Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-26-2007 TC Minutes1 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TREE COMMITTEE CORPORATION YARD MONDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2007 MEMBERS PRESENT:Michael Boudreau, Craig Kincaid, and Ben Parker STAFF PRESENT:Keith Pellemeier and Ron Combs PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. 1.APPROVAL OCTOBER 22, 2007 MINUTES The minutes were unanimously approved as submitted. 2.TREE REMOVALS MISSION TREE REMOVAL (Silk Floss) Brian Starr, applicant’s representative, discussed the dual goal of protecting the tree and the Mission property. The previously recommended option of relocating the existing tree to a planter across the Mission Plaza has become cost- prohibitive and the damage liability questions between the crane contractor and the City had not been resolved. He noted that there was a strict retrofit schedule for the Mission that had to be addressed and requested the removal of the tree so that retrofitting efforts could proceed. He stated the Mission agreed to plant a replacement 36” box Silk Floss species tree in the Mission Grill/Chorro St. planter as mitigation. He introduced the concept of additionally cloning the original tree for future offshoots. Paul Ogren discussed the cloning and grafting procedure, stating that it would produce thousands of clones for future planting in/around San Luis Obispo, offered to the City and residents. He was confident the cloning process would be successful, past on past evidence, and noted that relocating the existing tree did not seem feasible monetarily or for the ultimate health of the tree itself. He suggested the Silk Floss could become a signature tree, much like Santa Barbara had jacarandas. 2 Mr. Combs favored the cloning concept and felt that there would be call for planting fair-sized specimens in local parks, etc. He noted the species called for moderate maintenance. Mr. Pellemeier reiterated that the 36’ box replacement tree would be planted in the Mission Grill planter well. Mr. Combs stated that the lifespan of the existing Silk Floss tree could not be determined; some specimens were long-lived and others failed after 50 years. Mr. Kincaid determined that the cloning process would be a private industry and that the city would not be involved with that effort, but would be the recipient of cloned specimens. The Committee supported the cloning concept and favored the effort moving forward. There were no public comments on the item. Mr. Kincaid moved to approve the removal request, based on undue hardship to the property owner and required that a minimum 36” box Silk Floss specimen be planted in the Mission Grill/Chorro St. planter within 45 days of the Mission tree’s removal. Mr. Boudreau seconded the motion, requesting an amendment that a proposal outline for clones donated to the City be worked on with Mr. Combs, dependent on location and quantity preferred. Mr. Kincaid agreed to the amendment. The motion passed unanimously. 2833 FLORA (Ash) Lori Milla, applicant, discussed the cracks to her foundation that had been caused by roots and the pavement displacement and that they had been evident when she purchased the house four years prior and had gotten worse. She said the roots were affecting her sewer line and it continued to back up into the garage, requiring continual plumbing services. She noted that half the tree overhung the roof and she was concerned about liability and hazard, especially in storms. She stated that an architect had submitted a letter to the Committee, confirming the root damage to the foundation/garage area and that two arborists had agreed that pruning would not mitigate concerns and that the tree should be removed, especially in light of the weak limb attachment. She outlined some remodeling efforts and noted that no new concrete had been poured. 3 Mr. Combs agreed that roots were causing lift. He felt the sewer line problems could be attributed to faulty sewer lines and not roots as the cause. He agreed the narrow attachment of the limbs posed problems and that this species experienced limb loss. Roger Sooker, 1669 Phillips stated that if the applicant knew the tree caused problems when she bought the house, it did not seem prudent to make the purchase based on removing the tree and she should work around the tree. Mr. Boudreau and Mr. Kincaid were reluctant to remove a large, healthy tree, noting that it was significant in that neighborhood, but would defer to staff judgment re liability and root intrusion. Mr. Combs reiterated that the weak limb attachment did cause concern. Mr. Pellemeier pointed out that Shaun Collarman, Greenvale Tree, had made a note on the removal application citing the weak limb. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice 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. Kincaid seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 3860 HIGUERA, #CS6 (Canary Island Pine) Frank Solomon, applicant, discussed the replacement mobile home and felt the tree was too large for the small, narrow lot. He reported that a neighbor had twice experienced damage from limb droppage and felt the tree showed evidence of being hazardous and a liability. He agreed to replace it with a smaller-growing species. Mr. Sooker felt the house and tree size should co-exist and that a smaller structure would accommodate keeping the tree. Mr. Combs reported that it was a healthy tree that had been pruned too high. Mr. Kincaid felt the tree had been butchered by the pruning and was unsightly. Mr. Boudreau agreed the tree was too large for the lot and was not significant to the neighborhood. Mr. Boudreau moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice and required one 15-gallon replacement tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of issuance of permit. 4 Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 1144 BUCHON (Cedar) The applicant had withdrawn this item. 1690 CORDOVA (Canary Island Pine) James Blades, applicant, discussed the surface root damage to the sidewalk and the neighbor’s driveway. He was concerned about liability to his neighbor’s property. He noted it was a theme tree and would agree with root pruning if that would be effective; he agreed to replace the tree if allowed to be removed. Holly Farnham, 1708 Cordova, neighbor, discussed the damage to her driveway and was concerned about future problems. Mr. Combs reported that it was a large, healthy pine and that there was evidence of sidewalk and driveway damage. He felt limited, regular root pruning in a staged fashion (one side alternating) could be effective. Mr. Parker noted many trees in the neighborhood had been planted above level. The Committee favored the suggested root pruning alternative. Mr. Boudreau moved to deny the removal request, as he could not make any of the necessary findings for removal; he recommended that the applicant pursue the root pruning option and if that was not effective, to return to Committee with another removal request. Mr. Kincaid seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 1598 MONTEREY (Cedar) Ed Baldwin, applicant, stated that the tree was too large for the lot and was causing problems with the foundation and sewer line. He discussed the brickwork repair. He was concerned about general liability if the tree fell and discussed previous experience at another property when a tree fell. 5 Mr. Sooker was concerned about losing yet another large tree in that area; there had been many previous removals. Mr. Combs stated it was a large, healthy tree and that the property evidenced minor damage. He noted that this species might have value to a mill house, if it were approved for removal and suggested the applicant pursue that. Mr. Boudreau stated he did not see evidence of the root/structural damage and did not think removing a healthy tree because it might fall was reason enough to grant approval. Mr. Kincaid agreed the lack of viewable evidence made approval difficult. The applicant noted that the damage had been repaired and reiterated his concerns about the tree falling. The Committee suggested the applicant return with evidence of concerns and hardship, e.g. sewer bills, photos of cracking, etc. The applicant agreed to withdraw his request and return at a later date. There was no action taken on this item. CITY OF SLO MULTIPLE ADDRESSES Mr. Pellemeier discussed the proposed list of trees to be allowed for removal, due to sidewalk/curb damage. He stated all trees had been re-evaluated and all owners had agreed to the removal and some had chosen replacement species already. He stated three had been removed from the original list, pending further evaluation and discussion. The three trees pending: 3658 Lawnwood, 1283 Woodside, and 1275 Fernwood. He requested the Committee approve the list of proposed trees for removal and stated the repair work would begin in the near future, post removal. Andrew Carter, 1283 Woodside, stated he did not favor the removal of the tree at 1202 Briarwood. He did not feel there was evidence that the tree was the cause of the subsidence of the sidewalk and did not favor removing two significant adjacent trees in the area. Mr. Sooker suggested installing rubber sidewalk in the area. Mr. Combs explained how the entire sidewalk section was tilting away from the trunk and towards the property, creating drainage issues. He stated that root pruning was not feasible. 6 Mr. Pellemeier agreed to pull 1202 Briarwood from the list of proposed removal requests to allow further discussion with homeowner regarding bulb-outs, etc. to retain that tree. He also noted that two additional trees were slated to be planted in that area already. Mr. Boudreau moved to approve the current list of proposed tree removals, excluding 1202 Briarwood, based on promoting good arboricultural practice and undue hardship. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business to discuss OLD BUSINESS 1.Arbor Day Mr. Combs reported that the firm date for Arbor Day celebration at Laguna Lake would be Saturday, April 26, 2008. ON-GOING BUSINESS 1.Tree Ordinance Update Review and Confirm the Outline for the Tree Ordinance Revisions Mr. Pellemeier reported that the next section for review would be ready for the January 2008 meeting. Mr. Boudreau stated he felt the existing ordinance was of good content and the re-organization of the section outline would make it more effective. He felt there was only minor content revamping required, e.g. outlining native trees and definitions of right-of-way. He agreed to compile his comments and distribute to the Committee prior to next review. Mr. Combs stated his biggest concerns with implementing the ordinance as written: 1) it was not clear to lay people re what’s allowed to be removed; 2) it needed to clearly define a “street tree” and specifics of trees that need to be reviewed, including planting area definition graphics; and 3) enforcement/ penalties. A workshop to further review/discuss the ordinance was set for 4:30 pm, prior to the next regular Committee meeting on January 28, 2008. 7 It was agreed that regular public hearing items, removal requests, etc. would begin at 6pm on that date and it would be so advertised. ARBORIST REPORT 1.Neighborhood Planting Mr. Combs noted the 14 removal requests he handled in-house. The Committee again discussed expanding Mr. Combs' purview to allow him to make more removal decisions, subsequent to Committee-required findings, at his level and have him bring the more complicated removals to the Committee for review. The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. to the next regular meeting scheduled for Monday, January 28, 2008 at 4:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske, Recording Secretary