Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-22-2006 TC MinutesCITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TREE COMMITTEE CORPORATION YARD MONDAY, MAY 22, 2006 MEMBERS PRESENT:Jim Lopes, Katie Hall, Don Dollar, Ben Parker, and Sara Young STAFF PRESENT:Ron Combs, Todd Beights PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. 1.APPROVAL OF APRIL 25, 2006 MINUTES Mr. Lopes amended the report of his comments to detail that per the Ordinance, the property needed to be reviewed by the ARC first with the City Arborist, with those determinations then submitted for City staff recommendations. The Tree Committee would review the project if the City Arborist recommended denial of the request and the ARC had approved it. The minutes were approved as amended. 2.TREE REMOVALS 1005 ISLAY (MONTEREY PINE) The applicant’s representative submitted a letter from the applicant, which discussed the details of the removal request. The applicant was concerned about liability and the salon owner/neighbor expressed strong concerns about the angle and lean of the tree over the street and opposite their property. The liability issuance and threats of salon owner’s legal action proved to be a hardship to the applicant, who reported that an arborist had warned that extensive pruning might open the tree up to disease. Mr. Combs agreed that extensive pruning during this season would promote disease vulnerability and any corrective pruning should be done in the winter. He said the lean of the relatively healthy tree did not necessarily mean it would fall and that corrective pruning would not alter lean factor. He saw minor sidewalk damage. Mr. Lopes discussed the two trees growing underneath the pine and Mr. Combs stated he did not think those trees were increasing the hazard factor of the pine. Mr. Parker did not think the tree posed much hazard to the salon across the street. He felt the tree was healthy and did not feel there was any high likelihood that the tree would come down. He felt it was a significant skyline tree and felt that perhaps someone official could inform the salon owner of the low likelihood of the tree falling to mitigate their concerns. Ms. Young agreed it was a healthy tree and the only hazard was minor with sidewalk damage. Mr. Dollar stated he appreciated the concern created by the negative letters from the salon owner and their attorney. He agreed with Mr. Parker’s comments and did not feel the tree should be removed on the basis that it might fall “at some point.” He felt corrective pruning would mitigate concerns. Mr. Combs agreed that the applicant was performing due diligence by pursuing a removal request, based on the neighbor’s complaints. Mr. Lopes felt it was a landmark tree on the street, was healthy and showed no indication of falling or failing. He agreed with pruning and thinning mitigation measures. Ms. Young moved to deny the removal request, as she could not make the necessary findings. She encouraged the applicant to consult with the City Arborist re pruning and further due diligence measures. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 1226 STAFFORD (PALM TREES) The applicant’s representative discussed the removal request and was concerned about limb breakage and littering hazards for pedestrians. He stated the trees were clustered too closely and that limbs were hanging over the neighbor’s roof, which presented a fire hazard. He also noted the “volunteer” palms that were overtaking the property and did not think the stand of palms had been pruned. There was discussion on a fence installation and a basic replacement desire for a more suitable species. Rob Feder, realtor, discussed the tree trimming estimate obtained and stated there were too many fronds in the way and that a crane was needed and the property made that process inaccessible. He felt there were no real solutions to retaining and maintaining the trees. Mr. Combs noted there were live oaks on the property and landscaping and fencing plans could not be implemented for the property due to the large trees. He noted some minor sidewalk damage. Mr. Dollar noted that Tree A was small enough to be removed without permit. He favored removing Tree D and felt some of the other trees’ problems were maintenance and care issues. Mr. Lopes did not feel the trees fit the site/development, which was too narrow a property. He felt removal would promote good arboricultural practice. Mr. Parker felt the palm trees were the wrong species in the wrong place and discussed replacement species possibilities with applicant. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required a street tree planting plan for three 15-gallon trees to be submitted for approval by the City Arborist; plan approval was required in order to get issuance of removal permit. Ms. Young seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 337 N. TASSAJARA (CHINESE ELM) The applicant submitted a list of neighbor signatures favoring the removal of the tree, which had grown too large and been self-pruned too often to not present a hazard to property and pedestrians. She noted there were a large number of parked cars right under the tree due to the rental next door and she was concerned about liability issues. Mr. Combs reported that there had been several calls for downed limbs associated with that tree. The Committee agreed the structure of the tree was now too tall with too much weight at the top and that further pruning would make the tree prone to splitting. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required one 15-gallon tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of issuance of permit. Ms. Hall seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 1173 LAUREL LANE No applicant was present to speak to the item. Mr. Parker moved to continue the item to the next meeting. Ms. Hall seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 3.NEW BUSINESS A.Downtown Tree Evaluation Report Mr. Beights discussed the Downtown Association synopsis of input on the report and stated they supported the plan and that Council was aware of the report as well. Mr. Combs discussed the recent meeting with the Association and stated it went well. He discussed planters and larger box trees to be used and planned to be able to replace 2-3 larger trees annually, resulting in no widespread de-forestation. Including removing the smaller ones, he anticipated the program could span almost 10 years, based on a budget of $20,000/annually. The Committee agreed the report was thorough, well done, and took a realistic, conservative approach that was a strong start to the project. Mr. Dollar presented the following long-range comments: -Agreed with the need to prioritize liability trees drafted in the 1-year plan, but questioned what would happen in three years -Felt there needed to be a strong “front end” program of investment and maintenance in the beginning for the program to succeed and questioned where the funds were to support that -Stressed the need for strong pro-active replanting program -Suggested Higuera/Marsh Streets could reduce some parking spots so tree planters could bulb out and have room -Suggested some truck re-routing for downtown area There was general Committee discussion and recommendations were drafted as follows: -Annual need for maintenance and on-going monitoring of the urban forest, with monitoring plans and standard evaluation forms that city staff could implement, e.g. based on ISA Hazard Mitigation criteria, and to keep the work in-house and not outsourced to consultants -Prioritize removals for hazard and liability mitigation -To better implement report recommendations, draft a pro-active tree replanting program with early training and life care elements, use of larger specimen stock, use of protective cages and grating, and mitigate maintenance issues -Draft budget for urban forest plan for downtown to identify tree wells, bulb outs, etc. Mr. Parker moved that the Committee endorse the report with Committee comments to be forwarded to Ken Hampian for further review. Ms. Hall seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. to the next regular meeting, scheduled for Monday, June 26, 2006 at 5:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske, Recording Secretary