Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-25-2002 TC MinutesCITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TREE COMMITTEE MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2002 MEMBERS PRESENT: Laura Rice, Linda Hauss, Teresa Larson, Jim Lopes and Steve Caminiti STAFF PRESENT: Ron Combs, Lisa Woske 1. REVIEW MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28, 2002 The minutes were approved as submitted. 2. TREE REMOVAL REQUESTS -- LAGUNA VILLAGE (Eucalyptus) Denny Thatcher, an arborist who works for PG&E Vegetation Management, reported that an 18" "halo" was required for tree top clearance of power lines and the eucalyptus trees • were too fast-growing to maintain properly during the annual rotation schedule. He stated the trees were young and would just grow larger and more quickly as they matured. He favored removing the trees now and replanting with a more appropriate species to mitigate safety issues. Randy Total, representing the property owner, agreed that the trees were fast-growing. He distributed a site map which indicated 8' planters between the property and the power poles. He suggested that whatever species are used for replanting have a lower height limit. Adam Corob, 1533 Galleon Way, stated his back yard faces the back of the buildings and the trees provided a much -needed screen for light and noise buffer. Mr. Caminiti submitted a letter received from Richard and Connie Schram, adjacent property owners, who did not favor the trees' removals. Mr. Combs noted that the trees had been severely topped and were infested with mealy bugs. Mr. Lopes discussed the line of trees on the shopping center property. He favored replacement and wanted to ensure that the shopping center's mitigation measures were met for the commercial property. He agreed that a replacement species' height should not reach the power lines. 0 • Ms. Larson suggested a staggered removal and replacement approach to minimize the loss of screening. Mr. Caminiti favored removal, stating the trees were a bad choice of species for the location. He was concerned about the "clear cutting" effect in the neighborhood and the loss of screening. He suggested a three-phase removal/replacement plan to be completed within the next three to six years. Ms. Hauss shared the Committee's concerns for the neighbors and agreed with Mr. Caminiti's suggestion. Ms. Rice agreed with the three-phase concept, but suggested that the second and third phases be subject to Committee review upon the successful completion of the first phase. Mr. Caminiti moved to approve the removal of up to one-third of the requested trees for a Phase I program, based on the findings to promote good arboricultural practice and undue hardship on the property owner. He required replacement plantings of diverse species with a minimum of 1:1 replanting (or similar requirement to be determined by City Arborist, based on spacing requirements.) The phased project should be coordinated with the City Arborist and the Community Development Dept. He stated the applicant should return to the Committee within the next two years to review Phase I and seek approval for Phase It. . Ms. Rice seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. -- 3500 BULLOCK (various) The Committee discussed the removal request. Based on Committee discussion, the following action was taken: Mr. Caminiti moved to approve the removal request for Trees #1, #6, #10, and #12, based on promoting good arboricultural practice. Mr. Lopes seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Rice moved to deny the removal of Tree #8, as she could not make the necessary findings. Ms. Hauss seconded the motion. 0 Mr. Lopes and Ms. Larson favored removing the tree. • The motion passed, with Mr. Lopes and Ms. Larson voting against. In considering Trees #3, #4, and #5: Ms. Larson, Mr. Caminiti, Ms. Rice and Ms. Hauss felt Tree #3 could be retained, but favored removing #4 and #5. Mr. Lopes felt all three trees were too large and could be removed, but could agree to retain #3 if it would thrive. Ms. Rice moved to deny the removal request for Tree #3, as she could not make the necessary findings, and to approve the removal of Tree #4 and #5, based on promoting good arboricultural practice. Mr. Caminiti seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. In considering Trees # 7 and #8: Mr. Caminiti and Ms. Hauss stated they would like to consider the costs and have more information on the possibility of moving the transformer unit so Tree #7 could be • retained. They felt Tree #8 could be pruned. Ms. Rice favored removing Tree #7, based on property owner hardship. Mr. Lopes and Ms. Larson agreed. Mr. Lopes moved to approve the removal of Tree #8, as doing so would not harm the character of the neighborhood and to continue the action on Tree#7 until further information could be obtained on moving the transformer. Mr. Caminiti seconded the motion. The motion failed, with Ms. Rice, Ms. Hauss, and Ms. Larson voting against. Ms. Hauss moved to deny the removal of Tree #7, requesting that the applicant come back with three estimates on moving the transformer unit. Mr. Caminiti seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Ms. Larson voting against. Ms. Rice moved to deny the removal of Tree #8, as she could not make the necessary findings. 0 Ms. Hauss seconded the motion. • The motion passed, with Ms. Larson and Mr. Lopes voting against. In considering Tree #9: Mr. Lopes and Ms. Larson did not see evidence of damage and favored root pruning. Mr. Caminiti, Ms. Rice, and Ms. Hauss favored removal, due to adjoining driveway damage and the tree's size, which will only increase with maturity. They favored replacing it with a more appropriate species. Mr. Caminiti moved to approve the removal of Tree #9, based on promoting good arboricultural practice. Ms. Rice seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. In considering Tree #10: Mr. Lopes saw no evidence of root damage and felt it was a healthy, attractive tree. Ms. Larson and Ms. Hauss felt the tree was too large for the area and that the roots • seemed to be encroaching. Mr. Caminiti felt pruning and maintenance could mitigate some of the issues, but agreed it was a poor species choice for the location. Mr. Caminiti moved to approve the removal of Tree #10, based on promoting good arboricultural practice. Ms. Larson seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Mr. Lopes voting against. In consideration of replacement requirements: Mr. Caminiti moved to require nine 15-gallon replacement trees, species and location to be coordinated with the City Arborist and planted within 45 days of issuance of permit. Ms. Hauss seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Larson had to leave the meeting. 0 -- 1122 LAUREL LANE aTracy Summers, applicant's representative, discussed problems with falling branches damaging cars, noting that the lot is virtually full during business hours. She felt some trees were too large for the site, e.g. the massive eucalyptus by the back patio. She stated the trees were on an 18-month pruning rotation. She favored replacement plantings of a more appropriate species. She identified 13 top priority trees for immediate removal. Mr. Caminiti stated he favored the removal of those 13 trees, with replacement plantings, and felt the applicant could return at a later date to discuss the remaining trees proposed for removal. Mr. Lopes agreed. Ms. Hauss felt the applicant should consider re -planting in areas where removal for the second phase might be anticipated. Ms. Rice moved to approve the removal request for the 13 priority trees as identified, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required replacement plantings of 13 to 24 trees, with location and species to be coordinated with the applicant's. landscaper and the City Arborist. She stated the tree should be appropriate for a parking lot and offer a large canopy. Ms. Hauss seconded the motion. • The motion passed unanimously. 3330 & 3360 BROAD 2389 HELENA - 155 STENNER 1340 DIABLO Mr. Combs stated these properties had been improperly noticed/ posted and would have to be considered on a future agenda. --1537 BEACH Mr. Combs reported that this item had been withdrawn. 3. NEW BUSINESS -- Letter regarding removal application in mobile home park The Committee discussed the letter submitted to Jeff Jorgensen regarding the procedure concerning the recent removal request. The Committee discussed the concerns and confusions surrounding the representation on 10 this item, but agreed that the owner's representative was given ample opportunity to discuss her position. There was Committee discussion on improving the application form itself to mitigate confusion and clarify the information presented. The following changes were agreed upon: ■ Additional lines to indicate the actual property owners' name, address, and phone if different from the applicant's. ■ Change signature lines to include lines for property owner's signature if different from applicant, with a sentence indicating "If applicant is not the property owner, both signatures are required for filing." ■ Correct name and quantity of trees to be removed. Mr. Combs agreed to bring back the revised application. 4. OLD BUSINESS -- FOOTHILL BLVD/FOOTHI LL BRIDGE Barbara Lynch, representative from City Engineering, sent a letter updating the Committee on the Bridge project. . The meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m. to the next regular meeting of December 16, 2002 at 5 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske Recording Secretary ►�J