Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-26-2012 TC Minutes1 TREE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES MONDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2012 Corporation Yard Conference Room 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo MEMBERS PRESENT: David Savory, Matt Ritter, Ben Parker, and David Hensinger STAFF PRESENT: Ron Combs PUBLIC COMMENT There were no public comments. MINUTES: Approval of Minutes of October 29, 2012 Mr. Hensinger moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. TREE REMOVAL APPLICATIONS 1. 709 Leff (Magnolia) The applicant discussed the removal request, noting he had been told the tree had a terminal disease and he was concerned about the residents and pedestrian safety and liability issues due to limb failure. He wanted to replace the tree with a Coastal Live oak. Mr. Combs reported that the large tree had some evidence of disease and dieback. Ron Rinnell, Bunyon Bros., reported that the tree had wet rot and stated cutting out the diseased area would affect the tree’s stability and would leave pockets vulnerable to disease. He felt reduction pruning would have to be too aggressive to be prudent. Mr. Parker and Mr. Savory agreed that the tree was failing. Mr. Hensinger 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’s removal. 2 Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 2. 2389 Helena (Date palm) The applicant discussed the removal request, citing concerns about retaining wall damage, limb and debris droppage, and stated the tree was a rodent habitat. She noted the tree would be relocated to a more appropriate location. Mr. Combs stated the large date palm had maintenance issues. Will Powers, 1028 Islay, noted that palm debris could not be green-wasted and felt that no trees should be planted that could not go into the landfill. Mr. Ritter 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’s removal. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 3. 1337 Madrone Lane (Oak) The applicant discussed the removal request, citing current root damage and potential damage to the foundation. She felt the tree was planted too close to the foundation, driveway, utility lines, and the neighbor’s retaining wall. Mr. Combs reported the medium sized tree was healthy and could cause future problems with the driveway and utilities. Elisa Feingold, 1333 Madrone, supported the removal, especially in light of the retaining wall damage. She did not feel the tree was in keeping with the neighborhood theme. Mr. Parker did not feel that oak as a species tended to cause damage and that this tree added a great deal of value to the property and area. He did not think the buried utility lines were at risk. Mr. Ritter agreed with Mr. Parker and did not think risks were imminent. He suggested the applicant return with another removal request if utilities became compromised. He felt pruning could mitigate some concerns. The applicant agreed and requested withdrawing the removal request from consideration. No action was taken on the item. 3 4. 741 Patricia (Pine) The applicant discussed the removal request, citing concerns about the tree falling. He stated he could see the mound of roots moving in the sandy area sitting on top of hard rock, when tree area was soaked and conditions were windy. Mr. Combs reported that the tree was causing minor sidewalk cracking. Mr. Rinnell, Bunyon Bros., reported that the tree was lifting the sidewalk and in failing health, planted on hardpan. He did not feel removal would affect the area. 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’s removal. Mr. Ritter seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 5. 281 Cerro Romauldo (Pine) John Tricamo, applicant’s representative, discussed the removal request and re- landscaping project that would retain the oak on the property. He stated the pine was too massive and was mounding, already interfering with utility lines. It was also pushing the curb and causing root damage to the neighbor’s fence. He did not think mitigative pruning would be effective. Mr. Combs reported that the large, healthy tree was in an awkward location. He noted it had surface roots but did not think it was heaving. Mr. Rinnell, Bunyon Bros., reported that the neighbor’s driveway had cracking due to the roots and agreed that the live oak underneath the pine would thrive if the pine were removed. Mr. Savory felt concerns could be mitigated with corrective pruning. Mr. Hensinger 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’s removal. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Mr. Savory voting against. 4 6. 1360 Sonrisa (Alder) Evan Moffitt, applicant’s representative, discussed the removal request and noted damage to the sewer line that caused annual sewer maintenance issues. Mr. Combs noted it was a healthy, large theme tree that showed some signs of drought stress. Mr. Hensinger felt the sewer line needed to be replaced and removing the tree would not fix the sewer line issues. Mr. Savory agreed the tree was healthy and did not appear to be causing any current damage. He also noted that typically in cases like this, the owner submitted copies of sewer repair bills to demonstrate hardship. Mr. Ritter agreed that a broken lateral was probably the issue more than the tree. Mr. Ritter moved to deny the removal request, as he could not make the necessary findings to approve the request. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 7. 10 Santa Rosa (Two eucalyptus) Sarah Kraft, applicant’s representative, discussed the removal request and the vehicle damage already caused by the trees. She was also concerned about the apparent disease in one of the trees passing to the second tree. Mr. Combs reported that the trees had few limbs left and that some fungus was evident. Mr. Parker felt that pruning could mitigate damage concerns. He felt these were valuable trees to the area. He would favor removing only one tree at this time. Mr. Ritter did not see that any corrective pruning had been done in the past and that the south tree (farthest from Foothill Blvd.) would benefit from pruning. Mr. Ritter moved to deny the removal request for the south-most tree, as he could not make the necessary findings to approve the request. Mr. Hensinger seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 5 Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request for the north-most tree, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required two replacement 15-gallon trees to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of tree’s removal. Mr. Savory seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 8. 1346 Johnson (Liquid amber) The applicant discussed the removal request, stating that the tree created too much shade and was lifting the sidewalk. She reported that nothing could grow under it and that it was growing under the power lines. She noted there were many other trees on the property and that she was willing to plant a replacement tree. Mr. Combs reported the tree was relatively young and causing minor displacement at this time. Mr. Ritter 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’s removal. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 9. 219 Mission (Eucalyptus) Mr. Ritter reminded the Committee that this item had come up for review previously and that it had been continued to allow time for the applicant to submit a landscaping plan. Mr. Combs reported that the tree had large surface roots and had been previously topped. He did not see hardscape damage at this time. The applicant discussed the removal request and outlined the landscaping plan that included terracing and the planting of six trees. He also stated the neighbors favored removal within the landscaping plan. Mr. Hensinger 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’s removal in keeping with the applicant’s landscape plan. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 6 OLD BUSINESS There were no items discussed. NEW BUSINESS Committee confirmed that the December meeting is to be canceled due to travel and holiday plans. December and January removal requests are to be seen at the January 28, 2013 Tree Committee meeting. ARBORIST REPORT Arborist recapped the Tree Planting event held Saturday, November 3, 2012. The Cal Poly Arboriculture Class, neighbors, and other volunteers made for a very successful planting. Committee members commented favorably on the improvements and future benefits to the neighborhood. The meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. to next regular meeting, scheduled for 5 p.m. on Monday, January 28, 2013. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske, Recording Secretary