Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-25-2002 TC Minutes• CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TREE COMMITTEE MEETING MONDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2002 MEMBERS PRESENT: Linda Hauss, Laura Rice, Teresa Larson, Jim Lopes and Steve Caminiti STAFF PRESENT: Ron Combs, Lisa Woske MINUTES The minutes of the January 28, 2002 regular meeting were approved as submitted. 2. REMOVAL REQUESTS ■ 1356 IRONBARK (Alder) The applicant discussed the application and reported that his Homeowners' Association had agreed with his desire to remove the tree. 40 Mr. Combs noted again that there were surface roots and minor vertical displacement. Mr. Lopes stated he could not find for hardship or damage and did not see a present or imminent problems. He could not favor the removal, as he could not make the findings. He noted it was a street tree. Ms. Larson felt it was the wrong type of tree for the subdivision and while she did not see any true present problems, she did feel there would be problems in the future. She noted that subdivision plans needed better scrutiny and appropriate species choices. Ms. Rice agreed with Ms. Larson that it was the wrong tree in the wrong place and would create future problems and as the Homeowners' Association also agreed with the removal request, she favored removing it to promote good arboricultural practice. Ms. Hauss agreed with Ms. Rice and Ms. Larson, noting that the neighborhood had similar problems on other properties. Mr. Caminiti felt the hardship issues were only beginning and would get worse as the tree grew larger. Mr. Lopes stated he did not favor removing a tree that posed not present hardship solely because it might prove problems in the future. He favored retaining trees and having them come back for removal when true problems were assessed. Ms. Hauss moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice and due to property owner hardship, and required one 15-gallon • tree to be planted within 45 days of issuance of permit, chosen from the Master Street Tree list and in keeping with Homeowners' Association species choices. • Ms. Rice seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Mr. Lopes voting against ■ 148 BROAD (Various trees) The applicant discussed the removal request and replanting proposal. He identified the four trees to be removed, stating they were all either hazardous or posed liability issues to the property and/or in poor health. He discussed the Tree Ordinance in detail as he believed it related to the trees on the removal request, stating that he did not see that the proposed trees fell into the Committee's purview as listed. He also noted that an arborist reported that the cedar in the back of the property had been badly pruned and had been approved for removal two years ago and that in removing it, there were two redwoods next to it that would grow into the space. The arborist agreed the cedar and the elm by the house has been poorly lopped and presented potential damage problems. The applicant stated the redwood was growing into the side of the house and into its roofline, which posed a hardship. He also stated that his lot was one of the largest in the area an other lots of this size had more than one property developed on them and while the possibility of subdividing existed, it was not his intention to subdivide in the near future. Mr. Combs noted there was no damage to the slab. He agreed trees had been topped and suffered from limb loss and now needed corrective pruning. He noted some evidence of decay in the elm. Mr. Caminiti noted that forty statements had been sent to the Committee opposing the removal application. Ralph Jacobson, 156 Broad, stated the cedar in the backyard had extensive limb loss over the years, had damaged the fence, and should be removed. He stated he only favored removing trees that were diseased or posed true hazard. He did not believe the redwood posed a liability. Richard Schmidt, 112 Broad, submitted a site map of the trees as they are viewed from his property and from the street. He agreed that the backyard cedar was in poor health and could be removed. He stated the remaining trees under consideration for removal were Heritage -sized trees and added greatly to the history and character of the property, neighborhood, and skyline. He discussed some conflicting information on the applicant's replanting proposal scheme and was concerned that there was an imminent subdivision effort. He suggested postponing the removal of the trees until a subdivision plan was in place and requiring those trees to be removed. Barbara Bailey, 129 Broad, noted that there were eight people at the meeting to oppose the request and no one in favor of it was in attendance. She discussed the applicant's replanting plan and felt that removing trees to allow more sunlight for a high-water maintenance garden was not viable in this area, due to the lack of water resources. She • did not feel the redwood was a liability and suggested pruning. She felt the trees added to • the value of the property and that retaining those trees was in keeping with the spirit of the neighborhood and surrounding properties. Ms. Larson felt the redwood was too close to the house and posed a liability. She stated the cedar by the house had been butchered, but she could not justify removing it. She felt the elm did look diseased and could therefore be removed. She felt the cedar in the back posed a liability to adjoining properties. Mr. Lopes felt the multi-trunked redwood did pose a liability to the house as it grew larger, but did not posed a hazard at this time. He stated the only tree he for which he could make findings for removal was the cedar in the back. Mr. Caminiti further addressed the quandary of "present liability" vs. "future problems" and felt the Committee findings were intended to address current problems faced by property owners. The only tree he could find for removal was the cedar in the back, as it had been severely damaged. Mr. Combs clarified the elm has decay, not specific disease at this time Ms. Rice favored removal of the redwood at this time instead of waiting for it to grow larger and create more problems. She did not feel the cedar by the house posed true problems and felt it should be pruned. She stated evidence of disease in the elm needed to be determined and if it had disease, it should be removed. She favored removing the cedar in the back yard. Ms. Hauss felt the redwood by the house needed heavy pruning and that while the cedar by the house was misshapen, it was healthy. She agreed that if the ehn proved to be diseased, it should be removed. She favored removing the cedar in the back yard. Ms. Hauss moved to approve the removal of the back yard cedar, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, with no replacement required. Ms. Larson seconded the motion The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Rice moved to approve the removal of the elm, based on promoting good arboricultural practice contingent upon the determination of present disease as assessed by the City Arborist and Steve Fransman of Greenvale Tree Services. Ms. Larson seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Mr. Caminiti voting against. Ms. Larson moved to deny the removal request for the cedar by the house, as she could not make the necessary findings for removal. Mr. Caminiti seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. . Ms. Larson moved to approve the removal request for the redwood, based on undue hardship to the property owner. • Ms. Rice seconded the motion. The motion failed, with Mr. Lopes, Mr. Caminiti, and Ms. Hauss voting against Mr. Lopes moved to deny the removal request for the redwood by the house, as he could not make the necessary findings for removal. Ms. Hauss seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Ms. Larson and Ms. Rice voting against. ■ 1998 SAN LUIS DRIVE (Live Oak) The applicant discussed the application, stating it was the wrong tree for the location and was too close to the street and walkway. They felt the tree would just grow larger in a space that was too small and suggested planting a similar tree on the other side of the driveway, where there was more room. Mr. Combs stated the tree was healthy and was starting to displace the sidewalk. Mr. Caminiti did not feel there were compelling present problems and therefore could not make the necessary findings. Ms. Hauss agreed with Mr. Caminiti. • Mr. Lopes felt removing the tree would not harm the character of the neighborhood and suggested replacing it on the property with a 24" box. Ms. Rice agreed with Mr. Lopes. Ms. Larson agreed it was the wrong location for that type of tree and that it could be replaced with a better choice. Mr. Lopes moved to approve the removal request, as in removing the tree would not harm the character of the surrounding neighborhood, and required a replacement planting of a 24" box tree to be planted within 45 days of issuance of permit and chosen from the Master Street Tree list. Ms. Larson seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Mr. Caminiti and Ms. Hauss voting against. ■ 2143 HARRIS (Live Oak) The applicant stated that the tree had grown too large for the site and that nothing will grow under it. She was concerned about possible future damage to the foundation. Mr. Combs noted it was a healthy tree, but badly pruned. Ms. Hauss agreed that although it had taken over the back yard and was badly pruned, she • could not make the necessary findings. • Ms. Rice and Ms. Larson reported that they had been unable to view the tree and we abstaining from the voting. Mr. Caminiti had not seen any foundation damage and could not make the findings for removal. Mr. Lopes suggested other use solutions to the backyard area, e.g. decking or shade landscaping. Mr. Caminiti moved to deny the removal request, as he could not make the necessary findings. Ms. Hauss seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Ms. Larson and Ms. Rice abstaining. ■ 817 DAHLIA (3 Sycamores) The applicant and her neighbor discussed the driveway damage and trip hazard caused by the tree roots, as well as the surface roots that were in the neighbor's property. One of the trees was reported to be diseased and was dropping leaves and messy litter. The applicant desired to replace with a more appropriate species. Mr. Combs noted that sloughing off bark was natural for this tree and that the driveway damage was due to one of the trees. Mr. Lopes felt the tree next to the driveway could be removed due to the evidence of damage (the easternmost tree) but could not make the necessary findings to remove the other two trees. The rest of the Committee agreed with Mr. Lopes. Mr. Caminiti moved to approve the removal of the easternmost tree, by the driveway, based on promoting good arboricultural practice and requiring no replacement and denied the removal of the other two trees, as he could not make the necessary findings for removal. Ms. Rice seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. ■ 721 JOHNSON (4 Eucalyptus) The applicant's representative discussed the major problems the roosting birds created for the property, including odor and health problems. She discussed methods approached for mitigating the birds' presence and stated that they were awaiting the arrival of a "roost inhibitor" chemical to apply to the trees that might deter the birds from returning to roost. Mr. Combs agreed that there was a stench in the area and some vertical displacement had resulted in all sidewalks from the trees' roots. Ms. Hauss moved to continue the item to allow the applicant sufficient time to test the ordered chemical to attempt to resolve the issue of roosting birds. • Mr. Lopes moved to deny the removal request, as he could not make the necessary findings for removal. Ms. Hauss seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Ms. Rice and Ms. Larson voting against. ■ 1351 ROYAL (2 pines) Mr. Combs stated that one tree was diseased and should be removed and that the second tree would be infected soon. The Committee discussed the application. Mr. Caminiti moved to approve the removal of the tree closest to Los Osos Valley Road, based on promoting good arboricultural practice and requiring no replacement. He denied the removal of the other tree, as he could not make the necessary findings for removal. Ms. Rice seconded the motion. . The motion passed unanimously. 3. NEW BUSINESS Arbor Day planning was discussed and deferred to the next meeting. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. to the next regular meeting of March 25, 2002 at 5 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske Recording Secretary 0