Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-30-2014 TC Minutes1 MEMBERS PRESENT: Patty Andreen, Jane Worthy, Trey Duffy, Scott Loosley, Matt Ritter and Ben Parker STAFF PRESENT: Ron Combs Matt Ritter called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. MINUTES: Approval of Minutes of August 25, 2014 The minutes were amended to reflect a full role call. Mr. Parker moved to approve the minutes as amended. Mr. Loosley seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. TREE REMOVAL APPLICATIONS 1. 1205 Ella (Silk oak, 2 pines, pepper, eucalyptus) Jim Kaviani, applicant, discussed the removal request and the plan to demolish the existing structures and build two units; he stated the Planning Dept. had approved his plans. He outlined the 15 trees on the lot, including 10 oaks. He discussed the development plans and stated all of the trees could not be retained. He planned to save four oaks and then plant three 24” oaks. He offered to plant more trees if required or donate some specimens to the city’s tree bank. Mr. Ritter discussed the fact that the oaks were not listed on the removal request and that the Committee could only act of the five trees listed on the application. He stated that the applicant could bring the item back with request for Committee review of the oaks. The applicant agreed to submit an addendum application to address the oaks and would bring details of the building and landscaping plans to the next meeting. Minutes Tree Committee Corporation Yard Conference Room, 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo Tuesday, September 30, 2014 at 5:00 pm 2 Mr. Combs reported that the silk oak was failing, the pines were stressed, the pepper tree was only in fair condition and the eucalyptus was relatively healthy. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request for the five trees outlined, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required replacement plantings to be established based on the pending landscape plan. Mr. Duffy seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Steve Franzman, applicant’s representative, discussed the removal request and stated the tree was only in fair health and had poor structure; he felt it presented undue hardship and removal would promote good arboricultural practice. He reported that the roots were cracking the driveway and creating a sinkhole. Mr. Combs stated that he felt the large tree was a healthy skyline tree and that there was evidence of hardscape damage. Mr. Loosley agreed the tree was healthy and was not convinced the damage was all due to the roots; he felt the driveway could be repaired and reinforced to mitigate future damage. Mr. Parker agreed with Mr. Loosley. Ms. Andreen and Mr. Baker were concerned about possible safety issues with falling limbs. Mr. Duffy noted he had not been able to view the tree. Mr. Franzman elaborated on the evidence of root damage at the sidewalk/approach and did not feel root pruning was advisable as part of repairing the driveway. Committee wanted to determine that the driveway could not be effectively re-designed to accommodate keeping the tree. Mr. Loosley moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, contingent upon a determination that the root zone was damaging the pavement and that a driveway re-design could not be created to retain the tree. If removed, he required a 24” Arbutus marina to be planted within 45 days of tree removal. Ms. Andreen seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Mr. Duffy abstaining. 3 2. 959 Higuera (Ficus) Mr. Combs discussed the removal request on behalf of the city and noted the CIP funding. He noted the lean interfered with traffic flow and the tree was creating hardscape damage. He stated that a bulb-out would solve the issues but presently, the property owner would not agree. Sandra Lakeman, resident, agreed that the trunk was leaning but noted the branches were straight. She was concerned about losing mature trees and did not feel replacement trees were suitable substitutes for the canopies. She asked that the tree be retained and suggested an engineer review for solutions. Linda Gruber, resident, agreed with Ms. Lakeman and suggested restricting large vehicles that were affected by the tree. She felt the bulb-out solution should be pursued again in order to save a healthy tree. She felt Ficus trees were important to the downtown. Mr. Ritter supported the bulb-out solution, as he could not make necessary findings for removal. Mr. Loosley agreed with Mr. Ritter, but asked that the tree be checked to determine that it wasn’t falling. Mr. Duffy agreed the hardscape damage needed to be repaired and favored retaining the tree. The Committee agreed to continue the item to allow the city time to explore options to retain the tree. 3. 139 San Jose Court (Italian stone pine) The applicant discussed the removal request and stated the tree had interior decay and was too large for the space. She said it uprooted the retaining wall and was interfering with power lines. She submitted a neighborhood petition in favor of removing the tree. Mr. Combs agreed that the tree was damaging the retaining wall and had some interior deadwood, but felt it was healthy. Mr. Parker discussed the value that trees added to properties and felt the retaining wall was not functional. He said that PG&E would prune it if necessary. Mr. Loosley noted that dieback was a natural process and not necessarily indicative of disease. He felt it was a significant tree in the neighborhood. Mr. Duffy moved to approve the removal request, based on removal would not harm the character of the neighborhood, and required one 15-gallon tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of tree’s removal. Ms. Andreen seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Mr. Parker and Mr. Loosley voting against. 4 4. 433 Wavertree (Canary Island pine) The applicant discussed the removal request, stating that the tree was failing and had significant limb droppage. He was concerned about the liability of the large limb hanging over the street and felt its removal would disfigure the tree. He felt the tree had overall weak structure and the look of the tree was not impressive. He reported that the tree’s roots damaged the neighbor’s water line. He also stated he couldn’t landscape due to needle drop. He wanted to replace it with a crepe myrtle. Mr. Combs noted it was a large theme tree with some structural issues. Mr. Loosley agreed there were structural issues and that the tree should not be located near the driveway. He favored removal for safety. Mr. Parker agreed with Mr. Loosley and noted that a crepe myrtle was too small and suggested another species choice. Mr. Ritter felt the tree had been stressed and had not been routinely pruned. He favored removal based on good arboricultural practice. Ms. Worthy confirmed whether HOA needed to approve the replacement species choice. Mr. Duffy reported that the adjacent neighbor favored removal. Mr. Loosley moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required a 15-gallon tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of the tree’s removal. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 5. 1162 Vista del Lago The item was withdrawn. 6. 2231 San Luis Drive (Pepper) Ernie Kim, applicant’s representative, discussed the removal request and reported that the Planning Dept. had approved the new house. He stated that the owner loved the major oak and had designed around it. He noted the pepper tree’s horizontal growth pattern interfered with the design and presented a hardship. He discussed replacement planting. Mr. Combs agreed that the leaning tree interfered with the approved development plan. Mr. Ritter moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required a 15-gallon tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of the tree’s removal. 5 Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 7. 479 Broad (Monterey pine) The applicant discussed the removal request and reported that the driveway had damage, there was limb droppage and was pushing the fence and stressing the adjacent tree. She submitted a letter of neighborhood support for removal. She also noted that removing this tree would encourage the nearby spruce to fill in and thrive. Mr. Combs noted it was a moderately vigorous specimen. Mr. Loosley agreed the tree had drought stress and had not been maintained and that the tree had significant amount of sap and was in a crowded area. Mr. Parker stated it was not a high value tree. Ms. Worthy felt that while the tree was too large for the area, it was a skyline tree. But since the neighbor favored removal, she could support that. Ms. Andreen and Mr. Duffy agreed with Committee comments. Mr. Ritter moved to approve the removal request, as doing so would not harm the character of the neighborhood or environment and required one 15-gallon replacement 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. 21 Villa Court (Liquid amber) The applicant discussed the removal request, stating that the tree was damaging the house and that an arborist felt that root barriers were not an option. Sean Flickinger, past HOA representative, noted the HOA Board requested Tree Committee review prior to making a determination whether they wanted to Dorothy Schwarz, 21 Villa Court, discussed the damage caused by the tree. Mr. Ritter requested that the HOA Board make a determination about which trees should be removed and then bring back a removal plan for Committee review. Mr. Ritter moved to continue the item to allow the HOA Board time to make a determination about which trees should be removed and then bring back a removal plan for Committee review. He also requested that the minutes or documentation from that Board meeting be included in the review packet. Ms. Andreen seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 6 NEW BUSINESS 140 Twin Ridge Dr. Heritage Tree application - This item was withdrawn. OLD BUSINESS Downtown Renewal Project – Tree Removals Mr. Combs discussed the plan to remove two ornamental avocado trees. Mr. Ritter moved to support the proposal for removal, requiring replacement with two 36” box trees to be chosen by the staff. Ms. Worthy seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Final Review of “Draft” Tree Committee Letter Mr. Combs distributed the final draft for review. The Committee agreed that the third paragraph should be in bold; they then approved the draft for final acceptance. ARBORIST REPORT There was no report at this time. The meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m. to next regular meeting scheduled for Tuesday, October 28, 2014 at 5:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske, Recording Secretary