Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-22-2010TC Minutes1 TREE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES MONDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2010 Corporation Yard Conference Room 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo MEMBERS PRESENT:Chair- Matt Ritter, Vice Chair-Ben Parker, David Savory, Suzan Ehdaie and David Hensinger. STAFF PRESENT:Keith Pellemeier and Ron Combs PUBLIC COMMENT There were no public comments at this time. MINUTES: Approval of Minutes of October 25, 2010 Mr. Parker moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Savory seconded the motion.The motion passed unanimously. TREE REMOVAL APPLICATIONS 1.1510 HIGUERA (Misc. trees) The applicant discussed the removal request, stating there were too many trees in the small area and there was no sunlight available. He felt there was evidence of disease in some of the trees. He discussed a detailed replacement planting plan for five trees. Mr. Combs stated that the site was a business and therefore, even smaller diameter trees needed approval from Committee. He felt the small oaks and a couple of pear trees could be removed with replacement. Mr. Savory agreed the smaller ones could be removed for thinning purposes. Mr. Parker noted the requested trees were all “volunteer” and favored removal with replacement. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request for nine trees, based on promoting good arboricultural practice and that such removal would not harm the character of the neighborhood, and required adoption of the proposed planting plan for five replacement trees, to be implemented within 45 days of issuance of permit. Mr. Hensinger seconded the motion.The motion passed unanimously. 2.100 MADONNA (Eucalyptus) The applicant and his representative, John Madonna, discussed the removal request and stated the large tree posed a risk to pedestrians, utilities, and property 2 along that portion of the new bike path. They also discussed a submitted risk assessment report. Mr. Combs reported that the large eucalyptus was one of many in a grove and that the bike path had been re-aligned to accommodate the tree. He stated he had already approved one tree for removal in the area and agreed that it was possible this large tree could fail. Ms. Ehdaie agreed that the tree was in the way of the new bike/recreation path. Mr. Parker felt the hazards were not as significant as outlined in the risk report. He discussed the frequent use of the path and the new alignment. He was concerned with setting a precedent of “hazard designations” and reiterated that the route configuration was dictating the need for the tree’s removal, not a posed hazard. Robert Schreiber, arborist, discussed the weak structures of the tree and its other significant problems. Mr. Hensinger agreed the tree had many problems and discussed replacement needs. Mr. Ritter agreed with the concerns and the differentials in a hazard report’s subjectivity. He felt the tree posed enough issues to warrant removal. Mr. Ritter moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and require replacement with four 15-gallon trees 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. 3.423 BRANCH (Ash) The applicant stated she actually did not want to remove the tree, but that it was encroaching on the neighbor’s property and she was told it had created some damage to a structure. Mr. Combs noted it was a large tree and that the “lean-to” structure that had been damaged was probably not within code/permitting. He also felt the fence alignment issues could be resolved without removal. The Committee agreed with Mr. Combs and felt that since the applicant did not want to remove the tree for her own purposes, the item could be withdrawn from review. The applicant then withdrew the application request. 3 4.4376 WAVERTREE (Canary Island pine) The applicant discussed the removal request and stated that a tree company said the tree was sick and recommended removal so the “volunteer” oak could have more room to thrive. Mr. Combs felt the tree was relatively healthy, but felt it might need more water, even though it was a drought-tolerant species. Bruce Kaspian, 4370 Wavertree, was concerned with the ongoing health issues and felt it was failing. He stated the needles were yellow, even in winter, and that there was excessive needle drop, bark shedding, and sap. Mr. Ritter agreed that under watering seemed to be an issue.The applicant noted a drip system was in place. Mr. Parker felt the health of the tree seemed to be failing, but there was no real evidence of disease.Ms. Ehdaie felt measures should be taken to try to salvage the large tree. Mr. Savory felt that it was not a good specimen and favored removal if the tree could not be brought back to better health.Mr. Ritter it was the worst looking tree on the street and that it was unhealthy. Mr. Ritter moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural and such removal would not harm the character of the neighborhood, and required replacement 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, with Ms. Ehdaie voting against. 5.379 PACIFIC ((Silk Floss) The applicant discussed the removal request, stating the tree had structural damage and had already damaged the walkway, posing a trip hazard. He felt it was too large for the area. Mr. Combs reported it was a healthy tree, with some evidence of foundation damage caused.Mr. Savory felt it was a healthy tree and did not see any evidence of damage. Mr. Ritter discussed the surface roots heading towards the house and felt that main root was responsible for the crack, which would only get bigger. 4 Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request, based on undue hardship on 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. Ritter seconded the motion.The motion passed unanimously. 6.1110 ORCUTT (Two eucalyptus) There was no applicant or representative to speak to this item. 7.2030 JOHNSON (Date palm) The applicant discussed the tree being right on the property line and that it was in the way of a fence installation. The tree had damaged the previous fence and had encroached on the deck area. He was concerned about fronds and littering and that maintenance had become a hardship. He stated the neighbors supported the tree’s removal and would split the cost of removing it and replacing the fence. He discussed replacing the tree with fruit trees or an avocado tree. Sara Mendoza, property management representative for 2052 Johnson, stated she supported the tree’s removal and would be participating in building the fence. Mr. Combs reported that it was a large healthy specimen and that he could not make his findings for removal. Mr. Savory felt it was a nice tree and he could not make the findings necessary for removal approval. Mr. Hensinger agreed, stating that the shade the tree provided was an asset as well. Mr. Ritter stated he supported the removal because it was right on the property line and the fence project could not effectively be built with the tree remaining. Mr. Parker agreed with Mr. Ritter, stating the tree was in the wrong place and that its removal would not harm the character of the neighborhood. Ms. Ehdaie agreed with Mr. Ritter and Mr. Parker. Ms. Ehdaie moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required a replacement 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, with Mr. Hensinger and Mr. Savory voting against. 8.715, 736, 777, 790, & 856 HIGUERA (four ficus; one carrot wood) 5 Bridget Fraser, project manager and City representative, discussed the downtown sidewalk replacement project and the desire for overall long-term health of the downtown trees. She discussed the details of the trees request for removal: -715 & 736 Higuera: evidence of decay -777 & 856 Higuera: causing hardscape damage and trees had been damaged from vehicles -790 Higuera: excessive sidewalk lifting and grading/drainage issues, as well as concerns about root pruning She stated all trees would be replaced with ficus trees and an additional two ficus trees would be planted in the downtown area. – all with expanded tree well systems. Mr. Combs discussed the details of the issues and supported the removal. He also discussed details of the arborist consultant report of four years ago. He outlined: -715 & 736 Higuera had decays and should be removed -790 Higuera posed an engineering issue -777 & 856 Higuera were subject to damage by vehicles There was general Committee discussion on the proposed removals. Mr. Savory agreed with some of the recommendations, although felt 777 and 856 were not as obvious or imperative to remove. Mr. Hensinger felt the city should begin moving towards flexible sidewalks to be a future solution. Mr. Pellemeier noted there was more latitude in removals regarding the “one tree removed per block per year” edict in the consultant report because the staff had been behind in removals since 2008 and such removals now would be “caught up.” He discussed the downtown improvements that Council was seeking for several buildings/projects and that the Council was requesting that the full scope of projects be completed at one time. Mr. Ritter was concerned with removing all five trees with their massive canopies. He favored partial removal of the more problematic trees (715 & 736 Higuera) and stagger the removal of the rest. He felt engineering issues should be addressed without removing the tree at 790 Higuera. Ms. Ehdaie felt all the trees were major assets to the corridors/area. Mr. Ritter moved to deny the removals at 777 and 856 Higuera, as he could not make the findings necessary for approving removal. 6 Ms.Ehdaie seconded the motion.The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Ritter moved to approve the removals at 715 and 736 Higuera, based on promoting good arboricultural practice and replace them with two 24” box ficus trees. Mr. Parker seconded the motion.The motion passed, with Ms. Ehdaie voting against. Mr. Ritter moved to deny the removal request at 790 Higuera, as he could not make the findings necessary for approval removal. Ms. Ehdaie seconded the motion.The motion passed unanimously. 9.469 SANDERCOCK – Appeal Mr. Pellemeier discussed the appeal. He stated the property owner had been concerned about possible lightning strikes and branches becoming destabilized and had taken it upon himself to severely prune the tree without working within the ordinance regulations. The City had imposed a fine, per the ordinance. Mr. Combs reported that he did not feel the tree would recover in a healthy, safe manner. He did not know if the tree was part of an original development plan, but stated it was not a street tree. Mr. Pellemeier discussed the lack of records and documentation for the area’s history. Vanessa Saldana, appellant representative, discussed past storm and limb damage and droppage and reiterated that her father had been concerned about large limbs crashing into the house. Mr. Ritter determined with staff that the tree had been under the diameter limit and if it had been totally removed, it would have been within ordinance guidelines and would not have required a permit for removal. Mr. Ritter moved to waive the assessed fine and require the owner to remove the remaining tree structure and replace it with a 24” box tree to be planted on site, species to be determined with staff input. Ms. Ehdaie seconded the motion.The motion passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Pellemeier discussed the tree planting program for upper Monterey Street and requested Committee suggest one to two theme trees. He stated Mr. Ritter had submitted several species suggestions and that staff would email those to the 7 Committee, so the Committee members could each choose two suggestions and staff would compile the info to choose the two species. OLD BUSINESS There were no items to discuss. LIAISON REPORT Mr. Pellemeier noted that Mr. Ritter had a new book coming out on trees in California and that Mr. Ritter would be hosting a discussion at the Library on April 7, 2011. ARBORIST REPORT Mr. Combs discussed “Make a Difference Day” project and that 101 trees had been planted in the City. The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. to next regular meeting, scheduled for 5 p.m. on Monday, January 24, 2011. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske, Recording Secretary