Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-28-2002 TC Minutestree minutes Page 1 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TREE COMMITTEE MEETING MONDAY, JANUARY 28, 2002 MEMBERS PRESENT: Linda Hauss, Laura Rice, Teresa Larson, Jim Lopes and Steve Caminiti STAFF PRESENT: Todd Martin, Ron Combs, Lisa Woske 1. MINUTES The minutes of the October 22, 2001 regular meeting were approved as submitted. 2. REMOVAL REQUESTS ■ 1356 IRONBARK (Alder) The applicant discussed significant surface roots and the potential for damage to the sewerline and sprinkler system. A crack and lift were noted in the driveway area and they said landscaping the front lawn was not possible due to the roots. Mr. Combs did not note any driveway damage and felt that apart from some sooty mold evident, the tree was in healthy condition. Mr. Lopes stated that the tree was the street tree for the area and noted that neighbors had managed to landscape around their trees and root systems. He suggested that settling could be responsible for the cracks in the driveway. Ms. Larson did not feel the roots were extensive and agreed the tree was healthy and removing would adversely affect the neighborhood. Ms. Rice and Mr. Caminiti stated they could not make any of the necessary findings. Mr. Caminiti moved to deny the removal request, as he could make none of the necessary findings. Ms. Hauss seconded the motion Mr. Caminiti suggested the applicant approach the Homeowners Association to tree minutes Page 2 discuss the removal of trees in the neighborhood and a possible replacement program for the area. Mr. Lopes agreed with Mr. Caminiti's suggestion and favored continuing the item to allow the applicant time to approach the Homeowners Association regarding a replacement planting program. The Committee voted on the motion, with Mr. Caminiti, Mr. Lopes, and Ms. Hauss voting against. The motion does not pass Mr. Lopes moved to continue the item to the next regular meeting allow the applicant time to approach the Homeowners Association for a possible tree removal/replacement planting program which could be brought back to the Committee for their review. Mr. Caminiti seconded the motion. The motional passed unanimously. ■ 641 SERRANO (Italian stone pine) The applicant was concerned with liability issues regarding the tree falling and was concerned about the surface roots interfering with driveway construction. Mr. Combs noted that PG&E has topped the tree, which was still large and a significant skyline tree. Ms. Rice felt the tree would get too large for the site and the two oaks on either side of the pine would benefit from the removal and would thrive with good foliage. The rest of the Committee agreed with Ms. Rice. Mr. Caminiti moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, requiring no replacement. Ms. Larson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. ■ 1730 SANTA ROSA (Date palm and shrubbery) The applicant stated she was contemplating buying the property and discussed the R-3 zoning and the site remodeling plan, noting that the palm would be tree minutes Page 3' obstructing those expansion plans. She felt the area was well planted already and also preferred to remove the shrubbery in the front of the property and replace them with a flowering tree. She discussed the possibility of relocating the palm tree. She noted the palm by the fence belonged to Union Pacific, who did not appear to be concerned with its removal. Mr. Martin noted the date palm was the signature tree in the area and suggested that the palm might be relocated further down on the proposed bike path. He stated the front plantings were Victorian box trees. Mr. Caminiti felt the removal request was premature as the re -development plans needed to pass ARC and that the tree might well be referred back to the Committee at that point, dependent upon the plans submitted. He did not feel comfortable approving the removal of such a large date palm at this point in time, nor did he favor removing the Victorian box trees. He did feel the two smaller trees behind the Victorian box could be removed. The Committee agreed with Mr. Caminiti's comments and felt approval for removing the tree was premature. Mr. Lopes moved to continue the item indefinitely so the applicant could investigate the options and alternatives in the design process. Mr. Rice seconded the motion The motion passed unanimously. ■ 148 BROAD (Miscellaneous trees) The applicant discussed renovation plans for the house and gardens and presented a replacement planting plan for the removal of several property trees along the front yard, in the back yard, and in the creek area. He noted the garden was heavily planted and the cedar in particular was too close to the house. He submitted a letter from a neighbor who was concerned with trees breaking and causing damage to their property. The applicant was particular concerned with the cedars, redwoods, and elms which were old and posed a liability. He stated some of the creek trees were dead and that ivy needed to be removed. He had been working with Neil Hallvik on the creek maintenance. He identified three birch trees in the front, the redwood on the southwest corner of the house, the cedar on the southeast corner of the house, an elm and cedar and two redwoods by the garage as requested trees for removal. Mr. Combs felt that the live trees were in good health tree minutes Page 4 Ms. Larson stated she could not make the findings for removing the birch trees, as they were healthy and added character to the area. She agreed with the removal of the trees posing a threat to the house and did not think the trees in the back yard were healthy or in good condition and could be removed to promote good arboricultural practice. She also questioned whether the back yard trees were within the purview of the Committee. Mr. Caminiti agreed with Ms. Larson, but favored retaining the redwood trees in the back yard. Ms. Rice, Mr. Lopes, and Ms. Hauss agreed with the above comments, noting that pruning might help the birch trees' appearances. Barbara Bailey, 129 Broad, was not in favor of removing any of the trees and felt the posting signage had been inaccurate, misleading and incomplete as to the nature and scope of the removal request. She did not feel the neighbors were made aware of the magnitude of the project and that such removals would adversely affect the neighborhood. She suggested pursuing pruning measures. Jim Gates, 125 Serrano, read a statement from Maddie Gates which stated that removal of the trees would compromise the integrity of the property, as well as the property on the right side of it. He then stated that some neighbors objected to trees being removed to allow for driveway expansion. He believed that removing the trees would hard the neighborhood characteristics. Mr. Caminiti felt the item should be continued to allow clarification of the posting process, with possible re -posting for the site plan to mitigate Ms. Bailey's concerns. Ms. Larson moved to approve the removal request of the two trees by the house, the cedar, and the elm listed in the application, based on promoting good arboricultural practice. The motion died for lack of a second. Ms. Hauss moved to continue the item to the next regular meeting to allow accurate and complete posting of the property. Ms. Rice seconded the motion The motion passed, with Ms. Larson abstaining ■ 1076 PACIFIC (Prunus) The Committee discussed the application. �— tree minutes -. Page 5 Mr. Caminiti noted he did not see any damage to the creek wall. Mr. Lopes suggested the cracks were due to settling. Mr. Lopes moved to deny the removal request, as he could not make any of the necessary findings. Mr. Caminiti seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. to the next regular meeting of February 25, 2002 at 5 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske Recording Secretary