HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/06/2010, PH2 - REVISION TO TREE ORDINANCE council Apri16,2010
A acEnaa Repoin
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: Jay D. Walter, Director of Public Works 9DW
Prepared By: Keith Pellemeier, Urban Forest Supervisor
SUBJECT: REVISION TO TREE ORDINANCE
RECOMMENDATION
Introduce an ordinance revising Chapter 12.24 Tree Regulations of the Municipal Code.
DISCUSSION
Background
The current Tree ordinance was last revised in.2001. Prior revisions occurred in 1971 and 1990.
Since the last revision the Tree Committee, City staff, citizens, and tree contractors have all
expressed concerns about various portions of the Tree ordinance. Some portions of the Tree
ordinance are unclear or do not address many questions that have come up at Tree Committee
hearings. It became apparent that the existing ordinance needed to be revised to reflect the
changes in operations of the Public Works department, clarify the duties of City staff and the
responsibility of the citizens and contractors performing tree work.
Since 2008, the Tree Committee has worked to address the shortcomings-.of the existing tree
regulations by recommending changes and updates to the Tree ordinance:.The Tree Committee
includes members from the Architectural Review Committee (ARC), the:Parks and Recreation
Commission, along with volunteers from the community with an interest in trees and knowledge
of arboriculture. The proposed tree regulations have been reviewed and commented on by
various staff in the Community Development and Public Works departments in addition to
receiving review by the City Attorney.
Highlights of Ordinance Changes
The Tree Committee feels strongly that many issues encountered with the current Tree ordinance
result from the way the information is presented. Thus, many of the suggested revisions
reorganize or rephrase the information within the ordinance. Tree Committee members also felt
revisions and additions to the definitions would result in a better understanding by users of the
ordinance.
More significant changes to the proposed ordinance will have an impact on both the tree service
industry and the community. The revisions to the ordinance will now require all tree service
contractors to have an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) certified arborist on staff and
follow ISA and American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards. The purpose of this
revision is to increase the likelihood that trees will receive appropriate care. There have been a
number of trees that have been significantly damaged by inappropriate trimming performed by
property owners, untrained and noncertified tree trimmers and tree companies. Staff has found
r� a-1
Tree Regulations Revision ✓ Page 2
that Arborists certified by the ISA account for very little illegal trimming or removals of trees.
Tree service companies without a certified arborist have shown to be more likely to do
permanent damage to trees through incorrect pruning and often fail to obtain the required tree
removal permit from the City. Many landscape companies and homeowners have little or no
training or expertise in trees and tree care. Thus, they can do considerable damage to trees
through unawareness and lack of training specific to tree species.
The Tree Committee has proposed reducing the size of trees that are subject to the tree removal
provisions. Under the proposal, native trees will require a permit if they are greater than 10
inches in diameter, as compared to the previous 12 inches. Non-native trees will require a permit
if they are greater than 20 inches in diameter, compared to the previous 24 inches. The Tree
Committee felt that the existing diameters do not adequately take into account the years invested
in the individual tree's growth. By the time a native tree has reached a 10 inch diameter, it may
be as much as 15 years old. Reducing the sizes will give protection to older trees that take a long
time to reach the minimum size.
Considerable language has been added to the enforcement section of the Tree ordinance in
response to a higher occurrence of illegal removals and pruning work that has essentially
destroyed any chance of the tree developing into a structurally sound large species. Currently, the
City can assess civil penalties for illegally removing or damaging a tree and charge a fine equal
to the value of the tree. The new ordinance specifies that when the removal is related to
development, the value of the tree will be multiplied by three, and staff costs can be recovered.
Where the removal is not related to development, the fine will be twice the value of the tree plus
staff costs. Illegal removals are also subject to requirements for planting replacement trees.
Current penalties are not stringent enough to discourage certain developers from viewing the
.fines as a cost of doing business to accomplish tree removals that would not be approved
otherwise. Adding this language to the Tree ordinance is important to discourage developers,
property owners and contractors from illegally removing trees.
Finally, the new Tree ordinance will incorporate the City Council's approval of the 2009 pilot
program to allow slack lining in designated City parks. This activity involves the stringing of a
narrow strap between two trees and walking and balancing along the strap. The largest issue as it
relates to trees is the need to protect the tree bark when the strap is wrapped around it.
Procedures for City Staff
In the course of their work, City staff members occasionally request the removal of trees..
Although not specifically required in the current Tree ordinance, staff submits tree removal
applications for their work and follows the same procedures required of the public. The two most
common City-originated tree removal applications are from the Engineering staff when tree
removals are identified as needed to implement construction projects from the Capital
Improvement Plan and from the Street Maintenance staff when tree removals are needed to
complete sidewalk repairs to reduce tripping hazards and comply with Americans with
Disabilities Act requirements (ADA).
In all cases, the trees are reviewed by the City Arborist prior to approval of tree removal
applications. Staff will meet with the Arborist to review the project, discuss options for
PA 0, a,
Tree Regulations Revision Page 3
completing the work without tree removals, and discuss any tree replacement requirements. The
tree removal application is then forwarded to the Tree Committee in a more complete form so
that staff can give a review of alternatives and replacement plans.
The Street Maintenance work is handled in a similar fashion but is often more involved because
the locations are less specific than projects. The Street Maintenance staff assesses the sidewalks
in the pavement management area where they are working and determines which sidewalk
damage is attributable to street trees and, therefore, the responsibility of the City to repair per the
City's Tree regulations. A list is then developed of sidewalk locations with significant street tree
related damage and site visits are performed in conjunction with the City Arborist.
At the time of the site visit, trees are evaluated in relation to various repair scenarios. These
include root pruning to bring sidewalks and gutters back to grade, root pruning to bring sidewalk
and gutter down to meet ADA requirements with some ramping over the roots. If the tree is not
expected to survive root pruning close to the trunk, possible shifting of the sidewalk toward the
property (bulb in) and or shifting of the curb into the street (bulb out) is considered. If completing
a bulb out/in will cause significant harm to the tree, tree removal is recommended. Potential
bulbs out/in sites are also reviewed with property owners. If they are unwilling to have sidewalk
shifted to their property or do not want street parking removed, the tree is listed for a removal
application. The Street Maintenance staff then develops a tree removal application similar to that
of private applications and appears before the Tree Committee to discuss the tree removal
application. The City Arborist provides information on the tree's current health and ability to
tolerate work in the root-zone.
The tree removal application for staff is processed in the same way private applications are
handled.-The trees subject to removal are posted for public review prior to the next Tree
Committee meeting. The Tree Committee hears tree removal requests by staff at the public
hearing. The Tree Committee visits every tree removal application site, listens to the.applicant
public comment, and then makes an independent decision.
Alternative Process Needed?
One of the City Council members raised a concern last year that the Tree Committee may not be
comfortable in refusing removal requests from City staff, and that all such requests should come
to the City Council. The Tree Committee, as an independent body, has shown through its actions
not to have a bias toward removal for City activities and projects. Two examples of such
independence which occurred in 2009 are:
1. California at Foothill street widening project. This widening project had been approved
in concept by the City Council and been given a high priority for implementation as part
of the Traffic Safety Report review. This project initially identified 6 palm trees for
removal when CP Engineering staff appeared before the Tree Committee. The Tree
Committee denied the removal request of the palm trees. When the project was finalized
only four palms were identified to be removed. The Tree Committee again denied the
removal request. The final project was approved by City Council with the 6 palm trees
planned to be relocated several feet in efforts to save them from complete removal.
�I/q a 3
Tree Regulations Revision Page 4
2. Pavement Management projects. The Streets Maintenance division working within
Pavement Management Area 4 had identified 130 locations for sidewalk repair. Area 4
has 1,094 street and park trees. Streets staff initially identified 34 street trees for possible
removal. Through the joint review process between the City Arborist and Street
Maintenance staff, 17 of the 34 trees recommended for removal were preserved and only
17 locations went before the Tree Committee for tree removal consideration. Of these 17
trees recommended for removal, the Tree Committee denied the removal of 3 trees. Staff
was also required to plant 21 replacement trees as part of this work scope in efforts to
replace the 14 trees removed.
The process appears to be working well and staff is not recommending any changes be made to
the Tree ordinance at this time. Although changing the process would reduce the workload for
the Tree Committee, it would increase the workload of staff for Council Agenda Report
preparation, and for the City Council for report review and required site visits. Additionally, Tree
Committee members are specially selected to provide a level of expertise that is not always
readily available from Council. Committee members are better suited to assist staff in looking at
alternative solutions for tree removals. Any decision of the Tree Committee can be appealed to
the City Council. Staff has found that local citizens feel confident in responding to the Tree
Committee and City staff if dissatisfied with the outcome and can appeal decisions to the City
Council.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no cost or fiscal impact to the General fund with the adoption of revisions to the City's
Tree ordinance. The City currently collects a small amount of revenue for illegal tree removals
and illegal tree trimming. These fees assist in covering staff costs associated with pursuing
violations of the tree ordinance and process billings. However, staffs first goal is to promote
education and gain compliance. Staff has promoted tree planting over collection of fines. Staff
often spends a considerable amount of time investigating and processing the illegal tree removals
and trimming fines. The investivation, certified letters, cost analysis and dialog with the property
owner, contractors or developers can take a considerable amount of staff time. With a small City
tree crew, any staff time needed to prosecute illegal tree trimming and removal means less time
for planting, maintenance and trimming of other trees in the City.
ALTERNATIVES
1. No Action. Council could opt to make no changes to the existing Tree ordinance. Staff
does not recommend this alternative based on experience to date by staff, the Tree
Committee and the public in using the existing Tree ordinance.
2. Other Modifications. The Council could change suggested revisions or make other
revisions or modifications not suggested by staff or the Tree Committee.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Proposed Tree Ordinance
P/_0-�
J
Tree Regulations Revision Page 5
2. Legislative Draft of Tree Ordinance
T:\Council.Agenda Reports\Public Works CAR\20I O\Trees\TreeOrdinance\CARTreeOrdinance.doc
plea 5
n n
Ordinance No. (2010) Series ATTACHMENT 1
Page I
ORDINANCE NO. (2010Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE TREE ORDINANCE
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo relies upon the advice of its
advisory bodies; and
WHEREAS, the Tree Committee is one such advisory body and is charged with the
review and proper implementation of the City's Municipal Code as it relates to the City's urban
forest; and
WHEREAS, the Tree Committee with the assistance of the City's Arborist reviewed the
existing Municipal Code for possible modifications that would enhance the urban forest, and
make the ordinance clearer; and
WHEREAS, the Tree Committee with input from many City Departments made
numerous recommendations to the City Council to modify the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered those recommendations and agreed that they
were appropriate.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Chapter 12.24 Tree Regulations of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is
hereby repealed and a new Chapter 12.24 is hereby adopted as follows:
Sections:
12.24.010 Purpose and intent.
12.24.020 Tree committee.
12.24.030 Definitions.
12.24.040 Street Trees-Master Lists.
12.24.050 Tree planting plans.
12.24.060 Street tree planting and maintenance standards.
12.24.070 Street tree planting requirements.
12.24.080 Street tree planting procedures.
12.24.090 Tree removal.
12.24.100 Control of trees and shrubs for protection of public safety.
12.24.110 Street tree maintenance.
12.24.120 Tree maintenance by public utilities.
12.24.130 Tree service contractors.
Ordinance No. (2010) Series ATTACHMENT 1
Page 2
12.24.140 Responsibility for repairing tree damage to curbs, gutters and sidewalks.
12.24.150 Protection of trees.
12.24.160 Heritage trees.
12.24.170 Enforcement.
12.24.180 Appeals.
12.24.190 No liability upon the city.
12.24.010 Purpose and intent.
A. 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.
B. This chapter establishes policies, regulations and specifications necessary to govern
installation, maintenance, removal and preservation of trees to beautify the city, to purify the air,
to provide shade and wind protection, add environmental and economic value and to preserve
trees with historic or unusual value.
C. It is the policy of the city to line its streets with trees and to conduct a consistent and
effective program for maintaining and preserving these trees. This policy provides for planting
trees in all areas of the city and for selecting appropriate species to achieve the city's goals. It is
also the policy of the city to protect and preserve all desirable trees, wherever they are located. It
shall be the duty of the director to enforce, implement and carry out this policy and the provisions
of this chapter.
D. It is the policy of the city to encourage new tree planting on public and private property
and to cultivate a flourishing urban forest.
E. Trees are essential to the community's well being and the care and planting of all trees
will be done in a manner consistent with city policies and standards.
12.24.020 Tree committee.
A. The tree committee shall act as an advisory body to the director and the city council on all
matters related to trees in San Luis Obispo.
B. The tree committee shall have five members who shall serve four-year terms, which shall
be staggered.
12.24.030 Definitions.
The following words and phrases used in this chapter, unless a different meaning is clearly
required by the context, shall have the following meanings:
A. "City Arborist"means the person employed by the city as the City Arborist responsible
for making recommendations in the care,planting, pruning, trimming and removal of all trees in
the city.
B. "Development"means any subdivision, or other action requiring a building permit or any
discretionary permit or approval by the City.
C. "Diameter"means the circumference measured at DSH (Diameter Shoulder Height) or
4'6" as per ISA standards.
D. "Director"means the public works director or his or her designated representative.
E. "Downtown District" means the area between Palm and Pacific Streets and Santa Rosa
and Nipomo and extending south to where Higuera and Marsh meet.
�N a-�
1 I I
Ordinance No. (2010) Series ATTACHMENT I
Page 3
F. "Establish" means to plant and maintain trees during the first years of their life to ensure
their survival..
G. "Heritage tree"means any tree existing within the city limits, which has been so
designated by resolution of the city council. Heritage trees shall be trees.with notable historic
interest or trees of an unusual species or size.
H. '`ISA" means International Society of Arboriculture.
I. "Major Streets"means those streets identified in the city's current Engineering Standard
"Street Trees-Major Streets".
J. "Master List" means those trees identified in the city's Engineering Standard"Street
Trees-Master List".
K. "Maintain" or"maintenance" means the entire care of trees as well as the preparation of
ground and fertilizing, mulching, trimming and watering.
L. "Native" means the following listed trees:
(1) Quercus agrifolia (coast live oak),
(2) Umbellularia califomica (California laurel),
(3) Platanus racemosa(California sycamore),
(4) Juglans californica(Southern California black walnut),
(5) Salix lasiolepis (willow),
(6) Populus trichocarpa (black cottonwood),
(7) Heteromeles arbutifolia(California holly toyon),
(8) Acer macrophyllum (big leaf maple),
(9) Acer negundo (box elder),
(10) Quercus lobata (valley or white oak)
M. "Planting" means new planting and replacement planting.
N. "Public utility" means any company doing business as a public utility under the
jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission of the state and any duly constituted public
agency authorized to provide and providing utility service.
O. "Right-of-Way for Street Trees"— See Diagram
right-of-way 9
varies street tree easement-
where accepted by city
i 1 C C
sidewalk �� r �arkriay
r "tom sidewalk r
��- - 4�
pavement
P. "Site Plan"means a map or diagram which will include all buildings, driveways, streets,
sidewalks, utilities, trees by size and species and any proposed changes, additions or removals.
Pf4oZ—(?
i
Ordinance No. (2010) Series ATTACHMENT 1
Page 4
Q. "Street tree" means a tree accepted by resolution of the City Council and growing
adjacent to dedicated roadways and within the city"s right-of-way or within a street tree easement
accepted by the city.
R. "Tree"means a woody, perennial plant with one mainstem or trunk which develops
many branches: most trees are over ten feet tall. This definition shall include any tree planted by
or required to be planted by the city which may attain the stated size at maturity.
12.24.040 Street Trees-Master Lists.
The tree committee, with the assistance of the public works and community development
departments, has developed and will maintain a Street Tree-Master List and a Street Tree-Major
Streets list which shall be adopted by resolution of the city council and shall be on file in the
public works department, engineering standards. These documents shall specify the species of
trees suitable and desirable for planting in certain areas in order to establish a diverse urban
forest.
12.24.050 Tree planting plans.
A. The city arborist designates specific tree planting plans for certain neighborhoods,
developments or blocks, which specify the species and locations for trees to be planted in those
neighborhoods or blocks. Plans are subject to the approval of the tree committee, the
architectural review commission or the city council. The city arborist must approve any
deviations from these tree planting plans.
B. Street tree planting for areas without specific tree planting plans,must be selected from
the Street Tree Master List.
12.24.060 Street tree planting and maintenance standards.
The public works and community development departments, with the approval of the tree
committee, shall develop and implement policies and standards for street tree planting and
maintenance, which shall be adopted by resolution of the city council.
12.24.070 Street tree planting requirements.
A. Planting street trees may be required as a condition of a use permit, variance or other city
entitlement.
B. Planting street trees shall be required as a condition of approval for all subdivisions and
related building permits. The policies and standards for street tree planting and maintenance shall
be followed in all instances.
12.24.080 Street tree planting procedures.
A. After planting, all street trees must be inspected and approved by the city arborist or his
or her designee.
B. Required street trees must be planted after completion of each adjacent building and
before an occupancy release is issued for the adjacent building.
C. Property owners shall be required to establish and maintain required street trees adjacent to
their property, except as provided elsewhere in this chapter.
Ordinance No. (2010) Series ATTACHMENT I
Page 5
12.24.090 Tree removal.
A. Policy. The city values trees as an important part of the natural and economic
environment and efforts shall be made to preserve them whenever possible and feasible. When
reviewing requests for tree removal permits, the city shall discourage removing desirable trees
and shall consider approving removal of desirable trees only as a last resort alternative for the
applicant.
B. Permits for Removal. Removing any tree in the city shall require a tree removal permit,
except as otherwise provided in this chapter.
C. Tree Removal Not Related to Property Development.
1. Removing a tree in all zones except as otherwise provided in this chapter shall require a
permit issued by the public works department.
2. An application for a tree removal permit issued by the public works department shall
include:
a. A site plan showing the location and species of any tree proposed for removal;
b. All information to support the reason for removal;
C. Any other pertinent information to the request, including documentation of property
damage.
D. Removals for Tree Health or Hazard Mitigation
I. The city arborist may authorize a tree removal upon receipt of a removal application
without the need for a permit from public works upon finding any of the following
circumstances:
a. The tree is an imminent 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's roots are causing severe damage to public or private property, and removing
the tree is the only feasible way to eliminate the damage.
2. When the city arborist cannot authorize a tree removal, the request shall be reviewed by
the tree committee, which 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, pruning or root intrusion into
a failed sewer lateral, etc.; or
b. Removing the tree promotes good arboricultural practice; or
C. Removing the tree will not harm the character or environment of the surrounding
neighborhood.
E. Tree Removal with a Development Permit.
1. To remove a tree from any parcel in the city as part of property development by
subdivision, building permit or other entitlement, the developer shall clearly delineate trees
proposed to be removed as part of the development application and approval process.
All development applications which include tree removals shall include the following
documents:
a. A site plan showing the location and species of any tree proposed for removal;
b. All information to support the reason for removal;
C. Any other pertinent information required.
PP /d
Ordinance No. (2010) Series ATTACHMENT 1
Page 6
2. Review of the application to remove a tree with a development permit shall proceed as
follows:
a. The city arborist shall inspect the property and recommend approving or denying the
application;
b. If no architectural review is required for the development, the tree committee shall
approve or deny the application;
C. If architectural review is required for the development, the architectural review
commission shall approve or deny the application:
(1) If the city arborist has recommended denying the application and the architectural review
commission has approved the application, the tree committee shall review the architectural
review commission's decision;
(2) If the tree committee concurs with the city arborist's recommendation to deny the
application when the architectural review commission has approved the application, the city
council shall review the matter for final action.
F. Permit Not Required
Removing a tree in R-1 & R-2 zones only, does not require a permit if all of the following
conditions exist:
a. The tree is a designated native species and the trunk is less than ten (10) inches DSH (see
Definitions; native trees) or when the tree is non-native and the trunk is less than twenty(20)
inches DSH; and
b. The tree is more than twenty-five feet from the top of a creek bank; and
C. The tree is on a lot developed to the maximum allowed density; and
d. The tree is not a street tree, and is not located within ten feet of the back of the sidewalk;
and
e. The tree was not a condition of development.
f. The tree is a palm and the trunk is less than 12 inches DSH.
G. Tree Removal by the city.
1. After receiving approval to remove a tree, the city shall replace the tree as soon as
feasible during the project.
H. Notification of Tree Removal.
1. The city shall post a sign notifying the public of the date and description of a proposed
tree removal. This sign shall be posted in a prominent location, visible from a public street, for a
period not less than five days before either staff consideration of a tree removal permit or a
public hearing on a related development.
2. The public works director may waive notification requirements for a tree removal when
the director determines that a tree's condition threatens public health, safety or welfare.
I. Approval Conditions. In approving an application for tree removal, the director, the tree
committee, the architectural review commission or the city council may require planting of
replacement trees and may require a bond ensuring that replacement trees shall be planted and
maintained.
J. Expiration of Appeals. Decisions on tree removal by the director,the tree committee and
the architectural review commission shall be subject to appeal according to the appeal provisions
of this code, and no permit shall be issued until the appeal period has lapsed.
K. City Street and Sidewalk Maintenance Program.
TI �-/�
Ordinance No. (2010) Series ATTACHMENT 1
Page 7
1. The city has a program whereby staff evaluates and repairs sidewalks and streets on a
predetermined schedule. When the city determines a street tree must be removed to repair the
sidewalk, the city will pay all costs to repair sidewalk, curb, and gutter, remove the tree and plant
a new tree.
2. If a property owner wishes to remove a street tree and repair hardscape damage they may
do so at their own expense, if the removal is approved by the tree committee. The property
owner shall pay for the necessary hardscape repairs, and be required to plant and maintain a new
tree as a condition of their approved tree removal permit unless tree replacement is waived by the
tree committee.
12.24.100 Control of trees and shrubs for protection of public safety.
A. To prevent hazards to the public, property owners shall maintain all trees, shrubs and
other plant growth on their property or adjacent to their property and within the public right-of-
way and shall at all times ensure that no tree shrub or other plant for which the property owners
bears responsibility is maintained so as to create a dangerous condition of public property.
Hazards shall include, but not be limited to, branches hanging over sidewalks and shrubbery
growing into the right-of-way which interferes with passage or visibility.
B. The city will notify property owners of known hazards by posting abatement notices
according to the Streets and Highways Code, Improvement Act of 1911, Sections 5610 through
5618, or as subsequently amended.
C. Any tree or shrub growing on private property that, in the opinion of the director,
endangers public property shall be removed or trimmed by the property owner within fourteen
days after receiving notice from the director. If the property owner fails to remove or trim the
trees or shrubs, the city will conduct the work and assess the property owner for the cost of the
City Tree Crew or for a Contractor to do the work. Any removal and trimming costs shall
become a lien on the property if not paid by the property owner after being billed by the City.
These costs shall be recorded with the county recorder's office. The assessment may be collected
by court action.
D. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the property owner shall bear responsibility for
injuries to and shall be responsible for any liability caused by or resulting from the property
owner's negligent failure to maintain or repair any tree, shrub or plant growth as required by this
Chapter.
E. In case of emergency caused by a tree in a hazardous condition, the tree may be removed
by order of the director.
F. Emergency tree services.
The city may provide on-call tree services in emergencies. Emergencies include fallen trees and
other immediate safety hazards. The director shall determine if an emergency exists.
12.24.110 Street tree maintenance.
A. Street trees will be pruned and sprayed based on a predetermined schedule approved by
the public works director. Owners may wait for scheduled maintenance or may have their street
trees pruned by an International Society of Arboriculture certified arborist at their own expense.
T�� —1d-
J
Ordinance No. (2010) Series ATTACHMENT 1
Page 8
B. The city's pruning of street trees shall not relieve property owners of their responsibility
to prevent hazards as required in Section 12.24.100, and to complete all other interim
maintenance.
C. The city will maintain all street trees in the downtown commercial area and on major
streets.
12.24.120 Tree maintenance by public utilities.
A. A public utility shall obtain a permit, issued by the director and valid for one year from
the date of issuance, in order to maintain trees growing adjacent to utility fixtures or apparatus.
This permission shall cover trees which encroach upon public streets.
B. When maintaining street trees, a public utility must observe good arboricultural practices,
as specified by International Society of Arboriculture Western Chapter Pruning Standards.
C. When public utility pruning affects ten percent or more of a street tree's natural canopy,
or when there are energized utility lines closer than ten feet from a street tree's main trunk or
trunks, the public utility shall provide complete pruning of the entire tree.
12.24.130 Tree service contractors.
A. Any tree service provider doing business in the City of San Luis Obispo must have the
appropriate contractors license, city business license, and at least one currently certified ISA
arborist on its staff overseeing any work done in the city. This arborist must oversee all pruning
work and certify that all work meets the city's pruning specifications.
B. All tree trimming work must conform to Western Chapter of the International Society of
Arboriculture pruning standards, OSHA safety regulations and ANSI standards.
C. Any tree work involving staging in the right-of-way requires an encroachment permit.
12.24.140 Responsibility for repairing tree damage to curbs, gutters and sidewalks.
A. When roots of a street tree damage city curbs, gutters and sidewalks, including driveway
ramps, the city shall be responsible for appropriate corrective measures which are least damaging
to the tree. Work will be undertaken in accordance with Section 12.24.090 J.
B. When roots of a tree, other than a street tree, damage city curbs, gutters and sidewalks,
including driveway ramps, the property owner shall be responsible for appropriate corrective
measures which are least damaging to the tree.
C. When the city installs new sidewalks, curb or driveway approaches the city shall seek
alternative options to preserve desirable trees. When trees must be removed it shall be the
responsibility of the city to remove any trees. Any trees so removed shall be replaced at the city's
expense with acceptable trees from the Master Tree List.
D. When a property owner installs or repairs sidewalk, curb or driveway approach, the
property owner shall seek alternative options to preserve desirable trees. When trees must be
removed, removal shall be at the expense of the property owner. Any trees so removed shall be
replaced by the property owner with acceptable trees from the Master Tree List in a location
approved by the city arborist.
12.24.150 Protection of trees.
A. No person shall:
� a -13
Ordinance No. (2010) Series ATTACHMENT I
Page 9
1. Trim, prune or cut any tree unless such work conforms to this chapter and is performed in
accordance with all International Society of Arboriculture standards. In no case shall more than
one-third of the tree canopy be removed.
2. Interfere, or cause any other person to interfere, with employees of the city who are
engaged in planting, maintaining, treating or removing any tree or removing any material
detrimental to the tree.
3. Willfully injure, disfigure or intentionally destroy by any means any tree, except with
permits described elsewhere in this chapter.
4. Construct concrete, asphalt, brick or gravel sidewalk, or otherwise fill up the ground area
near any tree, to shut off air, light or water from the roots, except under written authority from the
public works department.
5. Place building material, equipment or other harmful substance near any tree, which might
cause injury to the tree.
6. Post any sign on any tree, tree-stake or guard, or fasten any guy wire, cable or rope to any
tree,tree-stake or guard, except when said activity relates to slack lining(The act of balancing
and tight rope style walking on a suspended line) and is conducted in an area designated by City
council resolution for slack lining...
7. Plant any street tree except according to policies, regulations and specifications
established pursuant to this chapter or any currently applicable ordinances or code sections.
B. Tree-stakes or guards may be placed around street trees by property owners for the
purpose of protecting or training the trees, with approval of the director.
C. It shall be unlawful for a property owner to maintain a tree or shrubbery hazard as
described in Section 12.24.100 and identified by city inspection.
D. Any tree required to be planted must be maintained in good health or replaced by property
owner.
E. Any person or contractor deemed responsible for damaging any tree in violation of this
ordinance shall be liable for penalties to the city according to Chapter 12.24.170, Enforcement.
F. The City Council may designate slack lining areas in City parks. Such an area is
designated by City Council resolution in Meadow Park.
12.24.160 Heritage trees.
A. The city recognizes the important role trees have played in the history and development
of San Luis Obispo and recognizes that a wide variety of trees can grow in its unique and
temperate climate.
B. Any healthy tree within the city limits may be proposed as a heritage tree. The city
arborist and tree committee review each proposed heritage tree and, with the owner's consent,
recommend suitable candidates to the city council for official designation as heritage trees.
C. The city shall protect and maintain all designated heritage trees. Heritage trees shall be
pruned according to a schedule developed and approved by the public works director. All interim
maintenance shall be the responsibility of the property owner.
12.24.170 Enforcement.
The public works department shall be responsible for enforcement of this chapter.
P/4c:) /�.
Ordinance No. (2010) Series ATTACHMENT 1
Page 10
A. 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 penalties to the city.
(1) The civil penalties shall be the value of the tree times two, plus all staff costs related to
the illegal tree removal or tree damage. The city arborist will compute the value of the tree using
methods established by the International Society of Arboriculture.
(2) The property owner shall also be held responsible for damaging or removing a tree on the
owner's property without a permit as described in this chapter and be liable for additional civil
penalties to the city as described above 12.24.170A(1).
(3) If the tree removal or damaged tree is related to any development or subdivision then the
civil penalties shall be the value of the tree times three, plus all related staff costs.
(4) In addition to civil penalties the property owner will be required to plant up to three trees
under the direction of the city arborist. The size of the tree shall be determined by the city
arborist and may be up to a 48"box tree.
(5) For damaged trees, in addition to civil penalties, the property owner will be required to
obtain the services of an ISA certified arborist to determine the future viability of the tree and if
salvageable, create a maintenance plan to restore the tree.
(6) The city council may adopt, by resolution, alternate civil damage amounts to be assessed
against any person deemed responsible for damaging, harming or removing a tree without a
permit.
12.24.180 Appeals.
A. In accordance with the provisions of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Chapter 1.20, any
person aggrieved by an act or determination of the staff in exercising the authority herein granted
shall have the right to appeal to the tree committee, whose decisions are appealable to the city
council.
B. Appeals received by the city clerk within ten calendar days from the date of determination
or act shall cause the public works director to withhold tree removal permits and stop any
construction or demolition activity affecting the subject tree until the appeal is heard and a
decision is reached.
12.24.190 No liability upon the city.
Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to impose any liability upon the city or upon any of its
officers or employees, nor to relieve the owner or occupant of any private property from the duty
to keep in safe condition any trees and shrubs upon that private property or upon sidewalks and
planting areas in front of that property.
SECTION 2. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council
members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage,
in The Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into
effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage.
INTRODUCED on the 6th day of April 2010, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the day of 2010, on the
following vote:
PRO-5
n
Ordinance No. (2010) Series ATTACHMENT 1
Page 11
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
Elaina Cano
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
iHa -Ilo
'ATTACHMENT 2 - I
Chapter 12.24
TREE REGULATIONS
Sections:
12.24.010 Purpose and intent.
12.24.020 Tree committee.
12.24.030 Definitions.
12.24.040 Street Trees-Master tFee4Lists.
12.24.050 Tree planting plans.
12.24.060 Street tree planting and maintenance standards.
12.24.070 Street tree planting requirements. Reside.4ial tFee pl=ifig plans.
12.24.080 Street tree planting procedures.
12.24.090 Tree removal.
12.24.100 Control of trees and shrubs for protection ofen public safetyeasenwnts.
12.24.110 Street tree maintenance.
12.24.120 Tree maintenance by public utilities.
12.24.130 Tree service contractors.
12.24.140 Responsibilityies for repairing tree damage to curbs, gutters and
sidewalks.
12.24.150 Protection of trees.
12.24.160 Heritage trees.
12.24.170 Enforcement. E...o.,,oney tfe�
12.24.180 Appeals.
12.24.190 No liability upon the city.
12.24.010 Purpose and intent.
A. 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.
B. This chapter establishes policies, regulations and specifications necessary to
govern installation,maintenance, removal and preservation of trees to beautify the city, to
purify the air, to provide shade and wind protection, add environmental and economic
value and to preserve trees with historic or unusual value.
C. It is the policy of the city to line its streets with trees and to conduct a consistent
and effective adeq�ut program for maintaining and preserving these trees. This policy
provides for planting trees in all areas of the city and for selecting appropriate species to
achieve the city's goals . It is also the policy of
the city to protect and preserve all desirable trees, wherever they are located. It shall be
the duty of the director to enforce, implement and carry out this policy and the provisions
of this chapter.
D. It is the policy of the city to encourage new tree planting on public and private
property and to cultivate a flourishing urban forest.
E. Trees are essential to the community's well being and the care and planting of all
trees will be done in a manner consistent with city policies and standards.
12.24.020 Tree committee.
A. The tree committee shall act as an advisory body to the director and the city
council on all matters related to trees in San Luis Obispo.
PHd -��
I 1
— 'ATTACHMENT 2 - 2
B. The tree committee shall have five members who shall serve four-year terms,
which shall be staggered.
12.24.030 Definitions.
The following words and phrases used in this chapter, unless a different meaning is
clearly required by the context, shall have the following meanings:
A. "City Arborist" means the person employed by the city as the city arborist and
must be a certified ISA Arborist who has a specialized knowledge of arboriculture and
makes recommendations in the care, planting pruning, trimming and removal of all trees
in the city.
B. "Development" means any subdivision, or other action requiring abuilding
permit or any discretionary permit or approval by the City.
C. "Diameter" means the circumference measured at DSH (Diameter.Shoulder
Height)or 4'6" as per ISA standards.
D. "Director' means the public works director or his or her designated
representative.
E. "Downtown District"means the area between Palm and Pacific Streets and Santa
Rosa and Nipomo and extending south to where Higuera and Marsh meet.
F. "Establish" means to plant and maintain trees during the first years of their life to
ensure theinsurvival.
G. "Heritage tree" means any tree existing within the city limits, which has been so
designated by resolution of the city council. Heritage trees shall be trees with notable
historic interest or trees of an unusual species or size.
H. "ISA" means Intemational Society of Arboriculture.
I. "Maior Streets" means those streets identified in the city's current En ineering
Standard "Street Trees-Major Streets'.
J. "Master List" means those trees identified in the city's Engineering Standard
"Street Trees-Master List".
K. "Maintain" or`'maintenance" means the entire care of trees as well as the
preparation of ground and fertilizing,mulching, trimming and watering.
L. "Native" means the following listed trees:
(1) Quercus agrifolia(coast live oak),
(2) Umbellularia californica(California laurel),
(3) Platanus racemosa(California sycamore),
(4) Juglans californica (Southern California black walnut),
(5) Salix lasiolepis (willow),
(6) Populus trichocarpa(black cottonwood),
(7,) Heteromeles arbutifolia(California hollvtoyon),
(8) Acer macrophyllum (bij4eaf maple),
(9) Acer negundo (box elder),
(10) Quercus lobata(valley or white oak)
M. "Planting' means new planting and replacement planting.
N. "Public utility" means any company doing business as a public utility under the
jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission of the state and any duly constituted
public agency authorized to provide and providing utility service.
O.O. "Right-of-Way for Street Trees"=See Diagram for Street Trees"=See Dia�am
ATTACHMENT 2 - 3
right-of-way
varies Fstreet tree easement-
where
asernent-where accepted by city
-parkway
sidewalk- sidewalk-,,
pavement
P. "Site Plan" means a map or diagram which will include all buildings, driveways,
streets, sidewalks, utilities, trees by size and species and any proposed changes, additions
or dele4e*sremovals.
QG. "Street tree" means any tree accepted by resolution of the City Council and
growing adjacent to dedicated roadways and within the city's right-of-way or within a
street tree easement accepted by the city.
14R. "Tree" means any_w woody, perennial plant with one main-stem or having-a-trunk
which develops many branches: most trees are over ten feet tall. at least thfee inehes i
diametef at a hei& fi3tff and one half feet above thegFeund—. This definition shall include
any tree planted by or required to be planted by the city which may attain the stated
size at maturity.
E. "Planting ar-eat' means the area Ewailable fer-plaa4ing either-within the slTvet ri&
of way md designated tFee easements or-within five feet of an), stfeet right of., ay of
alkQy-.
12.24.040 Street Trees-Master tree4Lists.
The tree committee, with the assistance of the public works and community development
departments, has shahLdeveloped and will maintain a Street Tree-Master tree-4List and a
Street Tree-fnMa or sStreets tree list which shall be adopted by resolution of the city
council and shall be on file in the public works department, engineering standards.e ffiee
of-the city el These documents shall specify the species of trees suitable and desirable
for planting in certain areas in order to establish a wide-ranging urban forest.
12.24.050 Tree planting plans.
Wiz-!4 QeQ R Rrj d Anti RI tree plailtijig plan
ST
A. The eity ariber-ist, wit]; d-iff-e-eti-e-n- fffeffla_ th-ea Iffe-e. eVe-m-Imittee, the arehiteetur-al reviev,
eafnRiission or-the eity eetineil, may designate speeifie tfee plaflting plans fbr-eeftai
Fesidential aeigMeFheeds ar-bleeks, whieh speeify the speeies and lerza4ions fer-tfees to
be plan4ed in these neighbefheeds or-bleeks. The dir-eeter-, the tfee eanunittee er-th
afelliteOPdMI ;ien must approve any de;,4atiens fiem these r-esidenfia4 tFe-e
planting plapms,
A. The city arborist desigriates specific The tfee eeinfaittee, with the assistanee efth-e
pttbliewei4s and eeffHffwaity develepment depaFtments, shall r-eeefftmead a tree planting
plans for certain neighborhoods, developments or blocks, which specify the species and
pm;�-/7
ATTACHMENT 2 -4
locations for trees to be planted in those neighborhoods or blocks. Plans are subject to
the approval of the tree committee, the architectural review commission or the city
council. The city arborist must approve any deviations from these tree planting plans.4e
he adopted by r-e el..tien e f the e:ty a e:l enact . ntainead en file :n the e f flee of the e:t y
eler-k
-These doeuffients shall oeies of trees to be planted and shag
eneetwage. s ' ,t :n al:FF r-ent areas of the eity and shall inelidde .,
seheadule f f st feet t..ee planting to hasten establisiff eat e f the urban f..est
B. Street tree planting for ureas without specific tree planting plans must
be selected from the Street Tree Master List.
12.24.060 Street tree planting and maintenance standards.
The public works and community development departments, with the approval of the tree
committee, shall develop and implement policies and standards for street tree planting
and maintenance, which shall be adopted by resolution of the city council.
12.24.070 Street tree planting requirements.
A. Planting street trees may be required as a condition of a use permit, variance or
other city entitlement.
B. Planting street trees shall be required as a condition of approval for all
subdivisions and building permits. The policies and standards for street tree planting and
maintenance shall be followed in all instances.
12.24.080 Street tree planting procedures.
A.B AfterBefefe planting, all street trees must be inspected and approved by the city
arborist or his or her designee.
R.Q. Required street trees must be planted after completion of each adjacent building
and before an occupancy release is issued for the adjacent building_, unless ethenvv
appFeved by the adi feeten
C. Property owners shall be respensiblerequired€er-to establishing and maintaining
required street trees adjacent to their property, except as provided elsewhere in this
chapter.
AA All street trees ..hall be plantedwithin the plantingaFea. i D 1 and D 7 'F
. .... ......... ........ ......... ....Y......vc. ..auaaaa u.v Yauccarc
0
the eit-y .ee,.:_es t_ee planting in the sidewalk instead of behind the sidewalk, the 't
Ll The 't...ha4l a ge installing beth integ 1 ,d a t 1+ a 'a 11 within
the same blee1. when the .direratew has dete.•...:ne,d that the hb within t1, bl 1
neeessaiy to p:..e. e v aewifa-wle tfeey prv v:, el a fninimum sidewalk width f&)uFfeet
n be eenstmeted.
,
J all existing s, neting leeatien, species, e
-2. Note Nether existing tr__sill be^etaine'd efne ed of Feleeated;
utilities,3. Show pr-opesed f
and the si2e and speeies
va YrvpQsv`7 stfeet
irfa 1392 § 1 (paft), 2001 i
��a -aa
—/ATTACHMENT 2 - 5
12.24.090 Tree removal.
A. Policy. The city values trees as an important part of the natural and economic
environment and efforts shall stfive-be made to preserve them whenever possible and
feasible. When reviewing requests for tree removal permits, the city shall discourage
removing desirable trees and shall consider approving removal of desirable trees only as
a last resort alternative for the applicant.
B. Permits for Removal. Removing any tree in the city shall require a tree removal
permit.except as otherwise provided in this chapter.
Q. City-.A r-beristn,.,t,, rued vo...,,.,a6 .. tFee
rem9dal > p9 i reeelvte€a remeual "tt.the meed fora pefmi
A f .1' f the f ll te«
bU6f1ES-@��e62eFe31 cer�iir�arr�vrmczvriv?diiaig-ciiC-�Ra�cmxoes.
a. The tree «t l azaFd to l:F arty. and r "t • +1 7
z 3-lG a eT11e'PSII'�rL-S.TL22C-0SIIy
b. The tree is deed er a..:«e er an.....eea be..e«,1 reel « ti
the tfee is-t c sibl + 1 4e the an «
�13e-ei�f�-=ca�xvre��c�e-r:iziFcccv-Lrcc-amrcaco.
CDC. Tree Removal Not Related to Property Development.
1. , Removing a tree in all zones except
the D 1 and D 2 ..e«e., as otherwise provided in this chapter shall require-a permit issued
by the public works department.
2. ' + tree ' the D 1 d D 2
When net re.....,.. ,,, r.Vr,,.;, Yv.VaVYaaavfSCTeTILAv1TC�tree in
LVl1VJ JW1 arh
shallrequire ^ pennit : ed by the publie . er «.
s depaFte«t in any el.th
U
following e mstanees:
(2) mbelimlw"ia eanivmxea (Ga4ife aia-laufel),
C o
(4) l... ans eali r«:ee /Qeuthem Gal;[:..ni laeel.. .ahw ,
��� a..baull.T.. ,
(5) Saky, lasielepis (willow*,
,
(9) Aeer- e «ae nye.. ,alar\
(10)Segldss(eea t r-ed rvvQj
b. When thia.4ee is a native aftd the t-.«L is twelve ineheser-gFe + in diameter-
nenialtlz
nativewith a Wank diameter-o f twenty Ciiiehes t
f
e. VAea the tFee is within twenty five feet f e er-eek t 1 .
d When he oe_ .s en a. ...eant let of a. aaas
lot et net developed t thefnageifflum allowed
deHSityj
e. When the::e„is .eeat_d .. the F1LL«ta«rU
aYa.
32. An application for a tree removal permit issued by the public works department
shall include:
a. A plet- i e plan showing the location and species of any tree proposed for
removal
b. All information to support brief statement of the reason for removal;
ATTACHMENT 2 - 6
C. Any other pertinent information require Ito the request, including documentation
of property damage.
3. City Arborist Authorized Removals. The city arborist may authorize a tree
removal upon receipt of a removal application without the need for a permit from public
works as specified hereafter upon finding any of the following circumstances:
a. The tree is an imminent 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's roots are causing severe damage to public or private property, and
removing the tree is the only feasible way to eliminate the damage.
hazard;shetild request a site r-eview by the eity ar-ber-ist befer-e preparing a detailed plot plan.
a. The tfee is an imminent hazard te life er-prepefty, and r-efnwiiag it is the 81Ay
feasible way te elifninate the
b. The tree is dead e a) :b vr damaged be yead •,ai
azauivr
rvinw,ing the tree is the enly feasible way to elifainate the damage.
64. When the city arborist cannot authorize a tree removal, the request.shall be
reviewed by the tree committee, shall r-eview the ..... heatie andwhich 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, pruning
or root intrusion into a failed sewer lateral, etc.;
b. Removing the tree promotes good arboricultural practice;
C. Removing the tree will not harm the character or environment of the surrounding
neighborhood.
PED. Tree Removal with a Development Permit.
1. To remove a tree from any parcel in the city as part of property development by
subdivision,building permit or other entitlement, the developer shall clearly delineate
apply t„ _o.. eve the trees proposed to be removed as part of the development application
and approval process.
All development applications which-hy includ_eirg tree removals shall include the
following document .
a. A siteplet plan showing the location and species of any tree proposed for removal;
b. All information to support ^ lmie f.t„te..en W the reason for removal;
C. Any other pertinent information required.
2. Review of the application to remove a tree with a development permit shall
proceed as follows:
a. The city arborist shall inspect the property and recommend approving or denying
the application;
b. If no architectural review is required for the development, the tree committee
shall approve or deny the application;
'ATTACHMENT 2 7
C. If architectural review is required for the development, the architectural review
commission shall approve or deny the application:
(1) If the city arborist has recommended denying the application and the architectural
review commission has approved the application, the tree committee shall review the
architectural review commission's decision;
(2) If the tree committee concurs with the city arborist's recommendation to deny the
application when the architectural review commission has approved the application, the
city council shall review the matter for final action.
E. Permit Not Required
Removing a tree in R-1 & R-2 zones only, does not require a permit if all of
following conditions exist:
a. The tree is a designated native species and the trunk is less than.ten(10 inches
DSH (see Definitions; native trees)or when the tree is non-native and the trunk is less
than twenty (20) inches DSH; and
C. The tree is more than twenty-five feet from the top of a creek bank; and
d.. The tree is on a lot developed to the maximum allowed density; and
e. The tree is not a street tree, and is not located within ten feet of the back of the
sidewalk; and
f The tree was not a condition of development.
g. The tree is a palm and the trunk is less than 12 inches DSH.
FEG. Tree Removal on Publie Pr-epe7tyby the city.
I_ After receiving approval to "'hamremoves a tree as ~aA of a publ e
the city shall replace the trees as soon as feasible during the project.
G Wl}en the eit regtiires 3 street tree to be planted i^ 4xa the planting afea and then later-
pay for-r-emeyal and r plaeemeat: aegerdanee with its..„ nAe.,anee sehea..le
F-1I. Notification of Tree Removal.
I The city shall post a sign notifying the public of the date and description of a
proposed tree removal. This sign shall be posted in a prominent location, visible from a
public street, for a period not less than five days before either staff consideration of a tree
removal permit or a public hearing on a related development.
2. The public works director may waive notification requirements for a tree removal
in either-of the f 11.,,,ing e mstaneea.
a.when the director determines that a tree's condition threatens public health, safety
or welfare,;
J�}h VAe_ le.a., sta4e v, federal rrte-:tav have dee3LLfed a state of e3«VTsV1G'-mLd
-Q
tFee'a a .,hien thfeateas publ:e health. safety or-welfare.
C4. Approval Conditions. In approving an application for tree removal, the director,
the tree committee, the architectural review commission or the city council may require
planting of replacement trees and may require a bond ensuring that replacement trees
shall be planted and maintained.
M. Expiration of Appeals. Decisions on tree removal by the director, the tree
committee and the architectural review commission shall be subject to appeal according
to the appeal provisions of this code, and no permit shall be issued until the appeal period
has lapsed.
J—JK. City Street and Sidewalk Maintenance Program.
TttC�-oO
' 1
ATTACHMENT 2 - 8
1. The city has a pram whereby staff evaluates and repairs sidewalks and streets
on a predetermined schedule. When the city determines a street tree must be removed to
repair the sidewalk, the city will pay all costs to repair sidewalk curb gutter, remove the
tree and plant a new tree.
2. If a property owner wishes to remove a street tree and repair hardscape damage
they may do so at their own expense, if the removal is approved by the tree committee
The property owner shall pay for the necessary hardscape repairs and be required to
plant and maintain a new tree as a condition of their approved tree removal permit unless
tree replacement is waived by the tree committee.
12.24.100 Control of trees and shrubs for protection ofee public
safe reasenwiAs.
A. To prevent hazards to the public, property owners shall maintain all trees, shrubs
and other plant growth on their property or adjacent to their property and within the
public right-of-way and shall at all times ensure that no tree shrub or other plant for
which the property owners bears responsibility is maintained so as to create a dangerous
condition of public property. Hazards shall include, but not be limited to, branches
hanging over sidewalks and shrubbery growing into the right-of-way which interferes
with passage or visibility.
B. The city will notify property owners of known hazards by posting abatement
notices according to the Streets and Highways Code, Improvement Act of 1911, Sections
5610 through 5618.
C. Any tree or shrub growing on private property that, in the opinion of the director,
endangers public property shall be removed or trimmed by the property owner within
fourteen days after receiving notice from the director. If the property owner fails to
remove or trim the trees or shrubs, the city will conduct the work and assess the property
owner for the cost of the City Tree Crew or for a Contractor to do the work. The e45
Tall einer r ..�o. ewneFs t least t days' tiee of the eity , eil hear.. _fiffi
assessments. Upon eeafifma4ien of assessments by the ,Any removal and
trimming costs shall become a lien on the property if not paid by the property owner after
being billed by the City. These costs shall be recorded with
the county recorder's office. The assessment may be collected by court action.
D. To t-he fullest extent permitted by law, the property owner shall bear
responsibility for injuries to and shall be responsible for any liability caused by or
resulting from the property owner's negligent failure to maintain or repair any tree shrub
or plant growth as required by this Chapter.
BE. In case of emergency caused by a tree in a hazardous condition, the tree may be
removed by order of the director.
F''°.'�0. Emergency tree services.
The city will-may provide on-call tree services in emergencies. Emergencies include
fallen trees and other immediate safety hazards. The director shall determine if an
emergency exists.
12.24.110 Street tree maintenance.
A. Street trees will be pruned and sprayed based on a predetermined schedule
approved by the public works director. Owners may wait f6r scheduled maintenance or
PP 01
)ATTACHMENT 2 - 9
may have their street trees pruned by an International Society of Arboriculture certified
arborist at their own expense. A ,44 • ritt,�.,app '�
•oval by the eity a- ^�st
B. The city's �o^�^��.'� . pruning of street trees shall not relieve property
owners of their responsibility to prevent hazards as required in Section 12.24.104-0, and to
complete all other interim maintenance.
C. The city will maintain all street trees in the downtown commercial area and on
major streets. in all ether-areas of two^;t., st.eet tee .. rAe.:anee will be the
that the eitywill pfune and s
stizeet tFees in these ethef areas te efistife health),and attr-aetiN,e growth.
12.24.120 Tree maintenance by public utilities.
A. A public utility shall obtain a permit, issued by the director and valid for one year
from the date of issuance, in order to maintain trees growing adjacent to utility fixtures or
apparatus. This permission shall cover trees which encroach upon public streets.
B. When maintaining street trees, a public utility must observe good arboricultural
practices, as specified by International Society of Arboriculture Western Chapter Pruning
Standards.
and Cit. of San Luis s Obi Safety n.. g S i fie t
C. When public utility pruning affects ten percent or more of a street tree's natural
canopy, or when there are energized utility lines closer than ten feet from a street tree's
main trunk or trunks, the public utility shall provide complete pruning of the entire tree.
12.24.130 Tree service contractors.
A. .,;_o.. tFee„.chin^ ^ ,y tree service ^ ntraetor provider doing
business ^^ tw^ ^-'- in the City of San Luis Obispo s1a11 must have the
appropriate contractors license, city business license, and at least one currently certified
ISA arborist on its staff overseeing any work done in the city_ #ifie by he Viest^--.
!'hapten-o f4he Intem- tienal Seeiet.. of r-be :euk _,. This arborist must oversee all
�..aauYca.-ry
pruning work and certify that all work meets the city's pruning specifications.
B. All tree trimming work must conform to Western Chapter of the International
Society of Arboriculture pruning.standards OSHA safety regulations and ANSI
Standards.tf a eerti Pied ar-be st ; et en Ghe 4-4- ,.f-he tree eentfaetef, the eib,ar-ber-ist
faus4 appreve the tfee sei=viee reentfaeter-beferewer-k begins. (Ofd. 1392 § 1 (pai4), 2001)
C. Any tree work involving staging in the right-of-way requires an encroachment permit
12.24.140 Responsibilityies for repairing tree damage to curbs, gutters and
sidewalks.
A. When roots of a street tree damage city curbs,
gutters and sidewalks, including driveway ramps, the city shall be responsible for
appropriate corrective measures which are least damaging to the tree. Work will be
undertaken in accordance with Section 12.24.090 J.
B. When roots of a tree, other than a street tree, planted eutside the plaFiling area
damage city curbs, gutters and sidewalks, including driveway ramps, the property owner
shall be responsible for appropriate corrective measures which are least damaging to the
tree.
ffri a5
ATTACHMENT 2 - 10
C. When the city designs-installs new sidewalks, curb or driveway approaches the
city shall seek alternative options to preserve desirable trees. When trees must be
removed it shall be the responsibility of the city to remove any trees. Any trees so
removed shall be replaced at the city's expense with acceptable trees from the master tree
list.
D. When a property owner designsinstalls or repairs a new sidewalk, curb or
driveway approach, the property owner shall seek alternative options to preserve
desirable trees. When trees must be removed, removal-it shall be at the expense of the
property owner. Any trees so removed shall be replaced by the property owner with
acceptable trees from the master tree list in a location approved by the city arborist.
12.24.150 Protection of trees.
A. No person shall;
1. Trim, prune or cut anystreet-tree unless such work conforms to this chapter and is
performed in accordance with all International Society of Arboriculture standards. In no
case shall more than one-third of the tree canopy be removed.
2. No person shall41nterfere, or cause any other person to interfere, with employees
of the city who are engaged in planting, maintaining, treating or removing any street-tree
or removing any material detrimental to the tree.
3. Ne per-son-shall-wWillfully injure, disfigure or intentionally destroy by any means
any tree g e...ng within the planting area or elsewhere,__thin the jurisdietion eft
chapter, except with permits described elsewhere in this chapter.
Lshall!
4-4. Construct a-eenereteconcrete, asphalt, brick or gravel sidewalk, or otherwise fill
up the ground area near any tree, to shut off air, light or water from the roots, except
under written authority from the public works department.
25. Place building material, equipment or other harmful substance near any tree,
which might cause injury to the tree.
36. Post any sign on any tree, tree-stake or guard, or fasten any-guy wire, cable or
rope to any tree, tree-stake or guard.
7. Ne persen shall-pPlant any street tree except according to policies, regulations
and specifications established pursuant to this chapter or any currently applicable
ordinances or code sections.
B. Tree-stakes or guards may be placed around street trees by property owners for
the purpose of protecting or training the trees, with approval of the director.
C. It shall be unlawful for a property owner to maintain a tree or shrubbery hazard as
described in Section 12.24.100 and identified by city inspection.
D. Any tree required to be planted must be maintained in good health or replaced by
property owner.
E. Any person or contractor deemed responsible for damaging any tree
a tree without a permit as described in this chapter in violation of this ordinance shall be
liable for eiNdl dan}ages-penalties to the city' , by the
eity eouneil or for the value of the tree as determined by Frietheds established by th
arberist;according to Chapter 12.24.170, Enforcement.
� 1
-ATTACHMENT 2- 11
F. The City Council may designate slack lining areas in City parks. Such an area is
designated ted by City Council resolution in Meadow Park.
12.24.160 Heritage trees.
A. The city recognizes the important role trees have played in the history and
development of San Luis Obispo and recognizes that a wide variety of trees can grow in
its unique and temperate climate.
B. Any healthy tree within the city limits may be proposed as a
heritage tree. The city arborist and tree committee review each proposed heritage tree
and, with the owner's consent, recommend suitable candidates to the city council for
official designation as herita eg trees. these tfees in the eemmunity that have sigmfieafit
C. The city shall protect and maintain all designated heritage trees. Heritage trees
shall be pruned according to a schedule developed and approved by the public works
director. All interim maintenance shall be the responsibility of the property owner.
12.24.170 Enforcement.
The public works department shall be responsible for enforcement of this chapter.
A. Any person deemed responsible for damaging a tree or removing a tree without a
permit as described in this chapter shall be liable for civil penalties to the city.
(1) The civil penalties shall be the value of the tree times two, plus all staff costs
related to the illegal tree removal or tree damage. The city arborist will compute the
value of the tree using methods established by the International Society of Arboriculture.
(2) The property owner shall also be held responsible for damaging or removing a
tree on the owner's property without a permit as described in this chapter and be liable
for additional civil penalties to the city as described above 12.24.170A(1).
(3) If the tree removal or damaged tree is related to any development or subdivision
then the civil penalties shall be the value of the tree times three, plus all related staff
costs.
(4) In addition to civil penalties the property owner will be required to plant up to
three trees under the direction of the city arborist. The size of the tree shall be
determined by the city arborist and may be up to a 48"box tree.
(5) For damaged trees, in addition to civil penalties, the property owner will be required
to obtain the services of an ISA certified arborist to determine the future viability of the
tree and if salvageable, create a maintenance plan to restore the tree.
(6) The city council may adopt, by resolution, alternate civil damage amounts to be
assessed against any person deemed responsible for damaging, harming or removing_a
tree without a permit..
12.24.180 Appeals.
A. In accordance with the provisions of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Chapter
1.20, any person aggrieved by an act or determination of the staff in exercising the
authority herein granted shall have the right to appeal to the tree committee, whose
decisions are appealable to the city council.
B. Appeals received by the city clerk within ten calendar days from the date of
determination or act shall cause the public works director to withhold tree removal
T I I a
ATTACHMENT 2 - 12
permits and stop any construction or demolition activity affecting the subject tree until
the appeal is heard and a decision is reached.
12.24.190 No liability upon the city.
Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to impose any liability upon the city or upon any
of its officers or employees, nor to relieve the owner or occupant of any private property
from the duty to keep in safe condition any trees and shrubs upon that private property or
upon sidewalks and planting areas in front of that property.
T Ha
RECEIVE®
From: Robert Schreiber [mailto:arborfirst@sbcglobal.net] APR 0 5 2010
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 12:28 PM
To: Pellemeier, Keith SLO CITY CLERK
Subject: Re: New Tree Ordinance.City of San Luis Obispo
Keith,
Thank you for letting me know about this. I read through the changes
and find nothing to argue with.
I really like the change to the smaller sized trees needing a permit. I
always kind of felt like the current size limitations on required
permits were inadequate and was glad to see the proposed reduction to
10" and 20" . The change requiring tree services to have an ISA
certified arborist is also a move in the right direction when it comes
to the health and looks of the trees. The more we can keep homeowners
and other untrained folks from doing damage to the trees.
I can't attend the meeting (I 'll be at my Mom's for Easter still) , but
I definitely support the new changes. Please include my comments, if
needed. Hope the meeting goes well and I look forward to hearing how it
turns out
Bob Schreiber
ISA Certified Arborist
WCISA member
ASCA member
441-3715
H7a'/2D COP`1 Ch7/�K_
L/COUNCIL [-TCDD DIR
C�'�h6 C h16C 2-FIN DIR
dACAQA2rCf'nek2'FIRE CHIEF
1ATTORNEY Z-PW DIR
RED FILE aCLERK/ORIG fd'POLICE CHF
❑ DEPT HEADS ITREC DIR
MEETING AGENDA
Q�UTILDIR
DA ti 6 o ITEM #..&X _.FiR DIR
Net,)Tln1!�5
� Crry M6/L
� CCK
MEETING AGENDA
M I N U T E S DATE. ITEM #
MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2010
COUNCIL CHAMBER, 990 PALM STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
6:15 P.M. — SPECIAL MEETING — COUNCIL HEARING ROOM
ROLL CALL:
Council Members
Present: Council Members John Ashbaugh, Jan Howell Marx, Vice Mayor Andrew
Carter, and Mayor Dave Romero.
Absent: Council Member Allen Settle
City Staff
Present: Katie Lichtig, City Manager, Christine Dietrick, City Attorney, Shelly
Stanwyck, Assistant City Manager, and Elaina Cano, City Clerk, were
present at Roll Call. Other staff members presented reports or responded
to questions as indicated in the minutes.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION TOPIC
City Attorney Dietrick announced the following Closed Session topic.
CONFERENCE REGARDING PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS
Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.8
PROPERTIES: Union Pacific Railroad rights-of-way, various parcels identified as follows:
APN 002-343-034
APN 002-342-024
APN 002-455-004
APN 052-193-020
State Board of Equalization # 850-40-26
State Board of Equalization # 850-40-2A
State Board of Equalization # 805-40-26, Parcel 3A
State Board of Equalization # 850-40-2AM
State Board of Equalization # 850-40-2A, Parcel 37
NEGOTIATING PARTIES:
City of San Luis Obispo: Jay Walter, Katie Lichtig
Landowner: Union Pacific Railroad
d
LI "
City Council Meeting �� Page 2
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
NEGOTIATIONS: Possible acquisition of property, terms and price
PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEM
Mayor Romero called for public comments. None were forthcoming and the meeting
adjourned to the Closed Session.
CLOSED SESSION REPORT
City Attorney Dietrick reported on the Closed Session at the commencement of the 7:00
p.m. regular meeting.
The Closed Session adioumed at 7:03 p.m.
7:00 P.M. — REGULAR MEETING—COUNCIL CHAMBER
Mayor Romero called the regular meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. All Council Members
were present with the exception of Council Member Allen Settle. Council Member Allen
Settle was seated at the dais at 8:30 p.m.
CLOSED SESSION REPORT
City Attorney Dietrick.reported that Council met in Closed Session to discuss Property
Negotiations as indicated above. Council provided staff direction. No further reportable
action was taken.
INTRODUCTION
Fire Chief Callahan introduced the newly hired Fire Administrative Analyst, Julie Cox.
PRESENTATIONS
Mayor Romero presented "2. 010 Census Partner' proclamation to Priscilla Handley of
the 2010 Census Bureau.
Mayor Romero presented a proclamation to Pamela Werth, representative of the Feline
Network Board of Directors, acknowledging "Spay Day USA 2010."
B. K. Richard of the Land Conservancy gave a presentation on the restoration and
future vision of the Octagon Bam. Mr. Richard introduced Executive Director Bob Hill,
who presented the City a painting of the Octagon Bam.
. FT
City Council Meeting - - Page 3
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
PUBLIC COMMENT
John She mr, San Luis Obispo, spoke about his concerns regarding parking on the streets
in neighborhoods and referenced the Parking District Code Section 10.36.233.
City Manager Lichtig explained that staff is working collaboratively across departmental
lines to come up with a solution.
Nick Pafundi, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the Google Fiber Optics Network trial
opportunity and requested Council's support.
Gary Fowler, San Luis Obispo, spoke about his concerns regarding funding of the
Nacimiento Water project and the proposed parking garage on Palm and Nipomo Streets.
Steve Secrest, San Luis Obispo, spoke about his concern regarding water drainage and
flooding in the San Luis Drive neighborhood.
City Attorney Dietrick explained that this is a matter of pending litigation and staff is in
communications with Mr. Secrest's attorney.
Jeanne Secrest, San Luis Obispo, spoke about her concerns regarding water drainage
and flooding in her neighborhood.
Russ Levanwav, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the Google Fiber Optics Network
trial opportunity.
Ermina Karim, San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce, spoke in support of the Google
Fiber Optic trial opportunity.
Jeff Buckingham, spoke in support of the Google Fiber Optic trial opportunity.
City Manager Lichtici stated that staff has been working on this issue aggressively and is
glad to see an increased awareness of this opportunity throughout the community. Ms.
Lichtiq explained that staff will be bringing this item back for formal action at the March
12 Council meeting.
CONSENT AGENDA
ACTION: Moved by Carter/Marx to approve the Consent Agenda as indicated below.
C1. MINUTES.
ACTION: Moved by Carter/Marx to waive oral reading and approve as modified; motion
carried 4:0, (Settle absent).
City Council Meeting ) Page 4
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
C2. BOB JONES CITY-TO-SEA TRAIL-ACCESS EASEMENT.
ACTION: Moved by Carter/Marc to: 1. Accept the Offer of Dedication of Easement
from JK Dewar Properties to formalize access for the Bob Jones City-to-Sea project. 2.
Approve the Acknowledgement of Drainage Easement to the benefit of JK Dewar
Properties and authorize the Mayor to execute the document. 3. Direct the City Clerk to
forward the accepted Offer to Dedicate and Consent form to the County Clerk-
Recorder's Office for Recording; motion carried 4:0, (Settle absent).
C3. ADDITION OF CHAPTER 12.23 TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE.RELATING TO
PROTECTION OF RIPARIAN HABITAT AND WATER QUALITY.
ACTION: Moved by Carter/Marx to adopt Ordinance No. 1541 (2010 Series); motion
carried 4:0, (Settle absent).
C4. LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE SAN LUIS OBISPO ART CENTER FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1010 BROAD STREET.
Council pulled this item for further discussion.
Council Member Marx expressed her concerns regarding the park land and removal of
trees.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Karen Kile, Art Center Executive Director, requested that the 5% commission be
removed from the current agreement.
ACTION: Moved by Marx/Carter to 1. Rescind the current lease agreement with the
San Luis Obispo Art Center valid until 2017. 2. Approve a new 55-year agreement (with
a potential 44-year extension) lease agreement with the Art Center for construction and
subsequent operation of the San Luis Obispo Art Center with modifications to
paragraph 10. This modification should include an additional sentence stating; No
creek alteration or tree removal shall occur on the property without prior City approval.
3. Authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement; motion carried 4:0, (Settle absent).
BUSINESS ITEMS
1. STATUS REPORT: UNREINFORCED MASONRY HAZARD MITIGATION
PROGRAM.
Assistant City Manager Stanwyck introduced this item, following which Economic
Development Manager Clark and Chief.Building Official Girvin presented the agenda
report and responded to questions.
Lam' RA
C , —q
City Council Meeting Page 5
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Public Comments
Carol Florence, Representative of Dorothy Naman Trust, spoke in support of staffs
recommendation and responded to Council questions.
Pierre Rademaker, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of staffs recommendation.
Mike Spangler, San Luis Obispo, spoke in opposition to staffs recommendation and
responded to Council questions.
Bill Thoma, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of staffs recommendation.
–end of public comments—
Council discussion ensued during which they spoke of their support of staffs
recommendation. In addition, Council Members Marx and Settle discussed their
concerns regarding retrofit costs, penalties and one year extension for the Springfield
Baptist Church..
Moved by Ashbaugh/Carter to: 1. Receive report and discuss status of Unreinforced
Masonry Hazard Mitigation (URM) Program. 2. Direct staff to return to Council with
Extension Agreements with property owners of Garden Street Terraces, Chinatown,
and Naman projects to allow additional time for these projects to complete their
permitting and construction. 3. Direct staff to return to Council with change to the URM
Ordinance as necessitated by Council Action. 4. Reaffirm the July 1, 2010, deadline for
ten buildings described in the report. 5. Direct staff to return to Council with an
amendment to the fee schedule that eliminates the favorable fees for seismic retrofit
projects where the original permit has expired due to inaction on the project.
After further Council discussion, Vice Mayor Carter withdrew his second. Motion failed
due to lack of a second.
ACTION: Moved by Marx/Settle to: 1. Receive report and discuss status of
Unreinforced Masonry Hazard Mitigation (URM) Program. 2. Direct staff to return to
Council with Extension Agreements with property owners of Garden Street Terraces,
Chinatown, and Naman projects to allow additional time for these projects to complete
their permitting and construction. 3. Direct staff to return to Council with change to the
URM Ordinance as necessitated by Council Action. 4. Reaffirm the July 1, 2010,
deadline for ten buildings described in the report. 5. Direct staff to return to Council
with an amendment to the fee schedule that eliminates the favorable fees for seismic
retrofit projects where the original permit has expired due to inaction on the project 6.
Allow a one-year extension to the Springfield Baptist Church, which is a non-profit
organization; motion carried 5:0.
Council recessed at 9:30 p.m. and reconvened at 9:40 p.m. with all members present.
FT
C I -�
i
City Council Meeting �" Page 6
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
2. DIGITAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND VIDEO COMPETITION ACT ORDINANCE.
City Attorney Dietrick presented the agenda report and responded to questions.
Public Comments
There was no public comment.
–end of public comments—
ACTION: Moved by Marx/Settle to introduce Ordinance No. 1542 (2010 Series)
amending Chapter 5.72 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code relating to cable
television franchises; motion carried 5:0.
3. MID-HIGUERA WIDENING PROJECT: COSTS, MEDIANS AND PROJECT
OPTIONS.
Director of Public Works Walter introduced this item, following which Senior Civil
Engineer Van Beveren presented the agenda report and responded to questions
Public Comments
Scott Haves, San Luis Obispo, spoke about his concerns regarding staffs
recommendation.
Jim Morabito, owner of Paul's Cleaners, spoke about his concerns regarding the
economic downfall and staffs recommendation.
Dave Hite, San Luis Obispo, spoke in opposition to the addition of the median and
concerns regarding staff's recommendation.
John Dunn, Avila Beach, spoke about his concerns regarding long term effects and
ways to enhance the mid-Higuera area.
Roy Parsons, spoke about his concerns regarding the medians, water flow and flood
control.
Bill Thoma, spoke about his concern's with staffs recommendations.
–end of public comments—
Council discussion ensued during which they stated their concerns regarding funding,
flooding, traffic congestion, medians, street widening and turning lanes.
,$RAS
City Council Meeting Page 7
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
A motion was made by Council Member Ashbaugh to modify the scope of the current
Higuera Street Widening project to align the project with the available funding which
means that the project will include traffic signal replacements and operational
improvements at Marsh Street and at High Street and the resurfacing of Higuera Street
from Marsh Street to South Street; include Alternative 1. Amend Mid-Higuera
Enhancement Plan; motion failed due to a lack of a second.
A motion was made by Mayor Romero, seconded by Council Member Settle to deny
staffs recommendation; 2-3 motion failed; Ashbaugh, Carter and Marx opposed.
ACTION: Moved by Marx/Carter to modify the scope of the current Higuera Street
Widening project to align the project with the available funding which means that the
project will include traffic signal replacements and operational improvements at Marsh
Street and at High Street and the resurfacing of Higuera Street from Marsh Street to
South Street; 3:2 Romero/Settle opposed.
ACTION: Moved by Ashbaugh/Settle to direct staff to evaluate work load and return to
Council as part of the June budget process with a recommended approach to
implement plan amendments as reflected in Alternative 1; 3-2 Carter and Marx
opposed.
COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS
Council Member Marx reported on her attendance at the Air Pollution Control District,
SLOCOG, and SLORTA..
Council Member Ashbaugh reported on his attendance at the Zone 9 and CAPSLO
meetings.
Council discussed the CAPSLO Homeless Shelter project that will be presented at the
February 17th Airport Land Use Commission meeting.
COMMUNICATIONS
By consensus, Council agreed for the City Manager to seek input from individual
Council members about criteria and qualities for the next Cal Poly President.
There being no further business to come before the City Council, Mayor Romero
adjourned the meeting at 11:30 p.m.
Elaina Cano, CMC
City Clerk
APPROVED BY COUNCIL: vJW10
FT
council. M-74 /o
j acEnba RepoRt Im.
CITY OF SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: Shelly Stanwyc14 Assistant City Manager
Prepared by Elaina Cano,City Cleric 4 60A&
SUBJECT: CANCELLATION OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
RECOMMENDATION
1. Cancel the Regular City Council Meetings of Tuesday,August 3,and December 21,
2010.
2. Cancel the Regular City Council Meeting of Tuesday,November 2, 2010,due to Federal,
State,and Municipal Elections and reschedule to November 9, 2010.
DISCUSSION
Summer and Winter Council Meeting Schedule
Since 1994 it has been the practice of the City Council to cancel a regular meeting in the month
of August and/or December. This custom allows the Council and staff members an opportunity
to plan vacations and reduce meeting absences. Council discussed this matter at the March 16u'
Council meeting and directed staff to return with a formal recommendation. At that meeting, it
was Council's general consensus that the best meeting dates to cancel are the August.3, and
December 21, 2010, regular meetings.
Election Night
After reviewing the calendar for the November 2010 Election, staff realized that the date of the
first regular City Council meeting for the month of November 2010 is Tuesday, November 2; as
is the General Municipal Election. Therefore, in accordance with past practice, staff is
recommending that the first regular meeting of November be rescheduled for November 9.
ALTERNATIVE
Should November 9, 2010 be a date where Council members have prior commitments, Council
could select a different date in November to reschedule its first regular meeting.
C:\Documents and Settings\ecano\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK6\04-06-10 Council Ca_'
Meeting Cancellation.doc
council h'"w%fil 06,2010
j acEncu RePoRt N ��
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: Jay D. Walter, Public Works Director
Prepared By: John Webster, Transit Manager
SUBJECT: REVOCATION OF GREEN-GO TAXI LLC CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the City Manager or her designee to revoke the Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity and Taxi Permit issued to Green-Go Taxi LLC on March 17, 2009.
DISCUSSION
On July 24, 2008, the City of San Luis Obispo received an application from Deven Wek of
Green-Go Taxi LLC requesting consideration of a Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity, and issuance of a Taxi Permit for operations in the City. Pursuant to Municipal Code
Section 5.20.030 the Council authorized the City Manager to approve the Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity and Taxi Permit issued to Green-Go Taxi LLC on March 17, 2009
for a one year trial basis (Resolution#10068-2009 Series)
Given the City's previous experience with multiple taxi operators, there was a risk that current
operators would be unable to remain profitable. Accordingly, staff recommended a one year trial
basis for this permit issuance to review impact of the additional service. A permanent certificate,
eligible for annual renewal, could be issued at the end of the one-year trial period if there were no
serious complaints or violations of the Municipal Code.
San Luis Obispo Municipal code 5.20.100 requires that "All persons holding certificates of
public convenience and necessity shall regularly and daily operate their taxicabs on a twenty-
four-hour basis during each day of the license year" and 5.20.130 provides that "The certificate
of public convenience and necessity shall be suspended or revoked by the Council when "The
owner wildly fails to operate the vehicles under permit in accordance with the provisions of
this chapter. "
On March 22❑d city staff was notified that Green-Go Taxi was no longer able to provide twenty-
four-hour service. The owner was notified per code of his right to a public hearing prior to
revocation. The owner waived his right to a public hearing in writing and does not oppose
revocation.
�3-1
1
Revocation of Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity Page 2
FISCAL IMPACT
There are no direct fiscal impacts related to this recommendation to revoke the Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity and Permit for Green-Go Taxi LLC.
CONCURRENCE
The Police Department concurs with the staff recommendation to revoke the Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity and Taxi Permit issued to Green-Go Taxi LLC
ATTACHMENTS
1. Time of Green-Go Taxi issues
2. Resolution
T:\Council Agenda Reports\Public Works CAR\20IO\Transit\CAR GREEN GO CERTIFICATE RENEWAL-04-06-2010\CAR-Green Go Taxi
Certificate of Convenience 12 month review--04-06-2010.doc
613 -cz
ATTACHMENT#1
Revocation of Green-Go Taxi LLC Certificate of Convenience &Necessity
Green-Go Taxi Operational and Financial Issues Timeline:
■ July 24, 2008 application for Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity submitted to City.
■ March 17, 2009 Council approved Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity and Taxi Permit on a one
year trial basis for one taxi vehicle (#001)
■ April 2009, Police Department problems with a Green-Go taxi driver permit regarding payment of City fees.
■ April 25, 2009 SLO PD issue citation to a Green-Go taxi driver for operating without a valid driver permit. The
driver had been warned previously by PD several days prior.
■ May 2009 Green-Go Taxi Vehicle#001 not operating within the City as required under Municipal code 5.20.100
• July 21, 2009 Council denied request from Beach Cities Cab Company to transfer the existing Certificate of
Public Convenience and Necessity and all Taxi Permits assigned to Beach Cities Cab Company(BCCC) to a new
owner on a one-year trial basis.
■ August 13, 2009 City staff becomes aware of Green-Go Taxi being out of service and notified owner of
Municipal code violation(5.20.100)
• August 14, 2009 Green-Go Taxi service resumed operations within the City using a different taxi (vehicle#007).
■ On November 3, 2009, City received notice that Green-Go Taxi insurance was cancelled effective October 23,
2009 for non payment of premium. Green-Go Taxi notified of suspension of certificate.
December 29, 2009, Green-Go owner(Deven Wek) notifies City staff via email that he was in the process of
selling his business. Staff provides municipal code information and requirements regarding transfer of his
certificate.
■ January 12, 2010 Green-Go Taxi provides a valid insurance binder, vehicle#007 is re-inspected and is approved
to operate again within the City.
■ January 19, 2010 City staff receives an email from Green-Go Taxi owner regarding transferring the certificate of
convenience to Fuad Alsaify and is advised to send an official letter to the Director of Public Works.
• March 3, 2010, Certified letter sent to owner regarding revocation of Certificate on Council Agenda for April 6,
2010.
■ March 22, 2010, city staff was notified that Green-Go Taxi was no longer able to provide 24 hour service. The
owner was notified per code of a public hearing, waived his right to a public hearing in writing and does not
oppose revocation. Item removed from Agenda as a public hearing and placed as a consent item.
C 3 -3
ATTACHMENT#2
RESOLUTION NO. (2010 Series)
RESOLUTION REVOKING THE CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY AND TAXI PERMIT FOR GREEN-GO TAXI
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo desires to provide for taxi
service for its citizens;
WHEREAS, Green-Go Taxi is a current operator in the City of San Luis Obispo; and
pursuant to San Luis Municipal Code Section 5.20.030 was issued a Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity and Taxi Permit on'March 17, 2009 for a one year trial basis
(Resolution#10068-2009 Series)
WHEREAS, the City has received notification from Green-Go Taxi that they are unable
to operate taxi service on a twenty-four basis in the City and the owner has waived his right to a
public hearing;
WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
Chapter 5.20, the City has evaluated the twelve month trial service of Green-Go Taxi and Green-
Go has failed to meet criteria for continuation of its permit
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds that Green-Go Taxi's failure to provide continuous
service and to meet criteria for its continued operation constitute good cause to revoke
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity and Taxi Permit issued to Green-Go Taxi on
March 17, 2009
SECTION 2. The City Manager or her designee is hereby authorized to revoke the
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity and Taxi Permit issued to Green-Go Taxi LLC on
March 17, 2009.
On motion of seconded by
, and on the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
C3-�
Resolution No. (2009 Series)--' A1TqCHMOT2
Page 2
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of 12010.
David F. Romero
Mayor
ATTEST:
Elaina Cano
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
C35
i
council hi cG�D:m
A ril 6 2010
Ac,EnoA RepoRt hr,,.NUFFIW c
C I TY O F SAN LU I S OBISPO
FROM: Jay D. Walter, Director of Public Works .`l`
Prepared By: Bridget Fraser, Senior Civil Engineer 6g�
SUBJECT: WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY: CLARIFIER 5 AND FACILITY
MAINTENANCE PAINTING PROJECT; SPECIFICATION NO. 91001
RECOMMENDATION
1. Approve the plans and specifications for "Water Reclamation Facility: Clarifier 5 & Facility
Maintenance Painting Project, Specification No. 91001" and authorize staff to advertise for bids.
2. Authorize the City Manager to award the contract if the lowest responsible bid is within
Engineer's Estimate of$250,000.
DISCUSSION
This project involves maintenance painting of six areas at the Wastewater Reclamation Facility
(WRF). More specifically, work will involve cleaning, surface preparation, and recoating of:
1. Clarifier 5;
2. Chlorine contact station;
3. Plant drainage pumping station
4. Filter building piping;
5. Cooling tower station; and
6. Equalization pond control structure.
This project must occur during a time when flows at the facility are at their lowest. During low-flow
periods, one of the two final clarifiers can be taken out of service and the plant can still process
incoming flows and remain compliant with discharge requirements. Flows at the facility are lowest
during the summer months when the California Polytechnic University is out of session and the
City's population is reduced. Most WRF projects are scheduled to occur during this time period.
Clarifier No. 5 Coating
Clarifier No. 5 was originally constructed in 1994 as part of a major upgrade to the WRF. After 16
years of service, the protective coatings on the walls and equipment are showing signs of
deterioration. The deteriorated coatings need to be replaced to protect the underlying surfaces from
deterioration and structural damage that would require more costly repairs or replacement.
Sacrificial anodes will be installed to provide added protection to the submerged mechanical
equipment.
'Facility Maintenance Painting
The WRF has been constructed in phases over the years with major expansions and upgrades
occurring in 1941 through the most recent in 1994. Facility piping and equipment can be anywhere
oq_ 1
Clarifier 5 and Facility Maintenance Painting Project Page 2
from 16 to 70 years old. Much of this equipment is showing signs of rust and corrosion. This is not
surprising due to the generally corrosive environment of the facility. Routine cleaning and recoating
of the facility is essential to slow the rate of corrosion and deterioration of the structures.
Recognizing this, WRF staff implemented an annual maintenance painting program to provide
routine painting of these facilities. Areas in need of painting have been identified and prioritized by
WRF staff. Three areas were taken care of in last year's maintenance painting project. Five
additional areas will be addressed with this project.
Bid Alternates-Award of Contract
Timing of this project is critical. In order to complete the clarifier coating before students return mid-
September the work must begin in early summer. However, if bids come in higher than expected
requiring staff to return to Council for an award, work would not begin until mid to late July. In this
case, the contractor will not have enough time to complete the work before students return. To stay
on track, it is essential that the City Manager award the contract as this would cut off nearly a month
of processing time allowing the work to begin early to mid June. To accommodate this, two of the
painting sites are being bid as additive alternates to allow flexibility in awarding a project. Staff
recommends that the contract be awarded by the City Manager including or eliminating the bid
alternates, as needed, to keep the award within the Engineer's Estimate of$250,000.
CONCURRENCES
The Utilities Department has reviewed and approved this project.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Clarifier No. 5 coating and the maintenance painting projects are identified in the 2009-11
Financial Plan on pages 3-133 to 3-137 of Appendix B. In the 2009-2010 project list, $175,000 is
identified for cleaning, repairs, and recoating of Clarifier No. 5 and $100,000 is identified for
maintenance painting for a total budget of$275,000. The estimated project costs are shown below:
Estimated Project Costs:
Design Phase Costs $ 7,000
Printing/Misc. $ 1,000
Construction Costs:
Clarifier 5 Coating & Repairs (Base) $ 175,000
Chlorine Contact Station Coating(Base) $ 25,000
Plant Drainage Pumping Station Coating(Base) $ 10,000
Fitler Building Piping (Base) $ 5,000
Cooling Tower Station Coating (Alt) $ 25,000
Equalization Pond Control Strucutre Coating(Alt) $ 10.000
Total Engineer's Estimate $ 250,000
Contingencies @ 15% $ 38,000
Construction ManagemenvInspection @ 15% $ 38.000
Total Estimated Project Costs: $ 334,000
c� -a
Clarifier 5 and Facility Maintenance Painting Project Page 3
The estimated total project cost of$334,000 exceeds the budget of$275,000. For the most part this
is due to costs for construction management and higher-than-normal construction contingencies
(15% rather than 10% due to a high potential for unknowns). However, given the competitive
bidding climate, it is possible that bids could come in lower than the Engineer's Estimate.
Due to the specialized nature of industrial coatings work it is recommended that inspection and
construction management be handled by Advantage Technical Services, one of the City's on-call
inspection films specializing in industrial coatings work. A work order for this work will be issued
under their current contract.
Funding for this project is available in the Water Reclamation Facility Major Equipment Replacement
Master account which has a current balance of $1,274,809. At time of award, funds will be
transferred from the Master account to this project's accounts via a budget amendment request.
ALTERNATIVE
Defer the Project The City Council could choose to deny or defer contract award for the WRF
maintenance projects. Staff does not recommend this option due to the advanced age and condition
of equipment at the facility. If corrosion is allowed to continue, the facility equipment and
components will continue to deteriorate to the point of requiring more costly replacement or repair.
ATTACHMENT
Vicinity Map
AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFICE
Specifications
T:\Coundl Agenda Reports\Public Works CAR\2010\CIP\91001 Clarifier 5-Facility Maintenance Painting\91001 CAR Adv Clarifier 5-Painting.doc
C4-3
j a `��
u
Iy-
r
i
PROJECT .
a
LOCATION \
x'
CITY MAP
i� Iii a
e : � eCLARIFIER 5 COATING
PAINTINGMAINTENANCE
�� ;� SPECIFICATION NO.91001
COunCit Maiq Dam
April 6,2010
j acEnaa Rep= 1mm N°. �s
CITY OF SAN LUIS 0 B I S P 0
FROM: Bill Statler, Director of Finance & Information Technology
Steve Schmidt, Information Technology Manager
SUBJECT: AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO MACRO CORPORATION FOR RADIO SYSTEM
CONTRACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES
RECOMMENDATION
Approve Amendment Number 4 to the radio system design services contract with Macro
Corporation in the amount of $74,580, which is a not to exceed price, and authorize the City
Manager to execute the amendment.
DISCUSSION
This report seeks Council authorization to amend Macro Corporation's (Macro) agreement to
provide adequate compensation for the remainder of the citywide radio upgrade project. The
background information below reflects tasks performed by Macro at the City's request up to the
award of the radio contract to Tait Communications on June 3, 2009. Contract management and
technical support services by Macro are needed through the conformance-testing phase of the
project to assure that the new radio system's performance meets all specified requirements.
Macro's oversight is also required during the installation and testing phase of the new Avtec
dispatch radio console equipment, and dispatcher training.
Background
1. Contract Award On October 21,2003, the Council authorized staff to issue the radio system
upgrade design services request for proposal. The Council authorized the City Manager to
approve issuing a request for proposals (RFP) for radio system improvements and award the
contract, if within the engineering estimate of $85,000. Staff issued the RFP per Council
approval, and subsequently awarded the design services contract to Macro for $79,361 on
December 30, 2003.
2. Contract Amendment No. I An additional fee of $24,983 was authorized by the City
Manager on December 20, 2004 for design services associated with tasks and actions
required prior to the release of the Radio System Upgrade RFP. At this point, the City had
authorized Macro to expend $104,344.
3. Contract Amendment No. 2 On March 30, 2006, the City Manager approved contract
amendment no. 2 for scope of service changes and related compensation in the amount of
$38,060. At this point, the City had authorized Macro to expend $142,404.
r'
Amendment 4 to Macro Corporation Page 2
4. Contract Amendment No. 3. This was approved by the Council on January 19, 2010 for
$45,050 for design and consultant services required by the City to arrive at a final design with
Tait Communications, to provide a more effective public safety radio system to the City. At
the time that Amendment No. 3 was approved, staff was not fully aware of the amount of
detailed design that was required between the City and Tait Communications to maximize the
new simulcast radio system. Detailed design is now complete with Tait, but is still in
progress with Avtec. Amendment No. 4 will provide sufficient funding for Macro to project
completion, conformance testing and dispatch start-up.
FISCAL IMPACT
Adequate funding is available in the construction management phase of the radio system upgrade
project budget as reflected in the following table:
Encumbrances&
Phase Budget Expenditures To-Date Remaining Balance
Design&Engineering $142,700 $109,430 $33,270
Construction $249,000 $35,682 $213,318
Construction Management* 1 $100,100 $91,952 $8,148
Equipment Acuisition $3,876,100 $3,233,124 $642,976
SUBTOTALS $4,367,900 $3,470,188 $897,712
Macro Amendment No.4 $74,580 $74,580
*TOTAL* $4,367,900 $3,544,768 $823132
*Includes payment to Mar Wal Construction management contract that is also being considered by the Council on
April 6, 2010
CONCURRENCES
The Police and Fire Department concur with this recommendation.
ALTERNATIVES
Given the near completion status of this project, there are no viable alternatives to the
recommended action
ATTACHMENTS
1. Macro Corporation Contract Amendment No. 4
2.. Macro Corporation proposal dated March 5,2010
T:\Council Agenda Reports\Finance&IT CAR\IT\2010\Macro Corp Amendments\Macro Amend MCAR Macro Amend No.4_
April_06_2010.doc
Attachment.
TO AGREEMENT NO. 4
THIS AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT is made and entered in the City of San Luis Obispo on April 6,
2010 by and between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation, herein after referred to as City,
and Macro Corporation,hereinafter referred to as Contractor.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, on December 30, 2003, the City entered into an Agreement with Contractor for radio system
design services per Specification No.90222A;and
WHEREAS, the City desires to amend the scope of services to include project management and Contractor
has submitted a proposal for this purpose that is acceptable to the City.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises; obligations and covenants hereinafter
contained,the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. The scope of services and related compensation is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit A
attached hereto.
2. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the day and year
fust written above.
ATTEST: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
By:
City Clerk City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM: CONTRACTOR
By:
YAttomey
C 5"-3
MACRO exhibit
Corporation
'DD
A KEMA Company ATTACMMEmg
March 5, 2010
Mr. Steve Schmidt
Information Technology Manager
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
(805) 781-7570
RE: Proposal for Additional Technical Support Services
Radio System Upgrade Implementation Phase
Dear Mr. Schmidt:
In response to your request for our continued involvement in the planning and subsequent
implementation and deployment of the new City of San Luis Obispo Radio System, Macro
has estimated the extend of our additional Engineering Support Services that will required to
ensure that the entire new Land Mobile Radio system is installed and tested as per
specifications, and subsequently deemed operationally acceptable.
The below proposal is a detailed representation of our proposed approach and budget
requirements.
Proposed Technical Support Tasks:
Task Description Staff Rate Hours Estimated Estimated Estimated
Category Total Expenses Project
Labor Cost Total
Final Detail Design Principal $210 8 $1,680 $0 $1,680
Review-151 Vendor's Consultant
Draft(Tait/Avtec)
Final Detail Design Principal $210 16 $3,360 $0 $3,360
Review-Final Vendor's Consultant
Draft(Tait/Avtec)
Review and Verify Principal $210 8 $1,680 $0 $1,680
Vendor Factory Orders Consultant
Review Vendor Principal $210 16 $3,360 $0 $3,360
Provided Test Plans Consultant
Participation on Weekly Principal $210 20 $4,200 $0 $4,200
Conference Calls x 20 Consultant
Performance of Principal $210 100 $21,000 $0 $21,000
Engineering tasks Consultant
related to outcome of
conference calls
155 Grand Avenue, Suite 500 a Oakland, CA 94612 ® Tel: 510-891-0446 a Fax: 510-891-0440
www.macro.com C1
IM teve-Schmitt— —
Exhibit
March 5, 2010 MACK®
Page 12
ATTACHMENT2
Oversee Field Principal $210 100 $21,000 $1,250 $22,250
Acceptance Testing— Consultant
Radio System (On-site)
Oversee Radio Principal $210 60 $12,600 $1,250 $13,850
Coverage Testing (On- Consultant
site)
Regulatory Support (as Senior $160 20 $3,200 $0 $3,200
needed—Applicable Consultant
FCC Coordination fees
if any are additional)
Total Project(Not to $74,580
exceed amount. Client
Selects Tasks and
Support Level)
Thank you again for this opportunity. We look forward to another rewarding and successful
project experience. Please call me if you have any questions at: Office (510) 379-2711; Cell
(719) 661-7701
Best regards, Approved by:
Carlos Delatorre Allen Beatty, Manager
Principal Consultant Public Safety/Telecommunications
Cs -S
council MCMORAnoum
April 6, 2010 RED FILE
— MEETING AGENDA
TO: City Council Dq 6 /b ITEM #
FROM: Katie Lichtig, City Manager
Bill Statler, Director of Financ & Info ation Technology ` '
SUBJECT: CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM C=, : CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH
MACRO CORPORATION
Council Member Carter asked about the history of the Macro contract for radio system upgrade
design and management services increasing from $85,000 to the proposed $262,000.
As summarized below, the short answer is that we have managed this contact for each distinct
phase of the project: the initial contract did not cover services that might be needed through
project completion, but for just the first phase of the project.
1. The initial contract for$79,361 was for needs analysis and conceptual system design.
It did not include subsequent steps such as preparation of detailed plans and specifications;
proposal evaluation and contract negotiations; or project management assistance during
installation, which were covered in subsequent contract amendments.
2. Based on the design concept, Amendment 1 for $24,983 in was to assist with preparing
detailed plans and specifications for the request for proposals (RFP).
3. The purpose of Amendment 2 of $38,060 was twofold: further analysis of interference and
coverage issues (improving this in the City's mountainous terrain and downtown areas was a
key goal of the City's radio system upgrade); and assistance in evaluating proposals.
4. The most recent amendment approved by the Council in January 2010 (Amendment 3 of
$45,050) was for two key purposes:
a. Vendor responses to the RFP resulted in system costs that were far in excess of the
project budget. Macro re-scoped the project, we reissued the RFP and the result is a
system that will serve us well over the next ten years, using leading-edge (but not
bleeding edge) technology at a final cost that will be about $800,000 below budget.
b. Macro also assisted with reviewing the new proposals, negotiating the contract and
assisting with detailed installation plans.
5. The proposed contract Amendment 4 of$45,050 is for assistance during installation; and will
cover all remaining services and related costs with Macro through project completion.
The following is a recap of Macro services by "step:" RECEIVED
APR ®6 2010
SLO CITY CLERK
3
✓ Consent Calendar Item C-5: Contract Amendment with Macro Corporation Page 2
Project Design and Cost Summary
1. Needs analysis and system design 79,361
2. Preparation of plans and specifications 24,983
3. Proposal evaluation; expanded interference and coverage analysis 38,060
4. Revised work scope and RFP; proposal evaluation and installation planning 45,050
5. Project installation and management services 74;580
Total 1 $262,034
While the initial contract could have included the full scope of services that would ultimately be
needed through project completion, we believe that with this approach we better managed overall
contract costs by staying focused on specific project tasks as we needed them.
Placing Project Design and Management Costs in Perspective
While City staff have played a large role in system design and project management, the radio
system upgrade is a very complex technology project; and as such, we have benefited
significantly from Macro's expertise as each stage in this project.
Placed in perspective, design and project management services with Macro represent about 6%
of the total project budget. This compares very favorably with similar services for construction
projects of 20%to 25%.
In summary, because of our modest investment in Macro's assistance with this project, we will
have a reliable radio system that will serve us well over the next ten years at a final cost that will
be about $800,000 below budget.
&177A11--
E-'COUNCIL 'C'CDD DIR
CACAO-City 111G2 [rFINDIR
,i2-FIRE CHIEF
Q'ATTORNEY Zpw DIR
�' CLERK/ORIG O-POLICE CHF
DEU HEADS 13-REC DIR
t P' EYUTIL DIR
1k(&L AX C HR DIR
/ iL'C�T•in� _.�..('.eu NCS L
— er-M n�GrL
C
council April 6,2010
ac,Enaa Report CG
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: Bill Statler, Director of Finance& Information Technology
Steve Schmidt, Information Technology Manager
SUBJECT: AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO AGREEMENT WITH MARWAL CONSTRUCTION
RECOMMENDATION
Approve Amendment No. 2 for construction management and inspection services with MarWal
Construction Inc. (MarWal) for the public safety dispatch center and radio system upgrade
projects in the amount of$72,625 and authorize the City Manager to execute the amendment.
DISCUSSION
This report seeks Council authorization to amend MarWal's agreement with the City in
providing construction management and inspection services for the public safety dispatch center
and radio system upgrade projects. The project completion date has been delayed for several
reasons, which include a very early and wet rainy season, subterranean water issues at the Fire
Station No. 1 site and additional technology requirements that surfaced during final detailed
design.
The dispatch center project was originally scheduled to complete on February 28, 2010. Due to
the above-unforeseen issues, the new revised project completion date is April 21, 2010.
Amendment No. 2 provides the additional funding required for MarWal to continue providing
construction management and inspection services through the remainder of the project, including
coordination with the radio system upgrade.
Background
Contract Award On March 15, 2005, the Council authorized the City Manager to issue a
request for proposals (RFP) for construction management services to oversee construction of a
new dispatch center along with related work on the radio system upgrade and to award a contract
if the proposal is within the engineering estimate of$305,000. On July 1, 2005, the City entered
into an agreement with MarWal for a total of $299,595 to provide construction management
services for the new dispatch center.
Amendment No. 1. On April 17, 2007, the Council authorized the City Manager to approve an
amended agreement with MarWal to reflect an expanded scope of services that required added
preconstruction work than projected in the original RFP. Additionally, the City increased the
size and scope of the physical construction project with the addition of the Fire storage facility,
parking modifications and masonry block walls. The total for these additional City-requested
tasks was $99,870, bringing the contract total via Amendment No. 1 to $399,465.
C6 - I
Amendment no. 2 to Agreement with MarWal Construction Page 2
Proposed Amendment
The revised total compensation to MarWal to complete the dispatch center and radio system
upgrade projects is $472,090 as summarized below:
MarWal Construction Contract Amendments Costs
Original agreement for CM services $299,595
Contract Amendment No. 1 $99,870
Subtotal $3999465
Contract Amendment No. 2 $72,625
Total $4729090
FISCAL IMPACT
As summarized below, adequate funding is available in the radio system upgrade project budget
to funds these added services through project completion.
Original Budget
Public Safety Radio Project Budget Balance
Public Safety Radio Project Budget $4,367,900 $970,337
Less MarWal Contract Amendment No. 2 72,625)
Total Remaining Balance $897 712
CONCURRENCES
Public Works engineering staff concur with this recommendation.
ALTERNATIVES
Given the near-completion status of this project, there are no viable alternatives to the
recommended action.
ATTACHMENT
1. Amendment No. 2 to Agreement
2. Exhibit A: MarWal Add Service#2
�6 -a
T:\Council Agenda Reports\Finance&IT CAR\IT\20I O\MarWal Contract AmendmentsWarwal Amendment 2\CAR MarWal
Amend No.2.doc
Attachmeni
AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO AGREEMENT
THIS AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT is made and entered in the City of San Luis Obispo on April 3,
2010 by and between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation, herein after referred to as City,
and MARWAL CONSTRUCTION,hereinafter referred to as Contractor.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, on July 1, 2005 the City entered into an Agreement with Contractor for Construction
Management Services for Public Safety Dispatch Center per Specification No. 9022313;and
WHEREAS, the City desires to amend the scope of services to reflect project changes and the Contractor
has submitted a proposal for this purpose that is acceptable to the City.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations and covenants hereinafter
contained,the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. The Statement of Additional Services and related compensation is hereby amended as set forth in
Exhibit A attached hereto.
2. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the day and year
first written above.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
By:
City Manager APPRO D AS TO R�
MARWAL CONSTRUCTION RIS71NE DIETRICK
City Attorney
By:
Exhibft_, L
Ax' CONSTRUCTIONEVC
WAL From Conaept to Completion.
uoe sssl Is
December 10, 2009
Steve Schmidt ATT 9 '
FIT
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: Public Safety Dispatch Center
Specification No: 90223B
Construction Management/Project Inspection Services
Add Service#02 - Increase of Construction Hours
Dear Steve,
Per the project schedule meeting thismoming, it has been determined that a time extension,is
required to accommodate the impact of CRB 33;technology and•building infrastructure revisions to
CBC's completion date which is now set'at April'•21, 2010.As I have stated previously, I endeavor to
work the my budget and string out hours allocated based.on minor revisions to a project. Based on
review of those hours, I currently could support a revised completion date,by the end of December,
2009:Therefore; due to the revised, extended completion date, I am requesting an increase to
Marwal Construction''s contract based on the following breakdown. .
Add Service Fee Breakdown:
Construction through completion of CBC's schedule- add: 375 hours k $175= $65,625
'(Jan/Feb Q 6 hours/work day, March/April ® 3 hours/work day average)
Close-out/tum.over to the City - add: 40 hours x $175
Total Add Service#02 $72,625
If;due to an earlier completion by CBC of the project, the above hours are not required they-will not
be invoiced. If there are any questions please call me at (805) 441-1548.
Sincerely,
•Marcia Waliher -
Marwal Construction Inc.
Cc: Add Service 02,Dec. 10,-i009
,
(805)461-3411
Post Office Box 13034, • San Luis Obispo, CA 93406