Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-23-2016 TC Minutes1 MEMBERS PRESENT: Matt Ritter, Angela Soll, Ben Parker, Jane Worthy, Scott Loosley STAFF PRESENT: Ron Combs Mr. Ritter called the meeting to order at 5:02 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. MINUTES: Approval of Minutes for April 25, 2016 Mr. Loosley moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Ms. Worthy seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. TREE REMOVAL APPLICATIONS 1. 275 Madonna – McDonald’s (2 camphors; 3 boxwood) Mr. Ritter was concerned about the property ownership question ad who was authorized to file the removal application and pursue action. Bob Bedard, applicant’s representative, agreed to research correct authorization and work with Mr. Combs in moving forward to the next agenda. The Committee agreed to continue the item. 2. 1369 Cavalier There was no applicant or representative to speak to the item. Minutes Tree Committee Corporation Yard Conference Room, 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo Monday, May 23, 2016 at 5:00 pm 2 3. 1062 Del Rio (2 olives) The applicant discussed the removal request and reported that the large exposed roots were causing damage to the wall and driveway and that he was concerned about possible foundation damage. He outlined a drought-tolerant landscape plan. Mr. Combs stated the trees were healthy but in the wrong location. He agreed there was damage being caused by roots. Mr. Loosley noted the tree had massive trunks. He favored retaining the front tree, as he did not see evidence of damage from that tree, and felt pruning would improve the appearance; he did favor removing the tree by the driveway due to damage. Mr. Parker felt the trees were too large for the area and too close to the house. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request, based on undue hardship to the property owner, and required replacement planting of two 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. 4. 1710 Santa Rosa (Monterey pine) Manny Guzman, City Engineer, discussed the removal request and reported that the insect infestation damaged the tree’s health. He felt root pruning would further affect the health. He discussed the need to construct a curb ramp. He suggested replacing the pine with a Jacaranda. Mr. Parker agreed there were significant infestation issues and noted the top had been broken. He felt replacing the tree would be a site improvement. Mr. Ritter moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required one 24” box replacement tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 of the tree’s removal. Mr. Loosley seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 5. 3442 & 3426 Empresa (2 pines) The applicant discussed the removal request for the trees in the parking lot islands. He reported that the large dense pine cones caused damage to cars and that the tree roots were causing hardscape displacement. He suggested replacing the trees with Chinese pistache. Mr. Combs reported that the trees were healthy and he could not make the findings necessary for removal. 3 Mr. Loosley agreed with the curb damage and noted one of the trees was hitting the lighting standards. Mr. Parker agreed the trees would only cause more damage. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request, based on undue hardship to the property owner, and required replacement planting of two 15-gallon Chinese pistache trees to be planted within 45 days of the tree removals. Mr. Loosley seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 6. 1257 – 1285 Laurel Lane (Eucalyptus) The applicant discussed the removal request and stated the tree was causing hardscape damage to the parking lot and that it was too close to building. She discussed the landscape plan and identified which trees were part of the removal request. She also referred to the proposed development plan that would warrant future removals. Mr. Combs discussed previous illegal removals onsite and the replacement requirements tied to that action. He noted ARC still needed to approve the development plan. The Committee discussed the scope of the project and the process of approvals. They agreed to continue the item to a later date, as they preferred to review the entire project after the development plans could be included and handle it as a complete removal request, with replacement plans and mitigation measures outlined for the illegal removal plantings. NEW BUSINESS 71 Palomar – Heritage Tree application Mr. Combs discussed the application and reported there was a group of residents who wanted to turn the area into a city park. He discussed the potential development planned for the site and noted that plans were preliminary and that no tree removals had been cited to date. The Committee determined that a Heritage Tree designation needed the property owner’s support to move forward. Richard Schmidt, Broad Street, made a presentation the discussed the background of the request to protect identified trees and the historic Sanford House and the neighborhood’s desire to turn the site into a much-needed city park. He stated that the site views and major collection of trees were impressive and should be enjoyed by the community. He also noted that the trees provided a natural habitat for wildlife and birds. He felt many of the trees were “Heritage-worthy” and needed to be 4 protected. He asked the Committee to review the proposal to determine if the trees were appropriate for Heritage status. Mr. Combs agreed that some of the trees had potential for Heritage designation. Rachel Cohen, associate site planner, discussed the preliminary proposal for CHC review. She noted that the development would create 32 residential units on site. Tom Jess, 1306 Johnson, project architect, was concerned that the owner was not being involved in this process. He stated that many of the trees the community is asking to protect were not located on site. He outlined plans that would include planting 38 36” box trees and moving the house to another location on site. Mila Vujovich-LaBarre, 650 Skyline, felt the development project was too massive in scale and favored creating a city park. She stated the group that was proposing the protection wanted to be “next in line” if the escrow project falls out so that they can move forward with park discussions. She also felt moving the house would damage the integrity of the historic structure and that the house needed to be Heritage-protected as well. Dia Hurd, 1642 Crestview, felt moving the house would damage the structure and agreed that the trees and views afforded by the site should be available to the community to enjoy. Cheryl McLean, 626 Mission, discussed the unmet need for a neighborhood park and agreed that the trees provide a habitat for wildlife and birds. Mike Park, Flora Street, agreed with the need to preserve the trees. He also felt the traffic-calming measures on Luneta Dr. should be retained and that a park would be a neighborhood asset. Camille Small, resident, felt the trees needed to be protected and noted that they also provided a needed buffer between the residential and student housing. Bob Lorenzo, 617 Luneta, wanted the major habitat trees to be saved and agreed they were beautiful assets. He felt the development project would ruin that area of the urban forest. Lydia Lorenzo, 617 Luneta, discussed the Heritage Tree designation and requirements, as well as the R-4 zoning history of the site. Chip Tomajani, 1632 Christina, arborist for the project, noted all of the nearby eucalyptus had been topped and were hazardous and that many of the trees being discussed would not meet Heritage Tree qualifications. Mr. Ritter clarified that staff had brought the application forth to have the Committee review trees to determine Heritage status. Mr. Combs agreed to investigate whether the property owner will consent to give Committee members access to the site to review the trees. 5 Mr. Ritter moved to have the Committee proceed with reviewing the application, if property owner will grant access. Ms. Soll seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS The Committee discussed the Tree Ordinance parameters regarding caliper measurements vs. bucket size limits for minimum diameter/ height. Mr. Combs agreed to investigate ASCA standards and bring back for discussion. ARBORIST REPORT There was no report at this time. The meeting adjourned at 7 p.m. to next meeting scheduled for Monday, June 27, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske, Recording Secretary