Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-29-2013 TC Minutes1 TREE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES MONDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2013 Corporation Yard Conference Room 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo MEMBERS PRESENT: Scott Loosley, Jane Worthy, Trey Duffy, Ben Parker, Matt Ritter, and David Hensinger STAFF PRESENT: Ron Combs, Barbara Lynch PUBLIC COMMENT There were no public comments. PRESENTATION: A representative from Parks/Rec Dept. discussed a proposed revision to the City Ordinance to allow slack lining in all city parks, with a few exceptions. She noted that there was language addressing additional tree protection and visibility elements, e.g. only allowing the activity during daylight hours. She reported that the Parks and Recreation Committee agreed with these submitted recommendations and requested that the Tree Committee review the ordinance. Mr. Ritter noted that the Tree Committee had previously supported the ordinance revision and requested that the ordinance review item be added to the next meeting’s agenda for discussion. MINUTES: Approval of Minutes of September 23, 2013 Mr. Loosley moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. TREE REMOVAL APPLICATIONS 1. 1642 Woodland Court (2 Coast live oak) The applicants discussed the removal request, stating that the trees were in a poor location and were too large for the area. Mr. Ritter moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required two 15-gallon trees to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of the trees’ removals. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Ritter noted that the two trees were part of the EIR, but the proposed replacements would satisfy the EIR intention. 2 2. 1 Mustang Dr. (7 trees) Steve Franzman, applicant’s representative, discussed the removal request and noted that the large pines were declining, the roots were cracking the foundation, and that the trees were too close to the buildings. Mr. Combs reported that the trees were relatively healthy, were in slight decline, and that he could not make his necessary findings for removal. Mr. Loosley felt these were the wrong trees for the location, were in decline, and favored removal of all. Mr. Parker agreed that the trees were too close to the building and would have preferred to have a landscape plan submitted. Ms. Worthy felt the replacement trees should be planted where the three pines were in a cluster. Mr. Loosley moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required replacement planting of seven 15-gallon trees to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of trees removals. Mr. Hensinger seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 3. 371 Broad (Live oak) The applicant discussed the removal request and was concerned about the backyard tree’s stress and stability. He noted that the tree had a significant lean. He submitted a letter of concern signed by his neighbors. Mr. Combs reported that it was a medium-sized tree and that there was not concerned about the lean, but felt the construction near the backside of the roots might affect stability. He discussed the roots cut during construction, but stated he could not make his necessary findings for removal. Mr. Hensinger moved to approve the removal request, as removal would not harm the character of the neighborhood or the environment. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. Ms. Worthy was not concerned about the lean and felt the tree was in good shape. Mr. Parker and Mr. Loosley agreed with the previous comments and suggested continuing the item so that the applicant could perform a lean test over time that would support the removal. Mr. Hensinger and Mr. Parker agreed to withdraw the motion. The Committee agreed to continue the item to a date uncertain and encouraged the applicant to perform a lean test. 3 4. 1144 Morro (9 trees) Steve Franzman, applicants’ representative, discussed the bank’s purchase of the property and stated the bank wanted to make improvements. He discussed the problems with the pines dropping cones and damaging vehicles and stated the Liquid Ambers were creating root problems. Mr. Ritter moved to approve the removal request of the Liquid Ambers and the Holly oak, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required nine replacement trees to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of trees’ removals. Mr. Duffy seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The Committee agreed that the pine and the landscape review, including additional pines outlined, would be deferred to the city arborist. 5. 671 Toro (2 Modesto ash) The applicant discussed the removal request, stating that the trees were not an ideal species and were diseased with fungus infestation and that sap was causing damage to vehicles. A certified arborist recommended removal with replacement of Chinese pistache. Mr. Combs confirmed that these were diseased street trees. Dean Miller, 638 Toro, favored removing all and suggested camphor as a replacement species. Mr. Loosley agreed with the removal and replacement suggested. Mr. Parker felt topping had created issues. Mr. Hensinger moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required two 15-gallon replacement trees to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of the trees’ removals. Mr. Loosley seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 6. 2057 Skylark Lane (Canary Island pine) David Romero, applicant, discussed the removal request, stating that the tree presented extreme hazard and undue hardship to the neighbors, because the roots had damaged their foundation. He did not think root pruning was feasible. He noted the property was heavily planted and did not think replacement planting was in order. He suggested that the other neighbors favored removal as the tree blocked city views. He also noted the tree was too close to the house. 4 Everett Chandler, co-applicant, discussed the hazard of the tree and noted limbs had dropped in the past and felt the tree presented a fire hazard. He submitted a petition of support from neighbors. Mr. Combs reported that it was a large healthy tree that had shed limbs in the past. He noted some minor stucco cracks, but could not make his necessary findings for removal.. Arlene Chandler, co-applicant, discussed the great fear that she had about the tree falling over. She did not feel that removing the tree would harm the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Russell Seacat, neighbor, stated he favored removal. Mr. Parker to approve the removal request, as doing so would not harm the character of the neighborhood or the environment, and required one 15-gallon tree to be purchased by the applicant and donated to the city for planting elsewhere. Mr. Ritter seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Items 7 – 16 Mr. Combs stated that removal requests for items 7 through 16 were all removal applications from the City’s Street Division. He discussed the procedure for the Street division assessment of whether root pruning was feasible to retain the trees or if the trees need to be removed and replaced. He said this process supported age and species diversity for the urban forest. He noted all replacements would be coordinated with the Tree Dept. 7. 284 Westmont (2 Liquid Ambars) Jim Agee, 284 Westmont, supported the removal, noting he had sewer and sidewalk damage issues. Mr. Ritter moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, requiring two replacement trees to be coordinated with the City Arborist. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 8. 239 Santa Lucia (Chinese Elm) Patrick Faararr, resident, favored removal and replacement. He was concerned that the driveway apron be replaced at the same time as the sidewalk. Mr. Loosley did not think the tree should be removed and suggested working around it with a bulb-out. Mr. Parker did not think the grade would support a bulb-out. 5 Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, requiring a replacement tree to be coordinated with the City Arborist. Mr. Ritter seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 9. 230 Marlene (Ficus) Mr. Ritter moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, requiring two replacement trees to be coordinated with the City Arborist. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 10. 379 Patricia (Carob) Mr. Ritter moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, requiring two replacement trees to be coordinated with the City Arborist. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 11. 324 Cerro Romauldo (Chinese Elm) Ellie Axelrod, resident, favored removal and agreed to having two trees planted. Mr. Loosley moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, requiring two replacement trees to be coordinated with the City Arborist. Mr. Duffy seconded the motion. Mr. Hensinger felt a bulb-out should be employed. Mr. Loosley and Mr. Duffy agreed to withdraw the motion. The Committee directed staff to work out the possibility of a bulb-out with the property owner. 12. 505 Foothill (2 Canary Island pines) Mike Cueto, resident, favored removal and was concerned about the trip hazard. Mr. Ritter moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, requiring no replacement tree. Mr. Duffy seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 6 13. 204 N. Chorro, #31 (Carob) Wedad Nelson, resident, favored removal and discussed a concern with an ever-present pool of standing water, which created issues with bacteria and mosquitoes. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, requiring replacement tree to be coordinated with the City Arborist. Mr. Ritter seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 14. 256 N. Chorro, #19 & #20 (2 ficus) Mr. Ritter moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, requiring two replacement trees to be coordinated with the City Arborist. Ms. Worthy seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 15. 324 N. Chorro (Carob) Mr. Ritter moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, requiring replacement tree to be coordinated with the City Arborist. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 16. 356 N. Chorro (2 ficus) Valerie Endres, applicant’s representative, stated that the owner favored removal. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, requiring two replacement trees to be coordinated with the City Arborist. Mr. Hensinger seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS There were no items to discuss. OLD BUSINESS There were no items to discuss. 7 ARBORIST REPORT -- UPRR Short Notice Vegetation Removal Procedure Barbara Lynch discussed the UPRR removal procedure and stated that local regulations do apply and that the UPRR was required to work within the City’s regulations. She stated that on occasion, there was an immediate pruning need with regard to signal clearance safety issues, so the Committee agreed to allow staff to make decisions when the local regulation procedures could not be followed in a timely manner. The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m. to next regular meeting, scheduled for 5 p.m. on December 3, 2013. (Special date) Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske, Recording Secretary