HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-22-2016 TC Minutes1
MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Olson, Matt Ritter, Jane Worthy,
Ben Parker, Scott Loosley, Trey Duffy
STAFF PRESENT: Ron Combs
Mr. Ritter called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Sean Flickinger, 79 Del Oro, Los Verde Park, discussed the recent removal of
approved trees, noting that one of the removals was from behind his house which
removed the noise buffer and shade factor. He stated the HOA has removed six
trees in the Park with no apparent plans to replant replacements.
Sara Flickinger, 79 Del Oro, noted that several of the neighborhood’s
replacement trees are being neglected and are dying, in large part to the HOA
not maintaining them.
Mr. Ritter agreed that maintaining replacement trees was an issue throughout the
city and asked staff to investigate the Flickingers’ concerns.
MINUTES: Approval of Minutes of January 25, 2016
Mr. Parker noted that Mr. Duffy was present at the meeting and it was Mr.
Loosley who was absent.
Ms. Olson moved to approve the minutes as amended.
Mr. Parker seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
Minutes
Tree Committee
Corporation Yard Conference Room, 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo
Monday, February 22, 2016 at 5:00 pm
2
TREE REMOVAL APPLICATIONS
1. 1973 Huasna (6 Mexican fan palms)
The applicant discussed the removal request for six trees that were on her
property, which were crowded, and causing liability and hazard issues. as well as
reporting that the 10 street trees were in need of maintenance or removal due to
posing hazards and liability. She stated her trees were causing many types of
hazards, especially in the windy area. She has performed significant daily
maintenance of dropped fronds, noting they can’t be green-wasted or chipped.
She reported that cars have been damaged by the littering. She did not think
removals would harm the character of the neighborhood.
Mr. Combs reported he could not make the findings necessary for approving
removal.
Mr. Duffy noted there were many trees on the property and he could favor
removal.
Mr. Loosley felt the trees were healthy but agreed there were too many in the
small space and could favor removal.
Ms. Worthy felt the parkway trees looked good and that the property trees
needed better maintenance and pruning.
Ms. Olson and Mr. Parker agreed that removing the property trees would not
harm the character of the neighborhood.
Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal of the six property trees, based on
doing so would not harm the character of the neighborhood or environment, and
required three 15-gallon trees to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and
planted within 45 days of tree removal.
Mr. Loosley seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
2. 277 Granada (5 sycamores, 3 pines)
Steve Franzman, applicant’s representative, discussed the removal request,
reporting that continual major sidewalk repair has been required due to root
issues. He stated the owner wanted to replant with more reasonably sized
species.
Mr. Combs agreed with the displacement issues, but stated he could not make
the findings necessary to approve removal.
3
John Eckert, business employee on site, discussed the issues the roots were
creating and noted they were headed right for sprinkler mains. He also noted
several parking spaces were unusable due to roots.
Brian Monroe, property employee, agreed with the comments and felt some of
the trees were decayed and dangerous.
Mr. Parker agreed that the pines could be removed in order to promote good
arboricultural practice, and noted that one of the sycamores was almost dead
and should be removed. He did not see a lot of evidence of the sycamore root
issues being discussed and felt they were significant to the area.
Mr. Franzman noted that the sidewalk had recently been repaired, which is why it
was difficult to currently see evidence of root issues.
Ms. Olson felt one of the healthy sycamores was too close to the building and
could be removed.
Mr. Loosley also did not see evidence of sidewalk issues, but felt the two pines
right up on the curb could present problems.
Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal of the three pines and the diseased
sycamore, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required four
15-gallon trees to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within
45 days of the tree removals.
Mr. Ritter seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
Ms. Worthy moved to deny the removal of the remaining four sycamores, as she
could not make the findings necessary to allow for removal.
Mr. Parker seconded the motion.
The motion passed, with Ms. Olson voting against.
3. 1257-1285 Laurel (Eucalyptus)
Ron Rinnell, applicant’s representative, discussed the removal request and the
hardscape damage to the parking lot and noted the tree was too close to the
building.
Mr. Combs noted the applicants were re-doing the parking lot and landscaping.
He discussed prior actions that required the property owner to mitigate measures
4
as a result of alleviating an illegal removal situation. He also stated he could not
make the findings necessary to approve the removal.
Mike Moran, applicant’s representative, reported that the parking lot and
landscape plans were in process with the Planning Dept.
Ms. Worthy could not really assess whether the tree would be in the way of the
project moving forward without seeing the plans.
Mr. Duffy stated he did not see evidence of significant hardscape damage.
Mr. Ritter felt the fact that plans were submitted to the Planning Dept. for
approval was new information to the removal request item and felt the item
should be continued until plans were available for review.
The Committee agreed to continue to item.
4. 4251 S. Higuera (4 cypress)
The applicant discussed the removal request and stated that the trees were in
the city easement but his family had been maintaining them for decades. He
discussed past damage from falling trees and limbs and felt the trees were failing
and rotting and posed a great liability. He noted that they hadn’t planted previous
replacement trees in the small planter beds because the cypress would
overwhelm them. He reported that they had to replace the curb and sidewalk
several times and felt the trees were now posing a threat to the building.
The applicant wanted to replant with crepe myrtle.
Mr. Combs agreed with the applicant’s concerns but brought the removal request
to Committee due to the high profile of the trees.
Mr. Loosley agreed one of the trees was decayed and that another had limb
issues.
Ms. Worthy agreed the trees were failing but felt the replacement species needed
to be substantial.
Mr. Loosley and Mr. Parker were concerned that crepe myrtle was too small a
species for replacement.
Mr. Ritter confirmed that there was no theme tree/plan for that particular area.
Mr. Loosley moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good
arboricultural practice, and required four 15-gallon trees to be chosen from the
Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of tree removals.
5
5. 12350 Los Osos Valley Road (8 trees)
The applicant discussed the removal request and the renovated landscape plan
which included 24 trees. He stated the service area is being expanded and the
ADA requirements in the parking lot could not be accommodated without the
removal of the trees.
Mr. Ritter discussed the issue of having to accept finalized plans that were
predicated on tree removals without having had the chance for prior review of the
project in regard to tree removals. He felt the process was handled backwards
and there was a great need for better connection and communication of plan
process with the Planning Dept. when it came to projects that had issues with
tree removals.
Mr. Ritter moved to approve the removal request, based on undue hardship to
the property owner.
Mr. Parker seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
ARBORIST REPORT
Mr. Combs discussed the Tree City USA application that had been approved.
The meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m. to next meeting scheduled for Monday,
March 28, 2016 at 5:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Woske, Recording Secretary