Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-22-2013 TC Packetcity of sAn Luis oBispo 25 Prado Road * San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 TREE COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA Monday July 2, 2013 Corporation Yard Conference Room 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo, CA agenda. Persons wishing to speak should come forward and state their name and address. Comments limited to five minutes per person. Items raised at this time are generally referred to staff, and if action by the Committee is necessary, may be scheduled for a future meeting. MINUTES: Approval of Minutes for June 24, 2013 TREE REMOVAL APPLICATIONS: 1. 175 Hathway Ave. 2. 222 Chorro St. NEW BUSINESS: Discuss attendance for August 26, 2013 Tree Committee meeting to include minute takers schedule. OLD BUSINESS: Continue discussion of Mission Plaza replacement trees due to recent removals. ARBORIST REPORT: Wood Chip Give -A -Way held Saturday June 22, 2013 promoting our Urban Forest programs ADJOURN to next meeting scheduled for Monday August 26, 2013 at 5:00 pm at the City Corporation Yard located on 25 Prado Road - Conference Room A. OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. �� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410. I TREE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES . MONDAY, JUNE 24, 2013 Corporation Yard Conference Room 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo MEMBERS PRESENT: Ben Parker, Jane Worthy, Scott Loosley, and David Hensinger STAFF PRESENT: Ron Combs PUBLIC COMMENT There were no public comments. MINUTES: Approval of Minutes of May 28, 2013 Mr. Loosley moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Ms. Worthy seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. TREE REMOVAL APPLICATIONS 1. 1325 Aralia (Liquid ambar) Shaun Collarman, applicant's representative, discussed the root damage to the sidewalk, driveway and tile in the entryway. He suggested changing the theme tree to a Chinese pistache because the roots were not as invasive. Mr. Combs agreed there were a lot of surface roots causing some hardscape and tile displacement, but he could not make the findings necessary for him to approve the removal. Mr. Loosely felt the displacement was minor and that the tree was strong and healthy. Mr. Hensinger stated he could not make the necessary findings for removal approval and felt if the theme tree change were to happen, an organized replacement plan would need to be in place. Mr. Combs noted that if an HOA were involved, they would need to agree with any removal requests. 0A Mr. Parker agreed with Mr. Hensinger and suggested root pruning while the HOA was contacted about putting a replacement plan in place. Mr. Hensinger moved to deny the removal request, as he could not make the necessary findings. Mr. Loosley seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. he Committee -encouraged tHOA to put toget era repacemerit p ari for-ommttee — — -- review. 2. 1355 Aralia (Liquid ambar) Mr. Collarman reported that this removal request was identical to the previous request. Mr. Loosley moved to deny the removal request, as he could not make the necessary findings. Ms. Worthy seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 3. 979 Osos (3 Eucalyptus and a Afrocarpus) Chris Stier, applicant's representative, discussed the large eucalyptus trees and the damage the roots were causing throughout the lot. He noted limbs had dropped and that root pruning was no longer effective and would affect the trees' stability when the lot was re -paved. Mr. Combs stated they were healthy trees and he could not make the findings necessary to approve the removal. Bob Lombardi, property owner, reiterated that the roots were ruining the pavement and that he and tenants were concerned about the liability of limb droppage and trip hazards. He stated he was willing to replace the trees, but did not feel there was an appropriate spot on site. Ms. Worthy discussed the possibility of the applicant purchasing replacement trees and donating them to the City's tree inventory. Ms. Worthy moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required replacement purchasing of four 15 -gallon trees to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and donated to the City. Mr. Hensinger seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 4. 1123 Pismo (Cedar) Brian O'Kelly, property owner, stated the tree was too large for the spot and that the roots were damaging the hardscape and foundation. He noted it was a historical property that needed to be landscaped in coordination with the Cultural Heritage Committee. 1\ Com s sb -fated-it w-asurghealthy-tree t at wascausing-srgnr rcf anfha�cr scape- - ---- - - -- damage and lifting the foundation. Mr. Loosley agreed there was evidence of structural damage. Mr. Hensinger moved to approve the removal request, based on undue hardship on the property owner, and required one 15 -gallon replacement tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of tree's removal. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 5. 2875 El Cerrito (Redwoods) John Kamner, owner, discussed the replaced water line and stated that the roots had been cut and he was now concerned about the trees' stability. He reported the massive roots were damaging the driveway and threatening the house foundation. He also noted that all irrigation had to be replaced due to root damage. Mr. Combs reported that there was some hardscape root damage. Ms. Worthy and Mr. Loosley agreed the trees were too large for the space. Mr. Hensinger moved to approve the removal request for four redwoods, 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 tree's removal. Mr. Loosley seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 11 6. Los Verdes Park 1 (Misc. trees) Chris Stier, applicant's representative, discussed the removal request in detail and discussed the landscaping and replacement planting master plans. He stated the trees had dieback, roots were causing structural damage and that removing the trees would allow remaining trees to thrive. He did not feel that root pruning was feasible. Penny Porter, HOA representative, supported the removal request and discussed the landscaping plan. Mr. Combs agreed with the issues outlined. Mr. Loosley agreed with many of the issues stated but felt that more selective removals would better serve the site. Mr. Hensinger moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required replacement planting of nine 15 -gallon trees to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of tree removals. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 7. 1806 Huasna (Poplars) Pete Barclay, property owner, reported that the tree was too large for the area and the roots were too intrusive. He stated there had been past pruning and the sidewalk had been replaced, but the roots were lifting it again, creating a trip hazard and breaking through the new chip seal. He also discussed past sewer issues and limb droppage. He would like to replace with a Chipalta species. Mr. Combs agreed with the owner's assessment. Mr. Loosley noted there was some evidence of decay. Mr. Loosley moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required replacement purchasing of two 15 -gallon Chtalpa trees to be planted within 45 days of tree removals. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 8. 540 Buchon (Redwood) Shaun Collarman, applicant's representative, discussed the foundation issues and the damage to the sidewalk and new driveway. He felt the tree was creating undue hardship and submitted a contractor's report attesting to the foundation damage. Mr. Combs discussed the past pruning efforts and noted that this was the second time the owner had submitted a removal application. Ms. Worthy felt a lot of the driveway damage could be due to settling of soil and not due to roots. Mr. Parker felt the double -leader tree would grown larger and create more problems. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request, based on undue hardship on the property owner, and required one 15 -gallon replacement tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of tree's removal. Mr. Hensinger seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Ms. Worthy voting against. 9. 2047 San Luis Drive (Pines) Nicki Anderson, applicant's representative, stated the trees were too large for the area and discussed the trees leaning towards the neighbor's property, noting that the weight was not balanced due to being topped for power lines and that the large cones dropping were unsafe for children playing in the yard. Shawn Ellis, Coastal Tree Experts, agreed that the backyard was dangerous for children, due to the falling cones. He noted both trees had cracked limbs. Mr. Combs reported he could not make the findings necessary for removal. Mr. Hensinger moved to approve the removal request, as doing so would not harm the character of the neighborhood or environment, and required two 15 -gallon replacement trees to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of tree removals. Mr. Loosley seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS ■ Slack -line Discussion re Ordinance Revision Tim Ross submitted a detailed presentation regarding amendments he was proposing to the City ordinance to allow additional park areas be accessible to slack lining with tree protection. He asked the Committee to support these expansion efforts as the discussion moved through the Parks/Rec Dept. and City Council. He reported that for the past five years, slack -lining has become a popular local activity and that no damage to trees will occur if the slack -line system is properly set up. He reiterated -his goal -of having aTl the local par s open to slaclmng -- __- Mr. Combs stated that staff supported Mr. Ross' efforts to expand accessible slack -line options throughout City parks if rules are established and followed. Mr. Ritter moved that the Tree Committee find that slack lining does not conflict with the City's interest in preserving the urban forest when practiced as outlined in proposed amendments to 12.20.150. Mr. Hensinger seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS Mr. Combs discussed the recent tree removals at Mission Plaza and the goal to keep continuity with the lemon eucalyptus or possibly sycamores. He discussed staggered planting. ARBORIST REPORT Mr. Combs reminded the Committee that someone needed to attend the Mayor's Quarterly Advisory lunch. The meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m. to next regular meeting, scheduled for 5 p.m. on July 22, 2013. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske, Recording Secretary Jun 12 13 05:03 Q.!� i`:� �':'ll •:Illi p Cusack 8054814676 p.1 lW/ y+� t �1L� �'a �,�,� S Q�i ' 25 ,ado oad . San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 781-7220 city F P o-M..� t t rk� ` o TREE REMOVAL APPLICATION **If your tree removal is related to property development or a remodel, submit your request through the Planning Department at 919 Palm Street as part of your Planning Application.** SCANNED For Office Use Only: Entered -(Li -13i 13 Letter—to /J�J--13— IMPORTANT: A tree removal application will only NOTE: If a tree does not meet the City Arborist's be considered if accompanied by a "sketch -map," criteria for a non -fee removal, your application Include the street, sidewalk, buildings and all trees will be referred to the Tree Committee for proposed for removal marked with an X. review. If the removal is approved at the Tree Please draw on the back of this form or a separate Committee Meeting, a permit will be issued 10 sheet of paper. This information will help during the days later, after the required posting period. ArborisVs_site visit and will expedite the application Tree Permits are $81 per address, payable by - - -- -- - - - ----------- ---------------- process. - - ccn yashor chec t�ity of=San- -uls= - Ispo --- Tree removal applications must be received by the 2nd Monday of the month to be considered for the Tree Committee meeting held on the 4th Monday of the month. Owner's Name: 0, C) N i V- Phone ( 5 b Mailing Address `�Z,,jSCt-j1 r'�1�C KuG`d� �- _ Zip Code 1 'Z 0 Applicant (if other than owner) Phone ( ) Applicant's Address: Zip Code Address of Treeck i1 f u3 GL !�U X Street # of Trees — Type of Tree (common name) f\A C G+ ` �S L Dog in Yard. t e, or 4 No Reason for removal: l CI �q fE'tr i ��1 t tl� co,,- Ivo,+ Gkre (k Proposed replacement tree (required*) --G G L-A t,:. c. Circ�r� ` {-LU_Ai Jun 12 13 05:03p Cusack 49 75 ti 8054814676 p.2 ��������uuiiilllllllllli",9111111. MmEas city of san Luis oBispo 25 Prado Road San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 781-7220 TREE REMOVAL APPLICATION **If your tree removal is related to property development or a remodel, submit your request through the Planning Department at 919 Palm Street as part of your Planning Application.** IMPORTANT: A tree removal application will only be considered if accompanied by a "sketch -map." Include the street, sidewalk, buildings and all trees proposed for removal marked with an X. Please draw on the back of this form or a separate sheet of paper. This information will help during the Arborist's site visit and will expedite the application SCANNED For Office Use Only: Entered—&J-2-6i 13 Letter// /� NOTE: If a tree does not meet the City Arborist's criteria for a non -fee removal, your application will be referred to the Tree Committee for review. If the removal is approved at the Tree Committee Meeting, a permit will be issued 10 days later, after the required posting period. Tree Permits are $81 per address, payable by or cnecK only To laiy OT Jan Tree removal applications must be received by the 2nd Monday of the month to be considered for the Tree Committee meeting held on the 4th Monday of the month. Owner's Name:T� e d` eM / T e w Phone (F0.5) 5 -(IV �� 3 S" Mailing Address: o h k 0 Zip Code % 3 V0S Applicant (if other than owner) Che :� Sh tec Phone ( Applicant's Address: Zip Code, Address of Tree a)- "I C_A o jl- -y J_r X Street # of Trees_ Type of Tree (common name) oAA) �1�„ �% C k-l;&_�17 � Dog in Yard? Yes or No Reason for removal: �e Proposed replacement tree (required*) *Street Trees must be replaced with an approved tree from the Master Street Tree List available on our website http://www.slocity.org/publicworks/documents.asp#sttrees . Private tree replacement is at the owner's choice. ➢ Application will be considered only if entirely filled out and signed by owner. If consideration of this application goes to Tree Committee, you or your agent are required to attend the meeting and will be notified. ➢ If lane closure is required to perform the tree removal work, an encroachment permit must be obtained from the City Public Works Department at 919 Palm Street. ➢ Any required "replacement trees" must be installed within 45 days after removal. Since tree removal permits are valid for 6 months, you may wait to pick up your permit until you are sure a replacement tree(s) can be installed. TREES MUST BE BANDED AT SHOULDER HEIGHT WITH TAPE OR RIBBON PRIOR TO ARBORIST'S INSPECTION. MAIL or FAX completed form to: City Arborist 25 Prado Rd., San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Fax (805) 542-9868 Owner's Signature Applicant's Signature Date a 13 The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of it services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410. Rev. 5/13 -t /Wfr iPV �e ..� � NZl•. 1 }, 9 1 S Z� k � � 9 f I 1 Arborist Report For: Terry Trew Location: 222 Chorro San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Plant ID New Zealand Christmas Tree Circumstance Larger roots are breaking up pavement and pushing up bricks Observations Roots — Concrete has been pushed up in the past and presently some lifting is evident. Bricks are currently pushed up and surface is quite uneven, leading to increased liability. Surface rooting like this can be considered a hazard. Large surface roots are noted on both sides of the tree (along parkway). Conclusions New Zealand Christmas trees are well known to have aggressive root systems which damage walks, drives and sewer lines. In smaller areas, like the parkway in which this one is planted, the roots can be very surface oriented and cause lifting and breaking of various pavements. Roots can be root pruned but there are several reasons that may not be feasible here. The two larger roots that need to be pruned (the ones causing the damage to the brick pavers and sidewalk) would need to be pruned very close to the trunk. The percentage of roots that this affects would be quite high and such cuts close to the trunk are not recommended by arboricultural (ISA) standards. Secondly large root cuts leave the possibility of wood rot introduction. With heavy soil and poor drainage in the parkway (i.e. winter rains if we ever get them), rot is a distinct possibility should the pathogen be present. Third, the tree could be destabilized as these major roots are severed. These trees have a somewhat top heavy profile (wide and tall canopy on a narrower trunk) which could catch the wind and fail given severed roots. At best root pruning so severely will set the tree back as the shock and reduced root mass will definitely have an effect on this tree's health. In the long run, if the tree survives, the roots will eventually resurface and the same process will need to be repeated. Recommendations Because the roots that are causing the pavement damage are so large and so near the trunk, should they be root pruned, the tree is liable to decline or become a hazard. Instead the tree should be removed as this would be the best arboricultural practice. The tree should be replaced with a recommended street tree that is less likely to surface root. Chris Stier, ISA Certified Arborist, #9262 _ nsultation/d'_ ry and�ound a�boriculturat and-horticutiural-knawled e�tt isal gays _ _ *�� �ag�osis�yas-made-with obser�atio�y-histo g possible that other, or different problems exist that may contribute to the decline and death of plants. Further evaluation may be warranted if the steps above do not work. Pathology tests and other lab analysis are available.