The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07-28-2008 TC Minutes1 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TREE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES CORPORATION YARD MONDAY, JULY 28, 2008 MEMBERS PRESENT:Sara Young, Ellen Dollar, and Craig Kincaid STAFF PRESENT:Keith Pellemeier and Ron Combs PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. 1.APPROVAL JUNE 23, 2008 MINUTES The minutes were unanimously approved as submitted. 2.TREE REMOVALS 4154/4124 POINSETTIA (Two alders) Mr. Combs discussed the minor vertical displacement of the sidewalk and problems with the surface roots. He noted the one tree was very close to the structure and would double in size. He felt root pruning and barriers would mitigate problems with the tree at 4154 Poinsettia. Anna Larden, 4154 Poinsettia, favored removal of the tree at 4124 Poinsettia, but objected to the removal of the tree at 4154 Poinsettia, stating she agreed that root pruning and barriers were options for retaining it. Ms. Dollar agreed with the removal at 4124 Poinsettia, as it was too close to the structure and there were plenty of other trees around it, however she did not feel she could make the necessary findings to remove the 4154 Poinsettia tree, especially since the damage was minor and the property owner wanted to retain it. Ms. Young and Mr. Kincaid agreed with Ms. Dollar. Ms. Young moved to approve the removal request for the tree at 4124 Poinsettia, based on promoting good arboricultural practice and denied the removal of the tree at 4154 Poinsettia, as she could not make the necessary findings for removal. There were no replacement trees required. 2 Ms. Dollar seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 2775 TENBROOK (Italian Stone pine) Mr. Pellemeier discussed the city’s removal request to accommodate the sidewalk repair program and stated that the Street Dept. did not think the sidewalk/driveway/curb/gutter would be fixed without severe root pruning and would therefore ruin the viability of the tree. Linda Wenzl, 2775 Tenbrook, stated that when the tree was planted, it was mistakenly labeled as a dwarf Aleppo pine and was intended to be smaller in size. She felt the hardscape damage was minor and did not want the tree removed. She stated the tree had been thinned and pruned twice. She noted the tree had been denied a removal permit almost 10 years ago. Jacqueline W illiams, 2710/2711 Tenbrook, felt there was a lack of street trees in the area and felt the tree should be retained and mitigation measures could be taken, e.g. flexible materials used for repairs to accommodate tree. Mr. Combs stated the city standard was to place 4” concrete depth and to not ramp areas unless it was unavoidable. He agreed pavers might be an option if the standards policy could be altered. He stated root pruning would still be required and that the driveway approach and curb/gutter repairs were still issues. Mr. Kincaid felt it was a healthy, attractive tree in the neighborhood. Ms. Dollar agreed and felt the property owner’s desire to retain the tree was important to recognize and consider. The Committee discussed possible ways to mitigate problems. Ms. Young moved to continue to item to a later date and recommended that staff work with the property owner to find if there were options to retain the tree. Mr. Kincaid seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 1374 PISMO (Two Eucalyptus) Howard Nicholson, applicant, discussed the removal request and submitted a landscaping plan. He stated the Tree #1 was cracked a dangerously leaning and felt the tree posed a liability hazard. He stated Tree #2 might have had its roots compromised with previous excavation when a third tree had been removed. He noted the branches were hanging over structures and that nothing grew 3 grew underneath the trees. Mr. Combs reported they were large specimens and that Tree #1 did have a large crack in the bark that could be structural. He was concerned about the creek bank stability being compromised with removal. Ron Rinnell, Bunyan Bros., discussed the past excavation and the integrity of the tree, feeling it had been compromised. He discussed the weak V-crotch and liability issues. Derek Schmidt, 1343 Pismo, supported the removal request and noted these were not native species or street trees. He felt the property development would enhance the neighborhood and the removal of these trees would not create adverse issues. Mr. Combs noted that if the trees were removed, the stumps should be left to help stabilize the creek bank and the replacement trees as proposed should be planted at top of bank. Steve Caminiti, landscape architect, reported that the oak tree on site had been saved at great expense to the developer and that the two trees on the removal application were hazardous and that plenty of skyline attributes would be intact even if these trees were removed. He discussed the replacement plantings of California sycamores and two 24” box Coast Live Oaks, which would create a native environment. Mr. Kincaid moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice and that the proposed landscaping plan would enhance the character of the environment. Ms. Dollar seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 3462 EDGEWOOD (Pine) Cheryl Anderson, applicant, stated the tree was interfering with her power lines and appeared to be in severe decline and posed a fire hazard. Mr. Combs noted that an interim staff person had reviewed the tree for removal and that upon Mr. Combs’ subsequent inspection; he felt the tree was in fact diseased and should be removed and that no replacement would be necessary as the property was heavily planted. Ms. Dollar moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required no replacement planting. Mr. Kincaid seconded the motion. 4 The motion passed unanimously. 503 MITCHELL (Two camphors) Mr. Combs noted that the small sized tree had been restricted in growth and that the sidewalk around it had been previously repaired and that the hardscape needed work again. He felt the smaller tree could be retained, but that the larger tree was been too difficult to work around. Jacqueline Williams, property owner, favored retaining the trees as they were the only shade trees on the street and felt flexible material mitigation measures could be used and the city standards needed to be altered to allow more innovative options. She also favored camphor trees as a desirable species. She submitted a list of neighbors who favored retaining the trees. She also discussed possible staggered tree plantings on her properties. Ms. Dollar moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required the city to plant two 15-gallon replacement trees chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of issuance of permit – one planted on Tenbrook and one planted on Mitchell – and directed staff to work with Ms. Williams to be in agreement on species/locations. 673 MITCHELL (Pine) Mr. Pellemeier discussed the removal request due to sidewalk displacement and need for repair. Ms. Dollar noted that the Palm tree on the property needed to be pruned for passage issues and staff discussed abatement noticing. Ms. Young moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required the replacement of one 15-gallon tree chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of issuance of permit. Ms. Dollar seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 863 Monterey/751 Palm (Ficus) Mr. Pellemeier discussed the removal request due to trees’ decay and the need to repair the sidewalk. He noted branches overhang the building at 863 Monterey and that the tree at 751 Palm had been root pruned and was now unstable. Mr. Kincaid moved to approve the removal request for 863 Monterey St., based on 5 on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required the replacement of one 24” box tree chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of issuance of permit. Ms. Dollar seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Young moved to approve the removal request for 751 Palm St., based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required the replacement of one 24” box tree 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. 1201 GARDEN/790 HIGUERA Mr. Pellemeier discussed the two sites as information only items. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business to discuss. ON-GOING BUSINESS 1.TREE REGULATION UPDATE Under “Definitions”/Section O, the wording changed to “…within a street tree easement accepted by City.” Staff agreed to clarify definitions of R-1 and R-2 in “Tree Removals/Section C.1.” Barbara Lynch had sent a question to the Committee for comment: “Should homeowners still be allowed to apply to remove City street trees or should that just be City’s purview?” The Committee agreed that homeowners should still be allowed to apply for removals of street trees. There was general Committee discussion on the discussion points and suggestions brought up at the last meeting by Steve Williams of the Tree Maintenance Dept. 6 ARBORIST REPORT Mr. Combs reported that his department had removed a total of five trees, based on his internal removal criteria. LIAISON REPORT Mr. Pellemeier reported recent Council actions and appeals. He discussed the Quarterly Advisory Body report. He noted that the slack line pilot program was being instituted at Meadow Park for a 12-month trial. The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. to the next regular meeting scheduled for Monday, August 25, 2008 at 5:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske, Recording Secretary