Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-27-2008 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Hlava called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Rodgers and Zhao Absent: Commissioner Nagpal Staff: Director John Livingstone, City Arborist Kate Bear and Assistant City Attorney Bill Parkin PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of February 13, 2008. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Rodgers, seconded by Commissioner Zhao, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of February 13, 2008, were adopted with edits to pages 3, 7 and 9. (5-0-1-1; Commissioners Nagpal was absent and Commissioner Cappello abstained) ORAL COMMUNICATION There were no Oral Communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director John Livingstone announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 21, 2008. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Chair Hlava announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050(b). CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar items. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2008 Page 2 *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION #APTR080001 (397-08-027) Kriens, 18940 Monte Vista Drive: The applicant is appealing the denial of a tree removal permit application to remove six Blue Gum Eucalyptus trees and requests a modification of conditions of approval plans for their project to construct a new single-family residence and compound, allowing the replacement of the six eucalyptus trees with new Oak, Redwood and Camphor trees equal to the appraised value of the Eucalyptus trees. Ms. Kate Bear, City Arborist, presented the staff report as follows: • Reported that the applicant is appealing the denial of a Tree Removal Permit. • Advised that the applicant has requested the removal of these trees because one of their neighbors is afraid they will fall on their house as well as because they are messy. There is also the concern that these trees may cause damage to a proposed new house on the subject property. • Said that the value of these trees was originally over appraised and the correct appraised value for these six Eucalyptus trees is $7,810. • Informed that in the fall of 2007, several pines on the property died and were approved for removal and replacement. At the same time, the applicant requested removal of these Eucalyptus trees but was denied because the request did not meet the City’s criteria. • Said that staff is recommending denial of this appeal for the following reasons: o Consistent with the General Plan, the Design Review and Tree Removal processes are used to determine whether trees should be removed and emphasizes the retention of healthy mature trees. This is also consistent with City Code 15-50.080. o Added that the trees are not in eminent danger of falling. They are not in the path of utilities. They are in good health. They are not causing damage to structures on the property. They appear to be structurally sound. The trees do not threaten damage to the proposed new house. o Said that the lot is flat so erosion is not a concern. o Advised that there would be a significant impact on privacy if these trees were removed and would leave a hole in the landscape. o Assured that the landscape can accommodate Eucalyptus tress if they are maintained. • Recommended that the Planning Commission approve a resolution denying removal of these six Eucalyptus trees. Commissioner Kundtz asked Arborist Kate Bear why the neighbor thinks they are in a compromising position of having these Eucalyptus trees fall over. Arborist Kate Bear replied that often people fear tall trees simply because they are tall. Commissioner Rodgers asked Arborist Kate Bear if the removal of the branch hanging over the neighbor’s driveway would threaten the health of that tree. Arborist Kate Bear replied that removal of one branch should not threaten the health of the tree. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2008 Page 3 Commissioner Rodgers advised for the record that she spoke with the site foreman. He said that the tree is located just 10 feet away from the house. Arborist Kate Bear said that 10 feet is close. Chair Hlava said that she thought it was even closer than 10 feet per the stake on the site. She added that she too spoke with the foreman on site and looked at the full sized plans. Commissioner Zhao asked what was the original appraised value given. Arborist Kate Bear replied that it was close to $80,000. She said that she inadvertently used an incorrect value in calculating the appraised value and upon review she revised that figure. Commissioner Kumar said that Tree #23 seems very close to the home. He asked about the invasive nature of the roots. Arborist Kate Bear advised that the roots could be moderately invasive. Commissioner Kumar asked Arborist Kate Bear if the other trees are less of a concern. Arborist Kate Bear explained that they are not close to the house but they are close to the driveway. However, there is no damage evident on the driveway now although the trees have been in place for a number of years. Commissioner Zhao asked if the trees could still grow bigger and taller. Arborist Kate Bear replied yes. They can get more than 65 feet in height and they are not that tall yet. Commissioner Zhao asked if the roots expand out as well. Arborist Kate Bear agreed that they could grow to be very large. These trees are fast growing with as much as three feet in growth each year. Commissioner Rodgers said that for the record she also wanted to report that she spoke with the gardener on site too. In his opinion, Eucalyptus trees are hard to maintain and are messy. Arborist Kate Bear agreed that they are messy and shed a lot. However, she said that she does not get to approve the removal of trees simply because they are messy. There are lots of specific criteria to meet. Commissioner Zhao asked if falling branches could be detrimental to the structure. Arborist Kate Bear said it was possible. Chair Hlava opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2008 Page 4 Mr. Scott Kriens, Applicant/Appellant: • Said that he and his wife, Joanne, are the owners of this property. • Distributed a packet that included pictures. • Said that he previously applied for a permit to remove and transplant a Live Oak tree on their property, which has already occurred. • Added that Arborist Kate Bear has been very helpful. • Explained that he would like to take a 12-inch Live Oak that has already been approved for removal and instead bring in a crane to relocate and save that tree by placing it in place of these Eucalyptus trees. • Added that he would also plant a grove of Redwood and Camphor trees. • Assured that Redwoods are reasonably fast growing. • Agreed that technically these Eucalyptus trees are not unhealthy but he outlined several examples where people were killed by falling Eucalyptus trees, including a bicyclist in Los Altos and another person in San Diego. • Said that there are plenty of examples where they can and do fall. Additionally, they are flammable and were a problem with the Oakland Hills fire. • Stated that Redwoods and Oaks were more appropriate and native trees than are the non- native Eucalyptus tree. • Said that it is appropriate to protect native trees. • Asked the Commission to consider his request. • Read from a neighbor’s letter, Les Pelio, who lives two doors down. Mr. Pelio strongly supports the removal of these six Eucalyptus trees and he feels that Eucalyptus trees should not be protected in Saratoga. He states that the Kriens have offered a viable solution to protect native trees. Commissioner Rodgers said that she thinks that the recent relocation of the large Oak tree results in an even better chance of survival than planting a new one. She disagreed with the idea that Eucalyptus trees should not be protected, as there are lots of them so they seem to be somewhat indigenous at this point. Mr. Scott Kriens said that the Eucalyptus is a fine tree if you don’t have to clean up after it. He said he prefers other trees. Commissioner Rodgers said that one hears the same complaints about Redwood trees. Mr. Scott Kriens said he already has lots of Redwood trees on his current property and thinks they are nice. There is no problem and no mess. They enjoy them. Commissioner Rodgers asked the distance of Tree #23 from the proposed new house. Mr. Scott Kriens said that the stake is at a 10-foot distance from the proposed building corner so that tree is probably approximately 10-feet away from the new house. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the pad of the new house would be in the same location as the former tennis court. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2008 Page 5 Mr. Scott Kriens said probably. Commissioner Kumar asked if Trees 32, 33 and 34 are the main issue? Are they close to the neighbor’s property? Mr. Scott Kriens said that they are more concerned about Trees 22, 23 and 24 and their immediate proximity to their home. Commissioner Zhao said that Trees 26 and 27 appear to be pretty far from the structure. She asked if they had considered retaining those two. Mr. Scott Kriens said that the side setback is 30 feet. The other trees are between 20 and 30 feet away and 50-feet tall. Commissioner Zhao said that 30 feet is a pretty good distance. Mr. Scott Kriens said he agreed that they are further than Tree 23. Mr. Rick Beam, Resident on Monte Vista Drive: • Said that he is a neighbor. • Explained that these trees were planted 40 years ago to screen the tennis courts from the wind. • Added that in his estimation they are closer to 50 to 60 feet in height. • Said that from his house he can only see trunk. The branches are 20 to 40 feet over the property line. • Said that it is not possible to plant under these trees. They are messy and drop stuff on the landscaping. • Assured that he is not afraid of large trees and has 11 in his own front yard including Redwoods and Cedars. • Opined that a Eucalyptus is just a pile of trash. • Explained that he worked at Stanford for 25 years as a contractor. They constantly have Eucalyptus trees and/or branches falling over. • Said that he worries about kids. • Assured that in 40 years people will thank this Commission for this removal as these trees are not native. • Added that he would like to see them go. • Recounted that the two previous owners also wanted to take them out but they moved instead. Mr. Pat O’Heran, Resident on Monte Vista Drive: • Said that he is an across-the-street neighbor. • Advised that he is here to ask the Planning Commission to support the Kriens’ request to remove these six Eucalyptus trees. • Reported that he experienced a neighborhood fire and saw how these trees go up like torches. He believes that they were a major contributor of the spread of that fire. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2008 Page 6 • Said that someone who wanted to harvest lumber brought Eucalyptus trees to California in the 1800’s from Australia. Lots of these trees were planted but they did not work out as a source of lumber because they grew too crooked in the acidic soil to be cut as lumber. • Said that these trees get bigger than 65 feet. They get huge. • Added that to handle maintenance on such tall trees a crane must be brought in. This represents a big burden. • Said that he saw the plans for what the Kriens want to do. It is a better plan and will improve the neighborhood. • Thanked the Commission for the opportunity to speak. Mr. Scott Kriens advised that the neighbors directly across the street from him had to remove a Eucalyptus tree that fell down. Chair Hlava closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Rodgers asked Arborist Kate Bear how issues such as wind, danger of crushing and fire danger fit into the Ordinance criteria. Arborist Kate Bear said that Eucalyptus trees are known to pose a fire danger and that tall trees do move a lot in the wind. Commissioner Rodgers asked if that is a danger in itself. Arborist Kate Bear said that trees are intended to bend in the wind. Commissioner Rodgers asked if that is part of the crushing danger. Arborist Kate Bear said there is a chance of branches breaking and falling in the wind but that is not unique to Eucalyptus trees, although they are considered to have moderately weak wood. Commissioner Zhao asked Arborist Kate Bear if she has considered the relocation of Tree 1 as a viable alternative. Arborist Kate Bear said that she is not generally a fan of moving trees but finds that these owners are very conscientious as demonstrated with the care they took when they moved their larger Oak tree. She said that as a result she is confident that they can successfully relocate this second smaller Oak tree too. She stated that she expects the tree to survive where normally they will not due to their care. Commissioner Rodgers asked if there is a trade off in value through this relocation of an Oak. Arborist Kate Bear said yes. Chair Hlava asked City Attorney Bill Parkin if the Commission has to treat this application on an “all or nothing” basis. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2008 Page 7 City Attorney Bill Parkin said no but that the Commission would have to provide some criteria for why some are allowed to be removed while others are not. Chair Hlava said that it is easy to say that Tree 23 meets the criteria for removal as it is very close to the house. She added that Trees 5 and 9 could also meet the criteria. Commissioner Zhao apologized for not making the site visit. She said that Trees 32, 33 and 34 are at least 50 feet from any structure. Chair Hlava: • Agreed that while they are far from the new structure they are close to Mr. Beam’s property. • Said that she can understand the reason for protecting Oaks and other indigenous trees but less so for protecting Eucalyptus trees. • Pointed out that all trees are not created equal in her mind at least. • Stated that she has a hard time with Eucalyptus trees because they are so messy and easy to drop branches or fall over. • Said that it is easier to make the criteria for the removal of Eucalyptus trees because of their proximity to the Beam’s house. Therefore, she can make the findings for the back trees and Tree 23. It is harder to make them for Trees 26 and 27. Commissioner Kumar said that Trees 26 and 27 are close to the new house. Chair Hlava said not as close as Tree 23. Commissioner Kumar said that if there are heavy winds there is the chance for falling branches. Commissioner Rodgers said that all criteria are supposed to be looked at together. She said she would rather stick closely to the Ordinance and its criteria. She mentioned Criteria 8 that states impacts to health, safety and welfare. Chair Hlava: • Said that Criteria 1 mentions proximity to existing or proposed structures. • Pointed out that in this situation there is a whole landscape plan and a proposal to move a more valuable tree. • Reminded that staff agrees that the criteria for removal can be met for Trees 5 and 9. • Added that it appears that findings can be made for four of the trees. Commissioner Cappello asked which four. Chair Hlava said Tree 23 and those at the back that are closer to the Beam property but it is harder to apply the criteria to the other two. Chair Rodgers: • Reiterated that the arborist says that Tree 23 is close to the proposed structure. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2008 Page 8 • Added that by keeping Trees 26 and 27, it will avoid the creation of a hole in the landscaping. • Said that per the arborist they are not in danger of falling and the limbs hanging over the Beam property could be trimmed off without damaging the tree. • Stated that Trees 32, 33 and 34 pose no threat and have been there for more than 40 years. • Advised that she hates to go against the Ordinance. • Pointed out that there is a street named after the Gum tree in the immediate area. Chair Hlava asked Arborist Kate Bear if the other two trees are left in place at the back is there room to transplant the Oak there. Mr. Scott Kriens said that one couldn't plant an Oak under Eucalyptus trees. It won’t do well and it would not be worth the $10,000 cost to move it there. Commissioner Rodgers said that she hadn’t understood that the Oak was going to be relocated in the place of these three Eucalyptus trees. Mr. Scott Kriens said that this was the plan. Commissioner Rodgers: • Said that she is changing her mind with this information as she can live with the alternative of retaining a protected Oak tree. • Added that this does not mean that she is willing to say that Eucalyptus trees threaten the health, safety and public welfare in this area. • Stated that because of exceptional circumstances she is willing to go along with the removal of Trees 23, 26 and 27 with the transplantation of Tree 1 (Oak) but not the removal of the other three Eucalyptus trees. Commissioner Zhao said that she is fine with the removal of Trees 23, 26 and 27 and the relocation of the Oak tree but is on the fence on the issue of Trees 32, 33 and 34. Commissioner Cappello: • Said he is in favor of removing Trees 23, 26 and 27 but does not agree that the other three trees endangers the driveway. • Pointed out that they have been there quite some time and he cannot agree to their removal unless there are signs of damage in the future. Commissioner Kumar: • Said that Criteria 1 and 8 can be made in regards to posing a safety hazard. • Added that Criteria 4 can be made with the replacement with Oak, Redwood and Camphor trees. • Said that Trees 23, 26 and 27 can be replaced. • Stated that Trees 32, 33 and 34 are fairly close to the neighbor’s property so he is all for the removal of those trees also. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2008 Page 9 • Pointed out that this applicant has been discrete in designing around the existing landscaping and has shown restraint. They looked at all alternatives before coming with this request. • Stated he would support upholding this appeal. Commissioner Kundtz; • Said that the Planning Commission is the voice of the community. • Stated that he is against leveling all trees on a property and starting over but this is a heavily landscaped lot already. • Suggested that there is a consideration of eminent versus potential danger. The difference between threatened damage versus no documented current damage can be evaluated. • Stated his support of this appeal. Commissioner Zhao asked Arborist Kate Bear what would replace Trees 32, 33 and 34. Arborist Kate Bear said the applicant proposes five Redwood trees. Chair Hlava pointed out that Redwoods are fast growing. Commissioner Zhao asked Arborist Kate Bear if the replacement of three Eucalyptus trees with five Redwood trees has merit. Arborist Kate Bear: • Said that she can argue both sides of that question so this is a tough question. • Reiterated that these Eucalyptus trees have created no damage while Redwood trees can cause damage within 15 years. • Stated that Redwood trees are more attractive than Eucalyptus trees. • Said that Redwoods are native while Eucalyptus trees are not. • Added that Eucalyptus trees are drought tolerant while Redwoods are not. • Said that she prefers Redwoods to Eucalyptus but in this case she prefers the Eucalyptus trees that are already there. Mr. Scott Kriens said that the existing Eucalyptus trees are on the property line. The five replacement Redwoods would be located about 20 to 30 feet further from the driveway. Chair Hlava asked staff how to incorporate the new landscape proposal into the resolution. Director John Livingstone said that it could be incorporated as a condition of project approval. He added that staff can prepare the resolution and wouldn’t have to bring it back to the Commission. Chair Hlava asked if the motion should be for removal of all six or just three trees. Commissioner Cappello said that as there is a majority of Commissioners supporting removal of all six that should be the motion. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2008 Page 10 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Zhao, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz, the Planning Commission upheld an appeal and overturned the denial of a Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal of six Eucalyptus trees with the provision of incorporating the applicant’s proposed landscape plan into the resolution to include the relocation of a 21-inch Oak tree (Tree 1) to the area where Trees 23, 26 and 27 will be removed and the replacement of Trees 32, 33 and 34 with five Redwood trees, on property located at 18940 Monte Vista Drive, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz and Zhao NOES: Cappello and Rodgers ABSENT: Nagpal ABSTAIN: None *** DIRECTOR’S ITEMS Director John Livingstone: • Advised that the River Ranch project has been appealed to Council for consideration on March 25, 2008. COMMISSION ITEMS Chair Hlava advised that a General Plan/Housing Element workshop/luncheon is being held at San Jose State University on March 5th. It is sponsored by San Jose Councilmembers. She asked staff where the RFP process for the Housing Element was. Director John Livingstone replied that the interview would be held on March 4th at 4:30 p.m. Chair Hlava asked when the joint session with Council was set. Director John Livingstone said March 19th. COMMUNICATIONS There were no Communications Items. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Kundtz, seconded by Commissioner Rodgers, Chair Hlava adjourned the meeting at approximately 8:25 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk