Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-26-2004 TC Minutes• CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TREE COMMITTEE MEETING MONDAY, JANURY 26, 2004 MEMBERS PRESENT: Laura Rice, Pete Dunan, Steve Caminiti, Laura Hauss STAFF PRESENT: Ron Combs, Lisa Woske, Todd Beights, Jay Walter 1. REVIEW MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 24, 2003 The minutes were approved as submitted. 2. TREE REMOVAL REQUESTS ■ 136 N. CHORRO ( Carob) Captain Slate, Fire Dept. rep, discussed the site improvement plan and the need for the driveway configuration, which required the tree to be removed. He was also concerned about public safety in terms of traffic management and the ADA ramp. He noted the tree • was also tearing up the sidewalk. Mr. Combs stated the tree had a large trunk with some structural defects and a center area of decay. He said be could favor removal with replacement. Mr. Duman felt the issues of public safety were reasons for removal. Ms. Hauss and Ms. Rice agreed. Mr. Caminiti also agreed and suggested replacing the tree with a 24" box size Ms. Rice moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required a replacement tree of 24" box size to be planted within 45 days of issuance of permit, species to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and coordinated with City Arborist. Ms. Hauss seconded the motion The motion passed unanimously. ■ 3960 S. HIGUERA, #175 (7 mist. trees) • Julie Marez, applicant, discussed the hardship of having the trees on site and the family's plans to replace the single -wide mobile home with a double -wide on site and the desire to • expand the living area. She felt some of the seven large trees were diseased. She submitted letters of support from neighbors and the park manager. She was concerned with the continual littering, tree maintenance, and root damage, as well as possible liability from falling limbs. Patricia Short, 60 Mariposa, neighbor, favored removal of the large pine. Forest Humphrey, 64 Mariposa, neighbor, also favored removal of the large pine Mr. Combs agreed that the large pine tree was in decline and stated the large cedar in the front near the drive was diseased and the willow was failing. He felt the lot was overplanted and could have some liability potential. He favored removing several of many of the trees, but he could not make the necessary findings to remove the entire group as requested. Mr. Caminiti favored removing the pine, the two cedars, and the two ashes. He felt the willow and eucalyptus could possibly be retained. Ms. Hauss and Ms. Rice agreed with Mr. Caminiti. Mr. Dunan stated he had a conflict of interest, due to being a neighbor on Mariposa and would be abstaining from the vote. • Ms. Rice moved to approve the removal request of the six trees, retaining the eucalyptus, based on undue hardship to the property owner, and required three 15-gallon replacement trees to be planted within 45 days of issuance of permit, species to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and coordinated with City Arborist. Ms. Hauss seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously, with Mr. Dunan abstaining. ■ 3391 SEQUOIA (2 eucalyptus) Sean Laughney, applicant, requested removal of the two trees because they were too large for the site and was concerned about liability and property damage due to neighborhood density. He noted that the tree caused blockage in city storm drains. He pointed out that one of the property's trees had fallen over in the past and another one had been removed with a permit. He stated he had added 19 trees to the property. He submitted letters from some neighbors supporting the removal of the two trees. He stated they had been pruned extensively. Mr. Combs stated both trees were healthy and felt the roots could do some foundation damage. Scott Abrams, 3358 Barranca, neighbor, discussed the debris and liability concerns of the large trees and favored removal of both trees. Mr. Dunan favored removal due to hardship and liability issues. Ms. Hauss favored removal and noted some of the owner -planted trees were very large in species. Mr. Caminiti and Ms. Rice agreed with the hazard issues and did not feel any replacement trees needed to be required. Mr. Dunan moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice and required no replacement plantings. Mr. Caminiti seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. ■ 487 LEFF (Eucalyptus) Richard Crutchfield, Housing Authority rep, stated the large tree was too close to the sidewalk and was lifting corners and creating a liability. He stated the parking lot was compromised by the secretions and littering. He agreed to replacement plantings. Bryan Lloyd, groundskeeper, discussed a history of grinding the sidewalk due to the lifting and was also concerned with branches and pods littering and creating safety concerns for pedestrians. Anita Shower, 487 Leff, favored retaining the tree and felt issues and concerns could be mitigated with root and tree pruning. She suggested cars could be parked elsewhere. Mr. Combs felt the large tree was too close to the sidewalk, but felt root pruning could mitigate some concerns. Ms. Rice noted there had been letters of support for retaining the trees from neighbors and stated she could not make the necessary findings for removal. She felt mitigation measures and maintenance would enhance the healthy skyline tree. Mr. Caminiti felt it was a nice tree in the wrong location and that it would get much larger and continue to create problems. Mr. Dunan agreed and did not feel the city should risk strong possibilities of future liability. Ms. Hauss agreed, noting the Pistache would thrive if the eucalyptus were removed. She did feel it was a skyline tree and mitigating measures could be employed to address concerns for liability. Ms. Rice moved to deny the removal request as she could not make the necessary findings for removal. . Ms. Hauss seconded the motion. The motion did not pass: Ms. Rice and Ms. Hauss voted in favor; Mr. Caminiti and Mr. Dunan voted against. Mr. Caminiti moved to continue the item to the next regular meeting. Ms. Rice seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. ■ 2063 SIERRA WAY (2 pines) Mike Ross, applicant, discussed the preliminary site plans for the proposed lot split. He stated some pines had been removed ten years ago and oaks had been planted. He wanted to replace the removed pines with oaks. He felt the new built structure could be positioned away from neighbors if the trees were removed. He noted the lot split had not been approved yet. He stated he did not plan to clear cut the lot and did not want to harm the environment. Mr. Combs stated one of the trees was a large, fairly healthy Aleppo pines with some rust and the other was a Monterey pine showing some signs of pitch canker. • William Burdine, 2065 Sierra Way, was concerned about the natural loss of trees in the area and did not favor losing more trees and harming the environment due to development. He felt these trees were important to the neighborhood. Enrico Borigio, 2075 Sierra Way, favored retaining the R-1 zoning, felt the trees were healthy and did not want another house built on the lot. Jeffrey Bloom, 2085 Bins Court, felt the pine on the south side seemed healthy and provided a nesting area for birds. He felt the tree was an asset to the environment and neighborhood and did not favor another addition to the site. Ed Adams, 2071 Sierra Way, did not favor losing the healthy tree due to development. Gail Amos, 2070 Bins Court, felt the trees were strong environment -al assets. Mr. Caminiti noted that a corner of the building footprint could be rotated to save the trees. The applicant was concerned that rotating the corner would compromise the root system. Ms. Hauss was concerned that action on the application would be premature since the lot • split had not been approved yet. • Mr. Caminiti felt opposition to the removals was strong and wanted to see more study done regarding the split approval and possible building re -design. He stated he could not favor the removals at this time. Ms. Rice and Mr. Dunan agreed with Committee comments. Mr. Caminiti moved to continue the item indefinitely due to site planning and lot splitting issues. Mr. Dunan seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 3. NEW BUSINESS ■ Tree Removal Flow Chart Mr. Combs, Mr. Walter, and Mr. Beights discussed the chart. ■ Feedback for Two -Step Process for Council Goal Development After general discussion, the Committee members did not deem any particular benefit to the 2-step process vs. the 1-step process for goal development. Mr. Caminiti also reported that Debbie Black would be in touch with Paul LeSage and those who were on that committee prior to Ms. Black's leaving the department in March. 4. OLD BUSINESS There was general discussion on the Foothill Bridge tree removal project. The meeting adjourned at 7 p.m. to the next regular meeting at 5 p.m. on Monday, February 23, 2004. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske Recording Secretary 0