Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-26-2005 TC MinutesCITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TREE COMMITTEE MEETING MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2005 MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Lopes, Ben Parker, Linda Hauss, and Sara Young STAFF PRESENT:Ron Combs and Lisa Woske PUBLIC COMMENTS: There 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 26, 2005 The minutes were approved as submitted. 2.TREE REMOVAL REQUESTS -- 1852 FIXLINI (Monterey Cypress) Eldra Avery, applicants, stated that the tree was extremely large, had electrical wires running through it, and had several limbs that had broken off. She was concerned about liability issues and stated the neighbors shared her concerns and favored her removing the tree and replacing it with an appropriate size specimen. She stated that another tree had crashed into the house previously, damaging a bathroom. She was very concerned about hazards and dangers and did not know if the tree had been professionally pruned prior to her owning the property in 1998. She also discussed the proposed construction designs for the patio and the garage and the 12’ proximity of the tree to the garage foundation. She said the permits had not been issued yet. Patrician Cullinan, contractor, noted that the nearby trees were struggling to survive and that they would thrive if the large tree were removed. Mr. Combs stated the tree was fairly healthy with some dead branches and large surface roots. He was concerned about the construction cutting into the root zone and felt that destabilization could occur and would stress the tree. He agreed there was no room on site to relocate the proposed garage. Mr. Lopes reported he had not viewed the tree. Ms. Young noted that the construction activity itself would adversely affect the tree. Mr. Parker agreed that the tree was too large for the small lot and favored replacing it with a more suitable size. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request, based on undue hardship and promoting good arboricultural practice. Ms. Young seconded the motion. Ms. Hauss was concerned about the phased construction approach and did not favor allowing the removal of the tree prior to the building permit being issued. Mr. Parker felt even the patio development would adversely affect the tree. The motion passed, with Ms. Hauss voting against and Mr. Lopes abstaining. --3960 S. HIGUERA, Space #118 (Canary Island pine) Ron Rinell, tenant representative, stated that the property owners favored removing the tree and that the applicant was concerned that the tree was a hazard and too large for the site. Mr. Parker believed it was less than 24” and a non-native species and suggested it may not require a permit for removal. Mr. Combs noted some minor fence and hardscape damage, but said the tree was fairly healthy and would continue to grow 2 – 3 times its present size. Ms. Young did not feel the tree presented a hazard. Ms. Young moved to deny the removal request, as she could not make the findings necessary for removal approval. Mr. Dollar seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. -- 1704 TONINI (@ Monterey cypress) Terry Riewaldg, applicant representative, discussed the possibility of root rot and potential hazards of the tree falling. He stated that the row of trees had been maintained and previous limb breakage had caused damage. He noted that a dead tree had been previously removed. Mr. Combs agreed that the tree that had been removed was completely dead and that the two Monterey Cypress had evidence of decay at the bases of the trunks and were in failing health. He agreed there was hazard potential and that the line of trees had been professionally pruned. Mr. Rinell noted that these types of trees could show moderate evidence of decay and once cut down, be hollow inside. Ms. Hauss discussed the possibility of hazard assessment by a certified arborist, e.g. make a root analysis and sounding of the trunk. Mr. Dollar was concerned about the character of the neighborhood if too many trees were taken down. Mr. Lopes moved to continue to item to a date uncertain to allow applicant to have a certified arborist perform a hazard assessment report to determine the viability of the two trees. Ms. Hauss seconded the motion. The motion passes unanimously. -- 668 SERRANO (8 Eucalyptus) The applicant discussed the eight trees along Serrano Drive and the tree removed on Serrano Sircle. She noted the tree next to that one on her property had fallen over in February. She stated neighbors were also concerned with the liability and hazard of such large trees falling. She noted they were hard to maintain and had large branches that fell, which had even caused damage to vehicles. Mr. Combs stated the row was healthy, skyline trees and did not see significant amount of decay. He agreed the loss of limbs could pose a hazard and stated the trees had been pruned and well maintained. The applicant noted she had planted three Acacias and two Myoporum behind the row of trees and that no vegetation grew underneath them. Al Lipper, 585 Luneta, felt the trees definitely added to the aesthetic character of the neighborhood and did not want to set a precedent by allowing them to be removed. Mr. Rinell noted the roots continually lifted the sidewalk and he felt the limbs did present liability. Nelma Anderson, 671 Serrano, believed the trees were near the end of their life and while they were attractive to the area, they were too dangerous to keep. The Committee noted a letter submitted by Richard Schmidt, 112 Broad St., who did not favor removal of the trees and suggested the CDD might have language addressing the removal of the trees and street widening in the original permit. Ms. Hauss agreed that eucalyptus trees were messy and shed. She agreed that huge trees presented larger issues, but she was reluctant to clear-cut eight skyline trees. She suggested the applicant have an arborist perform a hazard assessment on the trees. Mr. Dollar felt the question of CDD’s intent of preserving the trees in regards to street widening should be answered. Mr. Dollar moved to continue the item to a date uncertain and directed staff to consult with CDD to investigate the restrictions placed in relation to the stand of trees. Ms. Young seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. -- 313 PATRICIA (London Plain) Janice McBride, applicant representative, discussed the trip hazard liability and replacement options for the removal. She noted the driveway was damaged and was concerned about the foundation and porch damage. She stated there were new cracks in the house and the doorway had shifted and been replaced. Mr. Combs stated the tree was healthy, but planted a little close to the house. He agreed a good percentage of the driveway damage was due to the roots. Mr. Lopes noted the driveway apron damage did not seem to be related to the roots. He was also unclear as to the dbh of the tree and whether it did in fact require approval for removal. Mr. Lopes moved to continue the item to the next regular meeting to allow the determination of the tree’s dbh and if the removal request did need to come back to Committee, that review of the root problems needed to be more extensive. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. -- 106 SANTA ROSA (Cypress) The applicant was concerned about root rot, broken branches and the large amount of deadwood in the tree. Liability was a concern and there had been damage to the retaining wall and the corner of the garage. Mr. Combs agreed the tree was dying, but he had wanted the Committee to review so they could better determine bank stabilization issues and replacement tree requirements. He suggested replacing it with a Live Oak or Sycamore, while leaving the stump along the creekbank if the tree were removed. Ms. Hauss moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required a specific replacement plan to be drafted in consultation with Neil Havlik and Mr. Combs concerning the condition of removal and replacement. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 3.NEW BUSINESS There was no business to discuss at this time. 4.OLD BUSINESS There was no business to discuss at this time. 5.ON-GOING BUSINESS Mr. Lopes discussed the need to further review the Master Street Tree List process and revisit efforts to fine-tune the list to present to the public. The Committee agreed to meet again on October 12, from 5 – 7 p.m. The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. to the next regular meeting of October 24, 2005. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske Recording Secretary