Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-28-2014 TC Minutes1 MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Kincaid, Matt Ritter, Trey Duffy, Ben Parker and Scott Loosley STAFF PRESENT: Ron Combs PUBLIC COMMENT Will Powers, Islay Street, was concerned that the replacement street trees planted at the corner of Islay/Nipomo were too small and felt larger specimens should be installed. Mr. Ritter agreed the ordinance should be re-visited to address the caliper size of 24” box trees required in development planting plans. MINUTES: Approval of Minutes of March 24, 2014 Mr. Parker moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Loosley seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. TREE REMOVAL APPLICATIONS 1. 257 Chorro (Walnut) Sue Gatlin, applicant, discussed the removal request and reported that the tree was failing and diseased, with exposed wood. She stated the sidewalk had needed repair, that the tree was interfering with the Minutes Tree Committee Corporation Yard Conference Room, 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo Monday, April 28, 2014 at 5:00 pm 2 power pole, and the low-hanging branch over the sidewalk created a liability issue. She felt the tree was at the end of its lifespan. Mr. Combs agreed that there was dieback and bark issues, but noted neighbors had contacted him, stating they favored retaining the tree. Marilyn Farmer, 711 Murray, felt it was a unique tree and an asset to the street. She did not think utility/cable guide wires being pushed was a reason for removal. Jacob Feldman, Murray/Broad Street resident, stated that he walked by the tree every day and felt older trees had great value and should be retained whenever possible. Mr. Ritter noted that the English walnut species had potential for longevity, but allowed that this graft species might not live as long. Mr. Combs reported that the tree was beginning to fail, but its demise was not at all immediate. Mr. Loosley felt the leaf-out might be delayed due to weather and agreed that there was moderate dieback. He did not see evident of disease. He felt the tree had been poorly pruned and that taking the deadwood out would improve its appearance and health. Mr. Parker felt corrective pruning would mitigate concerns about limb drop issues. Mr. Kincaid favored retaining the tree. Mr. Ritter stated he could not make any of the necessary findings. Mr. Kincaid moved to deny the removal request, as he could not make any of the findings necessary to approve the removal. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 3 Mr. Loosley suggested taking the low limb off and monitor the health of the tree; if it still continued to rapidly decline, the applicant could return with the item. 2. 2363 Leona (3 Canary Island pines) Bob Schreiber, applicant’s representative, discussed the removal request and stated the trees were too large in the space and were affecting the balcony structure and causing drain issues, as well as creating hardscape damage. He felt these were the wrong trees for the location and that roof-height shade trees would be preferable for replanting. Mr. Ritter noted there was a crack in the sidewalk and the corner was lifting. Sue Boveau, owner, discussed prior limb drop in windy conditions and stated the foundation was being damaged. She submitted letters from neighbors who favored the trees’ removals and discussed re-landscaping plans. Mr. Parker moved to a approve the removal request, based on undue hardship to the property owner, and required three 15-gallon replacement trees to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of the trees’ removals. Mr. Ritter seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Mr. Duffy abstaining. 4 3. 902 Peach (3 eucalyptus) Ken Carpenter, applicant’s representative, discussed the prior removal request and noted that the Committee had requested he return with a replanting plan and an arborist report that outlined the hazard issues with the trees. He submitted the arborist report and planting outline. He reiterated the damage caused by the trees. Mr. Combs agreed that the large trees were creating some hardscape damage. Mr. Loosley felt pruning and maintenance were still viable solutions to retaining the trees, but noted that the corner tree was lying against utilities and could be removed. Mr. Parker felt the large trees were an asset to the neighborhood and felt they could be pruned to mitigate concerns. Mr. Kincaid agreed that the trees were an asset to the area and felt the corner tree could be removed, but favored retaining the other two. The Committee discussed the arborist report, noting they would have preferred a chance to review in a timely manner and agreeing that the report submitted did not give them any new factual arboricultural information in considering the removal request and that the replanting plan was unclear. Mr. Ritter moved to approve removal of the Silver Dollar gum by the corner, based on promoting good arboricultural practice and required a 15-gallon replacement tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of the tree’s removal. He further moved to deny the removal for the remaining two trees, as he could not make the necessary findings for removal. Mr. Duffy seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 5 4. 1145 Murray There was no applicant present to speak to the item. NEW BUSINESS Laguna Shores HOA request for a replanting extension for an approved tree removal from October 2013 at 1351 Vista del Lago Mr. Combs discussed the previous removal request for diseased trees, noting that the removals had been done but the replacement trees had not been planted within 45 days of the trees’ removals, as outlined in the motion. An HOA representative discussed the overall Phase 2 community replanting plan slated for September and requested an extension of the planting requirement to coincide with the Phase 2 effort. Andy Tupper, HOA Board member, discussed the planting plan. Rebecca Wright, 1372 Vista del Lago, stated that she was unaware of the trees being removed and that those trees had been important to the look and value of the neighborhood. She was concerned about the delay in the replanting within the timeline of the original removals and reiterated that replacement trees needed to be installed. She agreed with supporting the extension to September, provided the trees actually got planted at that time. Mr. Ritter moved to approve the planting deadline and requiring the proposed replacement planting plan to be in place and trees planted by September 15, 2014. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 6 OLD BUSINESS The Committee reviewed and approved the Grange Hall replacement planting plan. Mr. Ritter discussed the reviewing and editing of communication documents within the Tree Dept. regarding permits, policy, and removal request applications. There was discussion about expanding the scope of the removal request, e.g. requiring applicant’s choose the criteria/findings that supported their removal requests. The Committee agreed that types of language review should include a better definition of “undue hardship” and caveats that “sewer line damage” was not reason for removal. ARBORIST REPORT Mr. Combs reported that the recent Arbor Day celebration had been a success. The meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. to next regular meeting scheduled for Monday, June 9, 2014, at 5:00 p.m. (NOTE: Special meeting date) Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske, Recording Secretary