The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03-21-2017 Item 15 - Appeal filed by Stalwork Inc of the Tree Committees decision to deny removal of 2 trees located at 2466 Augusta Street and Review of 3 removal fines Meeting Date: 3/21/2017 FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Director of Public Works Prepared By: Ron Combs, Urban Forest Manager SUBJECT: REVIEW OF AN APPEAL (FILED BY STALWORK INC.) OF THE TREE COMMITTEE’S DECISION TO DENY REMOVAL OF TWO TREES LOCATED AT 2466 AUGUSTA STREET AND REVIEW OF TREE REMOVAL FINES RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt a Resolution (Attachment E) denying the appeal of the Tree Committee’s decision to not allow the removal of two trees at 2466 Augusta Street; 2. Not levy any civil penalties associated with the premature removal of Tree No. 2 and Tree No. 6 (as defined below); and 3. Levy civil penalties associated with the unpermitted removal of Tree No. 1 (also defined below). DISCUSSION Background Chapter 12.24 of the City of San Luis Obispo’s Municipal Code sets forth the City’s tree regulations. The City’s stated policy for this chapter is as follows: 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. Section 12.24.090.B of that chapter, entitled “Tree Removal,” provides certain criteria when trees may be removed. Generally, this section authorizes the Public Works Director to approve the removal of any tree when the tree is dead, dying, or damaged beyond reclamation. Other tree removal requests are required to be reviewed and approved by a City Advisory Body or the City Council. The appropriate body to consider the removal request is dependent on the underlying entitlement being sought. The property located at 2466 Augusta Street is zoned single family residential with one existing residence. The property owners are in the process of substantially remodeling the home with new landscaping in the front and rear yards. As part of the new landscape plan, the property owners are planting several new trees including two multi-trunk fruitless olive trees, a Jacaranda tree and a Japanese Maple. The contractor for the remodel work and landscaping is Stalwork, Inc., the Packet Pg. 215 15 appellant for this item. On January 23, 2017, the Tree Committee considered a request to remove six trees on the property. Figure 1 below shows the locations of these trees in relation to the remodel project. Municipal Code section 12.24.090.D.2 sets forth the Tree Committee’s purview for removal requests. Specifically, that section states: When the city arborist cannot authorize a tree removal,1 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. The Tree Committee reviewed this request and authorized four trees in total to be removed (Tree Nos. 2, 4-6). Of those four authorized tree removals, two trees were authorized to be removed after the ten day appeals period was complete (Nos. 2 and 6) and two additional trees were authorized to be removed subject to the issuance of a building permit approval for a pool (Nos. 4 and 5). Two trees were denied approval to be removed (Nos. 1 and 3). The attached draft minutes of the Tree Committee discuss in some detail the basis for the approvals and denials for each tree. Pursuant to Section 12.24.090 (J) of the City’s Municipal Code, permits for tree removal are technically only issued after the ten-day appeals period has passed and trees are not to be removed until that permit has been issued. 1 Per section 12.24.090.D.1, the City Arborist can approve a tree removal request if, among other reasons, “The tree is an imminent hazard to life or property…[or] the tree is dead or dying or da maged beyond reclamation.” Because the tree was in a healthy condition, the City Arborist could not make the necessary findings for removal. Packet Pg. 216 15 Figure 1 - Site Plan Showing Location of Requested Tree Removals Removal of the Trees On January 31, 2017, three trees were removed from the subject property in vio lation of City’s tree regulations. Two of the trees removed (Tree Nos. 2 and 6) were approved by the Tree Committee but should not have been removed until the appeals period was complete and a permit was issued. One tree (Tree No. 1) that was removed was denied by the Tree Committee and should not have been removed at all. A listing of all six trees, the Tree Committee’s determination and tree status are shown in Table 1. Because Tree No. 1 was removed, the appeal of the Tree Committee’s decision regarding that tree is moot. In other words, requesting permission to remove the tree via appeal of the Tree Committee’s decision is unnecessary because that tree is no longer there. The only decision in front of the Council regarding that tree, is whether civil penalties are appropriate. Whether the tree should have been authorized for removal is relevant to the City Council’s decision in this regard. Packet Pg. 217 15 This public hearing is intended to: 1. Review the Tree Committee’s determination regarding the denial of the tree removal request for Tree No. 3; 2. Determine whether to levy civil penalties for the premature removal of Tree Nos. 2 and 6; and 3. Determine whether to levy civil penalties for the unpermitted removal of Tree No. 1. Tree Num. Tree Species Tree Dia. Tree Committee Decision Current Status Subject to Fine 1 California Pepper 24 Inches Removal Denied Removed Yes 2 Monterey Pine 24 Inches Removal Approved Removed Yes* 3 California Pepper 35 Inches Removal Denied Not Removed 4 Eucalyptus 20 Inches Removal Approved Pending Issuance of Building Permit for Pool Construction Not Removed 5 Black Acacia 15 Inches Removal Approved Pending Issuance of Building Permit for Pool Construction Not Removed 6 Black Acacia 14 Inches Removal Approved Removed Yes* * Tree removed prior to appeals period ending thus subject to fine Table 1 – Tree Request List, Determination and Status Public Hearing Items 1. Applicant’s Appeal of Tree Committee’s Determination (Tree Nos. 1 and 3) On February 1, 2017, the appellant submitted an appeal of the Tree Committee’s Determination on the Tree Removal Request for 2466 Augusta was received which was prepared by the project contractor. The appeal is specific to Trees Nos. 1 and 3 shown in previous site map. Tree No. 3 currently is onsite and has not been removed however, as stated above, Tree No. 1 has been removed in violation of the Tree Committee determination. The applicant’s appeal and rationale for this request are included as an attachment in this staff report. Tree No. 1 Tree No. 1 is a California Pepper located adjacent to the current driveway as shown above. The application for removal cited safety concerns as well as tree condition for the basis for removal. The Tree Committee considered these issues and had a split vote. Some committee members felt there was justification while others did not. Ultimately the committee denied removal on a vote of 5-2. The appeal now cites additional concerns regarding traffic safety and limited visibility of using Packet Pg. 218 15 the driveway to and from the property. The appeal also identifies a visibility restriction caused by a fence on adjacent property that contributes to unsafe conditions. Staff reviewed five years of collision information and could find no collision reports associated with the subject property or driveway. Public Works staff has reviewed the appeal concerns and does not concur that the tree location constitutes a hazard. Rather, in order to support the Tree Committees determination that the tree remain, a best first step would have been to trim the tree and perform follow up observations to determine the validity of the concerns. Now that the tree has been removed, this is no longer a possibility. Accordingly, the decision before you is not whether the tree can be removed, but whether the full amount of civil penalties should be levied. Section 12.24.170 of the City’s Municipal Code sets forth a formula for the amount of civil penalties owed for the unpermitted removal of a regulated tree. Both the individual who removed the tree and the property owner are responsible for the civil penalties. For this tree, the appellant and the property owner would be responsible for the payment of $8,200 for a total civil penalty of $16,400. A breakdown of how this penalty is calculated is attached as Attachment F. The City Council has the discretion to levy a lesser civil penalty (including imposing no civil penalty) and/or accept mitigation planting so long as the total costs do not exceed the maximum civil penalty amounts prescribed by the City’s tree regulations. Photo of Tree #1 Before Removal Photo of Site with Tree #1 Removed Tree No. 3 The Appeal also requests the City Council approve the removal of Tree No. 3, which is another California Pepper tree on site. The initial application identified potential decay and issues associated with poor past pruning for rationale for removal. The Tree Committee felt the tree had good structure and felt it should be pruned and retained. The Committee voted unanimously to maintain this tree due to the inability to make a finding for its removal. The Committee offered the applicant the option of returning in the future if the pool was to be permitted and the tree conflicted with that improvement. The appeal of Tree No. 3 discusses most of the same issues as presented to the Tree Committee, just in more depth. The City Arborist has reviewed the appeal request and does not support the Packet Pg. 219 15 appeal based upon the condition of the tree. Trees Removed Prior To Completion of Appeals Period (Tree Nos. 2 and 6) As discussed above, the Tree Committee approved the removal of Tree Nos. 2 and 6, however, the appellant removed the trees two days prior to the expiration of the ten day appeals period close. Staff has reviewed this issue and considered its implications with other tree enforcement history as well as the appeal issue discussed above. In strict compliance with the City’s Municipal Code Section 12.24.170 both the property owner as well as the contractor can each be assessed civil penalties in the amount of $6,000 for the removal of Tree No. 2 (the Monterey Pine Tree) and $2,280 each for the removal of Tree No. 6 (a Black Acacia Tree). Neither of these trees are subject to the appeal because the Tree Committee approved their removal; however, the action of removing the trees prior to the expiration of the appeals period is technical violation of the City’s tree regulations and thus subject to the civil penalties. While the timing of the removal is a technical violation of the City’s Municipal Code, staff recommends the City Council not levy any civil penalties. First, the City never received any appeals from any neighbors regarding the approved removal of these trees. Second, the Tree Committee unanimously approved the removal of both trees because it was either infested and stressed or was not a good landscape tree. Third, the appellants removed the tree only two-days prior to the expiration of the appeals period. For these reasons staff is recommending that City Council not levy assessments related to the premature removal of these trees. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact realized by the City in the approval or denial of the appeal. If City Council chooses to levy civil penalties, that penalty amount would be deposited into the City’s General Fund. ALTERNATIVES Uphold the appeal and adopt a resolution allowing Tree Removal. The City Council could choose to uphold the appeal for tree removal, thereby allowing the homeowner to remove their trees. Waive or Implement Tree Removal Fines. The City Council could choose to direct staff to waive all tree removal fines or maintain all fines for this property. Packet Pg. 220 15 Attachments: a - Tree Removal Application b - Draft Tree Committee Meeting Minutes c - Appeal to the City Council d - Municipal Code Sections e - Resolution denying appeal f - Tree Appraisal Packet Pg. 221 15 Packet Pg. 22215 Packet Pg. 22315 Packet Pg. 22415 Packet Pg. 22515 Packet Pg. 22615 Packet Pg. 22715 Packet Pg. 22815 Packet Pg. 22915 Packet Pg. 23015 Packet Pg. 23115 Packet Pg. 23215 Packet Pg. 233 15 Packet Pg. 234 15 Packet Pg. 235 15 Packet Pg. 236 15 Packet Pg. 237 15 Packet Pg. 238 15 Packet Pg. 23915 Packet Pg. 24015 Packet Pg. 241 15 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Page 1/3 The San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 1630, passed November 15, 2016. 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 othe rwise 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. 1. 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. Packet Pg. 242 15 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Page 2/3 The San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 1630, passed November 15, 2016. 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: i. If the city arborist has recommended denying the application and the architectural r eview commission has approved the application, the tree committee shall review the architectural review commission’s decision; ii. 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 and R-2 zones only does not require a permit if all of the following conditions exist: 1. The tree is a designated native species and the trunk is less than ten inches DSH (see Section 12.24.030, Definitions; native trees) or when the tree is nonnative and the trunk is less than twenty inches DSH; and 2. The tree is more than twenty-five feet from the top of a creek bank; and 3. The tree is on a lot developed to the maximum allowed density; and 4. The tree is not a street tree, and is not located within ten feet of the back of the sidewalk; and 5. The tree was not a condition of development; or 6. The tree is a palm and the trunk is less than twelve inches DSH. G. Tree Removal by the City. 1. Tree removal requests for any city project must follow the same procedures as any property owner. 2. 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 plant ing 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. Packet Pg. 243 15 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Page 3/3 The San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 1630, passed November 15, 2016. 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. (Ord. 1544 § 1 (part), 2010) 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, failing to plant trees required as a condition of a tree removal or other permit, 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 in subsection (A)(1) of this section. 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 four, 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 forty -eight- inch box tree. 5. For damaged trees, in addition to civil penalties, the property owner will be required to o btain 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. (Ord. 1589 § 2, 2013: Ord. 1544 § 1 (part), 2010) 12.24.180 Appeals. A. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 1.20, any person aggrieved by an act or dete rmination 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 dete rmination 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. (Ord. 1544 § 1 (part), 2010) Packet Pg. 244 15 R ______ RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2017 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE TREE COMMITTEE’S DECISION TO DENY A TREE REMOVAL REQUEST AT 2466 AUGUSTA STREET AND WAIVING AND LEVYING CIVIL PENALTIES WHEREAS, on January 23, 2017, the Tree Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing to consider a request to remove several trees from the property located at 2466 Augusta Street, San Luis Obispo, California (the “Property”). The Tree Committee denied the removal of two California Pepper trees, authorized the removal of a Pine Tree and a Black Acacia tree and conditionally permitted the removal of a Eucalyptus tree and another Black Acacia tree; and WHEREAS, on March 21, 2017, 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 of the California Pepper trees at the Property and to further consider civil penalties associated with the premature removal of the Pine Tree and Black Acacia tree and the unpermitted removal of the California Pepper tree. 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 Property owner’s appeal of the San Luis Obispo Tree Committee’s action, staff recommendations and reports thereon, and public testimony, makes the following findings: Findings related to the requested removal of the California Pepper tree located next to the existing garage: a) The tree is not causing undue hardship to the Property. b) The removal of the tree will not promote good arboricultural practice. c) The removal of the tree will harm the character or environment of the surrounding neighborhood. Findings related to the levy of civil penalties associated with the premature removal of the Pine Tree located next to the house and the Black Acacia tree in the rear corner of the Property: a) The trees were unanimously approved for removal by the Tree Committee. b) The trees were infested and stressed or were not good landscape trees. c) The trees were removed only two days prior to the expiration of the appeals period for the decision and the City received no appeals within that period of time. d) The premature removal was more inadvertent than intentional. Findings related to the levy of civil penalties associated with the unpermitted removal of the California Pepper tree located next to the front driveway: Packet Pg. 245 15 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ a) The Tree Committee denied the removal of the tree, albeit in a split vote; b) The tree does not pose a hazard to public safety and could be “trimmed up” in order to minimize impacts to visibility. c) Removal of the tree was intentional in direct violation of the Tree Committee’s decision and City Municipal Code, specifically section 12.24.090.B. SECTION 2. Action. The City Council hereby: a) Denies the appeal to remove the California Pepper tree located next the garage; b) Does not levy any civil penalties associated with the premature removal of the Pine Tree located next to the house and the Black Acacia tree in the rear corner of the Property; c) Levies civil penalties in the amount of $__[Up to $8,200]__ against Stalwork, Inc. and $___[up to $8,200]___ against the owner or owners of the Property located at 2466 Augusta Street, San Luis Obispo, California. Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2017. ____________________________________ Mayor Heidi Harmon ATTEST: ____________________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________________ J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney Packet Pg. 246 15 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 3 R ______ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________. ____________________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk Packet Pg. 247 15 Replacement Cost Appraisal Method – TREE 1 Address: 2466 Augusta Date: 02/1/17 Appraiser: Ron Combs Certified Arborist # WE-6343AM Field Observations 1. Species: Puruvian Pepper (schinus Molle) 2. Condition: 70% 3. Trunk size: 24 inches in Diameter 4. Location %: ((Site 70% + Contribution 70 % + Placement 70%) ÷ 3) = 70% 5. Staff Time for Appraisal or Cleanup Costs: (Labor Rate ($60 per hour X Number of Hours (2 hours)) = $120.00 Regional Plant Appraisal Committee and/or Appraiser-Developed or Modified Information 6. Species rating: 70% 7. Replacement Plant Size: (number of trees X diameter) = 1 X 24” = 24 inches 8. Replacement Plant Cost: (tree diameter X cost per inch) = (24 X $68.00) = $1632.00 9. Installation Cost: (Replacement Plant Cost X 2.44) = ($1632 X 2.44) = $3982.00 10. Other Regional Information: Readily available in 15 gallon 1” diameter Calculations by Appraiser Using Field and/or Regional Information 11. Installed Plant Cost: (Plant Cost (#8) + Installation Cost (#9)) = ($1632.00 + $3982.00) = $5614.00 12. Adjusted Installed Plant Cost: (Installed Plant Cost (#11) X Species Rating (#6) X Condition (#2) X Location (#4) = ($5614.00 X 70% X 70% X 70%) = $1925.60 13. Staff Time Costs (#5): = $120.00 14. Appraised Value: (Adjusted Installed Plant Cost (#11) + Staff Time Costs (#13) = ($1925.60 + $120) = $2045.60 15. Appraised Value Rounded: ((#14) is $5,000 or more, round it to the nearest $100; if it is less, round to nearest $10) = $2050.00 16. Appraised Value (#15): $570.00 17. Per City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 12.24.170A(3) = $2050.00 X 4 = $8200.00 18. Replacement value = $8200.00 *A median cost is the most appropriate cost to use because there are an equal number of costs greater than and less than the median. Equally important, plants and installation are available at those specific costs. Packet Pg. 248 15 Replacement Cost Appraisal Method – TREE 2 Address: 2466 Augusta Date: 02/1/17 Appraiser: Ron Combs Certified Arborist # WE-6343AM Field Observations 1. Species: Monterey Pine (Pinus Radiata) 2. Condition: 50% 3. Trunk size: 24 inches in diameter 4. Location %: ((Site 70% + Contribution 70 % + Placement 70%) ÷ 3) = 70% 6. Staff Time for Appraisal or Cleanup Costs: (Labor Rate ($60 per hour X Number of Hours (2 hours)) = $120.00 Regional Plant Appraisal Committee and/or Appraiser-Developed or Modified Information 6. Species rating: 50% 7. Replacement Plant Size: (number of trees X diameter) = 1 X 24” = 24 inches 8. Replacement Plant Cost: (tree diameter X cost per inch) = (24 X $68.00) = $1632.00 9. Installation Cost: (Replacement Plant Cost X 2.44) = ($1632 X 2.44) = $3982.00 10. Other Regional Information: Readily available in 15 gallon 1” diameter Calculations by Appraiser Using Field and/or Regional Information 15. Installed Plant Cost: (Plant Cost (#8) + Installation Cost (#9)) = ($1632.00 + $3982.00) = $5614.00 16. Adjusted Installed Plant Cost: (Installed Plant Cost (#11) X Species Rating (#6) X Condition (#2) X Location (#4) = ($5614.00 X 50% X 70% X 70%) = $1375.43 17. Staff Time Costs (#5): = $120.00 18. Appraised Value: (Adjusted Installed Plant Cost (#11) + Staff Time Costs (#13) = ($1375.43 + $120) = $1495.43 16. Appraised Value Rounded: ((#14) is $5,000 or more, round it to the nearest $100; if it is less, round to nearest $10) = $1500.00 16. Appraised Value (#15): $1500.00 17. Per City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 12.24.170A(3) = $1500 X 4 = $6000.00 18. Replacement value = $6000.00 *A median cost is the most appropriate cost to use because there are an equal number of costs greater than and less than the median. Equally important, plants and installation are available at those specific costs. Packet Pg. 249 15 Replacement Cost Appraisal Method – TREE 6 Address: 2466 Augusta Date: 02/1/2017 Appraiser: Ron Combs Certified Arborist # WE-6343AM Field Observations 1. Species: Black acacia #6 (Acacia melanoxylon) 2. Condition: 70% 3. Trunk size: 14 inches in diameter 4. Location %: ((Site 60% + Contribution 75 % + Placement 60%) ÷ 3) = 65 % 7. Staff Time for Appraisal or Cleanup Costs: (Labor Rate ($60 per hour X Number of Hours (2 hours)) = $120.00 Regional Plant Appraisal Committee and/or Appraiser-Developed or Modified Information 6. Species rating: 30% 7. Replacement Plant Size: (number of trees X diameter) = 1 X 14” = 14 inches 8. Replacement Plant Cost: (tree diameter X cost per inch) = (14 X $68.00) = $952.00 9. Installation Cost: (Replacement Plant Cost X 2.44) = ($952.00 X 2.44) = $2322.88 10. Other Regional Information: Readily available in 15 gallon 1” diameter Calculations by Appraiser Using Field and/or Regional Information 19. Installed Plant Cost: (Plant Cost (#8) + Installation Cost (#9)) = ($952.00 + $2322.88) = $3274.88 20. Adjusted Installed Plant Cost: (Installed Plant Cost (#11) X Species Rating (#6) X Condition (#2) X Location (#4) = ($3274.88 X 30% X 70% X 65%) = $446.90 21. Staff Time Costs (#5): = $120.00 22. Appraised Value: (Adjusted Installed Plant Cost (#11) + Staff Time Costs (#13) = ($446.90 + $120) = $566.90 17. Appraised Value Rounded: ((#14) is $5,000 or more, round it to the nearest $100; if it is less, round to nearest $10) = $570.00 16. Appraised Value (#15): $570.00 17. Per City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 12.24.170A(3) = $570.00 X 4 = $2280.00 18. Replacement value = $2280.00 *A median cost is the most appropriate cost to use because there are an equal number of costs greater than and less than the median. Equally important, plants and installation are available at those specific costs. Packet Pg. 250 15 3/15/2016 Item 10, Staff Presentation REVIEW OF AN APPEAL OF THE TREE COMMITTEE'S DECISION TO DENY REMOVAL OF TWO TREES LOCATED AT 2466 AUGUSTA STREET AND REVIEW OF TREE REMOVAL FINES Municipal Code - Tree Removal 12.24.030 Definitions B. "Development" means any subdivision or other action requiring a building ❑ermit or any discretionary permit or approval by the city. 12.24.090 Tree removal. • C. Tree Removal Not Related to Property Development. • D. Removals for Tree Health or Hazard Mitigation. • E. Tree Removal with a Development Permit. • G. Tree Removal by the City. 1 3/15/2016 Item 10, Staff Presentation Municipal Code — Tree Removal 12.24.090 Tree removal. 1. The city arbonst 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 dvina or damaged _beyond reclamation; c. The tree's roots are causfna severe damage to public or private property, and removing the tree is the only feasible way to eliminate the.damage. Municipal Code — Tree Removal 12.24.090 Tree removal. 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. 2 3/15/2016 Item 10, Staff Presentation 2466 Augusta St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 in Project and Timeline Project: Substantial Home Remodel, Landscape and Pool Tree Committee: January 23, 2017 3 Location ® San Luis Oblep RAILROAD DISTRICT ;. R� 2466 Augusta St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 in Project and Timeline Project: Substantial Home Remodel, Landscape and Pool Tree Committee: January 23, 2017 3 Requested Tree Removals (06 12F . aupuaw abed T 3/15/2016 Item 10, Staff Presentation J IN CQ SO Approved Tree Removals ; =a V'.w cn r I auQ,tea„ 4 3/15/2016 Item 10, Staff Presentation Deferred Review Subject to Pool Permit • f i J /A +—� a,gu,w A~ �.—n��.---rte••—.T.— Not Approved Tree Removals Iq , to rY:� 'c I L��cyay9�+ f I a.e�sv n�.m 5 3/15/2016 Item 10, Staff Presentation Trees Removed f' PL cn Tree Removals: January 31, 2017 _ Appeal Filed: February 1, 2017 u Tree Removal Appeal fl 113 � r ' .J' augusle 84M1 ' 11 MY OF Sim Luis OBispo omd CITY OF SRR LWS OBISPO 3/15/2016 Item 10, Staff Presentation Roadway —Augusta Street ; • Local Roadway / Residential Collector • Residential/ Public Facility Adjacent Lane Uses • 25 MPH Speed Limit • 85th Percentile Speed is 28 MPH • Average Daily Volumes: • Vehicles: 2116 • Pedestrian: 596 • Bike: 40 • Vehicle collision history: • 1 in 5 years • Information concerning the accident provided by appellant. G1T y D r CITY OF S0I1 T,WS OBISPO N 3/15/2016 Item 10, Staff Presentation Civil Penalties 12.24.170 Enforcement. A. Any_person deemed responsible for damaging a tree, failing to plant trees required as a condition of a tree removal or other permit, 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„ Mpgnsible 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 in subsection (A)(l) of this section. 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 thnes four, plus all related staff costs. 4 3/15/2016 Item 10, Staff Presentation Recommendations 1. Adopt a Resolution denying the appeal of the Tree Committee's decision to not allow the removal of two trees at 2466 Augusta Street; 2. Not levy any civil penalties associated with the premature removal of Tree No. 2 and Tree No. 6; and 3. Levy civil penalties associated with the unpermitted removal of Tree No. 1. C NIT Y QA � c 10