Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-28-2005 TC Minutes1 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TREE COMMITTEE MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 2005 MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Lopes, Linda Hauss, Don Dollar and Sara Young STAFF PRESENT:Ron Combs, Todd Beights, and Lisa Woske PUBLIC COMMENTS: Michelle Abba, 1616 Phillips, discussed a nearby tree that had been denied for removal at 1681 Phillips and reported that it had been pruned down to a virtual stump, impacting the neighborhood adversely, and asked that the Committee review the issue. Mr. Dollar requested that the Committee discuss this particular matter further under “Old Business” at the end of the meeting. Christine Mulholland discussed the Woodland Court sycamore that had been damaged during construction, with its main roots compromised. She felt site map improvements were required to clarify identification of significantly protected trees that need mitigations during construction. Mr. Beights agreed to put this matter on a future agenda for discussion. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 26, 2005 (amended) AND OCTOBER 24, 2005 Mr. Lopes clarified that under the 1500 Lizzie Street section, he approved the removal of trees inside the setbacks and requested that the discussion of two replacement trees being required in addition to the required street trees on Lot 7 be deleted. The two sets of minutes were approved as amended. 2.TREE REMOVAL REQUESTS - 668 SERRANO (8 eucalyptus) Mr. Beights reported that there were no specific conditions on the original permit that protected the trees from removal. The applicant, Mrs. Floyd, reiterated her strong concerns about dropping limbs and significant damage possible from the falling trees. She reminded the Committee that a large tree at the end of the stand had fallen the year previously and the due to another large limb falling, she had to pay large bills to cover damage to a car and to have the limb chopped up and removed from the property. 2 Dan Pronsolino, 667 Serrano, reiterated his concerns about living next to the heavy, large trees. He discussed details of his researched negligence cases and suggested that the City would be liable if there was loss of property or life and they had denied the removal request. Mr. Combs noted that the trees were healthy and in the mid-part of their lives. There were no signs of root rot or decay. He stated that as the trees get larger, their limbs are heavier and they self-prune, resulting in dropping limbs. He also reported the trees had been pruned. He did not advise staggered removal of the trees, as they now had grown into an inter-dependent unit. Mr. Dollar stated he could not make the necessary findings for removal of the large, healthy, significant skyline trees. Ms. Young did not want to set a precedent for removing healthy trees because they were messy. There was Committee discussion on the specifics of each finding for removal as they pertained to this request. Mr. Lopes believed that based on the history of falling limbs and the costs involved with that, there was hardship in evidence. Ms. Hauss moved to approve the removal request, based on undue hardship to the property owner, and required 15-gallon trees be planted (one per 35’ of frontage), chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of issuance of permit. Mr. Lopes seconded the motion. AYES: Hauss, Lopes NOES: Young, Dollar Mr. Dollar stated that it was his understanding that a tied vote meant a denial of the request. Staff could not confirm that point. Ms. Hauss moved to continue to item to the next meeting, due to the tied vote. Ms. Young seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Mr. Dollar voting against. - 804 VISTA DEL ARROYO (4 Alder) The applicant discussed the removal request, noting that the city had removed dying magnolias and planted the alders in 1987 – without notifying them, while they were out of town – and they had now grown too large for the property. She stated they had been professionally pruned in 2004. The trees continually dropped leaves and as they lived in a very windy area, maintaining the trees was a hardship. One of the trees was leaning. She wanted to replace them with a more attractive species that was easier to maintain. She 3 noted that the Alder was no longer even on the Master Street Tree list. She did not think removal would harm the character of the neighborhood and reported that neighbors supported the removal. She reiterated that she did not feel the city should remove trees and replace them without consulting the property owner. Mr. Combs stated the trees were healthy and the theme tree for the area. Ms. Young agreed that they were an unattractive species, but were in good health. Mr. Dollar agreed that the trees were healthy. Ms. Hauss stated she could not make any of the findings necessary for removal. Mr. Lopes was concerned that removing them would affect the character of the neighborhood and that if they were removed, replacement trees should be 24” box type for scale. Ms. Young moved to deny the removal request, as she could not make the necessary findings. Mr. Dollar seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. - 848 MISSION (Floss Silk) It was determined that the dbh was too small to need a permit for removal. - 708 MISSION (Incense cedar) The applicant discussed the removal request, stating the approximately 8-10 branches had fallen and that in October, a 35’ branch fell. There had been another branch that broke off and was entwined in the tree, rubbing on the roof. Safety was a concern and the weight- bearing limbs were hard to prune/maintain. Mr. Combs stated the tree was large, aging, but in fairly good health. There had been some falling limbs in the past and some hardscape damage. Mr. Lopes felt the tree was too large for the back yard and that the loquat tree next to it would thrive with the cedar’s removal. Mr. Dollar felt that the tree was a significant skyline tree. Mr. Lopes moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required one 15-gallon tree be planted, chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of issuance of permit. 4 Ms. Hauss seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Mr. Dollar voting against. - 2297 EXPOSITION (Two oaks) The applicant discussed the removal request and his desire to replace the trees with taller growing trees. He stated the two oaks created a “wall effect” and that it made it difficult to monitor his property. He noted that being at the base of the trail, many young people gathered there late at night and were disruptive and he was concerned about safety and vandalism on his property. He stated the trees had cracked the driveway and were too close to the sewer and water lines. He acknowledged he had pruned the one oak himself already, unaware that he needed a permit to do so. When a neighbor informed him of the procedure, he made the removal application. Mr. Combs felt soil compaction was causing the driveway damage, not roots. Mr. Dollar determined with staff that 80% of the canopy on the pruned oak was gone and that the tree could be salvaged with approximately 15 years of high maintenance and care. Mr. Combs noted that the second tree had been cut already, but it could be pruned to correct its shape and also mitigate sight line concerns for property surveillance. Stacy Millitch, 2297 Exposition, suggested that since the one tree had been severely pruned, it should be allowed to be removed and replaced to enhance the property. Roger Suiker, 1616 Phillips, felt the applicant should incur the costs for an illegal tree removal. Mr. Dollar agreed that due to its present state, the pruned tree needed to be replaced and that the second tree should be pruned correctly by a certified arborist and retained. Mr. Dollar and Ms. Hauss requested that staff review the ordinance for enforcement measures of violations. Ms. Young felt the wounds of the pruned oak were too large and would allow decay. Mr. Dollar moved to approve the removal of the pruned oak, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required one 15-gallon tree be planted, chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of issuance of permit. Ms. Young seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 5 Ms. Hauss moved to deny the removal request for the second remaining oak, stating that she could not make the necessary findings for removal, and strongly encourage the applicant to have a certified arborist prune the tree to mitigate security concerns and maintain the tree’s integrity. Mr. Dollar seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 3. OLD BUSINESS Re: 1681 Phillips Mr. Combs reported he had visited the site four times during the tree trimming and Bunyon Bros, the arborists, referred to the process as “safety pruning.” The Committee agreed that the City needs stricter ordinance rules for removing/pruning/ trimming non-City trees and staff agreed to review the ordinance again. Mr. Suiker asked Mr. Combs to re-inspect the tree at 1681 Phillips. Mr. Beights agreed to forward this matter to the City Attorney for additional review. Mr. Lopes asked Mr. Beights to report back to the Committee regarding the outcome of the 1681 Phillips site review. 4. ON-GOING BUSINESS Due to the lateness of the hour, there was no discussion. The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. to the next regular meeting of December 19, 2005. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske Recording Secretary