The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07-23-2007 TC Packet�,�m�u�uu��iIIIGIIIN�u�gIIIIU city of sAn Luis oBispo 25 Prado Road * San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 TREE COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA MONDAY, JULY 23, 2007 5:00 P.M. 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 June 25, 2007. TREE REMOVAL APPLICATIONS 1. 2377 Helena 2. 2833 Flora St. 3. 278 Albert Dr. 4. 1402 Palm St. NEW BUSINESS 1. Advisory Body Quarterly meeting with Mayor Romero on Thursday, July 12, 2007 2. Bylaws OLD BUSINESS 1. Heritage Trees ON -GOING BUSINESS 1. Tree Ordinance Update 2. Gateways ARBORIST REPORT 1. Citizen Forester 2. Downtown tree well repair update ADJOURN to next regular meeting scheduled for Monday, August 27, 2007, at 5:00 p.m. in the Corporation Yard Conference Room, 25 Prado Road. dnk /O The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. V� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410. MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: PUBLIC COMMENTS CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TREE COMMITTEE CORPORATION YARD MONDAY, JUNE 259 2007 Katie Thaxter, Ben Parker, Craig Kincaid, and Sara Young Ron Combs and Barbara Lynch There were no public comments. 1. APPROVAL MAY 29, 2007 MINUTES The minutes were unanimously approved as submitted. 2. TREE REMOVALS 1583 ROYAL WAY (Monterey Pine) The applicant discussed the report from A&T Arborists, noting that the tree was 30 years old and had damaged the driveway with massive surface root system; he planned to replace the driveway now. He was concerned about future damage to the foundation and the garage, and was also concerned about the neighbor's foundation. He reported that the sewer line has crush damage near the tree base. He stated the neighbors supported the removal of the tree. The applicant discussed replanting with a redwood. Mr. Combs stated it was a large tree in fairly good condition, with excessive surface roots that could damage the foundation in the future. He reported that previous root pruning had been done and was now concerned about the stability of the tree. He noted that an old Gingko stump had new growth sprouting and suggested that the applicant cultivate that tree. Mr. Parker was also concerned about the root pruning and red turpentine issues. He felt deep soil amendments were needed for the hard clay soil and planting a more appropriate species of tree would mitigate concerns about hardscape and foundation damage. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice and required either one 15-gallon replacement tree be chosen from the Master Street Tree List and planted within 45 days of issuance of permit or that the applicant nurture the existing Gingko growth to serve as replacement planting. Ms. Young seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 1619 FRAMBUESA (2 Tristanionsis laurina) The applicant discussed the two trees that were damaged in the last frost and were now sprouting vigorously; both trees were very unsightly as they recovered from the frost. He stated one tree was too close to the driveway and one tree was too close to the property line. He wanted to plant only one replacement tree and put it in the front yard. He felt that too many trees clumped together, crowded with the neighbor's trees, would obstruct views in the future. Mr. Combs felt both trees could benefit from some corrective pruning, but agreed they were unsightly. He was concerned that they represented the "theme tree" for the neighborhood, but noted not many of those types of trees were left. He suggested replacing with a small variety of magnolia, e.g. gem magnolia. Mr. Parker agreed the two specimens were not good long-term species for the area. Ms. Young moved to approve the removal request for both trees, based on the finding that doing so would not harm the character or environment of the neighborhood and required two 15-gallon replacement trees to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of issuance of permit. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 2377 HELENA (Modesto Ash) The applicant distributed a landscaping plan and discussed the removal request, noting heavy sap and pest issues with the tree, as well as trunk damage from being hit by a car. He stated he had to replace his driveway because of the tree. He was having difficulty getting any landscaping to grow because of the tree and wanted to replant with fruit trees and a Japanese maple and suggested a Washington Hawthorne tree as a replacement planting. Mr. Combs agreed there was sidewalk damage and the tree had aphids. He noted no specific species was required for the area, just selections from the Master Street Tree list. Ms. Young stated she was abstaining from voting, as she was a neighbor. Mr. Parker noted some destructive topping and pruning issues and felt it was the wrong tree for the location. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice and required one 15-gallon replacement tree be chosen from the Master Street Tree List and planted within 45 days of issuance of permit. Mr. Kincaid seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously; Ms. Young abstained. Mission SLO (Silk Floss) Brian Starr, applicant's representative, discussed the location of the tree at the top of the stairway and the problems the large tree in that location was presenting. He noted that approximately twelve years ago, the Mission reconfigured the retaining wall and root pruned to accommodate the growing tree and its roots, but stated that damage was now occurring again. He stated that the left half of the stairs had to be closed due to the pitch created by the tree and the inherent liability. He also discussed the adverse drainage issues created by the damage to the pad and the wall and was concerned there was worse internal water damage to the adobe. He stated that it would cost approximately $30,000 to uproot the tree and move it to a different location — a site for which has not been made available. He agreed that the tree was a fine specimen and had become a strong part of the scenery at the Mission, but stated that the tree had outgrown its location and that several letters were available, favoring the tree's removal. He noted that if the tree were removed, the wall/pad area would be replaced. Mr. Combs agreed it was a beautiful tree planted in the wrong place and that the pitch of the area was creating drainage pathways back to the Mission foundation. He did not feel any permanent mitigation options were available and any hardscape allowances would be temporary, with damage resulting again in the near future. He reported that the tree had been planted in 1964 and had been designated a Heritage Tree in 1986. The Tree Committee agreed it was unfortunate that a removal request was even warranted, because the tree was such an attractive landmark. Mr. Parker noted that trees were a renewable resource and that buildings were not and in this case, the tree's root would continue to get larger and create more damage. Mr. Kincaid determined with Mr. Starr that the only way to assess the extent of adobe damage was to remove the tree; no investigation was possible with the tree still in place. Mr. Starr noted that any replacement planting would be installed in a raised planter so the new irrigation would not affect the building. Mr. Combs suggested that some "in -lieu of offsite improvements and/or bond(s) might be warranted if the tree were removed to offset the asset value loss to the community, e.g. creek improvements. Mr. Parker moved to continue the item to the next regular meeting to allow applicant and City staff to explore the value of the tree and propose equitable mitigation measures that could be considered if tree removal were granted. Mr. Kincaid seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 951 MARSH (Ficus) Barbara Lynch, City representative, discussed the removal request, stating that the street crew had requested the removal as part of the sidewalk plan and their request had been denied. She discussed the proposed sidewalk re -configuration and stated that root pruning the tree would kill it. She reported that the Presbyterian Church would not grant the easement the City had requested. Mr. Parker felt the sidewalk plan was a good measure, but agreed it would encroach on the property. Robert Maricle, Church representative, stated the church did not feel the tree was a valuable enough asset to give up property easement, as the church itself might have future expansion plans. He felt a different tree would work better placed in a planter. Mr. Combs reported that the tree was in good condition, considering being hit by the frost. Ms. Young moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice and required one 24-inch box replacement tree be chosen from the Downtown District Tree List and planted within 45 days of issuance of permit in a similar location. Ms. Thaxter seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 153 STENNER (Date palms) Mike Cripe, applicant's representative, stated that Jamie Hill in the CDD referred him to Mr. Combs and the Tree Committee for their removal approval. He discussed changes to the new development plan and stated that the relocation of the trees now encroached on the utility easement due to their large root balls. He was concerned about issues with overhead wires. He noted that the trees would be moved and used at another Rossi property and submitted a letter, affirming same. He reiterated that with the new design developments, too many conflicts arose to make retaining the trees feasible. He also noted that four street trees were required on the ARC approval phase and that the palm had not be conditioned as part of the ARC approval. Ms. Thaxter recommended a smaller species to clear the utility lines instead of the proposed melaleuca. Mr. Combs agreed that if the removal were granted, he would coordinate with CDD to choose the proper species. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request, based on the finding that doing so would not harm the character or environment of the neighborhood and required four street trees to be planted on site, coordinated with the City arborist. Mr. Kincaid seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS 1. ARBOR DAY There was extensive Committee discussion on several aspects of the Arbor Day event: ❑ Ms. Young suggested combining Earth Day and Arbor Day and including live music, climbing harness/rope climbing demonstrations, photography displays, stump carving, and more child interaction. ❑ Mr. Parker suggested the Downtown Association should more interest in the urban forest, with possible downtown tree walks which tie into other downtown events ❑ Ms. Thaxter suggested moving the celebration to Mitchell Park to push the downtown to get more involved; perhaps include a neighborhood tree planting. ❑ Ms. Lynch suggested creating a "Choose a Heritage Tree" hunt as a community contest. Ms. Young agreed and felt they could retire the Art/Prose school contest in lieu of this contest. The Committee agreed to keep Arbor Day in April and to think about other ways to enhance to next celebration and requested that Arbor Day be listed as an "on -going business" item, with an eye towards January'08 as a timeline to finalize details and move forward. 2. Advisory Body Lunch Mr. Parker agreed to attend the luncheon and would work with staff to submit a summary report of Committee activities prior to the event. 3. Tree Removal Request Application The Committee discussed the revisions made to the form and requested that on the line "replacement tree plan proposed," staff add the language (Attach/enclose example). ON -GOING BUSINESS 1. TREE ORDINANCE UPDATE Mr. Kincaid discussed his review of the City of Davis Urban Forest Tree Ordinance and found it very comprehensive and easy to understand and believed the city to be comparable to San Luis Obispo in terms of tree regulation outlines. Ms. Young discussed her review of the Newport Beach ordinance and found it to be concise and easy to read, and felt that combined with the Palo Alto Tree Manual document, the combination would be a strong tool. Ms. Thaxter felt that the Committee and staff should commit to an extended ordinance review process instead of trying to have a piece -meal approach over many months. The Committee discussed possible procedures and agreed to come up with an ordinance section headline outline as a starting framework for the revision process, which would include re -writing the existing document. 2. GATEWAYS Ms. Lynch reported that the City Gateway Project would now move forward and determined if there was a Committee sub -committee interested in working with the proj ect. The Committee agreed to draft suggestions to submit to the project effort. ARBORIST REPORT 1. CITIZEN FORESTER Mr. Combs reported that he had held another training session at Sinsheimer Park, which went very well and planned to hold 4-5 more sessions for the Citizen Forester and Downtown Forester groups before sending the participants out to do light pruning. He suggested a greater reach for the program could include Cal Poly, Master Gardeners, etc. Mr. Combs also asked the Committee to consider extending his latitude on reviewing failing street trees so he could remove the more obvious specimens without having to bring the items before the Committee for their review and approval. Ms. Young asked that the item be put on the next agenda so the Committee could formally review Mr. Combs' authority scope. The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. to the next regular meeting scheduled for Monday, July 23, 2007 at 5 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske, Recording Secretary SCE A 1 cit of tuis oBiS oc- P," 25 Pra(lo Road • San Luis Obispo. CA 93401 (D'1 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 fox 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 arronge to pick up your permit. The permit fee is $ 40 payable when you pick up your permit (cash or check payable to City of Son Luis Obispo). TREE REMOVAL APPLICATION Owner Telephone 5 `T 1 (�(02-0 Owners Mailing Address. _ z3 7-7 Zip: Applicant (if different than Owner): Telephone: Applicant's Mailing Address: Zip: Location of tree(s)- Please indicate nearest cross street: `-'� l ��-l� �j Dog in yard? Yes No.,. Tree Species: Botanical Name Common Name Compeltatory replacement proposed: * 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 Engineering Department. * 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 Arborlst, 25 Prado Rd., San Luis Obispo, CA 93401, Phone: 782 7 20 F -9868 Owner: 11PA4,1. Date Applicant: Date: The City of O San t uis OW4po is committed to include tha disabled in eN of its services, progmma and activities. Telecommunications Device for the nt (MS) 781-7410. W JAN-19-1900 19:46 .n� 1 7 o 7A& (DI orsmw Is C"s PO Prsdo Fload + Sian Wis Obispo, CA 93401 LMPOR3ANT: A trde rte?ewVal application will arify be 0onsidered if} accoer;paepied by a ftfth/.map show hV ttw street, slructure(s) locationland lacatiew of aih trees proposed for MMCWC please dra on he back of this forM orjfax an d to sheet of paper, ahoteg with ytaerr appi' ion. PLEASE NM; Zf your tree is apprdv.t4 for rermoval cued posted, please call the off+cc ct the aced'of yaw- posting pwgnd to arrange is pick up your permit. The pgtnit fee is-S -40 ; payabhe when you pick up yotr pwmft (buh or check payable to City of were Luis Obispo)- I TREE REMOVAL APPf TION r �-- Teiephotaee C+' i 5 Owm,Kx IYtetOIhreg Ael,rl3r+ess: r7 I %O !'d 4. — gip:- 0j,,,,� App"ent (if different AppkwWs 1tl4ailing Add Location of "' e(s): Picric indic+ata nearest Tres Spodes Bator ;removing; * Apolca flw' will be axWI awlwta#loft9bes to Tree C if tna doare is-requp frn the r neerkM * Any ra pi , "r'tapk"ir reaww+ai pats are good MV be obha to !Wall the MAIL OILPAX compk Phow; 78! -Y7220 PC OWruer): Telephone.. tn_ar 6 !Z l rc-c es street: 1 � [ Dog in yardr YW hta W __ A lime COMM" Name fered whir if e.ntireiy fined out and signed by aNmr. it amneittet, yew yr you^ agent ara required to attend the ed f'o perforin the tree r mml work, on zPcraxfaeeent DerpartreeMt. mt treW taunt be kwMlkd within *45 days of issuarecae Far fr months; you m*y wish to !eo►d off pieNW9 up yowr h 4phat trt tree(s). within tha 45e day pa4o& ed faro► tea: City Ar6a fttt, ply hrado fed., Sam j Mr rq" son oteidw M 004 ~ �the dinOW is A ar IN s.r*km% l�ka tar ttw ta..r #tze� Considawic" of ibis meting and wig be notified atrmit noose to obitahwd paewr. $we trta net Ula you am sure fm Obbim CA 934010 —6 JAN-19-1900 19:47 P.03 3 i TOTAL P.03 JAN-19-1900 19:47 P.02 1 1 N. R. H. Dmftb2& Inc. P"O ks. CA $3446 : (805) 237_3746 { FCC (80S) 237-13M June Zl 2007 kF,-'Fiee ra omal 3 p#ota Street To wbam it free Iced Paso I at the reaidmce raced ibow are r+e4ue�gg a tree rwaysi paMk fo, a due to the fact this true is a bnzazd to ft >a4� bbood, The tree i8 up. mO tba °£r W:istift hum, whkb is u>a 114=04 draw" matt "athe for Furthermocey the bramdtea are addition that I addition. I eon 240 ne am afthe proposed myc any supper memoval ofthe true aotthi&ivcatiaa for the r*um apeRfw dovC. ] you ho °n wag .a , Y may contact me at the phOw MWW above during { { i N*=x SCANNED TREE REMOVAL APPLICATION to CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Owner/Applicant Otto C. Davidson Address 278 Albert Drive, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Phone (805) 544 2468 Trees: location and type 278 Albert Drive between street and garage 3 canary island pines CONTENTS: page 1 Tree removal application page 2 Extension to application page 3 Sketch of tree location page 4-7 Arborist's evaluation page 8-10 Year 2001 application & approval to remove a tree page 11 Sketch for location of new trees. 111 ll i� MY Cof sari hAis oBispo �25 Prado Road • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 IMPORTANT: A tree. removal application will PLEASE NOTE: If your tree is approved for only be considered if accompanied by a removal and posted, please tail the office at 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. the end of your posting period to arrange to pick up your permit. The permit fee is $ 40 payable when you pick up your permit (cash or check payable to City of San Luis Obispo). TREE REMOVAL APPLICATION Owner: Otte) C. -00-V' d:5a-VA Telephone: J44 Z468 Owner's Mailing Address: -7 t er t D r ty eI Zip; 2 5 4 05 Applicant (if different than Owner): i 5a-m e�) Telephone: i�SCLvrie) Applicant's Mailing Address: ,�� 5013 e) Zip: Location of tree(s): 2 79 Please indicate nearest cross street: M C Co It Srl-M Dog in yard? Yes No.�. Tree Species: "Dirytw5 L Cq-v ox, e � t CC YWzt Tslo,AAj lit,-nc..., Botanical Name Common Name Reasons for removing: `� ec .� ,e.x-� t�ct�► -e Compensatory replacement proposed: 3e-e 'Y1 e k ' * 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 Engineering Department. * Any required replacement trees" must be installed within *45 days of issuance of permit". Since tree removal permits ore 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- 1!% 22 Fax: 868 Owner: Applicant: Date: rr,� LTIL FA Owner/Applicant Otto C. Davidson Address 278 Albert Drive, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Phone (805) 544 2468 Location of trees 278 Albert Drive, between street and garage Trees 3 canary island pines. Trunk circumferences are 70 to 79 inches. REASONS FOR REMOVING: The owner of the house next door (284 Albert Drive) is concerned about. stability of these trees. He's also concerned about injury from falling pine cones and limbs. He claims that a cone broke a car windshield. Last fall, "A & T Arborists" evaluated the trees. The arborist also noted damage to garage foundation, driveway and walkways. He recommended two options. Remove the 3 trees or thin the upper canopies and accept the ongoing damage to concrete structures. He recommended against root pruning because of the restricted root area available for the trees. (A copy of his report is attached.) I believe that these trees should be removed because they have pushed up the neighbor's drive, cracked my garage foundation, and broken my walkways. At the present time both the neighbor's drive and my garage can function as is. However, the arborist's report convinces me that waiting will lead to significant additional damage and eventually a costly repair or replacement of the concrete drive and concrete garage foundation. Prompt action would avoid this extra cost. Finally, my neighbor complains about the needles, sticks and cones on his drive and garage. His drive is steep, and this debris could be a hazard if not removed almost daily. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON REMOVAL: 278 Albert Drive was built in the summer of 1969. 1 have lived there since its completion. The canary island pines were planted in'69 or '70 by Robert Zazueta's "Rustic Gardens" nursery business. They were NOT planted where he suggested. Rather they were planted closer together and too close to my garage and my neighbor's driveway. In 1980 to 85 they looked great! Unfortunately, they are now "REALLY BIG TREES" - as Mr. Zazueta predicted. In 2001 the previous owner of 284 Albert Drive applied to remove one of these trees - only to find out that it was on my land. I agreed to remove a tree, and the SLO Tree Committee approved. Later, these neighbors changed their minds, and nothing was done. (Copy of the permit is attached.) Last autumn, I asked the A & T arborist, If removing just one tree would be a good idea. His verbal response was negative. He didn't think this would be effective in reducing damage by roots or in increasing tree stability. It saddens me, but I believe that these trees should be removed. They will have to be removed sooner or later. Waiting will lead to larger trees and notable damage to both neighbor's driveway and my garage. Waiting will increase the cost, and this increase will be significant if repair is necessary for driveway or garage.. REPLACEMENT TREES: I'd like to plant two sequoia sempervirens trees near the center of the available space - about equidistant from sidewalk and garage walkway. This would give 12 to 13 feet from trees to concrete instead of the present 5 to 7 feet. (See drawings for new trees) My second choice would be two metasequoia glyptostroiboides. My 3rd thru 5th choices are sequoiadendron giganteum, pinus, canariensis and quercus agrifolia. I hope for trees that (a) have limited combustibility, (b) require little or no summer watering when established, (c) grow quickly, and (d) will hide my ugly garage from street view. I'd use "l5 gallon" or larger trees. There are some difficulties with my choices, however. The california sequoias are not on the Master Tree List. These, the metasequoia or the pine may outgrow the available root area in 50 - 60 years. Planting 12 to 13 feet from the sidewalk is just outside the "planting zone 3" , but 1'd like to give the new trees the maximum root area. I'd certainly agree that these trees would be protected as if they were within the usual planting area. My wife and I are over 70 years old. Health could force us to move in at any time. I'd like have this problem behind us and leave attractive trees for the neighborhood and for the next owner of 278 Albert Dr. Thanks, `,� (�f 7 �• 7� �/�t�E- �� a �, rr�``„�r'r, Deck sidewalk 'j.44 ft '' O "Ills,`� Living Rm., i / Kitchen & Family Rm. Garage p •� Canary Is. Pines Entry / i / Jun ipers Patio Driveway • i r �r j Steps i Bed Rooms North •� a Albert Dr_ Uq. Annhar 7. ft 38.43 feet I I 40 P.O. BOX 1311 TEMPLETON, CA 93465 (805) 434.0131 10-10-06 Otto Davidson 278 Alberta Drive San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 544-2468 ro�o Backround Information: On the slope in fron't"kiome are three Canary Island pines (Pinus canariensis) approximately 40 years old. The trees appear to be an original planting. There appears to be some small limb loss over the years. The skirts have been raised, however, there are no signs of upper canopy thinning. Assignment: Report on the tree's overall condition, stability and evaluate hardscape impacts. Observations: All three trees have restricted root areas- and thereby appear to be causing damage to the adjacent neighboring driveway. There is also heaving in the front walkway (photographs 1 & 3) on the subject property along with hairline cracks in the foundation (photographs 2 & 5). There is also evidence of heaving in the walkway near the southwest corner of the home (photograph 4). There is strong evidence of root pressure causing the above. Testing and Analysis: The trees were not aerially inspected. Conclusions: The aerial hazard does not appear to be the greatest concern, however, upper canopy thinning is advised. Pine trees with thick canopies create a lot of wind sail and thinning will allow for better air flow through the crown. The damage to the hardscape, driveway and possibly the foundation will only continue over time. Root pruning is not recommended .in situations where there are restricted root areas as the subject trees may become unstable. Recommendations: The first option is tree removal (all three) that will stop all advancement of the roots into and under hardscape features. Option two is to thin the upper canopies and accept the ongoing damage to hardscape. Airspading for root inspection adjacent to hardscape areas is an option, however, past experience dictates this will most certainly confirm root presence. Please let us know if we can be of further assistance with your trees 60 Chip Tamagni Certified Arborist #WE 6436-A COOO Steven G. Alv Certified Arborist #WE 0511-A S I 1. A 001 4,re.'e re owwe orr lies-iio+ 4g. . City of SM Luis OBISPO October 26, 2001 Otto Davidson 278 Albert Drive San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Your application for tree removal at 27R Albert , has been reviewed by the City of San Luis Obispo Tree Committee. After careful consideration of the facts provided by you and an on -site inspection of the tree(s), the Committee members have voted to approve your request for removal of a Monterey pine. An employee of the City will post the tree(s) for removal within two working days of the Committee's decision. This "Public Notice" must remain up for ten (10) days to allow members of the public to appeal the Committee's decision to the City Council. After this posting period, if no appeal is filed, a tree removal permit will be issued. You will need to call 781-7220 to arrange to pick up and sign for the permit. If an appeal is received, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the appeal within 45 calendar days of receipt of the appeal. You will be notified both of the appeal and of the subsequent meeting by the City Council. Please note that there may. be replacement tree requirements as noted on your permit. If you have any questions regarding this process, you may contact Todd Martin at (805)781-7220, Monday through Friday. Respectfully, Todd Martin City Arborist commappr r-F-) _ ... .. _.. ... . .. . .. .. .. .. . AM rwW*&*1 t city O s'/C,n i s 0Bispo 25 Prado Road • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 TREE REMOVAL PERMIT Applicant Phone Applicant's Address—Z-1 4 q6 Location of Tree(s) Tree Species (botanical name) DBH (COmMok% name) Date Posted for Appeal IU-24 to Reasons for Removal— Z-4 r, t Reviewed by Tree Committee Yes No Date Comments Requirements Bond for Compensatory Planting Amount:$ Date Bond Posted to Tree(s) revelwed byc- Title Date Applicant Date Approved by Title. Date - //-d 1-4 mow, t,._ .�,.....� .r•..��. city O� sAn lUls oBi SPO 25 Prado Road • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 IMPORTANT: A tree removal application will only be considered if accompanied by a sketch showing the street, structure(s) location and location of all trees proposed for removal. Please draw on the back of this form or fox 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. **SEE NOTE BELOW TREE REMOVAL APPLICATION Applicant: V + ?D 'SC &j C) Telephone: SL{ Lj - Z Ll 6,9 Mailing Address: 4 -�P L r? c R -i- _� 2 Zip: q 31105 Location of tree(s): 2- 70 A L TE E- 2 TT -) 2 Please indicate nearest cross street: i'1 0 C K3 L L L4 M Tree Species; N tZY S. �i �t Botanical Name Common Name Reasons for removing: �t j t -)- 41 ;G1� Vic rives l -5 ric —a tv . i2 t- E' � C e , Y- 1 2S gut e� -r, s r> L� ba GL i e -Le d C O SP --tn �t z` r 1A1<-- n L&A,, 4ez r-6-vLivvr -- Y-ee 4, "NOTE: 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 7"')2.3 Applicant/Owner: Date: � C'es��X)'-r :0, (Sketch attached) F: groups/trees/forms/tree removal application TOC 1 Tho City of Ran I ilic r)hiann is rnmmittcrl to inrinrio tho Hic2hlcri in oil of ito cnnoi— nrnnromc on.i—6-it:no s ew 7 •..• 8 N �9 `�'•'`•�•� ~ce Deck •iy -5.44 ft sidewalk Living Rm_, - melw eee� Kitchen 8c j Family Rm_ Garage .z i Entry i 1 Patio Driveway i • l Se Si Bed Rooms North Liq. AmtNor Albert D 1 7. ft — 38.43 feet i V r � SCANNED a city of sAn Luis oBispo 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. TREE REMOVAL 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 $ 40 payable when you pick up your permit (cash or check payable to City of San Luis Obispo). Owner: (� ��_ra } �,-yr-�. L''/ Telephone: nn Owner's Mailing Address: �� Popp"( ` 'L ?P W' 'o Ca , a Zip: qt 1 1105 Applicant (if different than Owner)' SS `^�' Telephone(_9o�;-) �1 Applicant's Mailing Address:--� (� t✓�'�' Zip: ` \O Location of tree(s): ��-f1'�- Please indicate nearest cross street: At- 170 rw Dog in yard? Yes No Tree Species: �0_vv, Q-i Zo Botanical Name Common Name Reasons for removing: tzL a °' Compensatory replacement proposed: �O� _ * 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 Engineering Department. * 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 replacementtree(s) within the 45 day period. MAIL OR FAX completed form to: City Arborist, 25 Prado Rd., San Luis Obispo, CA 9.3401, Phone: 781 P20 Fax: 54 -9868 n Owner: N G G' °'' ` 1�� J Date Applicant:`. z s y Date: U — CID The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410. . I /ApC/ BYLAWS TREE COMMITTEE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 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). 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. 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. J. 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. G:\Asset-Management\Trees\By-laws\BYLAWS.doc Updated 7/3/2007