Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-25-2007 TC MinutesCITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TREE COMMITTEE CORPORATION YARD TUESDAY, JUNE 25, 2007 MEMBERS PRESENT:Katie Thaxter, Ben Parker, Craig Kincaid, and Sara Young STAFF PRESENT:Ron Combs and Barbara Lynch PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. 1.APPROVAL MAY 29, 2007 MINUTES The minutes were unanimously approved as submitted. 2.TREE REMOVALS 1583 ROYAL WAY (Monterey Pine) The applicant discussed the report from A&T Arborists, noting that the tree was 30 years old and had damaged the driveway with massive surface root system; he planned to replace the driveway now. He was concerned about future damage to the foundation and the garage, and was also concerned about the neighbor’s foundation. He reported that the sewer line has crush damage near the tree base. He stated the neighbors supported the removal of the tree. The applicant discussed replanting with a redwood. Mr. Combs stated it was a large tree in fairly good condition, with excessive surface roots that could damage the foundation in the future. He reported that previous root pruning had been done and was now concerned about the stability of the tree. He noted that an old Gingko stump had new growth sprouting and suggested that the applicant cultivate that tree. Mr. Parker was also concerned about the root pruning and red turpentine issues. He felt deep soil amendments were needed for the hard clay soil and planting a more appropriate species of tree would mitigate concerns about hardscape and foundation damage. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice and required either one 15-gallon replacement tree be chosen from the Master Street Tree List and planted within 45 days of issuance of permit or that the applicant nurture the existing Gingko growth to serve as replacement planting. Ms. Young seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 1619 FRAMBUESA (2 Tristaniopsis laurina) The applicant discussed the two trees that were damaged in the last frost and were now sprouting vigorously; both trees were very unsightly as they recovered from the frost. He stated one tree was too close to the driveway and one tree was too close to the property line. He wanted to plant only one replacement tree and put it in the front yard. He felt that too many trees clumped together, crowded with the neighbor’s trees, would obstruct views in the future. Mr. Combs felt both trees could benefit from some corrective pruning, but agreed they were unsightly. He was concerned that they represented the “theme tree” for the neighborhood, but noted not many of those types of trees were left. He suggested replacing with a small variety of magnolia, e.g. gem magnolia. Mr. Parker agreed the two specimens were not good long-term species for the area. Ms. Young moved to approve the removal request for both trees, based on the finding that doing so would not harm the character or environment of the neighborhood 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. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 2377 HELENA (Modesto Ash) The applicant distributed a landscaping plan and discussed the removal request, noting heavy sap and pest issues with the tree, as well as trunk damage from being hit by a car. He stated he had to replace his driveway because of the tree. He was having difficulty getting any landscaping to grow because of the tree and wanted to replant with fruit trees and a Japanese maple and suggested a Washington Hawthorne tree as a replacement planting. Mr. Combs agreed there was sidewalk damage and the tree had aphids. He noted no specific species was required for the area, just selections from the Master Street Tree list. Ms. Young stated she was abstaining from voting, as she was a neighbor. Mr. Parker noted some destructive topping and pruning issues and felt it was the wrong tree for the location. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice and required one 15-gallon replacement tree 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; Ms. Young abstained. Mission SLO (Silk Floss) Brian Starr, applicant’s representative, discussed the location of the tree at the top of the stairway and the problems the large tree in that location was presenting. He noted that approximately twelve years ago, the Mission reconfigured the retaining wall and root pruned to accommodate the growing tree and its roots, but stated that damage was now occurring again. He stated that the left half of the stairs had to be closed due to the pitch created by the tree and the inherent liability. He also discussed the adverse drainage issues created by the damage to the pad and the wall and was concerned there was worse internal water damage to the adobe. He stated that it would cost approximately $30,000 to uproot the tree and move it to a different location – a site for which has not been made available. He agreed that the tree was a fine specimen and had become a strong part of the scenery at the Mission, but stated that the tree had outgrown its location and that several letters were available, favoring the tree’s removal. He noted that if the tree were removed, the wall/pad area would be replaced. Mr. Combs agreed it was a beautiful tree planted in the wrong place and that the pitch of the area was creating drainage pathways back to the Mission foundation. He did not feel any permanent mitigation options were available and any hardscape allowances would be temporary, with damage resulting again in the near future. He reported that the tree had been planted in 1964 and had been designated a Heritage Tree in 1986. The Tree Committee agreed it was unfortunate that a removal request was even warranted, because the tree was such an attractive landmark. Mr. Parker noted that trees were a renewable resource and that buildings were not and in this case, the tree’s root would continue to get larger and create more damage. Mr. Kincaid determined with Mr. Starr that the only way to assess the extent of adobe damage was to remove the tree; no investigation was possible with the tree still in place. Mr. Starr noted that any replacement planting would be installed in a raised planter so the new irrigation would not affect the building. Mr. Combs suggested that some “in-lieu of” offsite improvements and/or bond(s) might be warranted if the tree were removed to offset the asset value loss to the community, e.g. creek improvements. Mr. Parker moved to continue the item to the next regular meeting to allow applicant and City staff to explore the value of the tree and propose equitable mitigation measures that could be considered if tree removal were granted. Mr. Kincaid seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 951 MARSH (Ficus) Barbara Lynch, City representative, discussed the removal request, stating that the street crew had requested the removal as part of the sidewalk plan and their request had been denied. She discussed the proposed sidewalk re-configuration and stated that root pruning the tree would kill it. She reported that the Presbyterian Church would not grant the easement the City had requested. Mr. Parker felt the sidewalk plan was a good measure, but agreed it would encroach on the property. Robert Maricle, Church representative, stated the church did not feel the tree was a valuable enough asset to give up property easement, as the church itself might have future expansion plans. He felt a different tree would work better placed in a planter. Mr. Combs reported that the tree was in good condition, considering being hit by the frost. Ms. Young moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice and required one 24-inch box replacement tree be chosen from the Downtown District Tree List and planted within 45 days of issuance of permit in a similar location. Ms. Thaxter seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 153 STENNER (Date palms) Mike Cripe, applicant’s representative, stated that Jamie Hill in the CDD referred him to Mr. Combs and the Tree Committee for their removal approval. He discussed changes to the new development plan and stated that the relocation of the trees now encroached on the utility easement due to their large root balls. He was concerned about issues with overhead wires. He noted that the trees would be moved and used at another Rossi property and submitted a letter, affirming same. He reiterated that with the new design developments, too many conflicts arose to make retaining the trees feasible. He also noted that four street trees were required on the ARC approval phase and that the palm had not be conditioned as part of the ARC approval. Ms. Thaxter recommended a smaller species to clear the utility lines instead of the proposed melaleuca. Mr. Combs agreed that if the removal were granted, he would coordinate with CDD to choose the proper species. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request, based on the finding that doing so would not harm the character or environment of the neighborhood and required four street trees to be planted on site, coordinated with the City arborist. Mr. Kincaid seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS 1.ARBOR DAY There was extensive Committee discussion on several aspects of the Arbor Day event: Ms. Young suggested combining Earth Day and Arbor Day and including live music, climbing harness/rope climbing demonstrations, photography displays, stump carving, and more child interaction. Mr. Parker suggested the Downtown Association should more interest in the urban forest, with possible downtown tree walks which tie into other downtown events Ms. Thaxter suggested moving the celebration to Mitchell Park to push the downtown to get more involved; perhaps include a neighborhood tree planting. Ms. Lynch suggested creating a “Choose a Heritage Tree” hunt as a community contest. Ms. Young agreed and felt they could retire the Art/Prose school contest in lieu of this contest. The Committee agreed to keep Arbor Day in April and to think about other ways to enhance to next celebration and requested that Arbor Day be listed as an “on-going business” item, with an eye towards January ’08 as a timeline to finalize details and move forward. 2.Advisory Body Lunch Mr. Parker agreed to attend the luncheon and would work with staff to submit a summary report of Committee activities prior to the event. 3.Tree Removal Request Application The Committee discussed the revisions made to the form and requested that on the line “replacement tree plan proposed,” staff add the language (Attach/enclose example). ON-GOING BUSINESS 1.TREE ORDINANCE UPDATE Mr. Kincaid discussed his review of the City of Davis Urban Forest Tree Ordinance and found it very comprehensive and easy to understand and believed the city to be comparable to San Luis Obispo in terms of tree regulation outlines. Ms. Young discussed her review of the Newport Beach ordinance and found it to be concise and easy to read, and felt that combined with the Palo Alto Tree Manual document, the combination would be a strong tool. Ms. Thaxter felt that the Committee and staff should commit to an extended ordinance review process instead of trying to have a piece-meal approach over many months. The Committee discussed possible procedures and agreed to come up with an ordinance section headline outline as a starting framework for the revision process, which would include re-writing the existing document. 2.GATEWAYS Ms. Lynch reported that the City Gateway Project would now move forward and determined if there was a Committee sub-committee interested in working with the project. The Committee agreed to draft suggestions to submit to the project effort. ARBORIST REPORT 1.CITIZEN FORESTER Mr. Combs reported that he had held another training session at Sinsheimer Park, which went very well and planned to hold 4-5 more sessions for the Citizen Forester and Downtown Forester groups before sending the participants out to do light pruning. He suggested a greater reach for the program could include Cal Poly, Master Gardeners, etc. Mr. Combs also asked the Committee to consider extending his latitude on reviewing failing street trees so he could remove the more obvious specimens without having to bring the items before the Committee for their review and approval. Ms. Young asked that the item be put on the next agenda so the Committee could formally review Mr. Combs’ authority scope. The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. to the next regular meeting scheduled for Monday, July 23, 2007 at 5 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske, Recording Secretary