Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-28-2011 TC Minutes1 TREE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES MONDAY, February 28, 2011 Corporation Yard Conference Room 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo MEMBERS PRESENT:David Hensinger, Ben Parker, David Savory, Suzan Ehdaie and Matt Ritter STAFF PRESENT:Keith Pellemeier and Ron Combs PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. MINUTES: Approval of Minutes of January 24, 2011 Mr. Parker moved to approve the minutes as submitted.Ms. Ehdaie seconded the motion.The motion passed unanimously. TREE REMOVAL APPLICATIONS 1.1390 OCEANAIRE (Redwood) Alison Cleath, applicant, discussed the tree that was damaging the foundation which would then be repaired during a remodel and re-landscaping project. She stated a structural engineer had agreed the tree should be removed. Ron Rinnell, Bunyan Bros., stated there was a large crack running through the house under the carpeting. Mr. Combs noted that there was some walkway damage due to roots and that the tree would grow much larger. The Committee agreed the tree was too close to the structure and was causing damage. Mr. Savory moved to approve the removal request, based on undue hardship to the property owner, and required one 15-gallon replacement tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree List and planted within 45 days of issuance of permit. Ms. Ehdaie seconded the motion.The motion passed unanimously. 2.1100 LEFF (11 date palms) Tony Flatos, Property Manager, Farrell Smith, reported that the palm trees were encroaching on the property and causing drainage issues. 2 Mr. Rinnell agreed that the trees were overtaking the sidewalk and the thorns from the volunteer palms posed a large liability. He also agreed that the culvert system was getting clogged due to the trees’ debris and litter. Mr. Combs reported that the trees were fairly healthy. Mr. Savory suggested the straightest tree behind the dumpster be retained; Mr. Combs noted that leaving the tree would probably cause problems in the future. Ms. Ehdaie felt the trees were too massive and favored replacing them with sycamores. Ms. Ehdaie moved to approve the removal request, based on undue hardship to the property owner and promoting good arboricultural practice, and required one 15- gallon sycamore trees or a species to be chosen from the Master Street Tree to be planted within 45 days of issuance of permit. Mr. Hensinger seconded the motion.The motion passed unanimously. 3.3122 FLORA (2 pines) Kirsten Davis, applicant, discussed the large leaning tree posing a hazard and stated that the second pine was declining. Mr. Combs agreed the leaning tree posed some issues, but both were healthy trees. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request based on promoting good arboricultural practice and required two 15-gallon trees to be chosen from the Master Street Tree to be planted within 45 days of issuance of permit. Mr. Ritter seconded the motion.The motion passed unanimously. 4.1085 BLUEBELL (2 redwoods) Dale Norrington, landscaper representative, discussed the removal request and stated the Homeowners Association is dedicated to replacing all of the trees that had been approved for removal or already removed and discussed several species options. He stated that the redwoods requested for removal were too close to the structures. He noted some past damage to fences. Mr. Combs stated they were moderately-sized sturdy trees, but felt the limbs just needed to be lifted and did not see that they were causing damage at this time. The Committee agreed with Mr. Combs’ assessment. 3 Mr. Hensinger moved to deny the removal request, as he could not make any of the findings necessary for removal.Mr. Savory seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 5.1015 BLUEBELL The requested trees have already been approved for removal. 6.4146 MORNING GLORY (2 redwoods) Tony Copsey, resident, felt the trees appeared to be healthy and did not seem to be creating any damage and he did not support the Association’s request to remove them. He suggested they be pruned instead. Mr. Combs reported he could not make any of his required findings for removal. Mr. Parker moved to deny the removal request, as he could not make any of the findings necessary for removal.Ms. Ehdaie seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 7.4156 MORNING GLORY The removal had already been approved. 8.967-969 BLUEBELL The removal had already been approved. 9.983-985 BLUEBELL (redwood) Mr. Norrington reiterated that the removal request for the tree was due to its being too close to the house and might affect the gas line. Mr. Combs stated he could not make the findings necessary to approve the removal and felt the roots would not affect the gas line for two to five decades. Mr. Savory felt the tree was healthy and far enough away from the structure. He suggested pruning.Mr. Savory moved to deny the removal request, as he could not make any of the findings necessary for removal. Mr. Hensinger seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 10.919 BLUEBELL 11.933-935 BLUEBELL The removal requests were already approved. 12.303-307 DEL MAR COURT (3 fan palms) 4 Kevin Petit, applicant, discussed the removal request and stated he wanted to replant with four oaks. He said there were major drainage issues between the property and the re-graded area. He noted the fronds littered the neighbor’s property and the trees were to close to the structure. Mr. Combs reported the trees were large and healthy. Ms. Ehdaie stated she needed to abstain from the voting, as she did not view the correct trees at the address. Mr. Ritter felt the removals were appropriate to the grading project and favored the replacement plantings of oak trees. Mr. Hensinger moved to approve the removal request, based on removals would not harm the character of the neighborhood, and required replacement plantings of four 15-gallon oak trees within 45 days of issuance of permit. Mr. Ritter seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously, with Ms. Ehdaie abstaining. 13.APPEAL AT 3583 S. HIGUERA Frank Freda, property owner, discussed the $41,200 fine charged to himself and Willie Cook. He discussed the details of the tree removal needs to improve and build out his property and stated he did not know there was an ordinance issue with permits when he cleared his property; the neighbors were the ones who informed him about the need for permits. He stated preliminary project discussions with the Planning Dept. did not indicate any tree removal permits were necessary.Mr. Freda also stated he never asked the city if he could remove any trees. He said one of the reasons he cleared the property was because of homeless encampments, trash and sanitation issues. He also reported that Mr. Cook had simply been helping him as a friend and no fines/penalties should be assessed against Mr. Cook. Mr. Freda strongly stated the fines were unreasonable. Mr. Pellemeier discussed the details of the Tree Committee recommendation of a 24-tree/5 year watering plan as a form of compromise for the $20,000 fine to Mr. Freda and the $20,00 fine to Mr. Cook, a licensed Contractor, and the subsequent compromise of only requiring a 12-tree/5 year watering plan. He stated, had the Fredas submitted plans to the Community Development Department and applied 5 for a building permit it was highly likely that the plans, including tree removals and new building would have been granted through the Development process. Mitigating trees would have been required onsite and if not possible onsite then possibly new trees planted off site on city or public property. Mr. Freda felt having to commit to watering 12 trees for a total of five years was unreasonable and would only commit to two years of watering. He stated that Mr. Pellemeier’s uncooperative attitude was a large part of the deterioration of any progress made with an agreement. Willie Cook reiterated that he had only been helping a friend with the tree removal project and was not working in any professional capacity and requested the fine/requirements be waived for his part of the issue. Alida Freda felt Mr. Pellemeier’s attitude was insulting and that she felt harassed by the fine assessment. She firmly reiterated the points her husband had outlined. Both the Fredas felt that this was a case of a mistake being made in good faith and permit ignorance and that the fines should not be so punitive. Mr. Pellemeier noted that the tree removals had taken place on a holiday, when none of the city offices were open and staff was not available to intervene. He further discussed the details of the ordinance as it pertained to this situation and all of the discussions to resolve the issue without requiring any cash fine payments. He stated staff and Tree Committee intentions were to protect trees and promote planting and replenishing the urban forest. Anne Alers, 170 Granada, neighbor, discussed the events of November 11, 2010 including some removal of trees/vegetation and parts of a dripline on her property. Jim Anderson, Serrano Drive, determined with staff that all of the trees removed belonged to Mr. Freda and stated the fine process was flawed and unreasonable. Lionel Johnson, 284 Brisa Court, discussed an issue with out-of-town property owners not learning the laws of the local area. He believed that the Fredas should have known they were breaking clear-cutting law and had chosen a holiday to operate and avoid penalties. Craig Stevens, 165 El Portal, Shell Beach, reported he was a tenant of the Fredas other property and vouched for the integrity of the property owners and that their 6 building projects were an asset to communities. He also discussed the deplorable trash and homeless issues at the back of the Higuera St. property. Ron Alers, 170 Granada, felt that the Fredas knew they were acting against permit rules because they had chosen a holiday to do the work and then made sure that two of the tree stumps were ground out first thing the next morning, before city staff could arrive and assess the situation. He stated ignorance of a law is not an excuse to break it. Marilyn Forselles, 2250 King #61, discussed volunteerism in the area, commended the Tree Committee for their service, and stated she believed there was mal-intent on the part of the Fredas in the removal process. Mr. Parker stated he favored the original 24-tree/5 year watering plan compromise the Committee had requested. Mr. Pellemeier stated that if an official business plan had been submitted to the Planning Dept., the Fredas would have been informed about dealing with the city arborist; preliminary discussions with the Planning Dept. without any development plans would not have triggered a discussion about the need for tree removal permits. Mr. Savory felt the 24-tree/5 year watering plan was a “win/win” deal vs. the $41,200 fine. He stated that five to seven years’ worth of watering is required to allow any new tree planting to establish and flourish. Mr. Freda stated again that the fine penalties assessed and the watering requirements attached to the compromise were unreasonable. Mr. Ritter stated that he felt the 24-tree/5 year watering plan and fine waiver was a reasonable compromise. Mr. Cook agreed with Mr. Ritter and favored the compromise as outlined. Mr. Parker felt Mr. Cook should have the same liability assessed against him for his part in the process, but agreed with the reduction to requiring only 12 trees in the spirit of arriving at a compromise. Mr. Ritter stated that the ordinance language and intent had been pored over recently and the final ordinance reflected a great deal of work and commitment to the process and was similar to other small city ordinances within California. He stated the Council and the Mayor had approved the ordinance and the staff and Committee’s intention to protect trees. 7 Mr. Ritter moved to require the appellants plant 12- 24” box Monterey Cypress trees and maintain them for a minimum of five years in lieu of assessing any monetary fines; appellants should work with staff on planting locations. He further moved that if any of the 12 trees are lost due to owner negligence, the same number of lost trees shall be replaced and watered for a minimum of five years from planting. He moved that the replacement planting take place within 45 days. Ms. Ehdaie seconded the motion.The motion passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS There were no items to discuss. OLD BUSINESS There were no items to discuss. LIAISON REPORT Mr. Pellemeier discussed several items. The Committee agreed that if an applicant did not show or send a representative to speak to their item, the Committee had the option to discuss and vote on the item and receive public testimony. Staff discussed the PG&E removals and donations for tree buying. He agreed to investigate PG&E’s removal of the large palm. ARBORIST REPORT There was no report at this time. MEMBER COMMENTS There were no member comments. The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. to next regular meeting, scheduled for 5 p.m. on Monday, March 28, 2011. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske, Recording Secretary