The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10/18/2011, PH 1 - APPEAL OF TREE COMMITTEE DECISION TO DENY TREE REMOVAL APPLICATION AT 1284 ELLA. A] council Mftn D� 10.1841 agenda REpom I..N�vbn p , CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O FROM: Jay Walter, Public Works Director IDW Prepared By: Ron Combs, City Arborist SUBJECT: APPEAL OF TREE COMMITTEE DECISION TO DENY TREE REMOVAL APPLICATION AT 1284 ELLA. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution denying the appeal of the Tree Committee's decision to not allow the removal of a pine tree at 1284 Ella Street. DISCUSSION Background On July 28, 2011, Gill Blonsley filed a Tree Removal application for the removal of a Norfolk Island Pine at 1284 Ella Street, citing that the tree leaned and, as a result, is a hazard. He proposed replacing the tree. with a fruit tree. Mr. Blonsley is the listed property owner (Attachment 1). The City Arborist reviewed the tree upon receipt of the removal application. The tree is a large pine with a lean to it. No major defects, disease or damage was noted on the tree and the Arborist was not able to approve the removal. The City Arborist is able to approve tree removals per Municipal Code Section 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. Per the City's Municipal Code Section 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. PH1-1 C, Tree Committee Appeal—1284 Ella Street Page 2 Tree Committee Decision On Monday, August 22, 2011, the Tree Committee heard the removal request. The Tree Committee members all inspected the tree prior to the meeting. 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. The Chair of the Tree Committee, Matt Ritter, indicated that the tree had been mis-identified and was actually a Cook Island pine, a species which typically has a lean to it. Mr. Ritter is a Certified Arborist, as well as a Cal Poly professor in the Biological Sciences Department with a PhD from the University of California at San Diego, and an author of a book on trees of California. The Tree Committee listened to the presentation by the owner, but did not agree that the tree presented an imminent hazard. There were no citizens, except the owners, at the Tree Committee meeting.to speak either for or against its removal. The Tree Committee denied the application, and the property owner appealed their decision to the City Council (Attachment 2 and 3). After submitting the appeal, the property owner supplied additional information regarding the tree condition through their arborist. The property owner was encouraged to return to the Tree Committee for additional consideration of the removal application given the additional information provided. On September 26, 2011, the Tree Committee reviewed the removal request for a second time, taking into account the additional information provided by the property owner's arborist. The arborist noted that the tree had several co-dominant stems with included bark that could'create a potential area for breaking. The property owner did not attend the meeting. ,Although the Tree Committee appreciated the additional information, they did not agree that it was compelling enough to. allow the removal, and voted to uphold their original decision to deny .the removal . application. Appeal On August 30, 2011, the City Clerk's office received the original appeal of the Tree Committee's decision from Gill and Linda Blonsley, the property owners (Attachment 4). In the,appeal, the property owner asserted that the Tree Committee did not consider the hardship to the property owner beyond normal maintenance, citing trimming expenses, and multiple trunk growth that cannot be repaired by pruning. The owners also expressed concern for liability should the tree break. After the second Tree Committee hearing, the property owners reaffirmed their desire to have their appeal heard by the Council on October 18, 2011 via email, also expressing some concerns regarding the process (Attachment 5). Staff has provided a response to Mr. Blonsely's concerns to clarify certain points from staff's perspective (Attachment 6). FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact realized by the City in the denial of the appeal. ALTERNATIVE Uphold the appeal. The City Council could choose to uphold the appeal for tree removal, thereby allowing the homeowner to remove their tree. PH1-2 Tree Committee Appeal—1284 Ella Street Page 3 ATTACHMENTS 1. Tree Removal Application 2. Tree Committee minutes 3. Tree Committee decision letter 4. Tree Committee decision appeal 5. 10-5-11 Email from Mr. Blonsley 6. Staff Response to email 7. Resolution denying appeal 8. Resolution upholding appeal (:\council agenda reports\"ic works caA2011\nw\1284 ella oppeaPrIx 1284 eIW tree.do= PH1-3 i�►��iiIIII�I�P�l�lll� _ �_ O ATTACHMENTI -1 25 Prado Road , San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 - TREE REMOVAL APPLICATION **If your tree removal is related to property development or a remodel,submit your request through the Planning Department at 919 Palm Street as part of your Planning Application." IMPORTANT: A tree removal application will only PLEASE NOTE: If your tree is approved for be considered if accompanied by a *sketch/maP* removal and posted, please call the office at the showing the street, structure(s) location and end of your posting'period to arrange to pick up location. of all trees proposed for removal. Please your permit. The Permit fee is $81 payable when draw on the Back of this form or-fax on a separateyou pick up your permit (cash or check payable to sheet of paper, along with your application. City of San Luis Obispo). **Please mark the tree/s Proposed to be removed with a laroe X with duct tape. **Tree removal applications must be received by the second Monday of the month to be considered for the meetino on"the fourth Monday of the month. PLEASE FILL OUT COMPLETELY. Address of tree(s) to be removed: %ice e..- Nearest cross street: ��4�,��-� Dog in yard? Yes Q No ownw:rJ t-L L L/n/O! l 0,4/5/. Telephone: o�70,;T—iFw Owners Mailing Address: //3 ,5WpXC ;i3P, , 15�, ,4,qYD -/Y-Zp Code: Applicant (if other than owner): .a4,^ t,Sle TCe-e C3,rv%06LvW Telephone: a3S- 1((nJ3 Applicant's mailing address: r, Zip Code: 9 3ct0(, ---Tree-species-(Common Reasons for requesting removal: tV\�Vee' ." gNv, f —aa U 1kevre4-3 ra A.kLLw 4-7n, akr r - 1-e 1eu� Mir -n \i Replacement tree planting proposed (REQ D): -�" * 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 wiU 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. *Tree Removal permit is valid for-6 months *Any required"replacement trees'must be installed within 45 days after removal. MAIL OR FAX completed form to: City Arborist, 25 Prado Rd., Son Luis Obispo, CA 93401, Phone: 781-7220 Fax: 542-9868 Owner: Date: 2�3'ao l l 1 Applicant: p�Q,L, I_ �� 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.5-11 PH1-4 C � ATTACHMENT 2 L. I i I J or) i --- - - - — -- - ------- I _s �l N 1 PH1-5 A17ACHMENT2-1 1 TREE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES —EXCERPT— MONDAY, AUGUST 22, 2011 Corporation Yard Conference Room 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo MEMBERS PRESENT: David Hensinger, David Savory, Suzan Ehdaie, and Matt Ritter STAFF PRESENT: Ron Combs TREE REMOVAL APPLICATIONS 3. 1284 ELLA (Cook.Island pine) Gill Blonsley, applicant, discussed the removal request and was concerned about the increasing lean of the large tree and felt it posed a hazard. He noted that corrective pruning had been done six years ago. He felt the roots were too close to the house and utility services. He discussed the recent letter from Greenvale Tree Co. that noted that the growth on the tree had prevented further pruning and that the tree was hazardous and should be removed. Mr. Combs reported it was a tree with a lean and a co-dominant stem that could pose a splitting problem. Mr. Ritter stated that the species was a Cook Island pine and that the applicant's arborist had incorrectly identified the tree; as such, Mr. Ritter reported that the tree leans by nature and did not pose a hazard with its trunk style/shape. He also noted it was a skyline tree. Mr. Savory felt it was a healthy skyline tree and did not feel it posed imminent danger. Mr. Hensinger moved to deny the removal request, as he could not make the necessary findings for removal. Mr. Savory seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. PH1-6 ATTACHMENT2-2 1 TREE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2011 Corporation Yard Conference Room 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo MEMBERS PRESENT: David Hensinger, David Savory, Ben Parker, and Matt Ritter STAFF PRESENT: Ron Combs TREE REMOVAL APPLICATIONS 1284 Ella Street Mr. Ritter noted the pending appeal regarding a removal denial for the Cook Island pine at 1284 Ella Street. He discussed the updated arborist report from Greenvale Tree Company regarding the tree, noting that Greenvale recommended removal. Mr. Ritter stated that upon review of the new report received from Greenvale, the Committee could either uphold their original denial of the request or re-consider the item in light of the new information. Mr. Parker stated he had not been able to review the application and would be abstaining from the discussion. Steve Franzman, Greenvale Tree Co. representative reported that the tree had several co- dominant/multiple stems with included bark that created potential for a break out situation in the top of the tree, which was already top-heavy. He recommended removal due to the potential rot situation. Mr. Hensinger allowed that while the report suggested the tree was in a lesser condition than previously understood, the new information was not compelling enough to change his vote to deny the request. Mr. Hensinger moved to uphold the Committee's previous denial of the removal request at 1284 Ella Street. Mr. Savory seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Mr. Parker abstaining. PH1-7 ATTACHMENT3-1 August 24,2011 Gill& Linda Blonsley 113 Andre Dr. Arroyo Grande,CA 93420 Your application for removal of a tree at 1284 Ella, was reviewed by the City of San Luis Obispo Tree Committee on August 22,2011. 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 Inj 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 PH1-8 Filing Fee: $261.00* ATTACHMENT 4-1 Paid Date Received ; cltyo� NIA RECEIVED San IDIS OBISPO *REFER TO SECTION4 AUG 3 0 2011 APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION o'13 Aw4e'x-- 1�•Q/UE .9iQ,e0yo Cr e�if/1jE J 3��4 Name Mailing Address and Ztp Cod'-e �8os� -Boa-8io9 CSos� �o�-Sites Phone Fax Representative's Name Mailing Address and Zip Code Title Phone Fax SECTION 2. SUBJECT OFAPPEAL 1. In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (copy attached), I hereby appeal the decision of the: -Tole (Name of Officer, Committee or Commission decision being appealed) 2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: �Lf6l�5,T 2v// 3. The application or project was entitled: T/�z--,d5F"- ��itJ®dam �sJ- 4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member: ka/!/ �l/iG185' , on (Staff Members Name and Department) (Date) 5. Has this ma er been the subject of a previous appeal? if so, when was it heard and by whom: D F ION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL n specfically what actionis ou are aY ppealing and�you believe the Council should consider your . Include what evidence you have that supports your appeal. You may attach additional pages, if ary. This form continues on the other side. Page 1 of 3 PHl-9 ATTACHMENT 4-2 FRea8onorIAppeaI continuedD/�1/F;-ir/ . t .`l;F-i•,`"� �Pt �• R>�-S��1V,� ��1`' � .�r� S z z ,. ,j a. ^yxs�� ; . __ �.*y` 1tL ,,.c y.`+. Y �+ ✓ i '-la y,tF-I'2:a ;'�, W ' sy: Fttea L �sbrsp * rOU"WWIu qul�llcaitioC��ri �ic�o� e� t n dura es all fq is"uf it�zer rlY' rri nt )Hbyijev r'7i #P Lost ass IZ! CoUticil r�h�tsidegaon �a%eai� ncliT film' i�atr n , P pTi t �P of+ �► P�a � ng to {11�nriita fiaafroFa'�or r � '- e appTical i ar� e tt link 'e b '&54- kr� *,N s -: ^ .� r DIY t .i t� F�y�'=t .�.T n �=r+�''r 5..�:+'.-c .�� u-.'2''-}rt i"LT'Y^' �•li �+ +•G'"x -a £ _I -_ r4^f `3� TPC_. y M �..�.z'cN' ...y- -s .' `•` T"4 +-.'""�.. e YOUr 5y., =ani I, Mari � plat pfe�s�u �ers (I tamust bzilea dbvitRiirr�t5 d� orrfy� 4 `notifiied'm V�nfil oaf t each dated w >� , nraFew�lleeard* e�r� e u�ioil �'3 represeritatave #�e x c e o attbrrc t[�e�pgblrc �ieali�j r d tN a�ar�p-asec�q case l �.1Courfest , ri�r s rrnr �a 1 2'"r rraufes'= , �f�.`� �,Y��a'i )�✓� A,G6rYYtaJ1 � 1t,7ae�g[ LT�?"r( 'ar,U �� rtatfi� F7uPEI GSt r deed o TegtS�sta4 a t ,M� 1 # bueou t r 4�t anc must�4. t F ume r i rrtfn oaf tee; ; adprs�c�th�foi7►gfi esar r `'� rs recR�rce � GouridT1n'a Yndt a able f� wo r n �; a c5 t"c o �A z u 1 o OWN r 4` a. .tc�• . ,w fii 17 tia -nom �t'�F'_y, y/�-vh /ti7i`ereb �eYfva 13 4�s V�> z e n 9 Y pFe arrdrse'ngl aKcepesnt `Td appei !�Y� eaTvvYn < sariap ear schWeat l Pu1�I c H r 0 1,'7 r at wry JE' � ExQ8p6�c�7 irbth b, T�pars of ie�Go�iimif� cisvz�d a�e,$11 ' __ `fih b NO r,LveC,na sap eiJant ai�ea� ald tFie Ci`ty' 7 to aiipeal fh�s c7 sameat toa Cit�riiaFgr 1etvisal�y r .: This item Is hereby calendared for �► (3�G 201 cc: /City Attorney ✓City Manager department Head J;wf PA{'r-e. visory Body Chairperson /YJ� 12r � Advisory Body Liaison Roo ConagS Ci Clerk(original) Lr'vr� Page 2 of 3 alas PH1-10 ATTACHMENT 4-3 BACKGROUND The subject tree located in front of 1284 Ella Street is a very ' J unusual Cook Pine(Araucaria P T ry columnaris) with multiple (3)trunks. Although it is exceptionally beautiful, it is a hazard that Gill and Linda Blonsle , (the Blonsleys)the e rtY ror :. owners, are seeking to eliminate. u �. u',y 4ca '•rn xi tl b.+1,_ ,N�r'4.F ° �•'�bj (, ( .Ee�Je'?h.r{.♦ �.�F4Y y`iv K'S+Wj..�y„G�; It is the multiple trunks thatares= � �� r v� creating a hazard that cannot be =r � corrected by pruning. Upon a simple visual 4 inspection, it is hard not to be able to differentiate the subject tree from those that are typical to the species. ti s I I I The Cook Pine is the most � I i common and widespread Araucaria species in Hawaii. These trees are commonly cultivated and have become naturalized in some areas as well. According to the literature, the first distinctive of the Cook pine is its tendency to has a slight "S" curve in its trunk. It almost never grows perfectly straight despite the name"columnaris". Very tall specimens are relatively straight but even then some curvature close to the base of the tree should be visible. As evidenced by this Cook Pine located on Lizzie Street The Cook Pine is described as follows: The relatively short, mostly horizontal branches are in whorls around the slender, upright to slightly leaning trunk. The branches are lined with cord-like, horizontal branchlets. The branchlets are covered with small, green, incurved, point-tipped, spirally arranged, overlapping leaves. The trees have a slender, spire-like crown and look like unusually tall, thin (emphasis added) Christmas trees. Appeal of Decision of Tree Committee dated 8/24/11 Gill and Linda Blonsley,Property owners 1284 Ella Street Page 1 T ��-fig ATTACHMENT 4-4 BASVS FOR APPEAL Grounds/Evidence for granting appeal of decision of City of San Luis Obispo Tree Committee decision dated August 24: I. The Committee failed to consider evidence of undue hardship to property owner beyond normal routine maintenance as defined. A. Evidence—In 2005, expended $1,400 for removal of limbs of subject tree; (See Attached Estimate and Receipt from Greenvale Tree Co. [Sept 2006]) B. Pruning cannot repair growth that has occurred since 2006. (See Arborist report attached) and photos of subject tree from 2006 and present to compare amount of growth of multiple trunks. N . y ••• 4 W: C �2 1284 Ella October 2006 1284 Ella August 2011 C. In the event that the subject tree topples or breaks, the property owner shall bear responsibility for injuries to and shall be responsible for any liability... (City of San Luis Obispo Ordinance 12.24.100.) As much as The Blonsleys appreciate the beauty of the subject tree, as owners they"have the duty to keep in safe condition any trees and shrubs upon that private property or upon sidewalks and planting areas in 1 Estimate is for work on trees in rear of yard.Receipt is for all work including trimming of Cook Pine. Appeal of Decision of Tree Committee dated 8/24/11 Gill and Linda Blonsley,Property owners 1284 Ella Street Page 2 PHI-1Z ATTACHMENT 4-5 front of that property." (Ord. 1544§ 1 (part), 2010).Their greatest fear is that this tree will topple over and severely injure someone or cause substantial property damage. II. The Committee lacked evidence to support its decision that removing the tree failed to promote good arboricultural practice, and the property owner's evidence to remove the tree supports good arboricultural practice. A. Upon a simple visual inspection, it is hard not to be able to differentiate the subject tree from those that are typical to the species. 5 �`'.'�".t ° �r n t 7'44 ti 22� Sr�. C ➢aril +' '� �^ t r n,. �i u��^ � ��t*' � � � 'yayrt^. .- r R:, `2 c'1:>< ♦ _ .., Different R views of 1284 Ella Street Cook y i Pine a II i d 8/11 ,Vn �P s•rca - I i i i Appeal of Decision of Tree Committee dated 8/24/11 Gill and Linda Blonsley,Property owners 1284 Ella Street Page 3 ?HI-13 ' ATTACHMENT 4-6 o .L W P •.'aFP Q Jµ'f. I } 4s b � J C +y C Multiple trunks 1284 Ella Cook Pine r CC i } B. The Committee improperly broadly compared the subject tree to other Cook Pines that may lean (see photos of Cook Pines located in surrounding neighborhood) without taking into consideration that subject tree not only leans, but unlike typical Cook Pines, has multiple trunks with extraordinarily dense canopy that. 1. Cannot be pruned because pruning out the tops of the tree may lead to i upper canopy rot and death; i 2. Cause an unusually dense canopy, and wind will push against the tree and cause a sail effect and Appeal of Decision of Tree Committee dated 8/24/11 I Gill and Linda Blonsley, Property owners 1284 Ella Street Page 4 ?H1-14 ATTACHMENT 4-7 3. There is the potential for"included bark."This is a serious hazard for several reasons. Where the bark is between the stems,the tree will never be able to bind the stems together by fusing the tissues.As the stems grow in diameter, they force the fork apart. The point below, where the two stems are really joined, is unable to adjust to this pressure and tends to crack. s r' w yam. �ri� s+ate\'O�•' nT 9i iy h - 1 a _ 1 Po f� t i Cook Pine trees located in nearby neighborhoods I III. Removing the tree will not harm the character or environment of the surrounding i neighborhood. A Said provision is impermissibly vague and ambiguous. i Appeal of Decision of Tree Committee dated 8/24/11 Gill and Linda Blonsley, Property owners 1284 Ella Street Page 5 PHI-15 ATTACHMENT 4-8 B- Further, there have been no objections to removal of subject tree by surrounding neighbors. C. The Blonsleys are willing and able to plant another tree in the same general area. IV. The Committee's decision is counter to other City Ordinances and, prevents the property owner from removing the subject tree and abrogating a dangerous condition. A. Pursuant to City of San Luis Obispo Ordinance 12;24.100 removal of the tree is required for the protection of public safety. Much of the upper trunk is leaning toward a townhouse development and a driveway into the French Hospital complex. i i i i i i Appeal of Decision of Tree Committee dated 8/24/11 Gill and Linda.Blonsley, Property owners 1284 Ella Street Page 6 PH1-16 ATTACHMENT 4-9 GREET `9 Y ALE 8 LAIC®o STEVE,PRANZ IANN State License#730795 o Certified Arborist#941 P.O. Box 13234 • San Luis Obispo,CA 93406 805.544.11.24 • 805.772.8500 • Ceh: 805.235.5175 Date— oG To �f�• /l'� City A G j _ 2 t -- --- ------------- ...--- - . --- j Due and payable upon receipt pH1-17 ATTArWRAPKITA in G EENVALE TREE CO. P.O. Box 13234 • San Luis Obispo,CA 93406 805.544.1124 o 805.772.8500 Cell Phone: 805.2355175 STEVE FRANZMANN State License#730795 Certified Arborist#941 Name �e} '•'� � � Billing Date Address Address 1 .e- Cell Phone L/V Cih•6r Zip \ / ..�5 Citt•d:Zip��, �� y�/ _Q Fax �7 HOZ} Phone: p(�5 YSr7 �� Phone: ?js �'jd � 1�� ❑ Aerial Lift ❑ Bio Stump Grinder ❑ Little Stump Grinder ❑ Wood Splitter ❑Lowering Device,Bull Ropes ❑ Wood Dolly ❑.Wpod Cart JOB SPE/C�IFICATIONS /97— /7Gc�G.zA¢n• .3 t.+roeY �8�+tp✓G� /v/�j� tl S B i i PSfA 61 56ASav5 5LXl 6� Cut Wbod ❑ Leave wood ❑ Remove Wood C] Grind Stumps ❑Remove Grindings ❑ Leave Grindings W'e propose hereby to famish material and labor,complete with above specifications.Any alteration or deviation from the above specifications involving I extra costs will be made only upon written agreement.Tree removals do not include stump grinding unless specified.All completed work includes full insurance coverage.This proposal may be withdrawn by tis at any time before acceptance. Dollars (S GREENVALEIIREE COQ i Acceptance of Estimate i11ty -18 ATTACHMENT 4-11 GREENVALE TREE COMPANY Arborist Report For. GiI Blonsley Location: 1284 Ella San Luis Obipo,CA 9340I Plant ID Norfolk Island Pine Problem Leaning tree with unusual form of growth Symptoms Tree has uneven weight distribution.Much of upper trunk is off center leaning toward condo/Hospital driveway.Lower trunk is also leaning but most of off center is in the upper half of the tree.Roots show no soil heaving at this time. Roots are primarily in watered turf subject to constant moisture.Owner has stated that there has been more of a lean in recent years and that lower trunk has shifted. The tree has an abnormal branch pattern.Normally canopy is very conical and open while this tree has a short branched random attachment that is so dense that the trunk in the upper storyc;armot be seen.Canopy would otherwise seem healthy as color and growth indicate.No dieback noted. DIAGNOSIS I The lean in the tree appears to have started with the upper story growing to one side.As we have no long term history we can only surmise that past growth was j directed by being in the understory of a much larger tree or that the trunk was damaged in some way further up the tree to cause the tree to"lean",or grow,in another direction- This top heavy growth may now be causing the.entire tree to begin to tilt The tree is now off balance. I cannot saywhy the foliage is Y ag growing so densely and so unlike other Norfolk Island Pines.It is nearly cylindrical instead of conical.I see no oozing to indicate cankering,lesions etc. The canopy would appear healthy. i PHl-19 ATTACHMENT 4-12 T1tEATMENURECOMMENDATIONS The tree has two problems that really cannot be addressed by pruning,The first is the tilt(lean) Of the tree.This will at some point in the future be a problem as the tree becomes more and more top heavy the likely hood of the tree toppling or breaking increases.Norfolk.Island Pines cannot be reduced as pruning out the tops of the tree may actually lead to upper canopy rot and death. Also the fact that the tree is in a lawn area kept moist to support the turf can in the chance of root or wood rots Secondly the canopy is very dense and wind will push against(sail effect)the tree because air cannot readily move through the canopy.While the tree could be thinned the growth(branch siructnre)of the tree does not tend itself well to thinning:Noimally little thinning is needed on these trees.I believe any thinning on this tree is going to produce very little benefit and or will be pruned so severally that the tree will be ruined. I do not like to recommend removals,but this tree is becoming a hazard due to its lean and there is no way to prune the tree to correct that fact.Thinning the canopy to reduce weight and try to Open the canopy to relieve a"sail effect"is not recommended because the branch structure is not conducive to this option.The tree should be removed. Chris Stier; ISA Certified Arborist,#9262 i `diagnosis was made with observation,history and sound arboriculitnal and horticultural knowledge.it is always possible that other,or different problems exist that may contribute to the decline and death of plants.Further evaluation may be warranted if the steps above do not work.Pathology tests and other lab analysis are available. I i i i I I i PH1-20 ATTACHMENT 4-13 i CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO RECVD BY: FINANCE CASHIER 01000325852 PAYOR: GILL BLDNSLEY TODAY'S DATE: 08/30/11 REGISTER DATE: 08/30/11 TIME: 11:25 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT COST ID:GILL 8 LINDA BLDNSLEY TREE REMOVAL PERMIT $104.00 ---------------- TOTAL DUE: $104.00 CHECK PAID: $104.00 CHECK NO: 7271 TENDERED: $104.00 CHANGE- $.00 • i i i i j i I i i i I j PHl-21 � ATTACHMENT 5- 1 From: gill [mailto:gblonsley@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 20118:11 PM To: Codron, Michael Cc: Dietrick, Christine Subject: Re: tree appeal Michael— We received your voice mail and are confirming that we are scheduled for our appeal to be heard at the October 18, 2011 City Council Meeting. Item 5 (below) responds to your email of October 5, 2011. So that there is no confusion, we are also taking this opportunity to express our displeasure with the treatment received with regard to our request for tree removal permit, a routine transaction. Primarily, your unilateral removal of our appeal from the October 4, 2011 agenda in light of the fact that Ron Coombs, the City Forester requested that we delay our September 20 hearing date to October 4. 1. In addition to each and every item raised in our appeal, at the August 22, 2011 hearing the Chair of the City Tree Committee rudely scolded and lectured us because we had incorrectly identified the tree using the wrong scientific terminology 2. We filed our appeal on or about August 30, 2011, paying the $104 fee for the privilege of addressing the City Council. 3. We were scheduled to be heard at the September 20 Council meeting. 4. Mr. Coombs phoned, seeking our approval to move the hearing to October 4, because he was too busy to draft a response and had some travel plans.We agreed. 5. Subsequently, Mr. Coombs called again to advise us: A. He believed our position had merit; B. On that basis, he was having a difficult time drafting an opposition; C. He wanted to resubmit our application to the tree committee, on September 26, using the correct scientific terminology. He believed that using the incorrect terminology had been a major sticking point for the Committee Chair, and that if it were corrected the Committee would approve the application. 6. Initially we were not in favor of the processes. We didn't want any delays and were prepared to proceed on the appeal. We indicated that he was free to do what he wished, but we were unavailable to attend. Mr. Coombs then asked if he could also cancel our October 4 appeal. I stated emphatically that I would not agree to it. That if the City Tree Committee granted a permit, we would withdraw it ourselves. We agreed to allow the matter to be resubmitted upon the following conditions, which were agreed to by Mr. Coombs on behalf of the City: A. We would take no action to initiate the application for reconsideration; PHI-22 � ATTACHMENT 5 -2 B. In the event the his resubmission was unsuccessful, the appeal would proceed as scheduled, or C. In the event his resubmission was successful, our appeal filing fee would be refunded. 7. On September 27, we were advised that the application was again denied, and that the City Tree Committee Chair was critical of having to hear the matter a second time. We were also advised that contrary to our agreement, we had been removed from the October 4 agenda. 8. 1 called the City Clerk's office and was advised that you (Mr. Codron), Mr. Coombs, and Jay Walters (?) had decided to take us off of the agenda—without contacting us. I was also advised that there was no future date set for the appeal. g. You subsequently called and apologized for not contacting us to gain our agreement—which we would not have given. At that time, I sought to be placed on the next agenda (October, 18) and requested a letter confirming the same—which I have received. io. You alluded to the City Attorney wanting some confirmation of the sequences, so we have copied her with this email. 11. Notwithstanding the excessive delays on the part of the City, we have never been provided with the City's response to our appeal. Can we have it emailed to us within the next few days so that we are afforded ample opportunity to review the City's position and evidence. PH1-23 C ATTACHMENT 6- 1 council memoRAnOum October 10, 2011 TO: City Council FROM: Jay Walter, Director of Public Works VIA: Katie Lichtig, City Manager SUBJECT: Tree Appeal for 1284 Ella Street Staff received an email from the property owner on this item which has been attached to this staff report. The property owner was clearly unhappy about the process of the appeal; however, staff felt sharing some additional information from staff's perspective would be appropriate. Staff has followed the order of the email in providing additional information. 1) Mr. Blonsley writes, "...we are also taking this opportunity to express our displeasure with the treatment received with regard to our request for tree removal permit, a routine transaction. Primarily, your unilateral removal of our appeal from the October 4, 2011 agenda in light of the fact that Ron Coombs, the City Forester requested that we delay our September 20 hearing date to October 4." Staff Response: The original date set by the Clerk's Office was.October 4th. Staff never indicated the possibility of a September 20''hearing. 2) Mr. Blonsley writes, "In addition to each and every item raised in our appeal, at the August 22, 2011 hearing the Chair of the City Tree Committee rudely scolded and lectured us because we had incorrectly identified the tree using the wrong scientific terminology." Staff Response: Staff did not note any rudeness on the part of the Tree Committee chair Matt Ritter. Mr. Ritter is a professor, a well respected professional in the Urban Forestry field, and author of a book on tree varieties. He raised the issue of the species because the focus of the removal request was the lean of the tree, which is common for this variety of tree. This was a critical piece of information for the Committee's consideration. 3) Mr. Blonsley writes, " We filed our appeal on or about August 30, 2011, paying the $104 fee for the privilege of addressing the City Council. We were scheduled to be heard at the September 20 Council meeting. Mr. Coombs phoned, seeking our approval to move the hearing to October 4, because he was too busy to draft a response and had some travel plans. We agreed." Staff Response: The Council's attention is directed to the original appeal, Attachment 4 in the packet. The appeal was scheduled originally for October 4, 2011 at the time the appeal was submitted. Staff did not PH1-24 1284 Ella Appeal Email Response ATTACHMENT 6-2 indicate that they were too busy and did not have travel plans that conflicted with the matter being heard. 4) Mr. Blonsley writes, " Subsequently, Mr. Coombs called again to advise us: A. He believed our position had merit; B. On that basis, he was having a difficult time drafting an opposition; C. He wanted to resubmit our application to the tree committee, on September 26, using the correct scientific terminology. He believed that using the incorrect terminology had been a major sticking point for the Committee Chair, and that if it were corrected the Committee would approve the application. Staff Response: Staff noted to Mr. Blonsley in their communication after the first Tree Committee meeting that they believed his position would be improved to secure an approval because of the additional information being provided by his arborist as to other conditions with the tree. Staff does not "draft opposition." The Arborists role at the Tree Committee meeting is to provide factual information based on his knowledge of trees, and to answer questions in an unbiased manner. It was not the change to "correct scientific terminology" that staff felt would be beneficial, but rather the additional information regarding the tree's condition. The City Arborist has worked at the Tree Committee meeting for 10 years, and has the wisdom and experience to know that he is in no position to tell someone that the Committee will or will not approve an application. 5) Mr. Blonsley writes, "Initially we were not in favor of the processes. We didn't want any delays and were prepared to proceed on the appeal. We indicated that he was free to do what he wished, but we were unavailable to attend. Mr. Coombs then asked if he could also cancel our October 4 appeal. I stated emphatically that I would not agree to it. That if the City Tree Committee granted a permit, we would withdraw it ourselves. We agreed to allow the matter to be resubmitted upon the following conditions, which-were agreed to by Mr. Coombs on behalf of the City: A. We would take no action to initiate the application for reconsideration; B. In the event the his resubmission was unsuccessful, the appeal would proceed as scheduled, or C. In the event his resubmission was successful, our appeal filing fee would be refunded." Staff Response: Staff made a point to convey to Mr. Blonsley that his appeal would not be heard by Council as originally scheduled. 6) Mr. Blonsley writes, "On September 27, we were advised that the application was again denied, and that the City Tree Committee Chair was critical of having to hear the matter a second time. We were also advised that contrary to our agreement, we had been removed from the October 4 agenda." Staff Response: The Chair encouraged the second review by the Committee and expressed no criticism at the meeting. PH1-25 ATTACHMENT 7- 1 RESOLUTION NO. (2011 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL TO THE TREE COMMITTEE DECISION TO DENY A TREE REMOVAL REQUEST AT 1284 ELLA STREET WHEREAS, the Tree Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing on August 22, 2011, reviewed the application again on September 26, 2011, and denied the Property Owner's request to remove one pine tree located in the front yard at 1284 Ella Street, San Luis Obispo, California ("Property"); and WHEREAS, on October 18, 2011, 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 pine tree at the Property, 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: a. The tree is not causing undue hardship to the Property, i.e. damaging curbs, gutter, sidewalks and sewer plumbing. b. The removal of one pine tree located in the yard at 1284 Ella Street will not promote good arboricultural practice. c. The removal of one pine tree will.harm the character or environment of the surrounding neighborhood. SECTION 2. The appeal of the Tree Committee's decision to not allow the property owner to remove one pine tree at 1284 Ella Street is hereby denied and the property owner may not remove the tree. Upon motion of seconded by and on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 2011. R PHl-26 Resolution No. (2011 Series) ATTACHMENT 7-2 Page 2 Mayor Jan Marx ATTEST: Elaina Cano City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM:: J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney PHl-27 ATTACHMENT 8- 1 RESOLUTION NO. (2011 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL TO THE TREE COMMITTEE DECISION TO DENY A TREE REMOVAL REQUEST AT 1284 ELLA STREET WHEREAS, the Tree Committee of the City of San Luis.Obispo held a public hearing on August 22, 2011, reviewed the application again on September 26, 2011, and denied the property owner's request to remove one pine tree located in the front yard at 1284 Ella Street, San Luis Obispo, California("Property"); and WHEREAS, on October 18, 2011, 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 pine tree at the Property, 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, 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 has the potential to cause damage to the Property due to the presence of multiple trunks. b. The removal of one pine tree in the yard at the Property will promote good arboricultural .practice. c. Removing the tree will not harm the character or environment of the surrounding neighborhood. SECTION 2. The appeal of the Tree Committee's decision to deny the property owner's request to remove one pine tree at 1284 Ella Street is hereby upheld, and therefore removal of the 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 day of 2011. R PH1-28 Resolution No. (201 1 Series) ATTACHMENT 8-2 Page 2 Mayor Jan Marx ATTEST: Elaina Cano City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: r / �vv J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney PH1-29 o Cano, Elaine From: Cano, Elaina Sent: Thursday,October 13,20112:12 PM To: Cano, Elaina hamrd ao c Man: Subject: FW: Red File for Blonsley Appeal r<couxrn CDDDm ASSrOW (M�a� arrow F'WDM d CLEMOUG / POUCECFW DIR From: Matt Ritter[mailto:mritterCG0calpoly.edul Ks FwrxsdFucD>R Sent:Tuesday, October 11, 20113:28 PM �rnE To: Combs, Ron , swcrryNm HR Cc: Lynch, Barbara 6MYMGR Subject: Blonsley Appeal _ Dear Ron, Here are some comments about Mr. Blonsleys appeal. Please make sure these make it to the council as an attachment to your report 1. Mr. Blonsley's application for tree removal(dated July 28,2011)was denied in the same way that every unfounded, unwarranted application has been denied: a. the removal of the tree would harm the character of the neighborhood b. the tree is normal,safe,and healthy and its removal would not promote good arboricultural practices c. the applicant had not incurred any undue hardship due to the tree 2. Mr.Blonsley's application for removal was based on the fact that the tree in question has a curved trunk. 3. The tree removal application and the arborist report attached to the application(by Chris Stier of Greenvale Tree Company) misidentified the tree as a Norfolk Island Pine(Araucaria heterophylla). 4. During the meeting, I informed Mr. Blonsley that his arborist had misidentified the tree,which should have been correctly identified as Cook Pine(Araucaria columnads). 5. Cook Pine grows naturally with a leaning,curved trunk. The tree was not sick,or damaged,and was a typical,large specimen of its species. 6. The two types of trees are easily distinguished at a distance. The mistake made by the applicants arborist was not one of .scientific terminology'as the applicant has stated. This is a clear example of misidentification leading to an incorrect and unfounded recommendation for removal. 7. The two types of trees have completely different growth fortes and this misidentification lead the applicant to believe that his curved tree was sick,when in fad this was normal growth for the species. 8. The tree does not represent a hazard any more than any normally growing individual of this species. It is a large,healthy,safe, sound,neighborhood skyline tree for which the tree committee could not find any reason to allow for its removal The committee was presented with incomplete, incorrect evidence for removal twice,and twice we denied the application. 9. During the entire process,I did not treat anyone rudely or with disrespect,nor did I scold anyone during the process. Thank you. Matt Ritter Chair,City of San Luis Obispo Tree Committee RED FILE MEETING AGENDA DATE 10/1 FII ITEM # L I Sa "$ i•'., ,gyp r'� :( .C P•SR,a 'v rh,r,�^+ ..\ ;„Y:"-, .S./ ''F Yr .>,u:*a S"t .2>, >bv'/ gQ' .rl`� f. ,.ui^,fi,a' „•t> - �� ,�, L.:P: n:,i%:: .,41.. ti ,a t:r G. +fi. ,.�:y,r•.ir.,f .c.v'.'. e9: al 'Px S '�,:''sr', �, f'-,L.,7 � P'�s e .`;�� f ,an£`P :S?„ � ''f�r. ;$,? �•4. l7 Kit.�,.r • � aG �,�,, r,�,. .`�t St. � a'°;z .r m �„ >n,.., �n,a. � s,.��`«•s, <rt✓'�� e��i,�.��t-r r�'�«,r z�2'. �'f Y � 4' 2'. e-t fi' fy"r'" f�"...s';.,d..s., }�. � :,P a.''^"f�.".r.. ":�. P.•.rr.p..�. ?yia�,` :;."�1 .� +2 , w, 5, �£ 5.... ? «r a�,^ •t•<�✓„-'.. ��•>;, ,,, {' �' trt ��tz" Taw,�^� �� '��?y,.,,t�."s*, � '�.i,�»s.'„ �as�`�' "•,SY S' '"<>y', „F a..t� '0R' `,+'�� "€�.>,u+�,t•e.ta +.{ � ,b A�,r.35r`yi-ze,�� (4'«"'<PF4�.��nJ.,J�.l"'yr�5*':�.:lrF` ,.,��+ {s,�•E>, �,s3? _ 7, �,'w „s e''-: u �.�'. <sn, ,`"?£a.s ,>x;`�, ,�ar.. -�/,`L�..x,h x " ::Y� 3Ja� �P�'+',. ,y '"?s„ �'�` �� d � ^r :zf'.'B•. �" '.�`., .��K-", n ','r �., '^=��u',:�t, 1zz`•��.. .�+;. .,gid.. '*.- a„� ."�,ct- „�.,� � ,.�, ��..,1 x r,•'�,`<tx,�� f .,n:..,?�� un., s' §,, � .��. u.�;.> .,�•34 �' r'�, <r"c,'r n,r: .�r �x»., �S5`'�`` `�` ''� .��i ., `,.F` .-u s,-.'�'�''"-•�, '`��. �'.a,. ,z ye, es5 Ga,s `�� a� > 'Js�s✓Pr, 4,. -i aw, n. .3'u�� ."£�- ;:a::e �, .ie_ �c ,a r.s,b aa-.,.,r,•<b,R'.r� „ �.a,es. ^, ,u dt s f✓ ,.,.,w•. „ ;`L ?, 't F.""„ rw�, �F „�r,a'.ss, .s.«a ,Y,m,,,a, <J, r,`X.,�z � �.. ,�,, t�z,'�'., .•.�. -.t:.�'. �' ,:'�"'�. .,h „fir h .d �,n by er, � .ul" h h S�p', a r.,,•�. <t.{f„,,.F^:... r+S„,.,Lt.'.) -ti 4. 'F,..�` � .Y✓ i,a,� � `"�f'�r s,' �.'v,4�.`"�^, �„" .rI'7.' .,,^v' r^ ,..r: ,Y,,.' ,}..1✓,, ,^�« r TM�f: .� .,fr3" h �? °,x`+ • ,2.:',5.,.w�>r ,y 't '4. ."b^C'.-`,". ',�'.. m v" Cs'r•.��' S, vy .;lr. Z. �''t'st ,r{ ..Y5. �, .�z''r°lel". )�• r, `�` v�'�' t ..L. r'�,. n. u, •t' ''Y': 4�-"v § ,,i. >G-, •°�r,. � 1. <G. t.,,,r�'•+. us. .h*. ,�`', �'`& 1 i.., fit. .yi';z",sa rt;. � ,;,.. a, r-a5^ ��✓ .r .ass ^,ra .��, r,,, (Fl �: .. S' �. ., _eS ¢w ::✓s„�cl.,Y.ur sl, "c +n'.. 'f ,.``'Sr> ,4� �r",,,: '•�e� z»r � 5 �a.r<',�vJ"�' tF ,.r�,4 sra .e�z� <� 4`x. 3uo`v. n� �'z>ttY1 { It, ,r6 .Y'.. +a.•: ..� yy ^ R .`tr✓ ,c.AY, �', y iW 2tvYJ 7f.. rh r f ) c'� ",%t{•. :V'": .. r� w&1- 4^r .K' ,sia:, N+n if� �' > t -f.: a^ E i 3 "•��';f?, 'S ,� '�?s, ,a. 'h!.. .1;�r, r,',,, v.t.. z� f'. > a:,v<...x,. r zt«.,.,'.., ., .,<, 'r .,-t,.�r,.r ,^,c,.,1.✓r t<>«.>..f 2 {5,+".: .a..��. »• ."�,,r.,x s, .x” .r„ „f, ,,....> ,ext.r,3, F,..r,.a r' « ,.�;r _ <..,��..,� � r,} ,'sem;..r,• ue:,, ,,e ..,:. �,*`.�.r t„ .. �, <,t. ,.S> ,.. «,<.., .r ,. ,-, ,,. .. ..,. ."z<. P,.<".�,},ru rt z t Fr✓,a ,:. "�. �I �. <a- .rG.. ,�t ., _,. 5�,. sv„0.� �.✓„+ �v 5 ., ,>..,c,„ ..,, >� .. at✓ .,... d” „'7a ,.a.",t .� xs:� � :z•t. 1 t,. ,r .,..., t. ,. .,. .�.r � ,. 3? .'^, c .«.,,.,w .a«.:, vre.:. C� r•.:�, .r. } a->,.,(,y x, Y.: �nvs Y, J. ., , ., ..,..,.,:�: ,..v, .., '-r.'z' .,.-.:.«, ..},»,t.r,.,,4y v,., ,y,p .•..r:^,._, 4 ,,,P,.. ./. .=r s£'. r X, .T.. , C. C� .. 'rt 1 ., K r t, , ” x .Fid p/ h .< ..< �v^' ..L ,. "> ?a., ,"., v nv✓, `rf '1. ,rw,�'„, >r;�U 3r. 'n"r.. .e Z,:FRs .�z- s .<.fr >�. ✓'�.t, Y �: t" J: l r�t �,,^fav d' of r• t "a- ? :}i� a•Se k w �,t � .�'1 g 3 k,!J.. .!.� ,d, k f '"z , `,z 4� .r>',"*:t .)? ( 3 ..,, „ ... ;c •..,.,,.r .«u r..>�y.. � ,e .... „t w}./� r,,..,.,,.,r, �� 5/'. .,oa.. o t,..,a.., 'Y ,.: ,r..,Qf3, z. :,£.. t :d ,,.,n ..:�, SYJ� ,s\4. r.�, is 2 .,uv2s. ''sr ,:a � 's= :s ✓ s v <Sr• <s t Ls J,-•= ,%, n ( �J �r..4. :z 5- r./lu .a. ,,, r. w. ✓„7,.� ,c,r�- ..'r)f ,s.,�, «. .,Y ,"2,,, "�. .. H� < ..,.x ,.,.. r f,, ..^r.,,,.,,a,^ r-, ,, r..,,.. d' ,�'. , .. .Jt<. .,« ... :.r,. •.,.t ,, r,. .rte. ,,. r ., r r�r` �. .<.,_t{,{i �. ,;•, ... .s ,�' d. 5.' s.,. f �, �« h .F r t. ,.4..,nit. •�a;.a a � ' �. �. ✓, ;t; � a. a �a.< �, 3 a. � r f 3`-`,`3 a s•r 1, r t, s,r .£ n £ ..,,�., vr, .v ��- .,'\ "•�.. =SJr ,�' a,.vs,.., s. - s. ;,t a' � n>, 1 �.;;,,, ,d. ( ,x'G>.5. ..,,<r'�,.r,. .r�'.< ,f„„ .,S'sG,.��f .,5, ,u,.s .,£s�, r.,r,v'. t .ss'3'H,• 2. r xa. .s X a t.r� 9'. ..<, #r•: r l �',. r,,.,.� .. � ...a ,_..t, .,.� r� r .. 1, t.�. �.,✓z u,. r ,.., , „�,t,_ r�i ;',., 2 � X:" /t ri5 ai r..,� ,�;s �'t ,s, t .✓`., rr,p f,....�<.� ) .3 .5,.,. n, r .r-,.r--.rc ,.a a'I•..N am..; ...° t,.^, ,,r b� Y fife r,.., r'3 {. ,r ,. ,.. ., ..d �.�f ,r .< �s .,>"., £r, r� .. L r .. .-c` ..i ✓ ,u. ..,� _: >.., ,c, -r 2 .r ., .r. r,a r•'s, t, ,,'. ,tr. a� d Y'.:? � �.. v t fl.; a ,,,. ..,. ,r.s.. A •�-,Ax...,....a ,...< ., .,,p 'a Go- .,,,« w .,,..< .. ,r... r<4. ,r,..,»,<,,.`,. t Pr. r.'Y•. .f -+.. _, .,aa .,.t` n A u 5 'Y E'. ,{',", , �,'+'v._ � r..r,,.•x•>2 sa r � ,u E� I:' ,l,. .. � a,. .. .. ,.,. ,e .,,, 'i't,., k,, r,. ... z T� .U , r°'e t•:.'.., ,. -✓ , r/ n rs b, n,",:, :.,., ,.. .�;., «zxt.„F,�:, it " rM ,.✓ray.f«<arz,t� r,.. ^., ra :.s G r:,",,..>., .. 2A xr-,..,..« � .,� �, '��": .s 1. 4�.�. �'. .^}, aH ., .,. .:a ..•t.....?.." .rt.,a,. :^s. r , >�,.5» „, , ,X., a.ft;. -r, .r. ..r' .:tlsx,s�. , ... ,, «2> e� z, � b .�, 9 r, x h .,'�,. ..'i a Vis., 7. rr ...,"Z<. i! :J .�: .-a? ✓{«, r�r >`S Y't* a� ,-.x,. .,�„..,sem•„ �' r r� 7 +. :A r}, Y .,yi l .l>>, 1".. =- e✓",� � sJ,..,n„✓a r,.� v,. < o. t ,. L' ..,s, 2 '.., v , .G., � t v,„,., , Y } ,+, ,.,2'�a .w,• u , f' F. � r': ,-., r. ,, t. ,.. -s J •r1 � <iN w, f.. ..„ S'.' '5.., c. , u... „ 4 is L. t .,..,,e> #n Z.', h� 't h r .✓. 2„ ,.,,).. ,,.<, r✓`.. .:r.,..n ,m. I+ .fS ��'x,,..,r•,�., .., e .>.r. .a..�.. .St. ria' S t S 3� `✓ .7. ,^Y.S, ./` 2, <>,,, .& .3`. i ✓^.E.. 1 / i r b §hr 54. 4 v"•',_,c.." .f ts. '« tpa d z .•'�,.7 4. y 1. T` .}. '.r z I 6 f- ,. a G. ,r .4' .K "Ct a ♦ R r1 xr...., e z. ✓,,::..r a. s,-6,,. ,, •a a2�� .z,r.,,x., l.s':, .>^, i.r„ .. <,SrG. , s. r ,. t, .,. ,,,,....i Yrs. .. .i•. ., .�. ✓�: ,Vit. {.. rl. ...: ,... .., 7. r 3 t C < F I Y t / k !- 1 3 , / t r z r r r t r f r s S ). f 3., rr t G a i v 2. t , r.. I Y Ft r 4 t r C > r l r y f / r r I f { i + , Y;.. a: r, >NF'„ r ` I t __ fA , k a•, M q}9fa� f iC 4 6a ^ex > %w e E u Y t c` G r t t" r i' t jr� r, u ,• v r wu i s 7 a L 4 x. f e " « t Y fi w' P v 1 r kF �¢p3 a _g t a r '41 < jY t 9; Moo WO zwomm asp my KNOW woo I ZOO 71 WIT 5� dk ,`Yn: ?� 1 P j b 9v f fi k GS 4!R < s l w d: ,j.`✓< to 11��P a s <. a. t < IN V;ro <' � 4 , A < 0 < s r m; 4a c t c v � N < < rm h < l # z� �.�t,�<,ru, L�� k pa m � k C �S. n{Yt• s� 3n. w k sra / M,; F S vi ^"i.`•` .1�, L, .Y F" k"i's C<, µit�`� yr w x , ua ' per, fi �i.WWGS� t r �.,. < .•-. 'int y. t wa t }t bh.. M l zti a� Fi ��4 4 2 ' az, h� L b P z s ' s �x 4 •'y r x < fix ..'{ ,Cv�a _ A 3q gS�q`b 1' c F 1. r { 4 e r d r 3 i Q,r + �F c w 4 �� ✓ t rM�^" n e 7 y r r c' + Q a s a ' t x ya h r . t. m v ' a e _ a o, = r P ix£ m c.5