Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 09-058 1 RESOLUTION NO. 09- 058 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DENYING AN APPEAL, AND APPROVING APPLICATION #TRP09-0222, FOR TUUE REMOVAL OF FOUR COAST LIVE OAK TREES Application APPC09 -00011 TRP09 -0222 • Parsley; 21990 Via Regina/ 21820 Via Regina WHEREAS, on September 23, 2009, following a duly noticed public hearing, at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and present evidence, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission approved Tree Removal Permit TRP09 -0222 for the removal of four Coast Live Oak trees; and WHEREAS, on October 6, 2009, Max Keyashian, of 21818 Via Regina, filed an appea of the approval of Tree Removal Permit TRP09 -0222 by the Planning Commission to the City Council; and WHEREAS, City Code Section 15- 90.010 requites that the City Council consider appeals of Planning Commission decisions, such as for a Tree Removal Permit, and conduct a do no'o public hearing on the Tree Removal Permit Application; and WHEREAS, on November 4, 2009, the City Council held a duly noticed Public Hearing c, the Appeal of the Tree Removal Permit, at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence and argument The City Council considered the . Tree Removal Permit Application, the Staff Report to the Planning Commission on the project, the: Appeal of the Tree Removal Permit, correspondence, presentations and materials from the Appellant, the Applicant and the public, and all testimony and other evidence presented at din Public Hearing, and based on that review and consideration, made the detesna ations and decisions set forth below. Now, therefore be it resolved that the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby: L Denies the appeal and upholds the Planning Commission's approval! of Applicat ou #TRP09 -0222 for the removal of four Coast. Live Oak trees subject to all conditions of approval - specified in Planning Commision. Resolution No_ 09 -038; and H. Determines that the findings required for issuance of a Tree Removal Permit. pursuant 10 City Code Article 15 -50.080 are set forth below and that the Applicant has met the burden of proof to support making those required findings overall as follows: Criterion #1: The condition of -tike tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of failing, proximity to Ong or proposed structures, and interface with utility service& The request to remove coast live oak ( tree #3 referenced in the Arborist Review dated August 4, 2009) meets this criterion in that it is in the path of a proposed retaining wall. The other three oak trees (collectively called tree #5 in the Acborist Review dated August 4, 2009 because the trees grow as a single unit) do not meet this criterion in that they do not appear diseased. They also do not appear to be in danger of falling and are not causing damage to structures. Based on the information provided by the applicant, they do not interfere with utilities. • Criterion #2: The necessity to remove the tree for physical damage or threatened damage to improvements or impervious surfaces on the property. The request to remove oak tree #3 meets • this criterion, in that, if it is not removed, it could cause damage to the proposed retaining wall. The other three oaks (#5) do not meet this criterion. Criterion #3: The topography of the land and the O ect the tree removal would have upon erosion, soil retention and the diversion or increased flow of surface waters. The proposed tree removals do not meet this criterion, in that the trees are actively having a positive effect on the - prevention of erosion. They grow on a slope and their roots are holding the soil in place. • Criterion #4: The number, species, size and location of existing trees on this and neighboring properties and the e, fject the removal would have upon shade, privacy impac4 scenic beauty, property values and established standards of the area. The proposed tree removals do not meet - this criterion, in that the removal of the four oaks will have an impact on the amount of privacy available to the lower neighbor. Criterion #5: The number of healthy trees the properly Ls able to support according to good forestry practices. The proposed four tree removals do meet this criterion, rion, in that all four are too close to other trees for good forestry practices. Oak tree #3 is within about two feet and grows completely under the canopy of another, larger oak with better strnctu e. The three oaks (#5) are within inches of another oak and, in the near future, if they continue to grow together, by the time they are mature they could fail as a result of the trunks pushing against each other. . Criterion #6: Whether or not there are any alternatiVes that would allow for retaining or not encroaching on the protected tree. The proposed tree removal meets this criterion because there are no equally effective long -term tree- protective alternatives to removing the four oaks. While technically possible to retain all four trees, retention of oak #3 will adversely affect the long-term health of the nearby oak tree on the neighboring property to the south, and leaving the cluster of four oaks (#5) will result in four poorly - structured trees as they mature. As a result there are no equally effective long term tree protective alternatives. Criterion #7: Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the game t! purpose and intent of this Article. The proposed tree removal meets this criterion, in that approval of the request to remove the four oak trees is not in conflict with the general purpose and intent of Article 15-50, which is to preserve and protect healthy, mature trees in the City. In this situation, all four trees are right next to other, preferable oak trees and in competition with them. • Criterion #8: Any other information relevant to the public health, safety, or general welfare and the purposes of this ordinance as set forth in section 15-50.010. Removal of the four oak trees meets this criterion in that it will support maintenance and won of erosion on and associated with the easement..The applicant has presented the City with a duly recorded easement covering the land on which the trees are located. Criterion #9: It is nec.essary m remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the property when there is no other feasible alternative to the removaL Removal of the four oak trees meets 2 Application No_ APPC09- 0001; 21990 Via Regina /21820 Via Regina • this criterion. It enables the easement holder to maintain the easement In s>>mmary, . removal of the four oaks is adequately supported by Section 15- 50.080 of the City Code. The Applicant meets the burden of proof for tree #3 in that Criteria 1, 2 and 5 — 9 support the removal of the tree. The Applicant also meets the burden of proof for tree #5 in that criteria 5 — support the removal of the three trees. III. Determines that approval of Tree Removal Application #09-0222 is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines (14 C.C.R. Section 15304) "Minor Alterations to Land" and no exception to that exemption applies. • PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of Saratoga, State of California, this 4 day of November, 2009 by the following vote: • AYES: Councilmember Howard Miller, Vice Mayor Kathleen King, Mayor Chuck Page NOES: Jill Hunter . ABSENT: Susie Nagpal ABSTAIN: None 'PRA MD: • *.,: ' _ Mayor G 1 ATTEST: Ann Sullivan, City Oak ACCEPTANCE BY APPLICANT AND EASEMENT HOLDER This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof; and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant/Easement Holder. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to . fully conform to • and comply with said terms and conditions within the time required in this Resolution by the City of . Saratoga City CounciL Sigh / Applicant/Easement Hold Date Application No. APPC09-0001, 21990 Via Regina !21820 Via Regina \..