Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-26-2010 TC Minutes1 TREE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES MONDAY, APRIL 26, 2010 Corporation Yard Conference Room 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo MEMBERS PRESENT:Chair Matt Ritter, David Savory, and Ben Parker STAFF PRESENT:Keith Pellemeier and Ron Combs Elena Cano, City Clerk administered the oath of office to returning member Ben Parker. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. MINUTES: Approval of Minutes of March 22, 2010 Mr. Savory moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Parker seconded the motion.The motion passed unanimously. TREE REMOVAL APPLICATIONS 1.3433 ROBERTO COURT (Eucalyptus) The applicant discussed the previous removal application for the property and the re- submitted removal request for the remaining tree, stating that on 3/25/10, a large branch fell and they were now concerned with the viability of the tree and the risk of infection at the wound site. Mr. Combs agreed the large wound could promote decay and infestation and did not believe it would heal. The tree now has an imbalanced canopy. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal of the tree, based on promoting good arboricultural practice and required no replacement planting. Mr. Ritter seconded the motion.The motion passed unanimously. 2.868 VISTA DEL ARROYO (Acacia) The applicant discussed the removal request and submitted pictures of the tree and a neighbor’s letter of support for removal the tree. She stated it was growing too close to the house; the sidewalk and garage had been damaged by roots that had also damaged the sewer line and burst the water line. She was concerned about future damage and did not think pruning would mitigate the concerns. Michael Parolini, 1317 Vega, neighbor, discussed the development plan had planted the trees too close to structures and felt the extensive root system would cause future damage. He felt the tree was out of scale to the property and supported the removal. He also noted the tree was crowding out a smaller oak tree. 2 Larry Cusick, 1309 Vega, discussed the history of the problems with the tree on the property, which had been continuously maintained but was still out of control. He had assisted with past sidewalk and water main repairs approximately a year ago. Wendy Brown, tenant, stated she could not landscape the area due to the surface roots which were also hazardous. Mr. Combs stated it was a large, healthy tree with many surface roots. He reported there was evidence of damage. Mr. Parker agreed the tree was out of scale for its location and damage was apparent. He also agreed the oak would thrive if the acacia were removed. Mr. Savory felt the tree was attractive but agreed that root issues were creating a maintenance problem and would cause future structural issues. Mr. Ritter moved to approve the removal of the tree, based on promoting good arboricultural practice and required one 15-gallon trees to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of issuance of permit. Mr. Savory seconded the motion.The motion passed unanimously. 3.579 HIGHLAND, #3 (Sycamore) Tony Flatos, property manager, discussed the removal request and stated that a certified arborist asserted the tree was causing structural damage. Mr. Combs reported that the young, healthy tree showed some signed of mildew and anthracnose, but he saw no evidence of structure damage. Mr. Parker noted some damage to the concrete rain gutter, but felt the tree was in good health and just needed some pruning. Mr. Ritter and Mr. Savory agreed that the tree was in good health and did not see any structural damage. Mr. Parker moved to deny the removal request, as he could not make any of the findings necessary for removal. Mr. Ritter seconded the motion.The motion passed unanimously. 4.2795 JOHNSON (Eucalyptus) Mr. Ritter noted that the Committee had approved previous removal requests of other trees on the site with replacement, but this tree requested for removal had been directed to be retained. 3 Ron Rinnell, applicant’s representative, discussed the removal request and the plan to replace the tree with a jacaranda and landscaping. Mr. Combs reported that the tree was healthy, noting it did have a lean. Mr. Savory felt the form was misshapen beyond repair. Mr. Parker felt the tree would develop problems in the future and it did not enhance the site at present. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal of the tree, based on promoting good arboricultural practice and required no replacement planting Mr. Savory seconded the motion.The motion passed unanimously. 5.1418, 1442, 1450 Prefumo Canyon (Eucalyptus and pine) Carolyn Kelly, HOA manager, discussed the removal request as follows: 1418 address: Plans to replace the back fence were impeded as the tree was too close to the fence line and had a large lean; concerned it would do future damage 1450 address: Pine roots had been previously pruned and were still causing damage to the driveway; cones dropped on parked cars 1442 address: Large eucalyptus leaning over properties and could cause damage Mark Henderson, HOA president, submitted pictures and discussed previous damage and limb loss at the sites. He was concerned about the trees and reported that cars had to park precariously around the tree issues to protect the vehicles. Mr. Combs noted it was a heavily wooded lot. He stated the pine had weak attachments and there was evidence of some concrete displacement. He felt the eucalyptus had been improperly pruned and could displace the sidewalk. Mr. Parker and Mr. Savory agreed with Mr. Combs. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal of the trees, based on promoting good arboricultural practice and undue hardship on the property owner, and required four 15- gallon trees 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. 6.375 N. CHORRO (Podocarpus) Mr. Flatos discussed the removal request, noting significant sidewalk and fence damage. Mr. Combs reported that the trees were crowded and there was visible evidence of displacement of walkways. 4 Mr. Savory felt the two outer trees were causing the most damage. Mr. Parker felt long-term replacement planting served the site better. Mr. Ritter noted the whole grove of trees was in the wrong location and the area was overplanted. Mr. Ritter moved to approve the removal of seven trees, based on promoting good arboricultural practice and required seven 15-gallon trees to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of issuance of permit. Mr. Savory seconded the motion.The motion passed unanimously. 7.3057 S. HIGUERA, #60 (Palm) The applicant discussed the removal request, stating that the tree was diseased and unsightly. She stated the windy area caused large fronds to continually drop, which posed a hazard to cars and pedestrians in the senior living mobile home park. Mr. Combs reported the tree was relatively healthy and agreed there was evidence of disease in lower fronds. Linda Jones, Space #18, reiterated the fronds posed a safety hazard as a lot close to the pedestrian route to access public transportation and senior citizens walked the tree. Mr. Rinnell stated his company had performed past pruning. Mr. Parker noted it was an unusual specimen for the location. Mr. Savory felt it was a large, healthy tree and did not favor removal at this time. Mr. Ritter moved to approve the removal of tree, based on promoting good arboricultural practice and required one 15-gallon 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, with Mr. Savory voting against. 8.1117 ISLAY (Brazilian pepper) The applicant discussed the remodeling project and stated the tree was too large for the space. She discussed lifting sidewalk and driveway damage, problems with surface roots, and the inability to landscape the area. She felt the Chinese fringe tree could thrive if the pepper was removed and she favored replacing it with another Chinese fringe tree. Mr. Combs stated the tree was young and healthy; the canopy had large, co-dominant limbs. He noted some driveway damage and discussed past curb repairs. 5 Mr. Parker felt the tree would cause more curb damage, as it got larger. Mr. Ritter agreed with Mr. Parker, stating the median strip was too small for that species. Mr. Ritter moved to approve the removal of tree, based on promoting good arboricultural practice and required one 15-gallon trees to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of issuance of permit. Mr. Savory seconded the motion.The motion passed unanimously. 9.1436 GARCIA DR. (Liquid amber) The applicant discussed undue hardship regarding past driveway repairs needed, major plumbing problems encountered due to roots, and property damage due to limb loss. Mr. Combs stated the large tree had co-dominant stems and noted the sidewalk/curb/gutter and driveway had been repaired and/or replaced in the past. He stated the tree was slated to be removed in the next City tree dept. rotation that would occur within two to three years. Mr. Ritter moved to approve the removal of tree, based on promoting good arboricultural practice and required one 15-gallon 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. 10.850 EL CAPITAN (Eucalyptus) There was no applicant to speak to the item. Staff agreed to contact the applicant regarding the next regular meeting agenda. 11.APPEAL STAFF FINE – 1186 ISLAY Mr. Pellemeier discussed the appeal and the background on the inappropriate pruning and fine process. Staff believed the tree was beyond reclamation. Roger Robinson, appellant, stated he had over-pruned in an attempt to make the tree smaller. He noted sidewalk damage caused by the tree and stated he did not realize there were restrictions and strict standards on pruning. After Committee discussion with staff and the property owner, Mr. Ritter stated he did not feel the full fine should be upheld for an uninformed mistake. Mr. Ritter moved to defer the fine to allow the applicant to fully remove the tree, with stump grinding, and he required replacement with a 24” box to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted no later than September 1, 2010. If the 24” box street tree was not installed by the deadline, the entire fine will be upheld and due. Mr. Parker seconded the motion.The motion passed unanimously. 6 12.APPEAL STAFF FINE – 1174 ISLAY Mr. Pellemeier discussed the appeal and the background on the inappropriate pruning and fine process. He noted the tree was not as beyond reclamation as the tree at 1186 Islay. Floyd Peterson, appellant, stated he believed the tree was his responsibility to maintain and like his neighbor, did not understand there were pruning standards that needed to be followed. Mr. Combs stated that with extra care, the tree’s health could be restored. Mr. Ritter moved to defer the fine to allow the applicant, Floyd Peterson, to work with an ISA-certified arborist to correctively prune the tree to restore the tree’s health by March 1, 2011. If this is not done by the March 1, 2011 deadline the fine will be upheld and due. Mr. Parker seconded the motion.The motion passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS There were no items to discuss. OLD BUSINESS Mr. Pellemeier discussed the Council meeting changes to the ordinance and agreed to email complete updates to Committee members. The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m. to next regular meeting scheduled for Monday, May 24, 2010, at 5:00 p.m. in the Corporation Yard Conference Room, 25 Prado Road. NOTE: The date has been changed to Thursday, May 27, 2010. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske, Recording Secretary