Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-25-2012 TC Minutes1 TREE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES MONDAY, JUNE 25, 2012 Corporation Yard Conference Room 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo MEMBERS PRESENT: David Hensinger, David Savory, Suzan Ehdaie, Ben Parker and Matt Ritter STAFF PRESENT: Ron Combs PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. MINUTES: Approval of Minutes of May 29, 2012 Mr. Hensinger moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. TREE REMOVAL APPLICATIONS 1. 1755 Portola (Aleppo pine) 2. 1853 Lima (Elm) Mr. Combs stated he could not approve the removal requests, based on his criteria. There was no one to speak to either item. Mr. Ritter moved to approve both removal requests, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required each property to plant one 15-gallon replacement tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of tree removals. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 2 3. 3960 S. Higuera, #118 (Italian Stone Pine) Calvin Cobb, applicant representative, reported that the pine would continuing growing and be too large for the mobile home park, requiring continual maintenance to contain it in such a small area. Mr. Parker was concerned whether Mr. Cobb or the applicant had the authority to request the removal or whether the request needed to come from the Park’s management. Mr. Combs agreed to check with management to determine such. He agreed that the tree would get larger but at this time, was only causing minor damage. Mr. Hensinger did not see evidence of damage and noted that while removal would not harm the character of the area, the tree did provide shade. Mr. Savory felt it was a healthy skyline tree that was not causing damage. Mr. Parker agreed with the value of shading and felt the tree was decades away from causing structural damage. Ms. Ehdaie stated she was unable to view the tree. Mr. Hensinger moved to deny the removal request, as he could not make any of the necessary findings for removal. Mr. Savory seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously, with Ms. Ehdaie abstaining. 4. 2224 Beebee (10 white birch) Jim Burroughs, applicant representative, discussed the removal request, citing the need for grading and ADA accessibility compliance and submitted plans for a drought-tolerant landscaping plan that included 19 24” box trees. Mr. Combs reported the mid-aged trees were healthy and that the species required a lot of watering. Mr. Parker favored the plan for re-contouring the site access and did not think the tree removals would harm the character of the neighborhood. 3 Ms. Ehdaie moved to approve the removal request, as removal would not harm the character of the neighborhood or the environment, and approve the landscaping plan as proposed. Mr. Savory seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 5. 1728 Huasna (Jacaranda) The applicant discussed the removal request, noting damage to his property, as well as to his neighbor’s property and that the tree was planted too close to both structures. He also felt the tree’s health was failing. Mr. Combs agreed the large tree was wind-stressed and causing driveway damage at both properties. Steve Franzman, applicant’s representative, reported both property owners were having hardship due to the driveway damage. He felt the multi-stem tree was failing due to dense soil compaction. He discussed the re-landscaping plan. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required a replacement 15-gallon tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of tree removal. Mr. Savory seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 6. 1687 El Cerrito (Monterey pine) Ron Rinnell, applicant representative, discussed the removal request and noted a letter submitted from neighbors supporting the tree’s removal. He did not think the tree was thriving, was damaging the retaining wall, and reported that the neighbors were concerned about the hillside location if the tree failed. Mr. Combs reported that the tree was in relatively good health and agreed that the roots were damaging the already-rotting fence. William Broadbent, applicant, reiterated his neighbors’ concerns with the tree hazard. 4 Ms. Ehdaie felt the skyline tree enhanced the area and could not make the necessary findings for removal. Mr. Savory agreed with Ms. Ehdaie, adding he did not see damage to the retaining wall. Mr. Parker did not think the tree was a good specimen and that removing it would not harm the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Ritter agreed with Mr. Parker. Mr. Hensinger moved to approve the removal request, based on removing the tree would not affect the character of the neighborhood, and required one 15-gallon tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of tree’s removal. Mr. Ritter seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Ms. Ehdaie and Mr. Savory voting against. 7. 394 Lemon (3 eucalyptus) The applicant discussed the removal request, noting the roots were growing under the sidewalk and discussed past limb failure. He did not think the trees were healthy and discussed plans to re-landscape to enhance the property, which included planting five trees. Mr. Combs reported it was a healthy grove that had structural flaws evident. He felt the trees had been topped. Mr. Hensinger noted he would have preferred to have details of the re-landscaping plan. Mr. Savory felt the tree on the left was failing but the remaining two seemed healthy. He stated would favor removal within a new landscaping plan. Ms. Ehdaie and Mr. Parker agreed with comments; Mr. Parker encouraged significant planting. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required a minimum of three 15-gallon trees to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of the tree removals. 5 Ms. Ehdaie seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS 1. Change to removal application The Committee agreed the permit application should be updated to require “trees be wrapped with a ring/collar of duct tape.” Mr. Hensinger moved to revise the removal application accordingly. Mr. Ritter seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 2. Revise By-Laws Mr. Ritter moved to revise Article 2 the by-laws to allow for “five members of the general public to comprise the total seven-member Committee.” Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Ritter asked staff to make a similar revision to the Municipal Code. OLD BUSINESS The Committee discussed again the desire to incorporate the Consent Agenda aspect into upcoming meetings and the process to do so. Staff agreed to include a Consent Agenda accordingly in the next meeting’s agenda. ARBORIST REPORT Mr. Combs reported that he met with the Mill St. residents regarding the upcoming trimming, removal, replacement, and bulb-out work needed on Mill St. The meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. to next regular meeting, scheduled for 5 p.m. on Monday, July 23, 2012. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske, Recording Secretary