Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-09-2014 TC Minutes1 MEMBERS PRESENT: Jane Worthy, Trey Duffy, Scott Loosley, Ryan Baker, Matt Ritter STAFF PRESENT: Ron Combs Matt Ritter called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENT There were no public comments. MINUTES: Approval of Minutes of October 28, 2014 Mr. Duffy moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Loosley seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. TREE REMOVAL APPLICATIONS 1. 274 Craig Way (Carob) The applicant discussed the removal request and submitted a packet of pictures that illustrated the size and debris issues associated with the tree, specifically noting hardscape cracking. He stated he wanted to pour a sidewalk/driveway apron. He suggested replacing the tree with an Arbutus marina. Mr. Combs reported it was a large, healthy theme tree with extensive roots that were causing damage. He supported the replacement species suggested. Mr. Duffy moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required replacement planting of two 15-gallon Arbutus marina trees to be planted within 45 days of tree removals. Ms. Worthy seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Draft Minutes Tree Committee Corporation Yard Conference Room, 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo Tuesday, December 9, 2014 at 5:00 pm 2 2. 672 Serrano Dr., #17 (5 eucalyptus) Neil Havlik, HOA president, discussed the removal request and the maintenance history of the trees on site. He stated the trees on the application had gotten too large and were presenting a hazard, explaining why he felt the trees met all of the Committee’s removal criteria. He noted that the oaks underneath the removed eucalyptus would thrive and stated that the heavily wooded property had a healthy, diverse urban forest. He reported that the habitat species were limited; mostly vultures roosted. He agreed to replant with five trees if required. Mr. Combs reported that the triple-leader tree would be removed. Mr. Loosley referenced an email from Richard Schmidt, Broad St. resident, who felt the trees were an avian habitat and important to the ecology of the area. Mr. Ritter agreed that while some of the trees were skyline trees, he favored removal to promote good arboricultural practice and due to undue hardship on the property owner. Ms. Worthy felt total removal would harm the character of the neighborhood and favored a staggered approach. Mr. Havlik discussed why a staggered approach would be cost prohibitive on this particular property. Mr. Duffy discussed the requirement of submitted documentation from HOA boards to ensure the board’s approval of the removal request. Mr. Havlik agreed to send such documentation to staff. Mr. Loosley moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required replacement planting of eight 15-gallon trees of a dry riparian variety within 45 days of tree removals, contingent upon confirmation of the HOA consensus. Mr. Duffy seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Ms. Worthy voting against. 3. 346 Woodbridge There was no applicant or representative to speak to this item. 4. 1213 Bond (Eucalyptus) Matt Roberts, applicant’s representative, discussed the removal request and stated that the huge tree was too close to the house, had previously broken the gas line and was cracking the foundation and lifting the sidewalk. He discussed past limb failure and felt the tree was a hazard and liability, stating it was the wrong tree in the wrong location. 3 Mr. Combs reported that the large tree was healthy and agreed it was causing damage to the retaining wall and walkway. Mr. Loosley moved to approve the removal request, based on undue hardship to the property owner, 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. 5. 2089 Ward (2 date palms, 2 redwoods) The applicant discussed the removal request and the hardscape damage and outlined the new footprint for a single-family home to be built on the site. He noted that seven 24” and 36” box trees were part of the replanting plan. He also discussed details of the arborist report that was submitted. Mr. Combs stated that the trees were healthy and agreed with the details of the arborist report. Ms. Worthy and Mr. Loosely felt the palm on the corner could be retained and did not think white birch was the best choice. Mr. Ritter did not think the corner development and handicapped access would not easily allow retaining that palm. Mr. Duffy moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required replacement planting as outlined in the planting plan within 45 days of tree removals. Mr. Ritter seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 6. 469 Dana (Palm) The applicant discussed the removal request and the desire to cleanup and re-work the property to look compatible with The Mission. She discussed continual issues with homeless people sleeping at the back of the property. She noted the palm was located directly in the middle of space that was needed to access the back of the property and the plans to put a new driveway there. Mr. Combs noted that the small diameter trees could be removed without a permit and reiterated that the palm – which was healthy, but in need of maintenance – was the only tree to be considered. 4 After discussion with the applicant about the actual plans that were intended surrounding the palm, the Committee agreed to table to item until development plans could be submitted that would demonstrate the hardship. 7. 1101 Marsh (2 Magnolias) The applicant discussed the removal request and the re-landscaping plan that would enhance the corner property and feature coral pink myrtle. She stated the two trees were too close to the sidewalk and were damaging the foundation. Mr. Combs reported that the street trees were relatively healthy and were causing some hardscape damage; they would require a root-pruning cycle if retained. Ms. Worthy felt the displacement was minimal and that the trees were important to the site. She noted that removals were not allowed based on possible future problems. Mr. Loosely felt it was a tight location for Magnolias, which will only get larger. He agreed there was no significant damage in evidence right now, but felt the issues would get worse. Mr. Ritter agreed that removal would impact the neighborhood, but felt the trees were in the wrong location and that problems would get worse. Mr. Duffy moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required replacement planting of two 24” crepe myrtles to be planted within 45 days of tree removals. Mr. Loosley seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Ms. Worthy voting against. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Combs discussed the need for advisory body goals to be submitted to Council. Mr. Ritter noted that the Committee had outlined the need for a stump grinder every goal cycle. Mike Johnson, city arborist, supported the need for a stump grinder, as the city was spending a large amount of the contract budget and time on stump grinding and that it would be most cost effective for the city to own the equipment. Mr. Combs agreed to refine and re-direct goals to submit for Committee review, focusing on the purchase of a stump grinder and increasing the contract budget to allow for new full-time employee. 5 ARBORIST REPORT Mr. Combs noted that 2015 would be the last springtime Arbor Day celebration because the best time to do plant is in the fall. The meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m. to next regular meeting scheduled for January 26, 2015 at 5:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske, Recording Secretary