Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-24-2014 TC Minutes1 MEMBERS PRESENT: Jane Worthy, Trey Duffy, Ben Parker and Scott Loosley STAFF PRESENT: Ron Combs PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. MINUTES: Approval of Minutes of February 24, 2014 Ms. Worthy moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Loosley seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. TREE REMOVAL APPLICATIONS 1. 1309 Richard St./ 1425 Woodside Dr. (3 eucalyptus; pine) Joshua Moody, applicant, discussed the removal request and the plans for a new residential lot/configuration. He stated that the eucalyptus has experienced falling limbs in the past and presented a safety hazard, and that the trees were in a poor location regarding plans for installing a retaining wall, landscaping, and a pool. He also stated that the tree in the back would shade proposed solar panels and that the pine was in the way of the driveway retaining wall. He wanted to plant new trees along the property line to block the view of the adjacent commercial property. Mr. Combs reported that the pine tree’s health was questionable, but the eucalyptuses were healthy. He agreed they were in a poor location for the proposed site development. Minutes Tree Committee Corporation Yard Conference Room, 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo Monday, March 24, 2014 at 5:00 pm 2 Mr. Loosley felt the development excavation would affect the root zone of the eucalyptus and agreed the pine had health issues. Ms. Worthy felt the tree #3 was out of the development zone and might be retained. Mr. Duffy felt that any removals should be contingent upon the development plan approval. Mr. Parker agreed with Mr. Duffy. Mr. Duffy moved to approve the removal request, based on undue hardship to the property owner, with replacement plan as proposed by applicant. He stipulated any removals were contingent upon the site development plans being approved. Mr. Loosley seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 2. 1229-1239 Fredericks (4 pines) The applicant discussed the removal request, stating that the large pines were creating damage issues with the irrigation lines, water main, sidewalks, and the foundation. Mr. Combs reported the large trees were healthy and causing some minor displacement. Joseph Bayshore, tenant, did not favor removing the skyline trees. He felt doing so would harm the character of the neighborhood, which was run-down. He also noted they provided a significant amount of needed shade and that other property tenants agreed with retaining the trees. Mr. Duffy did not see significant evidence of damage due to roots and stated the trees were an enhancement to the area. Ms. Worthy agreed. Mr. Loosley felt one of the trees had possible structural issues, but the other ones were healthy, signature trees. Mr. Parker agreed with Committee comments. Mr. Loosley moved to approve the removal of Tree #2 only, 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 3 tree’s removal. He further moved to deny the removal of the remaining three trees, as he could not make the necessary findings. Mr. Duffy seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 3. Lot next to 918 Felicia Way (Pepper) Steve Franzman, applicant’s representative, discussed the issues a neighbor had pertaining to severe allergies to the tree in question, due to pollen and root suckers, and stated that legal action might be considered, due to distress. Mr. Combs stated that the tree was healthy and he could not make his necessary findings for removal. Mr. Loosley was conflicted about removal, as the tree was beautiful and no official documentation regarding the allergy condition had been submitted and the afflicted neighbor was not present to discuss the matter. Mr. Parker agreed that medical documentation regarding the allergies was warranted if that was the basis for allowing removal. Mr. Parker moved to deny the removal request, as he could not make the findings necessary for removal. Ms. Worthy seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The Committee agreed to hear the matter again, should health documentation be presented with the removal request. 4. 750 Industrial Way (Eucalyptus) Albert Hummel, applicant, discussed the removal request and reported about past root failure and fallen tree due to armalloria being present in the soil and was concerned about this tree suffering as well. He also noted the area was filled with transients and there were plans by Marigold Center to try to “clean up” the area. Mr. Combs agreed with the issue of soil contamination. Mr. Loosley felt the large tree had poor structure. Ms. Worthy and Mr. Duffy agreed. 4 Mr. Loosley 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’s removal in conjunction with their land scape plan. Ms. Worthy seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 5. 1076 Pacific St. (3 liquid ambers) David Bowin, applicant, discussed the removal request and stated the trees were too large for the area, that their debris was creating trip hazard, and he was concerned the roots would cause damage. He wanted to replace the trees with a more contained species. He also stated that he could not fix the retaining wall with the trees in place. He discussed a replacement-planting plan. Mr. Combs reported that the trees were healthy, but agreed with the applicant’s concerns. Jim Hugh, Greenvale Tree Co., stated the insurance company had indicated they might not continue coverage with the trees in place as is. Carol Tangeman, 1055 Pacific, felt if the new owner had replanting plan in place, she could favor the removal. Ms. Worthy agreed the two front yard trees could be removed, but favored retaining the backyard tree. Mr. Loosley felt the trees were in good shape, but approved of the replacement plan presented. Mr. Parker felt the trees in the front could be pruned. Mr. Duffy moved to approve the removal request, based on doing so would not harm the character of the neighborhood or environment, and supported the applicant’s replacement plan as proposed. Mr. Loosley seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 6. 902 Peach (3 eucalyptus) Ken Carpenter, applicant’s representative, discussed the removal request and reported that the sidewalk had been uprooted and the driveway was cracked and that the sewer had been impacted with roots. He felt the trees were too large for the 5 small lot and removing them would not harm the character of the neighborhood. He felt they posed a liability issue due to limb droppage. Mr. Combs stated that there had been some sidewalk and driveway displacement. Mr. Loosley felt pruning could mitigate the risk to building and data line interference. Mr. Parker agreed that a certified arborist could safety prune the trees. He would further consider the item if an arborist affirmed there was hazard and the applicant submitted a replacement-planting plan. Mr. Parker moved to deny the removal request, as he could not make the findings necessary for removal. Mr. Duffy seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 7. 109 Highland (2 liquid ambers) Brian Uder, applicant, discussed the removal request and the displaced sidewalks and noted the roots were in the sewer line. He did not think the non-native trees were skyline trees and wanted to replace them with Western Redbud. Mr. Combs reported that they were healthy street trees that caused a good amount of displacement. Mr. Parker felt some of the driveway damage was due to settling. Mr. Duffy moved to approve the removal request, based on undue hardship to the property owner, and required replacement planting of two 15-gallon trees to be chosen from the Master Street Tree List and planted within 45 days of trees’ removals. Ms. Worthy seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The Committee suggested using Eastern Redbud species instead. 6 NEW BUSINESS The Committee discussed Arbor Day ceremony, which will be held on April 19, 2014 beginning at 9 a.m. Mr. Parker discussed the cooperative city/residential tree-planting program in Oregon and suggested investigating whether there was grant money available for our area. OLD BUSINESS There was on-going Committee discussion on how to improve the removal application, with a thought of needing to go to two pages for including all information pertaining to the removal request. Mr. Parker noted there was a bad link on the City page leading to the Master Street Tree list. Mr. Combs distributed updated Grange Hall landscaping plans. The Committee agreed to review and discuss it at the next meeting, requesting that representatives from the Grange Hall be present for the discussion. ARBORIST REPORT Mr. Combs reported that he sent out a penalty/fine letter regarding the illegal tree removal at California/Marsh streets. The meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m. to next regular meeting scheduled for Monday, April 28, 2014, at 5:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske, Recording Secretary