Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-28-2014 TC Minutes1 MEMBERS PRESENT: Patty Andreen, Jane Worthy, Trey Duffy, Scott Loosley and Ben Parker STAFF PRESENT: Ron Combs Ben Parker called the meeting to order at 5:02 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. MINUTES: Approval of Minutes of June 9, 2014 The roll call was amended to verify that Ms. Worthy was present at the meeting. The staff comments at the top of page 2 were amended to read, “The Committee agreed with Mr. Parker and determined with staff that the property owner would not likely be responsible for any sidewalk repairs, as these were street trees.” Ms. Andreen moved to approve the minutes as amended. Ms. Worthy seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. TREE REMOVAL APPLICATIONS 1. 4349 Wavertree (Canary Island pine) The applicant discussed the removal request, stating that the water line had been lifted by the roots and that the tree was splitting and in failing health. He was also concerned about large cones dropping from such a tall height and felt the tree was a Minutes Tree Committee Corporation Yard Conference Room, 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo Monday, July 28, 2014 at 5:00 pm 2 liability. He also submitted a letter from a neighbor who favored removal. He noted that his property was well planted but if replacement was required, he was considering a redwood. Mr. Combs reported that the large tree was in moderate health and that there was no species indicated by the HOA. Mr. Loosley noted that the tree had an odd structure and appeared to be failing. He felt the tree was too large in the small space and was impacting the neighborhood. He did not think a redwood was a good replacement species. The Committee agreed with Mr. Loosley’s comments. Mr. Loosley moved to approve the removal request, based on a promoting good arboricultural practice, and required a replacement planting of a 15-gallon tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of the tree’s removal. Mr. Duffy seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Parker asked the applicant to replace the banding on the tree and asked staff to replace the signage during the 10-day waiting period prior to removal. 2. 311 Jeffrey (Palm) Bill Fairbanks, applicant’s representative, discussed the removal request and reported that the extremely large tree was dropping heavy fronds, creating a liability on the streets and interfering with phone line cables. He discussed the drainage issues that created flooding and outlined how the tree interfered with planned landscaping plans. Mr. Combs reported that the tall tree was healthy. Ms. Andreen suggested the main issues might be mitigated with pruning and that PG&E might be able to better determine if the tree was a hazard. Mr. Duffy felt that a landscaping and site development plan should have been submitted as part of the Committee’s consideration. Mr. Parker and Mr. Loosley agreed with the need for maintenance on the tree and favored reviewing a landscaping plan. Ms. Worthy noted she was unable to view the tree. 3 Mr. Loosley moved to continue the item to allow applicant time to submit a landscaping plan and further evidence of hardship. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Ms. Worthy abstaining. 3. 1204 Iris (3 eucalyptus) The applicant discussed the removal request, citing fire hazards and falling debris/oils that created toxic soil. He stated he could not use or properly landscape his backyard due to the shading and soil issues. He noted that the tree was a non-native species and felt the nearby riparian vegetation would thrive with the trees’ removals. He submitted letters from neighbors, favoring the removal request. He favored replacing the trees with sycamores. Mr. Combs reported that the trees were healthy and had been previously pruned, but agreed they were smothering nearby trees. Mr. Parker discussed the low concern of fire issues. Ms. Worthy agreed that nothing could grow under the tree and that enjoyment of the backyard was curtailed. She noted there were several other eucalyptus in the area. Mr. Loosley noted that Tree #1 had a large wound and Tree #2 was structurally damaged and removal would not harm the character of the neighborhood. He felt Tree #3 could be retained. Ms. Andreen agreed that removal would not harm the character of the neighborhood and that the trees were creating a hardship. Mr. Duffy appreciated the revitalization of the property and agreed with the hardship issues, favoring removing Trees #1 and #2. Mr. Duffy moved to approve the removal request, based on a promoting good arboricultural practice and that doing so would not harm the character or environment of the neighborhood, and required a replacement planting of three 15-gallon sycamore trees to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of the tree removals. Ms. Andreen seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 4 4. 1991 Partridge (Sycamore) The applicant discussed the removal request and his desire to go with 100% drought tolerant landscaping. He stated the root system was impacting the house and the sidewalk and submitted a petition signed by neighbors, favoring the removal. He did not think removal would harm the character of the neighborhood and stated that he wanted to replace the tree with a 36” box arbutus marina. Mr. Combs reported that the large healthy tree had been topped and had surface roots growing across the lawn. Mr. Parker noted the tree had come to Committee for removal three years ago, citing significant lean issues, and had not been approved. He felt now with the landscaping plans and the neighbors’ approval, removing the tree would not harm the character of the neighborhood. Ms. Worthy stated the tree had been badly pruned and noted that there were no other street trees in the area. Mr. Loosley moved to approve the removal request, based on a promoting good arboricultural practice, and required a replacement planting of a 36” box arbutus marina to be planted within 45 days of the tree’s removal. Ms. Worthy seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 5. 870 Dahlia (2 date palms) The applicant discussed the removal request and was concerned about danger and liability associated with the trees. She stated the thorns/needles were a true safety hazard, the trees attracted rodents, and the roots had broken the sprinkler system and damaged the house. She suggested the trees could be transplanted. Mr. Combs reported that the small trees were healthy. Mr. Loosley moved to approve the trees’ removals so they could be transplanted and required two 15-gallon trees to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted in the backyard within 45 days of the tree removals. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 5 6. 2975 Rockview (#3, #6, #9, #10, #19) (5 Liquid Ambers) Tim Biel, HOA representative, discussed the removal request that had previously been continued and reported there was hardscape damage, trip hazards, and the roots were causing foundation damage to some of the units. He favored replacement with Chinese pistache species. Matt Lodge, resident at #19, discussed the damage caused at his site and noted that the sidewalk to the laundry room was lifting. Leslie Washburn, #17, wanted the trees to be retained and felt they were an asset to the property and provided shade and privacy. Heather Budnarowski, #17, agreed with Ms. Washburn and felt the tree removals would harm the character of the neighborhood and that planting new trees required too much water. Ron Rinnell, applicant’s representative, felt that extensive damage would be inevitable with such an intrusive root system. He agreed that regular maintenance was required and felt root pruning would be a temporary fix. Mr. Combs reported that the trees were healthy, but did pose significant root issues. He noted the trees were part of an approved landscaping plan for the development. Ms. Andreen agreed that #19 should be removed and was concerned about future damage. Mr. Duffy felt that if the HOA supported the removals, the Committee should defer to that decision. Mr. Parker agreed that significant problems with the hardscape would occur and favored removal of all with replacement. Mr. Loosley felt the ones by #11 and #6 should be retained and favored removing #3 and #19. Mr. Parker and Mr. Loosley felt the HOA should submit a removal plan for all Liquid Amber on site, if that is the HOA goal. Ms. Andreen moved to approve the removal request for Trees #19, #9, and #3, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required three 15-gallon trees to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of the tree removals. The motion passed, with Mr. Parker and Mr. Loosley voting against. 6 7. 9 ½ Perla Lane (2 Italian Stone pines) John Polk, Los Verdes Park representative, discussed the removal request. He reported that past removals had been approved due to hardscape damage and was concerned that these two pines were causing root damage to the pool area and presenting a liability. He noted that prior limb breakage had caused roof damage just last week and was concerned about further droppage. Shaun Collarman, Bunyon Brothers, stated that root damage was evident and the rotted limb that had dropped showed no previous evidence of decay. Mr. Rinnell added that this was a high traffic area and the failing trees caused liability issues. Mr. Combs reported that the large trees appeared healthy and that the patio is starting to buckle. He felt the trees had weak structure that would be a problem as they age. Mr. Loosley noted the Italian Stone pines were theme trees at the entrances. He favored removal of the tree to the right and noted that the eastside tree might be questionable. Ms. Worthy agreed with evidence of current damage and felt there was concern for future liability and damage. Mr. Parker agreed the trees were aging poorly. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request, based on a promoting good arboricultural practice, and required two 15-gallon replacement trees to be chosen from the Master Street Tree listed and planted within 45 days of the tree removals. Ms. Andreen seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 8. 1285 Ella The application has been withdrawn. 9. 985 Vista Collados (Alleppo pine) Mr. Rinnell, applicant’s representative, discussed the removal request and reported that the trees had been planted too close to the fence and that as it got larger, would cause further issues at the fence line. He suggested replacement planting with the safer tree away from the fence. 7 Mr. Combs reported they were medium sized healthy tree, causing fence damage. Ms. Andreen noted that neighbor Bob Johnson had told her that he favored retaining the trees. Ms. Worthy felt the trees were significant to the skyline and unless they were in decline, she could not make the necessary findings for removal. Mr. Loosley felt the lean was due to prevailing winds and believed the tree to be healthy and did not see significant damage to the fence. Ms. Worthy moved to deny the removal request, as she could not make the findings necessary to approve the removal. Mr. Duffy seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 10. 151 Hathway (Ash) Mr. Rinnell, applicant’s representative, discussed the removal request and noted the tree had poor structure and co-dominant limbs with included bark. He stated the applicant was concerned about liability. He suggested a 3:1 replacement of sycamores on the property. Mr. Loosley did not agree that the structure was poor and felt the tree could be pruned. He did not favor removal and noted previous removals had left the area very stark. Ms. Worthy agreed with Mr. Loosley and felt it was a skyline tree. Mr. Loosley moved to deny the removal request, as he could not make the findings necessary to approve the removal. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 11. 1345 Oakwood The application has been withdrawn. 8 12. 1745 Nipomo (4 palms) The applicant discussed the removal request and stated the issues with dropping fronds, which were dangerous to cars and pedestrians. He stated they were too large for the area and that three of them were situated on top of water and sewer lines. One of the trees was too close to the greenhouse and falling fronds had broken windows. He stated maintaining the trees proved a financial hardship, his neighbor would not grant access on her property to allow for proper maintenance and that tenants were threatening to sue if they were not removed. Jim Pugh, Greenvale Tree, stated the three trees along the property line were the most concerning re liability and hazard. Mr. Combs reported that the large trees were healthy. Ms. Worthy felt the one by the street should remain, but favored removal of the other three. Mr. Loosley felt they were skyline trees and maintenance was not a reason to remove them. Mr. Parker agreed the three by the house were getting too large to the location. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request of the three along the property line, based on undue hardship to the property owner, and required three 15-gallon trees to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of tree removals. Ms. Andreen seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Mr. Loosley and Mr. Duffy voting against. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Combs introduced new Committee member, Ryan Baker. OLD BUSINESS Review Draft Tree Committee Letter Mr. Combs agreed the send the two drafts out to members for their review and comment. ARBORIST REPORT 9 Recap of CA Urban Forest Council 2014 Annual Conference Mr. Combs discussed the seminar. The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. to next regular meeting scheduled for Monday, August 25, 2014, at 5:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske, Recording Secretary