The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03-28-2011 TC PacketUp1 iillll� city of sAn Luis oBispo 5 Prado Road * San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 TREE COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA MONDAY, March 28, 2011, at 5:00 pm Corporation Yard Conference Room 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, people may address the Committee about items not on the agenda. Persons wishing to speak should come forward and state their name and address. Comments limited to five minutes per person. Items raised at this time are generally referred to staff, and if action by the Committee is necessary, may be scheduled for a future meeting. MINUTES: Approval of Minutes of February 28, 2011. TREE REMOVAL APPLICATIONS 1. 377 Albert Dr. 2. 103 La Entrada 3. 1527 Royal Way CALENDAR 1. March 241h, 5:00- 7:00 pm Judge Art work for Arbor Day. Please RSVP to Keith. 2. April 5th, 7:00 pm- Arbor day Proclamation at City Council 3. April 7th, CCUFC meeting at SLO library, 11:00 am Noon, 12:30 pm-1:30 pm - Matt Ritter Talk, 2:00 pm City Arborist tree walk. 4. April 7th, Tree Crew Booth at farmers Market 5:30- 9:00 pm, to advertise Arbor day 5. April 91h, ARBOR DAY, 9:00 am — 11:00 am, Mitchell Park, 11:00 am -Tree Walk by Matt Ritter 6. April 23rd, Earth Day at El Chorro Park; Tree Crew will have a booth 7. April 30th, Laguna Lake Park; Tree Crew& Mormon Helping hands will clean up Commemorative Tree Grove. NEW BUSINESS 1. Update Advisory Body Bylaws, any changes suggested or leave the same? (Bylaws attached) OLD BUSINESS 1. Peg Pinard; what can be done about PGE? Have not heard back from Peg. 2. Update meeting with PGE on palm removed on Southwood. LIAISON REPORT 1. Update on Freda's appeal to Tree Comm. ARBORIST REPORT ADJOURN to next meeting scheduled for Monday, April 25, 2011, at 5:00 p.m. in the Corporation Yard Conference Room, 25 Prado Road. OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Am Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410. 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. 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. N 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. 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) 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. 11 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 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 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 G 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. 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 "°11iiIIIII IIIIIII 25 Prado Road San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 TREE REMOVAL APPLICATION 5�,��► y411 1 **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 be considered if accompanied by a *sketch/map* showing the street, structure(s) location and location of all trees proposed for removal. Please draw on the back of this form or fax on a separate sheet of paper, along with your application. PLEASE NOTE: If your tree is approved for removal and posted, please call the office at the end of your posting period to arrange to pick up your permit. The permit fee is $81 payable when you pick up your permit (cash or check payable to City of San Luis Obispo). Tree removal applications must be received by the second Monday of the month to be considered for the meeting on the fourth Monday of the month. Owner: �(ii✓�l ��O��y Telephone: E` b-qS-g?)q Owner's Mailing dddress: Applicant (if other than owner): Applicant's mailing address: Zip Code: g3qZ Telephone: Zip Code: Location of tree(s): �,�r�s �-® 'Y•� 1� - 377 81 it S W �A 9 3 YO Nearest cross street: A,,�-b rA_1 �S Dog in yard? Yes F No a f Tree species (Common names): Reasons for requesting removal: I�6 � i � L'�4 �,d� r ✓✓Cr � ��n/� � ! !f /!,% /®1fa--C�'�'t®'�1 "� � t' ✓�0 �% Replacement tree planting proposed tERfl * Application will, be consi&I ed only if. entirely filled out and signed by owner. If consideration of this application goes to Tree Committee, you or your agent are required to attend the meeting and will be notified, * If lane closure is required to perform the tree removal work, an encroachment permit must be obtained from the City Public Works Department at 919 Palm Street. * Any required "replacement trees" must be installed within "45 days of issuance of permit". Since tree removal permits are good for 6 months, you may wish to hold off picking up your permit until you are sure you will be able to install the replacement tree(s) within the 45 day period. MAIL OR FAX completed form to: City Arborist, 25 Prado Rd., San Luis Obispo, CA 93401, Phone: 781-7220 Fax: 542-9868 Owner: Date:�� Applicant: Date: The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of it services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410, Rev. 7-09 ';,,� _.. d. �`d;. w. ,.4 A�� _• U'x'' .�i �'L` Qti''"t .a,�'� SAP � ll �.31 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 be considered if accompanied by a *sketch/map* showing the street, structure(s) location and location of all trees proposed for removal. Please draw on the back of this form or fax on a separate sheet of paper, along with your application. PLEASE NOTE: If your tree is approved for removal and posted, please call the office at the end of your posting period to arrange to pick up your permit. The permit fee is $81 payable when you pick up your permit (cash or check payable to City of Son Luis Obispo). Tree removal applications must be received by the second Monday of the month to be considered for the meeting on the fourth Monday of the month Owner: Telephone: Owner's Mailing Address: �� Lp, rEA_7 -�L� Zip Code: Applicant (if other than owner):'BL9 K) s) 7i-3�ns Telephone: Applicant's mailing address: Zip Code: IS-4 1 6,C- d C� Location of tree(s): k 1—r El Nearest cross street: L--U/itg'[_ Dog in yard? Yes F--] No Tree species (Common names): Reasons for requesting removal: Krum my FrOP056a (KCt4VIKCU): * Application will be considered only if entirely filled out and signed by owner. If consideration of this application goes to Tree Committee, you or your agent are required to attend the meeting and will be notified. * If lane closure is required to perform the tree removal work, an encroachment permit must be obtained from the City Public Works Department at 919 Palm Street. * Any required "replacement trees" must be installed within "45 days of issuance of permit". Since tree removal permits are good for 6 months, you may wish to hold off picking up your permit until you are sure you will be able to install the replacement tree(s) within the 45 day period. MAIL OR FAX completed form to: City Arborist, 25 Prado Rd., San Luis Obispo, CA 93401, Phone: 781-7220 Fax: 542-9868 Owner: yvl e4'1 Date : Applicant: Date: The City of San Luis Obispo is c itted to include the disabled in all of it services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410. Rev. 7-09 """"'i��ll►IIIIII'"llllll► �lA 64Y 0( V44% " 44f 0 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 be considered if accompanied by a *sketch/map* showing the street, structure(s) location' and location of all trees proposed for removal. Please draw on the back of this form or fax on a separate sheet of paper, along with your application. PLEASE NOTE: If your tree is approved for removal and posted, please call the office at the end of your posting period to arrange. to pick up your permit. The permit fee is $81 payable .when you pick up your permit (cash or check payable to City of San Luis Obispo). Tree removal applications must be received by the second Monday of the month to be considered for the meeting on the fourth Monday of the month. Owner: I U P DI' A- J AW6. Owner's Mailing Address: 4 c-go ) lV pl i VC Applicant (if other than owner): S° �- - C4 Applicant's mailing address: Location of tree(s): /S.2 � ko Z �s Z-o Nearest cross street: LUS QSD.S X4d v Tree species (Common names): p'N C- -cJ -41A Telephone: 40,F - 2 OZ- 2�67/-6 Zip Code: Telephone: Zip Code: Dog in yard? Yes No a Reasons for requesting removal: yrr pV cr74-, s Gem rr�n Q S. AA gU ce_�a Replacement tree planting 6roposed (REQUIRED): * Application will be considered only if entirely filled out and signed by owner. If consideration of this application goes to Tree Committee, you or your agent are required to attend the meeting and will be notified. * .If lane closure is required to perform the tree removal work, an encroachment permit must be obtained from the City Public Works Department at 919 Palm Street. * Any required "replacement trees" must be installed within "45 days of issuance of permit". Since tree removal permits are good for 6 months, you may wish to hold off picking up your permit until you are sure you will be able to install the replacement tree(s) within the 45 day period. MAIL OR FAX completed form to: City Arborist, 25 Prado Rd., San Luis Obispo, CA 93401, Phone: 781-7220 Fax: 542-9868 Owner: J��ods Date: Applicant: a ,�56l2 J �J Date: DC�'� 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. 7-09 r 0 O G BYLAWS TREE COMMITTEE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Amended by Resolution No. 10096 (2009 Series) ARTICLE 1. PURPOSE The purpose of the Tree Committee is to advise City staff and the City Council on all matters related to trees in San Luis Obispo. ARTICLE 2. COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP The Tree Committee shall have five members and shall consist of one (1) representative from the Parks and Recreation Commission, one (1) representative from the Architectural Review Commission, and three (3) members from the general public (one of whom shall be a horticultural expert). Members must be residents and registered voters of the City. ARTICLE 3. TERMS OF OFFICE Committee members will be appointed by the City Council to staggered terms of four years, commencing April 1. Committee members will serve at the pleasure of the City Council. Any Committee member may be reappointed, provided no appointee serves more than two consecutive terms (8 years). ARTICLE 4. MEETINGS A. The Committee will hold a regular meeting each month. B. Regular meetings will be held at 5:00 pm the fourth Monday of each month. C. The Committee meetings will be duly advertised according to the Ralph M. Brown Act, and open to the public and held at the City's Corporation Yard, located at 25 Prado Road in Conference Room A, or other previously announced locations at specific times as required by California law. D. A quorum will consist of a majority of the established Committee members. E. All actions of the Committee will be decided by a majority vote or consensus and will be directed through the Committee Chair. F. Minutes of each meeting will be available as a public record in the Public Works Department. Updated 6/16/2009 Tree Committee Bylaws page 2 G. The Chairperson or any three members of the Committee may call a special meeting provided that a week's prior notice is given in writing to each member and the meeting is otherwise properly noticed pursuant to the Brown Act. H. All Committee meetings will be conducted in accordance with City Practices, customs, and policies. Roberts Rules of Order, Newly Revised, shall be utilized as a guide in the conduct of meetings. I. All members present must vote, except when abstaining due to a declared conflict of interest. A failure or refusal to vote when present (except for a declared conflict of interest) will be construed as an affirmative vote. Any member with a declared conflict of interest will not vote or participate in any discussion of any item or in any manner attempt to influence the decision on that item. ARTICLE 5. SUBCOMMITTEES Subcommittees consisting of less than a quorum of the Committee can be appointed as needed by the Chairperson. ARTICLE 6. OFFICERS A. The officers will consist of a Chairperson and Vice -Chairperson who will be elected at the Committee meeting in April for one year terms. B. The Chairperson will preside over all meetings of the Committee, prepare (with the assistance of staff) all meeting agendas and perform such duties as directed by the Committee. C. The Vice -Chairperson will serve in the absence or incapacity of the Chairperson. ARTICLE 7. POLICIES The Committee adopts policies as stated in the City of San Luis Obispo Advisory Body Handbook, incorporated herein by reference. Updated 6/16/2009