Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-27-2015 TC Minutes1 MEMBERS PRESENT: Ben Parker, Jane Worthy, Patty Andreen, Trey Duffy, Scott Loosley STAFF PRESENT: Ron Combs Mr. Parker called the meeting to order at 5 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENT There were no comments at this time. MINUTES: Approval of Minutes of June 22, 2015 An instance was noted wherein “Ficus tree” was typed as “focus tree.” Ms. Andreen moved to approve the minutes as amended. Mr. Loosley seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. TREE REMOVAL APPLICATIONS 1. 1 Highland Drive The item had been withdrawn. 2. 1825 Gathe (3 fan palms) Shawn Collarman, Bunyan Brothers representative, discussed the removal request and the past maintenance done on the palms. He noted the root damage to the hardscape and stated that dropping fronds were ruining the roof. He felt the ongoing maintenance required indicated hardship. Minutes Tree Committee Corporation Yard Conference Room, 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo Monday, July 27, 2015 at 5:00 pm 2 Mr. Combs reported that the trees were healthy and he could not make his findings necessary to allow removal. He did note the front tree was tight against the building. Mr. Loosley agreed the front tree was too close to the structure but did not feel the other trees were causing issues and just needed to be maintained. Mr. Parker and Mr. Duffy agreed. Ms. Andreen stated that two neighbors told her that they did not favor removal. She felt the trees were skyline and that maintenance was needed. Mr. Duffy moved to approve removal of the front tree only, based on undue hardship, requiring one 15-gallon replacement planting to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted by December 31, 2015, and to deny the removal of the other two trees, as he could not make the findings necessary for approval. Ms. Andreen seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 3. 549 Buchon (Misc. trees) The applicant discussed the removal request and the development plans for the property. He stated that the property was too shaded, the palm was lifting the driveway, and there had been PG&E topping issues. The location of the magnolia would interfere with construction. Mr. Combs reported that the tree was pushing on the fence and that there were staff concerns about loss of canopy in the area. He discussed the development plans and noted the magnolia was under the diameter limits. Christie Cutter, 557 Buchon, discussed replacement plantings that would tolerate wind and not interfere with utility wires. Ms. Worthy shared the concern about loss of canopy and felt any replacement trees should enhance the street and the skyline. Mr. Loosley agreed that the walnut trees were disfigured and could be removed and that the palm was interfering with utility wires. He felt the magnolia was stressed, but the other palm was healthy. Mr. Duffy and Mr. Parker favored the plans for the property and agreed with the removals. 3 Ms. Andreen moved to approve the removal request, based on undue hardship and promoting good arboricultural practice, and required two 15-gallon street trees planted in the front and a minimum of three 15-gallon trees to be planted in the back, all to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted by final project sign-off. Mr. Duffy seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 4. 1618 Woodland (Misc. eucalyptus) 1626 Woodland (Misc. eucalyptus_ John Conway, 1618 Woodland, discussed his removal request, noting that past pruning was not mitigating hazard and liability concerns. He reported that limb droppage had damaged the house and roof and that the trees presented a fire hazard. He felt removal would allow nearby oaks to thrive and enhance the open space in general. He stated he only wanted to remove the trees closest to the property. He showed a video that outlined the roof tile damage issues. Jerry Schwoerer, 1626 Woodland, discussed his removal request and echoed Mr. Conway’s comments and hazard concerns for his own property. Roy Rawlings, 1642 Woodland, agreed with the liability issues of the trees when windy and felt the trees posed a fire hazard. He supported both removal applications. Linda Rawlings, 1642 Woodland, discussed the accumulation of bark in the dry creek and felt that posed a potential hazard in the future. Shawn Collarman, Bunyan Brothers, discussed previous eucalyptus removals in the area and agreed with the safety issues posed by the trees near the houses. Mr. Combs reported that the large creek-setting trees were relatively healthy and that he could not make the findings necessary for removal. He noted that the Natural Resource Manager had reviewed the area and suggested staggered removals once nesting issues were resolved. Mr. Parker felt that appropriate City staff needed to further review the EIR report and the development project overall to then work with property owners to determine the best process to remove a large number of trees located on what is actually City property. The Committee agreed that the area needed to be addressed with a whole-area view and not in a piece-meal approach. 4 The applicants reiterated their extreme concern for liability and safety and felt that the longer those trees were allowed to remain, the higher the safety risks become. Ms. Worthy moved to continue both items to allow appropriate City staff and representatives to review and report back with an area-wide approach. Mr. Loosley seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 5. 347 Branch (Redwood and Acacia) The applicant discussed the removal request and noted the redwood was mounding and lifting the yard, damaging the concrete and the window framing. He also believed the front part of the tree was dead. He stated that the acacia in the back was damaging the hardscape and had suffered poor pruning in the past. Lyn & Sunshine Cowgill, 403 Branch, each felt the specimens were landmark trees and removals would be a loss to the neighborhood. They stated that the current City pruning and removal program in the area had already affected the feel of the neighborhood and requested that alternate mitigation be explored. Mr. Combs reported that the acacia in the back did not have strong structure and the healthy redwood was only causing minor damage to the porch. Mr. Loosley agreed the back acacia could be removed but felt the front porch could be repaired and suggested significant root pruning for the skyline redwood tree. Ms. Andreen felt the redwood was too close to the house and causing damage, but was unsure if it presented undue hardship. She noted the redwood was a skyline tree, but agreed the acacia could be removed. Mr. Duffy and Ms. Worthy favored removing the acacia but retaining the skyline redwood. Mr. Parker felt the redwood would grow and continue to cause damage to the property and favored removal, based on undue hardship. He agreed with removing the acacia. Ms. Worthy moved to approve the removal of the acacia, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and further moved to deny the removal of the redwood, as she could not make the necessary findings for removal. Mr. Duffy seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Mr. Parker voting against. 5 6. Los Verdes Park II / 9 ½ Perla Lane (7 pivot trees) The applicant discussed the removal request, noting the extensive surface tree roots were damaging yards and sprinklers and lifting sidewalks. He reported that the trees had been butchered with bad pruning in the past and that the Park wanted to replace the trees with eight new trees. Shawn Collarman agreed the trees had been poorly pruned and were in bad health and agreed that replacement would be prudent. Mr. Combs discussed the surface root issues and possible mitigation measures. Ms. Andreen stated was unable to view the trees. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice and required replacement planting of eight 15-gallon trees to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted by December 31, 2015 contingent upon submitted HOA minutes indicating HOA approval for removals. Ms. Worthy seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Ms. Andreen abstaining. 7. 44 Churparrosa Dr. (Sycamore) The applicant discussed the removal request, reporting that the tree‘s limbs dropping posed great danger to his children who played in the back yard. He discussed issues with the lifted fence and shed and was concerned about future foundation damage. He submitted a letter of support from a neighbor who had needed to repair their fence due to roots and was also concerned about future foundation damage. There was also a concern with the tree’s viability in the wind. The applicant discussed the replacement planting plan. Mr. Combs agreed there was fence damage from the large surface roots, but reported the tree was healthy and he could not make the findings necessary for removal. Mr. Loosley and Mr. Parker agreed the tree was healthy, that there was evidence of some root damage to the fence and shed, but shared a concern that the tree was a skyline specimen. Ms. Worthy felt it was a good tree in the wrong spot. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request based on promoting good arboricultural practice and required replacement with the 15-gallon large species 6 tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted in the front of the property by December 31, 2015. Ms. Andreen seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 8. 1626 Woodland – Heard with #4 9. 2707 Johnson (Eucalyptus) The applicant discussed the removal request and reported on problems with the utilities and past maintenance issues. He felt the four-trunk leader tree was too close to the house and utilities and posed liability and hazard issues to his property and that of his neighbors. He discussed root damage to the drain system, as well as tree littering and limb droppage. He also noted that beetle infestation created drippings that damage property. He did not think a replacement planting could be accommodated and stated he wanted to install artificial turf. Mr. Combs reported that the tree had large, narrow attachments. Ms. Worthy stated it was a nice tree in the wrong spot. Ms. Andreen moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice and required the applicant donate a 15-gallon oak tree to the City’s tree bank for planting elsewhere in the city. Mr. Duffy seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS New palm tree planted at Rancho Obispo development along 11955 Los Osos Valley Road frontage The Committee discussed the project and explored whether smaller specimens should be allowed as replacement plantings instead of trying to plant in-kind. They favored using 36” and 48” box trees, as well as similarly sized field-grown specimens with at least 6’ of clear trunk. OLD BUSINESS There were not items to discuss. 7 ARBORIST REPORT City tree removal process Lunch & Learn There was general discussion on the focus for the event that would educate attendees on the tree removal process. Mr. Combs agreed to invite key City and community representatives (e.g. certified arborists, Community Development Dept., ARC, etc.) The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m. to next regular meeting scheduled for Monday, August 31, 2015 at 5:00 p.m. (note special date) Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske, Recording Secretary