Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-25-2013 TC Minutes1 TREE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES MONDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2013 Corporation Yard Conference Room 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo MEMBERS PRESENT: David Savory, Ben Parker, Matt Ritter, and David Hensinger STAFF PRESENT: Ron Combs PUBLIC COMMENT There were no public comments. MINUTES: Approval of Minutes of January 28, 2013 Mr. Hensinger moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. TREE REMOVAL APPLICATIONS 1. 321 Cuesta (Cypress) The applicant discussed the removal request, noting that the branches are breaking and posing a liability. He discussed the “green” development plan and submitted a re- landscaping plan, which showed four trees would be planted in replacement. Mr. Combs reported that it was a large healthy tree with minor structural problems and that the City had pruned it. He stated he could not make his required findings for removal. Mr. Hensinger moved to approve the removal request, based on undue hardship to the property owner and pending Planning Dept. Approval, and directed the applicant to implement the landscaping plan as presented. Mr. Savory seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Hensinger asked the applicant to make sure there was no red tail hawk nest in the tree prior to its removal. 2 2. 1304 Ella There was no applicant or representative present to discuss the item. 3. 804 Pasatiempo (Fan palms) Alison Krugh, applicant’s representative, discussed the removal request, initiated by the elderly homeowner who was highly concerned about the palms swaying in high winds and feared the trees would come down on her house. Dixie Hsu, applicant, reiterated her high level of anxiety and fear living with the thought of the trees falling, as she had already seen them bend dramatically in the wind. Ms. Krugh submitted several letters from neighbors who favored the removal of the trees. There was extensive discussion about the fears of the homeowner, even though Mr. Ritter and other members assured her it was unlikely the palms would fall over and damage her home. Mr. Combs stated these were large healthy palms and he could not make the required findings for removal. The Committee discussed the remoteness of these trees coming down, but agreed that removing them would not harm the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Hensinger moved to approve the removal request, based on undue hardship to the property owner, and required replacement planting of two 15-gallon trees to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of tree removals. Mr. Ritter seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 4. 1236 Drake Circle (Liquid amber) Del Dingus, 1228 Drake Circle, applicant’s representative, discussed the removal request and noted the tree was damaging the curb and lifting the sidewalk. He felt removal would promote good arboricultural practice. He discussed replacing the tree with a crepe myrtle. Mr. Combs stated this was a large healthy tree and he could not make the required findings for removal. 3 Mr. Ritter moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required a replacement planting of one 15-gallon tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of tree removal. Mr. Savory seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Parker suggested the crepe myrtle might be too small a species and encouraged the applicant to choose a larger species. 5. 847 Mirada (Canary Island pine) The applicant discussed the removal request, stating that his son was highly allergic to the pine trees and offered to submit a statement from his son’s doctor. He noted that he had already planted several trees on site but would agree to replacement planting, if requested. Mr. Combs stated it was a healthy tree and he could not make the required findings for removal. Mr. Ritter discussed the existence of many other pollen-laden trees in the area. Mr. Savory did not think removing this tree was a solution, given all of the other pollen traveling in the area. Mr. Hensinger moved to approve the removal request, based on undue hardship to the property owner, and required a replacement planting of one 15-gallon tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of tree removal. Mr. Parker seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Mr. Savory voting against. 6. 1550 Madonna (5 trees) Bruce Fraser, applicant’s representative, discussed the removal request and reported the roots were intruding into the walkways and utilities, that tree were too close to the building and several were blocking the solar panel project. He stated that a tenant’s meeting was held, advertising the topic of removing the trees. Linda Shotwell, applicant’s representative, discussed prior pruning in an attempt to mitigate the shading of the solar panels and that the effort had not been successful. 4 Mr. Fraser discussed the affordable solar housing project in detail and the property improvements and financial feasibility. He outlined the replacement planting plan, noting there would be a 4:1 replacement ratio and that there was a maintenance plan in place. He felt the removal request met all three of the necessary findings There was detailed discussed of shading issues regarding solar efficiency and retrofitting re conservation measures. The Committee discussed the retention feasibility of “Tree E” and was concerned about removing sycamores. Mr. Combs stated these were large healthy trees and he could not make the required findings for removal. Mr. Ritter noted that heavy pruning instead of removal at this point was not feasible for the structure or long-term health of the trees. Mr. Ritter moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and with replacement planting as outlined in the planting renovation plan submitted. Mr. Hensinger seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS There were no items to discuss. NEW BUSINESS The Committee discussed slack-lining as it pertained to the current ordinance and agreed to leave the ordinance as written. Barbara Lynch, staff, discussed the Committee’s request to revise the ordinance to allow for a total of seven Tree Committee members and reported the item would be heard at the April 16, 2013 Council meeting. Mr. Ritter agreed to represent the Committee at the meeting. Ms. Lynch also noted that tree removals vs. solar issues would probably be coming up more often in the future and suggested the Committee hold a discussion to see where the Committee stood philosophically on the question of removing trees to allow for solar access. The Committee agreed to have this discussion at a later date. 5 ARBORIST REPORT Mr. Combs discussed the improper pruning of the pear trees at the high school and reported that the trees were within the County’s ordinance, not the City’s. He also noted that general maintenance staff performed the pruning, not certified arborists. He circulated a draft of the new permit form for review. Mr. Ritter suggested language that indicated the band of tape needed to remain in place until the item has been heard and voted on. The Committee agreed to review the new draft and come back to staff with any suggestions. The meeting adjourned at 6:35 p.m. to next regular meeting, scheduled for 5 p.m. on Monday, March 25, 2013. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske, Recording Secretary