HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-25-2016 TC Minutes1
MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Olson, Matt Ritter,
Jane Worthy, Scott Loosley
STAFF PRESENT: Ron Combs
Mr. Ritter called the meeting to order at 5:02 p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Mila Vujovich-LaBarre, 650 Skyline, discussed concerns with the property at 71 Palomar
and asked that the trees on site be designated as Heritage Trees. She strongly opposed
the proposed development of the site and supported the property being turned into a
neighborhood park.
Cheryl McLean, 616 Mission, shared Ms. Vujovich-LaBarre’s concerns and stated there
was an active group of 37 members who were opposed to the site’s development. She
felt the numerous trees that would be removed were invaluable to the area and agreed
with the need for a park. She also noted the trees provided an extensive canopy in the
area and were habitats for wildlife and asked that the Committee support efforts to turn
the property into a park.
Will Powers, 1028 Islay, spoke about a tree on Higuera St. that had been topped and
needed to be replaced. He was also concerned about replacement trees being so much
smaller than the trees that are removed. He noted 1414 Santa Rosa as an example of
trees that were too small to serve as replacement plantings.
Mr. Ritter agreed with the need to revisit the Ordinance regarding caliper of replacement
trees, rather than having gallon sizing be the determination.
He also agreed that the concerns for 71 Palomar needed to be addressed within the
Committee’s purview.
He requested staff add both items to New Business discussion on the next agenda.
MINUTES: Approval of Minutes for March 28, 2016
Ms. Olson moved to approve the minutes as submitted.
Minutes
Tree Committee
Corporation Yard Conference Room, 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo
Monday, April 25, 2016 at 5:00 pm
2
Mr. Loosley seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
TREE REMOVAL APPLICATIONS
1. 1520 Santa Rosa (Monkey puzzle)
A staff member of Bunyan Brothers, applicant’s representative, discussed the removal
request and the main concern about safety due to dangerous cone droppage, spiny
foliage, and limb failure. He noted the severe lean of the tree couldn’t be corrected.
Mr. Combs stated it was a large, healthy tree and he could not make his necessary
findings to allow for removal.
Mr. Loosley agreed the tree was healthy and did not seem to pose any imminent
hazards, but understood applicant’s concerns.
Ms. Worthy felt the tree had been well maintained, but did pose issues.
Ms. Olson did not feel any hazard issues would affect pedestrians or vehicles.
Mr. Ritter stated the tree was not at all likely to fall, but agreed the cones and foliage
posed problems and felt it was a good tree in the wrong place.
Ms. Worthy moved to approve the removal based on promoting good arboricultural
practice and required one 24-inch box tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list
and planted within 45 days of the tree removal.
Mr. Loosley seconded the motion.
The motion passed, with Ms. Olson voting against.
2. 1670 Cordova (3 Queen palms)
The applicant discussed the removal request and felt the trees were unsafe on the
property as the heavy fronds posed risk to pedestrians and vehicles in heavy winds. He
stated the trees had broken the waterline, were too crowded and that hardware was
choking one of them. He reported that the trees had been maintained but littered
constantly and that the root mound was cracking the wall. He did not think removal
would harm the character of the neighborhood and wanted to replace it with a large
specimen.
Mr. Combs stated trees were relatively healthy and he could not make his necessary
findings to allow for removal.
Will Powers noted palm fronds could not be put in green waste and therefore created
pollution issues.
3
Mr. Loosley agreed the chain-impacted tree could be removed and suggested offering
the others for transplanting.
Ms. Worthy felt the trees created a large canopy but that removal would not harm the
character of the neighborhood.
Ms. Olson agreed with Ms. Worthy.
Mr. Ritter moved to approve the removal request, based on doing so would not harm the
character of the neighborhood or environment and required one minimum 15-gallon tree
to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of tree
removals.
Ms. Worthy seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
3. 2279 San Luis Drive (Coast live oak)
Chris Stier, Greenvale Tree representative, discussed the removal request and the
pathology report that indicated disease and continual decline with limb failure. He also
noted the disfigured “one-sided” tree on site that should be removed. He discussed the
planned development and outlined proposed plans and replacement oak planting.
Mr. Combs agreed the large oak was in questionable health.
Mike Staub, 1767 San Luis Drive, discussed previous removals next to his property and
the “butchering” that has occurred, diminishing the charm of the oak forest feel of the
neighborhood. He also did not favor the removal of the smaller oak.
Mr. Loosley felt the larger tree had a thin canopy and decay and while he did not think
the pathology report was definitive, he did agree the tree was declining and construction
would further harm the tree. He felt nearby smaller oaks would thrive if the larger tree
was removed and did not favor removing the smaller tree.
Mr. Ritter moved to approve removal of the larger tree to the north, based on promoting
good arboricultural practice and required replacement planting of a 24-inch box Coast
live oak to be planted on site. He further moved to deny the removal request for the
smaller tree, as he could not make the necessary findings.
Mr. Loosley seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Staub and the Committee discussed the continual butchering of the tree by his
property. Mr. Ritter stated he wanted more information on the severe pruning measures
taken during construction and the Committee discussed mitigation/replacement options
for agreement between Mr. Staub and the developer.
4
4. 873 Leff (2 Liquid ambar)
The applicant discussed the removal request and reported damage to the foundation
and steps, sewer line breakage, and noted that one tree was planted right on the sewer
line. He stated there was continual root invasion and debris and that even though the
sidewalk had been repaired in 2010, it needed it again. He discussed property
improvements and landscaping planned.
Mr. Combs stated the medium-sized trees had significant root presence.
Sabrina Ross, 858 Leff, confirmed the root issues and stated those problems plus the
debris created mobility hazards for a neighbor who was blind.
Mr. Loosley felt the trees were healthy and while he did not see any particular evidence
of root issues, if those existed, they would only get worse.
Ms. Olson favored removal with proposed property improvements.
Mr. Ritter moved to approve removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural
practice and required replacement planting of two 15-gallon trees to be chosen from the
Master Street Tree list and planted in the parkway within 45 days of tree removals.
Ms. Olson seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
5. 996 Vista del Collados (2 Canary Island pines)
Glen Carlson, applicant, discussed the removal request and stated wide concerns about
the trees presenting topping issues in high winds and damaging their house as well as
that of their neighbor’s.
Mr. Combs stated the large pines were planted in a small area and causing some
driveway damage. He agreed they were planted very close to the neighbor’s property.
Mrs. Carlson elaborated on the sway of the large trees and felt they threatened both
houses. She noted their heavily-planted property had been well maintained, including
work done on the trees, but she reiterated a strong fear of the trees falling.
Mr. Loosley felt the beautiful trees added great value to the property and discussed how
unlikely it was for these particular trees to fall. He stated he could not make the findings
necessary for removal.
Landy Fike suggested trimming up the lower limbs to stabilize them.
Ms. Worthy and Ms. Olson felt these were important street trees.
Mr. Ritter stated he could not stress enough how unlikely it would be for the trees to fall
and that if that concern was the only reason given to remove the trees, he would not be
able to make the necessary findings.
5
Mr. Loosley moved to deny the removal request, based on being unable to make any of
the necessary findings.
Mr. Ritter seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS
Arbor Day Foundation Webinar: Mr. Combs discussed the May 3, 2016 presentation
and invited Committee members to participate.
OLD BUSINESS
Mr. Combs reported that good progress was being made on the outline for the tri-fold
brochure pertaining to tree requirements and the development process.
ARBORIST REPORT
Mr. Combs discussed the recap of the Urban Forest division’s El Nino preparations.
The meeting adjourned at 7 p.m. to next meeting scheduled for Monday, May 23, 2016
at 5:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Woske, Recording Secretary