Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
04/07/2009, PH1 - APPEAL THE TREE COMMITTEE'S DECISION TO DENY HOMEOWNERS REQUEST TO REMOVE ONE TREE EACH AT 1745 AND
counciL M�'�Dp April 7,2009 agenda Repots Imm Nmo6n U CITY O F SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: Jay D. Walter, Public Works Direct Prepared By: Keith Pellemeier, Urban orest Supervisor SUBJECT: APPEAL THE TREE COMMITTEE'S DECISION TO DENY HOMEOWNERS REQUEST TO REMOVE ONE TREE EACH AT 1745 AND 1750 DE ANZA COURT. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt a resolution denying the appeal of the Tree Committee's decision to not allow the homeowner to remove one Monterey pine tree (Pinus radiata)at 1745 De Anza Court. 2. Adopt a resolution denying the appeal of the Tree Committee's decision to not allow the homeowner to remove one Monterey pine tree (Pinus radiata) at 1750 De Anza Court. DISCUSSION Background On January 27, 2009, Mr. Robert Nunn, 1745 De Anza Court, filed a Tree Removal application for a Monterey pine stating the "Pine is very large and unsightly and unsafe." The City Arborist inspected the tree and could not find that the tree met the necessary criteria for approving a tree removal so it was scheduled for next Tree Committee Meeting. On January 31, 2009, Mr. Charlie Herrera, 1750 De Anza Court, filed a Tree Removal application for a Monterey pine stating "...the tree is cracking and lifting a drainage culvert...my neighbors at 1810 Castillo Ct. asked tete to remove the tree due to overhanging branches". The City Arborist inspected the tree and could not find that the tree met the necessary criteria for approving a tree removal so it was scheduled for the next Tree Committee meeting. Both trees are very similar, as reported by the City Arborist. Each tree is a large healthy Monterey pine with the potential to grow much larger. No major defects, disease or damage was noted on either tree. The City Arborist is able to approve tree removals following Municipal Code 12.24.180.C.5. When tree removal is not related to property development, the city arborist may authorize a tree removal after finding any of the following circumstances: a. The tree is a hazard to life or property, and removing it is the only feasible way to eliminate the hazard: b. The tree is dead or dying or damaged beyond reclamation c. The tree is causing severe root damage to public or private property, and removing the tree is the only feasible way to eliminate the damage. Appeal of Tree Removal Decision for 1256 and 1268 Sydney Page 2 Per the City's Municipal Code 12.24.180.C.6. when the city arborist cannot authorize a tree removal, the tree committee shall review the application and may authorize removal if it finds one of the following circumstances: a. The tree is causing undue hardship to the property owner. Normal routine maintenance does not constitute a hardship, i.e., cleaning of gutters, leaf raking, or root intrusion into a failed sewer lateral, etc.: b. Removing the tree promotes good arboricultural practice: c. Removing the tree will not harm the character or environment of the surrounding neighborhood. Tree Committee Decisions On Monday, February 23, 2009 the Tree Committee heard both homeowners' tree removal requests. Both tree removal requests were denied by the Tree Committee and both homeowners have appealed the decision. The Tree Committee members all inspected the tree locations at 1745 and 1750 De Anza Court the weekend before the public hearing. This is standard protocol for all tree removal requests so that the members can make an informed decision after listening to all concerned parties at the public hearing. At the meeting, the owner of 1745 De Anza Court told the Committee that he is afraid the large tree may fall and he does not like the mess the pine needles make. The City Arborist stated it is a healthy tree, with shallow roots and no visible indication it may fall. Monterey pines normally have shallow roots and our heavy clay soils lend themselves to shallow tree roots because the roots have a hard time penetrating the clay. The Tree Committee felt it was a healthy tree and voted 5-0 to deny the tree removal. During the hearing for 1750 De Anza Court, the owner stated he did not want to be liable for damaging the "city culvert." City staff determined it was not a City culvert and informed Mr. Herrera. The tree is cracking the culvert; however, the culvert is working as designed, with water flowing through the culvert. Mr. Herrera also stated the tree is blocking the sunlight to his yard and his young oak trees are not getting enough light. His neighbors, David and Anita Shanks, spoke in favor of removing the tree. They are concerned because it leans towards their property and is blocking the light to their yard. The Tree Committee once again felt it was a healthy pine tree and voted 4-1 to deny the tree removal. Member Allen Root was the lone dissenting vote citing the potential for the tree to double in size in the future. Appeal On March 4, 2009,the City Clerk's office received an appeal of the Tree Committee's decision at 1745 De Anza Court, from Mr. Nunn, the property owner. In his appeal, Mr. Nunn claimed to be a little concerned the tree could fall on his house in a windstorm because the tree leans towards his house and there appears to be a small rotten area at the base of the tree. See Attachment 6. On March 3, 2009, the City Clerk's office received an appeal of the Tree Committee's decision at 1750 De Anza Court, from Mr. Herrera, the property owner. In his appeal he claims that the tree 9//, Appeal of Tree Removal Decision for 1256 and 1268 Sydney Page 3 is directly next to a drainage culvert, which he is responsible for, which is cracked and lifted. His neighbor is concerned about the tree, because it is shading his yard as well. See Attachment 7. On March 4, 2009, Mr. Herrera provided additional information on why he feels the City Council should consider his appeal of the Tree Committee's decision. See attachment 8. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact realized by the City in the denial of the appeal. ALTERNATIVES Uphold the appeals. The City Council could choose to uphold the appeal for either or both of the trees located on De Anza Court, thereby allowing the homeowner to remove their trees. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1. Tree Removal Application, 1745 De Anza Court (2 pages) Attachment 2. Tree Removal Application, 1750 De Anza Court (2 pages) Attachment 3. Tree Committee meeting excerpt, February 23, 2009 (2 pages) Attachment 4. Letter to 1745 to deny tree removal application(1 page) Attachment 5. Letter to 1750 to deny tree removal appeal (1 page) Attachment 6. Appeal 1745 De Anza to the City Council (2 pages) Attachment 7. Appeal 1750 De Anza to the City Council (4 pages) Attachment 8. Addendum to Appeal 1750 De Anza( 2 pages) Attachment 9. Vicinity Map (1 page) Attachment 10. Resolution denying appeal from the Tree Comm., 1745 De Anza(2 pages) Attachment 11. Resolution upholding appeal from the Tree Comm., 1745 De Anza(2 pages) Attachment 12. Resolution denying appeal from the Tree Comm., 1750 De Anza(2 pages) Attachment 13. Resolution upholding appeal from the Tree Comm., 1750 De Anza(2 pages) c:I.Sran-ate-Agendas-tAmtesX—CAR12OMTre kl745 a 1750 DeAnzaM1745&1750DeamaCTCA dog Psi-3 NJ Attachment 1 city of san Luis olmspo SCANNED 25 Prado Road 0 San Luis Obispo,CA 83401 TREE REMOVAL APPLICATION (( **If your tree removal is related to property development or a remodel,.submit your request through the Planning Department at 919 Palm Street as part of your Planning Application."* IMPORTANT: A tree removal application will only PLEASE NOTE: If your tree is approved for be considered if aecamponied by a *sketehIrAW removal and posted, please call the office at the showing the street, structure(s) location and and of your posting period to arrange to Pick up location of all trees proposed for removal. Please your permit. The permit fee is $x43 payable when draw on the back of this form or fax on a separate you pick up your permit (Cash or check payable to sheet of paper, along with your application. City of Son Luis Obispo). Tree removal plWications must be received by the second Monday of the month to be considered for the meeting on the fourth Monday of the month. Owner: a} �Jurl n Telephone: 106% dol 3 Z�' Owner's Mailing Address: 1 Trp Code: Applicant (if other than owner): Telephone: Applicant's mailing address: Zip Code: Location of tree(s): a-4dQ c�h " Nearest cross street: Dog in yard? Yes Q No a Tree species (Common names): "i Reasons for requesting removal: }+-110Z 14 Da.I 106A'2, nN.,e4 it-i�1 r 14- cddA urlt e� Ad't, ,Vnx ^d dv', vw., utW� I. Replacement tree planting proposed: 13phP� Vi-11eA* X1P.(ddLCM4 * Application will be considered only if entirely filed out and signed by owner. If consideration of this application goes to Tree Committee,you or your agent are required to attend the meeting and will be notified. * If lane closure is required to perform the tree removal work,an encroachment permit must be obtained from the City Public Works Department at 919 Palm Street. * Any required"replacement trees"must be installed within"45 days of issuance of permit". Since tree `, de removal permits are good for 6 months,you may wish to hold off picking up your permit unci I you are sure you paill be able to install the replacement tree(s)within the 45 day period, d (��� i�T �GS� $Ol �j`}ZOSS (•Gan, Cyvkivpvne' I }l� Yv1�vVJ� MAIL OR FAX completed forth to: City Arborist, 25 Prado Rd., San Luis Obispo, CA 93401, Phone: 781-7220 Fax: 542-9868 Owner: �rJ 9.f urth Date: Applicant: Date: The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include rhe disabled in all of it services,programs and activities. Teleccuummieations Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. Rev.1"8 Attachment 1 t� 39'Pine to be removed and Stump cut Existing wood fence 1745 De Anza Ct J De Anza Ct Cul-de�ac NORTH P 1-5 Attachment 2 city of san lugs 0131spo 25 Prado Road 0 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 TREE REMOVAL_APPLICATION **If your tree removal is related to property development or a remodel,submit your request through the Planning Department at 919 Palm Street as part of your Planning Application** PORTANT: A tree removal application will only PLEASE.NOTE: If your tree is approved for be considered if accompanied by a *sketr-h/mao* removal and posted, please call the office at the showing the street, structure(s) location and end of your posting period to arrange to pick up location of all trees proposed for removal. Please your permit. The permit fee is $43 payable when draw on the back of this form or fax on a separate you pick up your permit (cash or check payable to sheet of paper, along with your application. City of San Luis Obispo). Tree removal applications must be received by the second Monday of themonth to be considered for the meeting �"o�� / n the fourth Monday of the month. GHi/.k Owner: 1p& P (:Kg Telephone: 51/9 -a04I Owners Mailing Address: 750 �e CE Zip Code: 9cs Applicant (if other than owner): Telephone: Applicant's mailing address: -- rip Code: Location of tree(s): �7�D D-1 400AeT —� �2 OF T l_' Nearest cross street: / Dog in yard? Yes a No Q P Tree species (Common names): !/U R ns for requesting removal: _ g removal: Fat TIME T*T- 7#.E 7Ra .z5 A/ AAD �� i,✓� A T"AA4E L'`( CwM . fig" lA NEii�;h /4T iUD LT A59VC> ME 70 ROWE 7#6 XCE TUE 7b 0uaZAAt4k,& ARAM Rep arOIVement tree planting proposed: * Application will be considered only if entirely filled out and signed by owner. If consideration of this application goes to Tree Committee,you or your agent are required to attend the meeting and will be notified. * If lane closure is required to perform the tree removal work,an encroachment permit must be obtained from the City Public Works Department at 919 Palm Street. * Any required'replacement trees" must be installed within"45 days of issuance of permit". Since tree removal permits are good for 6 months,you may wish to hold off picking up your permit until you are sure you will be able to install the replacement tree(s)within the 45 day period. MAIL OR FAX completed form to: City Arborist, 25 Prado Rd., San Luis Obispo, CA 93401, Phone: 781-7220 F : 542-9868 Owner: Date: l� l Applicant: Date: The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of it services,programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. Rev. 10-08 Pfd _ G Attachment 2 1gI0 uo 'IT Existing wood fence /� li�U�r 30" Pine to be removed and stump cut 1750 De Anza Ct Existing wood fence 1750 De Ana Ct IJ Driveway Driveway De Anza Ct Cul-de-sac NORTH 3 Attachment 3 5& 7- 1745 & 1750 De Anza.Ct. (Monterey pines) Robert Nunn, 1745 De Anza, discussed the large overgrown trees, stating they littered heavily,prevented any additional landscaping around them,had shallow roots and therefore posed a toppling liability and possible limb drop hazard. Charles Herrera, 1750 De Anza, agreed with Mr.Nunn's concerns and also was concerned about the city culvert cracking. He noted the nearby oak seedlings would thrive if the trees were removed David Shanks, 1810 Castillo, favored removal because the trees were suffocating his Black Acacia and he was concerned about safety concerns with the trees' falling/limb breakage. Mr. Combs stated the trees were relatively healthy and could grow much larger. Mr. Pellemeier stated that the city public works department would investigate the issues with the cracking culvert and repair, if necessary; if the trees were an issue,the city could request removal at that point. Ms. Young felt that both trees were healthy and agreed the city could repair the culvert to mitigate those concerns. Mr. Parker moved to deny the request as he could not find any of the three criteria for approving a tree removal. Mr. Root disagreed stating the tree has the potential to get much larger. Ms. Young seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Mr. Root voting against. 6.288 Hermosa Way Kay Wardell, neighbor at 292 Hermosa Way, spoke on the applicants behalf. Mr. Combs stated it was a large Stone pine in declining health. Ms. Young moved to approve removal because the tree is unhealthy. The motion passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS Audrey Hooper, City Clerk,requested that the Tree Committee plan on updating their by- laws on a bi-annual basis. Attachment 4 February 24,2009 Robert Nunn 1745 De Anza Ct. San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Your application for removal of a tree at 1745 De Anza Ct., was reviewed by the City of San Luis Obispo Tree Committee on February 23, 2009. After careful consideration of the facts provided by you and an on-site inspection of the tree, the Committee members have voted, in compliance with Municipal Code Section 12.24.180.C.6,to deny your request based on the following findings: • a. The tree is not causing undue hardship. • b. Removal would not promote good arboricultural practice. • C. Removal would harm the character of the environment of the surrounding neighborhood. The decision of the Committee is final unless an appeal, in accordance with Municipal Code Section 1.20.020- 1.20.050, is filed with the City Clerk's office within ten(10)days of the Committee's decision. An appeal may be filed by any person aggrieved by a decision of the Committee. You are reminded that the Tree Ordinance(#1392 2001 Series), Section 12.24.130,Protection of Trees, reads in part: C. No person shall willfully injure, disfigure, or intentionally destroy by any means any tree growing within the planting area or elsewhere within the jurisdiction of this ordinance, except with permits described elsewhere in this chapter. G.Any person deemed responsible for damaging a tree or removing a tree without a permit as described in this chapter shall be liable for civil damages to the city in the amount adopted, by resolution by the City Council, or for the value of the tree as determined by methods established by the International Society of Arboriculture, whichever is greater as determined by the City Arborist. If you have any questions regarding this matter, you may contact Ron Combs at(805)781-7023,Monday through Friday, 7:00—4:30 PM. Respectfully, Ron Combs Urban Forester commdenial Joa V 7 ' r Attachment 5 February 24, 2009 Charlie Herrera 1750 De Anza Ct. San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Your application for removal of a tree at 1750 De Anza Ct.,was reviewed by the City of San Luis Obispo Tree Committee on February 23,2009. After careful consideration of the facts provided by you and an on-site inspection of the tree, the Committee members have voted, in compliance with Municipal Code Section 12.24.180.C.6,to deny your request based on the following findings: • a. The tree is not causing undue hardship. • b. Removal would not promote good arboricultural practice. • C. Removal would harm the character of the environment of the surrounding neighborhood. The decision of the Committee is final unless an appeal, in accordance with Municipal Code Section 1.20.020- 1.20.050, is filed with the City Clerk's office within ten (10)days of the Committee's decision. An appeal may be filed by any person aggrieved by a decision of the Committee. You are reminded that the Tree Ordinance(#1392 - 2001 Series), Section 12.24.130, Protection of Trees, reads in part: C. No person shall willfully injure, disfigure, or intentionally destroy by any means any tree growing within the planting area or elsewhere within the jurisdiction of this ordinance, except with permits described elsewhere in this chapter. G. Any person deemed responsible for damaging a tree or removing a tree without a permit as described in this chapter shall be liable for civil damages to the city in the amount adopted, by resolution by the City Council, or for the value of the tree as determined by methods established by the International Society of Arboriculture, whichever is greater as determined by the City Arborist. If you have any questions regarding this matter,you may contact Ron Combs at(805)781-7023,Monday through Friday, 7:00—4:30 PM. Respectfully, v — r Ron Combs Urban Forester commdenial PA /0 Attachment 6 Filing Fee: $100.00+ Paid Date Received s C NIA RECEIVED � 0 *REFER TO SECTION 4 MAR 0 4 2009 san IU s Owpo SLO CIT K APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SECTIIjON 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION ICpjI ed kyrih I ��h� Q an7': LA-- 5a,Lilt, vtnCA Name Mailing Address and Zip Cobe &5 541+ Ce'l l Phone Fax Representative's Name Mailing Address and Zip Code Title Phone Fax SECTION 2 SUBJECT OF APPEAL 1. In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (copy attached), I hereby appeal the decision of the: Tr-6,e-� C4w..MAe-o-o (Name of Officer, Committee or Commission decision being appealed) 2. The date the decision being appealed w s rendered: „ 2-Za nggj e• on. i� Z-ZlF—d7o► 3. The application or project was entitled: 4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member. on (Staff Member's Name and Department) (Date) 5. Has this matter been the subject of a previous appeal? If so,when was it heard and by whom: SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL Explain specifically what actionis you are appealing and why you believe the Council should consider your appeal. Include what evidence you have that supports your appeal. You may attach adcWonal pages, if necessary. This form continues on the other side. Page 1 of 3 P-r Attachment 6 Reason for Appeal continued CAMU l,dl e, c gv-c em,&a 4� 4Av&-,,L 4 ; h, > .,,!.0 5i;j1 1, -t, 1 l f Y Tn- Q vP '7n '� htwt e `i e— L�l�i r.11 -Malea &z wr9 " w C �, V 11�i/ i lf I )A; — yy � ir�> - Mu4y WI LV`ItVPWL C' 6" `- IMG',.. bNd 1pet44:y' 41u, IhrMd,� i 'u`x5 �.Lti ''Y-v fig• -,K r> a %r *Hri �`a..._ s a; v wl S ��>=ctlo�►� xA�>� �r�,I�E� �isr� l�� , .� � , e � �� ��u�, � �, - a I ��I , { x. a �, + i i' s,#- C-'F h +s ;• w ` h •. r r,: *,ww�t��. a:.• ' -k:. -i4. `4 n S'a �5 U.1� d.f.a` YN{' L C .Cf�^•a°� � A Y SC rF? � K!T C ", S�.v g=1.Rti _ a ,°?Th#-$M;l�ui �b� C "'vv �e ubb spa t tiw�►�i�l cat o�remmenrar s j W rt t—sYt. ro- enrag�eai, orcns tnv r► bwe ,adr �Closts asstSci�twiY LYI `T. a .� sAi +,V s3 ar t 'v fi' ;th''r.d �S.tf z to. r 4 a[l. r d ortnfl � ' aClcitf �IicQbca tail peate�ifil�Ing°# � a � ,* �p� ► g P Q ►c) �a &sue a film a ti `xirh b r r ist o 2�io� n fhe"# t ^ w? t � ,.ir, `4', ,r' peabfoiu � � h t 1 uyxI��' A Ex air I 'G^ °'�,. +-'F i k.-4�� 'nr• 0, ` f�pi alr re eGu dt'r ttd��a u�t ward u'�r iir 5 clay rbrrt?I(IM4*t is fd(m �Y6 wilwbe s I y a S a 3 s r 5 t 1 3 "t, iiati'ied,in iAl►7t1 ofthe s act3 e.1o�r pPeat uili a Bard be#b er ip /p�u/�cri Y. E v q / +N �"' Tt \4:.`tSr t � epresgMa a iMil=be esc er t cl,tnrattend$ie 4�ktlrc; eafrn� ana ib p q eduto trfi ke_YoUr tlyy�t, .VP��i Y�V �AIIGK� �i1U 1.1 T" =I�,iYi i Y i• y''< ,�^'F rpt V [. = a� * '1 r a F pts t .7} '�.A-sa,. '.✓ , rut {'"'Y1'$ha .%}"ri CS,Si.. L4...j`4.e�`sf 4p' r• k k g 1N e " t !$r'�ll. �" }.rrrr+irr��i�h 6rel,' dF ys� { ^ LtT�y Gc r p".y,.��°aa�+.A$ �'{i1'1�,{ /gyp /'y���t� �nt� a { t�+}. t'i1{A.a(k,\R,ti' IMajt },eJ�'II, Y ,+IIOFt'f'R YnY`JVI�!(`,.(}.Ji�N7Rn[�,( R�f4oUp1'f4 f ,roJ ,.` r r. I .g 'p TT ..�•tt`". Y'I a *', a Y 'V�j..tl"' `ne q east t it ua C +Qtt�u Y iabr i o r�u s yr�1c ►itgato t ie GJ i.-AV Pie w•C' --•._.•-y.. .r a r ✓ >3dui'S�d Uth k� ou7 ec#ostlo es�nt �taP,eer r�ret ei# tf ef�tt e t fic ttt ubljc� (1 "� Golltic 13", Ub a�fe�t gi �tf the� `� fio�cootar�ua�c���u(S i��r;��c�e��oc'colitrirtiaricQ 009sporguaran "ilia t h!!'► raM� f o #ffeYCr Counci(i )ei j C `w t „k s � r:y x"r � u �•ir«, t+�a�ti,�e..: ,.4 i 1' fi�R`C i-� �+.,f � L x ,Y i .7i F"`" ��. t?� �, a'.�iS-'.� � ��� � s�- .� t TL"C,lh�"L9 e K G..+ u k Sr' � � P � .dr Fw � 7 � � •TT �,.. bvl�i>° '�Brga I. n /o� sFi "repsfa�foearo r, yhbk la. " NE�!r(s'c�� utici!for; j�dribicreac�7rir�p� NC� i atnc� , � sir a , �A L j�. �� P �.a! � nw a.+ �•�d�ylf 1�'�C�nY.t{F�7, Y`hi �4�� �[ Y,,..<K' M �Y14 C �}Y.S fi ,yw.w,,iL'� ,,pip Y'�/ +moi �io•R.f. ry r`L v; R �S 4 t x.ri. 4 .. u -a •b t y r r.l{ Y K S c Y t t F' ' > 'o �.� ,� Y � �.�r>'t�n..� '�',,�,,. .�'� �,�,+�T i#�yj,�+�L'i•ti r�'.��, �e. �{•k 4.s a x .,,t r r �.z •�..;, r. �.v ] k`- , .Y f.C�"^Trl.:r�h �•I �,�i�+^�a7 3a3 1 t r"C t Y-s�`�S F* i"q 7i-p w tk* y j"^+*�v r �i n�J f�o: ►�p11an 1t �ti� 1: T y y gate x a '�^+t.y�+ � c��tlwrs to��9�>��/�� ) .�ee�Sm�i�de�' '�ori��" �"��Aa�r�-wed�RPlallmn�` 9'a►����Px���'� �. _..,�_KYt�..�: saPPea:,a':'� �t@f�bQ��CI %",t^„CiOi bL': OunCil're 8 bQd•}�x�;,>f°�°��T � a '"i r r •.-.. _.u. ,ate.•>'.e .atY A r"£lrJ�r:+.% _n_.._r,`s.. t ..�.,;:.,' tv - _ r. a This item is hereby calendared for I ' L O`y c: City Attorney City Administrative Officer Department Head Advisory Body Chairperson City Clerk(original) Page 2 of 3 8103 Attachment 7 Filing Fee: $100.00 Paid 89*V t r+ - N/A_�( MAR - 3 2009 Cly O� REFER TO SECTION 4 fta;ssan tuts OBISPO ELO CITY CLERK APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION C .,►f- kkg� 17 0 T)-o V5-q09- Name Mailing Address and Trp Code d5qc/-� ok — Phone Fax Representative's Name Mailing Address and Trp Code Title Phone Fax SECTION 2. SUBJECT OF APPEAL 1. In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (copy attached), I hereby appeal the decision of the: eaMm/7r4C (Name of Officer, Committee or Commission decision being appealed) g 2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: 3. The application or project was entitled: )W/+ZT/LkJ /�R -7"'lS,E. 'Z—VWV4,1, Ar 1750 Aum ar- 4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member: on (Staff Member's Name and Department) (Date) 5. Has t1t matter been the subject of a previous appeal? If so,when was it heard and by whom: NO SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL Explain specifically what actioNs you are appealing and why you believe the Council should consider your appeal. Include what evidence you have that supports your appeal. You may attach additional pages, if necessary. This form continues on the other side. Page 1 of 3 Fit /� /3 Attachment 7 Reason for Appeal continued 1 A-M APF'F,*+PAP 7WE TF...40jS iOA) OF W/£ TREE TD �Fiv7 My Q To R"Vk /i PINE . .L $E4&,1F. Ttk C;Z� ( cjAt2,L g4Xj-� *A,)S+W A4X AWE. j9L--_C!A,6,E `]? 7 9EE _'5 P,R N4)gr TO 'Z'fiLA,NfkI� E l..(.�,U1 ! Tam►N6 i�uf ;r / L�R ek AT> k'm--M -ZA4AS-, /4S s AM SECTION 4. APPELLANT'S RESPONSIBIUTY The San Luis Obispo City Council values public participation:in local government and encourages all forms of citizen involvement. However, due to real costs associated with City Council consideration of an appeal, including public notification,all appeals pertaining to a planning application or-project are subject-to a filinq`fee of$400; which mustaccompany the appeal form. Your right to exercise an appeal comes with certain responsibilities. If:ypu file an appeal,please understand that it Myg be.heard within 45 days:from filing this form. You willbe notified in writing of the exact date your appeal will be heard before the Council. You or your, representative will be expected to attend the public hearing, and to be prepared to make your case. Your testimony is:limfted to 10 minutes. A continuance may be granted under certain'and unusual circumstances. If you feel you need to request a continuance, you must submityour request in writing to the-City Clerit, Please be: •advised that,if your.request for continuance.is.received after the appeal.is noticed to the public,the Council may not be able to grant the request for continuance..Submitting a request for continuance .* does not guarantee that it will be granted;that action is at the discretion of the City Council. I hereby agree to appear and/or send a representative to appear on mybehalf'when . said appIP91 is scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council. (Signature of Appellant) (Date)•, Exceptions to the fee: 1)Appeals of Tree Committee decisions. 2)The above•named appellant hae already piad., the City 3100 to appeal this same matter to a.City official orCouocit advisory body. _ This item is hereby calendared for &V 1 L c: City Attomey City Administrative Officer Department Head Advisory Body Chairperson City Clerk(original) Page 2 of 3 8103 PP (-iV Attachment 7 ����o�i���nlll�lllllllll8 �l►U�������II IlIIIII� II c, Ity of SM lugs OBISPO = 25 Prado Road • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 February 24,2009 Charlie Herrera 1750 De Anza Ct. San Luis Obispo,CA 93405 Your application for removal of a tree at 1750 De Anza Ct.,was reviewed by the City of San Luis Obispo Tree Committee on February 23,2009. After careful consideration of the facts provided by you and an on-site inspection of the tree,the Committee members have voted,in compliance with Municipal Code Section 12.24.180.0.6,to deny your request based on the following findings: • a. The tree is not causing undue hardship. •b. Removal would not promote good arboricultural practice. • C. Removal would harm the character of the environment of the surrounding neighborhood. The decision of the Committee is final unless an appeal, in accordance with Municipal Code Section 1.20.020- 1.20.050,is filed with the City Clerk's office within ten(10)days of the Committee's decision. An appeal may be filed by any person aggrieved by a decision of the Committee. You are reminded that the Tree Ordinance(#1392-2001 Series), Section 12.24.I30,Protection of Trees, reads in part: C. No person shall willfully injure,disfigure,or intentionally destroy by any means any tree growing within the planting area or elsewhere within the jurisdiction of this ordinance,except with permits described elsewhere in this chapter. G.Any person deemed responsible for damaging a tree or removing a tree without a permit as described in this chapter shall be liable for civil damages to the city in the amount adopted,by resolution by the City Council,or for the value of the tree as determined by methods established by the International Society of Arboriculture,whichever is greater as determined by the City Arborist. If you have any questions regarding this matter,you may contact Ron Combs at(805)781-7023,Monday through Friday, 7:00—4:30 PM. Respectfully, Ron Combs Urban Forester commdenial �� The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781.7410. I Attachment 7 March 2,2009 City Clerk's Office City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm St San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Subject: Appeal—Tree Committee decision Dear Clerk's office: In accordance with our Municipal Code I am hereby appealing a recent decision by the Tree Committee in which Mr. Charlie Herrera. 1750 De Anza Ct., was denied permission to remove a pine tree on his property. We are neighbors to the South of Mr. Herrera, and itis we who are under hardship. The trunk of the tree in question has grown at such an angle as to hang well over our property. In particular large branches of this tree are disrupting the growth of our Blackwood Acacia tree. At the committee meeting the previous applicant who is a neighbor of Mr. Herrera,based his appeal to remove DIFFERENT pine trees in HIS yard on the spread of pine needles which, although unattractive to him,NOT a reason to remove a tree. We believe the Committee confused THAT issue with Mr. Herrera's. As this was the end of a lengthy meeting, careful consideration was NOT given to our issue. There are several trees that define the skyline in this area. Removal of Mr. Herrera's tree would thus,NOT harm the environment of the neighborhood. Finally we support his planting of native replacement trees(on our mutual property line) which IS good arboricultural practice. Thank you for responding to our appeal in this matter. Sincerely, David and Anita Shanks 1810 Castillo Ct. San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 8057940511 r' R L S s J�n 1I a 1 T •-s � 'K r.rr "Ilk r r,��fes• � 3 'y'�'q ' p y e a ' i r i ? of l i i i Y� r s:1i iO y c � X41 -14 > jn , r 2 I _ I; `r, s _.w ;�._, � � Y �: , . ;l >>�/ �, ' ,�� �-` . � d€ ti �. '� � , ` y. 1 a �,� ,, ; , ; - ,• �.;,( h f; . ,�d�� _ /.' � �� �' Y q. W �s L ��'�`3+r r5��' ' - ,. < 3 ;. ." d^V Y ^^hffs'C+.s vA�y,'�? � 'hq: R � � `�A: }. , Attachment 8 �u�n�Inl►NNlHllllllllll{ igll����►� I�lllll� Illi city of sari WIS OBISPO 25 Prado Road • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 February 24,2009 Charlie Herrera 1750 De Anza Ct. San Luis Obispo,CA 93405 Your application for removal of a tree at 1750 De Anza Ct..was reviewed by the City of San Luis Obispo Tree Committee on February 23,2009. After careful consideration of the facts provided by you and an on-site inspection o e ree, c o hers have voted,in compliance with Municipal Code Section 12.24.180.C.6,to deny your request based on the following findings: •a. The tree is not causing undue hardship. ® — •b. Removal would not promote good arboricultural practice. •C. Removal would harm the character of the environment of the surrounding neighborhood. The decision of the Committee is final unless an appeal,in accordance with Municipal Code Section 1.20.020- 1.20.050,is filed with the City Clerk's office within ten(10)days of the Committee's decision. An appeal may be filed by any person aggrieved by a decision of the Committee. You are reminded that the Tree Ordinance(#1392-2001 Series), Section 12.24.130,Protection of Trees, reads in part: C.No person shall willfully injure,disfigure,or intentionally destroy by any means any tree growing within the planting area or elsewhere within the jurisdiction of this ordinance,except with permits described elsewhere in this chapter. G.Any person deemed responsible for damaging a tree or removing a tree without a permit as described in this chapter shall be liable for civil damages to the city in the amount adopted,by resolution by the City Council,or for the value of the tree as determined by methods established by the International Society of Arboriculture,whichever is greater as determined by the City Arborist. If you have any questions regarding this matter, you may contact Ron Combs at(805)781-7023, Monday through Friday, 7:00–4:30 PM. Respectfully, Ron Combs Urban Forester commdenial ® The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. AMi Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. / ri/V� /'�� 4 1 Attachment 8 Charlie Herrera 1750 De Anza Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 March 4,2009 Honorable Mayor Dave Romero,vice Mayor Allen Settle,Council members John Ashbaugh,Andrew Carter,and Jan Howell Marx: I am asking for your permission to remove a Monterey pine tree from my yard due to the damage it is causing to a neighborhood drainage culvert(pictures enclosed),and my neighbor's yard- On ardOn February 23rd the Tree Committee denied my request to remove the tree,and I will use the committee's letter of February 20(enclosed)to outline some of the shortcomings of their decision: 1. "After careful consideration." My request was clearly not carefully considered The committee was unclear as to the extent of damage to the.culvert,and was unaware of who owns the culvert. 2."The tree is not causing undue hardship." Public Works Maintenance Supervisor Keith Pellemeier informed me the culvert does not belong to the city,and the city will not repair it,therefore I contend the damage to the neighborhood-owned culvert represents a hardship to the owner of the tree. Urban Forester Ron Combs claims this tree will grow twice as tall,which would cause untold damage to the culvert and greatly increase the cost of removing the tree. 3. "Removal of the tree would not promote good arboricultural practice." The committee failed to take into account my neighbor's trees,which are being smothered by this leaning,non-native,disease prone Monterey pine,or the juvenile native oaks in my yard which need additional sunlight. 4. "Removal would harm the character of the environment of the surrounding neighborhood." My neighbors who are affected by this tree are requesting that it be removed These neighbors are the best judges of the"character of the environment of the surrounding neighborhood." My neighbors have many trees growing on their property,and I have 22 on mine. Thank you for your time and the opportunity to bring this concern before you. Respectfully, Charlie Herrera Attachment 9 1745 DE ANZA t 1 -7 S G D L A N Z a Co%a -053-245-029 V 1745 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO a information contained in this database is intended for informational use only. This Information is provided for the convenience of users, GEODATA SERVICES 3ut does not necessarily constitute precise property ownership or legal descriptions of any property,and should not be relied upon as an 955 MORRO STREET 3flicial property record.The City of San Luis Obispo makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of this data;however,the accuracy of this SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401 aterial is not guaranteed and users assume responsibility for independent verification of any and all information contained herein prior to se or reliance upon such information for any official purpose.The City San Luis Obispo disclaims any responsibility or liability for arty direct 805 781-7167 Dr indirect damages resulting from the use of this data. 3/9/2009 09:26 #0P J-1-3 Attachment 10 RESOLUTION NO. (2009 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL FROM THE TREE COMMITTEE'S DECISION UPON A TREE REMOVAL REQUEST AT 1745 DE ANZA COURT WHEREAS, the Tree Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing on February 23, 2009 and denied the Applicant's request to remove one Monterey pine tree located in the back yard at 1745 De Anza Court, San Luis Obispo, California; and WHEREAS, on April 7, 2009, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing to consider the appeal of the Tree Committee's decision to deny the removal of one Monterey pine tree at this location, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings: The City Council, after consideration of the appellant's appeal of the San Luis Obispo Tree Committee's action, staff recommendations and reports thereon, and public testimony, makes the following findings: a. The tree is not causing undue hardship to the Applicant's property, i.e. damaging curbs, gutter, sidewalks and sewer plumbing. b. The removal of one Monterey pine tree located in the back yard at 1745 De Anza Court will not promote good arboricultural practice. c. The removal of one Monterey pine tree will harm the character or environment of the surrounding neighborhood. SECTION 2. The appeal from the Tree Committee's decision to not allow the Applicant to remove one Monterey pine tree at 1745 De Anza Court is hereby denied and the Applicant may not remove the tree. Upon motion of, seconded by, and on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this 7th day of April, 2009. Attachment 10 Resolution No. (2009 Series) Page 2 Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: (( Jonath P. Lowell I Attorney G:Staff-Repods wdas-Minutes CAR 2009 Trees 1745 1750 DeA=CT Attachments Adachl0.1745 ResDeny.doc Attachment 11 RESOLUTION NO. (2009 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL FROM THE TREE COMMITTEE'S DECISION UPON A TREE REMOVAL REQUEST AT 1745 DE ANZA COURT WHEREAS, the Tree Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing on February 23, 2009 and denied the Applicant's request to remove one Monterey pine tree located in the back yard at 1745 De Anza Court, San Luis Obispo, California; and WHEREAS, on April 7, 2009, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing to consider the appeal of the denial to remove one Monterey pine tree at this location. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings: The City Council, after consideration of the appellant's appeal, from the San Luis Obispo Tree Committee's action, and staff recommendations and reports thereon, and public testimony makes the following findings: a. The tree is causing undue hardship to the Applicant's property, i.e. damaging curb, gutters, sidewalks and water lines. b. The removal of one Monterey pine tree in the back yard at 1745 DE Anza Court will promote good arboricultural practice. c. Removing the tree will not harm the character or environment of the surrounding neighborhood. SECTION 2. The appeal from the Tree Committee's decision to deny the Applicant's request to remove one Monterey pine tree at 1745 De Anza Court is hereby upheld, and therefore removal of the Monterey pine tree is approved with a replacement tree required to be planted as directed by the City Arborist. Upon motion of , seconded by and on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this 7th day of 2009. A 1 cx Attachment 11 Resolution No. (2009 Series) Page 2 Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jonathan P. Lowell City Attorney a Staff-Report-Agendas-Mm aes CAR 2009 bees 1745 1750 DeArvaCT Auachmerrts Attachl1-1745 ResUphdd.doc � 1C � Attachment 12 RESOLUTION NO. (2009 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL FROM THE TREE COMMITTEE'S DECISION UPON A TREE REMOVAL REQUEST AT 1750 DE ANZA COURT WHEREAS, the Tree Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing on February 23, 2009 and denied the Applicant's request to remove one Monterey pine tree located in the back yard at 1750 De Anza Court, San Luis Obispo, California; and WHEREAS, on April 7, 2009, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing to consider the appeal of the Tree Committee's decision to deny the removal of one Monterey pine tree at this location, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings: The City Council, after consideration of the appellant's appeal of the San Luis Obispo Tree Committee's action, staff recommendations and reports thereon, and public testimony,makes the following findings: a. The tree is not causing undue hardship to the Applicant's property, i.e. damaging curbs, gutter, sidewalks and sewer plumbing. b. The removal of one Monterey pine tree located in the back yard at 1750 De Anza Court will not promote good arboricultural practice. c. The removal of one Monterey pine tree will harm the character or environment of the surrounding neighborhood. SECTION 2. The appeal from the Tree Committee's decision to not allow the Applicant to remove one Monterey pine tree at 1750 De Anza Court is hereby denied and the Applicant may not remove the tree. Upon motion of, seconded by, and on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this 7th day of April, 2009. Attachment 12 Resolution No. (2009 Series) Page 2 Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Johatbawf. Lowell City Attomey G:Shaft-Repo"endas4M LALs CAR 2009 Trees 1745 1750 DeMraCT Attachments AtLech121750 Res Deny.dm Attachment 13 RESOLUTION NO. (2009 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL FROM THE TREE COMMITTEE'S DECISION UPON A TREE REMOVAL REQUEST AT 1750 DE ANZA COURT WHEREAS, the Tree Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing on February 23, 2009 and denied the Applicant's request to remove one Monterey pine tree located in the back yard at 1750 De Anza Court, San Luis Obispo, California; and WHEREAS, on April 7, 2009, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing to consider the appeal of the denial to remove one Monterey pine tree at this location. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings: The City Council, after consideration of the appellant's appeal, from the San Luis Obispo Tree Committee's action, and staff recommendations and reports thereon, and public testimony makes the following findings: a. The tree is causing undue hardship to the Applicant's property, i.e. damaging curb, gutters, sidewalks and water lines. b. The removal of one Monterey pine tree in the back yard at 1750 De Anza Court will promote good arboricultural practice. c. Removing the tree will not harm the character or environment of the surrounding neighborhood. SECTION 2. The appeal from the Tree Committee's decision to deny the Applicant's request to remove one Monterey pine tree at 1750 De Anza Court is hereby upheld, and therefore removal of the Monterey pine tree is approved with a replacement tree required to be planted as directed by the City Arborist. Upon motion of seconded by and on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this 7th day of 2009. f07111 !-3c Attachment 13 Resolution No. (2009 Series) Page 2 Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jonathan P. Lowell City Attorney G Staff-Repods- wde MmLaes CAR 2009 Trees 1745 1750 DeAmCT Adachments AGach13 1750 Res Uphold.doc P01-31—31 April 7,2009 Dear Councilmen of San Luis Obispo: The 40 ft. Monterey pine tree in my back yard leans off center (please see accompanying pictures)approximately 10 to 12 ft in a northeasterly direction towards my house; if the tree were to fall it would do considerable damage to my roof,.house and patio. It has been stated by your city arborist that this tree will in all probability grow to twice the current height and your arborist has also indicated that the tree is shallow rooted. Thus, I am also concerned about the tree blowing over due to high winds which we most recently experienced just a few weeks ago. I only recently discovered that a 2 ft. square area of tree bark at the base of the tree has been eaten away by a colony of ants; this concerns me even more about the tree falling. I have notified my home insurance company (Neal.•Truesdale) about this situation and I informed them that I was denied permission to remove tfie tree by the city tree committee. Naturally, Neal Truesdale is quite concerned-and advised me to proceed with having the tree removed. Of course, I can't proceed with having the tree removed as I was previously denied by the city tree committee. I need to state at this point that if the tree falls and causes damage to my house then I would necessarily have to hold the City of San Luis Obispo accountable for any damage which may occur. I simply request that you allow me permission to have the tree removed at this time. Thank you for your consideration on this matter. urs rul Robert H. Nunn, Registered Civil Engineer Registered Traffic Engineer (Resident San Luis Obispo since 1992) � l ol•�' i` P y,• •�,. y�� '.4 I f'�i. .Y•[•!''V`� Y�. •i may, a-{' A �-IY r• ..alr.` Jf��^{'� :�R^ �- a ,"lr` •.•,7+„ ,i t,'��s �r. ��"r•- si. I c� �a`�.''EE''� '�. t t•. •M,•'YI4J •r� '4Y C w rl .Y Y �r. 'f „(-R.i' � y )' 3� .� ��. a A P� Y"}'� ,( t %t C �,EJ�:'•-' f 6 � _ •.r �� Jl� t •)Y'y\YY,� ..:.-.«..r. � ��,. lay,. JL!. r• „Y. aS�c��'�'.:�+,x�y'.�•. '¢7�d,fr�` �•r ). t •r'� • f�` ,,';�-'ysi•��'� i79R.. 1••r! iJ 5.a, 5�� .�'' ��:�i,_vYfl�l�lAs.�t' •-.t.. _ "tta" ^•+J i � ,. .- � .•,,r0 �• •1�1 ''�iilla9-^, �.,i �\C.,��IC •c—.. t�';:C Jt ��� ' '- �" y�_� �A.I + (���Y�t� w ,S�t�,�'`a.. �T�. .> �4J �y�}�♦ �{.�f�i C , .a� / ��,< . - 7 .! �'f�ljyiA�Y''Jri.? „�:(a�J,�!^�.j � t�fs,''�;�„ ;�,?•Y �. �,���J`C � � � •:f. �y(� •_' Y`i).+ ' a�-J �yJ. 4 °it`rh .8° h.�� %ew. ' ' / : a l t.- l. '.dj� a1 4` .A e,� ,k.. �'.'� O['"-.�- 'Y++. < .p. �"i .Y!/ ,,. f 1 _ b •� •(-('acs „ r EE !' .�LA�.!'>i� !! 6Y� .hr w '.hf i t. h41 tr. 'kr1J -�t.�.,�y,.y��•� -.'�r�' •�J yy +r,Y I''�+� .-� r �� �+i� �` q `�r iy''.Y r� � ' ." � •.tiiW �'{� ?� meq. ..', � w..e }�' j fr t .L r.r rye),. .i '♦ t .1 r�'�: ` � P „ r I•• •• •' •YLLY rt Y �� w lY h+''� •�, Y � •• 1 Y� ref, at •��L Y 1 �'�Y�J �� 1'"' $T � > -L/YI•. � ��'.`;' f�t.. '.,y )-:Y., y� a41^ •IYc�iY �k v .;'Y. tl •7��I�'.._ „J.. ,+1.L-.�,'L.ti-.tl+'� ! r f ^�•YY ,•. ^ n`r},la�Y. -y r�C�:,� a +Y•1 '�,.,► r S , YI i1c 1 Nr.- •NAY . :>'. r- , Y • TJ i� �. r• ry t Y Yl y- •,,•c� as •. r ,,. ' yP, '' J�>.�-..Yi YG.-t'a�,1, v '- c� rr: i��^..i � fa>�,�1.<ye5r u h -•dry! w ,j';'(a_ � (. <<G!�,•�,�o-'I o > 5;:. • i�•,.. �al�( S)� �1 -moi �Sli �,:iCt� r �lr�C-.'rt•Siy •' 'FJ'/i� 5 tt ' J• t .>., . ,{Sc'I,\J l,. l r♦. Y v �J i' a%� ; it. Yy"�.PS'tC�l f. r l_��I ��( 5 } .• `•F'�` `_ , 1 'a i' �� TT"^^�� ,T„'.'�t 1 Y�4 M�,r ZL _ �• h,ty}� .a ✓. G h"P. 1 1 Jvlj ? lY[ T 4 !♦. '7.. -` r It q'1. 'C� � .:ia4 '•-�; "Y�S< �•JJ-!O ' 1..�rs. { �,41ri� t, �.�i- •! ,:�' .� / `.! •.vim 1 :rI'Y� 1 7 �`�■ U 'a �f� ? ,+''! e� J.,y' •d '��v w• µ `"'s' i 511, 'ii y. J r It ` •- .. .Qiy �7?�i�' J y :�* �:�fxM'I f d�• I •��'' Page 1 of 1 Counal,SloCity From: Brett Cross[brettcross@hotmail.com] Sent: Tue 4/7/2009 5:32 PM To: Carolyn Smith; Hampian, Ken; Sandra; Cydney Holcomb;Tregenza,Ardith; Linden, Deborah;Council,SloCity Cc: Subject* Community Oriented Policing Item C-9 Attachments: Mayor and Council Members, I had planned on attending tonight's meeting but dinner arrangements have come up. I along with members of the Board of RQN and other community members are pleasantly surprised to see this item on the agenda. Although I'm certain that you will approve the item I cannot stress enough the importance of continuing to work hard at trying to improve the quality of life in the neighborhoods for permanent residents. As you're all keenly aware residents in the City's neighborhoods are experiencing the effects of too much noise, too much speeding, too little respect of various city codes, and now an increase in more serious crimes. In some respects we're tuming into Isla Vista.The owner-renter ratio is way out of balance and the impacts are seen throughout the neighborhoods. Cal Poly is going to have to build even more on campus housing to bring a better balance to the community or we will become Isla Vista. During RQN's board meeting I likened dealing with the decline in our citizens quality of life to that of a boat taking on water. You have a couple of choices. You can bail faster but at some point you tire and cannot continue.You can get a bigger bucket, or you can try and slow the leak. Creating a community policing program is somewhat akin to getting a bigger bucket. However, at some time the City is going to have to slow the leaks. The social host ordinance on your agenda tonight is part of slowing the leaks. Along those same lines the City needs to look at increasing the noise fines and changes to the premise list time frames. There also needs to be concerted look at holding property owners responsible for their tenants. Lastly, the amount of resources being expended on the downtown due to the number of bars has to be addressed. Some type of a cost recovery system needs to be looked at. Thanks for all your hard work. Brett Cross Chair RQN. https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycouncil/Inbox/Community%200riented%20Policin... 4/7/2009 9/D(i San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce 1039 Chorro Street • San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3278 ` (805) 781-2670 • FAX (805) 543-1255 David E. Garth, President/CEO April 6, 2009 Mayor Dave Romero and Members of the City Council City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: Chamber- Cal Poly- Government Collaboration Dear Mayor Romero and Council Members, The San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce was pleased when the City Council recently identified Economic Development as one of its four major City goals for the 2009-11 budget cycle. The Chamber strongly believes that this goal represents an investment in our economic future so that our community can emerge ready to face the challenges of the new economy. The wording of the goal includes partnerships with Cal Poly and Cuesta College which coincides with a long-held Chamber belief that our higher education assets are economic engines that provide San Luis Obispo with an economic development advantage most communities do not have. The Chamber is currently working on formalizing economic development collaboration with Cal Poly. The goal is to harness the innovations on campus and help transform them into viable local email: slochamber@slochamber.org • websites: www.slochamber.org www.visitslo.com businesses. There are many other potential benefits of this effort including identifying and supporting industry clusters in our community that build on the strengths of the University and encouraging academic programs that better prepare workers for jobs in the new economy. It is in this context that the Chamber respectfully requests that Andrew Carter be appointed as the official City Council representative to this effort. As the current Council liaison to the Chamber's Economic Vision task force, Andrew is familiar with the Chamber's priorities and vision. The committee will begin meeting on Wednesday May 290 and will meet monthly, or as-needed, on the. fourth Wednesday. Thank you for your consideration of this request. ncerel , o Le bens Chairman of the Board ..�:: council memoRanoum Date: April 7, 2009 RED FILE v eoPy MEETING AGENDA 2TOUNCIL 0'CDD DIR TO: City Council P1-6A&C'77 M6CIFIN DIR DAT4* ITEM # fk IT-AGA9CniM452 Q'FIRECHIEF Lr ATTORNEY C`pw DIR VIA: Ken Hampian, City Manager 13"bLERK/ORIG n'POLICECHF 13 D HEADS 21 EC DIR UTIL DIR FROM: Jay Walter, Public Works Director y �©I� Keith Pellemeier, Urban Forest Supervisor �NccJ�mEs — R D:R Ar SUBJECT: Public Hearing Item 1 -Tree Appeal 1750 De Anza Court �CL4-'-,tk�. Public Works Engineering staff has completed further research and reviewed record documents as well as completed a site visit of the drainage facilities located at 1750 De Anza Court. The City's record documents indicate that the storm drain concrete channel located adjacent to the Monterey Pine tree is in a public easement accepted by the City. A visual inspection determined that the Monterey Pine tree roots are damaging the edge of the storm drain concrete channel. The top of the concrete channel is displaced approximately 3 inches. The bottom of the concrete channel is in place and working as designed. Storm water flow is not impeded by the crack in the channel. No damage to private property was observed that might have been attributed to water leaking from the channel. It is staffs opinion that the channel is not being adversely affected by the tree roots. i - L- 9.��gmdasrdnutms—vnemm%2009141-09 redfile-vee appe Ldw