Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-28-2006 TC MinutesCITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TREE COMMITTEE CORPORATION YARD MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 2006 MEMBERS PRESENT:Jim Lopes, Don Dollar, Ben Parker, and Sara Young STAFF PRESENT:Ron Combs, Todd Beights PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. 1.APPROVAL OF JULY 24, 2006 MINUTES Mr. Lopes clarified that the special workshop date should be listed as tentatively scheduled for 9/27/06. The minutes were approved as amended. 2.TREE REMOVALS 3451 SEQUOIA (Monterey pine) Mr. Combs reported he had approved the removal request for the Aleppo on the neighbor’s property due to erosion issues and had required a replacement tree. He noted the application request was for the pine in the front yard. Marisa Tedone-Teel, owner, discussed the removal request and stated that the tree had a major split about 10’ up and that an arborist did not feel corrective pruning would mitigate liability and hazard concerns and had recommended the tree be removed. She proposed to replace the tree with a more appropriate species. Mr. Combs reported it was a large specimen in moderate health and that it had been topped about 30 years ago with several main stems remaining with narrow angles of attachment. Mr. Parker noted a large wound showing evidence of decay and agreed the tree was in failing health due to previous pruning and favored removal with replacement planting. Ms. Young agreed with Mr. Parker and felt the tree would present hazard issues in the future. Mr. Dollar felt both pines were skyline trees for the area and their removal would be noticeable in the neighborhood. If the tree was approved for removal, he favored a large growing species as a replacement choice. Ms. Young moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, with replacement of a 15-gallon tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of issuance of permit. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 112 CERRO ROMAULDO (MISC. EUCALYPTUS) Mike Seitz, applicant, discussed the request for 4-6 trees to be removed and felt the trees had been poorly topped. He stated that one tree was cracking the spa area pad and was pushing against the gazebo; one tree was leaning significantly to the neighbor’s property on the west; one tree was destroying the property fence line; one tree in the back of the gazebo and deck area was also causing property damage. He stated that it was his hope to be able to remove all 6 eucalyptus and that he was open to replacement planting on the western end of the property. He also submitted a petition signed by several neighbors, supporting the removal of the trees. Mr. Combs stated these were healthy trees in poor locations and that there was structural damage to the deck and spa and that there was evidence of a foundation crack. Mr. Dollar agreed that while these were skyline trees, the trees would get much larger and were hazardous, due to their previous topping. He agreed that the trees by the spa/deck area were problematic. Ms. Young agreed with Mr. Dollar’s comments. Mr. Parker felt the native soil would support the planting of Coast live oaks and recommended same as a good replacement species for the area. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request for all six trees, based on undue hardship, and required the replacement of two 15-gallon large-growing species trees to be chosen from the Master Street Tree List and planted within 45 days of issuance of permit. Ms. Young seconded the motion. Mr. Lopes asked that the replacement species be determined with the City Arborist prior to issuance of permit. The motion passed unanimously. 24 VERDE DRIVE (BRAZILIAN PEPPER, CHINESE ELM, TALL PALM) Tim Brennan, applicant, noted that the three trees requested for removal were all “eyesores” to the neighborhood. He stated the elm is too close to the house and had damaged the walkway and driveway and that he had to trim the large branch hanging over the roof. He felt the tree was too large for the location. He stated the aging palm appeared to have a split and posed a liability in windstorms. He stated he would plant replacement trees in the front. Mr. Lopes noted receipt of a memo from Niko Cimbur, neighbor, who favored the removal of the palm but not the elm, and was concerned about replacement requirements and the screening value of trees. Mr. Combs noted some displacement in the walkway but did not see evidence of any foundation damage. He stated PG&E pruning had caused the disfigurement to the trees’ shapes, but felt the pepper could be trimmed to improve its appearance. He agreed that the palm littered and that all trees provided a canopy effect. Mr. Dollar noted the white birch was not the best species, due to its root issues. Ms. Young agreed with the removal of the pepper, as it had been too sheared. Mr. Dollar was not sure that the elm was a problem and felt the palm could be maintained better if retained, but felt the pepper could be removed. He stated a concern with previous removals and subsequent barrenness in the neighborhood. Mr. Lopes felt the elm was an asset to the neighborhood and could be more effectively pruned for better visual effect and viability within the power lines. He agreed with the removal of the other two trees. Mr. Lopes moved to approve the palm and pepper trees, based on undue hardship and promoting good arboricultural practice and moved to deny the removal of the elm, as he could not make the necessary findings for removing that tree. He required the replacement of two 15-gallon trees to be chosen from the Master Street Tree List and planted within 45 days of issuance of permit. Mr. Dollar seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Lopes suggested to the applicant that if it turned out that if a certified arborist could not professionally salvage the elm, the applicant could re-apply for the elm’s removal. 1519 ROYAL WAY (PINE) Christina Linn, applicant’s representative, clarified that the request for just the front tree that was leaning out towards Royal Way and that the owner felt the lean presented future liability. She stated a professional landscaper reported that the tree was unhealthy. She noted there was no irrigation in place for the front of the property. Mr. Lopes was concerned that there might have been a subdivision approval that required a landscaping plan be in place. He felt any replanting would be subject to failing as there was no irrigation for it. Mr. Combs reported that the tree was in failing health, had narrow angle attachment, and was probably failing due to last of irrigation. Mr. Parker agreed that attention should be paid to landscaping the site and that irrigation needed to be installed for anything to survive. Mr. Dollar suggested the owner install irrigation or do a bladder/drip system to irrigate replacement tree planting and that a two-year bond be put in place for the tree’s viability. Mr. Lopes agreed with the previous comments. Mr. Parker felt original development conditions might have been required in the past. Mr. Dollar moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required the replacement of two 15-gallon trees to be chosen from the Master Street Tree List and planted within 45 days of issuance of permit and that a $2500 bond be required to ensure that after two years, the replacement trees were still viable. Ms. Young seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 255 FOOTHILL (LIVE OAK) Gail Landreth, applicant’s representative, discussed the limbs that presented a hazard and submitted a letter from a neighbor who was concerned about the roof/gutter damage. She noted roots get into the sewer lines of both this property and the neighbor’s, although she did not bring any sewer receipts. She noted the tenants were elderly and unable to maintain the tree or the gutters. Mr. Combs reported the tree was healthy, young and medium-sized, although it did “mushroom” out. He suggested old sewer lines were breaking down and allowing root intrusion. He felt the tree could be pruned to be more upright and present less of a hazard concern. Mr. Dollar stated that routine maintenance needs and failing sewer lines were causes for removal. He agreed the tree was young and healthy. Mr. Lopes agreed with the comments and stated property maintenance was not the issue. He did not think the overhang on the roof presented a danger. Mr. Parker agreed that pruning would enhance the tree and the property itself. Mr. Parker moved to deny the removal request, as he could not make any of the findings necessary for removal. Mr. Dollar seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 3.NEW BUSINESS -- AUGUST 18, 2006 REVISED DRAFT MASTER STREET TREE LIST Mr. Beights noted that this was the latest revision. Barbara Lynch, City SLO, submitted input from the CDD on this latest draft. She stated that staff wanted to be involved with the special meeting and would check on their ability to attend the 9/27 date. The Committee also agreed to consider 9/26 as a special meeting date. Deborah Cash, Downtown Association rep, noted that she could not attend a 9/27 meeting, but was available on 9/26. She also discussed an article she wrote for SLO Journal to educate the community about the removals and replacement program. Mr. Lopes suggested that he and staff attend the Downtown Association’s Board meeting on 9/12 to better get input from the Association Design Committee. Ms. Cash suggested an ordinance change to assess the value of trees and a penalty/fine for trucks that damage tree limbs downtown. Mr. Lopes asked staff to catalogue and document pictures of trees suggested for use in the downtown core for presentation at the Downtown Association’s Board meeting on 9/12. Ms. Cash also noted there was an opportunity for the community to participate in the planting by sponsoring trees designated for the empty tree wells. Mr. Lopes suggested outreach opportunities to notify a list of landscape architects regarding the September special workshop. The Committee, Christine Mulholland, and Ms. Cash all commended Ron Combs on his excellent walking tour. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Beights distributed a memo regarding the ballot measure guidelines for elected officials and advisory body members. Mr. Lopes noted a letter of appreciation from Douglas Wood for the Tree Committee’s good work. The meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m. to the next regular meeting of Monday, September 25, at 5 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske, Recording Secretary