20070123_m

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT

DATE:

January 8, 2007

BOARD MEETING DATE:

January 23, 2007

SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:

10 days, within 300 feet

VOTE REQUIRED:

Majority

TO:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

FROM:

Lisa Grote, Community Development Director

SUBJECT:

Consideration of a Coastal Development Permit and a Resource Management Permit, pursuant to Sections 6903 and 6328 of the County Zoning Regulations and County Ordinance Code, to remove 27 diseased Monterey pine trees located at 801 June Hollow Road, in the unincorporated Montara area of San Mateo County. (Appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision for approval.) This project is not appealable to the California Coastal Commission.

County File Number:

PLN 2003-00690 (Henderson)

RECOMMENDATION

Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Coastal Development Permit and the Resource Management Permit by making the required findings and adopting the conditions of approval listed in Attachment A.

VISION ALIGNMENT

Commitment No. 14: The Planning Commission, in making its decision found that the approval of the Coastal Development Permit and the Resource Management Permit for the removal of the 27 diseased pine trees concurred with the commitment of “Preserving and providing people access to our natural environment.” By upholding the Planning Commission’s decision, the Board would be reinforcing this commitment.

Goal No. 14: Important natural resources are preserved and enhanced through environmental stewardship. The Planning Commission determined that the removal of the diseased trees would halt the spread of pitch pine canker to pine trees in the surrounding area, whereby allowing healthy trees to thrive.

BACKGROUND

Proposal: The applicant is proposing to remove 27 diseased Monterey pine trees of various sizes throughout the 2.5-acre property.

On January 31, 2006, the Coastside Neighbors Alliance filed an appeal opposing the Planning Commission’s approval. The appellant has raised a number of concerns regarding the approval for the removal of the trees as well as the possibility for further development on the property.

Report Prepared By: Tiare Peña, Project Planner, Telephone 650/363-1850

Appellant: Coastside Neighbors Alliance

Applicant/Owner: Paul and Leea Henderson

Location: 801 June Hollow Road, Montara

APN: 037-044-040

Parcel Size: 2.5 acres

Existing Zoning: RM/CZ (Resource Management/Coastal Zone)

General Plan Designation: Very Low Density Residential (0.0-0.2 dwelling units/acre)

Existing Land Use: Single-Family Dwelling

Water Supply: Domestic Well

Sewage Disposal: Private Septic System

Flood Zone: Zone “C” (Area of Minimal Flooding); Community Panel No. 060311 0092B; Effective Date July 5, 1984.

Environmental Evaluation: Categorically exempt under Section 15304, Class 4 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as minor alteration to land which does not involve the removal of healthy, mature trees.

Setting: The 2.5-acre property is improved with a one-story, single-family dwelling, on June Hollow Road, near Jordan, in the southern rural part of unincorporated Montara. The site slopes slightly downward from Jordan with approximately 40 mature trees of various sizes located throughout the property. The land is bordered by the Urban/Rural Boundary.

Chronology:

Date

Action

December 11, 2003

-

CDP/RMD permit application was submitted.

December 22, 2003

-

Public Notice was sent to neighbors within 300 feet of property. Referrals were sent to Midcoast Community Council (MCCC).

April 14, 2004

-

MCCC sent documentation supporting the removal of the trees.

April 15, 2004

-

County approved the removal of the diseased trees.

May 4, 2004

-

Appeal filed opposing approval.

January 11, 2006

-

Planning Commission denied the appeal and approved the removal of the diseased trees.

January 31, 2006

-

Appeal was filed opposing the approval.

February 2, -28, 2006

-

Numerous requests made by Planning staff for appellant’s contact information and authorization for credit card use.

March 7, 2006

-

Requested information received.

October, 2006

-

Property owner requests that this item be postponed while they are transitioning to a new property. Staff leaves a message with the Coastside Neighbors Alliance for comment; however, no comment is received.

December 28, 2006

-

Property is sold and title transferred to the Hendersons.

January 23, 2007

-

Board of Supervisors public hearing.

DISCUSSION

A.

KEY ISSUES OF THE APPEAL

On January 31, 2006, the Coastside Neighbors Alliance filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision. The appellant has raised a number of concerns regarding the approval for the removal of the trees as well as the possibility for further development on the property.

The appellant’s basis for appeal of the decision is described below followed by staff’s response. A copy of the appellant’s appeal is included as Attachment C of this report.

1.

Planning Commissioners were given incorrect information at the Planning Commission hearing regarding existing attempts at parcel development and the potential for creating opportunity for further intensification of development by this project.

Staff’s Response: Staff advised the Planning Commission that the subject application proposes no new or future development on the subject property. Additionally, the applicant’s reason for removing the trees makes no reference to future development. The 2.5-acre parcel is comprised of three legal lots currently developed with a 4,840 sq. ft. residence. The property had been the subject of earlier applications for a lot line adjustment and coastal development permit under a prior owner. As described more fully below, the subsequent owner (Bassler) relinquished the Certificate of Compliance on the subject property. The property has been sold again, but staff is not aware of any proposal for new or future development on the subject property.

2.

Planning Commissioners were not informed by County Counsel or staff as to existence of a Notice of Determination by the Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission ordering San Mateo County to merge the lots in question.

Staff’s Response: The issue of the previously approved Lot Merger that was requested by the prior owners (Burr), and issues regarding the outcome of discussions between the County of San Mateo and the CCC had no bearing on the tree removal request. Per review of the Planning file regarding the lot line adjustment (LLA), the CCC and the County of San Mateo were in disagreement regarding whether a Coastal Development Permit is or should be required with Lot Line Adjustment applications in the Coastal Zone.

This case was heard by the Executive Body of the CCC who made the finding that LLAs were in fact required to include a CDP (a point that the CCC and the County of San Mateo are still in disagreement). The previous property owner (Burr) withdrew the Lot Line Adjustment request for Parcel D, and acquired a Certificate of Compliance. A lawsuit by a neighbor ensued, but was dropped when the new owners (Basslers) relinquished the Certificate of Compliance.

This previous history surrounding this property has no bearing on the tree removal request before you today.

3.

Planning Commissioners did not properly evaluate the removal of these trees in the context of heightened potential for development.

Staff’s Response: The issue before the Planning Commission and now before the Board is the removal of diseased trees. The potential for or any proposal for future development on the site is not an issue at this time. Any future development proposal would be subject to review to ensure that the development would not have an adverse effect on the property, adjacent parcels or the surrounding neighborhoods, and would be required to meet all applicable County regulations.

Furthermore, Parcel A, where the trees are located, cannot be developed because the well and septic system run across this parcel and setback requirements from the well prohibit any ability to develop a structure on Parcel A. The existing home is located on Parcels B and C and would have to be demolished if further development is ever proposed in conjunction with another certificate of compliance.

4.

Staff did not disclose to the Commissioners the existing conflict between the Coastal Commission and the County regarding this parcel.

Staff’s Response: The difference of opinion between the County and the CCC regarded whether the previously approved Lot Line Adjustment was subject to a Coastal Development Permit. Again, the issue has no bearing on the current proposal for the removal of diseased trees.

5.

Staff incorrectly informed the Planning Commission that this project was not appealable to the California Coastal Commission.

Staff’s Response: Per Section 6328.3(s) of the County Zoning Regulations, this project is not appealable to the CCC because (a) the project parcel is not located within 300 feet of the ocean or 100 feet from any wetland or streams; and (b) because it is a principally permitted use in the zoning district and, therefore, not appealable to the CCC (Section 6328.3(q)). This subsection defines “principal permitted use” as any use representative of the basic zone district allowed without a use permit in that underlying district.

The zoning designation for this property is Resource Management-Coastal Zone (RM-CZ) which allows removal of trees or vegetation with a Resource Management Permit. As a use permit is not required, this project complies with Section 6328.3(q) of the Zoning Regulations.

6.

No disclosure was made of the Conflict of Interest existing by course of the owner being the same person that County staff relies on for reviewing tree removal applications.

Staff’s Response: The owner at the time recused herself from any recommendation regarding the removal of the trees on her property. Further, the Midcoast Community Council is an advisory board and not a decision-making body. All decisions regarding Planning and Zoning issues are made at the County level.

7.

A proper CEQA Review was not conducted.

Staff’s Response: Staff, and subsequently the Planning Commission determined the project is categorically exempt under Section 15304, Class 4 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as minor alteration to land which does not involve the removal of healthy, mature trees. The arborist report states that all 27 trees are in various states of decline due to an infestation of pine pitch canker.

B.

CONFORMANCE WITH ZONING REGULATIONS

Compliance with the Resource Management District

Section 6903 of the County Ordinance requires a Resource Management Permit for the major removal of vegetation for properties located within the Resource Management/Coastal Zone District. Staff reviewed the Resource Management District development review criteria. Specifically, this proposal complies with Section 6912.2(J), which states the removal of trees with a circumference of more that 55 inches is prohibited except for reason of actual or potential danger to life or property. The 27 diseased trees are a potential danger to the property including other healthy trees and should be removed. A mitigation measure is proposed for the removal of these trees. In this case, the applicant will be required to replant 27 trees throughout the property.

C.

COMPLIANCE WITH THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM

Staff has reviewed the Local Coastal Program policies, and has found and determined that LCP Policy 8.9(g) allows for the removal of trees, which are a threat to public heath, safety and welfare. Based on the arborist report, the Planning Commission echoed the Community Development Directors approval of the Coastal Development and Resource Management/Coastal Zone Permits. Additionally, the permit approval was conditioned to require the replanting of twenty-seven (27) 5-gallon trees within one year of the approval date.

D.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

The project is categorically exempt under Section 15304, Class 4 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as minor alteration to land which does not involve the removal of healthy, mature trees.

FISCAL IMPACT

No fiscal impact.

ATTACHMENTS

A.

Recommended Findings and Conditions of Approval

B.

Planning Commission’s Letter of Decision dated January 18, 2006

C.

Appeal form dated January 31, 2006

D.

Arborist Report

TGP:cdn/kcd - TGPQ1136_WCU.DOC


Attachment A

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Permit File Number: PLN 2003-00690			Board Meeting Date: December 12, 2006

Prepared By: Tiare Peña, Project Planner				For Adoption By: Board of Supervisors


RECOMMENDED FINDINGS

For the Environmental Review, Find:

1.	That the project is categorically exempt under Section 15304, Class 4 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as minor alteration to land which does not involve the removal of healthy, mature trees.

For the Coastal Development Permit, Find:

2.	That this project, as described in the application and accompanying materials required by Section 6328.7 and, as conditioned in accordance with Section 6328.14 conforms with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the San Mateo County Local Coastal Program. Specifically, allowing the removal of diseased trees which are a threat to public health, safety and welfare.

3.	That the project conforms with Section 8.9(f) of the Visual Resources Component of the San Mateo County Local Coastal Program, which specifically allows removal of trees for the reason of danger to property.

For the Resource Management/Coastal Zone District Permit, Find:

4.	That the proposed removal of twenty seven (27) diseased Monterey pine trees has been reviewed and found to be in compliance with the Development Review Criteria stipulated in Chapter 36.A.2 of the San Mateo County Zoning Regulations. Specifically, this proposal complies with Section 6912.2(J), which states the removal of trees with a circumference of more that 55 inches is prohibited except for reason of actual or potential danger to life or property. An arborist report demonstrates that the 27 trees at issue here are diseased and should be removed.

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Current Planning Section

1.	The twenty-seven (27) diseased Monterey pine trees indicated on the application form dated December 11, 2003 may be removed. A separate Resource Management Permit and Coastal Development Permit shall be required for the removal or trimming of any additional trees.

	Per Section 12,024 of the San Mateo County Ordinance, reasonable conditions may be attached to ensure compliance with the intent and purpose of this ordinance. As such, the following conditions regarding the removal and replacement time-line of the subject trees have been adjusted to reflect this provision.

2.	The applicant shall clear all tree removal debris from the public right-of-way.

3.	The approved tree-cutting permit shall be posted on the site at all times during the tree cutting operation and shall be available to any person for inspection. The issued permit shall be posted in a conspicuous place at eye level at a point nearest the street.

4.	Tree removal shall commence within one year beginning with half of the trees being removed and replaced within the first year. Tree removal for the second half of the trees shall commence within the second year to be completed and replaced within three years of the approval date.

	The applicant shall plant on-site one tree of an indigenous species using twenty-four (24) inch box trees, for each tree approved for removal. The total of twenty-seven (27) trees shall be replanted.

5.	If work authorized by an approved permit is not commenced within the period of one year from the date of approval and as outlined in condition Number 4 above, the permit shall be considered void.

6.	During the tree removal phase, the applicant shall, pursuant to Section 5022 of the San Mateo County Ordinance Code, minimize the transport and discharge of stormwater runoff from the construction site by:

	a.	Stabilizing all denuded areas and maintaining erosion control measures continuously between October 15 and April 15.

	b.	Removing spoils promptly and avoiding stockpiling of fill materials when rain is forecast. If rain threatens, stockpiled soils and other materials shall be covered with a tarp or other waterproof material.

	c.	Storing, handling, and disposing of construction materials and wastes so as to avoid their entry to the storm drain system or water body.

	d.	Using filtration or other measures to remove sediment from dewatering effluent.

	e.	Avoiding cleaning, fueling or maintaining vehicles on-site, except in an area designated to contain and treat runoff.

	f.	Limiting and timing application of pesticides and fertilizer to avoid polluting runoff.

7.	For pines infected with Pitch Canker, disposal of diseased material should be done so as not to spread the disease to uninfested areas. The applicant shall comply with the California Forest Pest Council recommendations regarding proper disposal of diseased tree material. The Council recommends limbs and small pieces of wood to be chipped for use as mulch deposited on site. Also, wood removed from the site should be tightly covered with a tarp during transit and taken to the nearest landfill or designated disposal facility for prompt burial, chipping and composting.

TGP:cdn/kcd - TGPQ1136_WCU.DOC



COUNTY OF SAN MATEO Inter-Departmental Correspondence

PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT


DATE:							January 8, 2007
BOARD MEETING DATE:							January 23, 2007
SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:							10 days, within 300 feet
VOTE REQUIRED:							Majority

TO:			Honorable Board of Supervisors

FROM:			Lisa Grote, Community Development Director

SUBJECT:			Consideration of a Coastal Development Permit and a Resource Management Permit, pursuant to Sections 6903 and 6328 of the County Zoning Regulations and County Ordinance Code, to remove 27 diseased Monterey pine trees located at 801 June Hollow Road, in the unincorporated Montara area of San Mateo County. (Appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision for approval.) This project is not appealable to the California Coastal Commission.

			County File Number:			PLN 2003-00690 (Henderson)

RECOMMENDATION

Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Coastal Development Permit and the Resource Management Permit by making the required findings and adopting the conditions of approval listed in Attachment A.

VISION ALIGNMENT

Commitment No. 14: The Planning Commission, in making its decision found that the approval of the Coastal Development Permit and the Resource Management Permit for the removal of the 27 diseased pine trees concurred with the commitment of “Preserving and providing people access to our natural environment.” By upholding the Planning Commission’s decision, the Board would be reinforcing this commitment.

Goal No. 14: Important natural resources are preserved and enhanced through environmental stewardship. The Planning Commission determined that the removal of the diseased trees would halt the spread of pitch pine canker to pine trees in the surrounding area, whereby allowing healthy trees to thrive.

BACKGROUND

Proposal: The applicant is proposing to remove 27 diseased Monterey pine trees of various sizes throughout the 2.5-acre property.

On January 31, 2006, the Coastside Neighbors Alliance filed an appeal opposing the Planning Commission’s approval. The appellant has raised a number of concerns regarding the approval for the removal of the trees as well as the possibility for further development on the property.

Report Prepared By: Tiare Peña, Project Planner, Telephone 650/363-1850

Appellant: Coastside Neighbors Alliance

Applicant/Owner: Paul and Leea Henderson

Location: 801 June Hollow Road, Montara

APN: 037-044-040

Parcel Size: 2.5 acres

Existing Zoning: RM/CZ (Resource Management/Coastal Zone)

General Plan Designation: Very Low Density Residential (0.0-0.2 dwelling units/acre)

Existing Land Use: Single-Family Dwelling

Water Supply: Domestic Well

Sewage Disposal: Private Septic System

Flood Zone: Zone “C” (Area of Minimal Flooding); Community Panel No. 060311 0092B; Effective Date July 5, 1984.

Environmental Evaluation: Categorically exempt under Section 15304, Class 4 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as minor alteration to land which does not involve the removal of healthy, mature trees.

Setting: The 2.5-acre property is improved with a one-story, single-family dwelling, on June Hollow Road, near Jordan, in the southern rural part of unincorporated Montara. The site slopes slightly downward from Jordan with approximately 40 mature trees of various sizes located throughout the property. The land is bordered by the Urban/Rural Boundary.

Chronology:

Date					Action

December 11, 2003				-	CDP/RMD permit application was submitted.

December 22, 2003				-	Public Notice was sent to neighbors within 300 feet of property. Referrals were sent to Midcoast Community Council (MCCC).

April 14, 2004				-	MCCC sent documentation supporting the removal of the trees.

April 15, 2004				-	County approved the removal of the diseased trees.

May 4, 2004				-	Appeal filed opposing approval.

January 11, 2006				-	Planning Commission denied the appeal and approved the removal of the diseased trees.

January 31, 2006				-	Appeal was filed opposing the approval.

February 2, -28, 2006				-	Numerous requests made by Planning staff for appellant’s contact information and authorization for credit card use.

March 7, 2006				-	Requested information received.

October, 2006				-	Property owner requests that this item be postponed while they are transitioning to a new property. Staff leaves a message with the Coastside Neighbors Alliance for comment; however, no comment is received.

December 28, 2006				-	Property is sold and title transferred to the Hendersons.

January 23, 2007				-	Board of Supervisors public hearing.

DISCUSSION

A.	KEY ISSUES OF THE APPEAL

	On January 31, 2006, the Coastside Neighbors Alliance filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision. The appellant has raised a number of concerns regarding the approval for the removal of the trees as well as the possibility for further development on the property.

	The appellant’s basis for appeal of the decision is described below followed by staff’s response. A copy of the appellant’s appeal is included as Attachment C of this report.

	1.	Planning Commissioners were given incorrect information at the Planning Commission hearing regarding existing attempts at parcel development and the potential for creating opportunity for further intensification of development by this project.

		Staff’s Response: Staff advised the Planning Commission that the subject application proposes no new or future development on the subject property. Additionally, the applicant’s reason for removing the trees makes no reference to future development. The 2.5-acre parcel is comprised of three legal lots currently developed with a 4,840 sq. ft. residence. The property had been the subject of earlier applications for a lot line adjustment and coastal development permit under a prior owner. As described more fully below, the subsequent owner (Bassler) relinquished the Certificate of Compliance on the subject property. The property has been sold again, but staff is not aware of any proposal for new or future development on the subject property.

	2.	Planning Commissioners were not informed by County Counsel or staff as to existence of a Notice of Determination by the Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission ordering San Mateo County to merge the lots in question.

		Staff’s Response: The issue of the previously approved Lot Merger that was requested by the prior owners (Burr), and issues regarding the outcome of discussions between the County of San Mateo and the CCC had no bearing on the tree removal request. Per review of the Planning file regarding the lot line adjustment (LLA), the CCC and the County of San Mateo were in disagreement regarding whether a Coastal Development Permit is or should be required with Lot Line Adjustment applications in the Coastal Zone.

		This case was heard by the Executive Body of the CCC who made the finding that LLAs were in fact required to include a CDP (a point that the CCC and the County of San Mateo are still in disagreement). The previous property owner (Burr) withdrew the Lot Line Adjustment request for Parcel D, and acquired a Certificate of Compliance. A lawsuit by a neighbor ensued, but was dropped when the new owners (Basslers) relinquished the Certificate of Compliance.

		This previous history surrounding this property has no bearing on the tree removal request before you today.

	3.	Planning Commissioners did not properly evaluate the removal of these trees in the context of heightened potential for development.

		Staff’s Response: The issue before the Planning Commission and now before the Board is the removal of diseased trees. The potential for or any proposal for future development on the site is not an issue at this time. Any future development proposal would be subject to review to ensure that the development would not have an adverse effect on the property, adjacent parcels or the surrounding neighborhoods, and would be required to meet all applicable County regulations.

		Furthermore, Parcel A, where the trees are located, cannot be developed because the well and septic system run across this parcel and setback requirements from the well prohibit any ability to develop a structure on Parcel A. The existing home is located on Parcels B and C and would have to be demolished if further development is ever proposed in conjunction with another certificate of compliance.

	4.	Staff did not disclose to the Commissioners the existing conflict between the Coastal Commission and the County regarding this parcel.

		Staff’s Response: The difference of opinion between the County and the CCC regarded whether the previously approved Lot Line Adjustment was subject to a Coastal Development Permit. Again, the issue has no bearing on the current proposal for the removal of diseased trees.

	5.	Staff incorrectly informed the Planning Commission that this project was not appealable to the California Coastal Commission.

		Staff’s Response: Per Section 6328.3(s) of the County Zoning Regulations, this project is not appealable to the CCC because (a) the project parcel is not located within 300 feet of the ocean or 100 feet from any wetland or streams; and (b) because it is a principally permitted use in the zoning district and, therefore, not appealable to the CCC (Section 6328.3(q)). This subsection defines “principal permitted use” as any use representative of the basic zone district allowed without a use permit in that underlying district.

		The zoning designation for this property is Resource Management-Coastal Zone (RM-CZ) which allows removal of trees or vegetation with a Resource Management Permit. As a use permit is not required, this project complies with Section 6328.3(q) of the Zoning Regulations.

	6.	No disclosure was made of the Conflict of Interest existing by course of the owner being the same person that County staff relies on for reviewing tree removal applications.

		Staff’s Response: The owner at the time recused herself from any recommendation regarding the removal of the trees on her property. Further, the Midcoast Community Council is an advisory board and not a decision-making body. All decisions regarding Planning and Zoning issues are made at the County level.

	7.	A proper CEQA Review was not conducted.

		Staff’s Response: Staff, and subsequently the Planning Commission determined the project is categorically exempt under Section 15304, Class 4 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as minor alteration to land which does not involve the removal of healthy, mature trees. The arborist report states that all 27 trees are in various states of decline due to an infestation of pine pitch canker.

B.	CONFORMANCE WITH ZONING REGULATIONS

	Compliance with the Resource Management District

	Section 6903 of the County Ordinance requires a Resource Management Permit for the major removal of vegetation for properties located within the Resource Management/Coastal Zone District. Staff reviewed the Resource Management District development review criteria. Specifically, this proposal complies with Section 6912.2(J), which states the removal of trees with a circumference of more that 55 inches is prohibited except for reason of actual or potential danger to life or property. The 27 diseased trees are a potential danger to the property including other healthy trees and should be removed. A mitigation measure is proposed for the removal of these trees. In this case, the applicant will be required to replant 27 trees throughout the property.

C.	COMPLIANCE WITH THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM

	Staff has reviewed the Local Coastal Program policies, and has found and determined that LCP Policy 8.9(g) allows for the removal of trees, which are a threat to public heath, safety and welfare. Based on the arborist report, the Planning Commission echoed the Community Development Directors approval of the Coastal Development and Resource Management/Coastal Zone Permits. Additionally, the permit approval was conditioned to require the replanting of twenty-seven (27) 5-gallon trees within one year of the approval date.

D.	ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

	The project is categorically exempt under Section 15304, Class 4 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as minor alteration to land which does not involve the removal of healthy, mature trees.

FISCAL IMPACT

No fiscal impact.

ATTACHMENTS

A.	Recommended Findings and Conditions of Approval
B.	Planning Commission’s Letter of Decision dated January 18, 2006
C.	Appeal form dated January 31, 2006
D.	Arborist Report