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