Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-23-16 Planning Commission Agenda PacketSaratoga Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda – Page 1 of 2 SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2016 7:00 PM REGULAR MEETING Civic Theater | 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga CA 95070 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES Draft Regular Meeting Action Minutes from March 9, 2016 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS Any member of the public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three (3) minutes on matters not on this agenda. This law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications. REPORT ON APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision. 1. NEW BUSINESS None Saratoga Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda – Page 2 of 2 2. PUBLIC HEARING Applicants and/or their representatives have a total of ten (10) minutes maximum for opening statements. All interested persons may appear and be heard during this meeting regarding the items on this agenda. If items on this agenda are challenged in court, members of the public may be limited to raising only issues raised at the Public Hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to the close of the Public Hearing. Members of the public may comment on any item for up to three (3) minutes. Applicants and/or their representatives have a total of five (5) minutes maximum for closing statements. 2.1. Appeal of tree removal permit application TRP15-0380 to remove one Italian stone pine at 12990 Regan Lane. Recommended Action: Consider new arborist report and make a determination about whether the tree qualifies for removal according to City Code tree removal criteria listed is Article 15-50.080. 3. OTHER BUSINESS 3.1. Planning Commission Criteria for Excused Absence Recommended Action: Review the Planning Commission's criteria for excused absences and provide direction on potential changes. DIRECTOR ITEMS COMMISSION ITEMS ADJOURNMENT CERTIFICATE OF POSTING OF THE AGENDA I, Crystal Bothelio, City Clerk for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission was posted and available for public review on March 18, 2016 at the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and on the City’s website at www.saratoga.ca.us. Signed this 18th day of March 2016 at Saratoga, California. Crystal Bothelio, City Clerk In Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at 408/868-1269. Notification 24 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. [28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA title II] You can also sign up to receive email notifications when Commission agendas and minutes have been added to the City at website http://www.saratoga.ca.us/contact/email_subscriptions.asp. NOTE: To view previous Planning Commission meetings anytime, go the City Video Archives at www.saratoga.ca.us SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING ACTION MINUTES MARCH 9, 2016 7:00 PM REGULAR MEETING Civic Theater | 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga CA 95070 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL PRESENT:Commissioners Sunil Ahuja, Wendy Chang, Tina Walia, Kookie Fitzsimmons, Vice Chair Dede, Chair Leonard Almalech ABSENT:Commissioner Joyce Hlava (excused) ALSO PRESENT:Erwin Ordoñez, Community Development Director Liz Ruess, Planner Kate Bear, City Arborist APPROVAL OF MINUTES Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of February 10, 2016. WALIA/FITZSIMMONS MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 10, 2016 . MOTION PASSED. AYES: AHUJA, CHANG, WALIA, FITZSIMMONS, SMULLEN, ALMALECH. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: HLAVA. ABSTAIN: NONE. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS None REPORT ON APPEAL RIGHTS Planning Commission Chair Almalech reported on appeal rights. 1. NEW BUSINESS None Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes – Page 1 of 2 4 2. PUBLIC HEARING 2.1.FER16-0001; 15888 Cuvilly Way (517-13-029); Blanchard/Korobitsyna The applicant is requesting approval to construct a 6-foot tall wood fence within the rear setback area. The fence would be located on the rear property line, which runs along Norton Road. No trees are proposed for removal. Staff Contact: Liz Ruess (408) 868- 1230. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 16-008 approving the project subject to conditions of approval. FITZSIMMONS/WALIA MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONTINUANCE OF THIS ITEM TO A FUTURE DATE. MOTION PASSED. AYES: AHUJA, CHANG, WALIA, FITZSIMMONS, SMULLEN, ALMALECH. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: HLAVA. ABSTAIN: NONE. 2.2.PDR15-0013; ARB15-0029 21441 Arrowhead Lane (366-06-014); Mittal/Krishnan The applicant is requesting approval to demolish an existing residence and construct a new, two-story residence and attached garage. The height would be no taller than 26- feet. Seven walnut trees have been proposed for removal. The site is zoned HR and the net lot size is 27,415 sq. ft. Staff Contact: Liz Ruess (408) 868-1230. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 16-007 approving the project subject to conditions of approval. FITZSIMMONS/WALIA MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 16-007 APPROVING THE PROJECT WITH ADDED CONDITION, REGARDING 5 FOOT WALL HEIGHT AT THE PATIO. MOTION PASSED. AYES: AHUJA, CHANG, WALIA, FITZSIMMONS, SMULLEN, ALMALECH. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: HLAVA. ABSTAIN: NONE. DIRECTOR ITEMS Staff provided an update on upcoming March and April meetings. COMMISSION ITEMS None ADJOURNMENT Chair Almalech adjourned the meeting at 7:34 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted: Janet Costa, Temporary Executive Assistant City of Saratoga Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes – Page 2 of 2 5 CITY OF SARATOGA Memorandum To: Saratoga Planning Commission From: Kate Bear Date: March 23, 2016 Subject: APTR15-0004; TRP15-0380 Appeal of removal of one Italian stone pine at 12990 Regan Lane Background On February 10, 2016, the Planning Commission continued the appeal of a tree removal permit application (APTR15-0004; TRP15-0380) to March 23, 2016, so that the appellant could hire an arborist to do an inspection and evaluation of the Italian stone pine at 12990 Regan Lane. The owner of the property and the stone pine tree agreed to permit the arborist on site to perform an assessment of the tree. Summary of New Information On March 11, 2016, the appellant submitted a report from Joseph McNeil, Registered Consulting Arborist #299, and ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor to the City. Findings of the submitted report were that the pine tree presented low risk from individual trunk or whole tree failure for the next three years without remediation. With remediation as described in the report (pruning and cabling), he found the risk of failure to be low well into the future. He recommended a re- inspection in five years. In addition to the submitted arborist report, the Planning Department received an email from Marilyn Bierach in support of the appeal and a letter from arborist Richard Gessner. The email from the resident was received too late to provide a desk item to the Commission. Richard Gessner was the arborist referred to in the February 10th Planning Commission hearing. Attachments: New information: 1. Arborist report dated March 11, 2016 by Joseph McNeil obtained by the appellant. 2. Letter from Richard Gessner dated March 8, 2016 clarifying his interactions with the Abhyankars. 3. Email from Marilyn Bierach in support of appeal. 6 Planning Commission hearing March 23, 2016 Cover memo for APTR15-0004, TRP15-0380 Previously submitted with Planning Commission packet for prior hearings: 4. Original staff report and resolution. 5. Resolution with new resolution number and revised date of approval. 6. Arborist report dated September 28, 2016 by Brian McGovern. 7. Italian stone pine tree failure profile 8. Tree removal permit TRP15-0380 9. Appeal application APTR15-0004 10. Denied tree removal permit application TRP15-0003 11. Email from Megan Leney with correspondence between her and Devyani Abhyankar 12. Correspondence from neighbors and Saratoga residents a. Email from owner of 12974 Regan Lane in support of removal b. Email from owner of 20335 Blauer Dr in support of appeal c. Email from Marcia Fariss, Saratoga resident on Saratoga Glen Pl, in support of appeal d. Email with letter from Mary Bogdonovich of 20391 Blauer Dr in support of appeal e. Email from Kathy Forte of 20720 4th St in support of appeal f. Email with letter from Sue Anderson of 20201 Kilbride Dr in support of appeal 7 JOSEPH MCNEIL, CONSULTING ARBORIST 3 Halten Court . Pleasant Hill, California 94523 . 925/676-5232 ISA Board Certified Master Arborist # WC0102B . Calif. Contractors Lic. # 482248 (Tree Care C-61 D-49, Landscaping C-27) ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #299 . ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor joe@oakperson.com . http://www.oakperson.com/ March 11, 2016 Megan Leney 20353 Blauer Dr. Saratoga, CA 95070-4305 SUBJECT: Observations and conclusions from my assessment of the 60 inch diameter Italian stone pine at 12990 Regan Lane, adjacent to your property in Saratoga. I conducted a level 2 1 inspection of the tree on March 8. You also asked me to review a report provided to you by the city of Saratoga, authored by Brian McGovern. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY Your neighbors have expressed their desire to remove an Italian stone pine, Pinus pinea from their side yard adjacent to your shared property line. They have presented a technical report supporting that action. You have requested that I provide an independent technical report on the health and particularly the stability of the tree, and assess the resulting risk 2. Within the lower three to about ten feet the tree divides to three large trunks. In my opinion it is improbable that any of them will fail under expected weather extremes within the next three years, at which time the tree should again be inspected. Although there are targets 3, because the probability of failure of trunks is low, it follows that risk from such failure within a three year timeframe is low, if there is no maintenance. Individual smaller limbs, six inches in diameter or smaller have sagged, drooping downward. Some have fractured longitudinally but none have fallen. There is no history of failure of limbs from this tree. Because of low probability of complete failure of individual limbs, risk from limb failure is also low. Slight reduction of weight at the ends of horizontal limbs, those most susceptible to drooping or partial fracturing will reduce the load on them. This will eliminate the propensity of these limbs to sag downward, or as a few of them have done, form internal fractures in the process. In my opinion a single cable installed between two of the trunks will virtually eliminate the likelihood of failure of an entire trunk and will likely stabilize the trunks into the future well beyond five years. Individual limbs may need to be pruned on a five year cycle. If these management strategies are implemented the re-inspection period may be extended to five years, as due diligence. If after these measures the owner still remains uncomfortable with the already low risk from the tree, a system of three cables could be installed between the tree trunks. In my opinion this 1 As defined in the American National Standards Institute A300 Part 9-2011 Standard, Tree Risk Assessment 2 Risk defined as the probability of an event occurring, combined with the consequence of that event. I have carried out the risk assessment according to current process as described in the International Society of Arboriculture Tree Risk Assessment Qualification, 3 A target is a person or property that could be injured or damaged by a tree failure. 8 Italian Stone Pine Risk Assessment, 12990 Regan Lane, Saratoga Page 2 Joseph McNeil March 11, 2016 is not necessary. However, it may reassure the owners and will fully address any perceived trunk instability. The pruning will reduce risk of loss of individual limbs. OBSERVATIONS, ANALYSIS, REMEDIATION The tree appears healthy and vigorous. There are no signs or symptoms of disease or pest problems to any significant degree. The tree has a massive root system at the base of the trunk. The roots near the trunk have heaved the adjacent concrete slab. The root system at the base of the trunk, and the lower trunk itself appear stable. There are no signs of past movement, and it is highly unlikely that movement of the base of the tree and subsequent whole tree failure will occur in the next five years, even well beyond. TRUNKS The tree at about two feet above grade is nearly 60 inches in diameter. Near three feet above the ground the tree begins to divide to separate trunks, originating in a linear orientation, approximately north to south. McGovern 4 has described these as trunks A, B, and C respectively. I will use that designation as well. The three trunks are of similar size, and so are termed codominant 5. They also contain inclusions of bark between them termed included bark 6. Trunk A is relatively upright, to the north, seen in the background of the photograph to the right. Trunk B leans toward the camera and the front of your yard, to the right. Trunk C, while attached to the trunk on the south side closest to the vantage of the camera, then leans to the southwest, not in the direction of its attachment. Trunk A appears stable, with a very low probability of failure. Because trunk B is between trunks A and C it is pinned between them. As long as trunk C is in place trunk B will remain stable and in place. Trunk C is most susceptible to failure from a mechanical load resulting from the weight of limbs and foliage in the direction that would separate it directly from trunk B, toward the south. However, it is not loaded toward the south. It is loaded to the southwest, where it has more capacity to support that load. I inspected the entire edge of the contact surface of trunks B and C. I found no indication of past, current, or impending failure. In my opinion the probability of failure of trunk C over the next three years if no maintenance is carried out on the tree is low. The orientation of these trunks has not changed for the past decade at least and is unlikely to do so in the near future. 4 See Abhyankar Pine Arborist Report (Structural Examination, Brian McGovern, September 28, 2015. 5 Trunks of similar size on the same tree compete for dominance and are said to be codominant. As the trees grow larger these trunk attachments are increasingly prone to mechanical failure. 6 Narrow stem crotches often prevent bark from sloughing off upward, and exiting the crotch as the two trunks expand toward one another. The bark becomes bound, or ‘included’ in the crotch, occupying the space that should be taken by wood, bridging the trunks. Because the bark isn’t structurally competent, the attachment is weak and prone to failure as the tree grows larger. 9 Italian Stone Pine Risk Assessment, 12990 Regan Lane, Saratoga Page 3 Joseph McNeil March 11, 2016 One internal support cable installed to current standards 7 installed between trunks A and C would reduce potential for failure of trunk C to virtually zero, in my opinion. A possible location for such a cable is illustrated in yellow below.8 Orientation of the cable cannot be made perfect. That is, the plane of the included bark between trunks B and C is oriented so that the weakest direction of the trunk is toward the south. Because trunk C extends to the southwest the cable would be oriented in that direction. However, a large component of support from this cable would still be directly in the north-south direction, sufficient to protect against the already low potential for failure of trunk C. Placement of this cable, protecting against failure of trunk C will also protect against any failure of trunk B. In my opinion additional cables are unnecessary. However I have provided blue lines on the photograph above that represent likely positions of two cables between trunks A-B and B-C respectively. I have provided these only in the instance that those concerned with the tree have remaining uncertainty about trunk stability. Installing three cables as shown above, causes the tree to move monolithically, rather than as individual trunks. This may tend to transfer greater momentum and load to the base of the tree and the supporting roots. In my opinion the base and supporting roots are sufficiently robust to support such a load. 7 American Standards National Institute (ANSI) A300 (Part 3), 2006, Tree, Shrub, and Other Woody Plant Maintenance-- Standard Practices (Supplemental Support Systems) 8 This is an illustration from the ground only. While in this case feasibility of cabling can be determined from the ground, cable location can be determined with precision only from within the tree. 10 Italian Stone Pine Risk Assessment, 12990 Regan Lane, Saratoga Page 4 Joseph McNeil March 11, 2016 LIMBS Limbs of three to six inch diameter on Italian stone pine often are poorly tapered 9, with foliage concentrated distally. Such limbs are often packed together tightly in the canopy, allowing them to provide mutual support, but still the species is susceptible to drooping or partial failure of individual limbs. Limbs in this size range, and entire trunks may bend downward normally under gravity. In some limbs the fibers may separate longitudinally, forming fissures. These partially failed limbs may sag noticeably or even hang, attached, as a result of this fiber separation. For the most part limbs do not fail completely from Italian stone pine. Limbs of this tree have sagged, some with no external sign of longitudinal fiber separation, and some apparently showing such features. While I used a ladder at the tree and binoculars and a telephoto lens to examine the upper sides of lower limbs from a distance I did not personally observe such separations. I am taking, at face, the observations recounted in the McGovern report that such features exist in this tree, as may be expected. One indicator of limb failure probability is the presence of past limb failure. Complete failure, where limbs separate completely from the tree and fall to the ground may occur from failure of the limb at the attachment to a parent limb or along the length of the limb, usually near the attachment. There is no evidence of any past complete failure of limbs from this tree. There is only evidence of partial failure, fiber separation on some sagging limbs. From this I conclude that potential for limbs to fail from the tree is low, an unlikely occurrence. Risk from such an event is also low, not only because the event itself is unlikely, but also because any significant injury or property damage is unlikely to occur even if a limb did fall. Gradual sagging of these limbs is unsightly and could lead to foliage resting on adjacent structures. One limb sagging to another may result in a chain of these partial failures. This can be addressed by periodic light pruning to reduce weight at the ends of limbs that are most susceptible, those that are poorly tapered and horizontal. RISK ANALYSIS I applied techniques from the American National Standards Institute A300 Part 9-2011 Standard, Tree Risk Assessment 10. This defines Risk as the probability of an event occurring (in this case the adverse event of a tree failure) combined with the consequence of that event. Because occurrence of an event, failure of a tree trunk or the entire tree is improbable, it follows that risk from the tree to people or surrounding properties is low within the three year timeframe and within at least five years if remediation is carried out as described above. It is my opinion that risk will then remain low beyond that period. The tree should be re-inspected in five years, in the event there is any change. 9 Taper described the degree to which a limb decreases in diameter along its length. Poorly tapered limbs retain a large diameter along their length, contributing to mass, dynamic momentum, and increased load at or near their attachments. 10 I also utilized the International Society of Arboriculture Best Management Practice, Tree Risk Assessment, 2011, Basic and Advanced Assessment, and standardized Risk Rating Matrices. 11 Italian Stone Pine Risk Assessment, 12990 Regan Lane, Saratoga Page 5 Joseph McNeil March 11, 2016 REVIEW OF THE MCGOVERN TECHNICAL REPORT I have reviewed the report provided to the owner by Brian McGovern, dated September 28, 2015. It draws upon observations made by Mr. McGovern, some of which were similar to my own. In my opinion, in his conclusions Mr. McGovern has misread the tree. He makes and records a limited subset of observations that seem tailored to favor removal of the tree, expanding on defects while ignoring features of the tree that could favor its retention. • The beginning of the McGovern report recounts the original owners concern between the tree and proposed construction and the need for a second opinion on that subject. Without explanation the report transitions to a risk analysis, not a construction conflict. The report concludes, in my opinion with little supporting evidence, that because the tree is a hazard and should be removed any conflict with construction need not be considered. The implication is that construction can proceed and the assignment was undertaken with an agenda to remove the tree. • Mr. McGovern fails to recognize the limitations of his assignment. The role of the arborist in this assignment is as Risk Assessor 11. The arborist assesses the tree and surroundings, assesses his or her observations, and converts these to a level of risk. This risk assessment is then communicated to the person or entity responsible for managing the tree, the Risk Manager. If the level of risk exceeds the risk tolerance of the Risk Manager the tree is defined as a Hazard. The Risk Assessor may provide alternative management strategies to the Risk Manager, along with expected residual risk that may accompany each strategy. Strategies may include various mitigations, one of which may be tree removal. The Risk Manager, not the Risk Assessor, decides which strategy to implement according to their risk tolerance and budget. • In my opinion the tree is appropriately structured to permit internal support cables as a management option. No reason is given by Mr. McGovern to the contrary. Regarding such cables he provides a lengthy and general discussion of the difficulties and pitfalls of cabling, bracing and propping, but says only cabling this tree will, “lack an expectation of success.” There is no explanation of why he lacks this expectation in this particular tree. I cannot know for certain, but I suspect this is because the cable is not ideally aligned with the defect, in this case the plane of included bark between trunks B and C. I disagree. Many cables are installed with success in locations where the alignment of the cable and the defect are imperfect. • There is no logical support for the statement at the bottom of page eleven of the McGovern report that, “A catastrophic failure of at least one of the main stems can be expected in the next five years…if the tree is not removed.” I find this statement to be inflammatory, irresponsible and misrepresentative of factual conditions at the site. The alignment and orientation of the trunks are for all practical purposes the same as they were five, ten, and fifteen years ago. The contact area between trunks may be larger now, but the mechanical principles with which the risk assessor provides his or her assessment remain the same. 11 Table 1.1, p4 Dunster, Julian A. E. Thomas Smiley, Nelda Matheny, and Sharon Lilly. 2013. Tree Risk Assessment Manual. Champaign, Illinois: International Society of Arboriculture 12 Italian Stone Pine Risk Assessment, 12990 Regan Lane, Saratoga Page 6 Joseph McNeil March 11, 2016 A statement of “expectation” of failure within five years goes beyond a possibility or probability; it implies a significantly greater than 50 percent chance of occurrence. Mr. McGovern says such a failure should actually be expected. Given the evidence provided by the tree, such an event should also have been expected within five years, five years ago, ten years, ago, and fifteen years ago. In hindsight there was no justification for a high expectation of such an event within these timeframes and in my opinion there is no reason to think one exists now. • The McGovern report contains non-standard terms and misrepresentations of terms and condition. Mr. McGovern has used language that is non-standard in the industry or is an exaggeration. These obfuscate his report and mislead the reader. Some follow: o Page 5, photo annotation. “Sky-Lighting is not a standard term in the industry. I understand that separation between tree canopies and limbs may be an indicator of movement, but it also may not be. Openings naturally occur. In this instance Sky-Lighting is presented as evidence on page 5 that, “the structure of stem C is failing!” It shows no such thing. The end of stem C may or may not be drooping. To the extent it is, minor pruning to address individual limb failure or the entire end of stem C where it droops is sufficient. This is not a fatal flaw in the tree. o Page 7, the text below the upper photos describes, “…the twisting force (torque) of the overall failure of Stem C.” There is no indication of overall or specific failure of trunk C. This is a statement without supporting evidence. In fact, most of the force on trunk C is a bending moment, not a torsion moment. Looking along the length of this trunk the foliage is well-distributed to either side, exerting force downward from weight, not twisting the limb as it would if the foliage were all out to the left or right from the trunk. o Page 5, second text line, a green arrow represents “friction pressure this torque puts into Stem B.” This is unintelligible and appears intended to impress the reader. Stem C does indeed exert a force, a pressure against stem B. This helps stabilize stem B, not destabilize it. Friction is the resistance encountered when one object slides against another. It does not apply here. o Page 5, line 6 of the text, describes a “Growing Hazard.” This is a made-up term. What is actually being described is a compression fork, a feature that is well described in arboricultural literature. It is certainly a feature to be considered in risk assessment, but by no means simply because it exists is it a feature, “...that can fail catastrophically at any time.” SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION To summarize my opinions, I find the tree to present low risk from individual trunk or whole tree failure for the next three years without remediation, and well into the future with remediation as described, pruning and cabling. I suggest a re-inspection in five years. Light distal pruning may be repeated at intervals toward reducing risk of failure of individual lateral limbs. Whether the tree should or should not be removed for reasons other than risk is outside the scope of this assignment and report. In summarizing my response to the McGovern report, he has stepped beyond his assignment as Risk Assessor; he has drawn conclusions adverse to the tree, not supported by physical evidence, 13 Italian Stone Pine Risk Assessment, 12990 Regan Lane, Saratoga Page 7 Joseph McNeil March 11, 2016 and has constructed his report with a tone favoring tree removal, without full consideration of tree retention strategies. The McGovern report does not demonstrate a heightened potential of this tree to fail in a mode that cannot successfully be addressed by strategies other than removal. CERTIFICATION AND LIMITING CONDITIONS I certify that the observations and recommendations in this document are complete and correct, to the best of my knowledge and belief, and are made in good faith. They reflect the condition of the tree as I analyzed it during this current assignment. The observations, analysis, conclusions and recommendations in this report are intended to reasonably reduce the risk of living and working near trees. Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure to a tree nor can we fully understand the complex dynamic loading that occurs on trees. Since trees are living organisms, conditions may be hidden within the tree and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specific period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments, whether performed by others or not, cannot be guaranteed. Trees can be managed but they cannot be controlled. The risk analysis performed here is based on examination and analysis as I deemed them adequate to this assignment given the indicators I observed. It anticipates environmental conditions and events that might reasonably be expected within the designated timeframes. It is not intended to apply during extraordinary catastrophic events such as hurricane, tornado or flood. Sincerely, Joseph McNeil Board Certified Master Arborist #WC-0102B Registered Consulting Arborist #299, ASCA Contractors Lic. #482248 (Tree service C-61 D-49, Landscaping C-27, inactive) ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor 14 JOSEPH MCNEIL, CONSULTING ARBORIST 3 Halten Court . Pleasant Hill, California 94523 . 925/676-5232 ISA Board Certified Master Arborist # WC0102B . Calif. Contractors Lic. # 482248 (Tree Care C-61 D-49, Landscaping C-27) ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #299 . ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor joe@oakperson.com . http://www.oakperson.com/ March 14, 2016 Professional History, Licenses, Qualifications: • 1995-2016, full-time consulting arborist • 1971-1995, working field arborist, tree service owner, included consulting • 1976-2016, approximately 10 days per year in conferences, seminars • 2013-2016, International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Tree Risk Assessment Qualified • 2012-2016, ISA Board Certified Master Arborist, #WE-0102B • 2011, Pacific Northwest Chapter ISA Certified Tree Risk Assessor, #1066 • 1998-2016, American Society of Consulting Arborists, Registered Consulting Arborist, #299 • 1992-2016, International Society of Arboriculture arborist certification test proctor • 1987, Lifetime CA community college teaching credential, Limited Services (Arboriculture) #366080 • 1985-2017, CA state contractor’s license, #482248, C-27, C-61 (D49) • 1984, WCISA arborist certification, #102 Selected Professional Society Responsibilities: • 2007-2016, Chair, Plant Appraisal and Valuation Committee, International Society of Arboriculture • 2007-2016, Member, Educational Goods and Services Committee, ISA • 2004-2007, Member, Plant Appraisal and Valuation Committee, ISA • 2003-2005, Director, American Society of Consulting Arborists • 2000-2002, Chair, Western Chapter ISA Tree and Vegetation Appraisal Committee • 1998-2000, Chair, ASCA Standards of Professional Practice Committee • 1997-2001, Board member, Northern California Turf and Landscape Council • 1997, Co-chair, ASCA Standards of Professional Practice Committee • 1996-1997, Chair, WCISA Consulting Arborists Committee Publications: • Adequate and Appropriate Methodology November 2015, Arboricultural Consultant 48(4):3-8 (co-author with D. Scott Cullen) • Tree Appraisal: Would it be Missed? August 2015, Arboricultural Consultant 48(3)3-7 (co- author with D. Scott Cullen) • Forensics and the CSI Effect, November 2012, Arboricultural Consultant 45(4):3-8 (co-author with D. Scott Cullen) • August 1997, International Society of Arboriculture annual conference, Salt Lake City, Arboricultural Research and Education Academy poster presenter, “A Test of Drilling as a Method of Direct Detection of Decay in Trees.” • 1991, 1994, (Non-author contribution) Technical advisor and principal photographer A Photographic Guide to the Assessment of Hazardous Trees in Urban Areas, Nelda P. Matheny, James R. Clark, 1991, 1994, International Society of Arboriculture • Developing a Species Profile, Journal of Arboriculture, May 1990. (co-author with Nelda P. Matheny, James R. Clark) Services • Tree surveys • Design assistance and field oversight of grading and construction plans around preserved trees • Assessment of trees injured by construction activity or vehicles • Tree Risk Assessment (climbing, sounding, sonic tomography, resistance drilling) • Post-failure Tree Risk Assessment • Casualty appraisals for trees and landscape • Irrigation management of and around trees • Root damage to hardscape and buildings • Tree and landscape health assessment • Tree maintenance schedules and specifications • Insurance claim and litigation support relative to the above 15 12990 Regan Lane Stone Pine TRP15-0380 March 8, 2016 March 8, 2016 City of Saratoga Planning Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Regarding tree removal permit TRP15-0380 for the stone pine (Pinus pinea) located on 12990 Regan Lane in Saratoga. The purpose of this letter is to clarify opinions and facts surrounding the tree inspection and consultations I had with Mr. Abhyankar on July 5, 2015 and after. I agreed to meet with the Abhyankar’s pro bono to perform a preliminary assessment of the tree. The purpose the assessment was to determine if I believed the tree met the findings for removal in the City of Saratoga. It is not uncommon for me to provide this type of assessment during the course of business. Many prospective clients or homeowners call me with similar requests and their reasons for removal often do not meet the municipality’s findings for tree removal. This allows me to accept or decline assignments for various reasons without the prospect having to pay my fees unnecessarily. This was the situation with the stone pine. The Abhyankar ’s had expressed the desire to remove the tree to make room for a remodel (they had not told me they had already been denied a permit). After my inspection and discussion regarding the tree, in my opinion the tree did not meet the findings for tree removal without a remodel plan. I thought the tree could meet findings for removal in a development setting if plans indicated the tree would be highly affected or not suitable for a new property use. After inspecting the crown, trunk, trunk flare, above ground roots, and site conditions during the course the consultation I pointed out to Mr. Abhyankar the tree’s three codominant stems (stems of equal size originating in the same location) and indicated this architecture was a known structural defect. There were no more in-depth conversations about the likelihood of this defect to fail, strike a target, or what the consequences may be (a true tree risk assessment). After the hearing on January 10, 2016 I was contacted by the appellant Megan Leney requesting I perform a tree risk assessment. I disclosed the fact I knew about the tree and the situation but I was not interested and felt there may be a perceived, if not true, conflict of interest to perform a tree risk assessment now. It was also brought to my attention that Mrs. Abhyankar had mentioned in the hearing I claimed the tree was “structurally unsound or structurally unsafe”. 
 Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 1 2 16 12990 Regan Lane Stone Pine TRP15-0380 March 8, 2016 When it was brought to my attention I allegedly made statements about the safety of the tree in the hearing and subsequently in the San Jose Mercury News article I felt compelled to clarify some facts to the City of Saratoga. •I did not perform a tree risk assessment or formal structural assessment or analysis. I never made any determination or formed any opinion regarding the likelihood of the tree to fail and strike a target within a given time period. •I never met Mrs. Abhyankar which makes her quoting me as hearsay. •During my initial consultation I did not believe the tree met the findings for removal as stated in the ordinance “15-50.080 - Determination on permit” (a) (1) The condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures and interference with utility services, and whether the tree is a Dead tree or a Fallen tree.” I expressed this to the Abhyankar ’s being the reason I was not interested in pursuing the assignment to draft a report. •I have since spoken with the appellant and discussed various issues surrounding the tree. Again, in no way did I form an opinion regarding the safety of the tree or the potential risk it poses other than I did not believe it met the city’s findings. I expressed it is possible the tree may pose a low, moderate, or high risk, but until a proper level 2 basic tree risk assessment is performed analyzing the likelihood of the tree or its parts to fail within a given time period, the likelihood of it striking a target, and the consequences, those determinations cannot be made. I ask the City of Saratoga planning department to consider my opinions expressed by the tree owner or the appellant to be hearsay for the benefit of one party or the other, and not necessarily my opinion or fact. Please contact me with any questions. Richard J. Gessner ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist® #496 ISA Board Certified Master Arborist® WE-4341B ISA Tree Risk Assessor Qualified Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 2 2 17 18 PLANNING COMMISSION MEMORANDUM Meeting Date: January 13, 2016 Application: APTR15-0004; TRP15-0380 Location / APN: 12990 Regan Leney/393-07-030 Appellant/Applicant: Leney/Abhyankar Staff: Kate Bear, City Arborist On September 30, 2015, the property owner at 12990 Regan Lane applied for a permit (TRP15- 0412) to remove an Italian stone pine growing in the back yard. The application included a report from International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) – Certified Arborist and Registered Consulting Arborist, Brian McGovern, recommending the removal of the tree. Staff reviewed the independent arborist report submitted along with the tree removal application, inspected the tree and confirmed the findings required by the City Code to allow for its removal subject to neighborhood notification and an applicable 15-day appeal period. On November 3, 2015 notices were sent to neighbors within 150 feet of the property informing them of the administrative decision and providing a deadline of November 18, 2015 to appeal the determination. Article 15-50.100 of the City Code states that anyone objecting to an administrative decision made pursuant to the provisions of the Tree Regulations may appeal the decision to the Planning Commission according to the procedure specified in Article 15-90. On November 16, 2015 Megan Laney, the neighbor next door, filed an appeal application with the Community Development Department saying that the tree is healthy and provides a gateway experience for the neighborhood. The appeal expressed concern that removing the tree would significantly change the character of the neighborhood. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached resolution affirming staff’s determination on the required findings in the City Code to approve the tree removal application for the removal of an Italian stone pine tree at 12990 Regan Lane, and to require a replacement tree. DESCRIPTION: The owner of the property applied for a permit (TRP15-0380) to remove one mature Italian stone pine (Pinus pinea). Along with the application they submitted a report from an independent arborist, Brian McGovern, supporting the removal of the pine. The report found the pine to be in good health, although its structure was determined to be poor. The tree has three main trunks which are co-dominant; they are each about equal in size and competing for dominance. The three trunks are in contact with each other for lengths of 50 – 75 inches and have “included bark”, a phenomenon where bark becomes imbedded in the union and creates a weak attachment. If a trunk failed the report found the likelihood of hitting the street or the garage high and the consequences of impact to be significant. The report concluded that the tree posed a high risk of failure of a trunk within the next five years in normal weather. 19 21990 Regan Lane, APTR15-0004; TRP15-0380 A failure profile for Italian stone pines was published in the Fall 2015 journal of Western Arborist and is attached (Attachment 4). The article notes that a key factor for trunk failures is the presence of codominant trunks. Data on 170 tree failures was analyzed, 75 of which were from the bay area. Of trunk failures, 44% occurred in trees with multiple codominant trunks. FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS City Code Section 15-50.080 requires that each application to remove a tree shall be reviewed and that a determination be made on the basis of the following findings. A tree qualifies for removal if just one of the criteria listed below is met and there is no feasible alternative to removal. In making a determination on an application, staff determines all of the criteria that have been met in support of an application for tree removal. (1) The condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures and interference with utility services, and whether the tree is a Dead tree or a Fallen tree. This finding can be made because this is a mature Italian stone pine that is growing close to the garage with a portion of the tree canopy over the structure. The owner provided an independent arborist report which includes a climbing and risk assessment of the tree supporting the requested removal. The arborist report notes that the tree would be susceptible to failure of one of the main trunks in normal weather as the trunks will continue to push against each other as they increase in girth. (2) The necessity to remove the tree because of physical damage or threatened damage to improvements or impervious surfaces on the property. This finding can be made because the tree’s roots have broken a concrete pad that was used as an RV parking area by the previous owners. If a trunk failure occurs, it could cause additional damage by landing on the garage, a car parked in the driveway or in the street. (3) The topography of the land and the effect of the tree removal upon erosion, soil retention and the diversion or increased flow of surface waters, particularly on steep slopes. This finding is not applicable because the property is considered flat and no erosion has been observed. (4) The number, species, size and location of existing trees in the area and the effect the removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property values, erosion control, and the general welfare of residents in the area. This finding cannot be made. This is the only tree of a significant size on the property and its removal will impact the amount of shade available on the property. There are no documented privacy issues, scenic view impacts, or erosion problems associated with the tree proposed to be removed. (5) The age and number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry practices. This finding can be made because there are no other trees near this one but this tree has outgrown its planting area and its root system is in a very limited soil volume. Additionally, there is adequate space on the property to accommodate additional replacement trees to mitigate the tree proposed to be removed. Page 2 of 4 20 21990 Regan Lane, APTR15-0004; TRP15-0380 (6) Whether or not there are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not encroaching on the protected tree. This finding can be made because removal of the tree is the only means to assure that catastrophic failure of one or more of the codominant trunks will not occur. The locations where stems are in contact with each other contain “included bark”, or bark that becomes embedded between the trunks. As they increase in girth, they push against each other and one or more of the trunks may split out of the tree. This tree has two long sections of included bark, one measuring over four feet and another measuring over six feet. Typically defects such codominant stems with included bark are addressed when a tree is young and corrective pruning is undertaken. Pruning this mature tree will require large pruning cuts and the result will likely be unsightly. Sometimes codominant stems can be supported with cables, but the necessary symmetry doesn’t exist in this tree. Installing a support brace would require significant costs associated with engineering and installing the support and would disrupt the root system which supports the tree. Additionally, the required size of the supporting brace itself would have an aesthetic impact to the tree and property. (7) Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose and intent of this Article. This finding can be made because removal of the tree and replacement with new trees on the property is entirely consistent with the City’s Tree Regulations of the City Code. The conditions of approval for TRP15-0380 require the owner to plant two replacement trees in the front yard. Each new tree shall be capable of reaching a height of 40 – 50 feet or more when mature, and shall be of 24-inch box container size. The replacement trees can also be planted on the property so they are farther from the house and can grow without the potential for property damage or personal injury. The replacement trees would also have the potential to contribute to the scenic beauty of the property and the neighborhood as they mature without the risks noted with the existing tree. (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. This finding can be made because the trunk of the tree most likely to fail could fall into the street and hit a car, causing damage or possibly injure a pedestrian. (9) The necessity to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the property when there is no other feasible alternative to the removal. This finding can be because the risk of failure cannot be reduced through any other standard remedies. In addition this species is noted for the fact that when healthy and growing vigorously such as this specimen is, the tree can cause significant damage to structures from roots. (10) The necessity to remove the tree for installation and efficient operation of solar panels, subject to the requirements that the tree(s) to be removed, shall not be removed until solar panels have been installed and replacement trees planted in conformance with the City Arborist's recommendation. This finding is not applicable. ATTACHMENTS: 1.Resolution 15-055 denying the appeal 2.Tree removal permit application TRP15-0380 Page 3 of 4 21 21990 Regan Lane, APTR15-0004; TRP15-0380 3.Arborist report by Brian McGovern 4.Structural failure profile: Italian Stone Pine (Picea pinea), Fall 2015, Western Arborist Page 4 of 4 22 RESOLUTION NO: 15-055 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING APPEAL APTR15-0003 AND APPROVING TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION TRP15-0412 AT 20315 ORCHARD ROAD WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an appeal of an Administrative Decision permitting a request to remove one Italian stone pine at 12990 Regan Lane; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and WHEREAS, the goal of the City is to balance the rights and privileges of property owners for the use of their land with criteria for establishing and sustaining an urban forest, including the establishment of basic standards and criteria for the removal and replacement of trees; and WHEREAS, after considering all of the criteria for the application of a Tree Removal Permit set forth in Section 15-50.080, the Planning Commission finds that overall the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for the Tree Removal Permit for one coast live oak. NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds, determines and resolves as follows: Section 1: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. Section 2: The administrative decision is consistent with the General Plan, including the Conservation Element Policy, OSC12: To further protect and enhance the City’s arbor resources built on the City’s Tree Regulations, the City should continue its support of tree protection programs. The Italian stone pine was requested for removal through the City’s process to remove protected trees as set forth in the Tree Regulations. The Planning Commission has reviewed the application for tree removal and the appeal and found that the request to remove the pine does meet the criteria in the City Code, overall. Section 3: The administrative decision is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that criteria 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are met, allowing the removal of a tree, as set forth in Section 15- 50.080. Criterion 4 is not met. Criteria 3 and 10 do not apply. 23 Resolution No. 15-055 (1) The condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures and interference with utility services, and whether the tree is a Dead tree or a Fallen tree. This finding may be made in the affirmative. This is a mature Italian stone pine that grows close to the garage with a portion of the canopy over it. The owner provided a report that included a climbing and risk assessment of the tree in support of its removal. The report found that the tree would be susceptible to failure of one of the main trunks in normal weather due to the way they grow and the fact that the trunks will continue to push against each other as they increase in girth. (2) The necessity to remove the tree because of physical damage or threatened damage to improvements or impervious surfaces on the property. This finding may be made in affirmative because the tree’s roots have broken the concrete pad that was used as an RV parking pad by the previous owners. If a trunk fails it could land on the garage, a car parked in the driveway or in the street. (3) The topography of the land and the effect of the tree removal upon erosion, soil retention and the diversion or increased flow of surface waters, particularly on steep slopes. This finding cannot be made. The property is considered flat. (4) The number, species, size and location of existing trees in the area and the effect the removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property values, erosion control, and the general welfare of residents in the area. This finding cannot be made. This is the only tree of a significant size on the property and its removal will impact the shade of the property and scenic beauty of the neighborhood. (5) The age and number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry practices. This finding can be made in the affirmative. Although there are no other trees near this one, this tree has outgrown its planting area and its root system is in a very limited soil volume. (6) Whether or not there are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not encroaching on the protected tree. This finding can be made in the affirmative because removal of the tree is the only means to assure that catastrophic failure of one or more of the codominant trunks will not occur. The locations where stems are in contact with each other contain “included bark”, or bark that becomes embedded between the trunks. As they increase in girth, they push against each other and one or more of the trunks may split out of the tree. This tree has two long sections of included bark, one measuring over four feet and another measuring over six feet. Typically defects such codominant stems with included bark are addressed when a tree is young and corrective pruning is undertaken. Pruning this mature tree will require large pruning cuts and the result will likely be unsightly. Sometimes codominant stems can be supported with cables, but the necessary symmetry doesn’t exist in this tree. Installing a support brace would require significant costs associated with engineering and installing the support and would disrupt the root system which supports the tree cables. (7) Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose and intent of this Article. This finding can be made in the affirmative because removal of 24 Resolution No. 15-055 the tree and replacement with new trees on another part of the property is consistent with the Tree Regulations when there are no alternatives. The conditions of approval for TRP15-0380 are for the owner to plant two trees in the front yard to replace this tree. Each new tree is to reach a height of 40 –50 feet or more when mature, and be from a box container measuring 24 inches on a side. Replacement trees can be planted farther from the house so that they will not threaten damage to it and they can add to the scenic beauty of the property and the neighborhood as they mature. (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. This finding can be made in the affirmative. The trunk of the tree most likely to fail could fall into the street and hit a car or pedestrian (9) The necessity to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the property when there is no other feasible alternative to the removal. This finding can be made in the affirmative because the risk of failure cannot be reduced through standard remedies. In addition this is a species that when healthy and growing vigorously such as this specimen is, can cause significant damage to structures from roots. (10) The necessity to remove the tree for installation and efficient operation of solar panels, subject to the requirements that the tree(s) to be removed shall not be removed until solar panels have been installed and replacement trees planted in conformance with the City Arborist's recommendation. This finding is not pertinent to the application and is not made. Section 4: Unless appealed to the City Council pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby denies APTR15-0004, approving TRP15-0380 for the removal and replacement of one Italian stone pine, located at 12990 Regan Lane, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval of TRP15-0380. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 13th day of January 2016 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ Leonard Almalech Chair, Planning Commission 25 RESOLUTION NO: 16-005 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING APPEAL APTR15-0004 AND APPROVING TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION TRP15-0380 AT 12990 REGAN LANE WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an appeal of an Administrative Decision permitting a request to remove one Italian stone pine at 12990 Regan Lane; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and WHEREAS, the goal of the City is to balance the rights and privileges of property owners for the use of their land with criteria for establishing and sustaining an urban forest, including the establishment of basic standards and criteria for the removal and replacement of trees; and WHEREAS, after considering all of the criteria for the application of a Tree Removal Permit set forth in Section 15-50.080, the Planning Commission finds that overall the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for the Tree Removal Permit for one coast live oak. NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds, determines and resolves as follows: Section 1: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. Section 2: The administrative decision is consistent with the General Plan, including the Conservation Element Policy, OSC12: To further protect and enhance the City’s arbor resources built on the City’s Tree Regulations, the City should continue its support of tree protection programs. The Italian stone pine was requested for removal through the City’s process to remove protected trees as set forth in the Tree Regulations. The Planning Commission has reviewed the application for tree removal and the appeal and found that the request to remove the pine does meet the criteria in the City Code, overall. Section 3: The administrative decision is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that criteria 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are met, allowing the removal of the tree, as set forth in Section 15- 50.080. Criterion 4 is not met. Criteria 3 and 10 do not apply. 26 Resolution No. 16-005 (1) The condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures and interference with utility services, and whether the tree is a Dead tree or a Fallen tree. This finding can be made because this is a mature Italian stone pine that is growing close to the garage with a portion of the tree canopy over the structure. The owner provided an independent arborist report which includes a climbing and risk assessment of the tree supporting the requested removal. The arborist report notes that the tree would be susceptible to failure of one of the main trunks in normal weather as the trunks will continue to push against each other as they increase in girth. (2) The necessity to remove the tree because of physical damage or threatened damage to improvements or impervious surfaces on the property. This finding can be made because the tree’s roots have broken a concrete pad that was used as an RV parking area by the previous owners. If a trunk failure occurs, it could cause additional damage by landing on the garage, a car parked in the driveway or in the street. (3) The topography of the land and the effect of the tree removal upon erosion, soil retention and the diversion or increased flow of surface waters, particularly on steep slopes. This finding is not applicable because the property is considered flat and no erosion has been observed. (4) The number, species, size and location of existing trees in the area and the effect the removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property values, erosion control, and the general welfare of residents in the area. This finding cannot be made. This is the only tree of a significant size on the property and its removal will impact the amount of shade available on the property. There are no documented privacy issues, scenic view impacts, or erosion problems associated with the tree proposed to be removed. (5) The age and number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry practices. This finding can be made because there are no other trees near this one but this tree has outgrown its planting area and its root system is in a very limited soil volume. Additionally, there is adequate space on the property to accommodate additional replacement trees to mitigate the tree proposed to be removed. (6) Whether or not there are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not encroaching on the protected tree. This finding can be made because removal of the tree is the only means to assure that catastrophic failure of one or more of the codominant trunks will not occur. The locations where stems are in contact with each other contain “included bark”, or bark that becomes embedded between the trunks. As they increase in girth, they push against each other and one or more of the trunks may split out of the tree. This tree has two long sections of included bark, one measuring over four feet and another measuring over six feet. Typically defects such codominant stems with included bark are addressed when a tree is young and corrective pruning is undertaken. Pruning this mature tree will require large pruning cuts and the result will likely be unsightly. Sometimes codominant stems can be supported with cables, but the necessary symmetry doesn’t exist in this tree. Installing a support brace would require significant costs associated with engineering and installing the support and would disrupt the root system which supports the tree cables. Additionally, the required size of the supporting brace itself would have an aesthetic impact to the tree and property. 27 Resolution No. 16-005 (7) Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose and intent of this Article. This finding can be made because removal of the tree and replacement with new trees on the property is entirely consistent with the City’s Tree Regulations of the City Code. The conditions of approval for TRP15-0380 require the owner to plant two replacement trees in the front yard. Each new tree shall be capable of reaching a height of 40 – 50 feet or more when mature, and shall be of 24-inch box container size. The replacement trees can also be planted on the property so they are farther from the house and can grow without the potential for property damage or personal injury. The replacement trees would also have the potential to contribute to the scenic beauty of the property and the neighborhood as they mature without the risks noted with the existing tree. (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. This finding can be made because the trunk of the tree most likely to fail could fall into the street and hit a car, causing damage or possibly injure a pedestrian. (9) The necessity to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the property when there is no other feasible alternative to the removal. This finding can be because the risk of failure cannot be reduced through any other standard remedies. In addition this species is noted for the fact that when healthy and growing vigorously such as this specimen is, the tree can cause significant damage to structures from roots. (10) The necessity to remove the tree for installation and efficient operation of solar panels, subject to the requirements that the tree(s) to be removed shall not be removed until solar panels have been installed and replacement trees planted in conformance with the City Arborist's recommendation. This finding is not applicable. Section 4: Unless appealed to the City Council pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby denies APTR15-0004, approving TRP15-0380 for the removal and replacement of one Italian stone pine, located at 12990 Regan Lane, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval of TRP15-0380. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 23rd day of March 2016 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ Leonard Almalech Chair, Planning Commission 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 1 Kate Bear From:megonation@gmail.com on behalf of Megan Leney <meganleney@comcast.net> Sent:Thursday, January 28, 2016 10:31 PM To:Planning; Kate Bear Subject:Please include in packet for Feb 10 PC meeting appeal of 12990 Regan Drive Stone Pine Removal Attachments:Gmail - Re_ Stone Pine.pdf Dear Planning Commissioners, Please include the attached file in the packet for the February 10 Planning Commission. The attachment is an email exchange between myself and Devyani Abhyankar. I want this email exchange included in the packet because I want it noted that I had offered to hire and pay for a certified arborist to come and examine the tree to help address her safety concerns. Ms. Abhyankar responded that she was not willing to have another arborist examine the tree even though I had offered to pay for the arborist examination. I have highlighted, in the document, my request and Ms. Abhyankar's refusal. Thanks and best regards, Megan Leney 62 1/28/2016 Gmail - Re: Stone Pine https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=df32aa1b7b&view=pt&q=dj2da91%40yahoo.com&qs=true&search=query&th=151171e407120350&siml=151198d756b…1/3 Megan Leney <megonation@gmail.com> Re: Stone Pine  3 messages Devyani Abhyankar <dj2da91@yahoo.com>Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 11:42 PM Reply­To: Devyani Abhyankar <dj2da91@yahoo.com> To: Megan Leney <megonation@gmail.com> Hi Megan Thank you for responding to my email. Sorry I was extremely busy at work all day and did not get a chance to respond until now. I am aware of the sentimentality surrounding the potential removal of the tree, but for us it is more of a safety and liability issue. With regards to getting another certified arborist report, I don't see value in it, as the current findings have been approved by 2 arborists. Having a third or for that matter a fourth arborist may not provide any more clarity to this issue.   Thank you Devyani Abhyankar   From: Megan Leney <megonation@gmail.com>  To: dj2da91@yahoo.com   Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 12:23 PM  Subject: Stone Pine  Hi Devyani,  Thank you for your email, and for stopping by. Sorry we missed you; we were out late last night. Yes I did read the arborist report, and, like many in the neighborhood and surrounding area, I respectfully disagree with what you are doing.   Would you be open to having another professional arborist examine the tree and weigh in on the safety issues you mentioned being concerned about? I will pay for the arborist.  Thanks,  Megan  Sent from my iPhone  63 1/28/2016 Gmail - Re: Stone Pine https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=df32aa1b7b&view=pt&q=dj2da91%40yahoo.com&qs=true&search=query&th=151171e407120350&siml=151198d756b…2/3 Sent from my iPhone  Devyani Abhyankar <dj2da91@yahoo.com>Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 6:15 AM To: Megan Leney <megonation@gmail.com> Hi Megan  We just have one arborist written report that was submitted to the city and the other arborist had met us, inspected the tree and given us a verbal opinion ­ after which he even spoke to Kate Bear.  As written reports are rather expensive we chose to do just one.    Best  Devyani  408­910­1510 Sent from my iPhone. Please pardon the typos.  On Nov 18, 2015, at 5:20 AM, Megan Leney <megonation@gmail.com> wrote:  Hi Devyani, Please send all the arborist reports you have. I have already seen the one you submitted for the permit, but would like to see the others as well. Thanks, Megan  Sent from my iPhone [Quoted text hidden] Devyani Abhyankar <dj2da91@yahoo.com>Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 5:30 PM Reply­To: Devyani Abhyankar <dj2da91@yahoo.com> To: Megan Leney <megonation@gmail.com> Hi Megan, Thanks for your email. As I had mentioned earlier, I am aware of the sentiments surrounding the potential removal of the tree, but for us it is more of a safety and liability issue. If there are other people from the neighborhood at the Planning commission meeting, it will allow us to present the safety / hazard issue surrounding this tree rather than its beauty or appeal. It continues to be a safety hazard for our property and others around us.  Additionally, as per the City of Saratoga website, at this point the Italian Stone Pine is not considered a Heritage tree.  Thank you, Devyani  From: Megan Leney <megonation@gmail.com>  64 1/28/2016 Gmail - Re: Stone Pine https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=df32aa1b7b&view=pt&q=dj2da91%40yahoo.com&qs=true&search=query&th=151171e407120350&siml=151198d756b…3/3 To: Devyani Abhyankar <dj2da91@yahoo.com>   Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2015 1:55 PM  Subject: Re: Stone Pine  Hi Devyani, The neighborhood is very concerned about the loss of the tree ( Saratoga is a Tree City USA) and we value our trees greatly.  You have filed an appeal and the Heritage Tree Society of Saratoga will be presenting their case in front of the Planning Commission along with me and a large contingent of neighbors opposed to the tree removal.  I and a group of neighbors are meeting to plan our defense of the tree.   Regards, Megan [Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden] 65 1 Kate Bear From:Devyani Abhyankar <dj2da91@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, January 10, 2016 8:53 AM To:Kate Bear Subject:Support Letter for the Stone Pine Tree Hello Kate, I would like to forward this email we received as a support from our neighbor next door - Denise and Lee Salin. We would request if you could kindly forward this to the planning committee members prior to the meeting on Wednesday. Thank you and Warm Regards Devyani 408-910-1510 ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Denise Salin <denisesalin@me.com> To: Devyani Abhyankar <dj2da91@yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2016 7:10 PM Subject: tree Hi Devyani, Thank you for keeping in touch with us regarding the tree. We appreciate the time, resources, and research you have invested to assess the situation. Although we have enjoyed the beauty of the tree for many years, we understand and support your decision to remove the tree due to safety concerns. Best, Denise and Lee 12974 Regan Ln. Saratoga, CA 66 1 Kate Bear From:Abigail Ayende on behalf of Planning Sent:Monday, January 11, 2016 11:41 AM To:Kate Bear Subject:FW: Stone pine removal @ Blauer and Regan     From: Wei‐Jen Hsia [mailto:hsiawj@yahoo.com]   Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 11:22 AM  To: Planning <planning@saratoga.ca.us>  Cc: Paul Song <paul_song@issi.com>; Wei‐Jen Hsia <hsiawj@yahoo.com>  Subject: Stone pine removal @ Blauer and Regan  Dear Saratoga Planning Commission, My name is Paul Song, and I am the property owner at 20335 Blauer Drive. I am writing in regards to the tree removal permit for an Italian stone pine tree at the intersection of Blauer and Regan. My family and I have lived on Blauer for more than 13 years, and we feel that this tree is one of the landmarks for our street. It is a beautiful tree and has been well kept over these years. Although we do not wish to interfere with any project by the owner of the tree in question, we would be sad to see it go and would like the city to reconsider this decision. Thank you. Sincerely yours Paul Song 67 1 Kate Bear From:Abigail Ayende on behalf of Planning Sent:Tuesday, January 19, 2016 8:06 AM To:DL - Planning Commission; Erwin Ordoñez; Kate Bear Subject:FW: tree removal approvals     From: Marcia Fariss [mailto:farissmarcia@fhda.edu]   Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2016 3:56 PM  To: Planning <planning@saratoga.ca.us>; Erwin Ordoñez <eordonez@saratoga.ca.us>  Subject: tree removal approvals  Planning Commission Members, Erwin Ordonez, Unfortunately I am unable to attend the February 10 Planning Commission meeting; therefore I am addressing you via e-mail. I am extremely concerned about rather recent developments concerning the apparent ease with which property owners are receiving permission to remove mature trees in our City. The February 10 meeting includes yet another request for removal of a mature tree (an Italian Stone Pine). Not only are neighbors protesting its removal but many other fellow Saratogans have expressed their concerns to me about the fact that so many of our mature trees are being removed for personal aesthetic or home expansion reasons. Removing dangerous and/or diseased trees is understandable; removing healthy mature trees for superficial reasons is outrageous. Not only does it adversely affect Saratoga’s beauty and rural atmosphere, it lessens our property values. If those are not sufficient reasons to deny mature tree removal, then helping to cleanse the pollutants in the air we breathe, should suffice. Personally, I see no reason to approve tree removal because “it might become diseased, dangerous or decline.” Why not wait until a tree actually becomes diseased or dangerous? “Might” is no reason to remove a mature tree! In addition to opposing the removal of this specific tree, I feel that a major revision in the entire process is required. While we might not be in danger of having our “Tree City” designation revoked, if the current trend continues we’ll deserve the “Treeless City” designation. Not to mention that our tree canopy award will be meaningless. Requiring applicants to replace a mature tree with a sapling is useless; it takes too long for them to mature. Fining residents who remove trees without permission is also useless. The answer is clear: Prevention. I urge you to save the Blauer Drive Stone Pine and all other healthy, mature trees in Saratoga. I would like to see an independent arborist (or two) perform the tree evaluations, not one hired by an applicant. It is too easy for an applicant to pay (or otherwise encourage) for an arborist to give an opinion favorable to the person wanting to remove the tree. Lastly, it appears obvious that revision or “tightening” of our current City Codes pertaining to tree removal is warranted and it should be done immediately. I urge you to deny removal of this specific tree and declare a moratorium on any future removals until a new, more restrictive policy can be put into place and enforced. 68 2 Thank you, Marcia Fariss Saratoga Glen Pl. 69 1 Kate Bear From:Michael Fossati on behalf of Planning Sent:Wednesday, February 10, 2016 2:44 PM To:Kate Bear; Erwin Ordoñez Subject:FW: [SPAM EMAIL] 2/10/16 meeting Attachments:Stone pine.docx Importance:Low     From: Mary Bogdanovich [mailto:marybogdanovich@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 2:03 PM To: Planning Subject: [SPAM EMAIL] 2/10/16 meeting Importance: Low Please see the attached letter re Public Hearing 1.2 – Italian Stone Pine on tonight’s agenda.  70 February 10, 2016 Planning Commission Re: Tree Removal Permit Application TRP15-0380 12990 Regan Lane I have lived across the street from 12990 Regan Lane for over 50 years and can’t begin to express my sorrow that under consideration is the removal of a healthy Italian stone pine that I and all who live and drive in the neighborhood love. It is the gateway to Argonaut Place and unquestionably considered among the most beautiful trees in Saratoga. The former owner loved the tree and had it periodically checked for any stress or service. She considered it a valuable asset to her property, and was never told that it was a danger to life or property. The tree continues to be a source of beauty, significance and value to this neighborhood. With all due respect to our neighbors, the Abhyankar family, I respectfully request that your Honorable Commission deny removal of the tree. Mary Bogdanovich 20391 Blauer Drive Saratoga 71 1 Kate Bear From:Michael Fossati on behalf of Planning Sent:Wednesday, February 10, 2016 2:44 PM To:DL - Planning Commission Cc:Erwin Ordoñez; Kate Bear Subject:FW: Please allow the stone pine to live     ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: Kathy Forte [mailto:kathyaforte@comcast.net]   Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 1:26 PM  To: Planning  Subject: Please allow the stone pine to live    Dear Planning Commission,  Please allow the stone pine behind the Argonaut Center to live.   That is a beautiful tree!  We need to toughen our removal of big trees to keep Saratoga as the tree city. Too many big  trees get removed (I've lived here 26 years and the cit arborist approves the removal of too many trees).   Please deny the tree removal!  Thanks for listening,  Kathy Forte  20720 4th St., #2  Saratoga, Ca. 95070      Sent from my iPhone  72 1 Kate Bear From:Michael Fossati on behalf of Planning Sent:Wednesday, February 10, 2016 2:44 PM To:Kate Bear; Erwin Ordoñez Subject:FW: Appeal for Stone Pine at Blauer and Regan Attachments:February 10.doc Hi All – Please see attached.    Thank you,  Michael    From: Sue [mailto:daa1915@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 12:28 PM To: Planning Cc: megonation@gmail.com Subject: Appeal for Stone Pine at Blauer and Regan Attached is an email regarding the Stone Pine at Blauer and Regan and the Planning Commission Meeting to be held tonight about its removal. Thank you for your attention. Sue Anderson 73 February 10, 2016 Dear Saratoga Planning Commission: Illness prevents me from attending the planning commission meeting tonight, so I am emailing my thoughts about removing the lovely stone pine on the corner of Blauer and Regan. I have often enjoyed the tree as I drive to Safeway from my home on Kilbride Drive and have admired the way the large tree from across the street balances it in a sort of natural arch…almost like a welcome to that particular part of the neighborhood. One of the things that drew me to Saratoga in 1990 were the trees. This lovely community gave me the feeling of being in the mountains, and the trees dwarfed and delighted me every time I took a walk or drove down the street. I have been saddened to see the devastation beetles have brought to our Monterey pines; we have lost many in our neighborhood, and the canopy has changed a great deal. Even sadde, however, because we should be able to exert control over it, are the healthy trees that have simply disappeared on a weekend or during the work day. Three marvelous trees on our street have been removed without any notice given to us as neighbors and with no application process at all. In this case, of course, there has been an application process, but it seems to have been a rather havey-cavey one, with changing reasons and without allowing the opinion of an additional arsonist, despite the willingness of Megan Leney to fund such an appraisal. It seems a shame to remove any healthy tree because of a possible structural problem; surely an old, majestic, and established tree like this one deserves a second opinion as to whether it can safely be saved…or even if it needs saving at all. Most of us would get a second opinion before removing a cancer from our bodies. By the same token, doesn’t it make sense to get a second opinion before removing a mature, shade-giving, and neighborhood-beautifying tree from its place in Saratoga? When we are losing so many mature trees (arguably the most beautiful of all) from disease that we cannot control, shouldn’t we cleave to our healthy, mature trees all the more? These majestic trees do not grow overnight, and we cannot replace them in our lifetimes…though it is well worth replacing them for future generations, of course. Having said that, let’s keep as many for our own enjoyment as possible! I would like to conclude by saying that there are more than aesthetics involved here. Saratoga has a certain character, and a good portion of that is tree-driven. As our canopy becomes less noteworthy, our appeal lessens, too. My street was far more beautiful ten years ago, as was my entire neighborhood. This has not only affected my enjoyment of the view; it has likely affected the resale appeal of my property. I purposely chose a tree-lined street, and too many of the streets in Saratoga now remind me of “regular” neighborhoods in California, where trees are small and polite and fade into the background, if they exist at all. 74 Please consent to a second opinion for the stone pine in question. Preserve the character of Saratoga by advocating for every tree and ensuring to the greatest extent possible that no healthy tree is removed to satisfy an owner’s whim. Those who purchase here should be aware, by reputation, that Saratoga is a city that protects its trees. Hopefully, reinforcing and upholding Saratoga’s strong commitment to the canopy will encourage buyers for whom trees are no more than obstacles to buy elsewhere. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration. Sincerely, Sue Anderson 20201 Kilbride Drive Saratoga, CA cc: Megan Leney 75 Planning Commission Criteria for  Excused Absences Adopted by the Commission on December 11, 2013 The absence is excused when: 1.It is a result of a commissioner's illness; 2.It is a result of an emergency or an illness or hospitalization of a  spouse, child or other relative; 3.It is a result of a death in the commissioner's family; 4.It is required by the commissioner's employment; 5.It was requested once a year for a personal reason, as long as  advanced notice is given; 6.It was requested once a year for vacation, as long as advanced  notice is given. City Code Section 2­12­040(b) Commission Attendance:  Commissioners are expected to make Commission service a high priority and to make a   reasonable effort to attend all meetings.  If a Commissioner is absent without permission of the   Chair (or, in the case of the Chair, the Mayor) from three regular Commission meetings in any   twelve­month period, the Commissioner's office becomes vacant and shall be filled as any other   vacancy unless the vacancy is excused by the City Council in its sole discretion. A Commissioner   whose office has become vacant may request the vacancy to be excused by filing a letter with the   City Clerk within thirty days of the effective date of the vacancy. If a Commissioner is absent   without permission from two regular Commission meetings, the secretary of the Commission   shall mail to the Commissioner a courtesy notice of the requirements of this Section, provided,  however, that such notice shall not operate as prerequisite to the establishment of a vacancy   pursuant to this subsection (b) and that failure to mail such notice shall not create any right of   action in any Commissioner or any other person. 76