Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-27-2006 TC MinutesCITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TREE COMMITTEE MEETING MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 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 JANUARY 23, 2005 Mr. Lopes corrected a typo on page 1. The minutes were approved as amended. 2.TREE REMOVAL REQUESTS -- 2380 MEADOW (4 eucalyptus) Mr. Combs reported that some citizens were concerned about the trees being a wildlife habitat and that Natural Resource Manager Neil Havlik did not think butterflies were using the trees, but that more observation was needed to determine if raptors were nesting there. Mr. Havlik had also noticed the dry creek bed and stated that any replacement species needed to be riparian in nature, e.g. poplar, big-leaf maple. The applicant reiterated he was concerned about liability issues with the trees and did not want to delay their removal. Betty Culp, 2362 Meadow, was concerned about possible storm damage and the hazard potential to her property, as two of the trees were directly by the roof. She reported that a healthy large tree had been downed in the recent past due to storms. Frank Little, 2362 Meadow, stated red hawks do nest in the trees but were transient among the trees in the neighborhood. Mr. Parker and Ms. Hauss felt there was evidence of undue hardship and were concerned about liability. They could favor removal, contingent upon Mr. Havlik’s approval. Mr. Dollar and Ms. Young felt the trees were skyline and healthy and agreed the habitat questions needed to be resolved. They saw no evidence that the trees were failing or creating undue hardship at this time. Mr. Lopes discussed retaining the eucalyptus along the creek and stated these trees were significant to the neighborhood, but noted there were other large trees in the area. He felt other species would be better choices for the creek environment. Ms. Young was concerned that removing the four trees would leave the remaining trees vulnerable to wind damage. Mr. Parker felt that big-leaf maple or sycamores would be better choices than redwoods. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request, based on undue hardship on the property owner and on promoting good arboricultural practice, contingent upon the Natural Resource Manager’s approval of mitigated habitat issues. He required compensatory 2:1 replacement with big-leaf maple, Coast live oaks, or California sycamores. Ms. Hauss seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Mr. Dollar and Ms. Young voting against. -- Willow Circle/Bullock Lane (3 Eucalyptus) Greg Sines, Davey Tree Service, stated the trees were a poor species to be growing in the utility lines and that a nearby tree had failed at the base, causing power outages and damage to the lines and the mobile home park. John Cribb, Homeowner Assoc. rep, discussed the city easement and the tree maintenance responsibility. He stated the trees needed pruning and that PG&E had requested the removal of three of them. Lynda Farnum, Homeowner Assoc. rep, discussed the safety pruning of the other trees in the stand and stated the three requested for removal had not been pruned. Mr. Combs noted that the area was proposed common area open space and the city needed to approve any removals. The removal of the three trees would not negatively affect the stability of the rest of the stand. Mr. Dollar stated he would like to have seen the Homeowners Association agreement and requested staff to include Homeowner Association documents and/or planned development information with removal request for review, e.g. CCRs, conditions, etc. Ms. Young moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required three 15-gallon low-growing species to be planted within 45 days of issuance of permit. Ms. Hauss seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. -- 3358 BARRANCA (Eucalyptus) The applicant submitted two letters supporting the removal of the trees and stated that several neighbors were affected by the potential hazard. He stated a tree had fallen several years ago, causing property damage and that other trees had been removed in the area with permits due to liability and danger issues. He stated the tree was too large and that the roots were threatening the retaining wall and damaging the neighbor’s fence. He stated the tree had not been pruned in the past five years. He also noted the property was heavily planted. Mr. Combs reported that the tree was a large, healthy skyline tree and noted that while risk exists with all large trees, no immediate danger seemed evident. He stated the tree would increase in diameter and the damage to the wall will continue. Mr. Dollar agreed it was a healthy skyline tree and felt it needed safety pruning. He stated he could not make the findings for removal. Ms. Young agreed. Mr. Parker agreed it was a skyline tree, but since it will only get larger, the tree will continue to cause increasing problems for several property owners in a high use area. He felt another more suitable species could be used in replacement. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request, based on undue hardship to the property owner, and required one 15-gallon species to be planted within 45 days of issuance of permit. Ms. Hauss seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Mr. Dollar and Ms. Young voting against. -- 251 BROAD (Fig) The applicant stated concerns with the large root system and discussed landscaping plans for the area, which was a high use area for children. She did not think partial root removal would mitigate concerns and stated the tree was pruned seven years ago. Mr. Combs stated it was a large healthy tree with large surface roots that will only get larger. He suggested reducing the canopy might slow the overall growth and that nearby oaks would thrive if the tree were removed. Ms. Young felt that mitigation measures would be taken to control the root growth and stated she could not make the findings for removal. Mr. Dollar agreed with root management measures. Mr. Lopes did not feel the tree’s removal would harm the neighborhood and that nearby oaks would thrive with the tree’s removal. He felt the oaks should be favored in this case. Mr. Parker agreed with Mr. Lopes, but felt that root mitigations and leveling out the yard should be attempted first and then the applicant could return with another request if those efforts did not work. Ms. Hauss stated the concerns did not present undue hardship. Ms. Hauss moved to deny the removal request, as she could not make any of the necessary findings for removal. Ms. Young seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. -- 385 HATHWAY (Redwood) Mr. Combs reported that the applicant had requested a continuance to the next meeting and noted that ARC had originally requested the tree be retained; he stated the tree had since failed in health. Mr. Dollar was concerned with construction protection requirements and wanted to see more clear evidence of same. -- 1098 SAN ADRIANO Mr. Combs stated this request had been withdrawn. -- 1810 HOPE (Monterey pine) Ernie Kim, applicant representative, discussed the lot split and recent purchase of the property and stated the approve design works around retaining the tree. He said the owner was concerned with the size of the tree on such a small lot and the proximity of improvements to the tree might damage the tree’s viability. He stated the driveway would be four feet from the tree; the garage would be six feet from the tree, with a walkway in between. The applicant was requesting removal with incorporation of 2-3 specimen large box oaks as replacements. Mr. Kim also noted pines were prone to disease. Mr. Combs stated the tree was fairly healthy with no signs of disease, but did need pruning. Mr. Dollar felt the Tree Committee should have been part of an earlier review of the project. Mr. Parker did not think the tree was hazardous or infected and wanted to see design plans to determine if the tree could be more easily saved. Michelle Abba, neighbor, did not think the tree met any of the removal findings and stated its prominent location made it a fine neighborhood tree. She felt since plans existed to accommodate the tree staying, those plans should be followed and the tree retained. Ms. Hauss stated she had not been able to make a site visit. Mr. Dollar favored denying the removal request, as he could not make the necessary findings for removal. He further suggested a two-year bond for the tree’s survival. Mr. Kim suggested the Committee review the construction drawings and have more input at that stage to improve mitigation measures. Mr. Combs noted he would be reviewing the final phases of construction and could incorporate stronger tree protection into the plans. Ms. Young moved to deny the removal request, as he could not make the necessary findings for removal. Mr. Dollar seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. -- 1583 ROYAL WAY (3 eucalyptus) Tim Wilcox, applicant, stated the trees had been topped about 17 years ago and that they were not removed at that time due to finances. He felt the trees posed a hazard to nearby structures and that in the large, mature trees, the “notch effect” from topping created a danger and liability. He stated eight years ago, the limbs had caused roof damage and that root damage had now occurred with the retaining wall and fence post. He stated the property was heavily planted and did not feel removing the trees would harm the character of the neighborhood. He stated there were no plans to subdivide the lot. Mr. Combs stated they were large trees that had been topped and that branches were weakly attached. He felt that all of the trees -- or none of the trees -- should be removed in the presence of wind force. He did note some minor fence damage. Mr. Dollar felt the sprout tree in the back corner of the lot was smaller than 24”. He agreed the trees in question had been butchered. Ms. Hauss moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, requiring no replacements. Mr. Dollar seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 3. NEW BUSINESS: Farewell to Linda Hauss Ms. Hauss has completed her second term on the Tree Committee. Mr. Lopes recognized Ms. Hauss for eight years of excellent service, interest and great ideas on the committee. Committee members joined in expressing support for her to continue with input on projects, applications and future activity of a Citizen Urban Forestry group. Mr. Lopes added that a candidate was interviewed successfully and will be acted on by the City Council before the March Committee meeting. 4. OLD BUSINESS Fee for Appeal of Tree Committee Decision Todd Beights summarized the history of staff and committee discussion of a fee for appeals to City Council, with a handout of comments during the last few years. Staff recommends that the Committee provide input to the Council on the fee. After discussion, Ms. Hauss moved, second by Mr. Dollar, to recommend to the City Council to implement an appeal fee to recoup some administrative costs and discourage frivolous appeals. Jim asked staff to coordinate with Christine and other staff to provide a reasonable fee recommendation. Coordination with Community Development Department Mr. Beights described some progress in arranging for research on project history for tree applications that involve project requirements such as conditions of approval, covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs), and easements. Public Works staff needs a research person who can expedite information to the Tree Committee, either from PW or CDD. The committee discussed concern about research done upon appeal of a committee decision that did not benefit from the information. Mr. Dollar suggested that Mr. Combs should hold this type of application until permit history has been obtained, with committee concurrence. New issue of environmental review of applications Mr. Lopes described concern by Councilmember Mulholland that a recent removal that was approved without specific review of raptors or vultures did appear to disturb some that were present before and after the removal. The question has been raised whether actions by the Tree Committee are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act, which the City Attorney will address. Master Street Tree List Mr. Lopes stated that the committee completed discussion of the Master List on February 22, 2006. He asked members to plan on reviewing an administrative draft of a draft- revised list for the March 27 meeting. He and Ms. Young will email the revisions by March 20. Tree Ordinance Mr. Beights stated that the City Attorney is reviewing the ordinance and will recommend changes, as well as others being formulated by staff. The committee agreed to target Fall 2006 or earlier if possible to hold study sessions on draft revisions. Information on previous removal applications Mr. Combs summarized the status of three previous removal applications: 1.Phillips Lane – Eucalyptus “safety” pruning. The City Attorney is considering whether to proceed with administrative or criminal remedy. 2.Tank Farm Road/South Higuera – Creekside Mobilehome Park. The applicant is in violation of the Fall 2005 time limit for replacing removed trees established by the committee in its approval. The applicant indicated that the trees were not delivered from Utah, and Mr. Combs was concerned that a delivery during hot weather could kill the trees. Consensus of the Committee was to notify the applicant of the violation and schedule the matter for March 27 to consider a modification. 3.Exposition Drive residence – Oak tree. Tree removal has not occurred within the time limits, and the applicant is subject to the tree mutilation penalty. Mr. Combs will ask the applicant to proceed with the mitigation planting or be subject to the fine. The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. to the next regular meeting of March 27, 2006. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske Recording Secretary