Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-25-2008 TC Minutes1 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TREE COMMITTEE CORPORATION YARD MONDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2008 MEMBERS PRESENT:Sara 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 JANUARY 28, 2008 MINUTES The minutes were unanimously approved as submitted. 2.TREE REMOVALS 1373 SONRISA (2 White alders) The applicant discussed the lifting sidewalk damage caused by the front tree and said the roots had cracked through both his and his neighbor’s water meters. He stated that the tree had broken the water main in the past and had caused past sidewalk damage that required repairs. He stated that he tried to brick a walkway, but that was lifting as well and limiting access to the front door. He noted that his daughter was severely allergic to bees and that the tree’s flowers attracted swarms of them for three months every year. He noted that larger tree had been topped in the past. He requested replacement with two semi-dwarf orange trees. Mr. Combs noted that the alders were original theme tree and the specimens were healthy. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request, based on undue hardship to the property owner and promoting good arboricultural practice, and required replacement plantings of two 15-gallon semi-dwarf orange trees to be planted within 45 days of issuance of permit. Mr. Kincaid seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 2 1242 MADONNA (Chinese elm) Phil Caspary, applicant representative, stated that the large tree in the front yard created root intrusion into the sewer and the problems continued to increase and were very costly to deal with. He stated he wanted to replace the sewer line with ABS piping, due to three different breaks in the line. Felt trenching around the tree would make it unstable and agreed with replanting a different tree in another location in the front yard. Mr. Combs reported that it was a large, healthy tree with wide spread canopy and large surface roots. He agreed trenching would make the tree unstable. He suggested boring underneath instead of trenching. Mr. Parker noted that removing the tree would be expensive and that the tree was significant to the neighborhood. He suggested re-routing the sewer line along the driveway instead and felt the tree should be retained if possible and that the applicant should investigate alternative solutions to removal. He stated that if they could not make the removal approval findings at this time, the applicant could return with another application with evidence that tree retention measures would prove too costly. 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. 468 WESTMONT (Shamel ash) Steve Judd, applicant representative, discussed the three splits occurring at the 6’ height and reported they were continuing to widen. He noted the tree was in the middle of a children’s play area and was concerned about eventual splitting, failing, and/or decay and felt the tree was too hazardous to remain. He did not feel cabling was an option and reported that root damage in the past had required replacing the sewer line. He stated they had already replaced two trees on the property. Mr. Combs stated it was a large tree that had been heavily pruned. The tree had weak crotches and evidence of decay and he agreed that cabling would not be effective in this case. Mr. Parker felt the property owners had done due diligence to mitigate problems and had provided extensive planting on the site. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request, based on undue hardship to the property owner and promoting good arboricultural practice, requiring no replacement plantings. Mr. Kincaid seconded the motion. 3 The motion passed unanimously. . 1624 SANTA ROSA (Cedar and redwood) The applicant discussed the problems with trees that are too large for the area and the damage caused. He stated the roots were damaging the driveway and the drainage system, and he had done some root pruning to replace the pipe. He was concerned about liability to the house and to nearby apartments. He stated the redwoods had been topped in the past. He stated the sidewalk is now lifting and that he had concerns about patio and foundation damage. He said the cedars were causing driveway cracks and ruining the driveway to the apartment building. He was also concerned about the stability of one of the tree. Mr. Combs reported that the large trees were healthy and that there was evidence of walkway and driveway damage. Mr. Parker was concerned about the value of the trees in the neighborhood and suggested a brick walkway to mitigate lifting. He felt alternatives to removal could be explored and suggested trenching or a barrier system to protect the patio. He recommended the applicant contact a certified arborist to possibly thin or top some of the trees. Mr. Kincaid and Ms. Young agreed they were impressive skyline trees. 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 unanimously. 1283 WOODSIDE (Liquid amber) Mr. Pellemeier recapped the history of the removal request for sidewalk repair work. He stated that retaining the tree and re-configuring the sidewalk would be too labor-intensive. Jay Johnson, 1296 Fernwood, suggested bulb outs and parkway widening, as he was concerned about losing significant specimens. Mr. Pellemeier reported that the bulb out option would present a 70% survival rate for the tree and the option would encroach too far out into the street. He noted most of the trees in the area are being retained – only 18 trees were slated for removal out of 200 trees that were identified as causing problems. He also discussed the concept of diversity planning for species and age stages. Mr. Kincaid moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, requiring a 15-gallon replacement tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of issuance of permit. 4 Ms. Young seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. . 1275 FERNWOOD (Shamel ash) Mr. Pellemeier recapped the history of the removal request for sidewalk repair work. He stated that retaining the tree and re-configuring the sidewalk would be too labor-intensive and would not prove a long-term option. He stated bulb outs would not be an option, as there was not enough room. He also said they were trying to abide by ADA federal regulations regarding pitch. Linda Gardner, 1275 Fernwood, did not favor removal and felt the sidewalk damage was minimal. Pam Cosart, 1282 Fernwood, did not favor removal and stated that the neighbors were willing to work with the city to allow the city to support efforts that would make the pitch more moderate. Mr. Combs was concerned about how vigorously the roots grew and that any hardscape mitigation measures would be temporary and that the city would not be able to provide continuous maintenance that would be required. Mr. Johnson did not favor removal of the tree. He wanted to find an interim solution, Ms. Gardner felt the tree was a neighborhood asset and a “visual anchor” to the street. Ms. Cosart stated that if the tree were removed, her second story sightline screening would be opened up and the 24-hour lighting system of Las Brisas Care Center would adversely affect her property. She also felt the lack of screening would affect other parts of the surrounding area. Ms. Young was concerned about getting the hardscape into ADA compliance without hurting the root structure. Mr. Kincaid moved to continue the item to allow staff and residents to explore cooperative resolutions to possibly retain the tree. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 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) 5 It was agreed that further review would commence at 4 p.m. until 5 p.m. at the next regular meeting. ARBORIST REPORT 1.Arbor Day Mr. Combs stated that 17 booths had been secured, that a new banner would be in place to promote the date, and that he was going to various schools promoting Arbor Day. 2.MISC. Mr. Combs also reported that six removals had been performed and recapped a Heritage Tree update for the San Luis Drive and Marsh Street trees. He stated he had 24 more trees for the empty tree wells in additional to the 18 removed in Area 2. STAFF UPDATE Mr. Pellemeier reported that the new Committee member would be sworn in at the April 2008 meeting. He reminded the Committee about the March 13 Advisory Body Dinner. He stated the inventory grant had been approved from Cal CDS, as a 50/50 matching grant. He also noted a drive to give away mulch and firewood at the Corporation Yard. MEMBER COMMENTS Mr. Kincaid stated a concern with the PG&E utility pruning of trees in the Oceanaire area and that they had been flat-topped well below lines. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. to the next regular meeting scheduled for Monday, March 24, 2008 at 4:00 p.m. for a Work Session and a 5:00 p.m. public meeting. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske, Recording Secretary