Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-28-2008 TC MinutesCITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TREE COMMITTEE CORPORATION YARD MONDAY, JANUARY 28, 2008 MEMBERS PRESENT:Sarah Young, Craig Kincaid, and Ben Parker STAFF PRESENT:Keith Pellemeier, Barbara Lynch, and Ron Combs PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. 1.APPROVAL NOVEMBER 26, 2007 MINUTES The minutes were unanimously approved as submitted; Ms. Young abstained because she was absent from that meeting. 2.TREE REMOVALS 1497 SLACK (Canary Island Pine) The applicant was represented by Shawn Collarman, Owner of Greenvale Tree Company. He had no receipts to confirm tree was causing damage to plumbing. Mr. Combs stated it was a large and healthy tree. Mr. Parker moved to deny removal request because none of the criteria for removal was evident. Ms. Young seconded. The motion passed unanimously. 270 LUNETA (Monterey Pine) The applicant discussed the request, citing evidence of pitch canker in the tree. He was concerned about falling branches and the safety of his small children. He had plans to develop the back yard extensively and removing the tree at this time would make sense to moving forward with that. He agreed to plant replacement trees on the property. Mr. Combs reported that it was a large tree had a fair amount of beetle strikes and that it had been thinned quite extensively. Mr. Parker noted it was a skyline tree and that its removal would adversely affect the neighborhood. There is no indication the tree was failing and there is no obvious evidence of pitch pine canker. He could not make the necessary findings for removal and felt that pruning could mitigate limb loss. Ms. Young felt proper pruning could address the falling limbs. Ron Rinnell, Bunyan Brothers, discussed risk reduction pruning and how that affects the structure’s integrity. Mr. Kincaid felt the tree had been pruned poorly but agreed it was a skyline tree and felt it could be shaped better. Mr. Parker moved to deny the removal request as he could not make the necessary findings for removal. Ms. Young seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 308 SAN MIGUEL (Monterey Pine) Mr. Rinnell, applicant representative, stated the neighbor below the property is very concerned about the tree falling on her house and its liability. He reported the tree was growing right on a steep bank going to her driveway. He noted the retaining wall was cracking. He concluded that the applicant was agreeable to removing the tree to accommodate the neighbor’s concern. Mr. Combs reported that it was a large, healthy tree that posed a possible hazard. Ms. Young agreed it was a healthy specimen. Ms. Young moved to deny the removal request as she could not make the necessary findings for removal. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Mr. Kincaid voting against. 1738 CORDOVA (Aleppo Pine) The applicant discussed the letter from the neighbor at 1756 Cordova, who was concerned about the tree’s hazard liability and favored its removal. He stated the wall was lifting and that he had several water line issues. He noted a second pine planted nearby had fallen and he was concerned about the hazard and liability of the remaining tree. He discussed past pruning efforts and the tree’s leaning. Mr. Combs reported that the tree was large and healthy with some lean and noted that the retaining wall and water lines have had problems. He did not think the tree would fall. Mr. Parker noted the tree had been topped and did not seem viable long-term and agreed with evidence of retaining wall damage. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice and undue hardship on the property owner and required a 15-gallon replacement tree to 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. 1251 CORAL (Two Liquid Amber) The applicant discussed the problems with the trees and the damage caused. She submitted receipts for fixing the root damage to sewer and water lines and noted that limb loss had previously caused minor damage. She was concerned about on-going liability and further root intrusion with hardscape damage. She agreed to replacement plantings with species that had deeper root systems. Mr. Combs reported that the large trees were healthy. Ms. Young moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice and undue hardship on the property owner and required two 15-gallon replacement tree 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. 1386 SOUTHWOOD (Eucalyptus) The applicant discussed the large tree that was causing driveway damage, had limb loss, and had caused significant property damage. He stated pruning had not mitigated the limb loss and felt it was the wrong tree planted in the wrong place. He requested replacement planting with a flowering pear. Mr. Combs stated that the large tree was healthy and had evidence of limb droppage and was lifting the driveway. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice and undue hardship on the property owner and required one 15-gallon replacement flowering pear tree to be planted within 45 days of issuance of permit. Mr. Kincaid seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 152 LINCOLN (Coast Live Oak) David Brown, applicant’s representative, discussed the two oak trees in the back yard. He stated one leans 10% and has structural problems. He also requested permission to remove the adjacent Poplar tree because it hang over Santa Rosa St. and poses a potential liability issue. Mr. Combs noted the requested tree was growing under a larger oak and that larger tree could thrive if the smaller one were removed. He clarified the Poplar tree was in fact a Cottonwood and stated that tree was small enough in diameter to be removed with permit approval. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice and required no replacement tree. Mr. Kincaid seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 1020 MARSH STREET The application for removal had been withdrawn by applicant. 1202 BRIARWOOD (Modesto ash) Mr. Pellemeier reported that the property owner was contacted and did not want the sidewalk moved and still wanted the tree removed. They were also concerned about a possible aphid problem. Staff recommended removal and repairing the sidewalk and replant with three trees, two planted along Woodside. Ms. Young was concerned that replacement trees should be similar in canopy and she did not think a Flowering Orchid, as proposed, was a large enough species. She suggested one Raywood ash and two Flowering Orchids. Staff agreed. Mr. Kincaid moved to approve the removal request as outlined. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 3658 LAWNWOOD Mr. Pellemeier reported that the owner was contacted and he was willing to let the sidewalk be moved in order for the tree to be preserved when the sidewalk is repaired. Staff suggested this be done. Mr. Parker moved to accept the staff recommendation. Mr. Kincaid seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 1275 FERNWOOD/1283 WOODSIDE Staff asked for Committee input for the best option: remove the existing tree, repair the sidewalk and replace with smaller species of tree or retain the tree and do bulb-outs? The trees would have about a 70-75% rate of survival after the installation. The Committee felt the removal/replacement option was more feasible. Mr. Pellemeier agreed to bring the tree back as a removal application at the next meeting. NEW BUSINESS Committee evaluation of three possible Heritage Trees: The Committee discussed the options and agreed that the Coast Live Oak on San Luis Drive and the Avocado Tree on Marsh Street were candidates. They did not favor the Coast Redwood on Santa Rosa Avenue as a candidate. Staff agreed to take the next step with those proposed tree property owners and report back to the Committee at a later date. Mr. Kincaid discussed the possible removal permit application for back yard tree removals require pictures submitted with the application. He also felt that if the application was filled out illegibly, the application should not be accepted. ON-GOING BUSINESS 1.Tree Ordinance Update Review and Confirm the Outline for the Tree Ordinance Revisions There was very detailed discussion on several language and intent aspects of the Ordinance draft. (See Staff Attachments) ARBORIST REPORT 1.Arbor Day Mr. Combs reported that the Arbor Day booths were getting occupied. He and Mr. Pellemeier also discussed several business notes: Four applicants had been processed for the Tree Committee vacancies and that Allen Root would be the ARC rep The Advisory Body Recognition Dinner would be held March 13 at the Ludwick Center Neighborhood planting were scheduled for Higuera/Pacific Sts. And the Laguna Lake Commemorative Grove area Cal Poly Work Project update Distributed new Heritage Tree brochures The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. to the next regular meeting scheduled for Monday, February 25, 2008 at 4:00 p.m. for a Work Session and a 5:00 p.m. public meeting. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske, Recording Secretary