Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-27-2016 TC Minutes1 MEMBERS PRESENT: Angela Soll, Ben Parker, Alan Bate, Jane Worthy, Scott Loosley, Susan Olson STAFF PRESENT: Ron Combs Mr. Parker called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. New Committee member Alan Bate was introduced, but would not be voting on any action items at this time. PUBLIC COMMENT 71 Palomar: San Luis Obispo residents Lydia Mourenza, Cheryl McLean, and Mila Vujovich-LaBarre spoke to the Committee about their perception that the minutes from May 23, 2016 regular meeting were not accurate or complete regarding the discussion held for the 71 Palomar project and they requested that the minutes not be approved at this time as they believed key points were either not included in the original minutes or had been removed from the submitted document. They also encouraged the Committee to start taping meetings so the audio could be uploaded onto the website and details were not solely left to recollecting or handwritten note-taking. They suggested being able to review the recording secretary’s notes. Mr. Combs assured them that the content of the minutes had not been altered after they were submitted in draft form. The recording secretary noted that she did not archive her hand-written notes once the minutes were submitted to staff for approval and explained that she was charged to take “action minutes,” which were designed to give an overview of any discussion and outline the specifics of actions taken by the Committee. The residents gave examples of perceived omissions and upon Committee reviews of the minutes, several of the residents’ concerns were addressed when it was determined mentions had been made, although not in comprehensive detail. They took issue with the fact that architect Tom Jess offered a document for a few Committee members to scan while he stated that a large number of the trees in question were not on the Palomar property and when he gave an overview plan for moving the house on site and that this document was not made available for public review via copies for the audience. Minutes Tree Committee Corporation Yard Conference Room, 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo Monday, June 27, 2016 at 5:00 pm 2 It was also their understanding that the Palomar property would be reviewed by the Committee and a subsequent report discussion would be included on the June meeting agenda and questioned why the item was not included. Mr. Combs stated that the Committee did not receive the required permission from the property owner to make a site evaluation visit and that due to legal questions that have arisen between the property owner’s and City’s attorneys, staff was directed to not put the item on the agenda, pending further review. The residents stated that they had been granted access to the property by the residing tenant and believed that the Committee members could be given similar access by this tenant to review the trees. Mr. Loosley reiterated that the Committee was unauthorized to review any site evaluation without the express permission of the property owner. The residents stated once again that they believed removing the proposed trees would be clear-cutting the property and that property project development needed to be suspended until the Heritage status of said trees could be determined and the project could be subjected to further review and consideration prior to moving forward. In addition to the above comments about the May 23, 2016 minutes, Ms. Mourenza noted that her name had been spelled wrong and Ms. McLean corrected her address. MINUTES: Approval of Minutes for May 23, 2016 The Committee agreed to remove the New Business section regarding the 71 Palomar site from the minutes that were slated to be approved. Ms. Olson noted that she was not at the previous meeting. Mr. Loosley moved to approve the minutes as amended. Ms. Worthy seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Ms. Olson and Mr. Bate abstaining. TREE REMOVAL APPLICATIONS 1. 1085 Fuller (London plane; silver maple) Doug Perrin, applicant, discussed the removal request and a proposed landscape plan that included replacement plantings of Arbutus Marina, which the HOA had already approved. He reported on the major root damage on the property due to the silver maple, which also had included bark and failing health. He stated that tree had outgrown the area. He noted that the sycamore was diseased and looked terrible most of the year and that its large surface roots posed a hazard to utility boxes. He felt a variety of species in the neighborhood would be better for the neighborhood. 3 Mr. Combs agreed that the large maple had damaged the fence and planter and that the front sycamore was showing disease and interfering with the utilities. Ron Rinnell, Bunyon Bros., agreed that the tree was out of scale and that previous treatments for the sycamore’s disease had not been successful. Ms. Worthy suggested retaining the sycamore and creating more drought-tolerant plans. Mr. Loosley noted that both trees were providing shade and noted that drought-tolerant landscaping would not work with the sycamore. He stated he was reluctant to remove large trees in the area. Ms. Olson moved to approve the 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 within 45 days of the tree removals. The motion died for lack of a second. Ms. Worthy moved to approve the request to only remove the maple, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required replacement planting of 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, with Mr. Bate abstaining. Mr. Loosley moved to approve the removal request for the sycamore, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required replacement planting of one 15- gallon Coast Live Oak to be planted within 45 days of the tree’s removal. Ms. Olson seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Ms. Worthy voting against and Mr. Bate abstaining. 2. 1369 Cavalier There was no applicant or representative to speak to the item. 3. 1621 Cordova (Canary Island pine) Lynn Wiech, applicant, discussed the removal request, stating the tree was right next to the sidewalk and was damaging the hardscape. She noted that there was a healthy Valley Oak near the house that was unable to thrive because of the pine; she did not feel the pine removal would be missed in the neighborhood. Mr. Combs reported that the large tree was causing some vertical displacement and that the sidewalk had already been ground down and issue would just continue. He noted the tree’s lean and suggested it was possible it could interfere with the utility box. 4 Philip Webb, 1641 Cordova, stated the magnitude of the tree was negatively affecting his property and felt it will cause problems with sewer line and driveway. He discussed drought-tolerant plantings that would not be delivering any water to the tree and noted that excessive pollen damaged the paint on cars parked beneath it. He favored removing the tree and stated he would plant a tree on his property if it was removed. Ms. Worthy moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required replacement planting of one 15-gallon tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of the tree’s removals. Mr. Loosley seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Mr. Bate abstaining. 4. 857 Santa Rosa (Ficus) Ron Rinnell, applicant’s representative, discussed the removal request, reporting that the tree was causing major damage to the sidewalk and interfering with the entrance to the building and that the roots were lifting/impacting the stairs. He did not feel root pruning was an option. He stated the tree was out of scale for the area and the hardscape damage was continual and extensive. Mr. Combs agreed that the hardscape damage was evident and that the street tree was causing significant issues. Ms. Olson did not favor removing such a magnificent tree and asked if there could be any mitigation measures taken to retain it and asked staff if the City might be able to do anything. Mr. Combs stated that he tried to find a way to retain the tree and still have property maintenance be feasible, but he was unsuccessful in doing so. Mr. Parker noted it would continue to grow and then would create ADA issues by growing too close to the porch. Ms. Worthy did not favor removing a healthy gateway tree. Mr. Loosley felt it was too large for the location and did not think the tree could be retained and maintain the building as well. Bill Carpenter, applicant, reported that $79K had been spent to fix the sewer lateral and root intrusion issues. There was Committee discussion with the property owners about possible alterations to the building and property to allow the tree to remain and the owners stated they could not come up with any plan and maintenance/improvements that did not involve having to remove the tree. Ms. Olson moved to deny the removal request, as such removal would harm the character of the surrounding neighborhood and environment. 5 Ms. Worthy seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Mr. Parker and Mr. Loosley voting against and Mr. Bate abstaining. 5. 3176 Flora (3 Liquid Ambars) Paul Lovelle, applicant, discussed the removal request and the need to replace the sewer line. He outlined sidewalk issues created by Tree A and his concern about the nearby water line becoming impacted. He submitted a petition from neighbors, favoring the tree removals. He felt that while Tree A was the problem, the other two parkway trees were cracking the driveway and were going to create progressive issues and offered to replace them as well with a more suitable species. He reported that several plumbers had recommended the removal of Tree A in specific and that the need to clean out the lines were now presenting every few months, getting increasingly tighter in timing between plumber work. Mr. Combs agreed that the large surface roots of Tree A were causing problems and that all three trees had created curb/gutter repairs in the past. He stated the City was agreeable to the applicant replacing all three trees. Ms. Soll moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice and undue hardship on the property owner, and required replacement planting of three 15-gallon trees to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted in the parkway area within 45 days of the tree removals. Ms. Olson seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Mr. Bates abstaining. NEW BUSINESS There were no items to discuss. OLD BUSINESS Revising City’s Engineering Standards regarding caliper size requirement of Street Tree plantings Mr. Combs discussed the ASCA engineering standards regarding increased caliper measurements, bucket size limits, and structural soils specifications. The Committee discussed the report and favored the increased sizings for the downtown area and felt that structural soils specifications should be considered. Ms. Soll moved to recommend that the City’s Engineering Standards increase to a 36” box size to be used in the Downtown Core. 6 Mr. Loosley seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Loosley moved to incorporate the 2009 Guideline Specifications for Nursery Tree Quality into the City’s Planting Standards. Ms. Soll seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. ARBORIST REPORT There was no report at this time. The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m. to next meeting scheduled for Monday, July 25, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske, Recording Secretary