San Jose Planning Director Hearing - March 5, 2025
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
San Jose Planning Director Hearing - March 5, 2025
The Planning Director Hearing, held on March 5, 2025, via Zoom, was convened by Hearing Officer Jared Ferguson on behalf of Director Christopher Burton. The meeting addressed a consent calendar with two routine items and two public hearing items concerning tree removal permits. Key decisions included approval of one tree removal for an ADU and deferral of another for further arborist review.
Consent Calendar
- Item 3A (H24-055 / ER24-248): Approved the installation of a six-foot fence and automatic gate at a surface parking lot at 60 North Third Street (Council District 3). CEQA exempt.
- Item 3B (H24-059 / ER24-075): Approved a 1,266 sq ft addition to a single-family house at 1054 Delness Avenue (Council District 6). Staff noted a condition change: removal of the geotechnical report requirement (Condition 26D), as agreed by the applicant. CEQA exempt. No public comments on either consent item.
Public Comments & Testimony
Item 4A – 1181 Magnolia Avenue (Tree Removal for ADU)
- Christine Gazetta (owner): Expressed desire to build an ADU to age in place and support family; initially considered removing two trees but now only requests removal of the redwood tree. She is pro-tree and hopes the other tree survives.
- Adam Rockwood (applicant/designer): Explained that redesigning to avoid the redwood would impact the other tree (a U-shaped tree) and the rear yard, making it unusable due to shade; also cited fire risk from the redwood.
- Rachel Selfman (neighbor): Supported the ADU but expressed concern about losing the redwood, a significant shade and habitat tree visible from blocks away. Suggested a design alteration to save the tree. Submitted a photo after the hearing.
Item 4B – 5131 Ishimatsu Place (Removal of Two Oak Trees)
- Lynn Rogers (neighbor of 50 years): Opposed removal, stating the leaning tree is not on her property (boundary tree), has good canopy, and was historically a hitching post for stagecoaches. Notices were not visible; she learned of the plan only one day before.
- Chris Miller (friend of neighbor): Questioned the arborist's angle assessment (40° vs 90°) and noted previous attempts to remove the trees without permits. Suggested historical significance.
- Dasha Leeds (Sierra Club Loma Prieta): Opposed removal, citing city general plan policies to preserve mature native oaks (MS21.4, MS21.5). Highlighted ecological value of veteran trees with cavities. Suggested retrenchment pruning and cabling as alternatives.
- Megan Swatt (neighbor's daughter): Opposed removal, citing interdependent root systems, risk of invasive species colonization, loss of habitat, and historical marker on the hollow tree. Noted her mother's property line tree.
- Lillian Cohen (resident): Urged the city to stop disregarding public sentiment on tree removal, noting the importance of canopy, climate, and carbon.
Discussion Items
Item 4A – 1181 Magnolia Avenue
- Staff (Cora McNaughton) presented: The redwood tree (116-inch circumference) is within the footprint of a proposed ADU (building permit filed). A timely hearing request was received. Applicant chose to pay the in-lieu fee for one replacement tree. CEQA exempt under Section 15301(H).
- Hearing Officer deliberation: Acknowledged the balance between shade/canopy and housing goals (ADU, aging in place). Approved the permit as recommended.
Item 4B – 5131 Ishimatsu Place
- Staff (Rena Shah) presented: Two ordinance-size coast live oaks (66-inch and 220-inch circumferences) in a common area. Arborist report (Evan Fuller, A Plus Tree) found the smaller tree leaning (near 90° over fence, posing future failure risk) and the larger tree hollow with a history of branch failure (major limb drop in August 2024). Applicant proposed planting two 24-inch oak trees and three other 24-inch box trees as replacement. CEQA exempt under Section 15301(H).
- Arborist Evan Fuller: Explained that the leaning tree is not an immediate hazard but will become a bigger issue; the hollow tree is in natural decline with risk of branch failure during storms. Retrenchment pruning is an option but would reduce canopy dramatically and require annual maintenance.
- Property Manager G Pepper: Stressed safety concerns for kids, pets, and neighbors; the leaning tree overhangs a neighbor's fence and wires.
- Hearing Officer questions: Asked about the older tree's age (estimated 150 years), hollowing as natural, and immediate risk (low but higher in storms). Staff confirmed city arborist (Sarah Davis) had not yet responded to an email request for an evaluation.
Key Outcomes
- Item 4A (TR24-419): Approved the live tree removal permit for one redwood tree (116-inch circumference) at 1181 Magnolia Avenue. Applicant must pay the in-lieu fee prior to permit issuance.
- Item 4B (TR24-569): Deferred to the March 19, 2025 Planning Director Hearing to allow the city arborist to evaluate the two oak trees (66-inch and 220-inch circumferences) at 5131 Ishimatsu Place and provide a professional opinion on public safety risks before a final decision.
Meeting Transcript
Okay, good morning. We are calling to order the planning director hearing of March 5th, 2025. My name is Jared Ferguson, and I am the hearing officer for today's agenda on behalf of and delegated by the director of planning building and code enforcement, Christopher Burton. This meeting is being held via Zoom conference call. Members of the public may participate by following the instructions listed on the on page two of the agenda. If you would like to provide public comment, you have two methods to do so. For participants who joined electronically and have audio input available on their computer or smartphone, they can use the raise hand feature in Zoom during the agenda item they would like to speak to, or click star nine on their phone. Remember to keep your raised hand feature on until planning support staff identify your turn to speak. During the meeting, you can also call or please call 408-535 3505 or email planning support staff at San Jose CA.gov and identify your name that is listed on Zoom, the phone number that you'll call into Zoom with, and what item or items you would like to comment on. All members of the public will remain on mute until the individual identifies they would like to speak and they are unmuted. Planning support staff will identify you by name when it is your turn to speak. At that time, you will be muted and can provide comment for the allotted time. If you exceed your allotted time, you may be muted so we can move on to the next speaker. Please note the following. The hearing procedure and order of input will be as follows. One, I will identify each project as described on the agenda. Two, for those items on the consent calendar, I will ask if anyone wishes to speak on the item. If a separate discretion discussion is warranted, I will move the item to the public hearing portion of the agenda. If a separate discussion is not needed, the item will remain on the consent calendar for approval. For those items listed under public hearing, I will ask staff to provide a brief report. The applicant or their representative who wishes to speak on the item will have up to five minutes to speak and should identify themselves by stating their name for the record. After the applicant or their representative has spoken, any member of the public who wishes to speak on the item may provide testimony up to two minutes per speaker, either for or against the project. All members of the public should identify their name for the record, although it is not required. Following comments from the public, the applicant may make additional remarks for up to five minutes. I will then close the public hearing and I may ask staff to answer questions, respond to comments made by the applicant or the public or further discuss the item. I will then take action on the item. If you challenge these land use decisions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at this public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. The planning director's actions on agenda items will be final when the permit is signed and mailed, unless the permit or the environmental clearance determination is appealed. The planning director's actions on the permits are appealable in accordance with the requirements of Title 20 of the municipal code, the zoning ordinance. The planning director's actions on the environmental review for the permits under the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA are separately appealable in accordance with the requirements of Title 20 of the municipal code, environmental clearance. Before we begin, I want to remind members of the public to follow our code of conduct at meetings. This includes commenting on the specific agenda item only. Public speakers will not engage in a conversation with the hearing officer or staff. The hearing officer, staff, and the public are expected to refrain from abusive language. Repeated failure to comply with the code of conduct, which will disrupt, disturb, or impede the orderly conduct of this meeting, may result in the removal from the meeting. This meeting of the director hearing will now come to order. So first on the agenda, uh deferrals. Any items scheduled for hearing this morning for which deferral to a future meeting date is being requested will be moved to this portion of the agenda and considered on the matter of deferral. I will identify any items to be deferred and ask for comments from the audience. If you want to change any of the deferral dates or speak to the question of deferring these items or any other items, please use the raised hand feature on Zoom or click star nine to raise your hand and speak. I will now open the public hearing. There are no items for deferral. Anyone members of the public who would like to speak or any notes from staff? I'll pause for a minute. Okay. So seeing none, uh, the matter of deferrals is now closed. We'll move to item three, which is the consent calendar. There will be no separate discussion of individual consent calendar items as they're considered to be routine and will be considered in one action unless an item is moved to the public hearing calendar for separate discussion by the hearing officer. The public may comment on the entire consent calendar and any items removed from the consent calendar by the hearing officer. So I will go through each item and if you wish to request it be moved to the public hearing or speak on it, then please raise your hand after.
openpublica.com