Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-27-2010 TC Minutes1 TREE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES THURSDAY, MAY 27, 2010 Corporation Yard Conference Room 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo MEMBERS PRESENT:Matt Ritter, David Hensinger, and Ben Parker STAFF PRESENT:Keith Pellemeier and Ron Combs PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. MINUTES: Approval of Minutes of April 26, 2010 Mr. Parker moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Hensinger seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. TREE REMOVAL APPLICATIONS 1.850 EL CAPITAN (Eucalyptus) The applicant discussed the removal request and was specifically concerned about limb breakage damaging cars in the parking lot and his neighbor’s property. Mr. Combs stated it was a large, healthy tree that was causing some fence damage from the roots. Mr. Parker agreed the tree was healthy and stated the limb attachments seemed strong and that the tree was in good structural shape. Mr. Ritter and Mr. Hensinger agreed with Mr. Parker. Mr. Parker moved to deny the request, as he could not make the findings necessary for removal. Mr. Ritter seconded the motion.The motion passed unanimously. 2.883 MARSH (Holly oak) The applicant discussed the request and distributed pictures of water pooling on the roof and the bloom dust that was damaging the roof and causing drain blockage. He was concerned about pedestrians having to maneuver around the tree in the walkway that could cause possible traffic hazards. He noted the canopy cantilevered 25’ over the roofline and requested that if the tree had to be retained; city crews prune the tree to mitigate concerns. 2 Mr. Combs stated it was a large specimen, only causing slight sidewalk displacement. He discussed previous pruning and agreed that subsequent pruning could be more aggressive without harming the integrity of the tree. Katherine Howard, resident, favored retaining the tree as it was significant to the area and that trees in general needed to be protected downtown, as removals negatively affected the neighborhood. Julie Stowasser, resident, reported that the public posting sign kept getting knocked down. She further stated that the healthy tree should be retained and was important to the urban forest design. She did not feel that the tree caused a pedestrian hazard. She suggested mesh screening to mitigate the drain clogging and pruning the tree as Mr. Combs suggested. Will Powers, resident, did not favor the removal of such a large, significant tree and mitigation measures could be employed, including pruning as discussed. He noted that while he did not think there was a pedestrian hazard, the crosswalk traffic could be timed with the stoplight. Andy Wise, resident, did not favor removal and felt mitigation measures could be found. He stated trees were important to the city atmosphere and the urban forest plan. Mr. Parker felt the tree was an asset in that location. He did not favor removal and felt maintenance issues and minimal mitigation measures could be employed. Mr. Hensinger agreed the tree was beautiful and enhanced the property and that there were technical methods to address the drainage issues. He did not favor removal. Mr. Ritter noted this was the largest holly oak in town and that a priority pruning should be scheduled to retain the tree. Mr. Pellemeier agreed to talk to Traffic Safety to see whether this site was a pedestrian problem. Mr. Parker moved to deny the request, as he could not make the findings necessary for removal. Mr. Hensinger seconded the motion.The motion passed unanimously. 3.804 VISTA DEL ARROYO (4 alders) The applicant discussed the removal request, stating the tree was too large and messy and was overwhelming the yard and lawn. He discussed costly constant pruning and said he wanted to replace the trees with saucer magnolias. 3 Mr. Combs discussed the applicant’s previous removal request and that the trees were a condition of the development and were the theme trees of the neighborhood. He said the trees were healthy and only causing minor sidewalk displacement. The Committee agreed that the trees were healthy and could not make findings for removal. Mr. Parker moved to deny the request, as he could not make the findings necessary for removal. Mr. Ritter seconded the motion.The motion passed unanimously. 4.529 PRINCETON (Modesto ash) Derrick Stevens, applicant’s representative, discussed the removal request and the extensive problems with roots in the sewer line and lifting the sidewalk. Mr. Combs stated the tree was in failing health but his removal criteria could not be met. Mr. Parker agreed it was a substandard specimen that had evidence of disease. He felt a replacement tree would be a benefit to the area. Mr. Ritter agreed a replacement would be preferable. 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 within 45 days of issuance of permit. Mr. Hensinger seconded the motion.The motion passed unanimously. 5.1345 OAKWOOD COURT The applicant withdrew the removal request. 6.1235 CAYUCOS (Redwood) The applicant discussed the PG&E pruning issues and felt the tree would just cause more problems as it got bigger. He stated the neighbor was concerned about debris. He discussed the adjacent construction and was concerned that the construction would cause long-term damage to the tree. He felt the tree’s location would not make sense due to the close proximity of the development. Mr. Combs agreed that removal and replacement might be the best long-term solution, due to the construction. He stated the tree had large co-dominant stem and had a weighted lean on one side. He suggested stability might be at risk. There was discussion about which property owners were responsible for the tree. 4 Dave Gibson, neighbor, was concerned about the viability of the tree and the pruning required by PG&E. He felt the construction and pruning would stress the tree and was concerned about it falling down. Ron Rinnell, Bunyan Brothers, reported that the permit for building the concrete wall would come through within ten days and that the tree couldn’t be easily removed once the wall was built. Staff agreed to investigate the details of the construction. Mr. Parker felt it was confusing as to whose property the tree was on and believed the tree would cause future problems if retained. He favored removal with replacement. Mr. Ritter 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. Parker seconded the motion.The motion passed unanimously. 7.2149 SANTA YNEZ (Redwood) Shawn Collerman, applicant’s representative, discussed the removal request and stated the resident couldn’t open their back door due to the roots pushing up the foundation. He did not want to remove the tree, but felt root pruning would affect the stability and viability of the tree. He had not come up with any effective mitigation measures. Mr. Combs agreed there was significant foundation damage and minor fence damage. Jan Salem, neighbor, noted the property owner had removed several trees already and felt this was a skyline tree. She noted that replacement plantings in the neighborhood had not thrived. Mr. Parker was reluctant to remove the tree, but agreed it would only cause further problems as it got larger and that it was the wrong tree in the wrong location. Mr. Combs agreed that root pruning would increase the risk of the tree falling. Mr. Ritter felt the tree was a large, healthy, attractive specimen. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request based on undue hardship to the property owner and required two 15-gallon replacement tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted in the front and in the back within 45 days of issuance of permit. Mr. Hensinger seconded the motion.The motion passed, with Mr. Ritter abstaining. 5 NEW BUSINESS 1.Presentation on “Street Tree Recommendations” by Allan Cooper Allan Cooper, representative of Save Our Downtown (SOD), discussed advocating for downtown issues. He noted the increase in building height limits and that Dave Garth (Chamber of Commerce) favored having smaller trees in the downtown. Mr. Cooper felt the larger, taller tree species needed to be retained in the downtown area. He specifically discussed the many benefits of the ficus microcarpa as a key downtown tree. Evangelos Evangelopoulos, SOD representative, agreed that the ficus microcarpa was an excellent specimen for the downtown and improved the carbon footprint. There was general discussion about the performance requirements for street tree specimen choices and assured the speakers that the ficus microcarpa would remain on the Downtown Planting plan. 2.Tree Committee Schedule for June, July, and August Staff and Committee members discussed availability for the upcoming summer Tree Committee meetings. Members agreed to email dates and discussion to staff in order to finalize meeting schedules and quorum determinations. OLD BUSINESS There were no items to discuss. LIAISON REPORT Mr. Pellemeier discussed the Tree Ordinance Workshop to be held on June 5 from 8 a.m. – 10 a.m. for professionals and property managers. He reported that changes to the ordinance would be highlighted. The meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m. to next regular meeting, date to be determined. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske, Recording Secretary