Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-23-2015 TC Agenda Packet�r Agenda �r i Tree Committee TREE COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA Monday March 23, 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, 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 February 23, 2015 TREE REMOVAL APPLICATIONS: 1. 1065 Cortez Ct. 93406 2. 2247 Bushnell St. 93401 3. Street trees on both sides of Branch St. between Beebee St. and Hutton St. NEW BUSINESS: Street tree assessment on Branch St. for removals and pruning of Elm trees. Review Tree Committee Bylaws. OLD BUSINESS: ARBORIST REPORT: • Laguna Lake Park pine tree removals. • Rotary Club & Grizzly Academy Commemorative Grove improvements. ADJOURN to next meeting scheduled for Monday April 27, 2015 at 5:00 pm held at the City Corporation Yard located on 25 Prado Road Conference Room A. Nihe 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 February 23, 2015 at 5:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT: Matt Ritter, Ben Parker, Ryan Baker, and Scott Loosley STAFF PRESENT: Ron Combs, Anthony Whipple Mr. Ritter called the meeting to order at 5:03 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENT Sean Flickinger asked for clarification on how HOA tree removal requests are handled at Committee level. Staff agreed to contact him outside of the meeting to discuss. MINUTES: Approval of Minutes of January 26, 2015 Mr. Loosley moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. TREE REMOVAL APPLICATIONS 1. 804 Vista Del Arroyo The item had been withdrawn. 2. 245 Clover (Eucalyptus) Mr. Combs discussed the City's application request to remove the large, healthy tree, explaining that the Street Division would have difficulty repairing the sidewalk while retaining the tree. Rick Wolfe, property owner, discussed the removal request, stating that he had initiated removal discussion with the City with regard to the extensive sidewalk damage. He requested that the tree be removed. Mr. Loosley agreed that the tree was healthy, but could not be retained in light of major sidewalk repair required. 2 Ms. Worthy agreed and felt the tree could be hazardous. Mr. Parker agreed the tree was too large for the location and there was no way to retain it and do the sidewalk repair. Mr. Loosley moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required replacement planting of one 15 -gallon tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of tree removal. Mr. Loosley seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 3. 551 Stoneridge The item had been withdrawn. 4. 1720 San Luis Drive (Coast live oak) Mr. Ritter noted that a neighbor had submitted a letter favoring the removal of the tree. Phil Peterson, applicant's representative, discussed the removal request and the planned property improvements. He reported that the tree is moving the sewer line, cracking the sidewalk, and posing a damage threat to the foundation. He stated the owner agreed to replacement planting. Mr. Combs stated it was a large, healthy native tree that would continue to get larger. He noted some evidence of fence damage. Jackie Williams, neighbor, reiterated the damage the tree had done and felt it represented a hazard. Mr. Parker felt the tree was a volunteer and would create future hazards and damage, as it grew larger. Mr. Baker agreed it was the wrong tree in the wrong location. Ms. Worthy stated that while she had seen evidence of sidewalk damage, she did not see damage to the foundation. She did not feel a tree should be removed based on future damage assessment. Mr. Loosley agreed with Mr. Parker's comments and felt it would be better to remove it now and replace with a better species in a different location. Mr. Ritter moved to approve the removal request, based on doing so would not harm the character of the neighborhood or environment, and required replacement planting of one 15 -gallon tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of tree removal. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Ms. Worthy voting against. 5. 359 Foothill (Pine, liquid amber) The applicant discussed the removal request. She stated the liquid amber was causing major damage to the deck and that creatures were able to crawl under the deck, getting caught and dying, so she wanted to be able to stabilize the deck. She also noted the roots were causing damage to the foundation. She believed the pine had beetle infestation. Mr. Combs stated that the liquid amber was healthy but causing damage to the deck and that the pine had minor evidence of beetle issues. Mr. Baker noted he had been unable to view the trees. Mr. Parker pointed out that Bunyon Brothers had not been properly flagged or identified the trees, which could have resulted in the item being continued in order to ensure Committee members were viewing the correct trees. In this case, he was able to determine which trees were in question. He felt the pine was relatively healthy and needed to be pruned and felt the deck was older and the rebuild could be modified to allow retaining the liquid amber, which he noted had some structural issues. Mr. Loosley did not think the pine was failing; just needed some pruning. Mr. Ritter did not see evidence of beetle in the pine. Mr. Ritter moved to deny the removal request for the pine tree, as he could not make the necessary findings for removal. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously, with Mr. Baker abstaining. Mr. Ritter thought the liquid amber had problematic form and was too close to the home. Mr. Loosley agreed the liquid amber roots were causing damage and that the foundation could be threatened. Mr. Loosley moved to approve the removal request for the liquid amber, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required replacement planting of one 15 -gallon tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of tree removal. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously, with Mr. Baker abstaining. El 6. 1743 Quail (Redwood) The applicant discussed the removal request, stating that the tree was too large for the area and that roots were causing damage to the sidewalk and driveway and causing severe drainage issues due to the uplifting. She stated the tree was interfering with electrical wires was growing quite rapidly. She discussed replacement planting with crepe myrtle. Mr. Combs reported it was a young redwood and agreed there was driveway and walkway displacement. Mr. Loosley felt the skyline tree was in moderate healthy and had seen evidence of the drainage issues being caused by the displacement. Ms. Worthy agreed with Mr. Loosley, although she did not see the property in the rain to witness the drainage issues. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request, based on undue hardship to the property owner, and required replacement planting of one 15 -gallon tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of tree removal. Mr. Ritter seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 7. 21 & 58 Los Verdes (Misc. trees) Janet Kase, HOA representative, discussed the return to Committee in regard to the liquid amber located at #21 that was causing foundation damage and the new request for removing the tulip tree at #58 due to drainage issues in the culvert. Mr. Combs noted there was some displacement caused by the liquid amber and agreed that the tulip tree had raised the drainage hardscape, causing issues. Sean Flickinger, resident, questioned whether the liquid amber was actually causing the foundation damage, as opposed to the building settling. He felt a different drainage solution could be created instead of removing the healthy tulip tree. Chelsea Ruiz, 81 Del Oro Ct., HOA Board member, did not think an alternative drainage solution was available and noted that the foundation issues at #21 were causing issues with being able to fully close the back door. Bob Barker, #59, HOA Board member, discussed the draining issues and the hardship involved with trying to work around the tree to solve them. He felt the tulip tree was also causing a trip hazard. Mr. Loosley felt the liquid amber had poor structure. He agreed that a drainage solution could be sought with retaining the tree. Mr. Loosley moved to approve the removal request for the liquid amber, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required replacement planting of one 15 -gallon tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of tree removal. Ms. Worthy seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Whipple stated that repairing the culvert and maintaining the tulip tree would be less expensive than removal and that retaining the tree would add property value to the area in terms of long-term investment. Ms. Worthy and Mr. Parker felt a re -figuring of the drainage area could be explored. Mr. Ritter stated that even if the drainage area were re -figured, the healthy tulip tree would continue to grow and continue to cause damage to the repaired drainage area. Mr. Ritter moved to approve the removal request for the tulip tree, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required replacement planting of one 15 -gallon tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of tree removal. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. B. 772 Palm (Carrotwood) Charlie Main, applicant's representative, discussed the removal request, outlining the sidewalk was being uplifted and stating that the new sidewalk could not be installed with the tree in place, as construction would most likely damage the tree and if the tree remained, the roots would just continue to cause damage to the repaired sidewalk. He wanted to replace the tree with a jacaranda. Mr. Combs reported that the large, healthy tree had surface roots and noted that the sidewalk had been replaced 10 years ago. He agreed the sidewalk was not reparable with the tree in place. Mr. Ritter moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required replacement planting of one 24"jacaranda box tree to be planted within 45 days of tree removal. Mr. Loosley seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS Overview of PG&E Vegetation Management Program Justin Kephart, PG&E representative, discussed the PG&E rules and regulations pertaining to how tree pruning and removal work is dictated in order to protect trees from falling into 0 and interfering with power lines. He noted that all trees needed to be pruned to allow for an 18" wire clearance span within a one year period and that palm fronds can fall into the wires and cause outages. He discussed the details of December storm issues and the power outages caused and stated the trees had been topped to mitigate issues and that the clean-up work could not be performed in a timely manner due to issues raised in storm management elsewhere in the county. He stated that he felt PG&E had been given permission to take out the stand of trees from the property owner's representative, who in fact was the owner's brother. He noted that if the representative had not given permission to remove the trees, they would have radically pruned them instead; understanding that PG&E had permission to remove the trees, they were topped in a manner as to precede removal. Sean Nagel, attorney for the property owner, noted that while remediation was being discussed between PG&E and the property owner, he wanted the Tree Committee to encourage PG&E to participate in the following solutions: remove the stumps, install new trees (10' European fan palms), and reimburse his client for the $5K he spent on site cleanup. The Committee discussed the item and the mitigation measures outlined by Mr. Nagel. Mr. Ritter moved to have the Committee document in the meeting minutes a statement of support for the property owner and that PG&E should participate in having the stumps removed; getting new trees on site or provide compensation for the replacement plantings; and provide reimbursement to the property owner for monies spent on site cleanup. Ms. Worthy seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Mr. Parker voting against. ARBORIST REPORT Discuss Recent Storm Response Numbers from Dec. 11 & 12, 2014 Mr. Combs discussed the response details for the 17 locations that had issues during the storm. He noted there was little loss experienced by the City. Explore Urban Forest Page and New Tree Removal Request The Committee discussed and agreed that the site and the application looked good and thanked staff for their time. The meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m. to next regular meeting scheduled for March 23, 2015 at 5:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske, Recording Secretary Urban Forest Services 15 Prado I2oai1, ;;r,u Luio ON,,, SCP. J?,d01,3)_1�i 8II?081 7?'l0 fix 8O5';:J.98Gt3 TREE REMOVAL APPLICATION If related to development, see Section E on back. SCANNED For Office Use Only: Entered: 115 Letter: -Aj f J5 OWNER:APPLICANT: 14 A r}1,Z I —let) 5/4 0 A C4z ADDRESS:C0 rfe z (20 U J I D(� � T �-CJ � ADDRESS: C'or-fe a (4,-f CITY: g LZ , CAZIP: q 3`T' 10 S CITY: gL CA_ ZIP: PHONE: ( ) Gj 5(i `3 a rII PHONE: EMAIL:ro%Gci�GiG�i rr� Q CGru��"eY l7ET EMAIL: I—b 54tj4 Qr-bg LCha i-fei; 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 ® Unknown ❑ Reason for tree removal? irt)Dt"� Cr&.l Dog in the yard? Yes ❑ No P klhlc' h t.1f1f S1nnrP aire,0,44 yevolrc ,Please 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 1" 1 N 15- Proposed Replacement Tree(s) Address of Tree (s) 6) 4e y r f Cross-Street'fl-e-k Mv C-0NIC]rt # Trees Vo r„ 00r, 17, G - Com,.: ; 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 conditi the $81.0n4j ranted by Tree Committee. Permit valid for 6 m nths. .r Property Owner's Signature .atm Date Applicant's Signature Date Submit completed application to Oddress gbove, fax to 805.542.9868 or scan and email to rcombs(c�slocity.org ` Urban Forest Services (� 2J �' ad-, Road, San Luis Obism, 4A,=�:k4i31•M2, 8 ...,. l .:I 5115.7 i1 7t_ .l} i -7'i96r3 ADDRESS: ei- L TREE REMOVAL APPLICATION If related to development, see section E on back - SCANNED For Office Use Only: Entered:zz� �� Letter:3_/_j5_/_ff I OWNER: APPLICANT: ADDRESS: ADDRESS: ei- L CITY: 4U -t:;> ZIP: C s rt CITY: � ZIP: �- PHONE: ( ) l _ Gz PHONE: EMAIL: -- -�-� c.cv1`1 u EMAIL: — - Private tree removals may require rept cement 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 El No E ceUnknown 1:1 Dog in the yard? Yes El No LLi Q etc. w�i iw1� �:�:�s-r-� +.� st `�:x.,--�+z� =`� P�� � aeays-+mss_.► r,S,. r� Reason for tree removal?G CA4%rc iNi a4 L)--CxL4--t6-­, � v �► A3 rr� , )FSPlease 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. 0 Tree Species Proposed Replacement Tree(s) Address of Tree(s) 2`F`� �t�lc_i, Cross -Streets _`, c3t # Trees 1�' itiT% Y a es .44144 . -s 1 i�`Z. W&-, a :tivtc a Nuc l s�..�rn6.ib 7.. -VF- - 3 VT l t-._iT1LA" ILA_AbLX__• , FES iL,U--X-e-, X tree(s) must have ribbon or duct tape wrapped around the trunk to identify prior to inspection. By signing this application I aLeto eplant tree(s) on my property within 45 days of tree removal, if required by City Arborist or as a conditio1.00 Permit granted by Tree Committee. Permit valid for 6 months. Property Owner's SignatureDa#e �'4 f i Applicant's Signat Date -f -dr t Submit completed application to address above, fax to 805.542.9868 or scan and email to rcombs(a)slocity.oLg CID)Urban Forest Services 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 805.781,12Z(�f 8U5,5428slocity.org TREE REMOVAL APPLICATION if related to development, see Section E on back, For Office Use Only: Entered jjPj_W 1 Letter: �� 65 OWNER: C l d s�l, APPLICANT: S vv� 1 1 PVI S ADDRESS: ADDRESS:U 5 n L CITY: f d ZIP: 9390/ CITY: ZIP: PHONE: ( ) PHONE: ( 1' ) -2, Vi EMAIL: EMAIL: 16 C(4` ` ' b (-- ✓ V 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 10 No ❑ Unknown ❑ Dog in the yard? Yes ❑ No Reason for tree removal? Ver Ma: or -e_ cyn d S�ruc� f f ml wcok e,5SCS )E!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 I �'✓1 Proposed Replacement Tree(s) Address of Tree(sI/ L 0,-, e_ &//h f �� eE { 0` godt/ () Cross -Street - # Trees 4 u 6 OL CZ V rQ P / n S P e c,+ f,(. es -7rD r /` em o vct Alec) Vey Pr 6) __� -16 4a I I f -ce-) � a a � r �he:�:e 7 r_e_e5_ Rave iecn 4 e 4 -ee w 6 e r t, tree(s) must have ribbon or duct tape wrapped a ound 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 Date Applicant's Signature- Cf Date Submit completed application to address above, fax to 805.542.9868 or scan and email to rcombs slocity.org Tree Committee Bylaws 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 seven members and shall consist of one (1) representative from the Parks and Recreation Commission, one (1) representative from the Architectural Review Commission, and five (5) 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. 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. Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised, shall be utilized as a guide in the conduct of meetings. 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. (LAST REVISED XX/XX/XXXX)