Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-27-2014 TC Minutes1 MEMBERS PRESENT: Jane Worthy, Matt Ritter, Trey Duffy, Ben Parker and Scott Loosley STAFF PRESENT: Ron Combs PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. MINUTES: Approval of Minutes of December 3, 2013 Mr. Parker moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Loosley seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. TREE REMOVAL APPLICATIONS 1. 590 Marsh (Ficus) Jeff Edwards, applicant’s representative, discussed the second submission of this removal request and the use of solar panels in the design and reiterated that the retaining the tree would minimize effectiveness at various times of the day. He also discussed associated hardscape issues and felt keeping the tree would create undue hardship for the development. He also discussed the need for diversity of species in the area and felt the Chinese pistache would add color. He noted a number of street trees would be installed and also offered to purchase three trees to donate to the City’s Open Space Tree planting program. Mr. Combs stated the large tree was healthy and that he could not make his necessary findings for removal. Minutes Tree Committee Corporation Yard Conference Room, 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo Day, Date at 5:00 pm 2 Craig Smith, applicant’s representative, noted that five specimen trees were being added around the corner area and that another large Ficus was present in the area. He reiterated his concern about solar access being blocked. Mr. Loosley felt removing the signature tree would change the character of the immediate community and that pavement issues could be mitigated. He did not feel solar access would be limited as the solar effectiveness and peak times would be available, as the tree would not be blocking high sun times and the solar delivery results. Mr. Parker agreed that the tree would not dramatically impact solar effectiveness and that hardscape issues could be addressed and that the tree should be incorporated into the construction/design. Ms. Worthy agreed with Committee comments. Mr. Edwards explained that construction would be complicated by having to protect the tree and discussed the goal of creating an energy-neutral site, maintaining that the solar access would be limited. Mr. Ritter agreed the tree was significant and that its shading benefits were important. He discussed the carbon footprint of losing a tree vs. solar benefits/payback. Mr. Parker moved to deny the removal request, as he could not make the findings necessary for approval. Ms. Worthy seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Mr. Duffy voting against. 2. 233 LINCOLN (Coast live oak) The applicant discussed the removal request, stating that 40% of the tree was hanging over 876 Venable property and was concerned about safety. He was also concerned about the PG&E line interference. He discussed past pruning efforts and felt the location was wrong for a large tree that would keep growing. Mr. Combs reported it was a healthy, medium-sized oak in a poor location. Mr. Duffy noted that the tree shades several properties, but agreed with hardship concerns for the applicant. Ms. Worthy agreed the tree was in an awkward spot, but that it was healthy and she did not favor removal. 3 Mr. Parker felt the only real problem with the tree was the location; he felt it could be pruned to accommodate the PG&E lines, which were not posing a safety issues. He agreed the tree was burdensome, but not to an unreasonable level and favored retaining the skyline tree. Mr. Ritter reported that he was unable to view the tree. Ms. Worthy moved to deny the removal request, as she could not make the necessary findings for removal. Mr. Loosley seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Mr. Ritter abstaining and Mr. Duffy voting against. 3. 1570 PENNY LANE (3 eucalyptus) Tom Jess, applicant’s representative, discussed the small site and majorly restricted ability to develop the property. He noted three trees were in direct line of vehicle access and retaining them would create severe hardship in developing the site. He noted a fourth tree was located in the City’s right-of-way. Shelli Winter, owner, discussed the small lot and the steep access that created the undue hardship. She agreed these were skyline trees, but noted that there were several other large trees in the immediate area. Mr. Combs reported that the large eucalyptus trees were relatively healthy. Mr. Ritter noted that the Committee had received several letters of opposition. Stefan Lamb, 1251 Buchon, discussed the neighborhood atmosphere and felt the trees provided a visual anchor, as well as a windbreak and natural wildlife habitat. He felt such a community resource should be protected. Mark Binder, 1563 Penny Lane, felt the character of the street would be irrevocably harmed. He agreed that the skyline trees were a wildlife habitat. Maryellen Gibson, 1251 Buchon, was concerned about the integrity of the cliff if the trees were removed, especially when the traveling train created significant vibrations in the area and could cause stabilization issues. Eric Meyer, 1232 Buchon, appreciated the predicament for the owners but could not support removal of the trees for vehicle accessibility. He discussed the possibility of a variance. Mr. Jess noted that the City would not likely cede any rights. 4 Peter Safelli, 1235 Buchon, was extremely opposed to the removals and felt the environmental benefits were significant. Drew Ramsey, 1516 Penny Lane, agreed with all of the neighbor comments and felt the trees’ protection was paramount. Shelly Safelli, 1235 Buchon, stated the removals would leave an unsightly area and that the trees’ shading was significant. Ms. Winter noted that the fourth tree on the street was not listed for removal in the application. Mr. Loosley agreed that removing the trees would create an inhospitable area. He was also concerned about limb droppage on such a small site. He understood that the property could not be built without removing the three trees and was concerned that construction might adversely affect the viability of the fourth tree, which he noted was in need of drastic pruning. Mr. Parker felt that confirmation was needed to determine the habitat issues for the trees. Ms. Worthy noted the City deemed the lot buildable and favored removal, as retaining the trees would create undue hardship to the property owners and their plans to be able to utilize their property. Mr. Duffy agreed with Ms. Worthy. Mr. Duffy moved to approve the removal of the three site trees, based on undue hardship to the property owners, contingent upon a qualified biologist determining that no active nesting sites existed. He further required three 15-gallon replacement trees to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of tree removals. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Mr. Ritter voting against. 4. 11295 LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD (36 misc. trees) Ron Rinnell, applicant’s representative, discussed the removal application and noted the trees were decayed, failing, and in poor locations. He discussed the new landscaping plan proposed. Mr. Combs reported that due to the large quantity of removals, he could not make the findings for removal. 5 Mr. Loosley agreed that the silk oaks were failing and the stone pine was causing fence damage. He did not feel water-hungry tree species were a good replacement. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice and require implementation of the proposed replanting plan within 45 days of tree removals. Mr. Ritter seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 5. 1144 CHORRO (2 trees) Mark Rawson, applicant’s representative, discussed the remodel design and noted the corner tree had badly damaged sidewalks and the stand of trees along the frontage were crowded; he discussed interspersed removals. Mr. Combs noted he had approved the corner tree, but could not make the findings for removing the carrotwood. Mr. Ritter 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 tree’s removal. Mr. Loosley seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 6. 1541 SLACK (Palm) The elderly owner’s relative discussed the removal request, citing damage to the roof due to fronds and the infestation of rodents in the tree. The owner was also concerned about liability and safety to pedestrians. Mr. Rinnell, applicant’s representative, discussed a suggestion to transplant the tree on California Blvd. Mr. Combs supported the transplanting concept. The Committee agreed. Mr. Ritter 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 tree’s removal. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 6 7. 1350 OSOS (2 Liquid ambers) Steve Franzman, applicant’s representative, discussed the removal request for the two trees, stating they were causing undue hardship by cracking sidewalks, as well as damaging the retaining wall and the foundation. Mike Kreizer, property representative, felt the trees were in the wrong place. He discussed the root damage to drain pipes and hardscape and outlined plans to level the area and plant ornamental Japanese maples. Mr. Combs reported the relatively healthy trees were causing displacement. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request, based on undue hardship to the property owner and required one 15-gallon tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of tree’s removal. Mr. Loosley seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 8. 777 MILL Mr. Combs reported the item had been withdrawn. 9. 300 LOS CERROS (2 eucalyptus) The applicant discussed the removal request, noting that she did not feel removal would harm the character of the neighborhood and that there were five large oaks in the front yard. Mr. Combs stated he could not make the necessary findings. Dan Kingman, 288 Los Cerros, supported the removals and stated the trees were three feet from his fence line. He reported there were turtles in his back yard and he was concerned about the overhanging branches breaking and creating safety issues. Mr. Duffy felt they were skyline trees and stated he could not make the findings unless they were deemed dangerous. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request, as doing so would not harm the surrounding neighborhood or environment, and required two 15-gallon trees to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of tree removals. Mr. Ritter seconded the motion. 7 The motion passed unanimously. 10. 1141 ISLAY (Tulip) The applicant discussed the removal request and submitted an arborist report that stated the mature tree was split and was causing significant root damage to the driveway, underground utilities, sidewalk, street, and sewer. The report stated that the tree was entwined with the power lines and maintained that the tree should be removed. The applicant was also concerned about transformer issues. Mr. Combs agreed with the report findings and felt that the structure had been compromised. 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 tree’s removal. Mr. Loosley seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 11. 265 FOOTHILL (Eucalyptus) Shaun Collarman, applicant’s representative, discussed the removal request and the plans for re-landscaping. Mr. Combs reported that the tree had been topped, but was a healthy skyline tree. Mr. Loosley 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 tree’s removal. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 12. 1234 MONTEREY (Ficus) Mr. Combs discussed the re-submitted application, noting that the roots had been cut due to boxed culvert and that the tree would not be viable. He reported he had pursued other mitigation measures, e.g. bulb outs, and the drainage issues remained. 8 Chris Paris, applicant’s representative, presented an engineering report that indicated that removal was the only feasible option. Mr. Parker stated that the applicant had satisfied the previous Committee request to exhaust all options to retain the tree and now agreed with removal. Mr. Loosley moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required the applicant work with the arborist on replanting a suitable box specimen to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of tree’s removal. Ms. Worthy seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS Illegal Removal at Grange Hall Mr. Combs discussed the highly visible, illegal removals that took place at the Grange Hall, noting that trees were very rare Tamarisks. He reported that the Grange Hall representatives had received a letter outlining the approximate $10K fines for the illegal removals and that the City Attorney had been notified. There were no Grange Hall representatives in attendance. Meeting Date Revisions Due to upcoming schedule conflicts and holiday closures, it was determined that the May regular meeting is cancelled and the June meeting is scheduled for June 9. The remaining portions of meeting schedule remained intact. The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m. to next regular meeting scheduled for Monday, February 24, 2014, at 5:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske, Recording Secretary