Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-27-2015 TC Minutes1 MEMBERS PRESENT: Trey Duffy, Ben Parker, Jane Worthy, Patty Andreen and Susan Olson STAFF PRESENT: Anthony Whipple, Steve Williams Mr. Parker called the meeting to order at 5:03 p.m. He introduced Parks & Recreation department representative Susan Olson as the new Committee member. PUBLIC COMMENT Patty Souza, Housing Authority representative, determined that Brian Bazler would be the appropriate person to discuss weed removal in medians. MINUTES: Approval of Minutes of March 23, 2015 Mr. Duffy moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Ms. Worthy seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. TREE REMOVAL APPLICATIONS 1. 346 Woodbridge (Sycamore) The applicant discussed the removal request and discussed her desire to remove all the plantings, except for the oak, and re-landscape the area with drought-tolerant plants. She wanted to remove the tree, as it was not a drought-tolerant species, and replace it with an olive tree. She submitted re-landscaping plan. Mr. Whipple noted that the species was a healthy theme tree and he could not support any findings necessary for removal. Minutes Tree Committee Corporation Yard Conference Room, 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo Monday, April 27, 2015 at 5:00 pm 2 Mr. Duffy, Ms. Andreen, and Ms. Olson agreed it was not a good specimen and supported removal, based on the landscaping plan and removing it would not harm the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Parker agreed, noting it had been improperly pruned. Mr. Duffy moved to approve the removal request, based on removal would not harm the character of the neighborhood or environment and required a replacement planting of one 15-gallon tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of the tree’s removal. Ms. Andreen seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 2. 1680 El Caserio (6 palms) The applicant discussed the removal request, citing the desire to remove the lawn and landscape and re-landscape with drought-tolerant plants. He also reported that the driveway was cracking, the trees were pressuring the neighbor’s retaining wall, and the sewer line was located right under the stand of trees. He also discussed the wind damage to the trees and the fronds that dropped. He noted the neighbors favored removal of the trees. Ron Rinnell, Bunyon Brothers, discussed the high maintenance required in the windy area and felt the littering and driveway damage posed safety issues. Mr. Whipple reported that they were large, healthy trees and he could not support any findings necessary for removal. Ms. Worthy felt the cracking was minimal and that re-landscaping could be accommodated with the trees being retained. Ms. Andreen stated she could not make the findings necessary for removal and that the skyline trees’ removals would harm the character of the neighborhood. She noted said criteria did not particularly address the removal/replacement of drought-tolerant plantings. Mr. Duffy agreed with Ms. Andreen. Mr. Parker reported there were no defects in the trees, which were not a “thirsty” species, and that they were unlikely to topple. Mr. Duffy felt three of the trees on the west side could be removed. Ms. Olson felt all of them could be removed. 3 Ms. Worthy moved to deny the removal request, as she could not make any of the findings necessary for removal. Ms. Andreen seconded the motion. Mr. Duffy requested that the motion be amended to allow the removal of the three westside trees only, based on the removals would not harm the character of the neighborhood. He required three 15-gallon replacement plantings to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of the trees’ removals. Ms. Andreen seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Ms. Worthy and Ms. Olson voting against. Ms. Olson moved to approve removal of the remaining three trees. The motion died for lack of a second. 3. 1433 Ashmore (2 liquid ambars) The applicant discussed the removal request, citing an aggressive invasive root system, past limb droppage, root abatement efforts, and the sidewalk cracking as reasons to remove the trees. Mr. Whipple reported that the trees were theme trees and he could not support any findings necessary for removal. Mr. Parker agreed with the root system issues and damage. Mr. Duffy determined that her HOA needed to approve the removals as well. Mr. Duffy moved to approve the removal request, based on undue hardship and contingent on HOA approval, and required two 15-gallon replacement plantings to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of the trees’ removals. Ms. Olson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 4 4. 2517 Santa Clara (Mexican fan palm) The applicant discussed the removal request, noting that the large non-native tree was located over the water and sewer lines and had a shallow root ball embedded in clay soil and felt that created a hazard. He reported the fronds were a hazard and the roots had caused damage to the sewer lateral and newly replaced sidewalk. He stated the neighbors favored the removal and that he wanted to replace it with a suitable species, e.g. oak. Mr. Whipple reported it was a large healthy specimen. Ms. Andreen noted that one of the neighbors told her she did not favor removal. Ms. Olson moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice and doing so would not harm the character of the neighborhood and required one 15-gallon replacement planting to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of the tree removal. Mr. Duffy seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 5. 2653 Victoria (Coast live oak) Jeremy Lowney, applicant’s representative, discussed the tree’s root fungus and bark beetles and stated the tree posed a hazard to cars and structures. He was concerned about the narrow planting bed and the clay soil making the tree unstable. He had not performed a root excavation. Mr. Whipple agreed the skyline large oak might have root fungus, noting the tree seemed to be reviving after having been stressed. Robert Shriver, arborist, noted that the tree could have been suffering for years and only now showing symptoms. Mr. Parker agreed that the tree was declining. Ms. Andreen moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required one 15-gallon replacement planting to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of the tree removal. Ms. Worthy seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 5 6. 1325 Aralia Ct. (Liquid ambar) The applicant discussed the removal request and showed pictures of the invasive root system and discussed the dangers of the tree litter. She discussed desire for drought-tolerant landscaping and planned on the lawn. She stated she was part of an HOA. Mr. Whipple agreed the healthy theme tree had extensive surface roots. The Committee agreed there were significant root issues. Ms. Worthy moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice and contingent upon HOA approval, and required one 15-gallon replacement planting to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of the tree removal. Ms. Olson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 7. 1529 Newport (Modesto ash) The applicant discussed the removal request, reporting that the constant amount of sap was causing problems with nearby cars and the rental property, as sap was continually being tracked into the house, which ruined the carpet and flooring. She also noted that one of the residents used a walker and the sap sticking to the walker wheels created mobility issues. Mr. Whipple reported it was a large, healthy theme tree and he could not make the findings for removal. Mr. Parker felt an aphid infestation was causing the sap issues, which could be mitigated by controlling ant problems and then spraying for aphids. Ms. Andreen moved to continue the item to allow the applicant to attempt to remedy the situation and if a solution didn’t work, the application would be considered at a later date. Mr. Duffy seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 6 8. 546 Higuera (Ficus, walnut, carrotwood) Robert Shriver, applicant’s representative, discussed the plan for construction that would remove the trailer and rebuild the property, noting that there would be more construction planned for the future and additional removal requests would be made. He noted the trees were damaging the sidewalk. Mr. Whipple reported that the trees were healthy. Steve Williams, Tree Dept., felt the Committee should consider the item due to the large trees being removed. The Committee felt that the removal request was premature and that entire construction project should be submitted for review as a whole, e.g. would not consider removing the Ficus without seeing the overview and scope of the project. Mr. Parker moved to deny the removal request, as he could not make the necessary findings for approval. Ms. Andreen seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 9. 646 Couper (Maple, palm) There was no one present to speak to this item. 10. 3650 S. Higuera (Cypress) David Brannon, applicant’s representative, discussed the property expansion for Meathead Movers and the tree that was on the neighboring Eagles property but was impacting construction plans. He reported that Eagles favored the removal and that the tree was in decline, with a lot of dieback. The owners were concerned about limb droppage and it being a hazard to the new building proposed. He noted there was not room on the site to plant a replacement tree, but said an agreement was reached so one could be planted on the Eagles property. Mr. Williams noted it was a large skyline tree that was relatively healthy and felt the Committee needed to consider the item. Chip Tamagni, A&T Arborists, stated the tree was in decline and did not think root mitigation measure and pruning would be a long-term solution. He noted that tree had existing fill in half of the drip line area. 7 Steve Rarig, Rarig Construction, reported they’d be building right up to the property line and did not feel the roots would survive construction and agreed that the tree would threaten the new addition. Ms. Andreen moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice and doing so would not harm the character of the neighborhood and required three24” box replacement planting to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted on the Eagles’ property within 45 days of the tree removal. Mr. Duffy seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 11. 870 Del Rio The item had been withdrawn. NEW BUSINESS Proposal for Heritage Tree Designation – 1901 Santa Barbara St. Wayne Cherry, 1902 Chorro, reported that Tree Committee chair Matt Ritter told him he favored the designation. Mr. Williams felt it was an unusually large oak tree and that it enhanced the property. The Committee discussed general Heritage Tree designation parameters. Mr. Parker moved to accept the designation as a Heritage Tree and to forward his recommendation to Council for their consideration and confirmation. Ms. Worthy seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS Branch Street Elm Tree Project Follow-Up Mr. Williams recapped the project and reported that since the last Committee meeting, he had contacted the majority of Branch St. residents and had received a 8 positive response to the goals of the tree removal/replacement plan. In assessing the area, it appeared that for approximately 75% of the trees involved, he could just remove 30-50% of the canopy and that the remaining trees for removal would be replaced with several varying species of elm. Robbie Rizzo, 480 Branch, determined that the tree in front of her house would be replaced and appreciated the opportunity to participate in the removal and replacement discussion. ARBORIST REPORT Mr. Whipple recapped recent Arbor Day festivities. COMMITTEE ITEMS Mr. Duffy requested an agenda item be scheduled to discuss the details and spirit of Committee removal criteria, especially in light of people wanting to remove trees due to drought concerns. The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. to next regular meeting scheduled for Tuesday, May 26 at 5:00 p.m. (Note date change due to Memorial Day holiday) Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske, Recording Secretary