Loading...
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