Good morning. We're calling to order the Planning Director's Hearing on January 1st, 2026.

My name is John Tu, and I'm the Hearing Officer for today's agenda on behalf and delegated by the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement, Christopher Byrne.

This meeting is being held via a Zoom conference call.

A member of the public will participate by following the instructions listed on page 2 of the agenda.

If you would like to provide public comment, you have two methods to identify yourself to provide public comments.

For participants joining electronically and have auto input available on your computer or smartphone, you can use the raised hand feature in Zoom or click star 9 on your phone if you dial it in.

To request to speak when your item is being heard on the agenda, keep your raised hand feature on until staff identifies your turn to speak.

During the meeting, please call 408-535-3505 or email plan and support staff at sonosaca.gov and identify your name that's listed on Zoom or the phone number that you call in Zoom or which item you would like to comment on.

All members of the public will remain on mute until staff identifies your turn to speak and you are unmuted.

At that time, you'll be unmuted and can provide comments during the allotted time.

If you exceeded 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 input will be as followed.

I'll identify each project and ascribe on the agenda.

For those items on the consent calendar, I'll ask everyone wishes to speak on the item.

If a separate 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 on public hearing, I'll ask that to provide a brief report.

The applicant or the representative who wishes to speak item will have up to five minutes to speak

and should identify themselves by stating their name for the record.

After the applicant or representative has spoken, any member of the public who wishes to speak 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.

Following comments from the public, the applicant may make additional remarks for up to five minutes.

I will then close public comments.

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 it is challenging a line-usage decision in court, you may limit to raising only those issues or someone else raised at this public hearing or ring correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing.

The planning director's actions on jennings will be final when the permit is signed and mailed unless the permit or environmental clearance determination is appealed.

The planning director's actions on the permit are appealable in accordance with the requirements of Title 20 of the municipality code.

The planning director's actions on the environmental review for the permits under the California Environmental Quality Act, known as CEQA, are separately appealable in accordance with the requirements of Title 21 of the municipality code.

Before I begin, I want to remind members of the public to follow our code of conduct at meetings.

This includes commenting on the civic agenda items only.

Public seekers will not engage in conversation with the hearing officer or staff.

The hearing officer, staff, and the public are expected to refrain from a piece of language.

Repeated failure to comply with the code of conduct, which will disturb, disrupt, or impede the early conduct of this meeting,

will result in removal from the meeting.

The meeting of directors will now come to order.

First item on the agenda is the issue of deferral.

Any items scheduled for hearing this morning for which deferral for future meetings being requested will move to this portion of the agenda and consider on the matter of deferral.

I'll 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 in the question of deferral of these or any others, please use the raise hand feature in Zoom or click star 9 to raise a hand to speak.

A now open public hearing.

There are currently no items for deferral.

Does anybody want to speak to the matter of deferral?

Seeing no hands or no staff, the matter of deferral is now closed.

Moving on to the consent calendar.

There will be no separate discussion of individual consent counters

that are considered to be routine and be considered in one action

unless an item is moved to the public hearing counter

for separate discussion by the hearing officer.

The public may comment on the entire consent calendar and or any item removed from the consent item by the hearing officer.

If you would like to speak on one of these items, please use the raise hand feature in Zoom or click star 9 to raise a hand to speak.

Is there a staff or any member of the public that wants to speak on the consent calendar?

I'm going to go through each of the items and then you can raise your hand accordingly at that time.

SP 24-044 and ER 24-252 is a special use permit to allow the expansion of a legal non-conforming 868 square foot single family house to 1,541 total square feet on approximately 0.12 gross acre site located at 525 Monero Avenue.

CEQA exemption of CEQA guidelines section 15301 for existing facility.

Status recommendation is considered exemption according to CEQA to approve a special use permit.

Does anybody want to speak to the matter of this specific item on the consent counter 3A?

Once again, use the raise hand function or click star 9 if you've dialed in.

All right.

Seeing nobody that wants to speak on the consent counter, I will move to item 3B.

3B, T22-019 and ER22-132 is a vesting tenant map to allow the existing approximately 0.58 gross acre lot

to be subdivided into three residential lots at Memorial Drive.

Seek exemption guidelines section 15315 for minor land division.

Staffs of recommendations consider the exemption according to the secret

to approve a vesting tentative map.

Once again, if anybody, staff, or any member of the public

want to speak to the item 3B, T22-019,

use the raise hand feature or star 9.

Seeing no hands raised or any staff questions,

I will approve the consent calendar because either 3A and 3B have been approved.

Moving to public hearing.

There is one item on the public hearing.

TR25-373 is a lie tree removal permit to allow the removal of one coastal live oak tree,

approximately 176 acres of conference, located within the footprint of the driveway of a proposed new single-family house.

per building permit file number 2025-136541 in the R-18 zoning district

located at 1489 Saratoga Avenue.

CEQA exemption per to CEQA guidelines section 15301 for existing facility.

This was deferred from the January 14, 2026 Director's Hearing.

Status recommendation is considered exemption in accordance with CEQA,

approve a live tree removal permit.

We have staff's presentation on this item.

Thanks, hearing officer.

This is Laura Miners, planning supervisor.

I'm going to go ahead and share my screen.

Let's see here.

Okay.

This project is a live tree removal permit,

as the hearing officer just stated,

to remove one ordnance-sized coast live oak tree approximately 176 inches in circumference

from within the footprint of a driveway of a proposed new single-family house at 1489

Saratoga Avenue located at the northeast end of a cul-de-sac.

The building permit, file number 2025-136541, is currently under review for the construction

of the single-family house. Due to the location of the tree and the narrowing of the front of

the lot due to the cul-de-sac design, there is no way to redesign the house or the driveway

to retain the tree in place. This tree removal was originally noticed on October 30, 2025,

and a timely request for public hearing was received on November 3, 2025. The hearing was

originally scheduled for the January 14 hearing date, but was deferred to today's hearing to give

staff time to meet with the city arborist to make sure that the subject tree is not a street tree.

After meeting with the city arborist, it was determined that the tree is on private property and there are no easements that would affect the status of the tree.

Therefore, the live tree removal process is the correct process.

The removal of the coast live oak tree was evaluated to be consistent with the findings required for live tree removals per Chapter 13.32 of the San Jose Municipal Code.

As stated, the tree is located within the footprint of the proposed driveway of the single-family house.

Therefore, the finding can be made for the removal of the tree.

The city's required replacement ratio for a single-family property is one-to-one.

The applicant has submitted a site plan with one replacement tree, as shown on the screen, which satisfies this requirement.

The project is exempt from CEQA requirements pursuant to Section 15301H of the State Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act.

Staff recommends the director consider the exemption and approve the live tree removal permit.

Thank you. This concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you, staff. Do you have the applicant on here?

The applicant is Kevin.

Kevin, can you please unmute yourself?

Hi, good morning.

Good morning.

So I am the applicant, the owner's representative.

And basically, the request, as Laura mentioned before you today, is to live tree removal permit for One Coast Live Oak, located within the footprint of the property.

Again, the project is R18 zoning, and then we are proceeding with an active building permit.

We've worked with the city's process in good faith, submitted the required arborist materials,

and then as reflected in the agenda and staff report, the tree's location directly conflicts with required access.

There's also no feasible alternative, both from our arborist perspective to preserve the tree

and from our architects' designs to try to accommodate it.

We agree with the staff's determination that the project is under CEQA

and we support the staff's recommendation to approve the live tree removal permit as presented.

So we respectfully ask that you approve the permit as recommended.

Thank you, Kevin.

I would not open it to public comments.

So, can I have, I think I have a hand raised by heart and home collaboration.

Please unmute yourself.

Yes, thank you.

I apologize for the display name.

Can you hear me?

Yes, I can hear you.

Thank you.

My name is Mary Wisniewski, W-I-S-N-E-W-S-K-I.

I apologize for the display name.

I am calling to offer comment in opposition to the removal of this oak tree.

There are very few native oak trees remaining within the footprint of our valley,

which had many live oaks and coast live oaks and valley oaks when it was naturally settled.

These trees are a great boon to our neighborhoods.

They provide habitat for native plants and insects.

They provide habitat for our mammals that live near and around us.

And very importantly, they provide shade for human habitation as well as cooling effects through their evaporative cooling.

And they also keep water in the ground, which is going to be very important as our climate continues to heat and dry.

The benefits that this tree is providing to its neighborhood and the region around it are great, and removing it will cause harm to not only the neighborhood, but also the ability of the neighborhood to keep itself cool as time goes on.

This change certainly has a massive impact on that neighborhood and will be felt by all of the people who live around it.

I recently have lost a street tree near my home and our cooling bills have gone up and our comfort

inside our home is reduced. So I want to comment on this on behalf of not just the animals and

plants but also the humans who live in this neighborhood that it is important to retain

mature native trees whose operation in the environment helps us all.

Thank you, Mary. Can I please have John unmute themselves?

Hi, this is Matt Hayes. I'd like to speak against the removal of the tree.

This coast live oak measures 176 inches in circumference, placing it among the largest and most significant native trees in the city.

Under San Jose's tree ordinance, trees of this size are presumed to be preserved unless removal is unavoidable due to imminent hazard or the absence of feasible alternatives.

In this case, there is no evidence that the tree is dead, diseased, or structurally unsafe, and the record does not demonstrate that all feasible design alternatives have been exhausted.

For a tree of this magnitude, the ordinance expects project redesign, not removal for convenience.

Without clear findings of hazard or infeasibility, approval would be inconsistent with the ordinance intent and vulnerable to appeal.

I respectfully urge the Planning Division to require preservation and deny the removal request.

Even if the project is claimed as exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, that exemption does not apply where unusual circumstances create the reasonable possibility of a significant environmental effect.

The removal of a 176-inch native coast live oak is an unusual circumstance by any standard and represents a permanent biological impact that cannot be considered minor or routine.

Additionally, SQL exemption does not relieve the city of its obligation to make independent findings under the tree ordinance.

The record does not demonstrate immediate hazard or the exhaustion of feasible preservation alternatives.

For these reasons, reliance on a class one exemption is not appropriate here.

Thank you.

Thank you, Matt.

Can I please have Roger unmute themselves? Roger.

Is it Rutger? R-U-T-G-E-R?

Oh, geez. Rutger, yes.

Okay. My name is actually Kimberly. That's my husband. Sorry.

Okay. Hello. My name is Kim Bryan, and I ask that you deny the permit to remove the beautiful Coast Live Oak at 1489 Saratoga Ave.

Coast Live Oaks are native to California and a critical component of our state's biodiversity.

They flower in the spring and produce acorns in the fall, supporting hundreds of species that rely on these trees for habitat and food.

One example is the California sister butterfly, which lives only in California and eats only oak leaves as a caterpillar.

Oaks are resilient and can live for over 250 years.

A young coast live oak would not mature in our lifetime.

Approving this permit would remove a massive tree that provides shade to the surrounding area, habitat and food for local creatures, and beauty for all.

The city's community forest management plan outlines the enormous benefits of trees, including clean air, energy savings, heat mitigation, and reduced air pollution.

This coast live oak is a mature tree that is actively sequestering carbon and providing oxygen.

There are so many benefits from this amazing tree, it is hard to imagine that you would allow its removal.

The plan's number one finding was that immediate action must be taken to preserve the city's tree canopy.

The plan also showed on pages 50 and 51 that larger, taller trees provide significant benefits,

and this coast live oak tree provides four to seven times the benefit of the supposedly equivalent replacement tree.

Removing this tree would eliminate one of the city's most desirable types of trees, large, tall, and mature.

In addition, this tree is in Council District 1.

Council District 1 had a 3% canopy loss between 2012 and 2018, which was worse than most of San Jose.

you cannot afford to remove large healthy trees from the canopy canopy cover needs to be given

priority the original lot where this tree is located is not saratoga ave the city moved the

entrance to saratoga ave partially because of a lack of street numbers on the other side removing

a tree critical to san jose goes against the forest management plan and continues the deterioration of

tree canopy in council district one i urge you to fulfill the duty laid out in the forest management

plan and protect the tree canopy by denying this tree permit. Thank you.

Thank you, Kim. Can I have Lauren please unmute themselves?

Hello, good morning. My name is Lauren Bittner. I am a property owner and resident in the duplex

that is right next to the proposed tree removal. I agree and support everything that the people

before me stated. I am also extremely concerned with the removal of the tree, increasing flooding

risks. Every year our cul-de-sac floods to the point where our garage and homes could be flooded

with the removal of the tree. I would be concerned of the increase of flood risks which could cause

not only property damage but put our housing and safety at risk. I would hope that there could be

an alternative access point for the driveway where we maintain the tree and preserve all of

benefits that people before me stated and the life of the tree. Thank you.

Thank you Lauren. Can I have Clayton please unmute themselves?

Clayton. My name is Clayton, consulting arborist. I was retained to kind of review the project and

and comment on the feasibility of preserving the tree

in the face of the proposed plan.

When I did review the plan,

I noticed the driveway is in the middle of the lot

as opposed to where the current entrance gates are,

which are kind of off to the side of the tree,

which might suggest that perhaps the driveway

could be off center,

not directly through the middle of the tree.

And additionally, I was asked to comment

the feasibility of actually preserving the tree in conjunction with the project,

so to keep it all on track.

There certainly are some possibilities with, you know, some very careful excavation,

backfill, compaction, and the eventual infrastructure installation

that could preserve this tree.

It would be quite a bit of effort.

I'll note that.

But certainly it would be feasible.

Some of those considerations may be reducing the width of the driveway, working with structural soil or some other sub-based material that allows for root development, or even I didn't see any mention of just simply transplanting the tree.

So moving the tree to maybe even another spot on the same parcel to facilitate that project.

The tree is vigorous and healthy.

I didn't know any major structural defects aside from some roadway damage from delivery trucks and such.

But otherwise, yeah, I think the rest of the comments stand where it's a healthy, bigger street certainly adds a lot to the area.

And I do believe from our agricultural standpoint, there's feasibility for preservation and careful design.

Thank you, Clay.

Leticia, please unmute yourself.

Can you hear me?

Oh.

Did that work?

Yeah, we can hear you.

Thank you.

My name is Leticia Gallarvo, and I am here today representing our community to respectfully ask that you deny the permit request.

There are, as you just heard, viable existing access points that can reasonably be used without impeding the economic development of the property.

The purpose of this chapter is to uphold municipal code intended to protect trees for the extraordinary value they provide to our city and residents.

Native oaks of this size are increasingly rare in our urban environment.

This oak is healthy, as you just heard, and is well over 100 years old and can continue to thrive for another century if protected.

It stands as one of the only living remnants of oak woodlands that once defined Santa Clara

Valley and is the only native oak tree of this size in our neighborhood.

As keystone species, oaks provide immense amount of biodiversity.

An individual oak of this canopy size supports thousands of residents and migratory species,

many of which are host-specific and cannot survive on non-native trees as the one that's

being proposed as a replacement.

As one of the last oaks in this area and the last native tree on our street, this tree serves as an ecological island that provides wildlife corridors to surrounding areas.

Losing it would cause disproportionate damage to our neighborhood and city's urban ecosystems.

As stated in the chapter's purposes, tree benefits, property values, energy savings, public health, and amongst other benefits,

This tree specifically, as you've heard, intercepts rainfall critical to preventing flooding on our street, mitigating heat, and filtering air pollutants from the busy street.

Removing the tree when there are alternate options would result in irreparable loss of environmental, culture, health, and economic value to our community and violates the purpose of the protections in the municipal code.

Replacing it with a non-native species is not an adequate mitigation, and I urge you to find that this permit does not meet the exception criteria for removing a live tree.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Laetitia.

Does anybody else want to speak on this item?

Please press star 9 on the raise hand function.

Okay, we have Pearl.

Please unmute yourself.

Hi, my name is Pearl Renneker, and I'm the project architect.

And I just wanted to respond a little bit to some of the points about evaluating alternative designs.

We did work with a consulting arborist on our end, Kevin Carlson, who provided an arborist report.

And we talked with him about alternatives.

I mean, in terms of developing the house, the clients are definitely interested in having a two-car garage, as this is standard for the neighborhood.

And we did look at, you know, if you tried to have a one car garage only on the far right side of the property, it would be possible to just miss the trunk of the tree.

But these coast live oaks are pretty sensitive to root damage.

And it was the opinion of our arborist that, you know, if you were to try to even try to build the driveway over the roots, that the tree would probably die in a few years.

And so while you feel like theoretically you could preserve it, this is not actually a realistic expectation.

And there are no other points of access to the property.

It's only off of the cul-de-sac.

It's not possible to put in a driveway to the property from some other approach.

So we did, in fact, look at other alternatives, and we just don't feel it's feasible to develop a new home in this property.

definitely you know understand that the neighbors are used to the existence of this tree here but

the property owner really would you know like to be able to build a home on their property thank you

thank you pearl ollie please unmute yourself um hello i would like to agree with um

So first, my name is Kimberly Maddox. I would like to agree with the people who made statements before me that I am also in opposition to the removal of this tree. It provides innumerable benefits of this neighborhood and cannot simply be replaced, especially by a non-native tree such as Chinese elm.

I would like to urge the property developers to reconsider removing this tree and to also consider that if unfortunately this permit does go through, to consider replacing the tree with another native tree such as a coastlife oak.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ollie.

the other hand itself I think you've already spoken a lot of that time so there's anybody

else who hasn't spoken yet please press star nine or raise hand function

Barbara please unmute yourself

yes my name is Barbara Kalkas and I'm a resident also the area and I am I stand

with the others who have made very articulate comments about why the tree should not be removed

and so I respectfully ask that it is not removed. A couple of items. This tree is healthy as everyone

has stated. It is in line with other trees that are on Saratoga Avenue and in fact moving south

towards the prospect Saratoga Avenue intersection there is a tree, an old tree, that is right next

to the driveway by the entrance to the Bank of America, Sprouts and the other shops there.

So the driveway, which is double wide for two-way traffic, is perfect and goes over,

people drive over those routes all the time. I have a tree that is over 60 years old,

and I have had my sidewalks redone. I've had my driveway redone, and there has been street work.

and when I was concerned about the roots of the tree being trampled on with all the work that was

done I was assured by the city arborist and the workers that the roots go so deep it's not going

to be a problem and I take their I take the fact that they work for the city seriously.

The tree is healthy it is old it is a treasure and it is suitable to the neighborhood it continues

a line of trees on Saratoga Avenue. And it is something of beauty. A driveway, in my view,

there can be an alternative because we're talking about a paper drawing by an architect. And I would

like to think that the architect can move the driveway over or find an alternative solution.

So I respectfully ask that we take care of this tree as a tree city of the United States. Thank you.

Thank you, Barbara.

All right.

Seeing that there are currently no other raised hands right now, I'm going to turn it back

to the applicant to see if they have any final comments.

Before that, I have one last comment from the public.

Kevin, please unmute yourself.

Kevin Smith Hi, did you want to hear from the member of the public first, or should

I go after you?

Kevin Smith Oh, sorry, that was you.

Sorry, I thought that was a member of the public.

Yeah, applicant, go ahead, Kevin.

Kevin Smith Okay.

So we respect all the points raised by the public.

I wanted to kind of address them one by one.

What I've heard is that, one, it's due to the size and the unusually large argument.

So I wanted to point out tree size alone is not the basis for denial for under the tree ordinance.

The ordinance requires balancing preservation when a tree conflicts with the permitted development.

In this case, staff and the city arborist have already evaluated the size and condition as well as our own arborist and still recommended approval due to the location within required access.

So the large circumference doesn't really override feasibility findings when a tree is located within the infrastructure.

A second point was raised saying that the city ordinance says it should be preserved.

the ordinance does not require absolute preservation it does allow removal when

preservation is not feasible in light of the development and otherwise complying with

zoning and building requirements the determination is that what was made by the staff and the city

arborist is it should be made by the staff and city arborist not really by neighbors or third

party consultants a key point here is that the ordinance is discretionary and case specific and

As noted, the staff has applied it here and recommended approval.

One point that was also raised was that feasible alternatives have not been exhausted.

So as Pearl mentioned, we did embark on multiple design options, which have already been reviewed through the permitting process.

So the driveway location, width, and access requirements are kind of driven by safety, code compliance, and site constraints.

The staff has also concluded there's no feasible alternative that avoids conflict with the tree while allowing a compliant single-family home.

So the key point here is that feasibility under the ordinance does not mean theoretical possibilities.

We actually explored realistic code-compliant alternatives, which the staff has already evaluated.

the third party arborist suggestions while we respect his opinion the city relies on its own

arborist and adopted standards such as transplanting a mature coast live oak or extensive

excavation and compaction are not required under the ordinance and then they're also not considered

feasible or or a reliable mitigation standard by the city additionally we've also consulted our

own third-party arborist who concludes the same who has made the same conclusion

um as for the sequel arguments the sequel compliance and tree ordinance are separate

issues uh staff has addressed both staff has also determined that action that the action is

exempt under sequel and independently recommended approval under the tree ordinance

sequel exemption doesn't apply here and both have been i'm sorry sequel exemption does not

replaced the ordinance review and both have been satisfied here. The key point here is the city has

already made the CEQA and ordinance findings. As for the habitat biodiversity carbon cooling and

climate impacts we acknowledge the general benefits of trees however CEQA and the tree ordinance are

applied on a project-specific basis. Citywide climate biodiversity and tree canopy goals

are addressed through adopted policies, replacement requirements, and mitigation,

not by denying code compliant development on an individual private lot.

General environmental benefits do not override a site-specific feasibility determination.

And as for the flooding concern, there's really no evidence on record

that removal of the single tree will create any flooding impacts.

Speculative impacts without technical evidence are not a basis for denial.

As for the district-wide tree loss arguments, this decision only applies to a tree on this property.

It doesn't establish any policy or precedent within the district.

Policy concerns are not decided on an individual permit hearing.

So we certainly understand the neighborhood concerns, but the city's role today is to apply the adopted tree ordinance to the specific facts of the site.

both the staff and city arborists have done that analysis and recommended approval.

So again, we respectfully ask that the permit be approved as presented.

Thank you, the applicant. Staff, would you like to add anything?

Thank you, hearing officer. This is Laura Miners again.

I would like to thank all the members of the neighborhood who came out to speak.

Kevin, I think your response was very thorough.

The one thing that I wanted to add was during our conversations with the arborist last week,

they also agreed that any redesign would not be feasible to save the tree.

That's it for me. Thank you.

Thank you, staff.

I see a couple of hands up.

Just note that the public calling period is already closed.

We'll move on to the deliberation.

First, I want to acknowledge, I actually wanted a question for the applicant.

Is there a possibility, I think one of the comments from the public was to look at an

alternative replacement tree species?

Would you be interested in looking and considering a nor native tree?

can you guys hear me yeah i can hear you now okay um i can certainly talk to the owners um

but again i can't make any uh firm decisions here but i think um that's definitely a possibility

that we can look into but again i can um that's something that i have to to uh to get back to you

on. I can't

guarantee anything at this time.

Okay. Just be aware that you can always get back

to Laura about putting an alternative species on

that's allowed in her code.

So

first, I want to acknowledge all the public comments.

As a person who works in the

planning department as well, tree preservation

is one of the key clothes, and this is why we have

a process that would allow for a discretionary

review process in public hearing comments.

I acknowledge that there are a lot of benefits.

I want to acknowledge that each site

is part of the overall tree canopy and looking at the specific sites.

But I also want to acknowledge the process that this applicant went through.

They went through a discretionary review process

that required them to provide an arbitrage support

and a design that we needed to look at

to ensure the feasibility of alternative designs.

So I don't want to disregard anything you've said.

It is all true.

Trees do provide carbon capture, provide shade, habitats,

and all those other balls of the benefits that are there.

But we also have to look at what the code allows

for a specific site for in terms of development.

So in this society, it's a single-family house development.

There's limited discretion on what staff can require in the design of a single family.

There isn't a specific design requirement that says they have to avoid trees in their design.

However, nevertheless, through the review process, we did have them provide us, you know, to look at different ways of designing the site to avoid the impact as it relates to the tree.

We did talk to and consult with our city arborist about, hey, can we put it here and put it in different areas?

But there are other logistics concerns, given that it is a cul-de-sac with limited street frontage and kind of the way that cars come in and out of the site.

And we do respect and listen to other third parties' interpretations of what they feel is possible mitigations.

From my experience, one of the mitigations that was proposed on there is the transplanting of the tree.

However, transplanting trees A is extremely costly and also has a higher likability of failing in the long term as well.

I have seen in many cases as well, trees that are put in brand new driveways where there are existing root systems that tend to be higher do create conflict.

In this specific case, they would have to compact in addition to that, build a driveway next to an existing tree, therefore potentially harming the overall health of the tree that would lead to its failure.

So based on what we've heard here before today on the city's arborist, as well as the arborist support provided and public comments, as well as the applicant, I think that within the confines of meeting the findings, that the staff can meet the findings as it relates to the tree removal.

As it relates to the CEQA exemption and the overall safety, I think that it does meet the CEQA exemption.

It relates to the size and scope and mitigation as part of the tree.

As it relates to that, I think one person brought up the issue of flooding.

Any new development in the city of San Jose, given the size, has to deal with the new stormwater requirements

and cannot put water and other issues related onto the community.

If there's an existing issue with the overall about the flooding,

I would recommend that you talk to the Department of Public Works and Department of Transportation

about how the existing infrastructure that's already on there that contributes to the flooding

to address that. The tree itself here is now responsible for mitigating all the existing

factor, more or less the stormwater and flooding related to a specific site. So based on all the

findings and based on what we've heard before, I am going to approve the tree removal, TR25-373,

at today's director's hearing. All right. I believe that was the only item on the public

hearing today so today I will adjourn the director's hearing at 9 38. thank you for everybody who's

attended today.