Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-23-2006 TC MinutesCITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TREE COMMITTEE MEETING MONDAY, JANUARY 23, 2006 MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Lopes, Linda Hauss, Don Dollar, Ben Parker and Sara Young STAFF PRESENT:Ron Combs, Todd Beights, and Lisa Woske PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no public comments. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 28, 2005 Mr. Lopes asked that the following be added to the top of the minutes: City Attorney Jonathan Lowell spoke to the committee about parliamentary procedures, identified that a tie vote is in effect a denial, and summarized Brown Act limitations on communications and on participation when an application is located within 500 feet of property owned by a committee member. The minutes were approved as amended. 2.TREE REMOVAL REQUESTS - 1911 JOHNSON (Misc. Eucalyptus) Mr. Combs noted that a landscape plan had been requested from the applicant by the Committee at the last meeting and reported that the plan had not been submitted. He did update the Committee, per their request, that there were no permit conditions regarding the removal reported by the CDD. Dan Farnum, applicant’s representative, discussed the proposed landscape plan and the specifics of the removal request. He stated many of the trees were too close to the building and too large for their location. He was concerned about the branches causing damage to the roof, as well as falling branches damaging cards and creating a possible pedestrian liability. He stated the replacement planting ideas for the sides and back of the property were open to Committee and staff recommendations; the front of the property was planned to be planted with low bushes and plantings. He noted that the street trees were doing well and not posing an issue for removal. He reported that all property trees had been safety pruned recently and suggested a phased removal plan, with the front trees being removed first. Mr. Combs agreed there was vertical displacement in the parking lot, and that there had been limbs splitting and breaking. He reported that the trees were generally healthy overall. Mr. Lopes felt it the request were approved, a landscape plan drafted by a landscape architect with the replacement trees shown should be submitted and reviewed by CDD. He did not feel the Tree Committee needed to indicate specific specie requirements. Ms. Hauss agreed and felt such a large-scale removal request should have a specific plan in place that outlined the specie selection. Mr. Dollar agreed the seven trees in the front of the property and by the Emergency Room were too large and too close to the building and should be removed. He felt the side and back property trees did not seem to be an obvious problem at the time and there was no evidence presented that those trees were hazardous. Mr. Lopes moved to approve the removal of the seven trees in the front of the property, based on undue hardship and promoting good arboricultural practice, and required them to be replaced by a medium-to-tall screen tree species in the Emergency Room area and small accent trees in the portico area. He further required that all trees slated for removal be included in a professional landscape architect plan to be reviewed by the CDD prior to issuance of removal permits. Ms. Hauss seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Parker moved to continue the request to remove the remaining 14 trees on the south and west side of the property until a date uncertain, requesting the applicant submit a conceptual landscape plan for removal/replacement and submit evidence that there had been damage caused by these trees. Ms. Young seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. - 3197 JOHNSON (Star pine) The applicant discussed the removal request and the need to replace the sewer line. He submitted a collection of cone pieces dropped in the last storm, stated there were larger cones evident throughout the tree, and noted that the tree was poisonous to animals. He felt the pruning performed by PG&E was not protecting the house against damage. He stated he was retired and on a fixed income and in addition to hardship, he did not feel that removing the tree would harm the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Combs reported that it was a large, healthy tree that had caused some driveway and walkway damage. He stated the PG&E trimming could eventually unbalance the tree. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request, based on undue hardship to 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 issuance of permit. Ms. Hauss seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. - 2380 MEADOW (Eucalyptus) The applicant discussed the storm drain area and the nearby eucalyptus groves. He reported that a large eucalyptus had fallen across Meadow Street in the past and was concerned about the liability on his property and that of his neighbor. He stated the trees had been continually safety pruned, but he was still highly concerned about the viability of the trees in the high wind storms the area had been experiencing. He noted his property was heavily planted and agreed to replace the trees per Committee requirements. Mr. Combs reported the trees were large, healthy, and well maintained, but were growing too close to the houses on both properties. Mr. Dollar suggested this property might be subject to planned development conditions for the creek area and that the CDD might have information regarding those restrictions. He was also concerned whether these were major habitat trees. The owner stated he did not believe there were any CCRs. Ms. Hauss moved to continue the request to the next meeting and asked staff to contact the CDD regarding any existing conditions that might affect the removal of these trees and to ask Neil Havlik about any habitat concerns. Mr. Dollar seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. - 672 SERRANO SIRCLE (2 Eucalyptus) Ms. Fagerlin, HOA representative, discussed the request to remove the two trees, citing falling limb damage and the health hazards involved with the large amount of bird droppings from the vultures roosting in the trees. She submitted a petition of resident concerns about the liability and health issues. Suzanne Curtis, resident, favored the removal of the trees but was concerned that the birds would relocate to other trees on the property. Peter Rogo, resident, discussed the liability and cost of the deck damage caused by falling limbs and the health hazards of dropping right in front of his entryway. He also felt the trees were too large for the area. Mr. Combs estimated the trees to be from 80-100 years old and stated they were in good health. Robert Bronte, resident, stated that he also lived near a large tree and requested the Committee continue the item, as a certified arborist was going to be submitting a property analysis and safety report in the near future. He also suggested that if the turkey vulture problem were to be mitigated, more research and analysis was needed to determine how to achieve that for the overall property. He would not be opposed to the removal of the trees if such removal were based on the recommendations of the arborist review. Mr. Dollar agreed with continuing the item until review of the pending arborist report was available and that staff should review any planned development conditions that might be in place for this property. Ms. Hauss agreed it was premature to move on the item until the report had been reviewed regarding hazard assessments and habitat solutions. Mr. Dollar moved to continue the item to a date uncertain to allow the arborist report to be submitted for review and to have the CDD determine if there were any permit constraints on the property. Ms. Hauss seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 3. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business discussed at this time. 4. ON-GOING BUSINESS Mr. Lopes discussed the special meeting results of the table review of the Master Street Tree List. He also noted the Committee needed to review allergen issues on the species. A second meeting was slated to finish the List review on February 22 at 5 p.m. Mr. Lopes also discussed the council appeal decision on Patricia and noted that the Council overturned the Committee’s decision based on the evidence of sewer problems, which Mr. Lopes noted had not been part of the original request discussion and application. Mr. Beights distributed information and updates on budget items, ballot measure status, and bylaws. The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. to the next regular meeting of February 27, 2006. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske Recording Secretary