HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-23-2013 TC Minutes1
TREE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2013
Corporation Yard Conference Room
25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo
MEMBERS PRESENT: Scott Loosley, Jane Worthy, and David Hensinger
STAFF PRESENT: Ron Combs
Mr. Hensinger acted as Chair.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Ron Combs introduced Trey Duffy, the new Tree Committee member.
SPECIAL PRESENTATION
Representatives from the California Department of Food and Agriculture made a brief
presentation concerning a pest identified in Santa Maria that poses a high danger to citrus
groves, as the disease cannot be cured and proves fatal to trees.
There was a call to raise awareness with the general public to inspect their own citrus
trees to help contain any threat; they discussed methods of detection, insect trapping, and
eradication.
MINUTES: Approval of Minutes of July 22, 2013
Mr. Loosley moved to approve the minutes as submitted.
Ms. Worthy seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
TREE REMOVAL APPLICATIONS
1. 222 Chorro (New Zealand Christmas Tree)
The applicant discussed the removal request and submitted a copy of the Greenvale Tree
Service’s arborist report, which recommended removal. She noted that the roots were
dislocating the hardscape areas and that root pruning was thought to be harmful to the
tree’s viability. She reported that three separate arborists each recommended removal.
2
Mr. Combs stated the large, healthy tree was planted by the City as part of a grant. He
agreed that there was hardscape damage, but he could not make the findings necessary to
approve removal.
Mr. Loosley noted the tree was in good health with only some bricks being displaced.
Ms. Worthy felt the parkway area was too narrow and favored removal with replacement.
Ms. Worthy moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good
arboricultural practice, and required one 15-gallon tree to be chosen from the Master
Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of the tree’s removal.
Mr. Loosley seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
2. 628 OAKRIDGE (3 eucalyptus)
Mark King, applicant’s representative, discussed past issues with limb droppage and
noted all the trees were sparse. He said the owner wanted to replace the trees with native
oaks by the driveway and by the house.
Mr. Combs stated the trees were relatively healthy and agreed they were sparse; he could
not make the findings necessary to approve removal.
Ron Rinnell, Bunyan Brothers, supported removal and stated the replacement planting
plan was strong.
Mr. Loosley and Ms. Worthy were concerned with losing large trees in the area.
Ms. Worthy did not think there was enough evidence present to grant removal.
Mr. Hensinger moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good
arboricultural practice, and required three 15-gallon Coast Live oaks be planted within 45
days of the trees’ removal.
Mr. Loosley seconded the motion.
The motion passed, with Ms. Worthy voting against.
3
3. 475 MARSH (Fan Palm)
Mr. Rinell, applicant’s representative, discussed the removal request and reported this
was a volunteer palm. He discussed past damage to the sidewalk and felt it was in a poor
location.
Mr. Combs reported it was a healthy tree and he could not make the necessary findings
for removal.
Mr. Hensinger moved to deny the removal request, as he could not make any of the
findings required to allow removal.
Ms. Worthy seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
4. 196 SUBURBAN (Sycamore)
Mr. Rinell, applicant’s representative, discussed the removal request and stated the main
concern was that the neighboring concrete manufacturing business was getting debris and
tree litter in their mixtures, contaminating their product.
Mr. Combs noted it was a large, healthy tree that was not causing any displacement; he
could not make the necessary findings for removal.
Mr. Hensinger noted the tree was way in the back of the industrial site and was most
probably a volunteer.
Mr. Loosley stated he saw evidence that the large tree was a possible nature habitat.
Mr. Hensinger moved to deny the removal request, as he could not make any of the
findings required to allow removal.
Mr. Loosley seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
5. 289 MARLENE (2 birch)
Tim Meyer, applicant’s representative, discussed the removal request and stated that the
trees were causing damage to the retaining wall.
Mr. Combs stated the two large river birches were healthy and while there were roots
along the wall, there was only minor damage. He could not make the findings necessary
to approve removal.
4
Mr. Loosley felt the trees were attractive and noted there were not many trees in the area.
He felt the wall was leaning due to a design/construction issue and not from tree issues.
Mr. Hensinger moved to deny the removal request, as he could not make any of the
findings required to allow removal.
Mr. Loosley seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
6. 1228 DRAKE CIRCLE (Liquid ambar)
The applicant discussed the removal request and discussed the raised sidewalk and the
significant damage the roots caused to the sidewalk and curb. He noted the stump next to
the tree had been ground twice. He wanted to replace it with a Crepe Myrtle.
Mr. Combs stated he could not make the findings necessary to approve removal.
Mr. Loosley noted half the canopy appeared dead.
Mr. Loosley moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good
arboricultural practice, and required one 15-gallon tree Crepe Myrtle be planted within 45
days of the tree’s removal.
Mr. Hensinger seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
7. 233 LINCOLN
8. 1642 WOODLAND
Both of these items were withdrawn from consideration.
9. 1626 WOODLAND (3 eucalyptus)
The applicant discussed the removal request and stated that the trees were right on the
property line and were leaning over homes, threatening the structures and creating a
safety and liability hazard. He stated that although they were existing on City property,
he and his neighbor were willing to pay for the removals. He also reported that arborists
had confirmed the trees posed a high danger risk and that the other native trees would
thrive if the larger trees were removed.
Mr. Combs noted the trees were in a creek setting and that there had been some removals
in the area. He agreed with native trees thriving if the eucalyptus were removed.
5
Keith Smith, 1638 Woodland, favored removal. He reported that past pruning had been
done, but did not think further pruning would mitigate concerns. He submitted a picture
of a past large limb that had fallen.
Mr. Rinell stated there was a removal plan drafted to minimize the damage to the
remaining trees.
Mr. Loosley moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good
arboricultural practice and undue hardship on the property owner, and did not require any
replacement plantings, as the site was heavily planted already.
Mr. Hensinger seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
10. 2903 GARIBALDI (Italian Stone pine)
Tim Meyer, applicant’s representative, discussed the removal request and stated the tree
was pushing up the curb and sidewalk. He stated the HOA wanted to remove the tree and
replace it with a magnolia.
Mr. Combs stated the healthy tree was starting to create hardship.
Jim Perry, HOA Board representative, stated the Board was concerned with liability and
hardscape damage.
Mr. Loosley moved to approve the removal request, based on undue hardship to the
property owner, and required one 15-gallon pear tree to be planted within 45 days of the
tree’s removal.
Mr. Hensinger seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
11. 2171 SAN LUIS DRIVE (Oak)
The applicant discussed the removal request and proposed building plan, stating that the
architect has designed around several other large trees and that there was no likely design
that would be able to work around the tree requested for removal.
Shawn Collarman, Bunyon Brothers, confirmed that the project had been re-designed
several times to accommodate retaining as many trees as possible. He also discussed the
tree protection plan in place for removals.
6
Mr. Combs discussed past lot approvals and prior approved landscape plans. He stated if
the Committee approves the removal, since the site was so heavily planted, they could
require the applicant to purchase and donate a tree to the Open Space Tree Bank.
Mr. Hensinger moved to approve the removal request, based on undue hardship to the
property owner, and required the applicant to purchase one 15-gallon tree to be chosen
from the Master Street Tree list and donate it to the City’s Open Space Tree Bank.
Mr. Loosley seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS
Due to scheduling conflicts in October and November, the Committee agreed that they
would schedule the next meeting for Tuesday, October 29, 2013 and postpone to
November meeting until Tuesday, December 3, 2013.
OLD BUSINESS
There were no items to discuss.
ARBORIST REPORT
There were no items to discuss.
The meeting adjourned at 6:25 p.m. to next regular meeting, scheduled for 5 p.m. on
October 29, 2013. (Special date)
Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Woske, Recording Secretary