Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-23-2012 TC Minutes1 TREE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES MONDAY, APRIL 23, 2012 Corporation Yard Conference Room 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo MEMBERS PRESENT: David Hensinger, Suzan Ehdaie, and David Savory STAFF PRESENT: Ron Combs PUBLIC COMMENT Scott Inman, 2330 Ganador Ct., reported that two trees had been removed in his neighborhood and no replacement plantings had been installed within the required 45-day timeframe. He also noted that the property owner believed that only one tree needed to be planted; the minutes showed that two replacement trees were required. Staff agreed to look into the matter. MINUTES: Approval of Minutes of February 27, 2012 Mr. Savory moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Hensinger seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. TREE REMOVAL APPLICATIONS 1. 1233 FERNWOOD (2 Italian Stone pines) Ron Rinnell, Bunyon Bros., applicant representative, reported that the trees were out of scale and hazardous. He stated both trees had damaged the driveway and street and removal would promote good arboricultural practice. Mr. Combs reported that large trees were healthy, but agreed they were causing damage. 2 Mr. Savory felt the one closest to the house was causing damage, but the one by the street was not as clear as to damage evidence. Mr. Hensinger felt allowing the removals would allow the nearby camphor tree to thrive and noted the pines were too large for the area. Mr. Hensinger moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required two 15-gallon trees to be planted within 45 days of removals. Ms. Ehdaie seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 2. 1663 PHILLIPS LANE The application had been withdrawn. 3. 1082 SAN ADRIANO (Italian stone pine) The applicant discussed the previous removal request for the tree that had been denied, and reported that the tree continued to cause significant damage to the street and driveway. He also noted the tree had split at approximately 3’ and that the tree had to be pruned around the lamppost. He discussed the desire to landscape the area and replacement tree planting. Mr. Combs reported that the tree was healthy and he could not make his necessary findings to approve the removal. Julie Merrill, 1072 San Adriano, felt the tree was a significant asset to the neighborhood in terms of scale, shade, windbreak, and nature habitat. She noted that during the previous removal request four years ago, a large portion of the neighborhood came out to oppose the removal; she stated that same faction still opposed the removal. Sally Campbell, 1075 San Adriano, agreed with Ms. Merrill’s comments and stated the tree had been poorly pruned and the lack of landscaping was a detriment to the area and that the bare space was currently used as parking spaces for tenant trucks. She felt proper maintenance would enhance the tree’s health and suggested planting a shade garden underneath it and commit to watering it. Tom Robinson, 1072 San Adriano, agreed with the previous neighbor comments and favored retaining the tree, as its removal would negatively impact the area. 3 Mr. Combs felt the root issues would still be a problem for the area, even if the tree had been better maintained. Mr. Savory felt the tree was nearing the end of its lifespan and agreed it was causing damage. While he believed the tree was an asset to the area, he stated that removing the aging tree with a suitable replacement would long-term enhance the urban forest. Mr. Hensinger moved to approve the removal request, based on undue hardship to the property owner, and required two 15-gallon trees to be planted within 45 days of the removal. Mr. Savory seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 4. 138 DEL SUR (Monterey pine) The applicant discussed numerous sewer problems caused by the tree and stated the roots were lifting the concrete and sidewalk. Mr. Combs stated the medium to large tree was in moderate health and had large surface roots causing some hardscape issues. He noted that stressed trees were more susceptible to disease and that root pruning was not recommended. Mr. Hensinger felt the large tree contributed to the neighborhood, but the roots were too intrusive. Mr. Savory felt the root damage could be mitigated and that the tree seemed to be in good health. Mr. Hensinger moved to approve the removal request, based on undue hardship on the property owner. He required one 15-gallon replacement tree to be planted within 45 days of removal. Ms. Ehdaie seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Mr. Savory voting against. 4 5. 1304 OCEANAIRE (3 junipers, 1 palm) The applicant discussed the proposed improvements to the property and the solar system that was to be installed. He felt the palm was too close to the house and that the root structure of the trees was threatening the building foundation and that limbs were interfering with the power lines. Mr. Combs stated the junipers were large healthy shrubs and felt some shorter trees could be planted by the street if these trees were removed. Craig Kincaid, 1318 Oceanaire, supported the removal of the trees. Mr. Hensinger moved to approve the removal request, as doing so would not harm the character of the neighborhood or environment, and replace them with four 15- gallon trees to be planted within 45 days of removals. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Savory and Ms. Ehdaie felt the two trees on the west side were overgrown and should be removed, along with the palm, but agreed the one juniper tree could be retained. Ms. Ehdaie moved to approve the removal of the two juniper trees interfering with the utility lines and removal of the palm, based on promoting good arboricultural practice. Mr. Savory seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Mr. Hensinger voting against. 6. 848 MISSION (Ash) The applicant discussed the removal request, stating that the tree was too big for the lot, was interfering with power lines, and was concerned about limb failure and root issues. Mr. Combs reported that the large tree was healthy, but displacing hardscape and fence. Mr. Savory felt there was little evidence of damage and that the tree was poorly pruned. He felt corrective pruning would mitigate concerns. 5 Mr. Hensinger moved to approve the tree’s removal, as doing so would not harm the character of the neighborhood or surrounding environment. He required replacement planting of one 15-gallon tree to be planted within 45 days of removal. Ms. Ehdaie seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Mr. Savory voting against. 7. 4542 WAVERTREE (Canary Island pine) The applicant discussed the removal request and stated that her husband had a severe allergy against pines and that she wanted to replace the tree with two crepe myrtle trees. She reported that the neighborhood supported her request. Mr. Combs noted the tree was the original theme tree of the area. Mr. Savory felt that while the tree was healthy, it proved to be a hardship due to the allergens. Ms. Ehdaie moved to approve the removal request, as doing so would not harm the character or environment of the neighborhood. She required two 15-gallon replacement trees to be planted within 45 days of removal. Mr. Savory seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 8. 2337 GANADOR (Locust) Ron Rinnell, applicant’s representative, discussed the sewer issues and the repairs that were needed, stating the tree was in the way of the repairs. He noted that root pruning would be difficult in the repair process. Scott Inman, 2341 Ganador, reported that previous removals in the neighborhood had negatively impacted the area and look of the cul de sac. He strongly felt that removing this tree would harm the character of the neighborhood and suggested there were mitigating root barrier measures that could be taken. Alan Duerr, 2325 Ganador, also felt the previous tree removals were a mistake and that losing another large tree would harm the neighborhood. He stated the tree had not been pruned and that the absentee landlords seemed to be interested in only the minimum of maintenance of the property. 6 Mr. Combs discussed various plumbing options that could mitigate repair concerns. Mr. Savory stated the healthy tree had unobstructed roots and had only caused minor sidewalk damage and that there was no evidence of sewer damage at this point. Mr. Savory moved to deny the removal application, as he could not make the findings necessary to allow removal. Mr. Hensinger seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 9. 200 N. SANTA ROSA (Numerous Canary Island pines) The applicant representative discussed the removal request in detail, noting that several trees had been added to the removal request since submitting the application. He outlined issues with trees too close to the buildings and courtyard issues that created public liability for pedestrians and property due to limb and cone droppage. He noted the low-sloped roofs had litter build-up issues and stating that there were several plumbing receipts available to attest to sewer issues. He also felt there was some evidence of beetle damages. He stated the property would be re-planted with trees placed in better locations and submitted a proposed landscape plan. The Committee discussed the general confusion about exactly how many trees were now requested for removal and the exact location of the trees to be removed vs. what trees would be left. Ms. Ehdaie moved to continue the item to the next regular meeting to allow the applicant to return with a specific removal plan with trees clearly indicated so the Committee could better review the large scope of the project. Mr. Savory seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 10. 44 CHUPAROSSA (Sycamore) The applicant discussed the removal request and submitted a letter from neighbors, supporting the request. He stated one tree hangs over the second story and the 7 children’s play area. He was concerned about limbs continuing to drop and the liability. He stated the tree had been pruned and still am 8’ limb dropped. He was concerned about safety and the tree getting too close to the house. Mr. Combs stated the trees were healthy and he could not make the findings necessary for his approval to remove. Mr. Hensinger moved to approve the removal request, as doing so would not harm the character or environment of the neighborhood. He required one 15-gallon tree to be planted within 45 days of removal. Mr. Savory seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 11. 1469 BALBOA (2 palms) The applicant discussed the removal request and the hardship of the ivy-embedded palm maintenance. Mr. Combs stated the tree was relatively healthy, but would be significantly scarred if the ivy were removed. Mr. Hensinger moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required two 15-gallon replacement trees to be planted within 45 days of removals. NEW BUSINESS There were no items. OLD BUSINESS 1. Update on Committee’s request for consent items and adding a new member Mr. Combs reported that both questions were still being explored by Legal and there was no decision at this time. 8 ARBORIST REPORT Mr. Combs reported that the Arbor Day celebration went very well, as did the Advisory Body Recognition Dinner. The meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m. to next regular meeting, scheduled for 5 p.m. on Tuesday, May 29, 2012. (special date due to holiday) Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske, Recording Secretary