Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-26-2009 TC Minutes1 TREE COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA TUESDAY, MAY 26, 2009 Corporation Yard Conference Room 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo MEMBERS PRESENT:Ellen Dollar, Allen Root, Matt Ritter, Craig Kincaid, and David Savory STAFF PRESENT:Keith Pellemeier and Ron Combs PUBLIC COMMENT There were no public comments. MINUTES: Approval of Minutes of April 27, 2009 Ms. Dollar moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Savory seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. TREE REMOVAL APPLICATIONS 1.591 ISLAY (Calif. Sycamore) Catherine Tait spoke to the item, which had been continued twice due to a deadlocked vote. She reiterated that she had planted nine trees on her property and that the removal request was because the sycamore was too large for the area, was causing damage, and was the wrong species for the location. She agreed to a replacement planting. Mr. Combs reported it was a healthy, small to medium-sized native tree that would grow quite large and would probably cause future hardscape damage. Ms. Dollar stated she could not make any of the findings necessary for granting approval for removal. Mr. Ritter agreed the removal evidence did not exist at this time. Mr. Savory stated that previously he had favored removal, but had since re-evaluated and felt the skyline tree was appropriate for the area at this time. He suggested planting another tree now and allow it to become established and then return for a removal request when damage was more evident. Mr. Kincaid agreed it was difficult to approve removing a healthy tree that was not causing current problems, although he felt that the tree would grow larger and cause future problems and would be more expensive to remove. 2 Mr. Root stated that he had twice voted to approve the removal due to long-term planning aspects when the tree would out-scale the residence but he agreed that at this time, the required findings did not really allow for approval. Mr. Kincaid moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice. Mr. Root seconded the motion. The motion did not pass, with Ms. Dollar, Mr. Savory, and Mr. Ritter voting against. 2.190 CHORRO (Raywood Ash) The applicant discussed the new landscaping plan and noted this tree was interfering with the utility lines and favored replacing the tree with an Arbutus marina. Mr. Combs reported that it was a small, young specimen that would grow taller and PG&E would have to top it, but at this time, it was not creating issues. Ms. Dollar felt pruning could mitigate problems. Mr. Ritter felt it was an inappropriate tree to be located under power lines and felt the suggested replacement tree was a more suitable species. He suggested planting two trees, spaced symmetrically. Mr. Root agreed with Mr. Ritter’s comments. The applicant agreed Mr. Ritter’s suggestion for planting two trees would be acceptable. Mr. Root moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required two 15-gallon Arbutus marinas to be planted within 45 days of issuance of permit. Ms. Dollar seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 3.855 Via Estaban (3 eucalyptus) The applicant discussed the removal request as submitted. Ron Rinnell, Bunyan Bros. tree service, noted that the tree was brittle, had breakage and a weak V-crotch, was leaning, and posted a hazard. He also noted it was lifting the driveway. He suggested replacing the tree with a Coast live oak. Mr. Combs agreed it was a poor species for the area. He discussed the commercial area street frontage replacement requirement of one tree per 35 linear feet. 3 Mr. Root moved to approve the removal request, based on undue hardship on the property owner, and required three replacement 15-gallon trees to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of issuance of permit. Mr. Kincaid seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 4.1353 DIABLO (Alder) The applicant discussed the driveway damage caused by the roots, stating they had to replace the driveway and install a walkway. Suggested replacing the tree with a Prunus cerassifolia, which would withstand windy area better. Mr. Combs reported that it was a healthy street tree; he noted evidence of minor displacement and that driveway cracking was beginning and would get worse. Mr. Savory suggested the driveway might be settling instead of roots being the cause of damage. Mr. Kincaid felt pruning might mitigate wind concerns. Ms. Dollar felt the trees were crowded and the other tree would thrive with the removal of the alder. Mr. Ritter agreed with Ms. Dollar and felt the plum would be a good replacement species, planted farther back from the sidewalk. Ms. Dollar moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required one 15-gallon Prunus cerassifolia tree be planted within 45 days of issuance of permit. Mr. Savory seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 5.777-841 BOYSEN (7 eucalyptus) The applicant discussed the request, stating the trees were too large for the area. He reported a 6” diameter branch had fallen and the trees had caused sidewalk damage and continually needed to be topped, which caused brittle branch structure. He felt that the trees were a fire and liability hazard. He requested that if the trees were approved for removal, they be allowed to be staggered in the removals over a 12-month period. He suggested replacement plantings of Japanese maples and/or Chinese pistache. He also noted the pines on site would be pruned. Mr. Combs reported that he could not approve removals, based on his necessary criteria. 4 Mr. Kincaid moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required seven 15-gallon trees to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and required the trees be removed and replacements planted within one year’s time, as coordinated with the City Arborist. Mr. Root seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 6.1800 Monterey (Fern pine) Scott Randall, applicant’s representative, discussed the removal request and the hotel remodeling project, as well as the landscaping plan. He stated he’d like to replace it with an Arbutus marina somewhere else on site.He noted the large pine blocked the hotel’s signage, creating hardship for the hotel. He felt the palm behind the tree could be relocated. Mr. Combs stated the tree was not within his purview to authorize its removal. Mr. Ritter noted the tree was dying and felt it had been damaged during the parking lost construction. Mr. Ritter moved to approve the removal request, based on undue hardship on the property owner, and required a 15-gallon Arbutus marina to be planted on site within 45 days of issuance of permit. Ms. Dollar seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 7.1098 SAN ADRIANO (Pine) The applicant discussed the previous request to remove the tree, which had been denied. It had been suggested at that time that he plant another tree to get it established and return with a removal request. He had planted three birch trees. He noted the pine was now leaning on the fence and that the tree’s understory appeared unhealthy. He stated he’d like to replace it with another birch. Mr. Combs stated it was a theme tree for the area. He agreed it was close to the fence and as the diameter grew, it would cause problems. He reiterated that the applicant had established other trees on site. Julie Towery, 967 San Adriano, felt the yard area had been improved and maintained and that the tree’s removal would enhance the property. Mr. Root 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. He further required the existing drip irrigation system be hooked up. 5 Mr. Ritter seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 8.3121 S. HIGUERA (6 eucalyptus) Mark Anderson, 798 Palm, applicant’s representative, stated that the past removal request had been denied. In the meantime, the trees had been professionally pruned and one tree had since fallen and now the stand presented too much of a hazard. Dan McCoy, mobile home park resident, favored the trees’ removals and stated most neighbors did too. He suggested replacing the trees with a smaller variety. Mr. Rinnell stated he had been the one to remove the fallen tree and that the hole created in the stand now created more hazard. Mr. Pellemeier discussed the past loss of cypress in the area. He felt a professional replacement program proposal needed to be reviewed. Ms. Dollar felt the trees presented undue hardship and suggested planting cypress trees in the front of the site. Mr. Combs felt a replacement plan could be conditioned to be coordinated with his office. Ms. Dollar moved to approve the removal request, based on undue hardship on the property owner, and required six 15-gallon replacement trees: two cypress variety planted in the front of the site and the remaining four trees to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and plantings be coordinated with City Arborist. Mr. Savory seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 9.795 CENTER (2 pitosporum; 2 yuccas) The applicant discussed site planting and remodeling plans. He stated the trees littered and roots had cracked the patio area and were damaging the fence posts and rear retaining wall. He agreed to replacement plantings. Mr. Combs stated that because the trees were within 25’ of creek bank, the request needed to come before the Committee. He said the Open Space Manager would have to consult on the replacements if removal was granted. Mr. Ritter moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required two 15-gallon replacement trees to be coordinated with the City Arborist and the Open Space Manager. 6 Mr. Kincaid seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 10.920 DEL RIO (Pine) There was no applicant or representative to speak to the item. Staff agreed to contact the applicant to determine whether the item would come back to Committee. Ms. Towery requested to speak on the item, stating the past property owner had allowed neighbors to strip/prune the tree on their side and the tree was now severely off-balance and she felt it needed to be removed. 11.1013 PEACH (Two Carob trees) 12.385 HIGUERA (Mayten) 13.1422 GARDEN (Bottlebrush 14.1714 GARDEN (Fern pine) 15.1721 GARDEN (Black acacia) Staff reported that the Street crews would do the infrastructure repair work at each address and accordingly, the City Arborist would review each item to assess the viability of the trees and determine at that time whether the trees could be retained or needed to be removed. The Committee agreed with the process and the above items were withdrawn from Committee review. NEW BUSINESS - Permit Language Addition At the request of Mr. Kincaid, the Committee reviewed the current removal permit language and agreed to revise it to include a requirement of replacement tree species listing or citing a reason for not having a replacement tree required. Permits not having that replacement tree section completed would be sent back to the applicant; only 100% complete permits would come forward to Committee. ON-GOING BUSINESS –Heritage Tree Discussion There was staff discussion on the Heritage Tree program and the Cal Trans Grove project. The Committee agreed the Heritage Tree proposal should be forwarded for Council review and approval. 7 The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. to next regular meeting scheduled for Monday, June 22, 2009, at 5:00 p.m. in the Corporation Yard Conference Room, 25 Prado Road. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske, Recording Secretary