Loading...
PC Min - 04/23/2013CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7:30 P.M. APRIL 23, 2013 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY The Planning Commission meeting of April 23, 2013, was called to order at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California by Chair Reynolds and the following proceedings were had, to wit: ROLL CALL Commissioners; Present Commissioners, Absent: Staff Present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chair: Vice Chair: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Community Development Director: Associate Planner: City Attorney: Recording Secretary: Philip C. Reynolds, Jr. Paul Resnikoff Brian Brennan Pam Finch John Razumich . Elizabeth Gibbons Bob Roseberry Paul Kermoyan Daniel Fama William Seligmann Corinne Shinn Motion: Upon motion by Commissioner Brennan, seconded by Commissioner Resnikoff, the Planning Commission minutes of the meeting of March 26, 2013, were approved with one correction to page 14. (4-0-2-1; Commissioners Gibbons and Roseberry were absent and Commissioner Finch abstained) Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for April 23, 2013 Page 2 COMMUNICATIONS Chair Reynolds congratulated Director Paul Kermoyan on his recent appointment to the position of Community Development Director on a permanent basis rather than his previous Interim basis. Director Paul k;ermoyan thanked Chair Reynolds and said he was looking forward to serving the Plannning Commission and the community for many years to come. AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS There were no agenda modifications or postponements. ORAL REQUESTS There were no oral requests. PUBLIC HEARJNGS *** Chair Reynolds read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record as follows: PLN2010-197 Public Hearing to consider a Text Amendment (PLN2010-197) Staff to amend the Campbell Municipal Code (Chapter 21,32 -Tree Protection Regulations; Chapter 21.38 -Application, Filing, Processing and Fees; Chapter 21.71 -Administrative Decision Process; and Chapter 21.62 - Appeals) to enact a comprehensive update to the Campbell Tree Protection Ordinance. Staff is recommending that this project be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Tentative City Council Meeting Date: May 21, 2013. Project Planner: Daniel Fama, Associate Planner Mr. Daniel Fama, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Reported thiat this Text Amendment represents a comprehensive update to the Tree Protection Ordinance. • Advised th~rt in June 2010, the review of the Tree Protection Ordinance was included in the Work Plan as part of the approaching fiscal year budget. • Said that this decision to review the Tree Ordinance was in response to complaints over excessive trimming. • Stated that Council conducted a study session and the Planning Commission conducted fi~ro study sessions. Afterwards, staff prepared the draft Tree Protection Ordinance amendments. • Explained tf iat the proposed amendments represent four broad areas: 1. Criteria for tree removal, 2. Residential properties, 3. Dead aind dying trees and 4. Arborisi: reports and selection. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for April 23, 2013 Page 3 • Informed that two changes have been made in regards to criteria. One is the determination of "significant" damage. It is intended to represent structural damage to foundations, walls and roof and floor framing. The added intent is that the damage be to the main structure, including dwelling units, secondary living units, pools and accessory structures. • Added that potential of damage to proposed structure is not "significant". • Pointed out that should a property have too many trees, it may be possible that removal of >ome could be supported in order to preserve those remaining. • Explained that the existing process includes a 10-day notification period followed by a 10-day appeal period. Noticing includes a 300-foot radius. • The proposed process would eliminate the advance notification and instead provide a notice of decision. Noticing would be limited to adjacent and across-the-street neighbors only. • Reported that dead and dying trees currently undergo the same process. • Added that dead trees are not subject to the Tree Protection Ordinance as they are not a "live" plant. Owners would secure an over-the-counter review and approval by staff for the removal of a dead or dying tree. Dead trees will continue to be exempt but with these amendments those regulations will be codified rather than simply as are interpretation. • Said that this ISA standards are updated by reference. Pruning must fall within the ISA standards. • Explained that currently arborist reports are secured by applicants which can represent a conflict of interest. It is proposed that a standard arborist report format will be developed and the City will be allowed to select the arborist to be used to prepare a tree report at the applicant's expense. Arborists used would be prohibited from involvement in removal of the tree they are reporting upon. • Said that the Commission must make the findings that these amendments are consistent ~rrith the General Plan and are not detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of thie community. • Said that thE;se changes will make removal of dead trees more convenient. • Said that ire order to ensure consistency of this Text Amendment to the Tree Protection Ordinance with the Zoning Code, changes will also be made to Section 21.71 (Administrative Decisions) and 21.62 (Appeals). • Recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance enacting a comprehensive update to the Tree Protection Ordinance. Director Paul Kermoyan: • Said that thus review and update has resulted from a lengthy process. • Added that iit is acceptable for the Commission to offer new opinions on what has been drafted. • Said that nothing new has been added since the last hearing on this update. • Reminded vuhat started this review was the perception that people were harming trees via ovE;r trimming. • Explained thiat Planning staff implements the Code and therefore sees its flaws. For instance, staff questioned whether it should take 30 days to remove a dead tree. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for April 23, 2013 Page 4 • Pointed to the February 14th staff report, Attachment 5, that laid out applicable General Plan policies. Those policies should be considered in reviewing and recommending these amendments. Chair Reynolds; asked if the Commissioners had questions for staff. Commissioner Resnikoff questioned what a homeowner is to do if the damage being caused by a tree is occurring to fences and driveways. Is it that cut and dry? Planner Daniel Fama said that fences and/or driveways can be modified in order to protect a tree. This is the current situation right now. Commissioner Resnikoff pointed out that a driveway that is being torn up by the roots of a tree becorrres a repetitive problem. Director Paul Kermoyan: • Reminded that the Tree Protection Ordinance reflects General Plan policies toward protecting tE:es. • Added that i:he Ordinance talks about "significant" damage. • Pointed out that mature trees can cost from $50,000 to $100,000 depending on size and type. • Stated that as to fencing, there are ways to alter fences to work in harmony with tree growth. Staff will offer solutions in lieu of tree removal. For example, a fence can be ended at the tree and restarted on the other side. • Added that regarding driveways being lifted by roots, there are always alternatives. • Concluded i:hat if the roots are damaging the founding, that is more of a reason to justify tree n~moval. Commissioner (Resnikoff said he agrees that there are ways around it. He asked how a homeowner i:> to verify whether a tree is dead. Planner Daniel Fama reiterated that as to dead trees, the City is not involved. The property owner hires a removal company. It is suggested that the removal of a dead tree be documented. Commissioner Resnikoff asked about the issue of over-trimming of trees. Planner Daniel Fama said the owner is responsible. Commissioner (Resnikoff asked if there is a list of qualified arborists available. Planner Daniel Fama advised that per the recommended amendments, the City would choose the arborist to produce the arborist's report. Commissioner (Resnikoff said that it has been said that the arborist that prepares the report about a twee slated for removal would not be able to do the removal itself. Director Paul Kermoyan: Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for April 23, 2013 Page 5 Cautioned that tree companies gets someone licensed as an arborist. Added that a true arborist's report focuses on preservation and not removal. Said that the arborist selected by the City would be in the business of preserving trees and not cutting them down. They will offer anon-biased opinion. Planner Daniel Fama said that a lot of tree removal companies do not have an arborist on staff. Commissioner Resnikoff asked about the table on page 11 indicating the appeals process. He asked if appeals are to the Planning Commission and/or the City Council. Planner Daniel Fama said that this table could be revised to reflect that actions of the Planning Commission could also then be appealed to Council. Commissioner IRazumich asked what fines are these days for illegal tree removals. Planner Daniel Fama: Said that there are both financial penalties as well as Code Enforcement penalties. Added that penalties can include two replacement trees for any tree removed or a financial fine at the valuation of a comparable tree. Those fees can be very significant although Campbell rarely does that. The last time a cash value was charged it was about $500 per tree. Commissioner 1=inch asked if the City pays the arborist. Planner Daniel Fama replied no. Commissioner IFinch expressed concern about the City incurring liability if they force a particular arborist on a property owner. City Attorney V'/illiam Seligmann said that is not what happens. The City hires the arborist and the applicant pays the cost of that arborist. Commissioner 1=inch verified that homeowner has no say on the arborist assigned. Planner Daniel Fama replied correct. Commissioner 13rennan asked where in the text it is written about who pays the cost for the arborist. He pointed to page 16-B, "shall be remitted prior to issuance of the arborist's report." He suggested being more explicit as to who pays for this report. Planner Daniel (Fama agreed that is the intent. Commissioner Brennan asked staff what the average processing period is. He said it appears to now include a 10-day public noticing period with afive-day staff review period that could sometimes be shorter. However, processing could take longer, if the decision is appealed. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for April 23, 2013 Page 6 Planner Daniel Fama replied correct. Commissioner Brennan: • Said that cutting the comment period in half from 20 to 10 says raises questions. • Added that if a homeowner can get someone to sign off that a tree is dead there could be perverse incentives. • Questioned if that is a good thing to do. Planner Daniel Fama: • Replied that: the alternative would be to require review and permitting for removal of a dead tree. • Said that this could be added to the staff process for review of dying trees. Director Paul Kermoyan: • Said that thE~re is time for the public to be engaged. • Admitted that as to the issue of removal of dead trees without process, there have been no complaints and/or concerns raised about that. • Added that if staff saw significant opposition to shortening the processing time, it wouldn't be recommending a reduction in the time period. It currently takes an inordinate amount of time. • Agreed that this is worthy of further deliberation. Commissioner (Brennan: • Said that it makes sense as added permit time equals more cost. • Asked if there is added cost if processing time takes 10 additional days. Planner Daniel Fama responded that it is more of an inconvenience to the applicant than an additional cost. Commissioner IResnikoff asked about the issue of impacts on "proposed structures". Planner Daniel Fama advised that on page 8, Section A-5, that issue qualifies under the economic enjoyment and hardship section. Chair Reynolds opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Chair Reynolds closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Finch agreed with Commissioner Brennan that allowing a homeowner to identify their own tree as dead is cause for concern. She said she would like to see the dead tree issue come to staff rather than leave it up to the homeowner. Commissioner IResnikoff said that would represent a cost to the applicant to secure a report that indicates that a tree is dead. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for April 23, 2013 Page 7 Planner Daniel Fama advised that often the written confirmation that a tree is dead is simply a notation on a bid for removal provided by the tree removal company that will be removing said tree. Commissioner Resnikoff asked what an arborist's report might cost. Planner Daniel Fama said he was not sure. Director Paul Kermoyan: • Said that if the intent is a simple process, that a tree cutter's note along with a photo and use of common sense would suffice. • Added that a majority of the time what is documented on an estimate is that there is likelihood of the future death of a tree. Planner Daniel Fama reiterated that there is no permit required for removal of a dead tree under the current Ordinance. Director said it its possible to create some simply review process. Commissioner Resnikoff asked what if staff does not agree that a tree is dead as per the picture provided. Planner Daniel Fama gave as an example a redwood tree on Railway Avenue on which the entirE: top half of the tree was brown. That tree was allowed to be removed. Commissioner Resnikoff said it makes sense to add language that indicates that the City's arborist would visit the site if necessary. Commissioner IFinch: • Suggested that documentation that supports a removal be provided. • Added that if staff for some reason is not happy with that documentation, they can bring the request up to the next level of review. • Reiterated that she doesn't like giving the power to the "guy" who's taking a tree out as the expert. Commissioner Brennan supported provision of a note and photo to support the removal of a dead tree. Planner Daniel Fama reminded that for Single-Family Residences there are only four protected trees (oak, redwood, cedar or ash). All other species can be removed without requiring a permit. Commissioner I~azumich: • Said that policing powers is best handled by neighbors. • Pointed out that if someone is cutting a tree improperly, neighbors will call the City to report that action. • Reiterated that it falls back on the public to call in problems like this. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for April 23, 2013 Page 8 Chair Reynold:;: • Expressed his concerns about the proposed Text Amendments. • Said that page 8, Attachment 2, seems to represent a contradiction. • Pointed out that it is important to keep in mind that damage to a structure also creates the potential for injury to a person. It is beyond just structural danger but rather also includes possible injury. Structures can be repaired or rebuilt but humans are more of a priority. • Stated that the is not comfortable with language that damage "has to occur." • Recounted how his insurance carrier did a surprise visit to his home and required him to have his driveway repaired that had been damaged by roots. Commissioner Resnikoff: • Said it doesn't seem to make sense to require a homeowner to have to wait for damage to occur before they can address it. • Added that i:he point is to prevent damage from happening before it does. • Agreed that neighbors can be the eyes and ears of a neighborhood. • Stated that .a problem is that neighbors don't know that a tree is coming down until they hear the sound of a chain saw. • Questioned the wisdom of reducing the processing time for tree removal permits, reducing noticing distance and reducing the circumference size for trees requiring a permit prior to being removed. Commissioner (Brennan: • Stated that Chair Reynolds has raised a lot of interesting issues. • Said that there is inconsistency between dangers of falling versus actual damage that raises questions. • Said one concern is even if an arborist comes out and prunes the tree in question, does that trE;e still represent a danger. • Opined that it is somewhat "funky" if someone is prohibited from removing a tree but if that trE;e should fall they remain liable. • Added that a perceived danger is addressed by calling in a licensed tree professional to come out and evaluate a tree. Chair Reynolds: • Stated that "`perceived" danger is to the discretion of an individual. • Added that if a tree is located in the middle of a yard versus looming over a sidewalk thE:re are different perceptions of danger. If the tree is in a backyard where small children often play, there is another perception of danger. • Asked the City Attorney to address the liability issue that has been raised. City Attorney ~Nilliam Seligmann said that the City has absolute immunity versus granting or decoying permits unless it is fraud involved. Commissioner I~esnikoff: • Said that hey has had the City tree located in front of his home drop limbs onto the sidewalk. 1'he City came out and trimmed the tree and removed the fallen limb. About one year later another limb fell off this street tree. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for April 23, 2013 Page 9 • Stated that one cannot really project when a tree's limbs may fall. Commissioner Finch: • Said that between 3-5 years ago a tree at the Rotten Robbie on Hamilton fell onto the station's canopy. • Said that protecting the community is important but one can't always know when a tree may fall. Director Paul Kermoyan: • Reminded that staff implements the Ordinance. • Said that whhen a tree (not just a tree limb) is in danger of falling over, it doesn't matter where that tree happens to be located on a property. • Added that applicants provide photographs. • Said that at times an arborist's report might be required. • Advised that there are ways to balance a tree out by removing limbs. • Agreed that one never really knows if a tree will fail. It is hard to predict. Commissioner IResnikoff: • Said that is a great distinction. • Added that it is limbs that usually fall rather than entire trees. • Said his two concerns are that there is no provision for requiring an owner to take care of trees before damage occurs. Additionally, he is hung up on the fact that there is no provision to deal with damage to driveways or fences even if said damage is significant. Director Paul Kermoyan: • Said the question becomes, how does one gauge "potential" damage. • Pointed out that every tree, if neglected, can cause damage and/or fail. • Agreed that there is an obligation for property owners to maintain their trees. • Said the problem of gauging potential damage would fall to staff and leave it to discretion. • Agreed that a crack in a foundation equals a solid reason for tree removal. Commissioner IResnikoff asked if roots leading to a foundation are a predictor for future or "potential" damage. Director Paul Kermoyan: • Said that surface roots that are approaching a house could be cut back. The question becomes, would that tree then die. • Added that the question always remains what maintenance could help avoid damage from trees. • Opined that there is an ability to prevent damage with maintenance. • Reiterated that this is a Tree Protection Ordinance (emphasizing "protection"). • Said that thE; recommendation could be that a homeowner hires an arborist to see if their tree could tolerate root shaving to solve a perceived problem. • Stated that there is the obligation on the part of a property owner to maintain their tree. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for April 23, 2013 Page 10 Commissioner Resnikoff asked what would occur if someone came in with concerns about the potential for damage. Director Paul Kermoyan: • Said that staff would first try to steer the property owner to the best course of action. • Pointed out that staff is their "planner" as well. • Added that if staff can offer an alternative to removal, staff will show them that alternative and try to provide guidance so they can be successful. Commissioner Finch said that some smaller cracks in a foundation are not a real problem, say one inch or so. She agreed that a homeowner has some responsibility for maintenance. Commissioner (Brennan: • Stated that he doesn't see a reason for allowing danger in one context and not in another for example issues of potential for structural damage versus potential of danger fromi a falling tree. • Added that logic applies to both concerns. Director Paul Kermoyan: • Suggested doing through the draft Ordinance page by page and moving forward. • Said that issues causing concern can be highlighted and focus placed on what the Commission would like to see included. • Added that 1:he Commission can then focus on issues warranting further discussion. • Advised that the Commission is not obligated to decide this update tonight. Commissioner Brennan laughed about the definition found on page 2 that reads, "A dead tree is onEs no longer alive." Chair Reynolds asked if there are any objections to the section on protected trees. He asked if there v~rere issues on exemptions. Director Paul Kermoyan reiterated that a "dead tree" is exempted from a removal permit. Commissioner (Finch suggested the need for some documentation to ensure that a tree is actually dead. Chair Reynolds: • Said that hE: believes in the rights of an individual property owner over his or her own property. • Added that he is all for protecting trees. There are many very beautiful and old trees. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for April 23, 2013 Page 11 • Admitted that he is concerned about restricting personal property rights and taking decisions out of their hands and turning such decisions over to neighbors and/or governmental agencies. • Stressed the need for property owners to make decisions on their property. • Pointed out that a nice tree adds value to a property but an owner's rights have to come into play. Commissioner Resnikoff: • Said that it is important to make sure this update is consistent with the General Plan. • Pointed out that trees are a big part of the General Plan. • Reminded that on single-family residential properties there are four protected tree species. • Reiterated i:hat what is before this Commission is the evaluation as to whether these amendments to the Tree Ordinance are consistent with the General Plan. • Admitted that he too struggles with owners' rights but that this is not purely a property owner's decision. Trees affect the whole look of a street as well as the entirety of the City of Campbell. Commissioner'Finch: • Agreed with Commissioner Resnikoff. • Suggested that owner's rights are not being taken away as there is due process here. • Added that i:here can be mitigating treatments. Chair Reynolds; said that there needs to be a review of this draft line by line. Things can be added, subtracted or modified as far as language. He added that there is not yet consensus on what is currently written. Commissioner (Resnikoff: • Suggested quantifying the issues that remain as the Commission needs to know what areas fro address further and how many issues there are remaining. • Said it is noit clear what is agreed upon. Commissioner Finch said that requiring a process for emergency removals doesn't make sense if there is immediate threat. Director Paul K~ermoyan: • Described the after-the-fact removal permitting process that documents the removal. • Advised that if there is the need for an emergency tree removal for a tree that represents a public health and safety issue that is of primary importance. Planner Daniel Fama added that the after-the-fact removal permit process also serves as a mechanisrn to require replacement of the tree as well. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for April 23, 2013 Page 12 Chair Reynolds sought comments on several sections including the purpose section, Attachment 3, page 2; definitions and applicability. Commissioner Brennan said he has questions about the definition of "significant". Director Paul Kermoyan said that "significant" means that there needs to be damage to high-value improvements such as foundations, floor framing, roof framing and walls. He said that thE;re needed to be a strong relationship between the costs. Chair Reynolds asked about applicability. Commissioner Finch said that it refers to privately-owned land as public property is not under the Ordinance. Chair Reynolds listed other sections for discussion including: actions prohibited, changes, and the four protected tree species on R-1 properties. Director Paul Kermoyan reported that staff had originally recommended the addition of the sycamore i:ree to the protected species list. It is a native tree that provides an environmental habitat. However, the Commission previously decided that it was not a good idea to add a fifth protected tree species to the existing four. Chair Reynolds asked the Commission for comments about adding sycamores. Commissioner Finch said she thought that sycamores should be added. They are beautiful trees. Commissioner Resnikoff said it would not be a significant impact to add sycamore as most can be found along-creeks and are mostly on public property. Most are already protected simply by virtue of being located on public properties. Chair Reynolds asked for comments on the exemptions section. Commissioner Razumich suggested adding to existing text as follows on Section 21.32.065: Dying "and dead" trees. He said that the process includes the Community Development Director's review, use of an arborist's report, a discretionary review and decision and the requirement for replacement of a removed tree. Chair Reynolds; asked if there is any disagreement with the application requirements for tree removal permits. Director Paul Kermoyan: • Said that a lot of the time a property owner felt obligated to hire an arborist. • Advised than often found that an arborist's report was not needed by staff in order to make a decision. • Added that the issue here is to save the property owner time and money and requiring an arborist report only when necessary. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for April 23, 2013 Page 13 Chair Reynolds asked for comments on the determination on permits. Commissioner Finch said that there are significant issues there. Chair Reynold; asked for comments on the Applications, Authority and Permit Process Section. He added that it should be included in the motion that the appeals process leading up to the Council should be updated in this section. Director Paul N~ermoyan asked Commissioner Brennan to elaborate on his concerns about the permit process. Commissioner Brennan said that while it is worth of discussion he is comfortable proceeding. Chair Reynolds asked for comments on the Replacement Trees Section (none); Delegation of 1=unctions (none); Heritage Tree Designations (none); Appeals (to be addressed with a chart update); Pruning and Maintenance (seems cut and dry); and finally Arborist Reports. Commissioner (Finch suggested discussing the Arborist Reports Section further. Chair Reynolds asked for comments about the Violations/Penalties section as well as the lack of liability upon the City. He concluded that there are two categories to discuss, which ;are Determination of Permit and Arborist Report. Commissioner Brennan said the Commission should also add a discussion of "significant" darnage. Chair Reynolds suggesting defining "significant" damage. Commissioner Resnikoff said that question remains how to quantify "significant" damage. Commissioner Brennan said the term of "significant" damage seemed to be a proxy for cost as it relates to four categories. Director Paul FCermoyan said that the code now says "substantial" damage while "significant" defiines the degree and extent. Commissioner E3rennan said that there can be damage to exterior walls and that is not significant. Director Paul Kermoyan said that there is the issue of structural change versus what can be repaired easily. Commissioner (Brennan asked if there would be any category other than four. He suggested establishing an amount of damage. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for April 23, 2013 Page 14 Commissioner Resnikoff said he is not ready to write off fences. He said that "significant" damage is not just structural damage. Commissioner Brennan suggested a fifth "grab bag" category for damage. Commissioner Resnikoff said that it should be based on the significance of damage and not just if that damage is structural. He suggested defining it without limiting it to structural damage. Director Paul Kermoyan: • Advised that as trees mature and grow, especially on smaller lots, problems can arise. • Added that ~unmaintained trees will cause damage and trees need to be maintained or they could cause damage. • Said that ire evaluating at what stage damage is considered "substantial", staff focused on "`significant" structural damage to be more objective than subjective. • Stated that damage to a pool could also be pretty significant. • Agreed that the Code could clarify other high ticket improvements. • Reminded that the General Plan's policy is the preservation of trees. Commissioner Resnikoff asked if a homeowner is unable to request tree removal without significant structural damage. Director Paul Kermoyan sad that an owner can always apply for a tree removal permit. Commissioner (Resnikoff said thaf it would likely be denied without related damage. Commissioner IRazumich reminded that if there is a denial, the applicant has the option of the appeals process. Commissioner (Brennan said he is now more comfortable and stated that this has been a good discussiion of the issues. Commissioner Razumich said that while the Code doesn't cover everything, focusing on structural damages makes sense. He agreed that the Commission has had a good conversation on the issues. Chair Reynolds asked if the Commissioners wanted to add "concrete driveways and fencing" to the items that can be evaluated for significant damage caused by a tree. Commissioner (Brennan said no. Commissioner Resnikoff said that as long as there is the option to appeal a denial he is okay with not listing those items. Director Paul Kermoyan asked the Commission about adding pools. Commissioner (Finch said that pools should be added. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for April 23, 2013 Page 15 Commissioner Resnikoff asked about tennis courts. He raised the issue of removal of dying/dead treEa. Director Paul K;ermoyan suggested converting Subsection "F" similar to Subsection G, to include dead trees. Chair Reynolds asked for comments about the Determination of Permit section; the Danger of Falling section; and suggested removing (Line 2) referencing structural damage; and leaving in "danger of falling" (Line 1). Commissioner Resnikoff asked about the term "structure." Commissioner Brennan joked that the Commission didn't really need to discuss this at all since everything can be appealed. Commissioner IResnikoff said that impacts to the main structure need to be addressed. Director Paul Kermoyan: • Pointed out that an important distinction is "potential". • Said that the damage should have already been caused rather than it could potentially cause it in the future. • Said that requiring an arborist report in every circumstance results in added cost and time lag for applicants. Planner Daniel Fama said that potential could be evaluated as being "likely" within a certain amount of time. He cautioned that allowing for more discretion on staff's part could equal more appeals. Director Paul N:ermoyan reiterated that every tree left unattended is likely to cause damage. Commissioner Brennan said that if there is a stated potential for falling, it may be okay to require an arborist's report every time to justify potential versus likely damage. Chair Reynolds: • Cautioned that it is "easy" to spend other people's money on things such as permits and arborist"s reports. • Reminded tlhat there is a senior population out there and adding such costs on those with fi;Ked-incomes should be considered. • Added that the City must be responsible when passing on costs. Director Paul K~ermoyan reminded that Section 2 that refers to having caused damage or could potentially cause damage. In either case, an arborist's report would be required. Commissioner I~azumich said that consideration of dead or dying trees would equal a staff interpretation. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for April 23, 2013 Page 16 Commissioner Resnikoff pointed out that the cost of an arborist's report would be much smaller than the removal cost and would represent a minor addition to the overall cost of the removal project. Commissioner Finch pointed out that those on a fixed income would more likely put off removals and/or wait until damage is done. Director Paul Kermoyan suggested adding language to read, "Or will "likely/potentialNy/imminently" cause damage. Chair Reynolds asked about the permit process. Commissioner Resnikoff said that one issue is to clarify that the applicant pays for the arborist's report. Commissioner Finch said that she remains concerned about liability although the City Attorney has said that the City is not made liable. Commissioner Razumich said that there are other times that outside consultants are used for project development review including independent architectural review and plan check. In those cases, the developer pays and the City selects the consultant. Director Paul Kermoyan said that is also a common practice especially in CEQA analysis. The applicant covers the expense and the City hires and supervises the consultant to achieve neutrality and eliminate any conflict of interest. Commissioner IFinch asked about permit process. Director Paul Kermoyan said that section would be updated by staff. Chair Reynolds said that the update will include potential to appeal to Council. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Resnikoff, seconded by Commissioner Finch, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4100 recommending that the City Council approve a Text Amendment (PLN2010-197) to amend the Campbell Municipal Code (Chapter 21,32 -Tree Protection Regulations; Chapter 21.38 -Application, Filing, Processing and Fees; Chapter 21.71 -Administrative Decision Process; and Chapter 21.62 - Appeals) to enact a comprehensive update to the Campbell Tree Protection Ordinance, with the following amendments: • Section 21.32.020 -add pool to list of significant structures; • Section 21.32.060 -Exemptions -combine F and G and combine with 31.32.065 (Dead Trees); • Section 21.32.080 -Determination/Permit, on paragraph 2, add, "or may imminently cause" structure damage. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for April 23, 2013 Page 17 • Section 21.32.090 -Table 3-4, add the City Council to the appeal process on decisions of the Planning Commission • Section 21.32.155 -Note fees for arborist report are paid by the applicant and the arborist is assigned by the City; by the following roll call vote: AYES: Brennan, Finch, Razumich and Resnikoff NOES: Reynolds ABSENT: Gibbons and Roseberry ABSTAIN: None Chair Reynold:> advised that this item would be considered by the City Council at its meeting of May 21, 2013, for final action. *** REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Director Paul Kermoyan made the following added comments to his written report: • Explained that this week's report is longer than usual as it contains the Work Plan items for the next fiscal year. Some items are new and others will carry over from the current ~~ear. • Said that big projects in the coming year include soliciting proposals for the Dell Avenue Area Plan (DAAP) and the Housing Element Update. • Said that there are three regular items for the May 14t" Planning Commission meeting that include: a review of the City's Capital Improvement Program; a Conditional Use Permit for a new restaurant at the Safeway Center on Hamilton; and a Condiitional Use Permit for a new yoga studio on White Oaks Road. • Added that following the regular meeting the Commission will conduct a study session to consider the preliminary proposal fora 13-unit townhome development on several parcels on Sam Cava Lane. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission Meeting of May 14, 2013. SUBMITTED B'Y: APPROVED Bl(: ATTEST: ,,,..-.~ C ne ,Recording Secretary