#7 - Desk Item�tt
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: DECEMBER 2, 2013
MEETING DATE: 12/02/13
ITEM NO: 7
DESK ITEM
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: GREG LARSON, TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: TREE REMOVAL PERMIT T -13 -070. PROPERTY LOCATION: 36 PERALTA
AVENUE. PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT /APPELLANT• JACK AND
MARNI BALLETTO.
CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
DENYING THE APPEAL OF A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT ON PROPERTY
ZONED R -1:8. APN: 510 -42 -034.
REMARKS:
Council Question
A Council Member asked about two large trees the Town has previously approved for removal
from the public right -of -way. The following trees were removed for the stated reasons:
• A split trunk Eucalyptus on Hilow Road was removed due to potential failure and
resulting public safety concern.
• A very large Oak was removed at the comer of Los Gatos Boulevard and Loma
Alta Avenue due to the tree's health (large cavities discovered within the tree) and
resulting public safety concern at the busy intersection.
In addition, based on staff review of permit records since July 1, 2013, the Town has approved
the removal of 29 other trees on private property ranging from 36" to 120" in diameter.
Justifications for the tree removals include health of the tree, public safety concerns, and private
property damage.
Attachment Numbering
The remainder of this Desk Item is being provided to correct the numbering of attachments
previously distributed separately to Council.
PREPARED BY: SANDY L. BAILY
Director of Community Development
Reviewed by: fl 1 Assistant Town Manager &j) Town Attorney Finance
NAMGRWdn inWorkFi1u\2013 Council Rep0rtsd)ec.2.P=1taTree Appeal.DESK.ITEM.doc
PAGE
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 36 PERALTA AVENUE /T -13 -070
December 2, 2013
Attachment 2 (Copy of Permit submitted at the August 28, 2013 Planning Commission meeting)
was distributed to Council under separate cover on November 8, 2013, along with Attachment 1
(Staff report for the Planning Commission meeting on August 28, 2013) and Attachment 3
(Verbatim minutes from the August 28, 2013 Planning Commission meeting). However, the
reference to Attachment 2 was inadvertently omitted from the listing of attachments in the
December 2 staff report. As a result, the previously received Attachment 3 was misnumbered as
Attachment 2 in the December 2 staff report. A subsequent attachment (Required Findings) was
then given a duplicate number as "Attachment 3" in the December 2 staff report.
To clarify and differentiate between the two attachments that were given duplicate numbers, staff
is redistributing the "Required Findings" attachment and labeling it "Attachment 3b."
Please note that the Attachment numbers are correct as listed in this Desk Item. Also note if
Council takes action to grant the appeal (as noted on page 2 of the December 2 staff report)
Required Findings should be referred to as Attachment 3b.
Attachments:
Previously received November 8, 2013 under separate cover:
1. Staff report for the Planning Commission meeting on August 28, 2013
2. Copy of permit submitted at the August 28, 2013 Planning Commission meeting
3. Verbatim minutes from the August 28, 2013 Planning Commission meeting
Received with December 2 staff report:
3b.* Required Findings
*Note, this attachment is renumbered and attached to this Desk Item as
Attachment 3b (please replace the former Required Findings attachment)
4. Resolution denying the Appeal
5. Resolution granting the Appeal (includes Exhibit A, Recommended Conditions of
Approval)
6. Applicant's Appeal of Planning Commission Decision
7. Addition information provided by Applicant, received November 5, 2013
8. Letter from neighbor's consultant, received November 20, 2013
N:\MGR \AdminWorkFiles\2013 Council Reports\Dm.2T mltaTree Appe LDESK.ITEM.doc
TOWN COUNCIL —December 1, 2013
REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR:
36 Peralta Avenue
Tree Removal Permit T -13 -070
Appeal of a decision by the Director of Community Development denying a Tree Removal
Permit on property zoned R -1:8. APN 510 -42 -034
APPLICANTIPROPERTY OWNER: Jack and Marni Balletto
FINDINGS
Required finding for CEQA:
■ The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15304 of the State Environmental
Guidelines as adopted by the Town.
Required standards of review for a Tree Removal Application:
■ As required by Section 29.10.0990 of the Town Code for granting approval of a Tree
Removal Application:
Each application for a tree removal permit required by this division shall be reviewed using
the following criteria:
(1) The condition of the tree or trees with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling or
structural failure, proximity to existing or proposed structures based on a report from a
certified arborist, structural damage to a building or a public nuisance caused by a tree.
The danger of falling or failure shall be rated using the ISA Tree Hazard Rating Form or
an approved equivalent.
(2) The condition of the tree giving rise to the permit application cannot be reduced to a less
than significant level by the reasonable application of preservation, preventative
measures or routine maintenance.
(3) The removal of the tree(s) will not result in a density of trees or tree cover that is
inconsistent with the neighborhood.
(4) The number of trees the particular parcel can adequately support according to good urban
forestry practices, or whether a protected tree is a detriment to or crowding another
protected tree.
(5) In connection with a proposed subdivision of land into two (2) or more parcels, no
protected tree shall be removed unless removal is unavoidable due to restricted access to
the property or deemed necessary to repair a geologic hazard (landslide, repairs, etc.) The
tree removed shall be replaced in accordance with the standards in section 29.10.0985 of
this Code. Tree preservation and protection measures for any lot that is created by a
proposed subdivision of land shall comply with the regulations of this Code.
ATTACHMENT 3b
36 Peralta Avenue/T -13 -070
December 2, 2013
Page 2 of 2
(6) The retention of a protected tree would result in reduction of the otherwise - permissible
building envelope by more than twenty -five (25) percent. In such a case, the removal
shall be conditioned upon replacement in accordance with the standards in section
29.10.0985 of this Code.
(7) The Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines, current version.
(8) Removal of the protected tree(s) will not result in a substantial adverse change in the
site's aesthetic and biological significance; the topography of the land and the effect of
the removal of the tree on erosion, soil retention, or diversion or increased flow of surface
waters.
(9) Whether the Protected Tree has a significant impact on the property.
N: \DEV\FINDINGS\2013\36 Pm1ta-tree appeal.doc