Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-27-2012 TC Minutes1 TREE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES MONDAY, AUGUST 27, 2012 Corporation Yard Conference Room 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo MEMBERS PRESENT: David Savory, Suzan Ehdaie, Matt Ritter, David Hensinger and Ben Parker STAFF PRESENT: Ron Combs PUBLIC COMMENT Richard Dickey, 1017 Islay, noted he had received a letter stating his tree removal request would be on this meeting’s agenda. Mr. Combs apologized for the omission and agreed to make a site visit within the week. MINUTES: Approval of Minutes of July 23, 2012 The minutes were not included in the Agenda packet; it was agreed they would be voted on at the next regular meeting. TREE REMOVAL APPLICATIONS 1. & 2. 116 & 120 Cerro Romauldo (eucalyptus) Mr. Hensinger abstained from voting, due to a conflict of interest. The applicants discussed the removal requests at both properties, citing that the grove of trees posed hazards due to large falling branches and the instability of some of the trees. Both applicants reported suffering from mold allergies that are exacerbated by the trees. They stated one tree had a split base and discussed a replanting plan along the creek side. Ron Rinnell, applicants’ representative, discussed the secondary growth, decay pockets in evidence, and structural issues of the specific trees requested for removal. He agreed they posed hazards. Mr. Combs reported that the large trees were in moderate health and he could not make his required findings for removal. Mr. Savory felt that it was a nice-looking stand of trees that did pose risks. Mr. Parker and Ms. Ehdaie agreed. 2 Mr. Parker moved to approve both removal requests, based on all of the necessary removal findings, and required nine15-gallon replacement trees to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of the removals. Mr. Ritter seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously, with Mr. Hensinger abstaining. 3. 423 Cuesta (Eucalyptus) Mr. Rinnell, applicant’s representative, discussed the removal request and reported that the tree was in decline and diseased. He noted the applicant wanted to replace the tree with a Jacaranda. Mr. Combs agreed with Mr. Rinnell’s assessment that the tree was in decline but found no evidence of disease. Mr. Hensinger felt that the tree appeared to be healthy and that he could not make the findings necessary for removal. Mr. Savory and Ms. Ehdaie felt the tree looked as if it were failing. Mr. Ritter and Mr. Parker agreed; Mr. Parker noted some significant dieback. Ms. Ehdaie moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required one 15-gallon Jacaranda to be planted within 45 days of the tree’s removal. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Mr. Hensinger voting against. 4. 258 California (pine) John Duval, applicant’s representative, discussed the removal request, stating that it was an unattractive tree that was posing potential hazard along a busy pedestrian traffic area and parking lot. He noted the property was well planted with other trees. Mr. Combs reported it was a large, healthy pine and he could not make his necessary findings for removal. Mr. Parker stated he did not feel Aleppo pines created liability or droppage and did not favor removal. Ms. Ehdaie agreed. 3 Mr. Hensinger felt the tree was in a crowded planting area and that the other trees might thrive if the tree were removed. Mr. Hensinger moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice. Mr. Parker seconded the motion to allow discussion. Mr. Savory and Mr. Ritter stated they could not make the findings necessary for allowing removal. The motion did not pass, with Mr. Ritter, Mr. Savory, and Ms. Ehdaie voting against. Mr. Hensinger moved to deny the removal request; Mr. Ritter seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 5. 1319 Higuera (pine) The applicant discussed the removal request, stating the tree was getting too large for the area and creating some sidewalk lift. He stated the lawn was ruined and that landscaping was not possible. He wanted to replace the tree with two Chinese pistache. Mr. Rinnell, applicant’s representative, agreed the tree was out of scale. Mr. Combs reported the large tree was healthy, but was causing some hardscape displacement and that it had power lines running through the branches. Mr. Savory agreed with Mr. Combs’ assessment. Mr. Parker felt the hardscape damage would get worse and that the multi-leader tree was not a good specimen. Mr. Ritter agreed with the applicant’s concerns and felt removal would not harm the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Ritter moved to approve the removal request, based on removal would not harm the character or environment of the neighborhood, and required two 15-gallon Chinese pistache trees to be planted within 45 days of tree removals. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 4 6. 1248 Vista del Lago (Liquid ambar) Chris Stier, applicant’s representative, discussed the removal request, citing damage caused by roots and the need for continual root pruning. He noted the sidewalk had been replaced and was already in need of repair again. Mr. Combs reported it was a large healthy tree that was causing minor damage to the sidewalk. Mr. Ritter noted there was no damage done to the three year-old utility line vault. Mr. Parker and Mr. Hensinger felt the tree was located too close to the house and sidewalk. Ms. Ehdaie and Mr. Savory did not feel the tree was causing significant damage and was a good specimen. Mr. Hensinger moved to approve the removal request, based on undue hardship on the property owner, and required one 15-gallon replacement tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of tree’s removal. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion failed, with Ms. Ehdaie, Mr. Ritter, and Mr. Savory voting against. Mr. Ritter moved to deny the removal request, as he could not make any of the necessary findings for removal. Ms. Ehdaie seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 7. 680 Morro (podocarpus) The applicant discussed the removal request, stating the large tree was damaging the retaining wall and fence. He was concerned about the tree damaging the structure next and stated the tree was too large for the area. Mr. Rinnell, applicant’s representative, reported that the tree was out of scale for the area and that based on the fence damage, it appeared that the structure would eventually be at risk. Mr. Combs reported that the large healthy tree was causing minor damage and felt that if it were removed, it should be replaced with a large species. 5 Mr. Savory stated he would be abstaining from voting, as he was unable to see the tree. Mr. Parker felt the tree had bad form and was causing damage but agreed if it were removed, the skyline tree needed to be replacement with a large species. Mr. Hensinger agreed with Mr. Combs’ assessment. Mr. Hensinger moved to approve the removal request, as doing so would not harm the character or environment of the neighborhood, and required one 15-gallon replacement tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of the tree’s removal. Ms. Ehdaie seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Mr. Savory abstaining. 8. 709 Leff (magnolia) Mr. Rinnell, applicant’s representative, stated that the application had been withdrawn. 9. 271 Madonna (various trees) Steve Franzman, applicant’s representative, discussed the removal request and reported that all trees had been pruned, but that the owner wanted to re-landscape with 24’ box trees. He discussed phased removals. Mr. Combs reported that there was a lot of structural problems and a lack of growth/thriving. Mr. Ritter agreed with removing the evergreen pears, the ironbarks, and the New Zealand Christmas trees but did not favor removing the tipu or the pines. He suggested removing the failing London plane trees and replacing with tipu. Mr. Hensinger agreed with Mr. Ritter. Mr. Hensinger moved to deny the removal of the tipu trees, as he could not make the necessary findings for their removal. He further moved to allow the removal of ironbarks, the evergreen pears, the two pines, and the four Christmas trees, based on promoting good arboricultural practice and the accept the proposed planting plan, with the exception of the London plane trees and replace the two pines with tipu tree. Mr. Ritter seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 6 NEW BUSINESS Ms. Ehdaie noted that she would not be at the September regular meeting. OLD BUSINESS Mr. Combs reported that the staff was working towards approaching Council regarding the two new committee members being added to the slate. ARBORIST REPORT Mr. Combs discussed the current status of several illegal removals. The meeting adjourned at 6:35 p.m. to next regular meeting, scheduled for 5 p.m. on Monday, September 24, 2012. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske, Recording Secretary