Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-26-2015 TC Minutes1 MEMBERS PRESENT: Trey Duffy, Ben Parker, Jane Worthy, Scott Loosley, Matt Ritter and Susan Olson STAFF PRESENT: Ron Combs Mr. Ritter called the meeting to order at 5:03 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENT Freddy Otte, City Biologist, reported that he had been hearing more public concern about tree pruning affecting the protection of nesting birds. Staff agreed with work with him to strengthen the ordinance regarding nesting protections. MINUTES: Approval of Minutes of April 27, 2015 Mr. Parker moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Duffy seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. TREE REMOVAL APPLICATIONS 1. 646 Couper Dr. (Maple) The applicant discussed the removal request and stated concerns about the damaged sidewalk and that its repair would harm the root structure. He believed the tree was in failing health. He wanted to remove the maple to allow the nearby palm to thrive. Mr. Combs reported that the tree had likely health issues but he could not make the necessary findings for removal. Mr. Parker agreed the tree was in failing health. Minutes Tree Committee Corporation Yard Conference Room, 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 5:00 pm 2 Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and if the nearby palm did not survive the sidewalk repair process, he required a replacement planting of one 15-gallon tree to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of the tree’s removal. Ms. Olson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 2. #78, #81 & #84 Los Verdes Park (Liquid amber, 2 plums) Carol Mees, HOA representative, discussed the removal request and stated the #81 was leaning significantly and had termites and #84 was also leaning significantly and two-thirds of it was diseased. She stated an HOA concern that #78 was damaging the Clubhouse outside wall, with large surface roots traveling towards the foundation, and that the tree was negatively affecting the healthy of nearby trees. She submitted documentation showing that the HOA Board approved the removal request. Mr. Combs agreed that #78 had surface roots, but it could not be determined that the roots were causing structural damage. He stated the two plum trees should be removed. The Committee agreed to consider the two plums and the liquid amber as two separate motions. Sean Flickinger, 79 Del Oro, supported the removal of the two plum trees but felt that there were too many Chinese pistache species already and encouraged a different species be chosen. Residents Claude Remillard and Diane DiGangi agreed with Mr. Flickinger and suggested an evergreen variety. Mr. Parker moved to approve the removal request for the two plum trees, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, and required a replacement planting of two 15-gallon trees to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of the tree removals. Mr. Loosley seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 3 Mr. Flickinger discussed his submitted letter favoring retaining the liquid amber and submitted letters from neighbors and a 13-person signed petition that also favored keeping the tree. He felt the tree could be pruned and that it was not the cause of the wall’s damage. The tree was near his property and it provided sound attenuation and shade. He agreed that there was no evidence that the Clubhouse foundation was being affected. Ms. DiGangi discussed the damage to the wall and felt the structure itself was failing and needed replacement and that the damage was not due to roots. She felt keeping the tree was critical. Ms. Mees reiterated that the HOA Landscape Review Committee and its Board voted to approve the removal. Sarah Flickinger, 79 Del Oro, discussed the letters of support to keep the tree and agreed that the roots were likely not the cause of the wall needing to be repaired. She agreed with her husband’s comments and noted that a tree had already been removed and that a precedent shouldn’t be set. Mr. Duffy agreed it was hard to determine if roots were causing the wall damage. Mr. Loosley stated the stand of trees has not had any maintenance, but none were in decline. He felt prevailing winds had created the lean and did not think the roots were causing the wall damage. He suggested pruning the tree and monitoring its health. Mr. Ritter felt removal would harm the character of the neighborhood and noted the strength of having 13 people petition to keep the tree was compelling. Mr. Parker and Ms. Olson agreed with Committee comments. Mr. Duffy discussed the elective process of an HOA, as it pertained to the Committee’s purview. Mr. Duffy moved to deny the removal request, as he could not make the necessary findings. Mr. Loosley seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 4 3. 394 Bluerock (Palms) The applicant discussed the removal request and the desire to build a courtyard area, which is being reviewed for approval by the City and his HOA. He noted that Mr. Combs had previously approved removing the palms, but the applicant was not able to move forward at that time and now the palms had grown to a diameter that required permit approval. He also noted that his dog continues to eat the dates that were dropped and becomes sick. Russee Parvin, 527 Stoneridge, noted that palms and olives were the theme trees in the area, but agreed the two palms by the house could be removed and suggested they be relocated to a nearby park. He stated he supported the applicant’s efforts to build a private outdoor living space. Ms. Olson agreed the location of the trees prohibited the building of the courtyard and favored the removal request. Mr. Parker felt the HOA should approve the removals first. The Committee favored the project concept and agreed not to take action, allowing staff to coordinate the removal when the HOA approves the project. NEW BUSINESS Removal Criteria Discussion Mr. Duffy asked for Committee input on the best ways to interpret and apply the criteria. The Committee discussed the ordinance and the spirit and intentions of the criteria, as well as offering past examples of application flexibility. Mr. Ritter recapped past discussions and examinations of the criteria and stated that the language in the ordinance and for the criteria is purposefully vague. August Meeting Date Upon request for re-scheduling, it was agreed that the August regular meeting would be held at 5 p.m. on Monday, August 31, 2015. 5 OLD BUSINESS Recap of Arbor Day and WCISA Annual Conference Mr. Combs discussed the items. The meeting adjourned at 6:35 p.m. to next regular meeting scheduled for Monday, June 22 at 5:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske, Recording Secretary