Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/01/2008, B5 - APPEAL OF TREE COMMITTEE'S DECISION TO UPHOLD THE FINE ASSESSED AGAINST MARK ALONZO & HANA NOVAK FO councit M July 1,2008 ac,Enda Report 5 CITY OF SAN LUIS0BISSP` 0 FROM: Jay D. Walter, Public Works Directot'd i Prepared By: Keith Pellemeier, Parks Maintenance Supervisor Ron Combs, City Arborist SUBJECT: APPEAL OF TREE COMMTITEE'S DECISION TO UPHOLD THE FINE ASSESSED AGAINST MARK ALONZO &HANA NOVAK FOR ILLEGALLY REMOVING A TREE WITHOUT A PERMIT AT 1740 SAN LUIS DRIVE CAO RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution: 1) denying the appeal from the Tree Committee's decision to uphold a fine assessed against property owners Mark Alonzo and Hana Novak for illegally removing a tree without a permit at 1740 San Luis Drive, thereby affirming imposition of the previously levied fine, 2) requiring appellants to plant, following consultation with the City Arborist, a replacement tree in the front yard in place of the second dead tree there, and 3) requiring appellants to immediately comport with City Property Development Standards (Section 17.16.020 A 1) and Property Maintenance Standards (Section 17.17.050) and modify new brick paver area accordingly so as to not allow vehicular parking there. DISCUSSION Background In early October 2007 City staff, responding to a citizen complaint, stopped the workers at 1740 San Luis Drive from removing a eucalyptus tree in the front yard without a permit. The tree was located between the driveways of 1740 San Luis Drive and 1730 San Luis Drive (Attachment 1). The workers were told they needed a permit to remove a tree of this size. The tree, at that time, was about 40 feet tall. On October 17, 2007 Mr. Mark Alonzo submitted a Tree Removal Application. (Attachment 2) When staff arrived at 1740 San Luis Drive to review the Tree Removal Application they found a tree stump about 6 feet tall with no branches. A man was there with a chainsaw cutting the rest of the tree down. He said he was working for Mr. Alonzo and had done other work for him. The tree stump had a diameter at shoulder height of 34 inches. On October 29, 2007 staff sent a letter to Mr. Alonzo, stating he had removed a tree in violation of the Municipal Code without a permit, would be subject to civil damages, and that he was to contact the City Arborist at his earliest convenience (Attachment 3). Staff received no response from Mr. Alonzo. On December 14, 2007 staff sent a letter to Mr. Alonzo, stating he had been notified on October 29, 2007 of the Municipal Code violation and as a result, he was being fined $1,710 with payment due within 30 days. (Attachment 4). Staff again received no response from Mr. Alonzo. 5 -I Appeal of Tree Removal Fine Assessment-1740 San Luis Drive Page 2 Staff contacted the City Finance Department to set up billing Mr. Alonzo for the value of the tree. (Attachment 5) The City Finance Department sent an invoice to Mr. Alonzo on December 26, 2007 (Attachment 6). Statements were also sent to Mr. Alonzo on February 13, 2008 and March 18, 2008. No response was received by the Finance Department. On March 26, 2008 Finance sent the billing to the Medico-Dental Collection Agency. (Attachment 7) On April 2, 2008 staff received a letter from Ms. Hana Novak, 1740 San Luis Drive, in response to the Notice of Violation of Municipal Code. (Attachment 8) Since April 2008 staff has had several conversations with Ms. Novak along with additional correspondence. Ms. Novak stated that she felt she had been treated unfairly and that the fine was excessive. Staff explained that the method for calculating the fine, as outlined in the Municipal Code, was derived from the value of the tree and that the money collected would be used to provide more street trees in the City of San Luis Obispo. On April 23, 2008 staff sent Ms Novak a letter denying her appeal of the decision, stating that she had not responded within the 10 day period to appeal, as outlined in Section 1.20 of the Municipal Code. (Attachment 9) On May 7, 2008 staff received another letter from Ms Novak. (Attachment 10) Staff consulted with the City Attorney and decided, in the interest of fairness, that because the original notice of the fine did not inform her of her right to appeal the decision, she should be allowed to appeal the decision at the next Tree Committee meeting. (Attachment 11) The staff report to Tree Committee is included as Attachment 12. The Tree Committee heard the appeal of the fine levied by staff at their meeting on Monday, May 27, 2008. The appeal was denied by a unanimous vote, (Attachment 13) based on a lack of evidence as to why they removed the tree without a permit. On June 3, 2008 Mr. Alonzo appealed the Tree Committee's decision to uphold staff's decision to fine Mr. Alonzo for illegally removing a tree without a permit. (Attachment 14). Applicable Tree Regulations The San Luis Obispo Municipal Code has provisions in place to preserve and protect the City's urban forest. Section 12.24 Tree Regulations, starts off by stating, "The public interest and welfare require that the city establish, adopt, and maintain a comprehensive program for installing, maintaining and preserving trees within the city." Section 12.24.130 Protection of Trees, subsection C is specific to state that: No person shall willfully injure, disfigure or intentionally destroy by any means any tree growing within the planting area or elsewhere within the jurisdiction of this chapter, except with permits described elsewhere in this chapter Section 12.24.180 Tree Removal, subsection C.2, "...removing a tree in the R-land R-2 zones shall require a permit issued by the public works department in any of the following circumstances:" b. "When the tree...is visible from any public space or a non-native with a trunk diameter of twenty-four inches or greater." 5 -2 Appeal of Tree Removal Fine Assessment-1740 San Luis Drive Page 3 The penalties for violating the provisions of this section are covered in 12.24.130G: Any person deemed responsible for damaging a tree or removing a tree without a permit as described in this chapter shall be liable for civil damages to the city in the amount adopted, by resolution, by the city council or for the value of the tree as determined by methods established by the International Society of Arboriculture, whichever is greater as determined by the city arborist Appeal The appellants, in their appeal of June 3, 2003 (Attachment 14) assert that the fine is too high. As noted in the preceding paragraph, Section 12.24.130G provides that any person deemed responsible for removing a tree without a permit shall be liable for civil damages to the city, as per the City's fees schedule, or for the value of the tree as determined by methods established by the International Society of Arboriculture, whichever is greater as determined by the city arborist. Under City resolutions and ordinances civil penalties range from $100 to $500 per occurrence.. In this instance, City Arborist Ron Combs utilized the methods established by the International Society of Arboriculture and determined that the value of the tree is $1,710 (Attachment 5). In accordance with Section 12.24.130G, the greater amount, $1,710, was assessed. It is asserted that the fine would go to the General Fund, but not for tree replacement. The Municipal Code does not dictate how fine monies are spent. General Fund monies are spent on tree replacements and maintenance, but specific monies collected are not earmarked for those particular purpose. Questioning where the fine monies go does not provide a justification for why the language of Section 12.24.130G should not be followed. It should be noted that staff conservatively estimates that over $3,000 has been expended in terms of City personnel time dealing with this particular matter. Appellants argue that their delay in responding to correspondence concerning the fine was essentially because "life got in the way". However, most other property owners, who must also abide by the same rules applicable to the appellants and face similar challenges of modem life, are able to timely pay their property taxes, bills, parking tickets, and so forth, and comport with the City's Tree regulations. In this instance, staff halted the fine collection process in order to allow the appellants an opportunity to appeal. The appellants feel the fine should not have been assessed and then sent to a collection agency because they were not advised of their right to appeal. The collection efforts were suspended by staff and the appellants were allowed a right of appeal. That right was exercised by the appellants and the Tree Committee denied the appeal. The appellants have now appealed that decision to the City Council. The appellants ask: if staff members say that some negotiation could have been reached in the past, why not now? Fines are imposed in order to get violators to comply with City regulations and to deter further violations. In this case, despite being told that a permit was required prior to removal, appellants' proceeded ahead with removal without waiting for the permit process to occur. Thus, imposition of a fine and then reducing it would not help to gain compliance, as the tree had already been removed without permission. Fines also serve as a deterrent to violators 5�3 l 1 Appeal of Tree Removal Fine Assessment-1740 San Luis Drive Page 4 and potential violators, so such violations do not occur in the future. Staff believes that the preservation of trees is very important to appellants' neighbors and to the entire community. The City strives to enforce its rules fairly and equitably. In this instance, appellants haven't provided compelling reasons why the fine should be adjusted. As noted previously, staff time (i.e. tax dollars) invested in this matter is conservatively estimated as costing over $3,000. Information has not been presented that justifies reducing the fine at this late stage in the game. To waive or reduce the fee in this instance will not save the tree that was illegally removed, and possibly communicate to others that they can violate the rules and ask forgiveness (and for a penalty reduction) later. In summary, the fine was imposed because it was clear, based upon the fact that the tree was removed without a permit, even when the property owners were advised that a tree removal permit must first be obtained, yet they proceeded with the removal without waiting for the tree removal permit process to be completed. The fine amount is appropriate because it was calculated in accordance with the procedure set forth in the Municipal Code. Other Issues Pertaining to this Property The Tree Committee often requires as a condition of granting a tree removal permit that a replacement tree be planted. In this case, as a fine was levied, there was no discussion of a replacement tree. However, in the front yard of this property a second tree recently died due to natural causes. The dead tree is located on the other side of the driveway, away from the sewer line, and can be seen in some of the photographs provided to Council. The dead tree constitutes a potential violation of the City's public nuisance codes (chapter 8.08 and 8.24 of the Municipal Code. If Council so desires, it would be appropriate to require placement of a new tree, of a species which the City Arborist determines is appropriate, at or near the location of the dead tree (which should be removed). This would help to provide the neighborhood and community, at some point in the future, with a tree canopy similar to the one that used to exist in this area until the one tree was illegally removed. Additionally, photographs of the property taken last week (attachment #17 show that a pad of brick pavers has been placed in the location where the illegally removed tree used to be. Section 17.16.020 (Yards) of the Property Development Standards of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code provides: A "yard" is an area along a property line within which no structures, parking spaces or parkin backup ackup spaces may be located, except as otherwise provided in these regulations. Yards are intended to help determine the pattern of building masses and open areas within neighborhoods. They also provide separation between combustible materials in neighboring buildings. Yards are further intended to help provide landscape beauty, air circulation, views and exposure to sunlight for both natural illumination and use of solar energy. (Emphasis added.) Also, Section 17.17.050 (Front yard paving) of the Property Maintenance Standards states: 5-y Appeal of Tree Removal Fine Assessment-1740 San Luis Drive Page 5 No more than fifty percent of any residential front yard (see definition of "front yard"), not to exceed twenty-six feet in width, may be covered by concrete or other impervious material, including driveways, patio areas, walkways, and other landscape features. Exceptions to this standard can be granted through the administrative use permit process should the proposed paving be compatible with the neighborhood. The brick paver area does not appear to be in conformity with the City's property development or maintenance standards. There is no record of a permit being sought to install the pad in this location. Staff recommends that Council order the appellants to either remove the brick paver area or promptly confer with the Community Development Department regarding appropriate use of the area (a use permit may have to be applied for (and fees will apply), planters or other barriers may be required to be installed to ensure the area is not used for parking purposes). Failure to comply with the provisions of these regulations will likely result in a separate enforcement action being brought. CONCURRENCES The Tree Committee heard this appeal at its meeting on Monday, May 27, 2008. The Tree Committee upheld staff's decision to fine Mr. Alonzo $1,710 in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.24.130G by a 5-0 vote. FISCAL IMPACT There is a slight positive fiscal impact to the City in the denial of the appeal, as it will bring in revenue that will be used for purchasing additional street trees. However, in light of the personnel costs associated with this matter, this matter has resulted in a negative fiscal impact upon the City. A reduction or waiver of the fine would exacerbate this negative fiscal impact. ALTERNATIVES 1. Uphold the appeal. The City Council could choose to uphold the appeal, thereby eliminating the fine. Staff recommends against this alternative because the tree was clearly removed without a permit, and the ability to assess a fine for these types of violations serves as a deterrent to others who may want to remove a tree without getting a proper permit, or for those who have been previously denied a removal permit. 2. Set a different fine amount. The City Council could reduce the amount of the fine. .For the reasons described in the paragraph above, staff does not recommend this. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1. Vicinity Map Attachment 2. Tree Removal application dated 10-17-07 Attachment 3. First letter to Mr. Alonzo dated 10-29-07 Attachment 4. Second letter to Mr. Alonzo dated 12-12-07 Attachment 5. Replacement Cost Evaluation 5 -5 1 Appeal of Tree Removal Fine Assessment-1740 San Luis Drive Page 6 Attachment 6. Statement from City Finance Department dated 12-26-07 Attachment 7. Email from City Finance Department dated 3-26-08 Attachment 8. Letter from Ms. Novak dated 3-19-08 Attachment 9. Staff letter to Mr Alonzo &Ms Novak,Denying Appeal dated 4-23-08 Attachment 10. Letter from Ms Novak dated 5-6-08 Attachment 11. Staff letter to Mr Alonzo &Ms Novak, allowing appeal dated 5-14-08 Attachment 12. Staff report to Tree Committee dated 5-26-08 Attachment 13. Excerpt of Tree Committee minutes dated 5-27-08 Attachment 14. Appeal to the City Council received June 3, 2008 Attachment 15. Resolution granting appeal from the Tree Committee decision Attachment 16. Resolution upholding the Tree Committee decision to impose fine Attachment 17. Eight photographs of tree and property TACouncil Agenda Repons\Publiic Works CAR\Parks-Trees\1740SanLuisDrFineAppcal\174OSanLuisDrFineAppeal.doc 5 - l0 Attachment 1 o� T 5 - � city of san Luis oBISPO lAttachment 2 Page 1 25 Prado Road i San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 TREE REMOVAL APPLICATION **If your tree removal is related to property development or a remodel, submit your request through the Planning Department at 919 Palm Street as part of your Planning Application." IMPORTANT: A tree removal application will only PLEASE NOTE: If your tree is approved for be considered if accompanied by a sketch/we removal and posted, please call the office at the showing the street, structure(s) location and end of your posting period to arrange to pick up location of all trees proposed for removal. Please your permit. The permit fee is $40 payable when d-raw an e ba ro#e you piek ap your permit sheet of paper, along with your application. City of San Luis Obispo). Owner: AZLAZ O Telephone: 36S� ff(9 l �-6 46 Owners Mailing Address: 1-7 tf y e W j Di'Ll i/L Zip Code: �n q � Applicant (if other than owner): Telephone: Applicants ma7ing address: f'T40 mid L,y i S :�jZ l UT Zip Code: Location of tree(s): y/�j?� fes? ,cam /� -�,�{ nr/' t?at V Ar Nearest cross street: I r-O/ -/V i rt- Dog in yard? Yes No Tree species (Common names): Reasons for requesting removal: Replacement tree planting proposed: .nn t ktiz;ny'C9- 6/w— wiu— tiJ * Application will be considered only if entirely filled out and signed by owner. If consideration of+his �t✓� 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 Public Works Department at 919 Palm Street. * 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. MAA OR FAX completed form to: City Arborist, 25 Prado Rd., San Luis Obispo, CA 93401, Phone: 781-7220 Fax: 2-9868 Owner: Date: �W• / 7 ()7 Applicant: Doe: Rev 10-07 . The,City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of it services,programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for. the Deaf(805)781-7410. 5 -8' i Attachment 2 Page 2 c j' 5-9 17 110 ge 3 I, �. is/�?yaj" FC a I. .% r ..� J•h! -y., � (, u vyy p" •'� 'Lil , ��'1 s, tV [ ji.r'�(y // !S -. '� J yt Jj� �f �-, pPn•l.Y YY'� 1 Y / A` 1 ,j M - rye. 1 I -,• p {'+t/ //`?, IS � Y. I t �?.. / + � / rinr / yt x:`. T ` r6 '��rY`t [11 •`. rr .•lif �� T '� \ f\l/ � .�+ .'t / � r /. p, Y4.^.`♦'lf5„F,�r Pt.�III �c� I r i F \ i • I-' +I' / � - ifr 4 )�n v` At+.I ♦ � ��5��1 I,,.f 11;011'y r� "'>f tij �l 1S�.S .r �/I firtl VCt Y'S7 t� I .� .7 < � y� y, s?,sly{ 'Y'.♦-f'ln4 - Y�J I. r. + ��, r �. �, + ✓i }�. R +''- � .' ~ l yY I �' Y (}.) -. )K•'N1 � •a�' .4 1 V � r •Y.� Y\ )' } ...G. ' ✓'r V 't - * .f2 r//�V Jt� ;Jr� 1�!-'t' T - �11Cy'�' t q't•r�r� u/,a tl K.i��. �/ -: A��'r . . 6 1(�� tif�� �I[ jj1 �I 'tr) r[1 •T'S�t i' Cl��tl'r'+�t+`•.. - f'nC �n r't � "'b - f- �l{ 1 � � 1 i J+� <ti \1 S rl t• r t tr^ -.i!'!t� T.. I � ,�11�` VT ,. -Z� -iz-'}t�JZ .nf�, ,Sfi ,� S.il ' ' ..-, r't' , �Ir . ✓ * � •y Ai�.• (I N s, P •'♦%�)4� �� J4�`F � � .e"{',t`�) 1 �- w,\, �itl sy [ ZfJ.I ,6 r, J M /r 3 ✓ ^ 1 �li r ``� Wtif r, } ' 7� n{% l'L .yYSA�a �j��}^, rw.l 'S l/�-�hii�J +fie .-, � I I � 'i�. 1�1r / ,/�+ s A� ��J �,i� ��''�11 d�ia� �,.1• !'J.- `l 11! r Y \?�� \ ai -_ �'rc�-•�. ,1 r >: f - wL"'p. >. , - 7^ r f S �f V {l ! t ,{} �'L�y: - /r t�' � A iS�Ja.�./•� �/--��,..i 1'1� t\e r `. 1 -- _L 3fF'71` Jif' c a.•: '} 1..S�,.rI.� �t', 4"v,:�,c�',/ :;C.y'� •lz`-I f T.is l e ;' tI+F�V.�.?rH,<Tr'•• 1 ,6'sa R�';.t l� - /�/ > \<'+ 'Wt \iF�• .4r'�/'e �', /' '1 l < �- t•- ' } w+lj. 11,�.� �J+ .tc.N.IfE�\i" 14. ♦ -I:' ./ ���'3��,I/ pJ i.-\•z >..y-L+" r y .i�`. [ .� ;1- t s,: ` J 1 t`,`5��, 'F'-•Ibta3~ , 7rD !,.q I s f('`S!r♦ 3 ��;�"; " ✓� 1�i�\ ,C mac+\ � rY'�_ >`iy��as ♦}� I , v6L'� IJ tpr�\ �/ r )4 11�'"•1+� � ,, 'I � d11,�.� � �' p �j ���-�r�� \ /l q � �,. Jtz f[ ✓�/ r t 1� � i �'SJ / f,Ilt � ,r r•,- ,/r 4 j + //t r 1 i �.• • c /lit 4 t+ [ y ��� + .Y «>+.,, E'✓' Jln� i:',1< �b1 I +11� v� N� �] �: 4 rrG'" �G �a-' s ,. / 4 ��'� 1 /I i� v..+:F�' 7'jj�r►'�'� 'A, M"� \ � \t !3�„ `� / i .. "V.., 1 -� 11 / ;}. r�dr , :� r��• � t ,�� 'r\ �_ I', r� �/r`,`a��.�:)y`}�� c/ 1 l �� J �4 � �P J�� . _p� d-�/^ .1� ti: `1s1'1 5,7.[ I 1141 � Via•. �-rr� , 4 ++c�.� 'rl\ ): �/I / � �: 1-141, ` ( �•.Y�'J l"Y��'� 1 .� .�y :1 �I �� �. \ \. \`. �.y/f 5uy�1 [fir v V-�e ' ) - Attachment 3 October 29, 2007 Mark F. Alonzo 1740 San Luis Drive San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: NOTICE OF VIOLATION OF MUNICIPAL CODE Dear Mr. Alonzo; You are hereby notified that this office has received citizen complaints that you have committed a violation of the City's Municipal Code in the removal of a tree/tree's on your property at 1740 San Luis Drive. No person shall willfully injure, disfigure or intentionally destroy by any means any tree growing within the planting area or elsewhere within the jurisdiction of this chapter, except with permits described elsewhere in this chapter[violation of Section 12.24.130C of the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code]. The penalties for violating the above section are covered in the following section: Any person deemed responsible for damaging a tree or removing a tree without a permit as described in this chapter shall be liable for civil damages to the city in the amount adopted, by resolution, by the city council or for the value of the tree as determined by methods established by the International Society of Arboriculture, whichever is greater as determined by the city arborist(Section 12.24.130(G) of the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code) As you will notice in Section 12.24.130(G), you are liable for civil damages for the value of the trees that you removed, using the International Society of Arboriculture and the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers trunk formula method and replacement cost method for tree appraisal. Please contact this me at(805)781-7023 at your earliest convenience so we can discuss this matter. Yours truly, Ron Combs Urban Forester cc: Code Enforcement Neil Havlik, Natural Resources Jonathan Lowell, City Attorney G:1StaH-Reports-Agendas-Minutesl_CAR120081PaWs-Trees11740San LuisDrFneAppeaMMachmenlsWttach3Illegal Removal 1st tetter.doc 5-r� Attachment 4 �iillQ►I�II�IIIIIIIIIIIIIII►������ IIIIII�► II cityO sAn WIS OBISPO 25 Prado Road • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 December 12,2007 Mark Alonzo 1740 San Luis Dr. San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 RE: NOTICE OF VIOLATION OF MUNICIPAL CODE Dear Mr.Alonzo: On October 29,2007,you were notified that this office had received a citizen complaint that you committed a violation of the City's Municipal Code in the removal of one eucalvatus tree on the property at 1740 San Luis Drive. No person shall willfully injure,disfigure or intentionally destroy by any means any tree growing within the planting area or elsewhere within the jurisdiction of this chapter,except with permits described elsewhere in this chapter[violation of Section 12.24.130C of the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code]. The penalties for violating the above section are covered in the following section: Any person deemed responsible for damaging a tree or removing a tree without a permit as described in this chapter shall be liable for civil damages to the city in the amount adopted,by resolution,by the city council or for the value of the tree as determined by methods established by the International Society of Arboriculture,whichever is greater as determined by the city arborist(Section 12.24.130(G)of the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code) As you will notice in Section 12.24.130(G),you are liable for civil damages for the value of the trees that you removed,using the International Society of Arboriculture and the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers trunk formula method and replacement cost method for tree appraisal. The City has determined that the cost to you is S 1,710.00. Payment is due within 30 days and.should be made to City of San Luis Obispo,25 Prado Rd.,San Luis Obispo,CA,93401 Attn: Ron Combs. Please contact this me at(805)781-7023 at your earliest convenience so we can discuss this matter. Yours truly, RACombs Urban Forester cc: Code Enforcement Neil Havlik,Natural Resources Jonathan Lowell,City Attorney !© The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. V Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. Replacement Cost Method Attachment 5 Appraised Value [Installed Plant Cost x Species.% x Condition % x Location %] + Removal and Cleanup Cost (if needed) . Installed Plant Cost = Replacement Plant Cost + Installation Cost Case# 108 .Property 1740 San Luis Drive Date December 12, 2007 Appraiser Ron Combs, Urban Forester Field Observations 1. Species Eucalyptus ficifolia 2. Condition 80% °fo 3. Think Circumference in./crit and/or Diameter 34" inJcm or Shrub or Vine Size (height/spread/volume) 4. Location%= [Site 95% + Contribution 80% + Placement A0-0/01 5. Removal and Cleanup Costs for appraised plant or plant that will be replaced =$ --- Re weal Plant Appraisal.Committee and/or Appraiser-Dmnloped or Modi, wd Information 6. Species rating .s2 0/6 7. Replacement Plant Size(diameter) 2.5 injem 13.6 24" box 8. Replacement Plant Cost Round to 14 x $132.00 =$ 1,848 9. Installation Cost =$ 1,500 10. Other Regional Information Readily available in 24" box . Calculations by Appraiser Using Field and/or Regional Infmnation 11. Installed Plant Cost=Plant Cost(#8)$ 1,716 + Installation Cost'(#9)$ 1,500 =$ 3,348 .12.-Adjusted Installed Plant Cost = Installed Plant Cost(#1 t-)$_32348 .x Species razing(#6). 82 %X Condition 02) 80 %x Location(#4)--L8 % $. 1,713 . 13. Add Removal and Cleanup Costs (#5)(if appraised plant is replaced). $ -- _$ 14. The Appraised Value is either#12 or#13. _$• 1,713 15. If the Appraised Value(#14)is$5,000 or more, round it to the nearest$10.0;if it is less,round to nearest$10. 16. Appraised.Value (#14)_$_.:l.710 *A.median cost is the most appropriate cost to use because there are an equal number of costs greaterthan and less than the median:Equally Important,Plants and installation are aYAzle at thole speck costs. 643 \ r Attachment 6 INVOICE: P060000491 PAGE 1 FINANCE DEPT - ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE DATE: Dec 26, 2007 OF 1 990 PALM STREET P.O. BOX 8112 SERVICE: DAMAGE TO CITY PROPERTY SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93403-8112 CUSTOMER PO: PHONE: 805-781-7124 CUSTOMER PH: 805- - x FAX: 805-781-7401 TERMS: NET DUE 30 DAYS DUE DATE: Jan 25, 2008 CUST NO:11392 SERVICE ADDRESS: MA MARK AND HANA ALONZO AMRK AND HANA ALONZO 1740 SAN LUIS DR 1740 SAN LUIS DR SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 ----------DESCRIPTION---------------QTY---- UNIT PRICE -TOTAL PRICE- TAX DAMAGE TO CITY PROPERTY (SEE ATTA 1. 00 1, 710.00 1, 710 .00 N VALUE OF A TREE THAT WAS ILLEGALLY CUT DOWN. FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT: KEITH PELLEMEIER/PUBLIC WORKS 805-781-7022 OR RON COMBS/TREES DIVISION 805-781-7023 PAYMENT DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF INVOICE REMITTANCE COPY CUST NO:11392 TOTAL CHARGES: 1, 710 .00 MARK AND HANA ALONZO TOTAL TAX: 0 .00 ------------- INVOICE: P060000491 TOTAL INVOICE: 1, 710 .00 DUE DATE: Jan 25, 2008 PAYMENTS: 0.00 AMOUNT PAID: ADJUSTMENTS: 0.00 TOTAL DUE: 1, 710.00 PRINTED Mar 26, 2008 Page 1 of 1 Attachment 7 From: McKibben, Kim Sent: Wednesday,March 26, 2008 9:08 AM To: Pellemeier, Keith Cc: Combs, Ron Subject: Mark and Hana Alonzo Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red Attachments: invoiceskmckib_7860.pdf Keith- We have not received payment yet from the Alonzo's for the damage to city property by cutting down of trees. They have been sent invoices every month since December. Would you like me to send this account to collections? Thank you for your help! Kim McKibben Finance Cashier City of San Luis Obispo 805-781-7124 ph 805-781-7401 fax file://G:\Staff-Reports-Agendas-Minutes\ CAR\2008\Parks-Trees\1740San LuisDrFineAp... 6/13/2008 GJ-�fj Hanallovak Attachment 8 1740 San Lois Drive Page 1 San Luis Obispo,Ca 93401 City of San Luis Obispo C/O Ron Combs,Urban Forester 25 Prado Road San Luis Obispo,Ca 93401 March 19,2008 RE: Notice of Violation of Municipal Code Section 12.24.130(G) Dear Mr.Combs; I am writing in response to the Notice of Violation of the Municipal Code for removal of \\ a eucalyptus tree.located in the side yard.of our residence at 1740 San Luis Drive. I would like the opportunity to explain the circumstances that lead rip to thee removal of tic- - --- eucalyptus tree on our property.The tree is located in a planter am adjacent to the driveway and side yard walk way.It also happens to be directly adjacent to our residential sewer line.Historically the tree has caused a number of problems.The driveway and front sidewalk have been ripped up by the trees root system,causing a potential safety hazard.It has wreaked havick on our residential sewer line.The most recent problem occurred at Thanksgiving when the trees mots ripped up the Orangeburg sewer pipe and rendered our sewer system inoperable over a busy holiday weekend. The tree was initially only intended to be trimmed and cut back from the street on San Luis Drive,but mobile they were trimming the tree they got a little carried away and . removed iL The tree was ultimately removed because it was a hazard.However,I am Wiling to accept responsibility for having cart down the eucalyptus tree.You will notice from the enclosed pictures that my side yards and back yard are lined with trees and there are a number of trees in the creek overhanging onto my property.Also,cutting down the non native eucalyptus tree allowed.tbe growth and expansion of the existing native oak tree that was being crowded out and suffocated by the eucalyptus tree that was removed. I would also like to appeal tine amount of the damages assessed for the violation.Is there a procedure edure for appeal?The amount assessed for removal of the tree seems a bit -.—eve.Inaddition,Iwastold#hatthe.cixiLdamages$1,710.00-goes-intoes----- ----- . General Funded does not go towards the Dept of Region and Parks and therefore does not mitigate damages that result from tree removal in the City of San Luis Obispo. I would propose to spend an agreed upon amount on tree and vegetation replacement on my property to directly mitigate the impacts caused from my having removed the eucalyptus tree. I appreciate your consideration of this matter and would be happy to discuss it further. Please feel free to contact me at(805)544-6809 if you have any questions,otherwise I look forward to hearing from you regarding the City's appeal process and the next step I would need to take to appeal the amount of the Civil Damages assessed for violating the City's Municipal Code Section 12.24.130(0). Sincerely, HanaN CC:Keith Pellemeier-Supervisor Urban Forest Code Enforcement,Neil Havlik Natural Resources,Jonathan Lowell—City Attorney g-l� 0.Q °Oac> 'A ° a as ` Attachment 8.. Page 2 '�o..d'^+•+ -. S1+Yoy F @ b n p - � n _:� � �Jo. a ? Ki- O �M1, °•" � A �„;4 Ate'{ �1�� �a'r•'�� hr yt Y �4 � � `A a?'q s, ,�F '9 V, 6a '�•'S..g� � _ trctl .i+ a3 4 8, a ,r,�,j�. oL �4a�y 2 �8 Hs mB a` .T'ifi���a� 36^ �°''>•A .r. " � �� e+°°�,�'�y„'k . �k'' Q r.��.F yi}' X; .K."P,,,,, +to g �&,ea$3,� '��r ��"+T";°D4, .�3,'f•t' 'RF'^� ��`�•a'��w t��_C. e$ « Sc3 h"° �e c 4 O .`3' �� �4' do •Fd. v[d. ``+�''�� N..�`'...v'y� °°t� � •a ee va a°o 1 Y 4 ga•P•. i�d� '�'= . .7��.6°.:'+�° �f��-.a., ,,i» '° Y y� �' �°..a @ 5�c1���.'�k�,�b.'ga�24 M� XY Wim',;'$� �'� B."� �e,$�r B. •� K atia �H'O�,.J -� _,..�a� Da V C >>a.m. �P°`�J`�ega� ''a s ...,d?g5 aT>"; 't .'e e+ 99 ° F• ,a' 2�' If" �y "•v q .. mal y�p $� `a y8 3 A '�.^��}�Q' k s�-�3}'wF$ o r.v 'X+,p or B'RA�,a �o p �' a �° i •C a� s e. y'�. tl" '8- �a °� r' a� � �F-�f°''i •°YeD�� 6v> d6�J'� a,'�w� � n"� � k $+�c �-� �'`e is A` a FeyT �0 ,A� {�• aP� ' > °"g3'�'`�'�� *� b� `. ,�°jq`�,�y _ ro < Ja�F l60', s e a" ''t�81r ' 4 wwuu .f .J�'v1. i•w:h v '.a���F�G�� 2�ss �>frt l� 3 ��°��F�,yy,pX'.. � ,�" eoom,�§ �r��•g�• '��aa"�tG`a w+ ���'�,.}, M eoA���D. "� ! ••'i I J �`K�F�,.w�rO ; LT'A � oN (.i M t6]� °^ L`S O L'l S M� Y�"y�� �'Ytky Q y �. r r n �.+ 2Y7�'� �A 'S i yrs r b �^Y v r*q � .>< � b..,�ea�y 4�p•�'�4' `^pe'"`.a. °"' .a�Aa AMn'y• $� 5� .Aa �.�� '. 'e p4P ��'� 1^ g1v4� apt°`l1}`j �p� ,p �'aa .` w^. e.;=e �`r a. •,. .x .' G°' E "'!t,es r". J-7 yY.;y �y •b r „rz' �6' k�`,,,6•;'`c 8s a x �°`�' -„e °� of-yF I. Ya,a`.�r'W9 Y4 ,.Ra•>- �°s, c°c �` '.Y b Rc- 't ��� �...p” ryY,(�'._ f` °.� °S'a X °. • in y0. 0 �® Q $daQf�ry, F .Y` o'� pt °e �' Aja C � "', �•p+n'• y.a� 4 MfmA�e J' �� � '�'S+rY p R �� T'j ' �-fes•_ d n "i '?�D a F b - � s, � F �°� b T_ W°ip e 6 . ��� °�1'n � °�a�" 1.5. �dns °�' �bAo�a ,Fa. �°�A„#'�W�AC'S 'I�� J"e'�b?z�x�� °g�'�7�a Q�'�.�'e°y' e aed�� e a•�. a `� >a ,A..�� , ,°am`°�' v {°4° �, a� �"a"sbb a 'tn° ap 2 ea a,J•• a :' .r ,� " ''Yb yy� °`yy�`O.s Ti �f $ b E e E e 1 �-3'� aV e e %?'�� ✓A .a, • 'S h aT..✓ N�a a � �IL- 'g �.� Gam+'' � p t /[�1 ° -' �• n d � � e.f � k ._4 a^ .3w�L G�rv.•a � � a' as r e v. 'Ft'; ,.^. �'�7 Mplil, 4 i t Page 3 L %% !;n r S. Y � $ s 'ypx@.i ♦� }� � �t ate.'N,a �r�l. - _•�. �, ;. _ :rl _ vs..,!h yo, lk- b tl�� * tik� 3K�k.kb,¢t0.� kg�rre ti s pv r �L�+ y"�' �h•y[ _Y�� .+� K_f��1 F •w.::.�a# "'-^'v-�k.,yTv.,i .sn 3S �� # r�%�3 4:: OW, 'S t tom..` tk�y •Cy ..� a �ysv�•—. Y�3E -�.:BV:y�"aA 1�d�[.tiY .. 1 4 fr '.g- 4 1I kr.F ,.-�-: .t -, + rax `` i aj� t ,'it I 1<ti I , - - (. I < y i1., 1 r ,q. G .�ill .. Ys. t ' .'l I. a ° , S n la U > r SK Y Y` [ . T L NI x � F t y 4.Y 1 1 L. } Tt, 5 I. Z q : 1 r , ter 3e l '�` 4 1 F t i x. ?' S t, . Y i . .11 y T Y E s } .` x x f x ^' t ,i i ?. � z - § it .n s - as , L.ii!l . LxY x .> 1: i 'S#t r 'h it,.�} x r y x r Ld t fir{ 'S . `� ren L� X f r i t\ ti: :1 is� �r r Z t , i M-1 .4♦+:: �n_'4 Y 'Sy 44�1iT L epi ::St` f ha. lyd11f%F4-k ♦ el .. ' , % ,^ + } a � '' ". .,yds, ;,,, x'3".4N � - IT. `� 4 - { �r "'� r ,zees i :e J ,v . `ri I p:.•5-sr, y3..W, ,e.'c t rr vi N'�<a r �n i J �aa ? v v 4y. r�'F4 .. "Ill' �'�1.1F'w I 11PF .c./ Z. , S Yy, 44'-I,-M ,.,y < b-� v r 'S a 2 F X..!: �.''AN vL3..y,r`"j a -� - �L. S -". w,��,, , . �. . -. . ". .�.. I r l !... < £�. W : ie? �>.;. . I '::.ts ... I +' Jr�,ptri$ ,' :<s .. - i:; Y f: �� 1k / {r rf t � �t F \ - 4 w t � ; t ro ca n CIM ��F.ap T.�f__ i YF 'Y•'C-i`aF JHt..w� ;}C 4°}':: :kik Attachment 9 April 23,2008 Hana Novak Mark Alonzo 1740 San Luis Dr. San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 RE: NOTICE OF VIOLATION OF MUNICIPAL CODE Ms.Novak: I received your letter dated March 29,2008 and reviewed our records with the following findings. On October 29,2007,you were notified that you committed a violation of the City's Municipal Code in the removal of one eucalyptus tree on the property at 1740 San Luis Drive. No response was received from you so a second notice was sent December 14,2007 detailing the fine is$1,710.00 for illegally removing one tree. The amount assessed for the fine is determined by the value of the tree using the International Society of Arboriculture appraisal method as determined by our ISA certified City Arborist.After such notification,you have ten days to appeal that decision,but we received no communication from you. The ten day right to appeal expired. Following the notification of the fine,a bill was sent to you for the amount of the fine.The City of San Luis Obispo Finance Department billed you every month for several months.Bills were sent December,January, February and March. After March 2008 the bill was then sent to a collection agency and is no longer in our hands. Keith Pellemeier Supervisor Urban Forest 781-7022 cc: Code Enforcement Neil Havlik,Natural Resources Jonathan Lowell,City Attorney GAPermits\StreetAddresses\San Luis\I740\Trees\AppealDenialApri12008.dm 6-z./ Attachment 10 Page 1 Hana Novak 1740 San Luis Drive San Luis Obispo,Ca 93401 Keith Pellemeier-Supervisor Urban Forest City Of San Luis Obispo 25 Prado Road San Luis Obispo,Ca 93401 RE: Collection Notice and Violation of Municipal Code May 6,2008 Dear Mr.Pellemeier, I am writing in response to your letter dated April 23,2008.I have several issues with the way this matter was handled.First off I am a small business owner with several rental properties located throughout the City of San Luis Obispo. I contribute allot of tax payer dollars to the City in the form of Property taxes and Business taxes and I feel that I did not deserve to be treated like this! I also own rental properties in the City of Los Angeles and as such I travel 2 weeks out of each month to LA to take care of my business there.I am often out of town and therefore was not able to address this matter of the violation any sooner than I did! I apologize for taking 3 months to respond to your initial letter,however your letter dated October 29, 2007 stated that I should contact you at my earliest convenience to discuss the matter. Nowhere in the letter did it state that I had 10 days to respond and appeal the decision,it stated that I should contact you at my earliest convenience! Had I been told that I only had 10 days from the date of the October letter to appeal I would have done so in a timely manner! In addition the letter I received from Ron Combs-City Urban Forester,dated December 14,2007 did not state that I had 10 days to appeal the violation!The.letter simply stated.. that I had 30 days to make payment to the City. I then began to receive invoices from the City requesting that I pay$ 1,710.The invoices state that accounts are assigned to legal collection 60 days after invoice date.The date of the last invoice I received was February 26,2008.Knowing that I needed to avoid a collection so that it would not affect my . credit;on March 29,2008 I wrote a letter to Ron Combs-Urban Forester and requested an appeal and asked that I be notified of the appeal process.The date of the letter was absolutely less than 60 days from the date of the invoice! However,on April 30,2008 I received a notice from Medico-Dental Adjustment Bureau(a collection Agency) demanding payment.I do not understand why this was sent to a collection agency when I was clearly in correspondence with the City regarding resolution of this matter! I am requesting that you rescind the collection and allow me to appeal this matter! In my correspondence I indicated that I was willing to pay the fine but wanted to be able to discuss the matter with City Officials.I made sure that I wrote prior to the 60 day time period in order to avoid the invoice being sent to a collection agency and to indicate that I _�.-22 Attachment 10 Page 2 was willing to resolve the matter.I feel that sending this to a collection agency was made in error and was done after you received my letter requesting an appeal!. I would like you to reconsider your actions and rescind the collection and have it removed from my credit record! I have called your office and requested a meeting and have not received a return phone call. I would greatly appreciate it if we could meet to discuss this matter and if you could schedule an appeal hearing! You can reach me at(805)544-6809 home or at (805)748-5020 cell.I sincerely appreciate your consideration of this matter and look forward to hearing from you soon! Sincerely, Hana Nov Cc: Code enforcement Neil Havlik,Natural Resources Jonathan Lowell, City Attorney Dave Romero,City Mayor i -- -------- . ------------------------ 5-z t Attachment 11 May 14,2008 Hana Novak Mark Alonzo 1740 San Luis Dr. San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 RE: NOTICE OF VIOLATION OF MUNICIPAL CODE Ms.Novak: Staff has reviewed your last correspondence dated May 6,2008 with the City Attorney's office. In the interest of fairness we have determined to permit your appeal of the Administrative fine to the Tree Committee consistent with Chapter 1.20 and Section 12.24.200 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code,(full text available on line at http:/www.codepublishing.com/ca/sanluisobispo) I have scheduled your appeal for the next meeting of the Tree Committee on Tuesday,May 27,2008 at 5:00 p.m.held in the Corporation Yard meeting room at 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo.You or your designated representative needs to attend the Tree Committee meeting to present your appeal. I will make a copy of all of our correspondence to give to the Tree Committee members. I have instructed our Finance Department to cancel the services of the collection agency,Medico-Dental Adjustment Bureau. Keith Pellemeier Supervisor Urban Forest 781-7022 cc: City Attorney Finance G:\Petmits\StreetAddresses\San Luis\1740\Trees\AppeaAcceptedMayl2008.doc y-zee ' t May 26, 2008 `� Attachment 12 STAFF REPORT TO TREE COMMITTEE APPEAL OF FINE FOR REMOVING A TREE WITHOUT A PERMIT at 1740 San Luis Drive. STAFF RECOMENDS THE APPEAL TO BE DENIED AND FINE PAID. Early October 2007 an official with the City, responding to a citizen complaint, stopped the workers at this address from removing a eucalyptus tree in the front yard without a permit. October 17, 2007, Mr Alonzo filled out a Tree Removal Application. When Staff arrived at 1740 San Luis Drive to review the Tree Removal application they found a tree about 6 feet tall with no branches. A man was there with a chainsaw cutting the rest of the tree down. He said he was working for Mr Alonzo and had done other work for him. The tree had a DSH of 34". October 29, 2007 Staff sent a certified letter to Mr Alonzo stating, you removed a tree in violation of Municipal Code, you will be subject to civil damages and to contact the City Arborist at your earliest convienence. No response. December 14, 2007 Staff sent a certified letter to Mr Alonzo, stating you were notified October 29, 2007, you violated the City's Municipal Code and you owe the City $1710.00. Payment is due within 30 days. No response. January, February and March 2008 The City Finance Department billed Mr Alonzo for the amount of the value of the tree. No response. In March 2008 the Finance Department sent the uncollected bill to a Collections Agency since neither Staff or Finance had heard from Mr Alonzo. April 2, 2008 Staff received a letter from Hana Novak, 1740 San Luis Drive, writing in response to the Notice of Violation of Municipal Code. Since April Ms. Novak and I have had several conversations about the illegal tree removal. Keith Pellemeier, Supervisor Urban Forest G:\Permits\StreetAddresses\S=Luis\1740\Trees\StaffReportTmeCommMay08.doc 5-25 Attachment 13 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TREE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES CORPORATION YARD TUESDAY, MAY 279 2008 1740 SAN LUIS DRIVE (Eucalyptus) Mark Alonzo, appellant, discussed the appeal of the fine assessed to the illegal removal of the eucalyptus on his heavily-planted property. He discussed the extensive sewer problems that had been associated with the tree and the maintenance frustrations he had experienced. He stated he was taking responsibility for not following proper protocol for tree removals and admitted that he acted impulsively in ultimately removing the tree. He asked the Committee to please consider a reduction in the fine amount. There was general staff/Committee discussion of the events that led up to the fine. Mr. Pellemeier reported that it was not a professional tree service that had removed the tree and that the site of the tree was now bricked over. Hana Novak, co-appellant, apologized for the delay in responding to the numerous letters sent and stated she did not understand that her response was time-sensitive. She recapped the timeline of events and reminded the committee that when her husband had been apprised that there was a removal process to follow after removing @ 50% of the tree, they had applied for a removal permit. She acknowledged that her husband chose to have the tree 100% removed before that permit request could be reviewed. Ms. Dollar told the applicants that she understood the tree posed problems, but did not feel the applicants' actions had been appropriate and since the removal process had not been followed, the fine should be upheld as assessed. Mr. Parker expressed concern that the tree site had become a parking pad and that the loss of the tree had a significant negative impact on the neighborhood and the environment. Mr. Alonzo reiterated his request for a fee reduction and stated that even though there were still many trees on his property, he would replant as directed. Ms. Dollar moved to deny the appeal and to accept the dollar amount assessed in a fine against the applicants. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Pellemeier noted that the denial could be appealed to Council. 6-2b RECEIVECAttachment 14 JUN ` 3 2088 Filing Fee: $100.00 Paid Page 1 � e SLO CITY CLERK NIA via ,city of • c 1� LUIS OBI c�o REFER TO SECTION 4 JN1 l J APJPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION M o xr-Y,, A L ovcz p 17 o sa.vt Lu i s 03 O l Name �/� J��]\//��� /\/ �(�7� Mailing Address and Zi/pp Code ( gos) 5`-�� - V V `l \ 65) Phone Fax Representative's Name Mailing Address and Zip Code Title Phone Fax SECTION Z 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: T tree Cm tM VA' ,l-4e e_ (Name of Officer, Committee or Commission decision being appealed) 2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: let 3. The application or project was entitled: { Ir' j A MrP p_ W ilA u i ra r10 l im.-%=� o,4- Ula—SIA. ,W t �'; 4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City` staff member: Ku. I? 1,0 w+P l v- S 0ve.�i sov6o Ap r i _ ZOo� (Staff Member's Name and Department) v b0. .�r� (Date) VNL 5. Has this m tter been the subject of a previous appeal? If so,when was it heard and by whom: �,n SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL Explain specifically what actionls you are appealing and.whV 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 l Attachment 14 Page 2 Reason for Appeal continued 17Li 1{g �P}iFbE1'r` / a7` y �vfl�l4.:' •� ^r} x ,Ky S- r Y IK Y� w3r �,. �3.,� .� "` The s LCCiS j7bisiuiiljreurtil'alwe,ipuA rtitfrin[ri lord gt�ve !jt atdf pert' es=all forms of cizarr lhvdiVe Y ' etre) aQxcid y t E7Uf89, 3 g'1o'tW �U zi h S 1 aPPcafiaon ?`At>3rsubji Il�rrati y1crnuzI�`��iTlp�g��]a µ F a�ptlo�rtL � ��' � x r.p `�' 1S v 1 `• �.\ r � •fie l � vim. .1 ...'J r 5.�+ xh A our I Pttto.9xer rsB I app a Ornesv�#ti a inr spbi It* f�yc fila n •„ hg apf5ea, plae un `nlait, r�—Tu :b�e Fherdr ` fSOrrT flrthci Yail w rE = .. �riotitiedtin writing ee7ra�t-dareu�appefw11} ht� d' efofe tPfe.Cot�ncdrYoli9rb�lr �Kfl q repeselitatiSre aril'tie a cfdd tea nd tyle pyppo heanPtg, arlcl t&W,-prepai ed>fo mica y6uc :r ,,base' r�otiF testi'cnor►� licn)ted �1 Q-mlrr�festi": �� ' ,, °' S `.���; `. A cA[itfrivancd rnap 5e grari(gd Under'tAftai and`un p b�iroamstarrces Jf uu to'' neet to regtlest 'c t tinu�n ,y u triusCsubmityourtegUOST46-wrf'tfngfRo.tla4'CitY'Cle*yr'P� w-V1. 1fYQur rsci 'e 16r fax tinuance w l after At�n�����►s���~r +�b�jcolf l ��t'-baa to g�,�h�t ��q�es4#�r�tQgttttt>�atrbs t���i�ln�a`raqut'a��o�tn��it�e�� dais frbfu_rantee flat'#Wi7a'$rare�d� aglk�n�s�a`!thd' rsaretr ;of/flhettl4Courcd ,`, ��' t 1.�.-. t' r .s-Itr sf: .?'1 �k �y.^n[ i C 'i at -. \ '' "°��~4\ �'•.�,-�f? 4t fiC_ wt f 4 1 �., ✓ i f, ob �.-Y'6- ''cT t" . 0+�9r0#t&apWaa�iliia'�r r;en- Id i-e�i �ibpeal t�� cel/fat fo `i#46i � ri► h`a /tYc�iha '�5�r ',.., 2` �9 J+r rtY tc<' F -Tf� 3 T_ \ :ri 1� •:'p t'! {� YZJ ?�q y�� wY't crx" No. �c+a,t ....fid '.1�`S ;—,M" `Ii c J nartliff N0u6�.M 3 q•yr L r ? 4� n t ( at� i xc$'�tioll� td tfioear�{1y�Appeals o Jt1itomn � iite�etst�orisc't bo6e�-t14�te�}dapP�tant { This item is hereby calendared for 2 b0 l c: City Attorney City AdminlstniUve Officer Department Head • LU e.�-��R" Advisory Body Chairperson City Cle (original) Page 2 of 3 ( c3/St-�J a/03 -Z I Attachment 14 Page 3 Appeal To The City Council RE: Violation of Municipal Code for Removal of a tree located at 1740 San Luis Drive June 3,2008 We are appealing the fine for removing a tree without a permit located at 1740 San Luis Drive. We feel the fine is excessive. We understand that the money does not even go towards mitigating the impacts caused by the tree being removed and that the code is written such that the money received as a fine,goes into the General Fund to be used at the discretion of the City, and does not even go to the Parks Department. We are asking the City Council to be reasonable and reduce the fine amount, or consider allowing us to plant other landscaping and or trees on our property in exchange for the fine amount. First we would like to provide the City Council with some history and background . information on how we were treated during the discovery process. In early October a city official arrived at our residence in response to a complaint that we were cutting down a tree in our side yard.The individual spoke with the worker who was cutting down the tree and asked him to stop work.In response to the interaction,Mark Alonzo then went down to the City and applied for an after the fact tree removal permit and was told by a City Official that it would take several weeks before they would even get around to it . Mark was never contacted by anyone from the City to follow up on his application,but instead was sent a violation notice with a substantial fine amount;$1,710. On October 29,2007,a letter from Ron Combs the City's Urban Forester,was sent to our home.The letter was not sent certified mail but rather sent by regular delivery. We travel out of town often for business.We own rental properties in the City of Los Angeles and as such travel 2 weeks out of each month to LA to take care of our business there. When we are out of town our mail is collected by our neighbor. We traveled out of town the fust 2 weeks in November and returned to SLO in late November to celebrate Thanksgiving.During Thanksgiving we had over 20 people at our home and our sewer line ruptured. Our sewer line is located directly adjacent to the tree that was removed. In early December we traveled again out of town to LA and then stayed the entire Month of December to celebrate the holidays with our families.We did not return until after New Years and at that point retrieved our mail that was collected from our neighbors. This background information is important to convey because when we did speak with Keith Pellemeier the City's Supervisor Urban Forrester he had a nasty attitude towards us and expressed that his actions were predicated on the fact that he felt that we were ignoring him and the City's letters. When in fact were not ignoring him and his letters we were simply out of town attending to our livelihood When we attempted to explain all of this to him he did not respond with compassion rather he simply quoted the section of the municipal code reiterating that we were in violation. - - -z9 Attachment 14 Page 4 During our discussion Keith indicated that he would have been more willing to negotiate with us to reduce the fine amount had we contacted him sooner. Once again 1 stated that we were out of town and we contacted him at our earliest convenience.He was not willing to consider our situation but instead after our conversation sent our paper work over to the finance department to be forwarded to a collection agency. I have several issues with the way this matter was handled. First off we are small business owners with several rental properties located throughout the City of San Luis Obispo. We contribute allot of tax payer dollars to the City in the form of Property taxes and Business taxes and feel that we did not deserve to be treated like this! Once again we are often out of town and therefore were not able to address this matter of the violation any sooner than we did! We apologize for taking 3 months to respond to Keith's initial letter,however Keith's letter dated October 29,2007 stated that we should contact him at our earliest convenience to discuss the matter.Now in the letter did it state that we had 10 days to respond and appeal the decision,it simply stated that we should contact him at our earliest convenience! Had we been told that we had only 10 days from the date of the October letter to appeal we would have done so in a timely manner! In addition the letter we received from Ron Combs-City Urban Forester,dated December 14,2007 did not state that we had 10 days to appeal the violation! The letter simply stated that we had 30 days to make payment to the City. We then began to receive invoices from the City requesting that we pay$ 1,710.The invoices state that accounts are assigned to legal collection 60 days after invoice date.The date of the last invoice received was February 26,2008.Knowing that we needed to avoid a collection so that it would not affect our credit,on March 29,2008 we wrote a letter to Ron Combs-Urban Forester and requested an appeal and asked that we be notified of the appeal process. The date of the letter was absolutely less than 60 days from the date of the invoice! However,on April 30,2008,we received a notice from Medico-Dental Adjustment Bureau(a collection Agency)demanding payment.We do not understand why this was sent to a collection agency when we were clearly in correspondence with the City regarding resolution of this matter. At the tree committee hearing several of the committee members expressed that had we followed the City's process they would have been more willing to work with us.They denied our request simply based on principal and not based on resolution of the bigger picture.We do not understand why the City is not be willing to reduce our fine and negotiate with us now,but would have been willing to reduce our fine and work with us had we made contact sooner.What's the difference?If the City was willing to work with us then why isn't the City willing to work with us now? We respectfully request that you reconsider the matter and reduce the amount of the fine to a more reasonable amount and or allow us to replant atree and vegetation within our property boundary.Thank you for considering this matter and for your patience. Sincerely, Mark Alonzo and Hana Novak 3o 47TA— -O bu Ew 7 I � RESOLUTION NO. (2008 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING APPEAL AND DENYING THE TREE COMMITTEE'S DECISION TO ASSESS ILLEGAL TREE REMOVAL FINE AT 1740 SAN LUIS DRIVE. WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo (referred hereinafter as the City) staff observed in October 2007 removal of a eucalyptus tree without permit at 1740 San Luis Drive; and WHEREAS, City staff notified the residents of 1740 San Luis Drive on October 29, 2007 of the illegal tree removal violation and associated fine; and WHEREAS, the City received no response from the residents of 1740 San Luis Drive in regards to the illegal tree removal violation and associated fine, and WHEREAS, the City submitted delinquent billings to Medico-Dental Collection Agency for collection, and WHEREAS, City staff received an appeal of the City's illegal tree removal fine on April 2, 2008; and WHEREAS, the Tree Committee heard the appeal and upheld the City's decision to assess the illegal tree removal fine at its May 27, 2008 meeting; and NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Upholds the appeal from the Tree Committee's decision to assess a fine in the amount of$1,710 for the illegal tree removal at 1740 San Luis Drive, thereby eliminating the fine. Upon motion of seconded by and on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 2008. 5 - 3i Attachment 15 Resolution No. (2008 Series) Page 2 Page 2 Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jonathan P. Lowell City Attorney gAst rmpatsegendasminutes\_ra02009gmrk- mk1740san WisdrfineappwK1740 san kris dr deny rano Q.doc 5 - 32 ATTACHMENT i RESOLUTION NO. (2008 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE TREE COMMITTEE'S DECISION TO ASSESS ILLEGAL TREE REMOVAL FINE AT 1740 SAN LUIS DRIVE. WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo (referred hereinafter as the City) staff observed in October 2007 removal of a eucalyptus tree without permit at 1740 San Luis Drive; and WHEREAS, City staff notified the residents of 1740 San Luis Drive on October 29, 2007 of the illegal tree removal violation and associated fine; and WHEREAS, the City received no response from the residents of 1740 San Luis Drive in regards to the illegal tree removal violation and associated fine, and WHEREAS, the City submitted delinquent billings to Medico-Dental Collection Agency for collection, and WHEREAS, City staff received an appeal of the City's illegal tree removal fine on April 2. 2008; and WHEREAS, the Tree Committee heard the appeal and upheld the City's decision to assess the illegal tree removal fine at its May 27, 2008 meeting; and WHEREAS, an appeal to the City Council was filed stemming from the Tree Committee's decision; and WHEREAS, on July 1, 2008, an appeal hearing was held at which the City Council heard testimony from the appellants, staff and other interested parties, and considered the staff report, the record of the appeal proceedings below, and other information; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo that it: Section 1. Finds that the subject tree was removed without a permit, and that the fine was properly calculated and assessed in accordance with San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 12.24.130; and Section 2. Upholds the Tree Committee's decision to assess a fine in the amount of$1,710 for the illegal tree removal at 1740 San Luis Drive, and hereby authorizes City staff to proceed with collection of said fine. 5 - 33 Resolution No. (2008 Series) Page 2 Upon motion of seconded by and on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 2008. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jonath . Lowell i y Attorney g:\5t .reports-agendas-minutesLoar200ftarkstrees\1740san luiscr ineappeal\7740 san luis dr uphold reso.doo 5- 3Y . r ._._,..V1740 San Luis Driive Tre, a _ in early October ♦ t� a+ r 2007 / first notification - + , a r • • • . Attachment1.1 t �!-t9 y g J l 1 �rA1•t J..`iv fr_ , 1 - _ '1�-0 r•�-4�r IX�iii /i`' �� �v I�, 11 � � - t r Y' �� j r�� f ' y♦/ r( � R I ? �1 ' r � w,• d, � '�Y 1`1i�J .. �.1 J � M�1 I ♦� �� I .'r� „ r d�71(/ t � r( ,• kS� st /`t° f , rA'�.t�j^I Il r� `t / ,a,, � I�"" < ♦ I 1 '{ "'ks _ 1 }'. f r {�F sh � ' > J +S�i 9.is �/1 fT�i�.�`S � ' �I �✓4Q�A.r � "Y rJ �,\ rr VA �q . ' r r ` f f4 1` � L +i �11`> J .. �} YS Irr d;i4 �dy '✓• y � t �/ ! f( ' v y /+ 11 rf 1 .Jjl1 r �./ �f� 't,� f �„!T !�(i 51}r. -^a♦t , i\. fl `. ,. yVy n t:• "g'0r'ir,y xf�y�. ' 'ad �i A r�l'-i "l�.� lrf � • �' ,. .r- r" .fir q �.' g' i.�,Y y` .�'. � .• rr� `\7I�,..fY, :'�( ,moi s•� `�. Nr ,d,-� i'"1 F :} ht H� 'Y , NfTI �;... r`{,t'I /n\'. J', 1 r L r A R I I r r A s 1t 4'kr' 3 r ow IN i Jam ' � �r hlf� ' isy �d(a'fJ ` `�ynf � Val *ll K >'-.�;r✓,Ji"z L' / r'� .1�'�'`'y � ��•+,� 1 l'N'_\1,..,��tl 1 r "�'.. 7� l •• �`' .a��o-y c� C I �jy��ti� Sy i .��.i � 1 t� Y�-K. Z,Ntlf� .� �� .�1\� < 1�Y.-e•-.._ ^{ m.�,e 0�t_:t,'��--'`�I `'. / II + 7� } `1 'l? 1 k \1 6„1 �f� S', tl V, '�, y /r\nl �'� /t �:W�-�' _> �f�: .+i/i'�= , 1 y� c..r-✓ y An v�-. ', �>' c T 1.J1' L J•.; 'C.c>A �� F _c.. ly ,- `1 ` °�♦lfi"` 9d' �' ✓.�' sn ..i'` 611 { F:'.:. -'/'1 I \moi / � hl""'�„� si yr ki<( rZf,� �' ' ,�y�3.: / ,�t ° , ,fi ,y4��!><v�y .:g. -."f— r�� 1 ■YE ' 1� .�` 9J �..: .r•- �,rr ,G Y4 ..r. "' '.IR �.,'� 1 .R/� J u, i.` t'� =`t ✓ Y ���{� J �I �-.1� f♦� l( .: "�7'. � } i} r , Will %' .!, '.l.'�'-e�' ! .-e l //lt, r_ t�„ 1• /. Q. _ "" k+lL' L I V11 � �Will f ••: }7.•�s � r �,+.+.1 L4 iii '�! L w_'� � 11 +}.♦ +1♦ y'S •~ �S/ a `•� l� �� �; r. % r," ' �i� � t 1�,.y/' A-'��-.� �� �� /�•. �.._. ,1. 1`�. i' t y �^r ileJ � S. "'A �.��� 1:\<v. 4 ^�.•yr ,+J r ��♦�I -. �,,� .tri �� ;r , •, , ,, ;y,.'�� , (-�.r '��� �- r. 7 � it 1 ! .J S �.r I♦ d'1\ 1 '> w '- h r�7A�i•7,qQs r •J fl t � • `0 Nco yt n r e l J O w C _ •:� [ �' i -moi ' f C) O O U J ' �4 _ f r�o fi4/: O @ \ � *y1'!/f Vk 10 `7T OBJ i+ � HL Ty {44 rl^ . JJ 6 r y r AL+•� 1 'rte..,.+..,. p i "r L`fY 'CC` .�r•'� I � - ' 1��•1 1��� .,,�"�...• ,�. f I� ,Rr y`Vt 1, .1 0 ..�', ,f 1p �,J���Q � fir. ' & f �.. I -.r�f ��,. v�-i, ��r�. ° � •fir r - 1F h r 1i- . ��• t 1 �. V,� S IY�; yE 1 �' ..' ^';_ -1 t :� ` h .. u 4 aD ` (1' S. •tY it O Q CC) Jt O .� c ^a co �� C r 0 � � t �H 1',' L� 7• t . O O f6 ' L r 1 196 to T"J' j C, 1.._J�� ,'r dt }' l•�J TIt.f 'j 4,jit 74, !1 3 y Ng it ol r 4b •`��i�'! .a, it .� i _ ... -�-• ''fir I / I:,, • �i s k,• ,n • 1 el --- is VF." �Al. >r H _ mss• - d'<y,�: ��-� � � 'r p w • .c5� _ �L f ,yam _ f.`-n 'Ci ,Y .S 't C _) .OF C� tl!�.^,�\ 1a '•a.. o, f1 �,tc�•y�,, _�t/. L �, Cn Q y / ''' j✓ orf{ {N� qqq N/L rr Q nno U N}f wJ rr�� fyY .�• �ki..F�/Yy C ULL Q 2 i"1.• N` Y+ •R'' :1' ^Bp cLil t ^'-� i� � � �:` �,.�.re ,.� Y �•Fla. .. ,£��' � ;(.7`._. �"F�i' � i S < ti°t r I�At x =`�,•3� ,,fir, i��� . .. ^ �Lkw , I 4 �_of .�"���•�� y��i. '�g,t��, ,, i p Y1. ..� �: �yf. M,T' y.3 ;;1��L' f. �� •�;;��� Jew � 1„ 17 }^yi a) POP > . D o O0- 7,/f JO� _ .0 C 'f C N O OIO d O U �' '. � l •�� S�. ' � E O m 1,- O L = ; w 16 Is r ! t s r �f= r � ,,,.-: Vie._ ', h •,• wy �h r�' t r .fir-:-�'�„�i jf�•'lr 19 1 Atc 1i `4'e �I!{ � JY Yj„>�jar �,..((�''r Yryiv' r �� � " �. 1 � -' 1�� • lF +2fi] �°' f..F, ,� r ���! � r . c. � ?' 4 � .. �t► �L�. sic:. *�elf, n1 r. ` h 'r�ytz � �: r 1. � o� .. 'S�,n•'n o '11 , �� " S" 3 Y4' •Z. y n' J �, 1 .RQ .� � .lr'��i '`s'�1r� • �'� > `Q1, �i r�1 ' � r it � ". +.'�' ;, .'� t.wl.°�N"� X./� .� FtJ/ •� :�.-ems' s- -�.«�+`S rtrlSTc<c�.� i. '� r''_ �� � C• w i ,.,,�. � i' -'f'�- , - -• _ � . � t�" �G Nrr;ri{'`-' rtT�< f`yl^�`�,;., ^j` < r - wry-t "��, L ..•N''n_4' `•` 'I. �.., J My o J�� �r� r. • w!- n r..fr• y:• • �� 2Mr „Y�. "r�i..>•�� � y.�y�t-,ry ,•` 7�,•.t k ��. '1�+�• w o--` r� ;� c+ � Y. �$ .,;�i1� a v L�� t' �'ir R�• ,� •- '"y',�'��' c �`� . 2f/ �` .'� ,..�s 1740 San Luis Drive ozc t Complete Removal of Tree t o t. E ('1`�y � Photo 6 of 8 Attachment 17 Jam.; •L`r.. ��,/rJy�Y aF 1,}��[(�� ✓ .Y;�r.r fl��'`��,Iyt'/.^'.rwC�. � 'Y`� / 1\ o .�'i ._il�.� 'Y f fi'� i� > -'� , f. '� - s c.�. �., 11 ]J/, e q `• ,� ;e- v, r:.. ,.•'J.j'a♦ b l.: ,�� -3-,� Ty y�• -a��1a��3�..?�' t�, ,r a?ir i�� a>''Z3 u! � , /� r�._,. ✓ " � ', � ."firms x �,, ,•, �1`y,5,��,�%�'�� o: ♦�[i'f�,ter.,II.Crn.'1J.�y ° r,•.,Y. k'�O `�"Vl �'� '�_ v �. ,_�•^� � `� �t-' ���rw� -' i �1+•Ly�r��-{"` /���� a+ �:r '� �': � r, ,5�� ,�,1, .cl 4 � Y: j �l-�5 4 q� L .CL^rtTl'r. d,,� �y �r O T N:,r,•y� _J I r ,{� r r4 c _ F-�� i�w �� � �o� �'ti�.r� a1;,� Y.l' y. 7� ��r-r�0'�Fr r� �. y, •C ti•..y�� �•��`rJ'7�yyr »• �. k;4, •' � r +•it '�li-aQj �'�-jar �, . r 'j L A •S. ! •S, .>.7r'.9� �?1 A� y v�l.� +� a�lu i )�� .a! �i-ti�r ^�� �� i p!r l 7 "�� t �� p,Y �U 1 (• }8,�'� � �.�'D'' r hJd..- � y .�' � z ',lif:• a,�-tp� "r,�� ,,tt �t �•+;.s{' ( .., 4 '�/�` ''� '� A,i '{'t"•'' 4 l Nt�- "�" tif{ - .l}1 �' a � rw i y /• -��J ,�,,ff 1 ��a �c• 1r ' - v '.IP .r.,�y.�I�`-��.5'(`y�'�`-'`T��) :z{;i �• r '��'dt"_'wr• � R � � ,,+. •. - _. � � t C -6 — /� �' Iy �f' �1•r ./C� '`, \1111 (_� ✓�•� - -./i" vy,d 6 ' r�,>,y6r` 'e� r f, r 17 P P, A I VC wXc 1740 San Luis Drive cx Complete Removal of Tree Photo 7 of 8 FF Attachment 17 I -jZ C�A AK 41 C4 4� yE xe 76, 111� 4's j, it s C It I 14" 4�, —IL HH PIL YI el If ej o;141 Dz ON 00 "94 Nk `VRI 4C (D T � OCC U) C iu t+ > .. 't �.�ti .fin• �4„t•, r �4 CD 00 T .. : •"fit E, •R_ I. C N O 1 rim co co ) c `` ! I <_ tt•� R E L/� ♦• - � .'.( t yab ' �.i�...rXi b �.. 0�'�4 'IX ��}}1�'((F r,/y f•'{"'., �'r�-1� �c _ �..•(` }`r.(.J `f6 2 y S L.- �,A w-.F,t,,�y'Y �_ Ti , •1 ? c _. .i♦ y'- - for , c1\.� 1G3T✓ r .� y�, Y ." f-`y J� r4y�i vw Io •'� �♦ 'Fil`P. Y .a_♦S"�X 14 � ��OY�a��,'�ti '•A. 'brYCd J^��w�yyo rS,�`( � ,�?�?''y,��. .K � � �r��C r '�n"4 1I1`�"' �c .f7if� .. S 2 R.'al1C.L $v � 4 ' y 'Y;6."�1 ate'.�t�����;ll �� �• 't 7T R9 g"i; q © 1"'y�rt,')ia ate., �^ . k- -�' °'4fv 'rti �--�c�y��<? �r� +• <' •�� d,�.t1�.A.^i!` .� j�,�Jy>, � F�i -+a /V',. � Y r .,/ ,E� � r. � .(,,...., �t may��� �,�•. f .._.� ,� a 'fl ; y 44 t � Y•' l c .f ,ti o I F �+