Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-29-2007 TC MinutesCITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TREE COMMITTEE CORPORATION YARD MONDAY, MAY 29, 2007 MEMBERS PRESENT: Katie Thaxter, Michael Boudreau, Ben Parker, Craig Kincaid, and Sara Young STAFF PRESENT: Ron Combs and Keith Pellemeier PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. 1. APPROVAL APRIL 23, 2007 MINUTES The minutes were unanimously approved as submitted. 2. TREE REMOVALS 1889 LIMA (pine) The applicant discussed large limbs that had dropped in the past, causing damage to the roof and storage room and because of these incidents, her homeowner’s insurance company cancelled her policy. She was also concerned about the liability of large limbs hanging over her neighbors’ properties. She stated that she was on a fixed income and that the tree has become a hardship and liability. She stated she would trim the front tree and replace the removed tree with a suitable species, as directed by Committee. Shaun Collarman, Greenvale Tree Co. and applicant’s representative, noted that the tree had been maintained in the past, but was in failing health; he reiterated that it had become a financial burden to the property owner. He did not favor just pruning it at this time, as heavy pruning would accelerate the tree’s decline and present more problems/liability. Mr. Combs stated that the large Monterey pine had large horizontal branches hanging over two neighbors’ properties and that there was some evidence of beetle strike and possible pitch canker. He felt the tree was in fair condition for that area and agreed that heavy pruning at this time would accelerate the tree’s decline. Mr. Boudreau felt that the tree had become too large for the property and was incompatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Boudreau moved to approve the removal request, based on undue hardship to the property owner and to promote good arboricultural practice. He required one 5-gallon replacement tree to be coordinated with Mr. Combs and planted on-site within 45 days of issuance of permit. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 1342 SAN MARCOS (Modesto ash and Brazilian pepper) The applicant discussed the ash tree, stating it was too large for the yard and posed a fire hazard; even though the tree was trimmed annually, its branches still encroached on the working chimney area. She also was concerned that the tree was too close to her children’s rooms and posed a hazard. She had been told that the tree would get up to three times larger in its lifetime and that the previous owners had root problems with their sewer. She noted roots had also damaged both her fences. She reported that the pepper tree was causing root problems with the neighbor’s fence and that it was impossible to grow anything underneath the tree. She said the deck had to be replaced and that there had been some concrete damage as well. She noted the succor growth was too difficult to control. She reported both trees have been maintained regularly. She stated that she wanted to remove the two trees so she could landscape her backyard and provide a screening of replanted trees (e.g. birch) to mitigate the construction and dwellings that were being built behind her property. She was planning a raised garden, new deck, and a row of screening trees along the back. Mr. Combs reported that the ash had been planted in the wrong place and the root spread was creating problems. He stated the pepper tree was in good health, but would increase in girth and brush. Mr. Boudreau discussed root pruning as an option, but stated that he did not think removing the trees would negatively impact the neighborhood. He agreed the ash tree posed structural hazards, especially with the prediction of how much larger it would become. Ms. Young agreed that while the pepper tree was a good specimen, it was located in the wrong place and posed problems. Mr. Parker asked staff to revise the permit application to strongly encourage applicants to provide a re-landscaping plan, even an informal handwritten one, to better support the removal request information. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request of both trees, based on undue hardship to the property owner, conditioned upon applicant submitting a landscape replacement plan – including at least two 15-gallon trees – for staff approval and species coordination. Mr. Kincaid seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 1265 MILL Application withdrawn. 210 ROSITA (Eucalyptus) The applicant submitted a letter supporting the removal request from Deborah Melton, neighbor. The applicant discussed the removal request, stating the continual limb droppage and littering created a hazard and resulted in noise issues when debris fell. He stated the limbs were splitting and felt the structure was being weakened. He stated that while the tree had previously been pruned and thinned, he was concerned about future limb breakage and possible structural damage. He reported that the fence was damaged by roots and that he had to replace the fence and re-configure it around the tree. He stated he wanted to replace the tree with shrubbery and fruit trees. Sue Shriner, neighbor, stated she favored the removal and felt there were plenty of other trees in the neighborhood to mitigate any skyline concerns. Mr. Combs reported that the large tree was a healthy skyline tree and had been previously pruned. He stated he would check with Neil Havlik re nesting issues, etc. if the tree was approved for removal. Mr. Boudreau felt the tree – which was at the end of the grove – was too tall for the property and posed a hazard to the home. Mr. Kincaid agreed that the tree was one of many in a stand and did not feel its removal would impact the skyline. Mr. Parker was concerned with habitat issues and noted that replacement trees often did not replace habitat benefits of established area trees. He did not favor removal at this time, felt maintenance could mitigate concerns, and he wanted to maintain the grove effect for that area. Ms. Young moved to approve the removal request, based on its removal would not harm the character of the surrounding neighborhood due to the many eucalyptus remaining, 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. Boudreau seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Mr. Parker voting against. NEW BUSINESS 1. ARBOR DAY There was extensive Committee discussion on several aspects of the Arbor Day event: • Need to move celebration timeframe to avoid conflicts with other local events on specific April weekend? e.g. move to fall or December ‘08 • Should the parameters of the event celebration be expanded? • Include “Lumberjack Days”? Mr. Parker noted that SLO had been designated a "cool city" through the efforts of Mayor Romero, who signed U.S. Mayors’ Climate protection Agreement. He suggested this new designation might offer a source of funds, grants for tree planting, etc. Ms. Young suggested they form a subcommittee to plan for next Arbor Day, set goals, explore how to get more citizens involved with the event, etc. Mr. Combs noted that it would be SLO’s 25th year as Tree City USA so that might warrant a larger celebration. Mr. Parker noted there was a special 25th year award from National Arbor Foundation. It was agreed that the Committee would come back to the next meeting with suggested dates for Arbor Day ’08. OLD BUSINESS 1. HERITAGE TREES Mr. Pellemeier reminded the Committee that City Council wanted the Tree Committee to come up with recommendations for Heritage trees. ON-GOING BUSINESS 1. TREE ORDINANCE UPDATE There was extensive Committee discussion on the existing regulations: identifying the overall problems/issues with the language; clarifying the intention and cleaning up the “contradictions” in regulation requirements; keeping the language concise and easy for “lay” person to understand, etc. Staff suggested that the Committee and staff could either fix the current regulations and tackle a section at a time to address concerns and ultimately submit a revised document for legal, CAO, and Council approval or the Committee could review, customize, and adopt a different city’s regulations if they felt the document was more applicable and workable. It was determined that the Committee would review other cities that had good set of regulations: Palo Alto, Monterey, Dana Point, Davis and Lompoc. It was agreed that at the next meeting, Ms. Young would bring back review report on Palo Alto regulations; Mr. Kincaid would bring back review report on Davis; and Mr. Boudreau would bring back review report on Pacific Grove 2. GATEWAYS Mr. Pellemeier reported that the City budget has a proposal to design and improve the city’s gateways (entrances to city on freeways and entrance on Santa Rosa) and asked members to consider being on the work group to design the improvements if it gets approved in the budget. ARBORIST REPORT 1. CITIZEN FORESTER Mr. Combs noted there were 10 people involved with the Downtown Foresters group. He noted the recent article and picture in the Tribune with a tree planting in the downtown area. He stated he would like to see a complete program and training where the urban Foresters are certified at the end of their training and they complete a certain number of hours of work. There was discussion on how to expand the Downtown Foresters to include citizen forester for all of SLO. Staff agreed to contact Professor Rich Thompson at Cal Poly to discuss how to get students involved. Mr. Pellemeier passed out the latest copy of the 2007 Downtown Street Tree management Plan to all Committee members. Sara closed meeting by recapping the Committee goals for next meeting, e.g. review and prepare suggestions for: • Future Arbor Day celebration • Heritage Tree recommendations • Tree Regulations update and issues discussion The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. to the next regular meeting scheduled for Monday, June 25,2007 at 5 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske, Recording Secretary