Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-26-2007 TC MinutesCITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TREE COMMITTEE CORPORATION YARD MONDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2007 MEMBERS PRESENT:Jim Lopes, Don Dollar, Ben Parker, Katie Thaxter, and Sara Young STAFF PRESENT:Ron Combs, Keith Pellemeier, and Barbara Lynch PUBLIC COMMENTS Jesse Norris, 2040 Wilding Lane, apologized for cutting down two oak trees, stating he did not understand that oaks were part of the ordinance requirement, requiring review for removal. He noted he had planted ten new trees on the property and had installed irrigation. ADMINISTRATION OF OATH OF OFFICE Audrey Hooper, City Clerk, swore in Katie Thaxter as a new Tree Committee member. 1.APPROVAL OF JANUARY 22, 2007 MINUTES Mr. Lopes corrected some motion-making language in the actions taken on 1644 Wilson, 2191 Santa Ynez, and 79 Las Praderas, and clarified that the alder trees at 4393 Wavertree were in the side yard and that he was the only member that had not reviewed those removal trees. The minutes were unanimously approved as amended. 2.TREE REMOVALS 250 CALIFORNIA (5 Mexican Fan Palms) Richard Walker, 1366 Madonna Road, property manager/applicant’s representative, stated that the five 100’ palms were too close to a multi-story apartment building and the owner was concerned about liability. He stated the fronds littered the property and created hazards, as well as snagging in power lines. He requested permission to remove the palms and replant another species in a different location on the property, away from the building. He did not feel removing these trees would harm the character of the neighborhood, as they were too tall to be part of any public view. Paul Bonjour, property owner, noted that the palms were planted in raised beds, which he felt increased their instability and the hazard liability. Mr. Combs reported they were large, relatively healthy palms and he did not feel they were likely to uproot, due to their root ball structure. He did not feel the fronds caught on the cable lines posed a hazard, but agreed that falling fronds could be a pedestrian and vehicular liability. He stated the trees appeared to be at the end of their life span and some of the trunks showed minor abnormalities. Ms. Young stated that while the trees were a mediocre species in fair shape, she could not make the findings necessary to approve the removal. Mr. Dollar noted they were minor skyline trees and that based on the evidence presented in the removal request, he could not make the findings necessary to approve the removal. Ms. Thaxter thought the trees were in fairly good health and were in need of some mitigating maintenance to address the frond issues, but she agreed with the applicant that removing the trees would not harm the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Parker agreed that he could not make the removal findings and that at this point in time, he did not feel the trees posed a high liability. He did suggest the applicant work on a replacement planting plan for the removal that evidenced such removal would promote good arboricultural practice and the replacement planting plan would enhance the neighborhood. Mr. Lopes was concerned with the trees’ advanced ages and failing appearance and did not think the trees were skyline specimens or neighborhood assets. He favored Mr. Parker’s suggestion of a replacement planting plan that would revitalize the area and suggested the applicant work with the CDD for landscaping and planter ideas. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request, based on the finding that doing so would not harm the character of the environment or neighborhood; removal approval was conditioned upon applicant developing a replacement planting plan in coordination with the CDD and Public Works and having the plan subject to their approval. Mr. Lopes seconded the motion. Ms. Young noted that these palms were low maintenance specimens in a high traffic area and felt replacement species could create more maintenance issues than the existing trees. The motion passed, with Mr. Dollar and Ms. Young voting against. 416 HATHWAY (2 Monterey Cypress) Chip Tamagni, PO Box 1311, Templeton, arborist/applicant’s representative, discussed the two trees that were crowded and not growing properly and were highly susceptible to wind damage at present. He stated past pruning of the limbs and the interior of the trees had weakened them and felt that tip safety pruning now would disfigure the trees. He stated that limbs dropping from 45’ heights would pose hazards and discussed replacement plantings of one to two more appropriate trees. Mr. Combs agreed that past pruning had created present problems and while healthy, the trees had no lower laterals for wind mitigation. He felt some further pruning could mitigate end limb weight. Ms. Thaxter stated she felt the trees were still healthy and in reasonable shape. Ms. Young moved to deny the removal request, as she could not make the necessary findings. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Mr. Lopes voting against. 3534 & 3548 EMPLEO (Misc. trees) Gerald Knecht, 60 Zaca, property owner, felt the trees had gotten too large for the property and were interfering with water and sewer lines. He also reported limbs had broken and caused damage in the past and that the largest trees were most likely causing present problems. He stated he’d be willing to replant the area accordingly. Mr. Combs noted there was surface rooting, but felt it was difficult to accurately identify which trees were causing the problems; he did agree the largest trees were probably the issue. Mr. Lopes stated the CDD had enforced a landscape plan in 1984 and felt the CDD needed to review the request if changes were going to be made. He agreed some of the trees were too crowded by the pines in the front and that the pines might not be part of the original 1984 requirements. Mr. Dollar felt more research into which trees were truly causing the problems was required, rather than allowing removal of all the requested trees. Ms. Thaxter agreed with Mr. Dollar and felt a lot of the trees just needed maintenance and pruning. Mr. Parker agreed with member comments. Mr. Lopes suggested the item be continued to allow CDD discussion on whether street trees could be retained and which trees were part of the permit requirements. He felt such efforts should be coordinated with an arborist to better review the site. Mr. Parker moved to continue the item to the March 26, 2007 meeting to allow CDD review and input. Mr. Dollar seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 1 MUSTANG DRIVE (4 Monterey Pines Steve Franzmann, applicant’s representative, PO Box 13234, San Luis Obispo, stated the trees were in declining health and were planted too close to the sidewalk in a high traffic area and were causing hardscape damage. He noted there were several redwoods growing behind the pines and were merging with the failing trees. He noted some pines had signs of beetle infestation. Mr. Combs reported these were older pines with some infestation issues and possible pitch canker; all were in failing health. He noted the redwoods had been planted as part of a previous approved phased removal request, requiring the redwoods be planted and established before removing the remaining pines. Mr. Parker favored the removals to encourage the redwood plantings to thrive. Ms. Thaxter noted that the redwoods themselves would prove to be crowded in the future, as they were planted too closely together. Mr. Dollar and Ms. Young noted the Italian stone pines across the street were going to get large and both favored a phased removal approach to this request. Mr. Lopes was concerned that the pines were part of the original street tree requirement and would require two to three replacement plantings if removed. He did not feel the redwoods served as street tree options, as they were planted about 20’ back. Mr. Lopes moved to approve the removal of all four pines, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and the require replacement trees at approximately 1 per 35’ lineal frontage, to be coordinated with Public Works to determine proper location. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 3.NEW BUSINESS The Committee agreed that a discussion item be added to the next agenda to address new Heritage Tree suggestions. 4. ON-GOING BUSINESS 1.Tree Ordinance Update Mr. Lopes noted the Ordinance needed to be reworked so it is easier to understand and comply with. Ms. Lynch outlined some process steps to begin review of the Ordinance and suggested that Committee members and staff review it and email any concerns and/or suggestions to her by March 12. She also suggested developing an outside meeting with local arborists, et al who deal with removals and Ordinance requirements in the private sector. 5.ARBORIST REPORT Mr. Combs reported as follows: Frost Damage: There was an approximate $70K additional cost to deal with frost damage and deadwood and after the 75% grant monies, additional funds would come from OES. Replanting Downtown: The removals had been completed and most of the stump grinding was finished with new plantings being started. Arbor Day Update: Mr. Lopes encouraged members to think of other ways to expand the concept of Arbor Day, e.g. the intent of tree plantings, the benefits of trees, and how to develop advocacy groups. The Committee discussed utilizing KSBY, the Dave Congalton show on KVEC, and trying to get access to the Weather Channel’s tape re global warming and the benefit of trees. There was discussion on how to change public perception that Tree Committee was just about tree removals. Mr. Pellemeier suggested garnering non-profit assistance to support Arbor Day and Tree Committee goals and to get more community involvement. Mr. Lopes suggested coordinating a meeting with local Citizen Forester group to start discussions on how to be more involved. Ms. Thaxter and Mr. Dollar agreed to spearhead those efforts and to explore the group participating in Arbor Day activities. Mr. Dollar also suggested Eco-Slo or Re-Leaf as umbrella groups to coordinate with. Mr. Combs noted he had received a Beautification Award from the Downtown Assoc. to recognize his efforts re public awareness of trees in the environment. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. to the next regular meeting of Monday, March 26, 2007 at 5 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske, Recording Secretary