The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09-28-2015 TC Agenda Packet=., Agenda Tree Committee TREE COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA September 28, 2015 Begins at 5:00 pm Corporation Yard - Conference Room A 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo, CA The complete packet of applications may be reviewed at the front counter of the City Clerk's office during business hours which is located in City Hall at 990 Palm St. 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 for September 14 2015 TREE REMOVAL APPLICATIONS: 1. 1155 Buchon St. 93401 2. 601 Sweeney Ln. 93401 3. 2119 San Luis Dr. 93401 4. 1892 Corralitos Ave. 93401 NEW BUSINESS: Fall Arbor Day Celebration to be held on November 7, 2015 from 10 am -12 pm at Fire Station 1 located at 2160 Santa Barbara St. OLD BUSINESS: City tree removal process Lunch & Learn - November 19, 2015 From 12 pm - 1 pm. ARBORIST REPORT: ADJOURN to next meeting scheduled for Tuesday October 27, 2015 at 5:00 pm held at the City Corporation Yard located on 25 Prado Road Conference Room A. ® The City of San Luis Obispo wishes to make all of its public meetings accessible to the public. Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with disabilities. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should direct such request to the City Corp Yard Office at (805) 781 -7220 at least 7 days before the meeting, if possible. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781 -7107. Minutes Tree Committee Corporation Yard Conference Room, 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo Monday, September 14, 2015 at 5:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Olson, Jane Worthy, Matt Ritter, Trey Duffy, Scott Loosley STAFF PRESENT: Ron Combs Mr. Ritter called the meeting to order at 5 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENT There were no comments at this time. MINUTES: Approval of Minutes of July 27, 2015 Mr. Duffy moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Ms. Worthy seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. TREE REMOVAL APPLICATIONS 1. 1618 & 1626 Woodland; 1859 Wilding (Misc. eucalyptus) Bob Hill, City Natural Resource Manager, discussed the Bowden Ranch area history, the Open Space Element, and the conservation plan planned for the area. He discussed the fire prevention plan for the Reservoir Natural Reserve Canyon Conservation Plan, which included safety pruning and thinning/ removals. He agreed limb droppage was an issue. He noted the younger oaks and Toyon were unable to thrive underneath the eucalyptus and that any phased replanting efforts should include those species, as well as Black Walnut. He stated that the trees proposed for removal in the applications were on city -owned property and that the adjacent property owners were initiating the removal requests. 2 He further stated that safety issues should be addressed first and then consider issues of erosion, seedling /sprouting, and re- forestation. John Conway, 1618 Woodland, discussed his property's removal request and felt that all three removal criteria were being met in the application. He discussed recent limb damage to his roof tiles and was concerned with overall safety and fire issues. He agreed that once the eucalyptus trees were removed, the native species would thrive in the area. Jerry Schwoerer, 1626 Woodland, discussed his property's removal request for the one tree in the creek bank. He was concerned about possible storm damage. He noted he had previously removed some eucalyptus and the native species were thriving. Kenneth Tway, 1859 Wilding, noted that no maintenance had been done in the entire grove, short of what neighbors had done themselves. He reported that he also had a large limb fall on his roof and that he had one dead tree hanging over his yard and another one leaning /hanging over his house. He was concerned about the negative aspects of the drought affecting trees' health and stabilization. He felt succor stumps should be removed and a more formal maintenance plan should be implemented. Vicky Tway, 1850 Wilding, noted that it's been five years since the CCC came through and did any clearing under the trees. Ron Rinnell, Bunyan Brothers, reported he had been working on the project with the applicants in terms of pruning. He felt the stressed trees posed a major danger, especially with El Nino predicted. Ms. Olson felt the removal requests were reasonable and favored approval. Ms. Worthy felt the city should have a phased removal plan for the entire area and spearhead the removals themselves, based on city resources and neighbor concerns. Mr. Duffy agreed that an overall assessed phased management plan should be implemented instead of a piece -meal approach and if removals were approved tonight, he'd be abstaining from the vote. Mr. Loosley favored a staff and agency collaborative strategy for removals, but did not favor removal trees in the creek bed. He agreed with the need for stump management. Mr. Ritter favored the proposed removal efforts and felt such would be ecologically valuable without straining the city's resources. Mr. Loosely moved to approve all three removal requests, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required 1:1 native species 5- gallon replacement plantings to be coordinated with City staff /agencies, executed in a phased strategy and planted throughout the three properties. Ms. Olson seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Mr. Duffy abstaining. 2. 750 Chorro, #16 (Ficus) Jim Mallon, president of the HOA for the apartment complex, discussed the removal request and cited sewer line issues, with roots punching and displacing the main line, essentially crushing it. He noted that relocating the line was not financially feasible and added that the sidewalk had already needed repair due to roots. Mr. Combs noted they were large, healthy trees that had caused some sidewalk displacement. Sydney Hall, 750 Chorro #1, strongly objected to the removal and noted that other residents had also expressed their objections. She went into great detail about the value of the trees to the area in terms of aesthetics and shade and she doubted that the roots were the issue, suggesting the sewer line was faulty and that a new one should be put in that would accommodate keeping the trees. She noted it was very frustrating that as renters, she and her neighbors had little say in the matter but would be greatly affected by the trees' removals. Mr. Ritter discussed the need to have communications of HOA actions submitted for review. He also noted that root pruning could be a mitigative option. Mr. Loosley felt removal would harm the character of the neighborhood and urged the HOA to re -route the sewer line. Ms. Olson agreed with Mr. Loosley, Mr. Combs discussed the "pipe bursting" method for sewer line replacement and re- routing. Mr. Loosley moved to deny the removal request, as he could not make any of the findings necessary for approval. Ms. Worthy seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 4 3. 779 Murray (Pittosporum) The applicant discussed the removal request, citing damage to the sidewalk and his retaining wall and was also concerned about possible damage to the foundation. He wanted to replace the tree with a patio variety. Mr. Combos reported that the tree was healthy and under the diameter that required a permit, so no action was needed. He added that he did not think the foundation was at risk. Mr. Ritter stated that the tree was not an invasive species. Mr. Duffy felt removal would have a negative impact on the neighborhood. 4. 1046 Yarrow (Alder) The applicant discussed the removal request, stating that the tree had become too large for the area and that the roots were starting the choke out the drain line and sprinkler, as well as damaging the sidewalks and patio. She stated the waterline was under the tree and noted that the oily residue affects the yard and vehicles and that the front yard was unusable especially due to the large volume of bees and wasps that were attracted to it. She reported that the tree took all the water from the front area and that she wanted to re- landscape with drought - tolerant plantings. She stated that the HOA had approved the removal and requested that a 36" box Jacaranda be planted as replacement. Jim Parker, 1046 yarrow, reiterated that due to the sap, debris and bees, the front yard was unusable. He discussed previous fallen limbs and felt the tree had gotten too large for the area and was now in the wrong place. He affirmed that they were committed to re- landscaping and putting in a better tree for the property. Mr. Combs felt the tree was fairly healthy but was drought- stressed and agreed that the species liked a lot of water. He noted some hardscape displacement. Mr. Loosley felt the tree was an asset to the yard, though the density of it was declining due to fungal issues. Mr. Duffy agreed removal would be detrimental, but if the tree were truly failing, he would favor removal. Ms. Olson agreed with the applicant's concern for the tree's need for water. Mr. Ritter said that he appreciated the applicant's commitment to improving the property and favored allowing for removal. Mr. Duffy moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required replacement planting as outlined by the HOA. Ms. Olson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. S. 918 Vallecito (Pine) The applicant discussed the removal request, stating that the tree was leaning and had damaged some of the sidewalk. He also noted that the shedding of needles and large cones consistently clogged storm drains. He was concerned about the tree falling, especially with predicted storms. He noted the roots had ripped up irrigation lines and - created a huge sinkhole that was now causing the significant lean. He noted he could not park under it and that he wanted to replace it with artificial turf. He stated that the neighbors favored the removal. Mr. Combs stated it was a healthy theme tree and that leaning did not necessarily mean it was unsafe, but agreed the tree was probably moving. Mr. Ritter moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required a 15- gallon replacement tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted by December 31, 2015. Mr. Loosley seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 6. 38 Las Praderas Dr. (Magnolia) There was no one present to speak to the item. 7. 1120 Marsh (2 eucalyptus) Rob Rossi, property owner, discussed the removal request that had been prompted by his tenants' concern for safety and liability and noted there had been previous limbs falling and creating minor parking lot damage. He discussed the potential future development that could occur on the site, but noted that no application had been submitted yet; he felt requiring a replacement tree would be pointless because some form of development would be happening on site. He felt the trees were stressed and probably at the end of their lives. Mr. Combs stated they were relatively healthy. Ms. Worthy was concerned that removal would harm the character of the neighborhood. on Mr. Ritter felt good pruning would mitigate danger and safety concerns. Mr. Ritter moved to deny the removal request, as he could not make the findings necessary for approval. Mr. Loosley seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Ritter requested that due to his class teaching schedule, the next few upcoming meetings be changed to a Tuesday rotation, instead of Mondays. The Committee discussed the request and agreed that the next meeting date would be Tuesday, October 27, the November meeting would be cancelled, and the December meeting would be held Tuesday, December 8, 2015. OLD BUSINESS Mr. Combs discussed the proposed Lunch and Learn program and told the Committee he'd send more information as available. ARBORIST REPORT Mr. Combs noted that Cal Poly had been awarded the Tree Campus USA Designation. The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. to next regular meeting scheduled for Monday September 28, 2015 and the October meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, October 27, 2015 at 5:00 p.m. (note special date) Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske, Recording Secretary r-4c l �e J .4 0 r \ry I � 4--e� rC�-j SCANNED Urban Forest Services For Office Use Only: 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 -3218 g 31 i u a 9 L 805.781.7220 tax 905.542.9866 Entered:�j_ Letter: �J a� TREE REMOVAL APPLICATION If related to development, see section E on back. OWNER: �SS -� APPLICANT:S JUN 6 ADDRESS; 5S� /1()L jJ0 ADDRESS: t,,)4Pp CITY: C am] LW 061 seo ZIP: 5-31ol CITY: r'L4grJA 61q U zip: PHONE: (1W- ) S-g .5 ss PHONE: ) I 9� - J 3�7 EMAIL: `/ 11 J D t)'t.Lt.d .C16M EMAIL: utrtq rap q ryv-a L6Y�i Private tree removals may require replacement tree(s) to be planted on site as a condition of approval. City Street Tree removals must be replaced with species from the Street Tree Master List - see website. Is this a City Street Tree? Yes ❑ No K Unknown ❑ L Dog in the yard? Yes ❑ No Reason for tree removal? (L.� U ki 1 kt LZ m A!SPlease draw a sketch map in box below. Show building outlines, streets and only tree(s) to be removed represented with an X or you may submit a detailed landscape / site plan along with this application form - Tree Species CQ Proposed Replacement Tree(s) Address of Tree(s) I 1 SS- &��- Cross - Street �5�. # Trees -- eL,&, �J, 4��O-aj OLJ��.,Q— �,+, X tree(s) must have ribbon or duct tape wrapped around the trunk to identify prior to inspection. By signing this application I agree to replant tree(s) on my property within 45 days of tree removal, if required by City Arborist or as a condition of the $81.00 Permit granted by om Permit valid for 6 mo ths. 1� Property Owner's Signature � � S UV^` �S Date °� /� �I Applicant's Signature Date Submit completed application to a Tess above, fax to 805.542.9868 or scan and email to rcombs slocity.org no-(�� _j Ur- • 003-546-011 s1 4 ^� y + yyy L IL �y�;3 } }�*, �r,� s t 'r Y i� c4,�e� �! `• : � r�► � -� y� .�?yq '� y �L r- �ti ff,f ,1'Ft i t �� :t s, lt/a+ t��t;. � ;�i�,. c'3 ♦ +, r. s �V Q_Q_ ^, live —t , L G-/- -L C'amp•- 6� ft- 1 C3-� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO The information contained in this database is intended for informational use only. This information is provided for the convenience of users, but GEODATA SERVICES es not necessarily constitute precise property ownership or legal descriptions of any property, and should not be relied upon as an official 955 MORRO STREET TopeTty record, The City of San Luis Obispo makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of this data; however, the accuracy of this material is SAN LUIS OBISPO. CA 93401 of guaranteed and users assume responsibility for independent verification of any and all information contained herein prior to use or reliance pan such information for any official purpose. The City San Luis Obispo disclaims any responsibility or liability for any direct or indirect 805) 781 -7167 amages resulting from the use of this data. 8/19/2015 15 -03 T.L. Urban Forest Services 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 -3218 a : E 605.781.7220 fax 805,542,9888_ slocity.org f q— i (_ c 45— TREE REMOVAL APPLICATION If related to development, see Section E on back. SCANNED For Office Use Only: EnteredC�J��1 c J Letter: _ /Mi5 OWNER: / �� - �� APPLICANT: ADDRESS: S3� /�aII / '�� ADDRESS: 6-3 CITY: gfe5) —cJ LiK CITY: 5-2.0 ZIP: Gj yv PHONE: ( �) �I 5�� PHONE: EMAIL: ��Yra �� ( "/1 t'7i G6m EMAIL: ��.�a U— u.� arl S. rteP"l Private tree removals may require replacement tree(s) to be planted on site as a condition of approval. City Street Tree removals must be replaced with species from the Street Tree Master List - see website Is this a City Street Tree? Yes ❑ No ❑ Dog in the yard? Yes 1:1 No Reason for tree removal? /,Unknown �`� 41 jq_N ,CSPlease draw a sketch map in box below. Show building outlines, streets and only tree(s) to be removed represented with an X orr you may submit a detailed landscape / site plan along with this application form. Tree Species ' Proposed Replacement Tree(s) _% '� Address of Tree(s) e!5>4 % c Cross- Street �i l� # Trees / t20 Fib a U I -FW X tree(s) must have ribbon or duct tape wrapped around the trunk to identify prior to inspection. By signing this application I agree to replant tree(s) on my property within 45 days of tree removal, if required by City Arborist or as a condition -o the $81.00 Permit granted by Tree Committee. Permit valid for 6 m n s. Property Owner's Sig natu Date Applicant's Signat Submit completed appl ate o/5 to address above, fax to 805.542.9868 or scan and email to rcombs slocitv.org C a m m ( 7 �ie / C1� Z // / S d J_ (4,1 SCANNED Urban Forest Services For Office Use Only: ' 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 -3218 805.781.7220 i,,x tCl; :9� yF; i1, _ _ Entered�J� Letter: a_ WJ 1 TREE REMOVAL APPLICATION If related to development, see Section E on back. 36�� OWNER:.7�� -r- P- �� -�fl� APPLICANT. ,7 B/�►.s bei. ADDRESS: AK p C_ ADDRESS: -57 � ,Jjr CITY: Lv <:;4— ZIP: 91��j/ CITY: S�� ZIP PHONE: ( ) - ��6� PHONE:( c / / %r'C r -,son EMAIL: fj 6✓�.r. GO/� !l Private tree removals may require replacement tree(s) to be planted on site as a condition of approval. City Street Tree removals must be replaced with species from the Street Tree Master List - see website.,.,_,/ Is this a City Street Tree? Yes ❑ No L�J Unknown ❑ Dog in the yard? Yes ❑ No 0 Reason for tree removal? )KPlease draw a sketch map in box below. Show building outlines, streets and only tree(s) to be removed represented with an X or you may submit a detailed landscape / site plan along with this application form. Tree Species Proposed Replacement Tree(s) <C),- Address of Trees )-24'1q ZVI-S r l`Ve- Cross - Street # Trees ! X tree(s) must have ribbon or duct tape wrapped around the trunk to identify prior to inspection. By signing this application I agree to rep City Arborist or as a condition of the Property Owner's Signat Applicant's Signatu F6n my property within 45 days of tree removal, if required by grants ,y Tree Committee. Permit valid for 6 months, Submit completed application to address above, fax to 805.542.9868 or scan and email to rcombslaDslocitV.org MEMORANDUM Thom Brajkovich To: Tree Committee Date: 9 -18 -15 Regarding: Lot 2 @ 2119 San Luis Drive/ Tree removal permission Message: Lot 2 is the smallest of all the lots and together with the setbacks required and having to build around the biggest of 5 Oak trees results in a building area that is too small to build a reasonable size family home with a two or three car garage. There are plenty of Oak trees that are on the unbuildable part of the site which is on a 30% slope or more as well as on the Southwest and northeast sides of the property. In addition the three oaks on the Southwest side of the property that will provide too much shading to make solar /photovoltaics workable. One of these trees is barely on the adjacent lot and can't be removed. All sides of the site except for the street side will be in the shade. The street faces northwest which receives the least amount of solar facing. The large tree we are asking to remove has its canopy entirely over the designated building area that will render it an unbuildable site. In addition the footprint allowed by the current standards that were set forth in 1985 when there were smaller and fewer trees sets our building area of about 1184 sq.ft. (see attached site plan). With the average 24'x24' ( =576 sq.ft.) two -car garage that leaves only 608 sq.ft. left for the house!! With most baby boomers aging they tend to do most of their living on the first floor and this doesn't allow much space for a high -end house that the area demands. Without the tree in the way the buildable area increases to almost 1700 sq. ft. which is still small but a lot more reasonable. For these reasons we are requesting the removal of the tree. Ron Co*nbs has visited the site along with the owner and an arborist from Bunyan Brothers tee Company. They all said this was a reasonable request and top apply for this review. See attachment diagram for the location of the trees and the buildable area. Thank Thom E (805) 52 1009 Morro St. Suite 203 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805- 541 -9486 FAX 541 -5705 t h�q DRIVE SAN L s$ ss ssFss 2 , . sr rl 5517 �17�kV ,s a�• - _ A jy 315 !u -- — .325 _�` TENTATIVE TRACT 1259 ►� N TREE PROTECTION REVIEW AND REQUIREMENTS EXHIBIT C LOT #1 Trees A, B, C, D, and E have been removed probably due to fire access. LOT #2 Trees A, B, (B' 6" live oak adjacent to B2 not shown on plan) and 2D are to be retained. Tree 20_may be trimmed as indicated on tree protection plan. Tree 2E may be removed. Tree 2F has been removed by SLO Fire Dept. LOT #3 Trees A, K, and I are to be retained. Trees B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J, and L may be removed, LOT #4 Trees A, C, H, and I are to be retained. Extensive pruning not required on tree 4A.with_ uphill shift of building envelope. Trees B, D, E, F, G, J, and K may be removed. LOT #5 Trees A, B, C, and D are to be retained. Building envelope too close to tree 5D. Provide a minimum clearance of 10 feet for tree protection. Trees E and F may be removed. LOT #6 Trees A, B, C, D, and G are to be retained. Trees E and F may be removed. LOT #7 , Trees A, B, C, and G are to be retained. Relocate building.envelope to rear of lot. Trees D, E, and 'F may be removed. Excessive pruning on tree 7C not necessary. LOT #8 Tree C is to be retained. Trees A, B, D and E may be- removed. LOT #9 No existing trees. LOT #10 Tree A is to be retained. LOT #11 No existing trees. LOT #12 No existing trees. 'r s r ► .° u p �m .. �,, s u �•' 1. n K !R 0 • Q r �l 1 s MiiTT or ' Ck 4 • � 0 i y i U �4 rp h 1 • � . IL " o ZL - 0 IL 6 (m ty\ i' � � e- e Urban Forest Services 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401.3218 F r 805.781.7220 fax 805,542.9868 slc:!ty.oro, TREE REMOVAL APPLICATION If related to development, see Section E on back. For Office Use Only: Entered j 5 p�� Letter: _ t /l I / 15 35[1 OWNER: L—uy)j A& CC)CL_ APPLICANT: '+ Vl � r ri C( C ADDRESS:( t/ ADDRESS' —1 CITY: C LU ZIP: Q CITY:_,_ I, Y-) ZIP: 9:�Ll V „CJ Sot) PHONE: ( So ) —I i 33Z u PHONE: ( 56S ) (4` ?) EMAIL: 1 (__K) Y, , EMAIL- (yf,i C tf W l S I � Private tree removals may require replacement tree(s) to be planted on site as a condition of approval. City Street Tree removals must be replaced with species from the Street Tree Master List - see website. Is this a City Street Tree? Yes ❑ No q Unknown ❑ Dog in the yard? Yes ❑ No 14 Reason for tree removal? I-C)Oi lY-1 \ /O,SI CY-) ,KPlease draw a sketch map in box below. Show building outlines, streets and only tree(s) to be removed represented with an X or you may submit a detailed landscape / site plan along with this application form. Tree Species V yC 00L c� M U � Ihu L+ Proposed Replacement Tree(s) Address of Tree(s) � 9 1 Z ( Cj i-rCi j Q .0,, Cross- Street p le(A3C Sec () QCV_<c.( Ph&6 alOw'l �/:5 � d as H oY1 # Trees 2_ X tree(s) must have ribbon or duct tape wrapped around the trunk to identify prior to inspection. By signing this application I agree to replant tree(s) on my property within 45 days of tree removal, if required by City Arborist or as a condition of the $81.00 Permit granted by Tree Committee. Permit valid for 6 months. Property Owner's Signature ,v .. i� �.( �' ' (I Date ( 1 17 T / Applicant's Signature ~ - Date G is- Submit completed application to address above, fax to 805.542.9868 or scan and email to rcombs(oDslocity.org r� ^J F ` Y� CD 41 Y r +a at �� tl ./ TMAV r' a i V� 1 h� W • Tt CD Y r +a at �� tl ./ TMAV r' a