Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-24-2006 TC MinutesCITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TREE COMMITTEE CORPORATION YARD MONDAY, JULY 24, 2006 MEMBERS PRESENT:Jim Lopes, Katie Hall, Don Dollar, and Sara Young STAFF PRESENT:Ron Combs, Todd Beights PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. 1.APPROVAL OF JUNE 26, 2006 MINUTES Re the item on Drake Circle, it was clarified that Katie Hall moved to remove only the carrotwood, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required replacement with a 15-gallon tree chosen from the Master Street Tree list to be in keeping with the neighborhood theme tree and planted within 45 days of issuance of permit. Re the 3960 S. Higuera item, it was clarified that Sara Young moved to approve the removal request, based on undue hardship and required replacement with a 15-gallon patio tree chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of issuance of permit. The minutes were approved as amended. 2.TREE REMOVALS 720 LEFF (MAGNOLIA) Robert Schreiber, applicant’s representative, discussed the removal request for the smaller magnolia and also detailed the landscaping plan proposed. Catherine Pardeilhan, applicant and Homeowner Assoc. representative for Victoria Square, also discussed the request and the problems with the shape of the tree and crowding the nearby tree. She stated she wanted to replace it with a more appropriate sized tree, e.g. a tulip magnolia. Ms. Young noted the small magnolia was not thriving. Ms. Young moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, with replacement of the tulip magnolia proposed. Ms. Hall seconded the motion. Mr. Dollar stated a concern that the tulip magnolia would be too small a replacement species. The motion passed unanimously. 363 FOOTHILL (PINE) The applicant discussed the driveway damage due to root and felt the lean towards the house presented a hazard. She stated small limbs have fallen and she’s had to have the drain snaked every six months, which has been very expensive. She felt the oak next to the pine would thrive if the pine were removed. She did not propose a replacement tree, as the site was already heavily planted. She explained that she began the removal of the tree with a tree trimmer who did not think a permit was required to remove a Monterey pine and when they were told that a permit was needed, the work on the tree stopped. Mr. Combs noted the odd pruning was a result cutting away the dieback and halting the removal process. He said the health of the tree was now only moderate and agreed that the oak would thrive if the pine were removed. Mr. Lopes felt that based on the need for continual sewer work, there was evidence of undue hardship. The applicant stated she did not have the Roto-Rooter bills on hand. Ms. Young moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice and that in doing so, the oak would thrive. She did not require a replacement. Mr. Lopes seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 1374 & 1386 PISMO (2 EUCALYPTUS) Howard Nicholson, applicant’s representative, discussed the landscaping plan and the replacement using 24” oaks in the setback, as well as California sycamores. He noted that one of the eucalyptus was uprooting and the other next was to an oak tree that had been approved for removal. The Committee discussed the applicant’s previous removal requests and the action that had been taken. Mr. Combs noted the 24” oaks would be a good replacement choice at the railroad tracks and that the replacement should be a riparian species. He reported the eucalyptus seemed to be in good health, but the uprooting tree could fall. He stated that if it were removed, the stump should remove for erosion control. Clark Hailyer, 1353 Pismo, felt the trees were significant to the neighborhood and did not see clear evidence of erosion issues. He stated that many of the neighbors did not favor removal and that the proposal was too much clear-cutting. He felt construction methods could be employed that would allow the trees to remain. Mr. Nicholson stated a concern for safety around the houses, as the canopy of one of the trees extended into Lot 4. Mr. Dollar was concerned about removing healthy, established skyline trees that could also be providing habitat resources. He stated he could not make the findings necessary for removal. Ms. Hall agreed with Mr. Dollar. Ms. Young agreed with the concern with Lot 4 and the canopy, stating the debris could be problematic to new development. Mr. Lopes felt the eucalyptus would be better replaced with a riparian species. Mr. Dollar moved to deny the removal request, as he could not make the necessary findings for removal. Ms. Young seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 1493 HIGUERA (2 CAMPHORS) The applicant discussed the removal request, noting the sidewalk damage presented a pedestrian hazard. Mr. Combs noted that the Street Dept. had originally proposed the removals and that the neighbors had protested. The applicant then made the application and that the City had agreed to pay for the removal. Mr. Dollar clarified that the trees were city-owned and he felt that the City should be making the application instead. Ms. Young agreed that the City should have been listed on the removal request posting. Douglas Wood, 1461 Higuera, submitted a 10-page petition of signatures from people against the removal, stating the trees were significant to the neighborhood, the skyline, and to passers-by. The petition also contained the following suggestions: Reconfigure to a meandering-style sidewalk around the roots and Mr. Wood said he’d allow his property to accommodate the configuration Root pruning Use flexible sidewalk materials Mr. Wood urged other solutions be explored and noted that mitigation might be less costly than removal and stump grinding. He felt it would be a hardship on the neighborhood to lose the trees, He also noted there was parking available elsewhere in the area instead of just in front of the root problem area. Mr. Dollar acknowledged that the neighborhood felt strongly about keeping the trees and felt if the City wanted to pursue the removals, they should apply specifically. Mr. Lopes moved to not act on this submitted application and stated that if the City wanted to apply, the site should be re-posted and the process move forward. Mr. Dollar seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 2100 SLACK (6 EUCALYPTUS) The applicant discussed the hazard to the neighbor’s property and noted some of the trees had been topped and that all the trees were leaning. He requested that no replacement trees be required at this time, as there was major development being planned for the site and a landscaping plan would be submitted for the property at that time. Mr. Combs stated the trees were fairly healthy, but not necessarily structurally sound. He felt the trees were close enough to the driveway to cause damage if they split or fell. Mr. Dollar felt the poor pruning in the past had allowed for poor growth patterns. Mr. Dollar moved to approve to removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required no replacement planting. Ms. Hall seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 3.NEW BUSINESS -- Public Comment on Revisions to the Master Street Tree List and the Trees for Major Streets list Mr. Combs commended Ms. Young’s efforts in compiling the project information. Deborah Cash, Executive Director of the Downtown Association, was the only person from the public in attendance for this item. Todd Beights gave a presentation concerning the process of amending the tree lists and described the steps to advertise and inform people about the item. Mr. Lopes observed that the Tree Ordinance requires City Council adoption of the lists by resolution and the Committee encouraged staff to continue to work with other departments and the community to have opportunities for participation and input before a Council hearing. Deborah Cash spoke to the process and encouraged that the Committee perform due diligence before a Council hearing and avoid complaints about the process. She will take the revision proposal to the Association membership to comment to the Design Committee on August 22 and then the Board on September 12 for a recommendation. She encouraged that photos be obtained of the trees. Ron Combs offered to look further into obtaining selections from West Coast. Ms. Cash offered to help with an article about the downtown trees in the Journal and to help with an article about the overall tree list proposals. Cyrus Berry, a representative with Greenvale Landscaping, offered to arrange for a boxed tree display at a Farmers Market and ask people to vote for favorites; Mr. Combs offered to obtain trees and work with Ms. Cash to set it up. Mr. Beights described several activities coming up: The Downtown Street Tree Evaluation will have a walk through with the City Council on August 4 at 9 a.m. The Council will consider the Evaluation on September 5. A Farmers Market date for displaying trees was tentatively set for September 7. A special Tree Committee meeting/workshop on September 20 was proposed by Mr. Lopes, even though Mr. Dollar would be absent. A tentative date for City Council adoption was set for October 17. Mr. Lopes appointed a sub- committee of himself and Don Dollar to work with staff on the process and attend meetings. Comments on the proposed list: Mr. Dollar noted that several trees in the Major Streets List did not appear to be on the Master Tree List: camphor, liquidambar, Chinese elm, and Magnolia “Majestic Beauty.” The sole liquidambar on the Major Streets List for California Boulevard was replaced by Jacaranda, with a unanimous vote. Camphor trees were noted on the Master Tree List, and changes were made to the Master Tree List to include Chinese elm, and to revise Magnolia “Little gem” to “Majestic Beauty.” These changes were made to establish a public review list for the public process. The meeting adjourned at 7:52 p.m. to the next regular meeting of Monday, August 28, at 5 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske, Recording Secretary