Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-22-2009 TC Minutes1 TREE COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA MONDAY, JUNE 22, 2009 Corporation Yard Conference Room 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo MEMBERS PRESENT: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 May 26, 2009 Mr. Kincaid moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Ritter seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. TREE REMOVAL APPLICATIONS 1.920 DEL RIO (Pine) There was no applicant present to speak to the item. Staff agreed t contact the applicant to determine whether the request would come back to Committee at a later date. 2.3190 FLORA Staff stated that the applicant had withdrawn the application for removal. 3.1521 OSOS (Palm) Steve Soenke, applicant’s representative, discussed the development plans and stated the tree is in the way of required parking spaces. He noted there were several other trees on the property. Mr. Combs reported the tree was in fair health and noted that no replacement planting plan had been proposed. 2 Mr. Savory did not think the removal would harm the character of the neighborhood and did present a minor hardship to the owner. He favored removal with a replacement plan requirement. Mr. Kincaid agreed the tree was in failing health and felt it was too large for the location. He also requested replacement planting. Mr. Soenke agreed that some small species trees would be agreeable to be planted on site. Mr. Ritter moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice and required one 15-gallon small species tree 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. 4.2342 MEADOW (Five eucalyptus) Rebecca Ellis, owner, discussed the previous uprooting of trees next to her property and was concerned about the safety hazards the trees presented and noted a concern for their failing health due to insect infestation. She stated the large trees were encroaching on the walkway and posing a threat to the house. She preferred to do a staggered removal. Mr. Combs reported the large trees were relatively healthy but agreed they were growing in the wrong location and posed potential liability due to limb breakage and uprooting. George Ellis, owner, reiterated a desire to remove the five hazardous trees and discussed keeping the smaller, straight-growing trees so as not to “clear cut” the property. Mr. Combs suggested that if the removal request was granted, the remaining trees for significantly safety pruned. Frank Little, neighbor, stated he strongly favored the removal request for the trees and agreed with the liability issues in such a windy area and stated concerns for his property protection. Mr. Kincaid agreed the trees were a hazard. Mr. Kincaid moved to approve the removal request, based on undue hardship and promoting good arboricultural practice and required no replacement planting. Mr. Ritter seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 3 5.1529 OSOS (Date Palm) Ron Rinnell, applicant’s representative, stated the tree was too large for the property and posed a hazard, while being a high maintenance specimen that had become increasingly expensive to maintain. He requested removal with replacement of a more suitable tree. He also noted the sidewalk and fence showed minor damage. Mr. Combs reported that it was a healthy tree, with a fair amount of debris that could be pruned out. Mr. Kincaid felt the tree was growing in the wrong location. Mr. Ritter felt the tree was significant to the area and that proper pruning would mitigate hazard concerns. He noted another large palm had already been removed. Mr. Savory agreed with Mr. Ritter’s comments. Mr. Savory moved to deny the request, as he could not make the necessary findings for removal. Mr. Ritter seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Mr. Kincaid voting against. 6.1730 SANTA ROSA (Palm) Marsha Nelson, owner, discussed desire to re-develop the property and stated that to do so in any usable space/design configuration, the tree would be in the way of either construction or required parking. She stated her backyard was virtually unusable as it was. She discussed the large amount of landscaping and property improvements she has made on site. Curt Illingsworth, applicant’s representative, discussed the odd size of the lot itself and stated that all feasible development solutions had conflicts with the tree in place. Mr. Combs stated it was a large, healthy tree and he could not make any of his specific findings for removal. Mr. Kincaid felt the tree was growing in the wrong location on site. Mr. Savory felt it was a theme tree for the area, but noted minor fence damage and understood how the development conflicts posed hardship to the owner. 4 Mr. Ritter agreed with the comments and stated he had spoken with Brian Lavelle in the Planning Dept., who said that possible variance scenarios might be able to be worked out if a development plan was brought forth, depending on the proposed design. Mr. Pellemeier agreed that the Planning Dept. should be the first stop in this process to proceed with the actual plan before determining the actual need to remove the tree. Eric Meyer, 1242 Buchon, felt the tree had historical merit and did not feel it should be proposed for removal until the development plans were moving forward. The applicant agreed to withdraw the removal request at this time. 7.17 TREES (CITY OF SLO/APPLICANT) Mr. Pellemeier made a presentation on behalf of the Public Works/Street Dept. for approval to remove 17 trees in Area 4 to allow sidewalk/infrastructure repairs and to approve the replacement tree planting proposals. He stated there were up to 34 trees that were being evaluated for retention or removal, based on the viability of the trees surviving repairs and the need/cost-effectiveness of on-going repair work surrounding retentions. He noted that there were staff discussion notes accompanying each tree removal request listed. 2138 BEEBEE (Elm) Ryan Guthrie, 2126 Beebee, agreed that the sidewalk needed repair but did not favor such a large specimen being removed. Mr. Meyer stated the sidewalk installation project took place eight years ago and the trees were already well established in the area and encouraged the infrastructure be worked around saving the trees. Mr. Combs reported the tree were in moderate health and had been topped by PG&E. The tree had some evidence of internal decay, a leaning canopy, and felt that the root pruning required for the necessary repair work would leave the tree unstable. Mr. Savory agreed there was damage. Mr. Ritter felt in general and specific to that neighborhood, trees were more important than sidewalks. He felt that any replacement plantings should be the same distinctive species. 5 Mr. Pellemeier strongly believed the corner tree needed to be removed, due to the liability issues and that the re-establishment of another tree would better serve the long- term urban forest. Mr. Ritter moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required three 15-gallon replacement trees: one small species chosen from the Master Street Tree list and two American elms. Mr. Savory seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 874 CHURCH (Shamel ash) Jim Handle, owner, stated the sidewalk had already been repaired in the past and did not agree the tree needed to be removed. He felt any trip hazard could be ground down and suggested raised pervious concrete material could be used. Mr. Combs reported it was a large, healthy tree that could double in size. He discussed the current Street Division guidelines regarding materials allowed for repair work at this time. Mr. Ritter moved to deny the removal request, as he could not make the findings necessary to approve the removal. Mr. Kincaid seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 1040 ISLAY (Camphor) Tom Callahan, owner, discussed the landscaping around the tree and stated the tree provided a key canopy for the area. He favored removal only after he experience undue hardship issues at this property. Nancy Dwyer, 1035 Islay, did not feel undue hardship had been presented and felt the healthy tree was a significant asset to the area. Mr. Meyer felt the tree offered significant character in the area and repairs should be made while retaining the tree. LeeAnn Singleton, 1052 Islay, had planted camphors on her property and felt this tree should be retained. Mr. Combs reported that the tree was in moderate health. 6 Mr. Ritter moved to deny the removal request, as he could not make the findings necessary to approve the removal. Mr. Kincaid seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 1401 CHORRO (Ficus) David Dawson, owner, supported the removal due to numerous safety issues and liability potential from the tree and sidewalk damage. He felt all three trees were out of scale to the property and favored removing at least two, if not all three, as all had contributed to damage on his property and to the city’s property. He suggested a Crepe myrtle as replacement species. Mr. Combs reported the trees were very healthy but were causing problems. He stated the first tree was the one causing the problems and the only one requested for removal; the remaining two trees would be pruned by the city. Mr. Pellemeier noted that the remaining two trees’ removals could be discussed with staff at a later date. Mr. Ritter moved to approve the request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required replacing the tree with one 15-gallon Crepe myrtle. Mr. Kincaid seconded the motion. The motion passed. 2036 PRICE (Carob) Mr. Ritter moved to approve the request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and replacing the tree with two 15-gallon small species trees to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list. Mr. Savory seconded the motion. The motion passed. 420 BRANCH (American elm) Mr. Ritter moved to approve the request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required replacing the tree with one 15-gallon American elm. Mr. Savory seconded the motion. 7 The motion passed. 2142 STORY/563 BRANCH (2 Shamel ash) Mr. Ritter moved to approve the request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required replacing the tree with two 15-gallon trees: the one for Story street to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list; the Branch street replacement should be American elm. Mr. Savory seconded the motion. The motion passed. 694 CHURCH (Pepper) Mr. Ritter moved to approve the request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and replacing the tree with one 15-gallon tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list. Mr. Savory seconded the motion. The motion passed. 640 LEFF (Camphor) Mr. Ritter moved to approve the request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and replacing the tree with one 15-gallon tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list. Mr. Kincaid seconded the motion. The motion passed. 841/885/897 LEFF (5 Liquid ambers) Mr. Ritter moved to approve the request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and replacing the trees with five 15-gallon trees to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list. Mr. Savory seconded the motion. The motion passed. 8 1632 OSOS (Acacia) Mr. Ritter moved to deny the removal request, as he could not make the findings necessary to approve the removal. Mr. Kincaid seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 1042 PACIFIC (Liquid amber) Mr. Ritter felt the damage was minor and that the tree was appropriate to the area, but not the location. He did not favor removal at this time. Mr. Kincaid moved to approve the request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and replacing the trees with one 15-gallon tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list. Mr. Savory seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Mr. Ritter voting against. NEW BUSINESS –Mayor’s Quarterly Advisory Body Meting – July 9, 2009 Mr. Ritter agreed to attend. –Language for Motion samples The language was approved as submitted for efficient motion-making. ON-GOING BUSINESS –Heritage Tree Update There was staff discussion on the Heritage Tree program and the Cal Trans Grove project. ARBORIST REPORT Mr. Combs reported that he had approved nine removals since the last meeting report. 9 LIAISON REPORT Mr. Pellemeier discussed his meeting with S.O.D. (Save Our Downtown) and the need for educating the public on the aspects of the Downtown Plan. The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m. to next regular meeting scheduled for Monday, July 27, 2009, at 5:00 p.m. in the Corporation Yard Conference Room, 25 Prado Road. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske, Recording Secretary