Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-23-2005 TC MinutesCITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TREE COMMITTEE MEETING MONDAY, MAY 23, 2005 MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Lopes, Don Dollar, and Sara Young STAFF PRESENT:Ron Combs, Lisa Woske, Todd Beights PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no public comments. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF APRIL 25, 2005 The minutes were approved as submitted. 2.TREE REMOVAL REQUESTS 1990 McCOLLUM (STAR PINE) Mr. Combs reported that the item was brought back to Committee because the previous original permit application did not have the owner’s signature. The applicant’s representative/property manager stated that the tree had outgrown the patio and was causing hardscape damage and that the roots were causing problems in the sewer line. She noted large surface roots presented a tenant hazard and felt the tree was just too large for the area. Mr. Combs agreed there was damage to the patio concrete around the large tree, but the tree was healthy. Larry Bissell, 2060 McCollum, did not favor removing the tree and felt it was significant to the skyline. He suggested the sewer problems were due more to old orangeburg pipes than roots and felt the patio could be re-configured around the tree and accommodations could be made. Janet Salem, 2106 Santa Ynez, agreed with Mr. Bissell and felt there were mitigative measures to be taken regarding the patio. She noted the property itself was not heavily landscaped and felt the tree was significant to the neighborhood. Mr. Combs discussed possible mitigative measures, such as root pruning, as well as leveling the concrete sections, mulching, and even installing a low deck. Mr. Dollar felt it was a significant, healthy skyline tree and suggested re-landscaping around it with mulch and altering the hardscape. He did not feel he could make the findings for removal. Ms. Young agreed the concrete could be removed and mulching could help level the area. She suggested decking instead of root pruning. She did not favor removal. 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. 1681 PHILLIPS (Eucalyptus) Robert Gonzales, 360 Chorro, applicant’s representative, read a letter into record from Thomas DeBartollo (property owner), which discussed the property damage already caused by the tree, the liability issues and the neighbors’ concerns for safety regarding limb breakage. Mr. Gonzales also stated the owner of 1658 Mill Street favored removal for liability issues, especially during storms. He noted that the small oaks would thrive if the eucalyptus were removed. Michelle Abba, 1666 Phillips, felt the old majestic tree was an historical specimen and that it provided a natural habitat for wildlife. She felt it was significant to the neighborhood. Roger Seeker, 1666 Phillips, did not favor removal and agreed with Ms. Abba comments. He also submitted several letters from neighbors who did not support the removal. Mr. Gonzales allowed that it was a beautiful tree, but reiterated his strong concerns about hazards and liabilities regarding falling limbs and tenant safety. Sharon Kamm, 532 Dana, stated a concern about possible erosion and stability issues with some of the tree roots being anchored in the creek area. Mr. Dollar determined with Mr. Combs that it was not a registered historic tree and that thinning out the heavier limbs would mitigate some concerns about wind damage. Ms. Young believed reducing the crown and selective pruning would alleviate future problems. Mr. Lopes agreed with the pruning suggestions and did not feel that presently, the tree presented problems warranting removal. Mr. Lopes 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. 3860 S. HIGUERA #126 (Incense cedar) The applicant discussed the installation of a larger mobile home on the site and stated the contractor told him the tree needed to be removed for the home to fit on the pad. He reported that the park manager agreed with the removal if approved. Mr. Combs stated it was a large cedar with some deadwood, but was fairly healthy. The Committee discussed the exact placement and location of the trailer and the tree. It appeared that there was enough space for the home to fit while retaining the tree. Ms. Young moved to deny the removal request, as she could not make the necessary findings for removal. Mr. Dollar seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 1149 ALRITA (Ficus) The applicant submitted a package of pictures and letters from neighbors that supported the removal of the tree, which was a hazard and presented increasing problems. They discussed the foundation threatened by roots and damage to the driveway and sidewalk and stated that the tree littered the property and street continually. The applicant was in favor of a replacement planting, e.g. Austrian willow. Mr. Combs reported that it was a large, vigorous ficus and suggested the roots were not the cause of the damage, as the tree had been root pruned in the passed. He suggested the cracking in the driveway was due to concrete settling. Mr. Dollar determined that no root barriers had been used in the previous work and that the work had been done less than a year ago. Mr. Lopes was concerned about the misshapen appearance due to PG&E pruning. He felt it was too close to the power lines and had surface root problems. He noted the tree would continue to be notched by PG&E. Ms. Young felt the tree would get larger and its canopy would continue to be ruined by the PG&E pruning. She favored the Austrian willow as a replacement tree. Mr. Dollar was also concerned about the present shape of the tree and subsequent problems pruning would cause. Ms. Young moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice and to prevent undue hardship in the future. She required one 15- gallon replacement tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of issuance of permit, coordinated with the City Arborist. Mr. Dollar seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 754-56 PALM (Palm and pepper trees) The applicant discussed the narrow lot and City-approved plans to improve the property and stated the trees had to be removed to accommodate the renovations. He submitted plans for the improvements and discussed the permit-required parking spaces. He noted that the palm tree was going to be relocated. Mr. Combs stated the pepper tree was in failing health and had been poorly pruned. He said the palm was healthy. Mr. Dollar moved to approve the removal request, based on undue hardship and that doing so would not harm the character of the neighborhood. He did not require any replacement planting. Mr. Lopes seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 532 DANA (Three Monterey pines) The applicant discussed the root problems and structural damage. She stated that a certified arborist had recommended removal of the trees to avoid potential liability. The trees had been previously root pruned to mitigate damage to neighbor’s driveway and were causing problems again. She was concerned about the erosion and stability issues in the dual creek banks and was especially concerned about susceptibility of the trees stability in an earthquake. She agreed to plant four replacement trees on the property. Mr. Combs stated they were large, fairly healthy pines with many surface roots. He stated the garage had vertical displacement and roots were intruding on the neighbor’s asphalt and lifting the driveway. He noted the podocarpus had been lifting the corner of the foundation and he had already approved its removal. Mr. Dollar led general Committee discussion on the historical aspects of the property and the type of construction of the damaged building to determine whether roots or settling were the cause of the damage. He stated he could not make the hardship finding. Ms. Young felt the pines were in good shape and deep watering and mulching could mitigate that surface root problems. She felt some pruning would also improve their health. 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. The Committee recommended that the applicant try root pruning and strategic crown pruning with deep irrigation/mulching systems over the next couple of years and then evaluate the situation again, 3.NEW BUSINESS Mr. Beights discussed participation in the Advisory Body training workshop to be held June 22. 4.OLD BUSINESS There was no business to discuss. 5.ON-GOING BUSINESS --Master Street Tree List Update Mr. Dollar reported that he and Mr. Parker were working with staff to create a public forum process with CDD for updating the Master Street Tree List and to involve various city agencies. He asked for input and suggestions for updates to the list, in addition to the three trees that were voted on in a previous meeting. Mr. Lopes discussed the viability of some of the downtown species, e.g. carrotwoods. He felt the first level of review should be the success/failure of species used for the major streets and residential Master lists. Mr. Dollar suggested including a category within the Master Street Tree List to designate species for the downtown core. Mr. Beights suggested the downtown area should be the first priority. There was general Committee discussion on the internal process for organizing these efforts and processes. --Gateways There was no discussion on this item at this time. --Tree Ordinance Update There was no discussion on this item at this time. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. to the next regular meeting at 5 p.m. on Monday, June 27, 2005. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske Recording Secretary