Loading...
Tree Removal Permit - 2009October 15, 2009 Pruneyard Vista HOA c/o UNC Community Management 6840 Via Del Oro, #265 San Jose, CA 95119 Re: PLN2009-98 - 913 & 915 Apricot Avenue -Appeal of Administrative Decision Dear Applicant: Please be advised that at its meeting of October 13, 2009, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3962 denying an appeal and upholding the Administrative Decision of the Community Development Director to deny a Tree Removal Permit to remove three trees on the above referenced property. This action is final. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me at (408) 866- 2140. Sincerely Tim J. Haley Senior Planner cc Paul Kermoyan, Planning Manager RESOLUTION NO. 3962 BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL DENYING AN APPEAL (PLN2009-98) AND UPHOLDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TO DENY A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT TO REMOVE THREE SWEETGUM (LIQUIDAMBAR STRYACIFLUA) TREES WITHIN THE PRUNEYARD VISTA HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION PROPERTY NEAR 913 & 915 APRICOT AVENUE IN AN R-1-3 (MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT. APPEAL OF MS. SUE SHEARER, ON BEHALF OF PRUNEYARD VISTA HOA. FILE NO.: PLN2009-98. After notification and public hearing, as specified by law and after presentation by the Community Development Director, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed. After due consideration of all evidence presented, the Planning Commission did find as follows with respect to application PLN2009-98: 1. The tree application describes the health of all the trees as fair and the arborist report does not identify that the trees are diseased. 2. The arborist report describes that the trees have caused damage to curbs, sidewalks and utility boxes. However; no description has been provided that relates the growth of these trees to damage of the main buildings or interference with utilities. 3. The retention of the trees does not restricts the economic enjoyment of the property or creates an unusual hardship for the property owner by severely limiting the use of the property in a manner not typically experienced by owners of similarly zoned and situated properties. 4. The project qualifies as Categorically Exempt under Section 15304, Class 4 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pertaining minor landscaping changes. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, subject to the conditions of approval, the Planning Commission further finds and concludes that: 1. Diseased: The trees are not irreparably diseased nor do they presents a danger of falling that cannot be controlled or remedied through reasonable preservation and/or preventative procedures and practices .such that the public health or safety requires its removal. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3962 PLN2009-98 - 913 & 915 Apricot Avenue -Deny the Appeal of an Administrative Decision Page 2 2. Potential Damage -The trees have uplifted sidewalks and curbs and have potentially impacted a utility box, however, the request has not described that the trees have caused substantial damage to existing or proposed main buildings (e.g., dwellings or other main buildings) or interfere with utility services and that cannot be controlled or remedied through reasonable relocation or modification of the structure or utility services. 3. Economic Enjoyment and Hardship -The retention of the trees will not restrict the economic enjoyment of the property or creates an unusual hardship for the property owner by severely limiting the use of the property in a manner not typically experienced by owners of similarly zoned and situated properties, and the applicant has not demonstrated to the satisfaction of the approval authority that there are no reasonable alternatives to preserve the trees. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission denies an Appeal (PLN2009-98) and upholds the Administrative Decision of the Community Development Director to deny a Tree Removal Permit to remove three Sweetgum (Liquidambar stryaciflua) trees within the Pruneyard Vista homeowner's Association property near 913 & 915 APRICOT AVENUE in an R-1-3 (Multiple Family Residential) Zoning District. PASSED AND ADOPTED this AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ABSTAIN: Commissioners: 13th day of October, 2009, by the following roll call vote: Alster, Cristina, Gibbons, Reynolds, Rocha and Roseberry None Ebner None APPROVE Elizabeth Gibbons, Acting Chair ATTEST: Kirk Heinrichs,Secretary Staff Report • October 13, 2009 PLN2009-98 Public Hearing to consider the Appeal of an Administrative Decision S. Shearer (PLN2009-98) made by the Community Development Director to deny a Tree Removal Permit request to remove three sweetgum (Liquidambar stryaciflua) trees within the Pruneyard Vista Homeowner's Association property near 913 & 915 Apricot Avenue in an R-3-S (Multiple Family Residential) Zoning District. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission take the following action: Adopt a Resolution, incorporating the attached findings, overturning the Community Development Director's Administrative Decision approving the request to remove three liquidambar trees, subject to the conditions of approval requiring the replanting of three 24" boxed trees. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The Community Development Director found that this project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15304, Class 4 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pertaining to the minor alterations in landscaping. DISCUSSION Tree Removal Request: The Planning Division reviewed an application filed on July 22, 2009, to remove three Sweetgum (liquidambar stryaciflua) trees located within the Pruneyard Vista Homeowner's Association property near units 913 & 915 Apricot Avenue due to potential damage to curbs, sidewalks and a utility box. Chapter 21.32 of the Campbell Municipal Code (Tree Protection Regulations) stipulates that the Community Development Director can approve a Tree Removal Permit only if any of the following findings can be made: 1. Diseased or Dander of Falling -The tree or trees are irreparably diseased or presents a danger of falling that cannot be controlled or remedied through reasonable preservation and/or preventative procedures and practices such that the public health or safety requires its removal. 2. Potential Damage The tree or trees can potentially cause substantial damage to existing or proposed main buildings (e.g., dwellings or other main buildings) or interfere with utility Staff Report -Planning Commission Meeting of October 13, 2009 Page 2 of 4 PLN2009-98 - 913 and 915 Apricot Avenue services that cannot be controlled or remedied through reasonable relocation or modification of the structure or utility services. 3. Economic Enioyment and Hardship -The retention of the trees does not restrict the economic enjoyment of the property or creates an unusual hardship for the property owner by severely limiting the use of the property in a manner not typically experienced by owners of similarly zoned and situated properties, and the applicant has not demonstrated to the satisfaction of the approval authority that there are no reasonable alternatives to preserve the tree. The arborist report, prepared by Gil Mitchell, did not include any findings in regards to "irreparable disease", "potential damage to the main building or interference with utilities", or "economic enjoyment and hardship" posed by the three Sweetgum trees, therefore, Findings #1, #2 and #3 were not made. The arborist's report concluded that Tree #1 had damaged a curb in two locations and raised the base of the stairs and dumpster enclosure, Tree #2 had damaged a sidewalk, Tree #3 had damaged a utility box, and Trees #2 & #3 had jointly damaged a street curb in eleven locations. As street curb and sidewalk damage do not constitute "substantial damage to existing or proposed main buildings", and no information was included in the application demonstrating that the damage to utility services "cannot be controlled or remedied through reasonable relocation or modification of the structure or utility services", the tree removal request was denied by the Community Development Director. The application for a Tree Removal Permit for three Sweetgum trees located in the PruneYard Vista Homeowner's Association was therefore denied on August 18, 2009, since the Community Development Director could not make any of the findings required for approval under the Tree Protection Regulations. This decision was appealed to the Planning Commission by the applicant. Appeal: The appellants are appealing a decision of the Community Development Director to deny a tree removal permit to allow the removal of three liquidambar trees. The appellant's letter is Attachment No. 3 of this report. Attachments to the letter are work orders related to repairs that have been conducted near these trees and minutes of the homeowners association authorizing the tree removal request. It should be noted that this information represents new facts that were not part of the original application request. The letter indicates that Tree # 1 which is located adjacent to unit 915 has caused damage to the interior garage wall through soil erosion and water penetration. The homeowners association has paid $943.00 for asphalt repair and has scheduled to repair the garage wall after removal of the tree at a cost of $6,057 per a proposal by Draeger Construction. Trees #2 & #3 are located in a planting area close to unit 913. The letter claims that tree roots have damaged common plumbing lines in this area over the past four years with a total cost of approximately $7,862 per the attached work orders. Staff Report -Planning Commission Meeting of October 13, 2009 Page 3 of 4 PLN2009-98 - 913 and 915 Apricot Avenue Had this information been submitted as a part of the original tree removal request, the City would have granted the tree removal permit, subject to a condition that three replacement trees be replanted with a more appropriate tree species. Now that the City has this information, staff agrees with the appellant and recommends that the Director's decision be reversed and the appeal be granted. Also, the Planning Division was recently made aware last week of a City policy regarding Liquidamber trees in the public right-of--way. Liquidambar trees installed as street trees have had a tendency to have shallow root systems that uplift sidewalks causing safety concerns and repair expenses. The City Council has permitted the Director of Public Works to allow the removal of this tree type in the public right of way without a formal review process by the Parks and Recreation Commission. This tree type is also no longer listed as a permitted tree on the City's adopted street tree list. Correspondence: The Planning Division has received three letters from residents that reside near the trees that have been requested to be removed. These residents have requested that the trees be retained. Property Location: The subject property is located on the north side of Apricot Avenue between Bascom Avenue and Union Avenue. The property is surrounded by multiple family residential uses to the south, east, and west and north (reference Attachment No. 5, Location Map). Project History: The 60 unit condominium development was constructed on this site in approximately 1980. Replanting_Plan: A condition of approval is recommended that requires that the applicant to replace the removed trees with (3) three 24" boxed trees with a tree variety that is better suited for these landscape areas within 45 days of the permit approval. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION Adopt a Resolution, incorporating the attached findings, upholding the Community Development Director's decision denying a tree removal permit to allow the removal of three Liquidambar trees. Attachments: 1. Findings Overturning the Administrative Approval of PLN2009-98 (Upholding the Appeal) and approving the Tree Removal Permit, subject to the condition of requiring the replanting three 24" boxed tree. 2. Findings Upholding the Administrative Denial of PLN2009-98 (Denying the Appeal) 3. Letter of Appeal of Administrative Decision -September 2, 2009 4. Arborist Report 5. Location Map 6. Correspondence from neighboring residents. Staff Report -Planning Cc,.. _.~nission Meeting of October 13, 2009 Page 4 of 4 PLN2009-98 - 913 and 915 Apricot Avenue Prepared by: ~' Tim J. Hal e for Planner I Approved by: Paul Kermo a ,Planning Manager Approved by: Kirk einri s, Community Development Director Attachment # 1 FINDINGS OVERTURNING THE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR (UPHOLDING THE APPEAL) SITE ADDRESS: 913 & 915 Apricot Avenue APPLICANT: Sue Shearer - UNC Community Management - Pruneyard Vista HOA DATE: October 13, 2009 Findings overturning the Community Development Director's Administrative Action Approving the Tree Removal Request. The Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to File No. PLN2009-98: 1. The tree application describes the health of all the trees as fair and the arborist report-does not identify that the trees are diseased. 2. The arborist report describes that the trees have caused damage to curbs, sidewalks and utility boxes. The property management company has provided evidence of work orders indicating that utility and pavement repairs have been performed or are scheduled to be performed by the Homeowners Association to address utility and water proofing issues of the complex. 3. Liquidambar trees are known to have shallow and evasive root systems that uplift sidewalks and pavement. 4. The removal of the trees is a preventive measure to assure that utility or pavement problems do not reoccur. 5. The project qualifies as Categorically Exempt under Section 15304, Class 4 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pertaining minor landscaping changes. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, subject to the conditions of approval, the Planning Commission further finds and concludes that: 1. Potential Damage -The trees have uplifted sidewalks and curbs and have potentially impacted a utility box. The applicant has provided work orders that involve the repair of the common sewer line, pavement repairs, and the anticipated waterproofing of a garage wall and pavement repairs. The removal of these trees allows for the replanting of these landscape areas with more appropriate tree types. Attachment # 1 Page 2 of 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR FILE NO. PLN2009-98 SITE ADDRESS: 913 & 915 Apricot Avenue APPLICANT: Sue Shearer - LTNC Community Management - Pruneyard Vista HOA DATE: October 13, 2009 The applicant is hereby notified, as part of this application, that (s)he is required to meet the following conditions in accordance with the ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of California. The lead department with which the applicant will work is identified on each condition where necessary. Where approval by the Director of Community Development, City Engineer, Public Works Director, City Attorney, or Fire Department is required, that review shall be for compliance with all applicable conditions of approval, adopted policies and guidelines, ordinances, laws and regulations, and accepted engineering practices, for the items under review. Additionally, the applicant is hereby notified that (s)he is required to comply with all applicable Codes or Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of California that pertain to this development and are not herein specified: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division: Declaration of Acceptance of All Conditions: Within thirty (30) days of Planning Commission's approval, the applicant shall sign the final, approved set of Conditions of Approval. Until said Conditions are signed, the Reasonable Accommodation Request shall not be valid from the City. Acknowledged & Accepted: Sue Shearer, UNC Community Management, Applicant 2. Approved Project: Approval is granted for a tree removal request to allow the removal of three Liquidambar trees (PLN2009-29) located near 915 and 913 Apricot Avenue. The project shall substantially conform to the project plans stamped as received by the Community Development Department on July 22, 2009, except as may be modified by the conditions of approval herein. 3. Tree Replanting: The applicant shall plant three (3) 24-inch box trees of a species listed on the City of Campbell Recommended Replacement Tree Species List, within 45 days of the effective date of this approval. A tree replanting plan shall be submitted for review and approval of the Community Development Director within 30 days of this approval. Attachment # 2 FINDINGS UPHOLDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR (DENYING THE APPEAL) SITE ADDRESS: 913 & 915 Apricot Avenue APPLICANT: Sue Shearer - UNC Community Management - Pruneyard Vista HOA DATE: October 13, 2009 Findings upholding the Community Development Director's Administrative Action denying a Tree Removal Request to allow the removal of three Liquidambar trees within the common area of Pruneyard Vista HOA near 915 and 913 Apricot Avenue. The Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to File No. PLN2009-98: 1. The tree application describes the health of all the trees as fair and the arborist report does not identify that the trees are diseased. 2. The arborist report describes that the trees have caused damage to curbs, sidewalks and utility boxes. However; no description has been provided that relates the growth of these trees to damage of the main buildings or interference with utilities. 3. The retention of the trees does not restricts the economic enjoyment of the property or creates an unusual hardship for the property owner by severely limiting the use of the property in a manner not typically experienced by owners of similarly zoned and situated properties. 4. The project qualifies as Categorically Exempt under Section 15304, Class 4 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pertaining minor landscaping changes. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, subject to the conditions of approval, the Planning Commission further finds and concludes that: 1. Diseased: The trees are not irreparably diseased nor do they presents a danger of falling that cannot be controlled or remedied through reasonable preservation and/or preventative procedures and practices such that the public health or safety requires its removal. 2. Potential Damage -The trees have uplifted sidewalks and curbs and have potentially impacted a utility box, however, the request has not described that the trees have caused substantial damage to existing or proposed main buildings (e.g., dwellings or other main buildings) or interfere with utility services and that cannot be controlled or remedied through reasonable relocation or modification of the structure or utility services. 3. Economic Enjoyment and Hardship -The retention of the trees will not restrict the economic enjoyment of the property or creates an unusual hardship for the property owner by severely limiting the use of the property in a manner not typically experienced by owners Attachment #2 Page 2 of 2 of similarly zoned and situated properties, and the applicant has not demonstrated to the satisfaction of the approval authority that there are no reasonable alternatives to preserve the trees.