Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-22-2011 TC MinutesTREE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES MONDAY, AUGUST 22, 2011 Corporation Yard Conference Room 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo MEMBERS PRESENT: David Hensinger, David Savory, Suzan Ehdaie, and Matt Ritter STAFF PRESENT: Ron Combs PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. MINUTES: Approval of Minutes of July 25, 2011 Ms. Ehdaie noted that she was not at the July meeting. Mr. Hensinger moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Savory seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Ms. Ehdaib abstaining. TREE REMOVAL APPLICATIONS 1. 1922 JOHNSON (Coast live oak) Cathy Francis, applicant, discussed the removal request, stating that the tree was too close to the house and had damaged the walkway, retaining wall, and drain line. She submitted documentation from her arborist and landscape contractor that verified the tree had caused damage. She discussed replacement planting. Mr. Combs reported that it was a healthy, medium-sized oak that was causing various hardscape issues. Dale Norrington, landscape contractor, stated he was also concerned about the damage caused to the building floor. 4 Mr. Hensinger felt it was the wrong tree in the wrong location. The Committee agreed with Mr. Hensinger. Mr. Hensinger moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required a replacement planting of one 15-gallon tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of the tree removal. Ms. Ehdaie seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 2. 1358 MADONNA (4 eucalyptus) Jeff Meyer, applicant's representative, discussed the removal request and the phases of improvements and driveway enhancements. He discussed the Royal Way resident who was requesting the trees be removed as they blocked all light and seemed to be failing. He discussed the landscape plan for the densely wooded area and the screening benefits of the planting plan. Mr. Combs reported the trees were healthy but had some structural flaws. Barbara Lynch, Deputy Director, clarified that the ARC will review the overall plan. Devin Holm, 1351 Royal Way #6, stated that the trees were impinging on her property and use of the site. Mr. Savory agreed the two center trees were crowded and were not thriving. Mr. Hensinger felt the removal would promote good arboricultural practice and that the planting plan provided screening and variety. Mr. Ritter agreed with Mr. Hensinger, noting the trees had been planted as a "hedge." Ms. Ehdaie felt the trees were assets to the shopping center and did not feel they should be removed. Mr. Ritter moved to approve the removal request of four trees, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required a minimum replacement planting of four 3 15-gallon trees as outlined on the planting plan and planted within 45 days of tree removals. Mr. Savory seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Ms. Ehdaie voting against. 3. 1284 ELLA (Cook Island pine) Gill Blonsky, applicant, discussed the removal request and was concerned about the increasing lean of the large tree and felt it posed a hazard. He noted that corrective pruning had been done six years ago. He felt the roots were too close to the house and utility services. He discussed the recent letter from Greenvale Tree Co. that noted that the growth on the tree had prevented further pruning and that the tree was hazardous and should be removed. Mr. Combs reported it was a tree with a lean and a co -dominant stem that could pose a splitting problem. Mr. Ritter stated that the species was a Cook Island pine and that the applicant's arborist had incorrectly identified the tree; as such, Mr. Ritter reported that the tree leans by nature and did not pose a hazard with its trunk style/shape. He also noted it was a skyline tree. Mr. Savory felt it was a healthy skyline tree and did not feel it posed imminent danger. Mr. Hensinger moved to deny the removal request, as he could not make the necessary findings for removal. Mr. Savory seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 4. 1945 SAN LUIS DRIVE (Coast live oak) Cindy Griffin, applicant, discussed the large tree and submitted reports outlining the tree's deteriorating health, despite continual pruning and fertilizing efforts to restore the health. She was concerned about the liability the dying tree posed and added that the neighbors had done construction on site that removed approximately 35% of the root system. She submitted an arborist report from C! 2006, stating the tree seemed to be in questionable health. The applicant stated she intended to replace it with a 24" box specimen. Mr. Combs reported that it was a massive oak in moderate health, showing signs of failing health. Pat Aiken, 1940 San Luis Drive, said she had watched the tree's health fluctuate but felt it was now continually downgrading. She was concerned about brittle limb damage and the tree being a fire hazard. She felt the tree was too much in decline and was no longer an asset to the neighborhood. Rhonda Moore, 1957 San Luis Drive, was concerned about the several limbs that were hanging over her driveway and felt the tree posed a hazard to pedestrians and cyclists. She believed the tree seemed to be rapidly dying. Sharon Sites, 1921 San Luis Drive, noted the tree's canopy covered three houses and that limb damage presented a huge liability to all concerned. She felt the tree was failing. Ridge Hammond, 1944 Corralitos, felt the tree was an asset to the neighborhood and agreed that while the tree was cycling in health phases, he hoped it could be retained. Mr. Combs reported that he had received another phone call asking that the tree be retained. Mr. Hensinger felt the tree was in questionable healthy and move to approve the removal, based on good arboricultural practice. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Savory discussed long-term, seasonal cycles and preferred to wait to see if the tree was going to revive. He favored retaining the tree and have the applicant come back for removal if it indeed did continue to decline. Mr. Ritter noted that there had been no recent arborist reports performed and felt there needed to be a current assessment of the tree's health before he could vote on the tree's removal. Mr. Ritter moved to continue the item to a date uncertain to allow the applicant time to receive a current arborist report on the tree's health and viability. Ms. Ehdaie seconded the motion. N The motion passed unanimously. 5. 1681 PHILLIPS (Eucalyptus) Mr. Combs reported on the past violations at the address and fines assessed for damaging a viable tree. He stated the remaining trunk had upright shoots that were weakly attached. Ron Rinnell, Bunyan Bros., agreed that his company's past damaging tree work had been in error and had shared the damages. He stated the current situation posed weak branches and the nearby apartment structure and residents were at risk now. Mr. Ritter moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required replacement planting of one 15-gallon tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of the tree's removal. Mr. Hensinger seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. There were no other items on the agenda. The meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m. to next regular meeting, scheduled for 5 p.m. on Monday, September 26, 2011. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske, Recording Secretary