Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-19-2005 TC MinutesCITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TREE COMMITTEE MEETING MONDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2005 MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Lopes, Linda Hauss, Don Dollar, Ben Parker and Sara Young STAFF PRESENT:Ron Combs, Todd Beights, and Lisa Woske City Attorney Jonathan Lowell made a presentation to the members of the Tree Committee. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no public comments. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 28, 2005 The minutes were approved as submitted. 2.TREE REMOVAL REQUESTS - 668 SERRANO (8 eucalyptus) Elaine Floyd, applicant, reiterated her previous case points for removal and clarified the process of appealing a denial to City Council, should the Committee vote that way. Mr. Combs confirmed these were large, healthy trees with heavy limbs. There was a history of limb breakage and self-pruning. He stated that eucalyptus trees could survive heavy pruning, but the process did weaken trees and promoted splitting. Jim Anderson, neighbor, agreed that the trees were healthy but stated that did not prevent them from being likely to fall. He noted that the large tree that had fallen previously had a healthy-looking trunk but had sub-grade root rot, which cannot be detected from just visually inspecting the trees. He stated falling limbs/trees had the potential to cause serious property and vehicular damage and that pedestrians were in continually potential danger when passing beneath them. He agreed that the trees were an asset to the neighborhood and skyline, but felt there were enough trees planted in the area that would fill in the skyline and open up the street vista and therefore the removal of the eucalyptus trees would not adversely affect the neighborhood. Mr. Combs agreed that there could be pockets of decay below grade in the existing trees and that an arborist could determine that with special equipment. Mr. Parker favored removal due to safety concerns. He did not think the removal would harm the neighborhood and noted that most neighbors had spoken in favor of removing the trees during the previous meetings when this item was discussed. He felt replacement plantings would be appropriate. Mr. Dollar stated he could not favor removal, as the trees appeared to be healthy and without an arborist report, there was no evidence that there were any health concerns for the trees. Ms. Young agreed with Mr. Dollar and did not want to set a precedent in allowing the removal of skyline trees. Ms. Hauss supported removal, due to the hardship and safety concerns of the applicant. Mr. Lopes felt the species was not appropriate for a street frontage tree and that based on the history of fallen limbs and the tree that had already fallen, and the financial hardship the applicant has already had due to the trees, he favored removal. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request, based on undue hardship to the property owner, and required one 15-gallon tree to be planted per 35 linear feet of frontage, chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of issuance of permit. Ms. Hauss seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Mr. Dollar and Ms. Young voting against. Mr. Lopes believed that based on the history of falling limbs and the costs involved with that, there was hardship in evidence. - 1691 COLINA (12 eucalyptus) Lola Smee, property owner, was concerned about health and decay issues for the trees, as well as safety issue to people and property. She discussed the steep hillside configuration and stated the stand of trees were approximately 150 feet tall and that an expert determined that at least two of the trees in the middle of the stand had evidence of longhorn beetle damage. She reported that a tree had fallen previously and that a staggered removal would not work as the stand of trees were interconnected and stability issues would be affected. She stated she had lung problems and the trees were high in allergens. She also felt that the orange grove and small oaks in the area would thrive if the large trees were removed. Ken Smee noted that the trees had been growing over 25 years and that the character and viability of the property would improve with planting a more suitable tree species that would provide a better windbreak as well. He suggested oaks as a replacement species. He noted the stand had been pruned and that previous trees had fallen on the neighbor’s property and that it was a financial hardship having to remove the fallen trees. Mr. Combs confirmed the trees were large and that the center of the stand was infected with the beetle. He stated two or three trees had massive dieback and some had been topped in the past. He felt that approximately half of the trees were healthy. Mr. Dollar clarified that some of the trees were less than 24” dbh and were not part of the removal request. Ms. Young was concerned about the insect infestation and the previous topping and agreed that the location of the infected trees in the middle of the stand prohibited allowing removal of just those. Mr. Combs stated that if the removal was approved, the applicants needed to remove as much of the eucalyptus wood and debris as possible to promote replanting and allowing the existing trees to thrive. Mr. Dollar pointed out to Mrs. Smee that the remaining native species on the property were high allergens as well. Mr. Lopes noted that removing the entire stand would not adversely affect the character of the neighborhood. Ms. Young moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice due to the declining health, insect infestation, and topping aspects with the trees. She required replacement plantings of five seedlings for every tree removed. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. - 1691 HILLCREST PLACE (Monterey pine) The applicant stated concerns that the tree was diseased, had dieback, and was planted too close to the foundation, which had evidence of root damage. Mr. Combs agreed that the tree appeared to have pine pitch canker, but no definite signs were evident at this time. He did believe other organisms were negatively affecting its health. He did not see evidence that the large surface roots were causing foundation damage. Michelle Abba, 1666 Phillips, was concerned that several large trees had been legally and illegally removed within the past couple years, which was adversely affecting the neighborhood skyline and character, and stated the tree did not seem to be in clear declining health that should warrant removal at this time. Mr. Dollar agreed it was a skyline tree. Mr. Parker felt the tree was in decline and it would only be about four years until it was completely dead. Ms. Hauss agreed the tree was in a poor location and in failing health. She favored requiring replacement planting if removed. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required one 15-gallon tree to be 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. - 3197 JOHNSON (20+ eucalyptus) The applicant had asked that the item be continued to the January meeting. Ms. Hauss moved to continue the item to the January 23, 2006 meeting. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. - 1911 JOHNSON (Eucalyptus) There was no one present to speak to the item. Mr. Combs noted that there was some parking lot damage and that the trees had been lifted/pruned. Mr. Parker wanted to see a re-landscaping plan outlining removals and replacements submitted prior to acting on the item. Ms. Hauss was concerned that there might be previous conditions on the original use permit that might affect this item and agreed with the need for a formal landscaping proposal. Mr. Lopes moved to continue the item to a date uncertain and request the applicant return with a conceptual landscape replacement planting plan and have staff coordinate with the CDD to review the original permit conditions. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 3. OLD BUSINESS -Bowden Ranch tract improvements – damage to the Sycamore at Woodland Street Mr. Beights discussed the appeal to Council and the details of the paperwork/processing error on the City’s part. He stated the Council referred the item back the ARC for proper input on the entire project. He also discussed Councilwoman Mulholland’s previous point on the accuracy of mapping and schematics and assured the Committee that staff had the goal of increased communication and better networking with CDD and the Planning Dept. to better address construction safety zones. 4. ON-GOING BUSINESS Due to the lateness of the hour, there was no discussion. The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. to the next regular meeting of January 23, 2006. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske Recording Secretary