Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-25-2014 TC Minutes1 MEMBERS PRESENT: Patty Andreen, Jane Worthy, Trey Duffy, Ryan Baker, Scott Loosley, Matt Ritter and Ben Parker STAFF PRESENT: Ron Combs Matt Ritter called the meeting to order at 5 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENT Sarah Flickinger, Los Verdes Park #1 resident, was concerned about the HOA removing a significant number of mature trees and stated that more removals were pending (approx. 30). She also noted that required replacement plantings have not been completed. She stated that mature trees provided sound barriers and shelter and felt that the HOA was being too aggressive about removals and that maintenance was lacking. She did not believe all the removals were necessary and that root barriers might mitigate any issues. Mr. Combs agreed to investigate previous removals and replacement requirements. MINUTES: Approval of Minutes of July 28, 2014 Ms. Andreen moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. TREE REMOVAL APPLICATIONS 1. 1172-1178 Leff St. (Aleppo pine) Steve Franzman, applicant’s representative, discussed the removal request and stated the tree was only in fair health and had poor structure; he felt it presented undue hardship and removal would promote good arboricultural practice. He reported that the roots were cracking the driveway and creating a sinkhole. Mr. Combs stated that he felt the large tree was a healthy skyline tree and that there was evidence of hardscape damage. Minutes Tree Committee Corporation Yard Conference Room, 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo Monday, August 25, 2014 at 5:00 pm 2 Mr. Loosley agreed the tree was healthy and was not convinced the damage was all due to the roots; he felt the driveway could be repaired and reinforced to mitigate future damage. Mr. Parker agreed with Mr. Loosley. Ms. Andreen and Mr. Baker were concerned about possible safety issues with falling limbs. Mr. Duffy noted he had not been able to view the tree. Mr. Franzman elaborated on the evidence of root damage at the sidewalk/approach and did not feel root pruning was advisable as part of repairing the driveway. Committee wanted to determine that the driveway could not be effectively re-designed to accommodate keeping the tree. Mr. Loosley moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, contingent upon a determination by the City Arborist that the root zone was damaging the pavement and that a, driveway re-design, could not be created to retain the tree. If removed, he required a 24” Arbutus marina to be planted within 45 days of tree removal. Ms. Andreen seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Mr. Duffy abstaining. 2. 447 Cuesta - WITHDRAWN 3. Los Verdes Park II (Italian stone pine) The applicant’s representative discussed the removal request and stated that the tree was diseased, planted too close to the houses, and that it presented significant danger to structures and residents. Mr. Ritter moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice and required one 15-gallon tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of the tree removal. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 4. 351 San Miguel (Live oak) The applicant discussed the removal request, noting that the tree chronically and significantly exacerbated his wife’s allergies and asthma conditions. He felt the tree was too close to the retaining wall and the impacted pepper tree nearby could thrive if the oak was removed. He stated the property was fairly well planted. Mr. Combs reported that the healthy, small native oak was similar to a backyard tree due to its location. 3 Mr. Duffy was concerned about removing a specific tree for health reasons. Mr. Baker did not think removal would harm the character of the neighborhood. Ms. Andreen agreed that the pepper tree would thrive if the oak were removed. Ms. Worthy favored retaining the healthy tree. Mr. Parker felt the tree was a “volunteer” and not significant to the neighborhood; he also agreed the pepper tree would thrive with the oak’s removal. Mr. Loosley agreed with Mr. Parker. Mr. Ritter did not think allergies were typically tied to trees and felt the surrounding grasses and blooms were more responsible for allergies. He agreed that removal would not harm the neighborhood. Mr. Ritter moved to approve the removal request, based on doing so would not harm the character of the environment or neighborhood and required one 15-gallon tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of the tree removal. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Ms. Worthy voting against. 5. 1709 Tanglewood (Pine) The applicant discussed the removal request and property improvements and noted nearby pines had been removed due to infestation. She submitted pictures verifying that the tree was leaning, causing damage to the driveway, and was too close to the power lines and felt that this tree was failing and infested. She submitted a petition of support for removal by the neighbors. She discussed new landscaping plans that included repairing the driveway and felt the construction of such would damage the root zone. She stated the buckling of the driveway created drainage issues for the house and garage entries. She wanted to replace with three redbuds. Chris Stier, Greenvale Tree, confirmed the tree had increasing dead limbs that created a flat-sided tree that was also becoming infested. He agreed the tree was too close to the driveway grading project to survive. Mr. Combs agreed the tree was failing and too close to the power lines. Bea Elder, 1701 Tanglewood, shared concerns about the dead limbs and the tree’s disease and favored removal. Mr. Parker agreed the tree was declining and had been poorly pruned. 4 Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice and required one 15-gallon redbud tree to be planted within 45 days of the tree removal. Mr. Ritter seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 6. 1320 Archer (Avocado, acacia) The applicant discussed the removal request, noting that the acacia had split trunks and dead limbs and that the avocado was attracting rats and was constantly littering the handicapped parking area, causing a liability issue. He did not feel removal of either tree would harm the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Combs agreed that the acacia could be removed, but stated the avocado was healthy. The Committee agreed to handle the trees separately. Mr. Ritter moved to approve the removal of the acacia, based on promoting good arboricultural practice and required one 15-gallon tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of the tree removal. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Andreen felt the avocado was a skyline tree. She agreed the tree presented a nuisance, but did not feel that was a reason for removal. Mr. Parker moved to deny the removal request for the avocado tree, based on not being able to make any of the necessary findings for removal approval. Mr. Loosley seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Mr. Duffy voting against. Mr. Parker encouraged the applicant to investigate gaining Heritage status for the nearby magnolia tree on the property. 7. 1351 Royal (2 Italian stone pines) Chris Stier, applicant’s representative, discussed the removal request, stating that the roots had damaged gas and water lines and that the two trees were planted too closely together. Mr. Ritter moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice and required two 15-gallon redbud trees to be planted within 45 days of the tree removals. Mr. Loosley seconded the motion. 5 The motion passed unanimously. 8. 1701 Fredericks - WITHDRAWN 9. 235 Mission (2 Monterey pines) The applicant discussed the removal request, stating that the trees were failing and had significant disease and that he intended to do replacement planting. Mr. Combs agreed the trees were failing and in a very dry location and that they would not likely survive. Mr. Duffy reported that a neighbor had expressed a concern to him about the trees providing possible wildlife habitats. Ms. Andreen moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice and required two 15-gallon trees to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of the tree removals. Mr. Duffy seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 10. 1433 Calle Joaquin (5 redwoods; 2 ash) Shaun Collarman, applicant’s representative, discussed the removal request and reported on the major hardscape root damage created at the nearby car dealership, as well as trees dripping on paint finishes of the cars for sale. He felt this created undue hardship on the dealership. He discussed Motel 6’s plans to re-grade the area to help drainage issues and their plan to plant up to 10 trees to screen and mitigate issues for the dealership. He submitted a landscape plan and felt removal of all the trees would promote good arboricultural practice. Mr. Combs noted structural flaw with the ash and agreed that the redwood by the hydrant could be removed, but felt the rest of the trees were healthy. He reported that the car dealership was pushing for the tree removals and that Motel 6 was cooperating. Ms. Worthy favored retaining redwood #6 & #7. Ron Rinnell, representative, stating the roots of those trees were creating hardscape damage and limbs were hanging over the cars. He felt grading would be impaired if those two trees were retained and that there were too many roots to be removed to keep the trees viable. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice and required 10 trees as outlined in the replacement planting proposal to be planted within 45 days of the tree removals. Mr. Loosley seconded the motion. 6 The motion passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Ritter reported to staff that the replacement planting at McCarthy’s had not happened yet. Mr. Ritter requested that the Sept. and Oct. meeting dates be adjusted to accommodate his teaching schedule. The Committee agreed to the following date changes for upcoming meetings:  Tuesday, September 30, 2014  Tuesday, October 28, 2014  Moving the November meeting to Tuesday, December 9, 2014  Cancelling December regular meeting Mr. Duffy felt there needed to be some Committee discussion on whether HOA’s should provide minutes/documentation from meetings that included discussion of approval/endorsement of tree removals when making HOA removal requests. He also felt that root damage evidence should be confirmed via a structural engineer report or similar documentation instead of moving on assumptions that roots are responsible for damage. OLD BUSINESS Review Draft Tree Committee Letters Mr. Combs agreed the send the three drafts out to members electronically for their review and comment. The Committee agreed they preferred the “bulleted” format and that they would finalize the final draft at the next meeting. ARBORIST REPORT Downtown Renewal Project Mr. Combs discussed the Higuera St. project and requested the Committee review two of the Higuera trees slated for removal. The Committee agreed to do so and directed staff to put the request on the next meeting agenda. The meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m. to next regular meeting scheduled for Tuesday, September 30, 2014 (new date) at 5:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske, Recording Secretary