Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-26-2015 TC Minutes1 MEMBERS PRESENT: Patty Andreen, Trey Duffy, and Scott Loosley STAFF PRESENT: Anthony Whipple, Barbara Lynch Ms. Andreen called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENT There were no public comments. MINUTES: Approval of Minutes of December 9, 2014 Mr. Duffy moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Loosley seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. TREE REMOVAL APPLICATIONS 1. 346 Woodbridge (Sycamore) The applicant discussed the removal request and outlined her desire to install drought-tolerant landscaping. She felt the tree was in failing health and did not think removal would harm the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Whipple reported the healthy theme tree had been well maintained. Mr. Duffy did not think the application met the criteria necessary to allow for removal. Mr. Loosley agreed, stating it was hard to determine healthy during dormancy and suggested that the applicant return if the tree showed true signs of failing during its leaf-out period. Minutes Tree Committee Corporation Yard Conference Room, 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo Monday, January 26, 2015 at 5:00 pm 2 Mr. Duffy moved to deny the removal request, as he could not make any of the necessary findings for removal. Mr. Loosley seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 2. 2160 Santa Barbara (Alder) Mr. Whipple reported that the large, healthy tree was dormant at this time and noted minor sidewalk lifting. Garrett Olson, Fire Chief, discussed the removal request and the installation of a 9/11 Memorial on site. He discussed the memorial being an enhancement to the site and the community and noted that the sooty mold in the tree would stain the granite and steel. He also discussed the sidewalk displacement being a current trip hazard and impediment to wheelchair access and felt that the memorial construction would exacerbate the problem. He felt root pruning would be a temporary fix and the trip hazard would increase with more foot traffic visiting the memorial. He reported that they planned to plant two box California live oak and 12 15-gallon Brisbane box trees. Mr. Loosley agreed the memorial would be an enhancement to the community. Ms. Andreen noted that while the ARC had previously not been fully supportive of the removal, she found the applicant’s presentation compelling and favored supporting the removal. Mr. Loosley moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required replacement planting of the 14 trees as proposed to be planted within 45 days of tree removal. Ms. Duffy seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 3. 651 Foothill (6 Ficus) Lori Anderson, facility manager for the church, discussed the removal request and stated that these parking lot trees were damaging the curb and asphalt, creating a hazard. She wanted to remove the trees in a pro-active manner and replace them with six crepe myrtle to be planted with root barriers to eliminate future problems. Mr. Whipple noted there was some hardscape damage and that it was brought before the Commission because the site was part of a development plan. 3 Mr. Duffy felt the damage was minor. Mr. Loosley believed the Ficus would get larger and would create more problems planted within such narrow planter areas. He favored removal before the trees grew to create more problems. Ms. Andreen stated she saw no evidence of hardscape damage and while she had been leaning towards denial, she agreed there might be merit in removing them before problems increased. Mr. Whipple suggested a staggered removal approach. Mr. Loosley moved to approve removal of the two trees at the east end at this time, and directed staff to work with applicant on a phased removal plan in the future. He required replacement planting of two 15-gallon crepe myrtle to be planted within 45 days of the tree removals. Ms. Andreen seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 4. 1135 Santa Rosa (Eucalyptus) Mark Brazil, applicant’s representative, discussed the removal request and noted that the project design had been submitted for approval with the City. He reported that the roots were damaging the sidewalk, parking lot and curb and that the existing water meter is conflicting with the location of the tree. He stated that the water line would be replaced in the new design, as would the hardscape. He suggested replacement planting of three to five 36” Quercus agrifolia. Mr. Whipple felt the tree had been well maintained and only noted curb cracking. Mr. Loosley stated he would prefer to see the comprehensive plan for the site once the design was complete and approved, which would include a landscaping plan. Mr. Duffy moved to continue the item to a date uncertain to allow the plans to get finalized and the applicant to return with the removal request. Mr. Loosley seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Keith Pellemeier, former City representative, noted that if the ARC approves the plan, Mr. Combs would be able to approve the plan and the item would not necessarily return to Committee. 4 5. 537 Luneta (Cypress) Shawn Collarman, applicant’s representative, discussed the removal request and the owner’s desire to build a deck and re-landscape. Mr. Whipple noted it was a large, healthy tree. Mr. Loosley moved to deny the removal request, as he could not make any of the necessary findings for removal. Ms. Andreen seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 6. 505 Brizzolara (Cedar) Ron Rinnell, applicant’s representative, discussed the removal request and felt the applicant was experiencing undue hardship and that the hardscape was cracking. He also noted PG&E was planning to top the tree, as it was interfering with the wires and that PG&E favored removal. He noted replacement planting would be Chinese pistache. Mr. Whipple reported this was a large, healthy tree and that he did not see evidence of hardscape damage. Mr. Duffy felt the tree could be pruned to mitigate the line interference and agreed with Mr. Whipple’s comments. Mr. Loosley felt the tree was important to the skyline and the neighborhood and agreed it could be pruned to mitigate PG&E issues. Justin Kephart, PG&E representative, stated that he had not seen the tree, but discussed PG&E’s option of pruning for directional growth and after viewing pictures of the tree, he felt the tree could probably be retained with proper pruning. Ms. Andreen did not feel reasons for removal were adequately outlined in the application. Mr. Loosley moved to deny the removal request, as he could not make any of the necessary findings for removal. Ms. Andreen seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 5 7. 1675 Calle Joaquin (20 eucalyptus) Mr. Rinnell, applicant’s representative, discussed the removal request and the owner’s concern about the clear hazard presented by the trees, noting that trees had fallen in the past. He stated the secondary growth was weak and felt the whole stand was hazardous and unstable. He recommended replanting with native species. Larry Martinelli, property owner, reiterated his concern about the liability pertaining to the trees along the creek and protecting Motel 6 from falling trees. He also noted the problems with homeless encampments within the stand of trees at the back of the property. Ms. Andreen agreed the liability potential created undue hardship. The Committee discussed the specifics of the trees proposed for removal. Mr. Duffy moved to have all of the proposed trees banded for staff review and granted approval, pending staff discretion, for removing the trees that presented a hazard to Motel 6 and/or were too unstable in the creek area, as well as any trees on site that staff felt should be removed. Ms. Andreen seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS Review of Palm Tree Removals by PG&E: 990 Industrial Way Mr. Whipple outlined community and property owner complaints about topping and ruining the palm trees on site and raised the questions as to whether the City was entitled to levy fines and sanctions for ordinance infraction. Justin Kephart, PG&E representative, discussed the PG&E rules and regulations pertaining to how tree pruning and removal work is dictated in order to protect trees from falling into and interfering with power lines. He noted that all trees needed to be pruned to allow for an 18” wire clearance span within a one year period and that palm fronds can fall into the wires and cause outages. He discussed the details of December storm issues and the power outages caused and stated the trees had been topped to mitigate issues and that the clean-up work could not be performed in a timely manner due to issues raised in storm management elsewhere in the county. 6 He stated that he felt PG&E had been given permission to take out the stand of trees from the property owner’s representative, who in fact was the owner’s brother. He noted that if the representative had not given permission to remove the trees, they would have radically pruned them instead; understanding that PG&E had permission to remove the trees, they were topped in a manner as to precede removal. Sean Nagel, attorney for the property owner, distributed background information and regulation documentation. He asked for clarification on the need to have performed the extreme topping and clear-cutting work and noted that PG&E did not get permission from the actual property owner, who was very upset with the loss of the favored trees and wanted replacement of the trees and reimbursement for the clean-up work paid to an outside company because PG&E had not returned to do the work for three weeks. Mr. Loosley noted that at least 10 of the trees would not survive. The Committee agreed that as a three-member committee, they did not feel comfortable moving forward with discussion on the item until more Committee members were able to be in attendance. John Shoals, PG&E representative, discussed the overview of the work project and agreed with the need for more discussion between PG&E and the property owner, as well as being able to explain the particular process to the Committee at a time when a full Committee was present. The Committee agreed with the hope that between City staff, PG&E and the property owner, a resolution could be reached. They agreed to hear the item should it come back at a future meeting. ARBORIST REPORT Discuss Recent Storm Response Numbers from Dec. 11 & 12, 2014 The item was tabled until Ron Combs was in attendance to speak to it. New City Website Launch – January 30, 2015 Barbara Lynch discussed the new site design, created with a goal to be more user-friendly to the community. The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. to next regular meeting scheduled for February 23, 2015 at 5:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske, Recording Secretary