Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-28-2014 TC Minutes1 MEMBERS PRESENT: Patty Andreen, Jane Worthy, Trey Duffy, Scott Loosley, Ryan Baker, Matt Ritter and Ben Parker STAFF PRESENT: Ron Combs Matt Ritter called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENT Kelsey Ruiz, 81 Del Oro Court/Los Verdes Park I, reported that the HOA was working on a comprehensive tree maintenance/removal plan and requested input from the Committee re species and required procedures. Mr. Ritter staff to consult with Ms. Ruiz. MINUTES: Approval of Minutes of September 30, 2014 The minutes were amended to reflect that Mr. Combs stated a bulb-out solution “could” fix problems at 959 Higuera. Mr. Parker moved to approve the minutes as amended. Mr. Loosley seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. TREE REMOVAL APPLICATIONS 1. 959 Higuera (Ficus) Kyle Rowland, Public Works representative, discussed the removal request and the need for sidewalk repairs and agreed that the bulb-out would allow retaining the tree but would not solve the issue of slope, hardscape rise and drainage issues. He stated that 8” of the top root structure would need to be removed to work with ADA compliant solutions and was concerned that such root removal would affect the integrity of the tree. Mr. Combs discussed the lean of the healthy tree and shared the concern that the root cutting might affect the tree’s stability. Minutes Tree Committee Corporation Yard Conference Room, 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo Tuesday, October 28, 2014 at 5:00 pm 2 The Committee clarified the feasibility of retaining the tree, including bulb-out discussion and sidewalk repair compliance with Mr. Rowland and staff. Mr. Duffy determined that the shaved root area would grow back and create problems down the road. Sandra Lakeman, 1677 Forman Court, encouraged the Committee to do everything possible to save the beautiful tree that was such an asset to downtown. Mr. Combs stated that if the tree were replaced, there would be a larger allowance for the root area to avoid causing the same situation with the replacement tree/roots. Ms. Andreen determined that the tree did not present a hazard and did not feel the loss of two parking spaces with the bulb-out solution was an issue. Mr. Ritter moved to deny the removal request, as he could not make the necessary findings to allow removal and directed staff to explore the bulb-out option with sidewalk repairs. Mr. Loosley seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Mr. Baker abstaining. Mr. Parker noted that if it became evident that such options were not feasible to execute, then staff could determine that removal was the only option. 2. 1515 Fredericks (3 eucalyptus) David Rau, property representative, discussed the removal request and stated that the trees seemed to be stressed and that an arborist confirmed there was oak fungal disease in the soil. He was concerned about safety and liability if the trees fail and fall. Mr. Combs agreed the trees were in failing health and that the disease could travel to the other nearby trees. Mr. Ritter did not think safety was an issue and discussed the stress weeping was not infectious. Mr. Ritter moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required replacement planting of three 15-gallon 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 unanimously. 3 3. 1626 Woodland (2 eucalyptus) The applicant discussed the removal request and stated one tree was dead and the other was leaning too close to the house. He noted the trees were on City green space property. Mr. Combs reported that the Natural Resources Dept. would support a staggered removal and the City approved the removal. Sean Collarman, Bunyon Brothers, confirmed the applicant’s assessment of the trees and felt removal would promote good arboricultural practice. Ms. Andreen moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required replacement planting of two 15-gallon native species trees to be planted within 45 days of tree removals. Mr. Ritter seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 4. 1911 Johnson There was no applicant or representative to speak to this item. 5. 4320 Larkspur (Sycamore) Steve Franzman, applicant’s representative, discussed the removal request and stated the tree was lifting the sidewalk and interfering with sewer lines. Mr. Combs reported that it was a relatively healthy theme tree that was causing some step and hardscape displacement. Mr. Duffy noted that the HOA needed to approve the removal request and moved to table the item until the HOA presented evidence of removal endorsement. Mr. Loosley seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 6. 1328 Madonna (22 eucalyptus) Mr. Franzman, applicant’s representative, discussed the removal request and stated there were too many trees that were too large in the space and that the trees were interfering with traffic and that limbs were breaking. Randy Potel, Laguna Center representative, agreed that the trees were failing and that removal was part of their long-range plans for improving the property, including replacement planting with palms. He noted the removal request was more along the lines of maintenance and that he would work with the nearby HOA to make sure they approved the removal. He noted that several homeowners behind the stand of trees favored removal so their properties would get more light. He distributed removal/replanting plans. 4 Mr. Combs stated the trees were crowded but in good condition. Mr. Parker was concerned about the “piece-meal” removal approach in the past and requested that this removal request be complete. Mr. Ritter agreed the area was overplanted. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required replacement planting of per the proposed planting plan that would be implemented within 45 days of tree removals. Mr. Loosley seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 7. 865 Buchon (Palm) Linda Forba, applicant’s representative, discussed the removal request and stated that the tree was too large for the area, was a rodent habitat, and was killing the nearby oak that could thrive with the tree’s removal. Mr. Loosley agreed the tree had not been well maintained. While he would have preferred to see a landscaping plan, Mr. Parker agreed that the yard could not be utilized at present. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required replacement planting of one 15-gallon tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of tree removal. Mr. Duffy seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 8. 3765 S. Higuera (3 pines) Mr. Franzman, applicant’s representative, discussed the removal request and noted that similar condition tree had cracked at the base/ground and fallen on the building. He did not think there were many buttress roots stabilizing the trees, which he believed were also root-bound. He discussed the extensive replanting plan. Mr. Combs agreed that the healthy trees had issues with root systems. Mr. Loosley stated he would have preferred excavation evidence regarding the root buttress situation. Mr. Combs suggested removal approval, contingent on excavation to show evidence of circle roots and/or lack of buttress roots. 5 Mr. Ritter moved to approve the removal request, as doing so would not harm the character of the neighborhood or the environment, contingent upon staff determining that the trees did not have stable root structures, and 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 unanimously. 9. 225 Jeffrey (Carob) Jeff Klein, Public Works representative, discussed the removal request and stated they could not re-do the bulb-in situation when repairing the sidewalk, due to the extensive level of necessary root pruning required to re-figure the sidewalk; too much of the root structure would be affected and he was concerned about that affect on the tree. Mr. Combs noted that the tree was in poor health and agree it had caused major hardscape damage. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required replacement planting of one 15-gallon tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of tree removal. Mr. Ritter seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 10. 1205 Ella (9 oaks) Mr. Ritter recapped the past discussion on the property and removal request, prior to the item being continued at the last meeting. Jim Kaviani, applicant, discussed the removal request for the nine oaks, as well as the development plans that would not allow retaining the largest oak within the design. He noted they would be retaining four oaks on site and felt that two more trees could be planted on site. He offered to plant off site or to donate trees to the City tree bank. Mr. Combs reported that all of the trees were healthy and confirmed that the Planning Dept. had approved the plans contingent on the Committee approving the removals. Kyle Bell, Planning Dept. representative, discussed the development plan and it process for approval. Mr. Ritter moved to approve the removal request, based on undue hardship to the property owner, and required replacement plantings to be implemented re the proposed planting plan in the submitted development plans and planted within 45 days of tree removals. Mr. Baker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 6 NEW BUSINESS There was discussion with Mr. Bell about the process of getting plans approved at the Dept. level and how to most efficiently involve the Committee’s approval process within that system. Mr. Bell and Mr. Combs agreed to meet to discuss coordination and streamlining of Tree Committee approval within the Planning Dept. process and to bring discussion back to the Committee. OLD BUSINESS Final Review of “Draft” Tree Committee Letter Mr. Combs distributed the final draft for approval. Ms. Andreen and Mr. Duffy felt there needed to be a bullet point about the need for HOA removal approval documentation within a removal request application. Mr. Ritter moved to approve the draft, including the HOA amendment. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. ARBORIST REPORT California Urban Forest Council meeting/workshop to be held at the Corp Yard on November 7, 2014 from 8:00 am -1:00 pm. The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. to next regular meeting scheduled for December 9, 2014 at 5:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske, Recording Secretary