Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-03-2010 TC Minutes1 TREE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, AUGUST 3, 2010 Corporation Yard Conference Room 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo MEMBERS PRESENT:Matt Ritter, David Hensinger, David Savory, Ben Parker, and Suzan Ehdaie STAFF PRESENT:Keith Pellemeier and Steve Williams PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. MINUTES: Approval of Minutes of July 6, 2010 Mr. Savory moved to approve the minutes as submitted.Mr. Parker seconded the motion.The motion passed unanimously. TREE REMOVAL APPLICATIONS 1.258 CALIFORNIA BLVD. (Eucalyptus) John Duval, applicant’s representative, discussed the removal request and the possible liability caused by large branches dropping. The applicant was concerned about health and safety issues on the property. Mr. Williams reported that the trees were healthy but too large for the area, with poor limb attachments. He stated they were close to power lines and he did not believe pruning would mitigate the concerns. Mr. Hensinger moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required one 15-gallon tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of issuance of permit. Ms. Ehdaie seconded the motion.The motion passed unanimously. 2.1122 LAUREL LANE (7 eucalyptus) The applicant discussed the removal request, noting concerns about safety in terms of pedestrian hazards and vehicular damage and the problems with 2 constant maintenance. He did not feel pruning would mitigate liability issues. He discussed the replanting plan. Mr. Williams stated the trees were in moderate health with weak links and included bark. He felt removing the large trees would force the smaller trees to fail with the lack of sheltering. Mr. Savory felt the trees were attractive and healthy. He favored removing the tree close to the building, but retaining the others. Mr. Ritter was concerned about the large trees’ co-dominant leaders breaking and favored the applicant’s replanting plan. Mr. Ritter moved approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice and required four 24-inch box and three 15-gallon replacement trees to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of issuance of permit. Ms. Ehagie seconded the motion.The motion passed unanimously. 3.777 LINCOLN (Palm) The applicant discussed the removal request and felt the tree was in the wrong location and stated it was damaging the driveway, fence, and planter area. She reported that the fronds were dangerous in the high traffic and pedestrian area and hard to clean up because of their sharpness and spear-like nature. She was also concerned about the tree’s lean and the fronds getting ensnared in the power lines. She submitted a letter of removal support from the neighbors. She noted the possibility of a fruitless olive tree as replacement. Mr. Williams reported it was a healthy, self-pruning older palm, creating some slight property damage. He agreed the tree was in a poor location and could grow to approximately 90 feet tall. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request, based on undue hardship to the property owner, and required one 15-gallon tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of issuance of permit. Ms. Ehdaie seconded the motion.The motion passed unanimously. 3 4.1 MUSTANG DRIVE (3 pines, 1 oak) Chris Stier, applicant’s representative, discussed the removal request and noted the oak was beginning to lean. He stated the tree had been trimmed by the fence around the pool area and discussed concerns with numerous pine tree surface roots causing damage to the sidewalk. He discussed re- landscaping the area. Mr. Williams reported that the Coast live oak was healthy and part of a larger creek grove. He noted that it had been previously pruned incorrectly. He agreed the healthy Italian stone pines were causing damage to the sidewalk, but felt the structures were fine. He noted strategic pruning of the oak might mitigate concerns. The Committee agreed that the oak could be retained with corrective pruning. Mr. Ritter moved to approve the removal of the three pines, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required three 15-gallon replacement trees to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of issuance of permit. He further moved to deny the removal of the oak, as he could not make the findings necessary for removal. Mr. Savory seconded the motion.The motion passed unanimously. 5.1493 HIGUERA (2 Camphors) Barbara Lynch, City of San Luis Obispo representative, discussed the tree’s removal request history regarding sidewalk repair in the area. She stated the Public Works Dept. was requesting removal approval for the large tree by the driveway first in order to stagger removals and plantings along with the phased sidewalk repair. Roxanne Carr, property owner, discussed the 2006 removal request denial and stated she agreed to provide an easement so the sidewalk could be re- figured, as the current sidewalk was in disrepair and could not be easily traversed, especially for wheelchairs. Douglas Wood, 1461 Higuera, submitted copies of the 2006 petition from neighboring properties that favored retaining the tree at that time. He stated there were still neighborhood concerns about allowing the tree’s removal. He discussed re-figuring the sidewalk on to a level area and agreed to offer 4 an easement on his property to allow the sidewalk to be replaced on to a level surface. He also felt strategic root pruning would mitigate some issues. He believed re-figuring the sidewalk was possible and would preserve both trees, which were a significant asset to the area and he felt that removing them would cause harm to the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Williams reported that they were two large mature trees that were causing extreme hardscape damage and had minor pockets of decay. He stated the larger tree could not be root pruned, due to instability issues. He felt the smaller tree could be retained. Mr. Parker agreed with Mr. Wood’s suggestions and encouraged the City to work with both property owners to relocate the sidewalk and retain the two trees. Mr. Ritter agreed with Mr. Parker, stating that the neighborhood desire to retain the relatively historic trees was substantial. Mr. Parker moved to deny the removal request, as he could not make the findings necessary for removal. Mr. Ritter seconded the motion.The motion passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business to discuss. OLD BUSINESS Mr. Savory nominated Mr. Parker as Committee Vice-Chair. Mr. Parker accepted and the Committee voted 5-0 for Mr. Parker as Vice-Chair. LIAISON REPORT Mr. Pellemeier reported that the Cal Trans Heritage Tree project was progressing well and discussed the new Commemorative Tree program downtown. He stated staff was pursuing the option of holding the 2011 Arbor Day celebration at Mitchell Park. Mr. Pellemeier reported that the wood chip giveaway at the Corporation Yard on July 24 was successful. 5 He also reported that automobiles had struck five trees within the last month. He discussed the recent Tree Ordinance Workshop and reported it went well and was attended by approximately fourteen tree service, landscaping, and property management representatives. ARBORIST REPORT Mr. Williams reported that five trees had been removed under his purview and discussed the move of three date palms on California Blvd. The meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. to next regular meeting, scheduled for 5 p.m. on Monday, August 23, 2010. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske, Recording Secretary