at 546-8767 after 5:30 today or tomorrow. If you aren't able to reach me, my neighbor Pam can be reached at 543-8824. 1 have lived at 1275 Femwood for nearly 17 years now. In that time, I have noticed little change in the condition of the sidewalk. It was cracked when we moved in and had been repaired by using cement to level off the cracked area. The cement has chipped away leaving roughly a 2 inch dip. Other than the cement chipping away, I have not noticed that much change in condition of the sidewalk in that time. I think the sidewalk could be repaired like Pam and I have seen in a couple other areas in San Luis by created a rounded hump over the roots so we can save this tree. Two examples of this are 1040 Islay and on the right- hand side of Sydney just below Augusta. Another option that has been suggested is using rubberized sidewalk. I have personally not seen this option in use that I would appreciate it if City staff could research its use so some of the older more mature trees in our city could be saved. Our older trees help make San Luis Obispo the beautiful and green city it is. Thank you and please consider the other options for preserving this tree that helps make our street one of the nicest streets in our neighborhood. Linda Gardner 546-8767 (Home) R'u'b -K'Wtt f RED FILE V COOUNCIL CDD DIR MEETING AGENDA FIN DIR VACTORNEY AO 19FIRE CHIEF DATE.JLl.��J$ ITEM IX PW DIR `® CLERK/ORIG X POLICE CHF DEWHEADS X REC DIR ll'� IK UTIL DIR ` ZI-HRDIR X (DAMil K (-A0 7` C(e*tL https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/asettle/Inbox/Tree%2OCommittee%2OAppeal%20-%201... 6/17/2008 Page 1 of 1 � I From: Igardner_apcd@co.slo.ca.us[Igardner_apcd@co.slo.ca.usl Sent: Tue 6/17/2008 11:18 AM To: Romero,Dave; cmullholland@slocity.org; Settle,Allen; Brown, Paul; Carter,Andrew Cc: lindagardner_ee@yahoo.com; pamcosart@sbcglobal.net; Pellemeier, Keith; Combs, Ron Subject Tree Committee Appeal- 1275 Fernwood Drive Attachments: An option that many cities are using to preserve trees is the use of rubber side walks. =RECEIVEDBelow are links to two websites with information on rubber side walks which-are an option that can be considered instead of concrete sidewalks. http://www.rubbersidewalks.com/ Here is a before and after example: http_//www.rubbersidewalks.com beforeandafter.asp Information about rubber side walks: RED FILE MEETING AGENDA DATE--'-'77:_1 STEM #11 Rubbersidewalks are a cost-effective and environmentally sound solution to the chronic problems caused by tree-lined sidewalks. Cities across the country struggle with the public safety concerns and financial burdens posed.by tree roots lifting concrete sidewalks. Rubbersidewalks' -'� IR modular sidewalk system allows air and water to FA7TORNEY I�.FIN DIR FIN DIR easily reach soil below, so trees develop less FIRE CHIEF aggressive roots which can be easily maintained OR PW DIR during periodic inspection. IG XPOLICE CHF S � AEC DIRUTIL DIRN HR DIR �. COsaa�;Ct� Article from USA Today on Use of Rubber Sidewalks: X Glia http./ www.usatoday.com/news natio12006-09_19_sidewi _x_htm C j� https://mail.slocity.org/exchangc tibox/Tree%20Committee%20Appeal%20-%201... 6/17/2008 isidewalks-Before and After C r /���j„ _� Page 1 of 2 �;�(Vest1!i�tV1@&b@�WJ&§9249 r " •lY66 Product Info � SpAr�¢aiiABi 86000Ci Press And Media Before and After Website Powered by: BEFORE AFTER Rubbersidewalks are a cost-effective and environmentally sound solution to the chronic problems caused by tree-lined sidewalks. Cities across the country struggle with the public safety concerns and financial burdens posed by tree roots lifting concrete sidewalks. Rubbersidewalks' modular sidewalk system allows air and water to easily reach soil below, so trees develop less aggressive roots which can be easily maintained during periodic inspection. Rubbersidewalks currently installed nationwide: Over 30,000 square feet Average cost per square foot, including break out and installation: $15.00 Standard size: 2' x 2.5' x 1.875"/ 5 square feet, universal-use size Installation method: Interconnected, modular system Cost savings: • Rubbersidewalks eliminate injury and costly claims for trip and fall accidents • Concrete sidewalks cannot be "maintained". They must be completely demolished, off hauled, and replaced. • Rubbersidewalks maintenance is economical. • Rubbersidewalks, Inc. tracks all installation sites for maintenance review, alleviating burden on city. http://www.rubbersidewalks.com/beforeandafter.asp 6/17/2008 `Rubbersidewalks -Before and After Page 2 of 2 Benefits of Rubbersidewalks: • Saves the urban forest by eliminating need for tree removal • Modular system allows pavers to be periodically opened for inspection and easily reinstalled • Available in assorted shades and textures to resemble concrete, granite or adobe-colored pavements • Reversible pavers, last for at least 14 years of typical usage • Provides safe passage for all pedestrian and wheeled traffic • Directs water into soil thus reducing water run-off into storm drain • Resilient though firm, more comfortable and healthy to walk or jog on • Absorbs sound, reduces decibel level of foot and wheeled traffic • Safe, non-toxic and flame resistant • Can be used in tree wells as well as sidewalks • Excellent for use in temporary sidewalk situations, such as events or construction sites • Minimizes the need for tree root trimming Serves the environment: • One-square-foot of Rubbersidewalks recycles waste rubber from one passenger tire • In California alone more than 34 million passenger tires are disposed of each year creating 408 million pounds of waste rubber. • Each 20 square foot installation saves one tree from removal Rubbersidewalks' pavers are recollected and recycled at the end of their life cycle Company: Headquartered in Gardena, California, Rubbersidewalks, Inc. was founded in 2001 by company president/CEO, Lindsay Smith. The product was invented by Richard Valeriano, public works inspector for the City of Santa Monica, where it was tested for more than three years before being offered to other municipalities. Today, Rubbersidewalks are being installed regularly in cities throughout California, as well as Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Oregon, and New York. http://www.rubbersidewalks.com/beforeandafter.asp 6/17/2008 Rubbersidewalks Save Trees Page 1 of 2 0 ._; Obi Borne WPoy Rubbersidewalks? Product Ingo Specifications Press And Media Rulbhau-sMdswaa hs Sivas Trees Every Tree Matters �h p �F�i Y�) v 1 V'. L.�_.-�1_.1�:.b •ter�.� o Trees clean the air o Trees fight global warming o Trees enhance the beauty of the neighborhood o Trees cool the air in summer and conserve warmth in winter o Trees bring songbirds to the neighborhood o Trees increase property values by 15% o Tree roots retain water and keep it from the waste stream Rubbersidewalks eliminates the need to remove trees due to invasive root growth. Each 20 square foot installation of Rubbersidewalks saves a tree from removal. Rubbersidewalks allows tree roots to be trimmed in a way that doesn't jeopardize health or stability of tree. Rubbersidewalks saves the urban forest which benefits the environment, quality of life and property values. T i L J • • J J > --1 . t - http://www.rubbersidewalks.com/rubbersidewalkssavestrees.asp 6/17/2008 JI - Q v J Save The Tree!!! Dear City Council Members � Ufm P ,The signatures below are asking you to reconside s on `free who voted to cut down this healthy tree. This tree is the longest tree our street and W.1 leave a big hole in our street's landscaping if cut down. WA8 JARG-5'ST - bI5A-U�TIF-ULJ Name Street Address City Comments, y 1376 -rA i5rce is L © eve K al �r w o c d i". S LSU e, IA J f I`�3 L � T'; v !4 M Q &r 0.S wwrwGLCz. S L L> LLex t +(-e 2 t T P.Q. u lG l c!c tlo( C- �g -� Y I a e rtiJo SI a - �° �i v y,� , 1 � v W sld sdye? Pf'OKPIL-Itak. a Lui,1,4s l a kn'tV� i AW \ _�_ .�I_w_ J I' f`J�` i s, '7%7) L�/� '1 )� J -}�,. J<" 1� J Oji• • � / r-7 �l.il�" f. C2/ 'al csa (04 1 -fV%Ww a �uS C yl5 J kii 9-A> ... � . .. . loll y, - Mon 1 ' �i l'tlLti��, i 1. /!IR/,n►1�Ili_1%�� rrrrr IMS Em I♦ r 9: WE Save The TreeM 9ep ace. ale. SeC ?br7 o-F s'de-1-oalk Dear City Council Members br;C�6 Set in�bn A Sand' b45e. The signatures below are asking you to reconsider the decision of the City's Tree Committee who voted to cut down this healthy tree. This tree is the longest tree on our street and .leave a big hole in.,our street's landscaping if cut down. Name Street Address City Signature �1 �� sycamore SLCWee(ILWLA t/ILAW I2-71 feAwO r LI a+.l 556 .Mr`tctie S � a �'1Gv-rY' l 7S a S. +e' re e SZ .O / Y=N\-\ CO-6 Lewis Ln. S U) CAlvh (-,onAe-i /3/v 4 d,e�est- 560 - SS e 1-9i 64-5 Alu r��'r��oyop� 0`1 Goy &nmA i '-`1 r UJW&/-r- i $OS CSS ke-A c,t4,n% jace son KaAio aw 5 L Fm i l wTaalcr 154-1r le 0 51.0 - ti,�L d 250 (,nA�efiS S LO Q% 90 Soot-v, do Sl- Kell 1,Ji1 Amber 4 cn,Vow GQ - �ex 71�QC \752 b{Jt�WLctl ��,ve �J o(�j Cc f(C., 5 LC f'svui �� n C J Save A Healthy Tree! ! ! The signatures below are-asking you to save this healthy 50-year-old tree on Fernwood Drive. This tree is the largest tree on Fernwood Drive in San Luis Obispo. Destroying this tree would leave a big hole in this beautiful tree-lined street's landscaping. They are destroying this tree because it has broken the sidewalk. Name Street Address City Signa" I 11Ver ':l rCtK&( Cos(r kL;tcS A,/ 5 -O lD(L Th/etK�I "15 le CcrrcLU-+o5- L -0 . 04- gji4D R I 1 m 1 _ ;aq l� r ri ,( i'Yl L fTlll SCE y6dmn Ct.ye I SC U i��ndQ S�enne t() q to l SL t) I 1L� y3/ euvreuce 0U -. s L Voe S7��rlP 5. moo- �A g3yoi g�j ✓iC� eC( r/ro:5t Lo le ` �r I � 01-7 i.e. Pd ck, 5t-0 cy3KoI SLU �11 GfI ICU 1C' Lo 93, 01 SL'o oC t,�NZAiW_ l -1qq BOXWcvD S Lv CO h e I Lao �Ncti�e � I i✓la �Jielo.�l�r iZ9L Mder ct. SLp / j 3 RD SA,w/"X , 5C D C a Sz-0 aaa► e LO Cha � ,�eIIv qu,0 f o 5�-c7 I 9q( RLIZ-rlor- Save A Healthy Tree! ! ! The signatures below are asking you to save this healthy 50-year-old tree on Fernwood Drive. This tree is the largest tree on Fernwood Drive in San Luis Obispo. Destroying this tree would leave a big hole in this beautiful tree-lined street's landscaping. They are destroying this tree because it has broken the sidewalk. Name Street Address City ignature !C e P I Z 4`( Scw.f Pn S SI D - tia l a31� fIV2a - - S CA )MM A& <J Y CGwa )4v ° l 5 L C d C a 55 ici —i 5L 0 (SSS Y �I 7o L&Nv �- ® p -Upas ,� ;Ln AcAV C d I I�j75 66� e L CC>\\ 5Go V . If S\\.n I' I f w 0 ciA LS MW Ivw N) vt I'W WQXW� ! L 6 - MV-_rL:CnI,k IKV," qM owPLIPe SLo Save A Healthy Tree! ! ! The signatures below are asking you to save this healthy 50-year-old tree on Fernwood Drive. This tree is the largest tree on Fernwood Drive in San Luis Obispo. Destroying this tree would leave a big hole in this beautiful tree-lined street's landscaping. They are destroying this tree because it has broken the sidewalk. Name Street Address City Signature 55 WCA14r 18 +0 LI,rtvn., SLZX4 U Z rdl? _ 2 SaW d S( oHim�V uwq C, & lc. awn i UI s 33o5 tLkQ 2330 Toho 0� 5LO � ukkAA U S 1 _ LI J 07 . 1 - Mill i. -3no NA— f269 fwoo Se-D IN fA/�j WI /A O l�G&lur, 13 �1 rr `S 5U) G l L.0 t Save A Healthy Tree-I.I. I. The signatures below are asking you to save this healthy 50-year-old tree on Femwood Drive. This tree is the largest tree on Fernwood Drive in San Luis Obispo. DesXtroying this tree would leave a big hole in this beautiful tree-lined street's landscaping. They are destroying this tree because it has broken the sidewalk.. i Name I' Street Address City Signature n C WD l3 'S r Zack EM, o h S. (3r, ati F rf bf f I to Q 2Mro Snn Luis i*/& Sanse! vb, 2� 2 4 r SL. amv I0Aco l�Oro3 Cs�1in _ L , O Z rro J L��« C1gr 121 Fer`nrto� Sl,a Ln (.�,� Q,K,�,e\ � ►32� �r,,.�l Sw e 35I e� LC) ^ 5LCtE 'Fecal tkmL -<;I A (,N cn VkkKS )35A E-eynwoo A SW MErlal ScJ�M'� S�1 F m en(Q kl (35'i Qo,�15;je 5L Erin UM?M. J�(5 VVpokk �tkV C;t-1 c{I% ` A 17-�i tPz-.) XIV ID Save A Healthy Treel. .11. The signatures below are asking you to save this healthy 50-year-old tree on Fernwood Drive. This tree is the largest tree on Fernwood Drive in San Luis Obispo. Destroying this tree would leave a big hole in this beautiful tree-lined street's landscaping. They are destroying this tree because it has broken the sidewalk. Name Street Address City Signature C ' r (n Gti QIGI s SPer (; t o FS U i Q of ' SL G i T� o� 4C, w S 71 / Al det 5-4,-u I io 55� 1i56 SL _ I , Iq r , S' Lv 9a9 Sr 3805 8✓c� ra �D ZSg� n,e- d� �yr. 4 Fei'lf � LC0 aa, n r,)�6 ii� G Lz2 So lana � & 7 C) 3 l MiCI,PI 7 /o � ,5 ao i � s L_q V 2 � 5i1 tau N 5 Oc kn S J6 s �-Yk r f1L � ; 3 I I W Mill, " 4 �(fIW' /n.�. ' • � IIID' "" '+ - J I A S ! :•G ✓'moi� 1 '. 'ECIROT M. r. �[I • Iva 1, ._R JMW JK ' • & pt MW 1 Imo, _.. --• .'. _ � - I, - _ _ . .. . _ .. . ,y �� . G Save The TreeM Dear City Council Members The signatures below are asking you to reconsider the decision of the City's Tree Committee who voted to cut down this healthy tree. This tree is the longest tree on our street and leave a big hole in our street's landscaping if cut down. Name Street Address City Signature j U lo ic6 45 �3 t-7t. 0 o ak 5'/54,1 &tyw - Jz 6( S L o Save A Healthy Tree! ! ! The signatures below are asking you to save this healthy 50-year-old tree on Fernwood Drive. This tree is the largest tree on Fernwood Drive in San Luis Obispo. Destroying this tree would leave a big hole in this beautiful tree-lined street's landscaping. They are destroying this tree because it has broken the sidewalk. Name Street Address City Signature l-��-llt/l/ �19n76^ Z 71oG0 n7 D �- �G��� KAi��icq t661 T��I� LoS oS�s � iJ o s o LAVA Nuzzo laic rr Pismo J t>e C, 6 o tS v:sS }� 4. e 0� ChS . S o w� rxic� l�e fz X750 Ask S{ . 0505 porA Dvekc et, i4(,,)o lMlll Save Lits d2bfv (,/W j= 2 211 J .3 5k.,fx/ 5a 4cf Save A Healthy Tree1! ! The signatures below are asking you to save this healthy 50-year-old tree on Fernwood Drive. This tree is the largest tree on Fernwood Drive in San Luis Obispo. Destroying this tree would leave a big hole in this beautiful tree-lined street's landscaping. They are destroying this tree because it has broken the sidewalk. Name Street Addres'- City Sign ure A�LTw"�va 135�PaA54 f 1�4s-hv\ ay,&h 1 S is lv�S o Lx4-(✓l-(lLQL,,- fZ4-( o0o „04 5 LAV 3Y�� o 05 , sr SLG o f ,. � � 2- JA � z ►-� ,z�,��r,�� JVI P "r � -IK 3 LC) �— CACIO 1630 T ti'n' O VD k*V�C1,ea µacs i$ c perlC QIV I PISIN1�0 rc,nt G.ia mp_ 11,-, Purr\ S>t�w l��r V c,, ot„�o Wu�, N i o✓+n v /e�t.�C eta Vis (�+r`w. �z.o,�dl rry�scadr� Save A Healthy Tree! ! ! The signatures below are asking you to save this healthy 50-year-old tree on Fernwood Drive. This tree is the largest tree on Fernwood Drive in San Luis Obispo. Destroying this tree would leave a big hole in this beautiful tree-lined street's landscaping. They are destroying this tree because it has broken the sidewalk: Name Street Address City ig ature nca -Z (0 c CU` 2l () io Save A Healthy Tree. . . 4he signatures below are asking youto savethis hea y - - Drive. This tree is the largest tree on Fernwood Drive in San Luis Obispo. Destroying this tree would leave a big hole in this beautiful tree-lined street's landscaping. They are destroying this tree because it has broken the sidewalk. Name / Street Addre s City S' a e y - - 7Zy o L /A SU/ISv-F .1 i A �►�dll'eq �. A��U�� s; 1--� Save A Healthy Tree ! ! ! The.signatures below are asking you to save this healthy 50-year-old tree on Fernwood Drive. This tree is the largest tree on Femwood Drive in San Luis Obispo. Destroying this tree would leave a big hole in this beautiful tree-lined street's landscaping. They are destroying this tree because it has broken the sidewalk. Name Street Address Ckty S' nature Ilk Ah o . M . . IT ®- _ i _ 7,M) � 7 ,!4I . ,,0. � - C. Iii. A if AW ' . , � 1vLA-j..A,, RIM.mt � W'M W- Irm" OWAA MIV lam_ �� AWMA 1 ■