Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-24-2011 TC Minutes1 TREE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES MONDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2011 Corporation Yard Conference Room 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo MEMBERS PRESENT: David Hensinger, David Savory, Ben Parker, and Matt Ritter STAFF PRESENT: Ron Combs PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. MINUTES: Approval of Minutes of September 26, 2011 Mr. Savory moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. TREE REMOVAL APPLICATIONS 1. 866 ESCUELA COURT (2 Monterey pines) The applicant discussed the removal request, noting that a large limb had previously fallen and that the trees posed a hazard to the neighbor’s property. He stated that both trees were leaning dangerously, damaging the fence, and was concerned about future liability. He stated the trees were too large for the area. Mr. Combs reported that the trees were relatively healthy and noted the roots were causing some minor fence damage. Mr. Parker did not feel the tree was a skyline tree and noted it would just get larger. He did not feel the tree’s removal would harm the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Savory agreed that the trees were healthy, but were crowding the area. 2 Mr. Hensinger moved to approve the removal request, based on the trees’ removals would not harm the character of the neighborhood or the surrounding area, and required two 15-gallon replacement trees to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of issuance of permit. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 2. 264 DALY (Chinese elm) The applicant discussed the removal request, noting there was sidewalk damage and that the tree was competing with and crowding the adjacent Liquid ambar and that landscaping was not feasible under the elm. Mr. Combs reported that the large tree was healthy and the hardscape damage was minimal. Mr. Parker was concerned that the tree was a neighborhood species and was significant to the skyline. He felt some root pruning could mitigate some concerns and if the tree continued to cause more problems in the future, the applicant could re-apply for removal. Mr. Savory agreed with Mr. Combs and noted it was one of the few larger trees in the area. Mr. Hensinger favored retaining the tree and felt that that the tree was significant to the skyline. Mr. Ritter agreed with Committee comments. Mr. Parker moved to deny the removal request, as he could not make any of the necessary findings for removal. Mr. Hensinger seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 3. 1507 GULF (Italian stone pine) The applicant discussed the removal request and stated the roots were causing damage to the foundation and patio and that the tree was planted directly under 3 power and communication lines. She felt the tree was too large for the area and had large surface roots. She also discussed previous root pruning and trimming. Mr. Combs reported that PG&E had topped the tree several times and agreed that it was too close to the foundation and retaining wall and could present a damage threat to the patio. Mr. Parker stated it was the wrong spot for a large tree. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice and required one 15-gallon replacement tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted in the front area within 45 days of issuance of permit. Mr. Savory seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 4. 1954 OCEANAIRE (Italian stone pine) Mae Ho, applicant, discussed the removal request and stated that the tree was too large for the area and dominating the landscape area. She submitted plans to replant with four fruit trees. Mr. Combs reported that the backyard tree was just over the diameter limit required for permit removal and was relatively healthy. Mr. Hensinger moved to approve the removal request, based on the removal of the tree would not harm the character of the neighborhood or the surrounding area, and required no replacement planting. Mr. Savory seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 5. 2567 FLORA (Ironbark eucalyptus) Melody Myrick, applicant, discussed the removal request and the extensive cabling system that was supporting the tree limbs and the large metal strip embedded in the base of the tree. She stated roots were damaging the driveway and sidewalk. She was concerned about the safety issues with the limbs, especially those hanging over the house and the street. 4 Mr. Combs reported that it was a large healthy tree with narrow angles of attachment, requiring the cable system. Steve Barasch, 1697 Sydney, agreed the tree posed a liability due to limb failure, was a high fire hazard, caused allergens, was in poor shape, and could easily suffer damage in wind. He also stated it created too much shading and blocked sunlight. Mr. Parker agreed the tree’s cabling system made its structural viability questionable and that it was too large for the area. He did not feel that the tree was a specific fire hazard. Mr. Ritter noted that eucalyptus typically did not present allergen issues. Mr. Savory felt that while it was a prominent tree, there was safety concern about the metal strip embedded in the tree. Mr. Hensinger agreed with Mr. Savory and agreed that the tree would probably be unstable in winds. Mr. Hensinger moved to approve the removal request, based on undue hardship to 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 issuance of permit. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 6. 3380 SEQUOIA (Italian stone pine; Monterey pine) The applicant discussed the removal request, stating that the two trees were volunteers and had been badly pruned. He was concerned about the trees’ severe leans on the downhill side. He noted that the site was heavily planted and the trees were shading out the nearby orange trees and one of them was growing into an olive tree. Mr. Combs reported the trees were relatively healthy; one tree was heavily leaning and both had been badly pruned. Carol Lewellen, neighbor, supported the removal request. Shawn Collarman, applicant representative, Bunyon Bros., discussed the re- landscaping plan and felt the tree were declining and had some structural issues. 5 Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request, based on the removal of the tree would not harm the character of the neighborhood or the surrounding area, and required replacement planting of two 15-gallon trees to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of issuance of permit. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Savory felt there was adequate space for retaining the lower tree. Mr. Hensinger did not feel the lower tree was affecting the olive tree and that the large tree on the slope was an asset. Mr. Hensinger moved to approve the removal request of the upper tree, based on the removal of the tree would not harm the character of the neighborhood or the surrounding area, and required replacement planting of one 15-gallon tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of issuance of permit. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The applicant presented further discussion of the proposed landscaping plan. Mr. Parker felt the lower tree could be removed due to the extensive proposed landscaping plan. Mr. Hensinger moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required one 15-gallon replacement tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of issuance of permit. Mr. Ritter seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 7. 1325 CAZADERO Mr. Combs reported that the item had bee withdrawn by the applicant. 8. 1300 MADONNA (34 misc. trees) 6 Jeff Meyer, applicant’s representative, discussed the shopping center remodel and the re-design of the entrances. He highlighted design elements and the necessary visual drive angles. He gave an overview about the specific removal requests, noted that several large trees were being retained, and stated that they intended to replace the removed trees with a net gain of tree plantings. Mr. Combs noted stated that the removal request was brought before the Committee, due to the extensive number of trees to be removed. Ron Rinell, Bunyon Bros., offered to relocate any of the smaller trees, per staff direction. Mr. Combs agreed to investigate the possibility. Barbara Lynch, City representative, clarified what the purview of the Committee was. Mr. Combs reported that the Planning Dept. had requested Committee review. Julie Galvin, applicant, noted that the site needed to be modernized and made more accessible to remain economically viable. Mr. Parker noted that any removals required a 10-day waiting period before any trees were allowed to be removed. The Committee agreed with the remodel project intentions and planting direction, and reviewed the project as a whole vs. individual tree removals. Mr. Ritter moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and agreed the applicant move forward accordingly with the replacement planting plan. Mr. Savory seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 9. 265-A N. CHORRO (Monterey pine) The item was not heard, as there was no applicant/representative to speak to the item. NEW BUSINESS There was no discussion at this time. 7 OLD BUSINESS 1. Discuss revising the Master Street Tree list with new additions There was discussion of the overall goal for diversity within the species range and the proposed list of appropriate species to be considered for addition to the Master Street Tree list. Ms. Lynch noted that there had been three new columns of information added to the list: attachment strength, height of canopy, and fruit drop. Mr. Hensinger moved to amend the Master Street Tree list to include the proposed additions to the selections. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. ARBORIST REPORT There was no report made at this time. The meeting adjourned at 6:25 p.m. to next regular meeting, scheduled for 5 p.m. on Monday, November 28, 2011. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske, Recording Secretary