Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/06/2009, PH 1 - APPEAL OF THE TREE COMMITTEE'S DECISION TO ALLOW HOMEOWNER REMOVAL OF ONE PALM TREE AT 1408 JOHNSON n,aeD,h Council c (� »C ReOctober 6,2009 acEnc)a poRt It.N..h" PAL- CITY O F SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: Jay D. Walter, Public Works Directo Prepared By: Keith Pellemeier, Urban orest Supervisor SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE TREE COMMITTEE'S DECISION TO ALLOW HOMEOWNER REMOVAL OF ONE PALM TREE AT 1408 JOHNSON TREE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION As recommended by the Tree Committee on July 27, 2009, approve the removal of one palm tree at 1408 Johnson Avenue. CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution upholding the appeal of the Tree Committee's decision to allow the removal of one Palm tree at 1408 Johnson Avenue, thereby denying removal of the palm tree by the homeowner. DISCUSSION Background On June 30, 2009, Evelyn Talmage, of 1408 Johnson Avenue applied to remove one palm tree in the front yard of her residence. She cited her reasons for wanting to remove the palm tree as; expensive to maintain, messy, and her inability to perform tree maintenance due to her age. (See Attachments 1 and 2) The City Arborist reviewed the Tree Removal application, visited 1408 Johnson Avenue and could not make findings supporting removal under Municipal Code, Chapter 12.24, Tree Regulations, 12.24.180.C.5. as follows: When tree removal is not related to property development, the city arborist may authorize a tree removal after finding any of the following circumstances: a. The tree is a hazard to life or property, and removing it is the only feasible way to eliminate the hazard; b. The tree is dead or dying or damaged beyond reclamation; c. The tree is causing severe root damage to public or private property, and removing the tree is the only feasible way to eliminate the damage. Due to the fact the palm tree did not meet the above criteria, the City Arborist did not authorize its removal. When the City Arborist cannot approve removal, and the tree removal is not part of property development, the request is brought before the Tree Committee for its consideration. P4 t - I i Appeal of Tree Committee Decision for 1408 Johnson Avenue Page 2 Tree Committee Review and Decision The removal request was heard at the July 27, 2009 meeting of the Tree Committee. Mrs. Talmage spoke about the expense and difficulty of maintaining the palm tree citing her age as the primary reason. She stated that she wanted to remove the tree and grow a lawn. The Committee discussed costs of pruning the fronds every few years versus the cost of removing the palm tree. Mrs. Talmage expressed it was a hardship on her to maintain the tree and costly to have the tree fronds removed every few years on her limited income. Also, at the age of 83 she can no longer rake up the seeds that are dropping. Ms. Dollar moved to approve the removal request, based on undue hardship to the property owner, and required one 15-gallon tree to be planted as a replacement. The motion passed by a 3- 2 vote, with Mr. Ritter and Mr. Savory voting against. (See Attachment 3) Staff directed the Tree Committee during its discussion to the Municipal Code provision establishing that normal maintenance is not considered a hardship, but the Committee voted in favor of the removal. Appeal On August 4, 2009 the City Clerk's office received an appeal of the Tree Committee's decision at 1408 Johnson Avenue, from Howard Nicholson. Mr. Nicholson feels a beautiful 80 year old palm tree should not be removed because the owner does not want to do normal routine maintenance and cleanup. (See Attachment 4) Basis for Staff's Differing Recommendation During the Tree Committee meeting, staff raised the issue that the undue hardship relates to a tree that is causing damage to the applicant's property, not routine maintenance and regular tree care. Municipal Code, Tree Regulations, 12.24.180.C.6.a. is clear on this issue. When the city arborist cannot authorize removal, the tree committee' shall review the application and may authorize removal if it finds one of the following circumstances: a. The tree is causing undue hardship to the property owner. Normal routine maintenance does not constitute a hardship, i.e., cleaning of gutters, leaf raking, or root intrusion into a failed sewer lateral, etc.; (emphasis added) b. Removing the tree promotes good arboricultural practice; c. Removing the tree will not harm the character or environment of the surrounding neighborhood. Therefore, it appears the Tree Committee may have applied the Tree Regulations incorrectly. Any person who owns a tree will need to water, rake leaves or pick up fronds, sweep the sidewalk and provide for routine maintenance tasks, such as pruning. Ideally, palm trees should be pruned every three to five years because of the way they grow, to minimize random dropping fronds. The tree committee specified that a new tree be planted, so the owner will continue to have litter of some type, although initially it may be less and easier to manage than the existing tree. P41 - a Appeal of Tree Committee Decision for 1408 Johnson Avenue Page 3 Staff also considered that this palm is on the outskirts of the Railroad Historic District and was likely planted about the same time as many of the other palms in the railroad area. Many of the palms in this Historic District have been removed over the years. Staff supports retaining this palm since it is causing no damage to public or private property and seems to need no more maintenance than what would be expected for a tree of this size. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact to the City in upholding the appeal. ALTERNATIVE Deny the appeal. The City Council could choose to deny the appeal and allow the homeowner to remove the palm tree. The Council could find there to be an overriding consideration which recognizes the age of this particular homeowner as the reason that they can no longer perform routine maintenance. This could be a difficult and subjective finding to make, unless it was based on substantial new information presented by the applicant. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1. Tree Removal Application, 1408 Johnson Ave (2 pages) Attachment 2. Location map of 1408 Johnson Avenue (1 page) Attachment 3. Tree Committee meeting July 27, 2009 (2 pages) Attachment 4. Appeal to the City Council received August 4, 2009 (3 pages) Attachment 5. Resolution denying appeal from the Tree Comm., 1408 Johnson Ave. (2 pages) Attachment 6. Resolution upholding appeal from the Tree Comm., 1408 Johnson Ave. (2 pages) TACouncil Agenda ReportAloublic Works CAR\2008\Trees\1408JohnsonAve\1408 Johnson CAR.doc aAAF 7_ ?a9 25 Prado Road • San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 ATTACHMENT 1 ^. 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/maP* 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 $43 payable when draw on the back of this form or fax on a separate you pick up your permit (cash or check payable to sheet of paper, along with your application. City of San Luis Obispo). Tree removal aualications must be received by the second Monday of the month to be considered for the meeting on the fourth Monday of the month. Owner: Telephone: _d u Owner's Mailing dress: /ico 6z)A nsfjr7 i2s= Zip Coder Applicant (if other than owner): Telephone: Applicant's mailing address:, Zip Code: Location of tree(s): P (--Jearest cross street: �.�rizo�-2�' ( !3Q,��1 Dog in yard? Yes No Tree species (Common names): Reasons for requesting removal: a % Replacement tree nting oposed EQUIRED): * Application willbeconsidered only il entirely filled out and signed by owner. If consideration of this application goes to Tree Committee,you or your agent are required to attend the meeting and will be notified. * If lane closure is required to perform the tree removal work,an encroachment permit must_be obtained from the City 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. MAIL OR FAX completed form to: City Arborist, 25 Prado Rd., San Luis Obispo, CA 93401, Phone: 781-7220 Fax: 542-9868 i Jwner: akDate: 3�-zop Applicant: V Date: The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of it services,programs and activities. TelecommunicationseDevice for the Deaf(805)781-7410. Rev.5-09 ATTACHMENT 1 i •y 1 1 1 . i 1 i z, po - 5 ATTACHMENT 2 1408 JOHNSON 002-454-001 QQG ••� 1 I I ; � f 1 7 \ 7 7 7 i IF A i CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO a information contained in this database is intended for informational use only. This information is provided for the convenience of users. GEODATA SERVICES ut 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 aterial is not guaranteed and users assume responsibility for independent verification of any and all information contained herein prior to use r reliance upon such information forany official purpose.The City San Luis Obispo disclaims any responsibility or liability for any direct or 605 781-7167 ndirect damages resulting from the use of this data. 9/23/2009 16:23 ATTACHMENT 3 1 TREE_ COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA MONDAY,JULY 27, 2009 Corporation Yard Conference Room 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo MEMBERS PRESENT: Matt Ritter,Craig Kincaid, Allen Root, Ellen Dollar, and David Savory STAFF PRESENT: Keith Pellemeier and Ron Combs PUBLIC COMMENT There were no public comments. MINUTES: Approval of Minutes of June 22,2009 Mr. Kincaid moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Savory seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. TREE REMOVAL APPLICATIONS 1. 284 N. CHORRO (Coast redwood) Steve Franzman, applicant's representative, reported that the tree was in a poor location and too close to the foundation and high voltage lines. He stated PG&E would top the tree and ruin the shape, and noted there was a crack already in the foundation. He suggested a melaleuca as a replacement species. Mr. Combs stated it was a healthy native species and suggested that the CDD might have a landscaping plan in place for the site. He did not feel the foundation had been impacted yet, but could be in the future. He agreed that PG&E would be topping the tree. Ms. Dollar stated she was unable to view the tree and would be abstaining from the vote: Mr. Kincaid felt the tree was a healthy specimen with no real evidence of foundation damage, but was concerned about PG&E's actions in dealing with the tree.. Mr. Savory agreed with Mr. Kincaid's comments and he did not think future foundation damage would be an issue. ATTACHMENT 2 Mr. Ritter was concerned with PG&E topping the tree and that it would grow to overpower the site. Mr. Ritter moved to approve the removal request,based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required one 15-gallon tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of issuance of permit. Mr. Savory seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Ms. Dollar abstaining. 2. 1408 JOHNSON (Date palm) The applicant discussed the expense of maintaining the tree and at her elderly age, it had become too labor-intensive to handle. She said it was interfering with growing a lawn in the area and the dropping palm fronds were dangerous. Mr. Combs reported it was a healthy tree and noted the species was very messy with littering. There was Committee discussion about the costs of pruning vs. removal. Mr. Ritter and Mr. Savory spoke of alternate methods of labor to help maintain the tree and offered to help the applicant in finding cost-effective assistance in maintaining the tree. Mr. Kincaid moved to continue the item to the next regular meeting to allow the applicant time to investigate alternate financing methods for maintenance costs. The motion died for lack of a second. Ms. Dollar moved to approve the removal request,based on undue hardship to the property owner, and required one 15=gallon tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of issuance of permit. Mr. Kincaid seconded the motion. The motion passed,with Mr. Ritter and Mr. Savory voting against. Mr. Pellemeier reminded the Committee that maintenance was an on-going reasonable cost of owning a tree and that said maintenance did not present unreasonable hardship in itself, only if excess hardship has been demonstrated. 3. 1680 SAN LUIS DR.(Coast live oak) David Brown, applicant's representative, discussed the applicant's concern of the tree overpowering the yard and the roots close to the building. He noted there were numerous trees still on site and that this removal could be replaced with a smaller species. N 3' ATTACHMENT 4 Filing Fee: S � Paid- i/ Date Received r -trt NIA ;RECEIVED AL 1,1-1city ofrosEcrronr� AU6 0 4 2009 ft&san1UIS OBISPO APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL E K SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION �37-1/ ame Mailing Address and Zip Code D -has-- _6-3 3;7/0L PhoneFax 6a5o /-1i ba ae �I lT SL 0 13 Ola Representative's Name Mailing Address and Zip Code Title Phone Fax SECTION 2 SUWECT 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: - (Name of Ofcer,Committee or Commission decision being appealed) 2 The date the decision beim appealed was rendered: Zr/L y 2742491 3_ The application or project was entitled: /4f08' Tt�itlSOi'U �F • $ �.C�. 4. 1 discussed the mater with the following City staff member. �DiJ C©/�tC3S on L y Z7,ZE?6 9 (Staff Members Name and Department) (Date) 5. Has thispptter been the subject of a previous appeal? If so,when was it heard and by whom: f� - I SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL Explain specifically what acitionlsyou are appealing and you believe the Council should consider your appeal. Include what evidence you have that supports your appeal. You may attach additional pages; i necessary. This form continues on the other side. Page 1 of 3 ATTACHMENT 4 Reason }}for Appeal con/nbnued O Seo 4 a s,.. " w 41 SEMOIY41. APPELLAOS RESPONS/BUT3r The San Luis Obispo City Council values public participation in:local and encourages all-kirms of citizen involvement:. However, due to real tx>ata associated with City Gounal consideration of an appeal, including pubrtto,nntificafion, all.ap0&. pertaining to a plaitping application or project are subject to.a fignd fee of$250;.whiclS must accompany the aphed form. Your right.to-exercise an appeal comes with certain res' nsibiiitl es_: If you file an appeal, please understandthat if mutt be.heard within 45 days frorti fling this fonn:. You will.be notified in writlh§of.fhe exact:date your appeal.wtii be heaird•be*e*the douncil- You or.your. representative will be expected to attertd the public hearing,andel to Eie'prepaired to make your case. Your testimony is-limited to 10 minutes: A continuance may,be granted undd.r certain and unusual.circurYisfances; H yo>j'feel ya�r` need to request a continuance,you..must submit your request in writing t&the City:Clerk:'.PTease�be advised that if your request for continuance is received after.the appeal Urra�iceif to"the-puwc;4in Council may not be able.to brant the request for continuance. SubmtWnq,,a`*quest fofeorltlnuance does not guarantee,that it wdtbe:grairted;that action is at the discretrbi7vtthe'�W Coancit.`:=" 1 hereby agree to:appear andlor,send a representative to appear.on.nw-behalf wherr said appeal is scheduled for a publk.hearing before ft-City Council: (Sigr; pant) to . .,:: .°. : .' .. 6cgep3io4s to : 1)Appeals of Tree committee decisigns ars$108: 2)The above named appellant has . .; at DAA patdthe C4$258 to appeal this same matter toa City-official or Council.advisory body. This item is hereby Calendared W4r' UaLl (y ww_ 6'C2009 C: City Attorney City A /flfta66e Department Head Advisory Body Chairperson Cr'rttyyCleric(ori mal} �Slfi�s ��c�n�L�b� Page 2 of 3 � ROA) B$ 8109 � 1 - to �i►I�I��INN ► �19►IIIlI i ATTACHMENT 4 1111 SID j city of sAn tuis oBispo 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 August 4,2009 Howard Nicholson 6050 Madbury Ct. San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 RE: APPEAL OF TREE COMM TTEE DECISION REGARDING 1408 JOHNSON AVENUE. (30 MINUTES) Dear Mr. Nicholson: In reference to your appeal being heard by the City Council, City code requires an appeal to be set for the next reasonably available council meeting,but in no event later than forty-five calendar days after the date of the filing of such notice of appeal with the City Clerk. Although you have agreed by phone to permit us to schedule your appeal after the 45 day deadline(i.e. September 18,2009),we require a signed acknowledgement. Therefore,please sign and return this letter to the City Clerk's Office no later than August 15th. An envelope has been enclosed for your convenience. If you have any questions,please give me a call at 781-7102. Mr.Howard Nicholson Sincerely, i Elaina Cano City Clerk I i The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. I Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. i I ATTACHMENT 5 RESOLUTION NO. (2009 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 1480 JOHNSON AVENUE WHEREAS, the Tree Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing on July 27, 2009 and approved the Applicant's request to remove one palm tree located in the front yard at 1480 Johnson Avenue, San Luis Obispo, California; and WHEREAS, on October 6, 2009, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing to consider the appeal of the Tree Committee's approval to remove one palm 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 tree is causing undue hardship to the Applicant's property, i.e. damaging curbs, gutter, sidewalks and sewer plumbing. b. The removal of one palm tree in the front yard at 1480 Johnson Avenue will promote good arboricultural practice. c. The removal of the palm tree will not harm the character or environment of the surrounding neighborhood. SECTION 2. The appeal from the Tree Committee's decision to allow the Applicant to remove one palm tree at 1480 Johnson Avenue is hereby denied and the Applicant may proceed with tree removal and tree replacement 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 6th day of October, 2009. ATTACHMENT 5 Resolution No. (2009 Series) Page 2 Mayor David F.Romero ATTEST: Elaina Cano City Clerk APPROVED AS TO F na P. Lowell City Attomey TACouncU Agenda Repons Public Works CAR\20081Tn \1408John Av\AMachmenlslApach5-1408 ResDeny.doc ATTACHMENT 6 RESOLUTION NO. (2009 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL FROM THE TREE COMMITTEE'S DECISION UPON A TREE REMOVAL REQUEST AT 1408 JOHNSON AVENUE WHEREAS, the Tree Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing on July 27, 2009 and approved the Applicant's request to remove one palm tree located in the front yard at 1408 Johnson Avenue, San Luis Obispo,California; and WHEREAS, on October 6, 2009, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing to consider the appeal of the approval to remove one palm 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, staff recommendations and reports thereon;and public testimony makes the following findings: a. The tree is not causing undue hardship to the Applicant's property, i.e. damaging curb, gutters, sidewalks and water lines. b. The removal of one palm tree in the front yard will not promote good arboricultural practice c. The removal of one palm tree will harm the character or environment of the surrounding neighborhood. SECTION 2. The appeal from the Tree Committee's decision to approve the Applicant's request to remove one palm tree at 1408 Johnson Avenue is hereby upheld, and therefore removal of the palm tree is denied. Upon motion of seconded by and on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 2009. ATTACHMENT 6 Resolution No. (2009 Series) Page 2 Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Elaina Cano City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FO onathan P. Lowell City Attomey T-'W uml Agenda Repods\Pehlic Won¢CAR=g\Tn \1408JohnsonAveWtachmemsWach6.1408 ResUphold.da I _ ,S- ♦ 1 Filing Fee: Y58:60� //00.00 Paid ✓ Date Received CIty Of MIA RECEIVED Av "REFER TO SECT/ON 4 AUG 0 4 2009 san lugs ompo APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL bLU CITY CLE K SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION �374/5 Ipsl,.o ST game Mailing Address and Zip Code 3 -3244 Phone Fax �o53 I-IAD(3ilk' �l lT SGO g34Loj Representative's Name Mailing Address and Zip Code 315 -i*36-- dras .rya -76A/J, -rifle Phone Fax SECTION 2 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: Tke C'o,4m. EmE (Name of Officer, Committee or Commission decision being appealed) 2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: LV 274HCl 3. The application or project was entitled: l4a8' :I o tfiusolU A= S L d 4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member D/J C,©MIC3S on ,J[JL 27,�9 (Staff Members Name and Department) (Date 5. Has this mptter been the subject of a previous appeal? If so, when was it heard and by whom: /[J(7 SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL Explain specifically what actionls 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. A& , /Vv�Lu fi cJ Ntirtt wv io�s�°9 n� �.y.�(. zlt. d�, uz� Page 1 of 3 w� �wcaet��L Dwi✓i���`i��.�,�w .�.�� t� �-�..�. �� ��' --x-G'. /�c. wr�� .x.,�,,..,r-. Reason for Appeal continued p J rL,,./T .tom�oQ,J.�once, ae,, 90 c 1Aet.�. it�d P�.Qir/ owJ , US 0 LA 42 o SECTION 4, APPELLAN 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 filum fee of$250',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 fling this form. You will be notified in writing of the exact date your appeal will be heard before the Council. You or your representative will be expected to attend the public hearing, and to be prepared to make your case. Your testimony is limited to 10 minutes. A continuance may be granted under certain and unusual circumstances. if you feel you need to request a continuance, you must submit your request in writing to the City Clerk Please be advised that if your request for continuance is received after the appeal isnoticed 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. (Signa Ilant) (15atel •Exceptions to th : 1)Appeals of Tree Committee decisions are$100. 2)The above-named appellant has already paid the City$250 to appeal this same matter toa�JCity official or Council advisory body. This item is hereby calendared for 0 / Ly t�G' V66—P (O'C2009 :-7!0PnJJ C: City Attorney City Adrntff btraftr&QWRw A#vacSE 2 Department Head Advisory Body Chairperson City Clerk(original) 117o' Page 2 of 3 f?CN &7V&S 8/09 IIt C/6 ./ ,/)'YC.ac,161Y!•'y G-6 ;aFt,-tri-� � rLuG- �"G�n'L-� �`/L-[f�eae-vc_.c�i• � O r' IIII IIID city of sAn luiS' " OBISPO 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 August 4, 2009 Howard Nicholson 6050 Madbury Ct. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: APPEAL OF TREE COMMITTEE DECISION REGARDING 1408 JOHNSON AVENUE. (30 MINUTES) Dear Mr. Nicholson: In reference to your appeal being heard by the City Council, City code requires an appeal to be set for the next reasonably available council meeting,but in no event later than forty-five calendar days after the date of the filing of such notice of appeal with the City Clerk. Although you have agreed by phone to permit us to schedule your appeal after the 45 day deadline(i.e. September 18, 2009), we require a signed acknowledgement. Therefore,please sign and return this letter to the City Clerk's Office no later than August 15th. An envelope has been enclosed for your convenience. If you have any questions,please give me a call at 781-7102. Mr. Howard Nicholson Sincerely, L�i Elaina Cano City Clerk The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. � city Of SAn WIS OBISPO 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 �v August 4, 2009 �Tu22/ Howard Nicholson 6050 Madbury Ct. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: APPEAL OF TREE COMMITTEE DECISION REGARDING 1408 JOHNSON AVENUE. (30 MINUTES) Dear Mr. Nicholson: In reference to your appeal being heard by the City Council, City code requires an appeal to be set for the next reasonably available council meeting,but in no event later than forty-five calendar days after the date of the filing of such notice of appeal with the City Clerk. Although you have agreed by phone to permit us to schedule your appeal after the 45 day deadline(i.e. September 18, 2009), we require a signed acknowledgement. Therefore,please sign and return this letter to the City Clerk's Office no later than August 15th. An envelope has been enclosed for your convenience. If you have any questions, please give me a call at 781-7102. ay Mr. Howard Nicholson ; = ®Z Sincerely, Elaina Cano City Clerk �EThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. ` Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. Page 1 of 1 Chippendale, Sue From: Pellemeier, Keith Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 12:36 PM To: Chippendale, Sue Subject: RE: Noticing for tree appeal at 1408 Johnson Sue WE only post a sign at the site stating there will be a public hearing at the next Tree Comm. mtg. No post cards. Thank you, Keith Pellemeier Maint. Supervisor/Urban Forest/Contracts/Special Events City of San Luis Obispo 805-781-7022 phone 805-542-9868 fax From: Chippendale, Sue Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 12:32 PM To: Pellemeier, Keith Subject: Noticing for tree appeal at 1408 Johnson Hi Keith, I will be doing a legal ad for this appeal, legal notices to the owner and the appellant, and the sign you requested to put in front of the property. I do have a question, however. My Notification Requirements"cheat sheet" indicates that my notification needs to be the same as that of the original application. If so, do I need to do anything else, such as send out postcards or am I good to go? Thanks, Sue 9/15/2009 Page 1 of 1 r� Chippendale, Sue From: Chippendale, Sue Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 12:32 PM To: Pellemeier, Keith Subject: Noticing for tree appeal at 1408 Johnson Hi Keith, I will be doing a legal ad for this appeal, legal notices to the owner and the appellant, and the sign you requested to put in front of the property. I do have a question, however. My Notification Requirements"cheat sheet" indicates that my notification needs-to be the same as that of the original application. If so, do I need to do anything else, such as send out postcards or am I good to go? Thanks, Sue 9/15/2009 Page 1 of 1 Chippendale, Sue From: Chippendale, Sue Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 1:15 PM To: Dunsmore, Phil Subject: RE: Second Reading for Prefumo Thanks, Phil, for the heads up on this. If the second reading is going to be October 6t', I will need the ordinance summary no later than Thursday, September 24, in order to send it to the Tribune with the proper lead time. If all goes well and the creek(Prefumo?)don't rise, it will run on October 15S. Other than that, I think we're good to go on this end. Sue From: Dunsmore, Phil Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 12:15 PM To: Chippendale; Sue Cc: Davidson, Doug Subject: Second Reading for Prefumo Hi Sue, Sony it took so long to get back to you, but we have determined that the second reading for the Prefumo Creek Commons project will be on October 6th. Let me know if you need anything else at this time. Thanks, -Phil Phil Dunsmore Associate Planner, AICP City of San Luis Obispo Community Development 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 (805) 781-7522 9/3/2009 Page I of 1 Chippendale, Sue From: Pellemeier, Keith Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 12:36 PM To: Chippendale, Sue Subject: RE: Noticing for tree appeal at 1408 Johnson Sue WE only post a sign at the site stating there will be a public hearing at the next Tree Comm. mtg. No post cards.. Thank you, Keith Pellemeier Maint. Supervisor/Urban Forest/Contracts/Special Events City of San Luis Obispo 805-781-7022 phone 805-542-9868 fax From: Chippendale, Sue Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 12:32 PM To: Pellemeier, Keith Subject: Noticing for tree appeal at 1408 Johnson Hi Keith, I will be doing a legal ad for this appeal, legal notices to the owner and the appellant, and the sign you requested to put in front of the property. I do have a question, however. My Notification Requirements"cheat sheet" indicates that my notification needs to be the same as that of the original application. If so, do I need to do anything else, such as send out postcards or am I good to go? Thanks, Sue 9/15/2009