Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-24-2014 TC Minutes1 MEMBERS PRESENT: Matt Ritter, Craig Kincaid, Scott Loosley, Trey Duffy, Jane Worthy STAFF PRESENT: Ron Combs PUBLIC COMMENT There were no public comments. MINUTES: Mr. Loosley moved to approve the minutes of January 27, 2014 as submitted. Ms. Worthy seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. MEASURE Y PRESENTATION Daryl Grigsby made a brief presentation regarding the Measure Y half-cent sales tax funding, noting that the measure is set to expire this year. He reported that the majority of the current sales tax revenue had been spent on preserving and maintaining essential services, with 60% being spent on capital projects, such as street paving and storm drain replacement, and the balance was spent on the operating side for fire/police/public safety. He stated that in March, a public forum will be held to determine the feasibility of funding for future projects. In April, the Council will review all input regarding putting the renewal measure on the November voting ballot. He reported that the committee that was reviewing the feasibility was leaning towards recommending renewal of the new measure, with similar parameters and emphasis on capital improvement projects. TREE REMOVALS 1. 1309 Richard (1 pine, 3 eucalyptus) Minutes Tree Committee Corporation Yard Conference Room, 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo Monday, February 24, 2014 at 5:00 pm 2 Joshua Moody, applicant, discussed the removal request and the recent splitting of the lot with proposed development of the commercial site. He discussed the proposed planting project and the residential development slated. He noted that one of the large eucalyptuses had fallen and caused damage. He also mentioned that he wanted to incorporate solar panels in the project and a tree would block them. Mr. Combs noted that the larger trees were still in good health. Mary Huber, neighbor, discussed past issues with limb breakage and felt the tree was declining and posed a fire hazard. Ms. Worthy stated she had to abstain from voting, as the trees were not properly identified and she could not view them. Mr. Loosley agreed the trees’ locations were confusing without the proper taping. The Committee agreed the item should be continued to allow proper taping of the trees so all members could view the correct trees and vote. 2. 2710 Meadow (2 live oaks, 1 eucalyptus) Stephen Barasch, applicant, discussed the diseased oaks and past limb droppage and outlined the [proposed construction plan. He was concerned about roots uplifting the fence and utility area and was also concerned about general safety issues. Mr. Combs noted he could not make his necessary findings for removal. Mr. Duffy was not clear which trees were in question and abstained from voting. Mr. Loosley agreed the oaks had disease but felt the eucalyptus was in good shape. Ms. Worthy agreed with Mr. Loosley. Mr. Ritter stated he did not feel the blue gum eucalyptus were a good residential tree and allowed that the development cannot move forward with the eucalyptus in place. He agreed with the removal of the oaks. Mr. Ritter moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required three 15-galllon replacement trees to be chosen from the Master Street Tree List and planted within 45 days of trees’ removals. Mr. Kincaid seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Mr. Duffy abstaining. 3. 1650 Woodland Court (2 oaks) Mr. Kincaid reported he was unable to view the tree. 3 The applicant discussed the removal request and proposed construction on site, stating that the trees were in a poor location next to the sidewalk and posed a threat to utilities, residential foundation, sidewalk and street. Mr. Ritter moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required two 15-galllon replacement trees to be chosen from the Master Street Tree List and planted within 45 days of trees’ removals. Mr. Duffy seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Mr. Kincaid abstaining. 4. 785 Pepper (eucalyptus) Dawna Davies, applicant, discussed the removal request and was concerned about falling limbs, which had caused damage in the past. She felt the tree was too large for the space and crowded the yard and structures. She wanted to protect tenants’ safety and welfare. Mr. Combs stated it was a large, healthy skyline tree, but agreed limbs were encroaching. Bill Davies, adjacent neighbor, reported that the tree debris was affecting the gutters and safety of the property and favored removal, due to the tree’s proximity to his property. Mr. Duffy agreed the skyline tree was too close to the next-door house. Ms. Worthy and Mr. Kincaid agreed the tree was too big and too close to the structure. Mr. Loosley was concerned about the tree’s structure and weak attachments, which made it prone to failure. Mr. Loosley moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required one 15-galllon replacement tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree List and planted within 45 days of tree’s removal. Mr. Ritter seconded the motion. The motion passed. 5. 671 Serrano (2 fan palms) James and Thelma Anderson, applicants, discussed the removal request and stated they were highly concerned with safety issues, especially in winds. They reported the trees had been pruned, but the arborist noted the trunks were “spongy.” Mr. Combs noted the trees were healthy and he could not make the necessary findings. Mr. Loosley assured the applicants that fan palms rarely fail, but felt the ivy should be removed for the trees’ health. Mr. Ritter discussed the historical failure rate of fan palms in California, which was negligible. 4 Ms. Worthy and Mr. Duffy did not feel a hazard was demonstrated. Mr. Ritter agreed that the maintenance had been well done and should mitigate concerns. Mrs. Anderson stated she had extreme fear levels about the trees failing, as well as for the maintenance workers’ safety in climbing such large trees; so much so that she was reluctant to continue maintaining the tree and hiring the workers. Mr. Kincaid moved to deny the removal request, based on not being able to make any findings necessary for removal. Mr. Loosley seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 6. 777 Mill (7 eucalyptus) The applicant discussed the removal request and distributed copies of an arborist report on the trees, which supported the trees’ removals. The report noted a history of limb droppage and stated the trunk was splitting and that there were problems with the neighbor’s retaining wall. Sidewalks had been repaired and the trees were too close to structures. The applicant discussed a re-landscaping plan. Mr. Combs noted that trees had significant canopy and were fairly healthy. Randi Montgomery, 1776 Mill, discussed severe sewer main issues and noted other neighbors had issues as well. Mr. Ritter reiterated that this species of eucalyptus was a poor species for residential areas. Mr. Kincaid was concerned about virtual clear-cutting with so many trees being removed. Mr. Loosley noted many structural issues with the trees and did not feel any of them were salvageable. Ms. Worthy and Mr. Duffy agreed with Committee comments. Mr. Duffy moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required seven 15-galllon replacement trees to be chosen from the Master Street Tree List and planted within 45 days of trees’ removal. Mr. Ritter seconded the motion. The motion passed. 7. 1229-1239 Fredericks There were no applicants or representatives to speak to the item. 5 8. 3940 Poinsettia (2 sycamores) The applicant discussed the removal request, noting that the sidewalks were lifting, that he was concerned about damage to the foundation, and stated grading was causing drainage issues. He felt removal of the tree would accommodate fixing the grade. Mr. Combs agreed there were surface roots, but stated the trees were healthy and he could not make the necessary findings for removal. He did note that the Homeowners Assoc. would need to approve any removal and the replacement species chosen, so if the Committee agreed with removal, their action would be conditional on the HOA. Ms. Worthy did not see evidence of lifting and suggested root pruning. Mr. Loosley felt the soil compacting created the root issues and saw no damage to the structure. Cynthia Stolper, neighbor, was concerned with the character of the neighborhood being affected if both trees were removed. She also noted they provided important shading. Mr. Ritter moved to approve only the removal of the one closest to Poinsettia Street (middle tree), based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required one 15-galllon replacement tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree List and planted within 45 days of tree’s removal. Mr. Duffy seconded the motion. The motion passed. OLD BUSINESS Illegal Removals at the Grange Hall: Grange Staff Response Mr. Combs recapped the history of the illegal removals and the letter pertaining to the fines assessed. He reported he had discussed with the representatives the possibility of using the value of the fines to put towards landscaping and irrigation to improve the property. Mr. Ritter noted the removed Tamarisks were a rare species. Eric Michaelson, Grange president, discussed the problems the trees had been presenting with sewer line damage and limbs falling and damaging vehicles. He said a Grange member took it upon himself to remove the trees and that the Board had no prior knowledge of this action and had not authorized any action to be taken. He then discussed the renovation of the site through landscaping and irrigation systems. Nell Wade, Grange treasurer, reported that Grange budgets and resources were severely limited. Mr. Ritter discussed the staff time spent on dealing with the illegal removal and follow-up and stated that city staff were committed to improving areas throughout the city. 6 Mr. Ritter suggested suspending the fine until February 2015 and requiring a report at that time to determine whether improvements had been made and to allow the Committee a chance to re- assess the situation and impending fines. The Committee agreed with the approach; Mr. Kincaid strongly stated that violating a code is a serious infraction and that he did not want to set a precedent of leniency regarding illegal removals. NEW BUSINESS The Committee requested that the removal application be revised again to include a link to criteria details outlined in the Ordinance and to require applicants to indicate which criteria were being claimed within the removal request. ARBORIST REPORT Mr. Combs discussed an illegal removal of a sycamore at Marsh/California and stated he was following up. The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. to the next regular meeting to be held at 5 p.m. on Monday, March 24, 2014. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske Recording Secretary