San Jose Planning Director's Hearing – March 27, 2025: Tree Removal Decision and Consent Calendar
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
San Jose Planning Director's Hearing – March 27, 2025
The Planning Director's Hearing was held virtually on March 27, 2025, presided over by Hearing Officer John 2 (on behalf of Planning Director Christopher Byrne). The agenda included a consent calendar with two routine items and a public hearing for a large tree removal permit. Key actions included approval of two consent calendar items and a decision on the tree removal permit after public testimony.
Consent Calendar
- Item 3A (H23-027/ER23-208): Site development permit for demolition of a 4,300 sq ft vacant building, removal of one ordinance-size and 27 non-ordinance-size trees, and construction of a six-story mixed-use project with 3,804 sq ft of commercial space and 41 student housing units at 535 East Santa Clara Street. Approved under CEQA infill exemption.
- Item 3B (SP24-045/ER24-309): Special use permit for a 576 sq ft attic addition to a historic resource structure at 75 West William Street within the Market-Almond City Conservation Area. Approved under CEQA exemption for existing facilities.
- Both items were approved without discussion or separate public comment.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Dasha Leeds (Conservation Coordinator, Sierra Club Loma Prieta chapter) expressed appreciation for preserving tree #1 (66-inch circumference oak) but urged consideration of retrenchment pruning for the larger tree #2 (220-inch circumference oak) to retain habitat features.
- Conrad Dutton (neighbor) attempted to comment on consent item 3A (535 East Santa Clara Street) after approval, questioning the CEQA exemption and citing environmental impacts. The hearing officer noted the item was already approved and directed him to contact staff for more information.
- Lynn Rogers (neighbor on Sandy Lane) supported preserving tree #1, confirmed she had sent a liability acceptance statement, and noted the tree's lean was not severe per an arborist report.
- Megan (Lynn Rogers' daughter) raised concerns about microfungal networks, impact on root structure, potential wildlife in hollows, and the timing of tree removal, questioning whether motives were profit-driven.
- Caller (phone ending 431) asked about relocation plans for wildlife living in tree hollows.
Discussion Items
- Item 4A (TR24-569) – Large Tree Removal Permit for 5131 Ishimatsu Place: The original request sought removal of two ordinance-size native oak trees from a 3.2-acre common area. City arborist Nara Baker inspected on March 14, 2025, and recommended:
- Preserve tree #1 (66-inch circumference) with minor end-weight reduction pruning due to a phototropic lean (not a hazard).
- Remove tree #2 (220-inch circumference) due to extensive decay; retrenchment pruning considered ineffective and likely fatal.
- Applicant Presentations:
- Evan Fuller (A Plus Tree Service, representing the HOA) agreed with arborist findings. He noted neighboring property owner Lynn Rogers was willing to accept liability for tree #1 and recommended annual assessments and pruning every three years. For tree #2, he stated removal was safest, noting a large limb failure in August 2024. He committed to replanting two native oaks in the same location and a third tree elsewhere.
- Julie Pepper (HOA applicant) expressed concern about liability for the leaning tree and sought a release from the neighboring owner.
- Staff Response: Rena Shah (project manager) reiterated the recommendation: preserve tree #1 per arborist assessment and approve removal of tree #2. She requested that removal timing consider nesting seasons to protect wildlife, and noted hollows may contain cavities requiring aerial inspection.
- The hearing officer emphasized that liability between the HOA and neighbor is a civil matter, not within city purview. Regarding wildlife, the city’s scope covers protected species; the applicant indicated work would halt if such species were encountered.
Key Outcomes
- Approved: Removal of oak tree #2 (220-inch circumference) at 5131 Ishimatsu Place, subject to standard conditions and replanting requirements (two native oaks in the same location and an additional smaller tree).
- Denied: Removal of oak tree #1 (66-inch circumference); it will be preserved with periodic pruning.
- Liability: Noted as a civil matter between the HOA and adjacent property owner Lynn Rogers, who submitted a written statement accepting liability.
- Consent Calendar Items: Item 3A and 3B were approved as presented.
- Next Steps: The hearing officer directed the applicant to coordinate with staff on replanting and pruning cycles. The decision is final unless appealed per San Jose Municipal Code Titles 20 and 21.
- The meeting adjourned at 9:33 (time unspecified, presumed evening).
Meeting Transcript
Morning. Calling to order the planning director's hearing of March 19, 2025. My name is John 2. I'm the hearing officer for today's agenda on behalf of and delegated by the director of planning building and code enforcement, Christopher Byrne. This meeting is being held via zoo conference call. Member of the public may participate by following the instructions listed on page two of the agenda. If you'd like to provide public comments, you have two methods to identify yourself to provide public comments. For participants who join electronically and have audio input available on your computer or smartphone, you may use the raise hand feature in Zoom or click star nine on your phone if you dialed in. To request to speak when when your items being heard on the agenda, keep your raise hand feature on until staff identifies your turn to speak. During the meeting, you may also call 408-535-3505 or email planning support staff at San Jose CA.gov and identify your name that's listed on Zoom or phone number that you call in Zoom with and what item or items you would like to comment on. All members of the public will remain on mute until staff identifies their turn to speak and you're unmuted. At that time, you'll be unmuted and can provide comments during the allotted time. If you exceed your allotted time, you may be muted. So we move on to the next speaker. Please note the following. The hearing procedure and order input will be as followed. Identify each project as described on the agenda. For those items on the consent calendar, I will ask if anyone wishes to speak on the item. If a separate discussion is warranted, I'll move the item to 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'll ask that to provide beef report. The applicant or the resident who wishes to speak on the item will have up to five minutes to speak and identify themselves by stating their name for the record. After the applicant or the representative has spoken, any member of the public who wishes to speak on item will 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. Following comments from the public, the applicant may make additional remarks for up to five minutes. I'll then close public comments and they 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 line use decisions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues or someone else's raised at the public hearing or in rank corresponding delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. The planning director's action agendas will be final when the permit is signed and mailed, unless the permit or the environmental clearance is appealed. The planning direction actions on the permits are appealable in accordance with the requirements of title 20 of this audi code. The planning director action of the environment review for the permit under the California Environmental Quality Act are separately appealable in accordance with requirements of title 21 on this valley code. Before we begin, I want to remind members of the public to follow our code of conduct at this meeting. This includes commenting on specific agenda balance only. The public speaker will not engage in a conversation with the hearing officer or staff. The hearing officer staff and the public are expected to frame her abusive language. Repeated failures to comply with the code of conduct, which will disturb, disrupt, or impede the orderly conduct of this meeting, may result in removal from the meeting. This meeting in the director's hand will now come to order. All right, first order of business is the matter of deferral. Any item scheduled for hearing this meeting for which deferral to a future meeting is being requested. Will be moved to the portion to this portion of the agenda and consists considered on the matter of deferral. I'll identify any anime defer and ask for comments from the audience. If you change any of their deferred dates or speak to the question deferral for any of these others, please use the raise hand function in Zoom or click star nine to raise your hand. I will now open the public hearing. There are currently no items proposed for deferral. Is there any member of the public who wishes to speak on the matter of deferral? All right, I see no raised hands. We're moving on to the consent calendar. There'll be no separate discussion or individual consent calendar as they consider to be routine and will be considered 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 on any item removed from the consent term by the hearing officer. If you wish to speak on these items, please use the raise hand feature in Zoom or star nine to raise a hand to speak.
openpublica.com