Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-09-2014 TC Minutes1 MEMBERS PRESENT: Patty Andreen, Matt Ritter, Trey Duffy, and Ben Parker STAFF PRESENT: Ron Combs, Anthony Whipple PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. MINUTES: Approval of Minutes of April 28, 2014 Mr. Parker moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Duffy seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Ms. Andreen abstaining. TREE REMOVAL APPLICATIONS 1. 2640 El Cerrito (2 Ficus) Sophia Scheicker, applicant, discussed the removal request, stating that the trees are too large, expensive to maintain, and that the root system is extensive. She was very concerned about possible sidewalk damage and having to bear the expense to fix the sidewalk. Shaun Collarman, Bunyan Bros., reported that he had spoken to the applicant about her root concerns regarding the sidewalk and stated that root pruning was not an option. Mr. Combs reported the small, young trees were healthy and that there was minor sidewalk displacement by the corner. Minutes Tree Committee Corporation Yard Conference Room, 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo Monday, June 9, 2014 at 5:00 pm 2 Mr. Ritter read a letter of protest from one of the neighbors. Mr. Parker stated that the sidewalk damage was minimal and agreed that removal would affect the neighborhood. The Committee agreed with Mr. Parker and determined with staff that the property owner would not be responsible for any sidewalk repairs, as these were street trees. Mr. Parker moved to deny the removal request, as he could not make any of the necessary findings to approve the removal. Ms. Andreen seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 2. 282 Chorro (oak) David Glidden, applicant’s representative, discussed the removal request and reported that the fence was in major need of repair and that fence replacement could not be done with the tree in place. He also noted evidence of infestation or disease and that it leans dangerously close to the bedroom and was entangled in utility wires. In addition, he wanted the fence repaired to keep the neighbor’s large dog off his property. He stated the neighbor favored removal, as the tree made it difficult to plant on their property. Mr. Combs reported that it was a large oak showing some pockets of decay. Mr. Parker agreed there was minor insect activity, but felt maintenance would mitigate issues and suggested the fence line be refigured to accommodate the tree. Ms. Worthy and Mr. Duffy did not feel the fence could effectively be built with the tree in place. Ms. Andreen agreed with Ms. Worthy and Ms. Duffy and felt the lean was concerning and that the tree was in failing health. Mr. Ritter moved to approve the removal request, based on doing so would not harm the character of the neighborhood or the environment and required one 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. 3 3. 805 Boysen (7 eucalyptus; 1 willow) Mr. Ritter clarified that the willow was mis-identified as a bottlebrush; consequently, three Committee members did not view the correct tree. Steven Sola, applicant, discussed the removal request and stated that the willow is causing sewer issues and that the eucalyptus were causing drainage issues and gutter damage. He said the willow had been pruned extensively. Mr. Combs reported that the eucalyptuses were in fairly good shape and that the willow had been excessively pruned. He suggested that any replacement trees should be large species and planted further inside the property line. Amy Tran, resident, stated that the trees provided shade and privacy for her apartment and that they seemed to be bird habitats. She strongly urged to retain them. Mr. Parker felt the eucalyptus were causing the sewer line damage but did not see enough evidence of other damage to warrant removal. He suggested an engineer address the water/drainage issues with the neighboring apartment building, as he did not think the trees were the causing any impact there. Ms. Worthy did not see evidence of any hardscape damage and noted that she had not viewed the willow. Mr. Duffy stated he had not viewed the willow, but felt if there were problems with the neighbor property, someone from that property should make a statement. Ms. Andreen did not feel there was enough information to address the drainage issues. The Committee agreed to continue the item to a date uncertain so the applicant could provide more mitigation information and drainage issue discussion and to allow all members time to view the correct (peppermint willow) tree. 4. 1343 Fernwood Dr. Mr. Combs stated the application had been withdrawn. 5. 497 Woodbridge (Canary Island pine) Larry Todd, applicant, discussed the removal request and distribute site photos. He was concerned about hazard and liability issues as the tree had a double trunk and dropped huge cones and discussed past significant limb breakage. He noted that the nearby holly oak could not thrive under the tree. He submitted a petition from the 4 neighbors in support of the removal and noted that his property was heavily planted. Mr. Duffy reported that he had not been able to view the tree. Mr. Combs stated the large tree was healthy and he could not make findings for removal. Mr. Parker and Mr. Ritter stated concerns about the double leader and that the tree was too close to the structure. Mr. Ritter moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required one 15-gallon to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of tree’s removal. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Mr. Duffy abstaining. 6. 1279 Descanso (Italian Stone pine) Chea Hall, applicant, discussed the removal request and stated that the roots were damaging the walkway, the tree posed a fire hazard, no landscaping could thrive under the tree in the front yard, and the neighbor’s tree was being damaged by the pine. Mr. Combs noted that the tree was a bit drought-stressed. Mr. Ritter and Mr. Duffy reported that they had not seen the tree. Saeed Niku, neighbor, discussed the aggressive growth of the tree over his property and the damage it was causing to his property’s tree and his gutters. He favored removal with replacement and did not think it was a theme tree for the neighborhood. Mr. Parker agreed that the tree roots were an issue and that species was unremarkable. Ms. Worthy and Ms. Andreen agreed. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice and undue hardship to the property owner and that doing so would not harm the character of the neighborhood or the environment and required one 15-gallon to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of tree’s removal. 5 Ms. Worthy seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Mr. Ritter and Mr. Duffy abstaining. 7. 2975 Rockview (5 liquid amber) Bill Van Horbeck, applicant’s representative, discussed the removal request and stated the trees were too large for the space, were causing hardscape damage, and blocking the streetlight. Mr. Combs noted the trees were part of an approved development plan in the area. Curt Shram, resident at #14 and HOA board member, requested the item be continued to allow time to gather more information about the removal itself. The Committee agreed to continue the item to a date uncertain. 8. 871 Pacific (Pepper) Ron Rinnell, applicant’s representative, discussed the removal request and stated that the tree was misshapen, its structure was unstable and that nearby construction had damaged the tree. He felt there was undue hardship on the property owner and that removing the tree would not harm the character of the neighborhood or the environment. Mr. Combs discussed aspects of the construction project and the extreme lack of tree protection during excavation. He felt it would be difficult to save the tree. Mr. Duffy reported that he had not seen the tree. Ms. Worthy spoke against the contractor’s handling of tree care on site. Mr. Ritter moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required two 24”-box replacements to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of trees’ removal. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Mr. Duffy abstaining and Ms. Worthy voting against. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Combs discussed the Downtown Planting area and the minimum diameter standards for 24’ box specimens. He agreed to send the current draft of standards/language and any revision suggestions to the Committee for review. 6 OLD BUSINESS There was continued discussion on possible revisions to the Tree Division forms, letters, and sign posting enhancements. The Committee felt there needed to be a letter of explanation about the removal permit process and criteria for allowing removals. They did not feel the posting sign needed to be revised. ARBORIST REPORT Mr. Whipple discussed the successful June 7th woodchip give-away and stated that there would be another give-away scheduled for the fall. The meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m. to next regular meeting scheduled for Monday, July 28, 2014, at 5:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske, Recording Secretary