Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-03-2013 TC Minutes1 TREE COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA TUESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2013 Corporation Yard Conference Room 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo MEMBERS PRESENT: Jane Worthy, Matt Ritter, Trey Duffy, Ben Parker and Scott Loosley STAFF PRESENT: Ron Combs PUBLIC COMMENT David Brody, San Luis Obispo resident, was concerned about the drought conditions pertaining to the urban forest and shared commentary on the excellent Ficus specimens that define the downtown corridor. He was concerned about allowing removals of Ficus trees and urged the Committee to not only consider each removal request on its own merits, but juxtaposed against the broader sense of the tree inventories in the area. MINUTES: Approval of Minutes of October 29, 2013 Mr. Loosley moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. TREE REMOVAL APPLICATIONS 1. 671 RANCHO DR. (4 Monterey Pines) The applicant discussed the removal request and the failing health of the trees and reported that they interfered with the power lines. He 2 discussed replacement plantings, including citrus and avocado. He noted that the nearby oaks would thrive with the pines’ removal. Mr. Combs reported that the new growth was weakly attached on these skyline trees, which were only in fair health. He agreed the nearby oaks would thrive if the pines were removed. Mr. Loosley and Mr. Parker favored removals to support the growth of the oaks. Ms. Worthy felt removal would harm the character of the neighborhood and suggested removing the two worst trees. She felt replacements were needed, apart from the oak seedlings being retained. Mr. Duffy felt the trees posed hazards due to topping and regrowth. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request of all four trees, requiring two 15-gallon replacement trees to be chosen from the Master Street Tree List and planted within 45 days of issuance of permit, and required that the oak seedlings be retained. The motion passed, with Ms. Worthy voting against. 2. 873 LEFF (2 Liquid ambers) The applicant discussed the removal request and noted that there had been constant, severe plumbing issues and driveway damage due to the roots. She reported she was having the sewer line replaced. Mr. Combs agreed there was some vertical displacement but reported that the trees were healthy and he could not make his necessary findings for removal. Mr. Ritter reiterated that roots don’t damage sewer lines and stated if the pipe is repaired, roots won’t intrude. Mr. Loosley agreed that once the line was replaced, there would be no sewer problems due to roots. He did state that if the sewer line 3 replacement work were going to damage the tree, then he would support removal. Ms. Worthy felt the removal could wait to see if tree was damaged in excavation, before approving removal at this time. Mr. Parker suggested the applicant move forward with the work and if the tree ended up being damaged, the applicant should return with a removal request. Mr. Parker moved to deny the removal request, as he could not make the necessary findings for removal. Mr. Ritter seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 3. 867 LEFF (Redwood) The applicant discussed the removal request and reported the tree had damaged the adjacent property and sewer lines. She stated that the resident at the home was disabled and because of the hardscape damage, the resident couldn’t navigate the property. She outlined the extreme hardship experienced due to damage and liability created by the tree. Mr. Combs noted there were some hardscape displacement issues, but stated the large tree was healthy and he could not make his necessary findings for removal. Serena Ross, 858 Leff, discussed the sewer line issues experienced due to the neighboring tree and favored removal. Shawn Ryan, 1703 Santa Barbara, felt the skyline tree was iconic and reported that it was a habitat for birds. He stated that nine other housemates also supported retaining the tree. Jane Maguire, 1712 Chorro, felt the skyline habitat was important to the neighborhood and favored retaining the tree. 4 Linnea Phillips, 790 Islay, favored retention, as the tree was an asset to the area. She stated that several residents in the neighborhood were prepared to help the property owner mitigate issues in order to save the tree. Emily Robbins, 1703 Santa Barbara, reiterated that several of The Establishment’s residents would help provide free labor. Diane Simpson, 873 Leff, discussed the financial hardship at the property. David Brody noted that the significant tree was a landmark that engendered community spirit. Mr. Loosley stated he could not make any of the necessary findings for removal. Mr. Parker discussed the inherent value of the tree to the property and felt it would be less expensive to mitigate the hardscape damage than to remove the tree. Mr. Ritter agreed that removal would be exceptionally costly and rather hazardous, given the size of the tree. The Committee discussed the hardship to the property owner, but felt that the tree’s removal would harm the character of the neighborhood and environment. Mr. Parker moved to deny the removal request, as he could not make the necessary findings for removal. Mr. Ritter seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Parker encouraged the property owners to renew the pursuit of designating the tree as a Heritage Tree. Mr. Ritter offered to help the applicant with the application process. 5 4. 634 AL-HIL (13 pines) John Vorhees, applicant’s representative discussed the removal request and reported that the pines are decaying and in poor health. He was concerned about the trees toppling so close to the house and felt that the surrounding healthy trees could become infected. He noted that some of the trees were below the DBH requirement for a permit and stated that approximately 12 smaller live oaks would thrive if the pines were removed. Mr. Combs agreed the trees were in declining health but had been reluctant to approve the removal of a stand of trees without Committee input. Mr. Duffy felt the removal would promote good arboricultural practice. Ms. Worthy favored keeping the trees that were healthy at this point in time. Mr. Parker agreed that the Monterey pines could be removed and felt insect infestation was the reason for decline and that the insects could affect nearby trees. Mr. Loosley felt the Monterey pines could be removed but favored retaining the Canary Island pines. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal of the Monterey and Aleppo pines only, retaining the Canary Island pines, and did not require any replacement planting. Mr. Ritter seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 6 5. 590 MARSH (Ficus) Craig Smith, applicant’s representative, discussed the removal request and the project development, stating that there would be a significant number of replacement plantings within the area. He felt the replacement plan was a long-term solution. He discussed the use of solar panels and felt the tree would minimize effectiveness at various times of the day. Mr. Combs stated it was a large, healthy street tree that created some minor hardscape issues. He felt the tree could be retained with some cantilever design efforts. Allan Cooper, Save Our Downtown representative, felt the tree was an asset to Marsh St. and should be retained. Mr. Duffy was concerned that the property owner did not sign the application and that the applicant’s representative was not listed on the application. Mr. Ritter was surprised that the Planning Dept. was involving the Tree Committee at this juncture. Richard Tracy, 756 Broad, stated the tree was an asset to the area and should be retained. David Brody felt the tree should be retained. Mr. Duffy moved to continue the item to the January 2014 meeting to allow time to have a completed application on file and the check with the Planning Dept. regarding questions that had been raised. Mr. Ritter seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 7 OLD BUSINESS Request for Use Revision to Ordinance 12.24.150 Shelly Stanwyck, Parks/Rec director, discussed the Parks/Rec Committee consideration of expanding the slack lining usage in the ordinance. Mr. Combs was concerned about some people using “unfriendly” equipment that would cause damage to the cities trees. Tim Ross, resident, felt strongly that the core community of slack line users would take care of trees and he favored fining people who were abusing tree protective measures. Mr. Ritter moved to approve the revised ordinance language as proposed. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. ARBORIST REPORT Mr. Combs discussed the 1000+ service requests his office had received in addition to the 1000+ predetermined scheduled trees pruned. Barbara Lynch suggested that the Committee hold discussion at a future meeting to explore Committee position on solar use vs. tree issues, as the topic will be more prevalent in the near future as developments incorporate more solar efforts in their design. The meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m. to next regular meeting scheduled for Monday, January 27, 2014, at 5:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske, Recording Secretary