Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-24-2007 TC MinutesCITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TREE COMMITTEE CORPORATION YARD MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2007 MEMBERS PRESENT:Ben Parker, Craig Kincaid, and Sara Young STAFF PRESENT:Keith Pellemeier, Barbara Lynch, and Ron Combs PUBLIC COMMENTS David Sanger, REG Property Management representative, discussed the error in removing a sycamore at 1249 Palm Street. He stated that Central Coast Tree Service removed the tree, assuming that REG had secured a removal permit, when REG had not done so. Mr. Sanger stated he knew this was against the ordinance and asked what mitigation measures would have been in place had the tree been approved for removal so they could satisfy those after the fact. The Committee agreed to consider the item at a later date. 1.APPROVAL AUGUST 27, 2007 MINUTES The minutes were unanimously approved as submitted. 2.TREE REMOVALS 3447 SYCAMORE (2 Ficus) Mike Jones, applicant, discussed the pictures he submitted and noted many sewer problems and the bills incurred to deal with roots. He stated the sprinkler system had been ruined and that the sidewalk lifted and had already presented a trip hazard. He said the City had replaced the curb years ago. Mr. Combs reported they were large trees in a narrow parkway. He noted several inches of vertical displacement on the sidewalk and curb damage, and agreed there was evidence of root intrusion in the sewer. Mr. Parker felt these were impressive trees in the wrong space. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request, based on undue hardship on the property owner, 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. TREE COMMITTEE MINUTES PAGE TWO Ms. Young seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 2833 FLORA The applicant requested another continuance of this request. The Committee agreed to continue the item to the next regular meeting. 390 LAWRENCE Mr. Combs stated this item had been withdrawn. 836 VISTA ARROYO (Redwood) Michael German, applicant, discussed the redwood tree that was growing too close to his house, as well as the neighbor’s house. He was concerned about damage to the foundation. He stated pavers had been displaced and there were large roots in the neighbor’s yard. Mr. Combs reported that it was a large rooted tree that would get larger. He did not see any current evidence of foundation damage, but felt future damage was likely. Mr. Parker was concerned that the diameter growth would impact the house. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required one 15-gallon replacement birch tree to be planted in a backyard location within 45 days of issuance of permit. Mr. Kincaid seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 738 HIGUERA (Black walnut) George Garcia, applicant’s representative, submitted a report regarding the retrofit. He noted that CCS is moving and the new tenant would require more TREE COMMITTEE MINUTES PAGE THREE retail space, which required removing the one tree in the back to expand the building. He noted the creek setback limited the options for building the addition. Mr. Combs reported that it was a large, mature tree with a significant amount of decay and that it had been topped. He noted it was currently fairly healthy. He suggested that if the tree were approved for removal, there could be mitigation measures off-site, e.g. planting and creek restoration in a different location. Mr. Parker determined that no other city agencies had reviewed the project yet. He felt the removal request might be premature, depending on whether plans changed upon subsequent reviews and approvals by other agencies. He did not feel, at this point, the findings necessary to approve a removal have not been demonstrated. The applicant suggested a conditional approval and if ARC denied the project, the removal would be nullified. Mr. Parker moved to continue the request to a date uncertain, pending ARC approval of the project. Ms. Young seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 269 DEL MAR COURT (Oak) The applicant discussed the volunteer oak growing right by a 24” culvert/pipe and was concerned about root damage to the cement pipe seams. He discussed the previous storm damage to the house due to past pipe failure. He noted the large tree was very close to the house chimney. He stated the city had installed a 30” storm drain to funnel into an 18” drain and felt that could cause problems. He stated that the property was heavily wooded and did not feel replacement planting was an issue. He noted that he had a Coastal Live Oak growing in a pot that he would donate to the city to be planted at another location as mitigation, if the tree were approved for removal. Mr. Combs reported that the specimen was a young, large, healthy oak. He stated that if the pipe was PVC, the roots wouldn’t intrude, but the concrete could be impacted. He agreed it was growing very close to the house. He favored the suggestion of the donated potted oak, if agreeable. TREE COMMITTEE MINUTES PAGE FOUR Mr. Kincaid moved to approve the removal request, based on undue hardship to the property owner, with no replacement planting required. He thanked the applicant for the donation of the potted oak. 1497 SLACK (Pine) There was no applicant or representative to speak to the item, so the item could not be heard or acted upon. 667 MONTEREY (Live oak) Mike Hodge, applicant’s representative, discussed the building demolition and relocation of the Leicher House as a future project. Mr. Combs reported that it was a small, healthy specimen with an odd lean and a bad pruning job. Mr. Parker stated that he favored the removal request being brought back once the future development and landscape plans had been approved by the ARC. Mr. Parker moved to continue the request to a date uncertain, pending ARC approval of the project. Mr. Kincaid seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Kincaid requested that staff include minutes for this item and the previously heard 738 Higuera item with the agenda that will deal with those items again in the future. City of SLO Multiple Addresses Ed Humphrey, City Street Dept. representative, discussed the Area #2 repairs to curb/gutter/sidewalk. He stated these trees on the removal list were identified for removal due to trip/fall hazards and that criteria/mitigation. He noted that 120 locations (out of 2000 locations) in Area #2 needed repairs and that 1% of them were requesting replacement plantings. He discussed the limitations of root pruning for these removals, noting that Liquid Ambers were a TREE COMMITTEE MINUTES PAGE FIVE problematic tree and that with root pruning, continual repairs would still be needed. He stated staff had narrowed the removal requests down to 17, from over 100 trees. Mr. Combs reported that most of the posted trees were Liquid Amber and that their root penetration was difficult in the clay soil, which created lifting. He stated this was an on-going problem with large trees in narrow parkways and that removal/replacement process with more appropriate species was the best overall plan. He discussed the list that property owners were given to choose the trees that would be replanted. 2399 DEL CAMPO The diameter of the Pepper tree prevented root pruning. The property owner asked if there were any other engineering ideas to mitigate root issues outside of removal/replacement. Ms. Lynch discussed ramping, ADA compliance issues, and the “rubber” type sidewalk material. She stated that some property owners grant easements to allow sidewalk re-configuring into the edge of their property to avoid the growing area. She noted that bulbing out into the street reduced parking areas. She suggested that if a particular tree’s removal was being protested, perhaps adjacent property owner(s) could be approached about easements and bulb-outs from their land. Several area residents were concerned with the skyline being affected by the removals. Mr. Parker spoke about the long-term health of the urban forest and the need to renew/replace for future growth. 1219 WOODSIDE The property owner and a neighbor both stated they favored the removal of the eucalyptus. The Committee then discussed the details of the original letter sent to residents and agreed that the language and call to action wasn’t substantive enough to satisfy residents’ questions and concerns. TREE COMMITTEE MINUTES PAGE SIX Staff agreed to send out a second letter that would also discuss various engineering options, as recently discussed, to elicit feedback, and offer options if an owner did not want a tree removed and some optional “fixes.” Mr. Combs stated he would need to re-visit each proposed tree with options in mind and bring back a revised list outlining same. 1283 WOODSIDE Andrew Carter, owner, discussed the sidewalk and gutter damage but requested the tree be retained. He stated the property had lost a lot of trees and he did not want to lose one of the larger ones making up the skyline. He stated a bulb-out at his address would be acceptable. 1202 BRIARWOOD Mr. Carter also spoke on this item, stating there had been no curb damage and only minor damage to the sidewalk and therefore, he felt the tree could be retained. Mr. Humphrey noted those sidewalk sections needed to come around the base of the tree, which created watershed issues. 1275 FERNWOOD Mr. Carter noted the removal of the large ask would leave a hole in the skyline and felt the area could be re-designed to retain it. Jay Johnson, 1296 Fernwood, supported the retention of the ash at 1275 Fernwood and would give up a parking space on the street to accommodate it. He also discussed CEQA laws and ID class exemptions.’ MISC. LAWNWOOD CT. James Benson, 3674 Lawnwood, spoke on the various addresses, stating that there was only minor sidewalk lifting at 3658 Lawnwood and that the sidewalk had been repaired at 3688 Lawnwood, but the root had not been removed and now it was creating a problem at that address. TREE COMMITTEE MINUTES PAGE SEVEN 1399 KENTWOOD Mr. Carter felt there was only minor curb damage and felt the tree should be retained. Mr. Combs noted that the tree had weak co-dominant limbs that were likely to fail. Mr. Parker reiterated his earlier statement of long-term urban forest preservation, stating that resources and efforts should be put into new, more appropriate species for the area instead of into trying to salvage problem trees. Mr. Combs discussed the concept of diversity within the urban forest, using healthy age/species staggering and planting. Ms. Young moved to continue the discussion and action on the request to a date uncertain and directed staff to re-send revised letters with new text direction, based on suggestions made at the meeting. Mr. Kincaid seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. ON-GOING BUSINESS 1.Tree Ordinance Update Review and Confirm the Outline for the Tree Ordinance Revisions The Committee discussed in detail the Purpose/Intent section of the ordinance. (See attachment) It was agreed that the Committee would review “Enforcement” section at the next regular meeting, asking staff to reference other city enforcement sections for review and possible incorporation. ARBORIST REPORT Mr. Parker asked staff to confirm categorical exemptions re CEQA requirements and thresholds, pertaining to the Area #2 removals. TREE COMMITTEE MINUTES PAGE EIGHT Mr. Pellemeier discussed the progress being made on the relocation of the Mission Silk Floss tree. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. to the next regular meeting scheduled for Monday, October 22, 2007 at 5 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske, Recording Secretary