The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07-23-2012 TC Minutes1 TREE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES MONDAY, JULY 23, 2012 Corporation Yard Conference Room 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo MEMBERS PRESENT: David Savory, Suzan Ehdaie, and Ben Parker STAFF PRESENT: Ron Combs PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. MINUTES: Approval of Minutes of June 25, 2012 Mr. Savory moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Ms. Ehdaie seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. TREE REMOVAL APPLICATIONS 1. 1537 La Cita Ct. (podocarpus; red plum) The applicant discussed the removal request, reporting that the roof needed to be replaced and stated that the trees were within 12” of the roofline and as the trees grew larger, they would impact the new roof. They were also concerned about the roots damaging the garage and the excessive shading on the neighbor’s property. Mr. Combs reported the trees were fairly small, but would grow larger. Mr. Savory did not feel that the podocarpus trees posed hazards or hardship and stated that the red plum was a nice specimen. He favored removing five of the podocarpus and suggested pruning the red plum. Ms. Ehdaie felt all of the trees were an asset to the property and the area. Mr. Parker felt the stand of trees was too close to the house and would cause damage as they grew. Mr. Savory moved to approve the removal of five podocarpus and deny the removal of the red plum, requiring three 15-gallon replacement trees to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of the removals. 2 Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Ms. Ehdaie voting against. 2. 116 Cerro Romauldo (Eucalyptus) There was no applicant or representative present to speak to the item. 3. 1371 Monterey (Ficus) Jim Burroughs, applicant’s representative, discussed the removal request and stated the owner was experiencing hardship: the applicant was concerned about safety issues due to the overhanging, brittle branches and that parking new cars under the tree was ruining the paintjobs. He noted that the branches were obscuring the streetlight, creating security issues. Mr. Combs reported that the tree was fairly healthy and needed pruning. He felt that thrips was causing the sap effect and could be partially mitigated with pesticide treatment. Chuck Lau, 1256 Mill, felt the removal would leave the area barren and without shade. He felt the tree was structurally healthy and just needed pruning. The business owner at 1357 Monterey agreed that it was a beautiful tree, but felt the business was suffering hardship due to the tree’s littering and vehicle damage potential. Will Powers, 1028 Islay, did not favor removal of the beautiful tree, which was a major asset to the area, and stated that the business owner was aware of the tree in that location when they purchased the property and suggested the owner re-figure his vehicle locations. Mr. Savory noted that tree sap was not a reason to remove a tree that was in good health. He felt the tree could use pruning and pesticide treatment. He suggested the owner use an outside awning to protect the cars parked under the tree. Ms. Ehdaie felt it was a valuable tree to the area and did not favor removal. Mr. Parker felt the “honey dew” sap could be addressed and suggested the cars not be parked under the tree. Mr. Parker denied the removal request, as he could not make the necessary findings for removal. Mr. Savory seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 3 4. 1663 Phillips There was no applicant or representative present to speak to the item. 5. 423 Cuesta 6. California Blvd. (3 cork oaks) Dan VanBeveren, Public Works Dept. representative, discussed the Railroad Safety Trail and the previous removals/replacement plantings on the project. He discussed the need to replace the sewer line but in doing so, the trees’ roots and stability might be adversely affected. Mr. Combs discussed the one rotten tree and noted that the one closest to the bike path was relatively healthy and the remaining requested tree was only marginally healthy. Mr. VanBeveren suggested possibly working around the healthier tree (#1) but was requesting removal approval in case those measures were not successful. He discussed the re-landscaping plans. David Hicks, Utilities Dept. representative, discussed the poor condition of the sewer line and the need for replacement. Ms. Ehdaie favored removal and did not think doing so would affect the area. Mr. Savory felt Tree #1 should be retained, if possible. Ms. Ehdaie moved to approve the removal request, based on removals would not harm the character or environment of the neighborhood, and contingent upon Tree #1 not being able to be retained within the sewer line replacement project. She required two additional 15-gallon cork oaks to be added to the proposed landscaping plan. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 7. 3190 Flora (Cedar) Sonia Biggs, property owner, discussed previous branch losses and splitting of the tree’s structure, noting it looked like it had been poorly topped. She was concerned about safety and liability and did not think the laterals were strongly attached. Mr. Combs reported that it was a large diameter, healthy tree that had been topped, and several laterals were at 90-degree angles. He did not think pruning would help. 4 Mr. Savory agreed that the structure of the tree was poor. Ms. Ehdaie felt it was a beautiful shade tree and discussed pruning options. Mr. Parker did not think pruning would be successful and favored removal, recommending replacement with a large species. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required a 15-gallon replacement tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of the tree removal. Mr. Savory seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 8. 1957 Huasna Dr. (Pine) Ms. Ehdaie indicated she had been unable to see the tree; there was no quorum to hear the item. The Committee agreed to re-schedule it for the next regular meeting. 9. 1288 Morro St. (Italian stone pine) Scott Wright, applicant’s representative, discussed the removal request and stated the tree was too close to the building, which had a lot of elderly and infirmed pedestrian traffic. He discussed the pavers being lifted, creating a trip hazard. He felt the tree was too large for the area and was creating ADA compliance issues. He noted that there were other large pines on site. Mr. Combs stated it was a large healthy tree that was heavy over the parking lot side, but felt it could be lightened. He thought the hardscape damage and the root issues were easily mitigated, although it would be ongoing. Mr. Savory did not feel the hardscape issues were bad enough to warrant removal. Mr. Parker felt it was a significant shade tree in the area and felt the relative minor hardscape issues could be mitigated with root pruning and specific maintenance. Ms. Ehdaie agreed with member comments. Mr. Savory moved to deny the removal request, as he could not make the necessary findings for removal. Ms. Ehdaie seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 5 NEW BUSINESS There was none. OLD BUSINESS Barbara Lynch discussed incorporating the Consent Agenda aspect into upcoming meetings and the process to do so. She reported that the Legal Dept. outlined that the Committee needed to have legally-defined public hearings and consent items were not considered to be public hearings. The inclusion of consent items needed to be handled at the Council level, requiring an ordinance hearing. There was general discussion about how to best make the meetings efficient with items that might otherwise be considered consent items. ARBORIST REPORT Mr. Combs reported that he was working with the Legal Dept. about the possibility of adding up to two new members to the Tree Committee. There was discussion about whether it was mandated in the by-laws that each member was required to have made a site visit before they could vote on a tree’s removal. Staff agreed to check the by-laws. The meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. to next regular meeting, scheduled for 5 p.m. on Monday, August 27, 2012. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske, Recording Secretary