HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-24-2008 TC MinutesCITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
TREE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
CORPORATION YARD
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2008
MEMBERS PRESENT:Sara Young, Ellen Dollar, Allen Root, Craig
Kincaid and Ben Parker
STAFF PRESENT:Keith Pellemeier and Ron Combs
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments.
1.APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 27, 2008 MINUTES
The minutes were unanimously approved as submitted.
2.TREE REMOVALS
305 SAN MIGUEL (Monterey and Canary Island Pines)
The applicant discussed the removal request, citing the tree was unattractive
and was not an asset to the area. She felt the trees appeared to be failing in
health and required constant pruning and needle litter maintenance. She noted
the lot was heavily planted.
Mr. Combs reported there had been a past application for the Monterey pine on
the hillside to be removed. He stated it was in fairly good health, but could fall
and pose a liability. He felt the Canary Island pine had few lower laterals and
was below the diameter regulation and could be removed without a permit.
Mr. Parker noted some evidence of insect infestation.
Ms. Dollar favored removal, as the Canary Island pine was too crowded and the
Monterey pine had been too severely pruned.
Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal of the Monterey pine and required a 5-
gallon Coast live oak to be planted within 45 days of issuance of permit. The
removal of the Canary Island pine did not require a removal permit.
Mr. Root seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
1256 SYDNEY (Modesto ash)
The applicant discussed the removal request and reported the tree’s roots were
in the sewer line and had damaged the hardscape. He proposed replacing the
tree with two jacaranda trees.
He also discussed the anticipated concrete work that is proposed on site and the
issues of the tree’s location. He noted that the City had originally proposed the
tree for removal, but the neighbors had protested its removal. He stated there
was major damage to the curb/sidewalk and that no car could park under the
tree due to sap.
Mr. Pellemeier stated that the City would not remove the tree, as the sidewalk/
curb damage had been addressed with bulb-outs and future repairs would be
made to the hardscape.
Carl Abaloe, 1268 Sydney, discussed the previous issues with the tree’s roots in
the sewer line and felt the City should re-visit the issue of removing the tree.
Terry Mohan, 2416 Santa Clara, discussed the sidewalk repair and noted the
tree was in excellent condition and its removal would harm the character of the
neighborhood.
Charlene Abaloe, 1268 Sydney, felt the tree was in a poor location and impacted
the sewer and utility lines and should be removed.
Mr. Combs reported it was a large ash in a small parkway in moderate health
with some insect infestation. He felt the tree could double in size during its
lifetime and that the ash was no longer on the street tree list of
recommendations.
Ms. Young noted the Greta St. trees thrived without a sidewalk area; she further
noted that jacarandas were not a great species in small spaces.
Ms. Dollar noted a large tree represented a good volume of environmental
enhancements and that if it were removed, it should be replaced with two trees.
Mr. Kincaid felt the City should re-evaluate removing the tree since it was
originally proposed for removal.
Mr. Pellemeier stated that the Committee needed to only evaluate whether the
removal request itself met their required criteria and that the issue of who pays
for the removal would be handled at staff level.
Ms. Dollar moved to approve the removal request based on undue hardship to
the property owner and required replacement plantings of two 15-gallon trees 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.
1268 SYDNEY (Modesto ash)
The applicant discussed the removal request and the problems with sidewalk
and curb damage. He stated that the utility pole was leaning due to the tree. He
felt that the problems with the tree would only get worse as the tree gets larger.
He stated he was willing to replace it.
Mr. Combs reported it was a large ash in a small parkway in moderate health
with some insect infestation. He felt the tree could double in size during its
lifetime and that the ash was no longer on the street tree list of
recommendations.
Mr. Root 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 issuance
of permit.
Mr. Kincaid seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
4340 SUNFLOWER WAY (California sycamore)
The applicant discussed the removal request and distributed pictures. She
discussed the root problems, stated that it was destroying the sprinkler system
and the hardscape. She felt there was potential for driveway damage and that
the tree was too large for its space. She said the lean of the tree caused
potential problems with the neighbors, who favored removal of the tree; the
homeowner’s association favored the removal as well. She did not feel another
tree should be planted in that area.
Mr. Combs agreed the area theme tree had a fair lean and large surface roots
and that there could be smaller roots under the driveway. He said there was
evidence of disease.
The Committee discussed urban forest 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
issuance of permit.
Ms. Young seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
258 ALBERT (Coast live oak)
The applicant discussed the removal request and stated this was a “volunteer”
oak and that the foundation and the sidewalk had already been damaged and
that the garage foundation was cracking. She stated it was a heavily planted
site (16 trees in the backyard). She favored landscaping with clumping bamboo
as replacement.
Mr. Combs noted that tree was in moderate to good health and that the roots
were causing damage to the walkway, slab, and fence. He did not feel that the
foundation itself was being damaged. He felt root pruning would only be a
temporary solution.
Mr. Kincaid felt if the tree were removed, no replacement planting should be
required due to the heavily planted nature of the property.
Ms. Young moved to approve the removal request based on undue hardship to
the property owner and required replacement planting of one 5-gallon 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, with Mr. Kincaid voting against.
1563 EL TIGRE (Six ornamental pears)
The applicant discussed the past tree falling from root rot; it fell on a car and
another had fallen against the apartment building. She felt the remaining six
trees were too tall and could be susceptible to wind damage and might also have
root rot be fall over in windstorms. She noted they had been well maintained
and was concerned about having to do replacement plantings in such small
areas.
Mr. Combs agreed they were large tree, too tall for the structure and at the end
of their lifespan. He stated they had weak attachments and could pose liability.
He suggested re-landscaping in front and putting small Japanese maples in the
back area.
Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request based on promoting good
arboricultural practice and required replacement planting of six 5-gallon trees to
be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted in the back patio area
within 45 days of issuance of permit.
Mr. Root seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
1372 AVALON (Magnolia)
Robert Schreiber, applicant’s representative, discussed the removal application
and the problems with the tree lean and indentation, stating it was poorly planted
and was lifting the sidewalk. He agreed with replacing it with two trees.
Mr. Combs noted there was sidewalk damage and that root pruning would not
address the lifting issues.
Ms. Dollar did not favor removal of the healthy tree and felt there was room for
the tree in that area. She suggested root pruning and barriers in the meantime
and if there were issues in the future, to re-submit an application at that time.
Ms. Young did not feel the tree posed undue hardship at this time.
Ms. Young moved to deny the removal request, as she was unable to make any
of the necessary findings for removal.
Ms. Dollar seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
83 MARIPOSA (Two magnolia)
The applicant discussed the removal request and stated the trees were posing
undue hardship. He stated the tree in the front had destroyed the driveway and
was lifting the sidewalk and that the back tree was too close to utilities. He
discussed a new landscaping plan.
Mr. Combs reported these were medium-sized trees in decent health. He said
there was minor hardscape damage, which could also be due to soil compaction.
The Committee agreed they were attractive theme trees in the area.
Mr. Root favored the landscaping plan if the tree were removed.
Mr. Parker moved to deny the removal request, as he was unable to make any of
the necessary findings for removal.
Ms. Dollar seconded the motion.
The motion passed, with Mr. Root voting against.
694 HOWARD
There was no applicant or representative to speak to the item.
Rebecca Brown, 680 Howard, discussed drainage problems in the area and felt
that removing the trees would increase drainage issues. She felt the trees were
a big asset to the area and that pruning would be a mitigation measure instead
of removal.
Marilyn Ennis, 695 Howard, agreed with Ms. Brown and stated the trees were
the only remaining “greenery” on the property. She believed the sewer lines
were just old and needed to be replaced, regardless of the root intrusion.
The Committee agreed that they had a policy to not take any action on items
without a representative present. They directed staff to discussed no-show
issues with the legal department to determine the correct course of process.
321 TOLOSA (Chinese elm)
Paul Kenny, applicant’s representative, discussed the damage to the driveway
and that the sewer had been replaced. He discussed the landscaping issues
and the new plans and noted the construction had damaged the tree.
Mr. Combs reported it was a large specimen that had been pruned to
accommodate construction. Due to the over-excavation variance, some root ball
exposure had occurred, producing stress. Now the tree would not thrive long-
term and was possibly unstable.
Ms. Dollar felt if such a large tree were removed, two replacement plantings
should be required.
Ms. Dollar moved to approve the removal request based on promoting good
arboricultural practice and required two 15-gallon replacement trees to be
chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of issuance
of permit; one large-growing species planted in the yard and a smaller species
planted in the parkway.
Mr. Root seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS
There were no items to discuss.
ON-GOING BUSINESS
1.Advisory Body Goals
Mr. Pellemeier reported he had refined the goals as directed by Committee and
had submitted them to Council.
ARBORIST REPORT
Mr. Combs reported that his department had removed a total of seven trees
within the last four weeks, based on his internal removal criteria.
LIAISON REPORT
Mr. Pellemeier followed up on discussions with Jackie Parker, Cal Trans
representative, regarding the sycamores and cedars on the Higuera Street
frontage and her suggestion that the area be designated as a block of Heritage
Trees. He discussed the map and proposed trees for the Heritage Tree District.
Staff agreed to forward proposal draft to Committee for discussion at the regular
January meeting.
He also discussed the Laguna Lake/SLO Throwers 18-hole district and planting
trees around the launch pads. He stated the group would buy, plant, and
maintain 200 trees for their area.
He summarized various tree inventory project proposals that were being
reviewed.
The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. to the next regular meeting scheduled for
Monday, January 26, 2009 at 5:00 p.m. (There will be no December 2008
meeting)
Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Woske, Recording Secretary