Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-29-2012 TC Minutes1 TREE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, MAY 29, 2012 Corporation Yard Conference Room 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo MEMBERS PRESENT: David Hensinger, David Savory, Ben Parker and Matt Ritter STAFF PRESENT: Ron Combs PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. MINUTES: Approval of Minutes of April 23, 2012 Mr. Hensinger moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. TREE REMOVAL APPLICATIONS 1. 200 N. Santa Rosa (37 Canary Island pines; 1 redwood) Dan Ferrea, applicant representative, discussed the removal request, noting that many of the trees proposed for removal were causing significant property damage and interference with utilities. He stated if the trees by the buildings were not removed, they would not be able to improve and maintain the property effectively. He discussed a phased/staggered approach to the removals. Samantha Mendoza, applicant’s representative, stated a concern about pedestrian traffic and liability issues. Mr. Combs reported the multiple pines were relatively healthy and causing some hardscape damage, but he was unable to meet his removal criteria. 2 Ron Rinnell, Bunyan Bros., reported that the large trees were out of scale to the area. He discussed the re-landscaping plan and noted some of the trees planted would be larger than 15-gallon specimens. Mr. Parker agreed with the phased planting approach and agreed hardscape damage was evident and that the trees would continue to grow significantly larger. Mr. Hensinger agreed with Mr. Parker and favored the staggered replacement plan. Mr. Savory felt the interior paths were where the risks to pedestrians were strongest. He felt some of the outer trees could be retained, especially on the south side. Mr. Ritter stated that removing 37 large healthy trees would result in a significant environmental impact and would reduce the availability of shade for the tenants. He agreed with the phased approach to removals. Mr. Rinnell suggested the interior trees and the trees too close to the buildings be removed for efficiency of process and retain the outer trees for as long as possible. The Committee determined that the “interior trees” were the trees not lining the parking lot or street. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request as presented, encouraging the phased removal plan and re-purposing of the wood; replacing the removed trees on a 1:1 basis with minimum 15-gallon tree specimens. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Hensinger moved to approve the removal of 13 interior trees, based on undue hardship to the property owner, and replace with 13 15-gallon trees. Mr. Savory seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Hensinger moved to approve the removal of all perimeter trees within 48” of the buildings, based on undue hardship to the property owner, and replace with 1:1 15-gallon trees. He further moved to deny the removal of the remaining trees not addressed within the motions. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. 3 The motion passed unanimously. 2. 2864 Flora (5 liquid amber) The applicant discussed the removal request, reporting that the sidewalk was severely damaged and posed a liability and trip hazard. They proposed replacement with two arbutus marina 24” box trees on the heavily planted property, noting the pepper tree would thrive with the removals. Mr. Combs stated the specimens were in the parkway and were considered street trees. Mr. Parker noted they were the wrong trees for the location, had small diameters and would be continually pruned by PG&E. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and replace with two 24” box trees as proposed to be planted within 45 days of the trees’ removal. Mr. Ritter seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 3. 1732 Southwood (pine) Guy Hackman, applicant representative, discussed the tree that was on their property line, noting that it had a significant lean and needle drop. He stated his wife had severe allergies surrounding the tree and that it would not be pruned effectively. He suggested replacing the unattractive tree with an olive tree. Mr. Combs agreed it was a strongly leaning pine, with some mounding. Mr. Hensinger felt that allergy/health issues warranted allowing for the removal. Mr. Savory felt the healthy tree was an attractive specimen. Mr. Parker agreed the tree was healthy. Mr. Ritter agreed the tree was on a severe slope. 4 Mr. Hensinger moved to approve the removal request, based on undue hardship to the property owner, and required replacement with a 15-gallon tree to be planted within 45 days of the tree’s removal. Mr. Ritter seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 4. 617 Oakridge (2 Aleppo pines; 5 Canary Island pines) Cyrus Bany, applicant’s representative, reported that the large Aleppo had broken the water line twice. He discussed the disease issues and aesthetics in the area, as well as outlining the re-landscaping plan. He noted that new trees could not be established underneath the pines. Mr. Combs noted they were skyline trees and that the Aleppos had some gall rust and included bark. Mr. Parker did not think the Canary Island pines were good specimens. Mr. Hensinger moved to approve the removal of all of the trees, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required seven 15-gallon trees to be planted as replacement within 45 days of the trees’ removals. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 5. 1778 San Luis Drive (Avocado) Ron Rinnell, applicant representative, discussed the landscaping plan and stated the tree was failing. Mr. Combs reported that the large, mature tree appeared to be in failing health. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request, as doing so would not harm the character of the neighborhood or environment, and required replacement with one 15-gallon tree to be planted within 45 days of the tree’s removal. Mr. Hensinger seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 5 6. 1673 Quail Dr. (Monterey pine) Stanley Yucikas, applicant, presented a video outlining the need for removal, showing the tree to be too close to the house and to be dangerous in high winds. He discussed issues with safety and felt the tree was too large for the windy area. He was also concerned with a fire hazard due to large needle drop. He discussed proposed property improvements and noted that the roots had encroached on the neighbor’s property and caused sewer damage. Mr. Combs stated the large tree was healthy, with some included bark. He agreed it was very close to the house. Mr. Parker felt the multi-trunk could cause issues and agreed root damage was probable and that the tree was too close to the house. Annette Nyberg, applicant, stated the tree looked healthy but its roots were intrusive and causing damage. She felt it was oversized for the area and causing issues in the backyard. Mr. Hensinger felt that any replacement tree would need to be good-sized. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required replacement with a large-species 15-gallon tree to be planted within 45 days of tree removal. Mr. Savory seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 7. 1395 Madonna Road (2 Cypress) Mike Burrell, applicant, discussed the removal request and his desire to instead plant redwoods on the property. He was concerned about the brittle cypress falling in the high winds and wanted to make sure the City was aware of his concerns. Mr. Combs reported that the City has inspected the trees that Mr. Burrell was concerned about and found them to be healthy and in good shape at this time. Mr. Parker felt the two small cypresses recently planted at the Fire Station were chosen specifically and that redwoods in that location would not be appropriate. He felt the two trees were pruned well and did not appear hazardous. 6 Mr. Parker moved to accept Mr. Burrell’s concerns on record and deny the removal request, as he could not make the findings necessary to approve the removal. Mr. Ritter seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 8. 598 Stoneridge (Cork oak) The applicant discussed the removal request, stating that the tree was too large for the small yard space. She said it had been pruned and maintained every three years, but now had some type of insect infestation. She said the roots were encroaching under the sidewalk, which was starting to lift. She was also concerned about possible future sewer line and water line issues. Mr. Combs reported that the tree was healthy and he could not make any of his findings to allow removal. The Committee agreed it was a beautiful specimen in good health and the evidence of damage was not apparent and Mr. Parker noted the Committee could not rule on possible future issues. Mr. Parker moved to deny the removal request, as he could not make the findings necessary to approve the removal request. Mr. Savory seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Items 9-11: REMOVAL REQUESTS AT 1242 & 1249 SUMAC, 4441 BROOKPINE (2 Alders, 6 Sycamore) Carolyn Smith, 1242 Sumac, discussed the removal requests and the common area issues created by the trees, which were too large and growing too close together. Nathan Erikson, 1249 Sumac, stated several of the trees were crushing his French drain system, which contributed to property flooding. He agreed with the statements made by Ms. Smith. Sean Ellis, arborist, discussed thinning out the trees, but did not feel they could be pruned properly. He agreed with the crowding and undue hardship. 7 Thor Larsen, 1258 Sumac, discussed the HOA position and willingness to work with the concerns surrounding the trees. Mr. Combs reported the trees were healthy and he could not make his findings to approve the removal. The Committee discussed the crowding of the stand. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal requests, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and requiring replacement plantings of eight 15-gallon trees to be planted within 45 days of the trees’ removals. Mr. Ritter seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 12. 144 Carpenter (3 podocarpus) Ron Rinnell, applicant representative, discussed the hardscape issues and reported that the PG&E pruning was ruining the trees. He discussed the landscaping plan and replacement plantings. Mr. Combs agreed with Mr. Rinnell’s comments and stated he could not make his necessary findings to approve removal. Mr. Ritter and Mr. Savory noted the large green canopies helped hide the power lines. Mr. Savory moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required three 15-gallon shade trees be planted within 45 days of trees’ removals. Mr. Hensinger seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Parker reported on the Mayor’s Quarterly Meeting. 8 Mr. Ritter felt the permit application should be updated to require “trees be wrapped with a ring/collar of duct tape.” The Committee and staff agreed. OLD BUSINESS Mr. Combs reported that he checked with Legal Dept. and no progress had been made on the request to add more Committee members. ARBORIST REPORT Mr. Combs reported on the success of the Arbor Day event held at Meadow Park, which was very well attended. The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. to next regular meeting, scheduled for 5 p.m. on Monday, July 23, 2012. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske, Recording Secretary