Okay, good morning, everybody.

We are calling to order the planning director hearing of April 8, 2026.

My name is Martina Davis, 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 might participate by following the instructions listed 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 raised 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.

If you are calling uh via phone only, during the meeting, please call 408 535 8517 or email planning support staff at San Jose CA.gov and identify your name that's listed in Zoom.

Phone number that you'll call into with and what item or items you would like to comment on.

All members of the public will mute until the individual identifies they would like to speak and they are unmuted.

Planning support staff will identify your name when it is your turn to speak.

At that time, you will be unmuted 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 following as follows.

I will 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 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 items listed under public hearing, I will ask staff to provide a brief report.

The applicant or the 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 this is not required.

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

I will then close public hearing.

I may ask staff to answer questions, respond to comments made by the applicant or 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 environmental clearance determination is appealed.

Planning director's actions on the permits are appealable in accordance with the requirements of Title 20 of the Municipal Code.

The planning director's actions on the environmental review for projects under the California Environmental Claudia Act or CEQA are separately appealable in accordance with the requirements of Title 21 of the municipal code.

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

This includes commenting on specific agenda items only.

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

The hearing officer's staff and the public are expected to refrain from abusive language.

Repeated failure 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.

The meeting of the director's hearing will now come to order.

Okay.

So first matter on our calendar.

Let me just get my agenda up here.

And I do see we have one item for deferral.

So any item scheduled for a hearing this morning for which deferral has been uh to a future meeting is being requested is going to be on this portion of the agenda, and I will only consider the matter of deferring.

So I'm not considering the item today.

I'm just deciding whether or not to defer it per the staff recommendation.

If you want to change any of the deferral dates or speak to the question of deferring the item, uh please use the raised hand feature in Zoom or click star nine to raise a hand to speak.

I will now open the public hearing.

Um the item proposed for a deferral is PD 24010 and ER24167.

It's a plan development permit to convert an existing approximately 11,800 square foot building into a restaurant and banquet hall with a late night use till 2 a.m.

on a 1.5 gross acre site at 113 Burnout Road.

Um, the staff recommendation is to defer this to what is this next week, April 15th, 2026 director's hearing.

Uh does anyone like to speak on the matter of whether or not we should defer this item to next week.

And participants up, I do see a raised hand on this one.

I see two raised hands on this one.

Support staff.

Okay.

You are unmuted, Edrif.

Do you want me to put the timer up or uh sure?

Let's put the timer up.

Okay.

All right, either if you'll have two minutes to speak to whether or not to defer this item.

Good morning.

Um, yeah, I am one of these, uh, one of the people who live on the street.

And just to confirm if this is deferred to put out a public opinion on it, we would have to show up next week.

Is that right?

Correct.

So we're not gonna make any decisions or hear anything about it today.

It will be next week.

Okay.

I I just wanted to be clear about that just because I don't know how this process works.

Yeah, no, of course, no problem.

Yeah.

So come back next week, and that's when the hearing will be.

Okay.

I I think that should be okay with me.

Thank you.

Thanks.

June, you're unmuted.

Can you be?

Yes, we can.

Oh, um, can I say my final uh my my statement?

So today we're only talking about whether or not to defer the project.

That's the only thing on the agenda.

So I would hold your statement until next week.

It wouldn't be considered today because the only question today is whether or not to move it to next week.

Okay, thank you.

Appreciate it.

Yep, yep.

So come back next week, same time.

All right.

I see no more hands on this one.

So I am going to uh defer this item to the April 15th, 2026 hearing.

Um, so again, if you came for this item this morning, the plan development permit for the event facility, it will be heard at the director's hearing a week from today.

So next week.

Okay, so moving on uh to our consent calendar.

So as a reminder, there'll be no separate discussion on individual consent items as they are considered to be routine and will be considered in one action unless an item is moved to the public hearing calendar for discussion by the hearing officer.

The public may comment on the entire consent calendar and any items removed uh on the consent calendar by the hearing officer.

So at this point, um, well, you'll if you want to speak on one of these items.

I'm going to read on consent.

Uh raise your hand now, and then what I'll do is we'll move it, we'll ask you which item, and then we'll move it to public hearing if we have any raised hands, and then we'll go through that public hearing process and you'll have your time to speak.

So right now is just letting us know if you want to speak on either of these two items.

Okay.

Um, so the first one is SP2307 and ER23042.

It's a special use permit to allow demolition of all of the existing buildings on a site for construction of a new three-story mixed-use building that's approximately 15,438 square feet with uh first floor of a hundred, excuse me, one thousand seven hundred and sixty-six square foot restaurant and a 4,524 square foot adult daycare center for 60 adults and a 4,569 square foot second story office and uh 450, excuse me, 4,569 square foot third floor area consisted of five affordable housing units.

Um, also the removal of two non-ordnance sized trees on an approximately 0.5 gross acre site located at approximately 250 feet southerly of South Bascomb Avenue and Jewel Drive intersection.

Uh, this is in council district nine.

The CEQA clearance is exempt pursuant to CEQA guidelines 15332 for infill exemptions.

Uh, the project manager is Rena Shaw.

Staff's recommendation is consider the exemption and approve the special use permits.

Um, I guess I'll ask one by one.

Is anyone would anyone like to speak on this item?

So we can know to remove it.

Okay, see no one now.

I'll ask one more time at the end, but let me go ahead and uh read that next one.

SP25031 and ER25254254.

This is a special use permit for demolition of two legal non-conforming structures totaling approximately 250 square feet and construction of an approximately 400 square foot pump house for an existing legal nonconforming use, um which is a community pool center, if anyone is curious.

On an approximately 1.4 gross acre site located at 1434 Gurloch Drive.

Um, this is the Almond and Oaks Community Center is the owner.

This is in council district nine.

The CEQA is exempt pursuant to CEQA guidelines 15303 for accessory structures.

And the staff recommendation is to consider the exemption and approve the special use permit.

Okay, so would anyone like to speak on either of these two items?

The special use permit for the mixed use development on Bascom or for the uh pump house on Gurlock Drive.

Please raise your hand now.

Okay.

Seeing no one, these will I will close the public hearing.

These will remain on consent, and I hereby approve the consent calendar.

So I approve both of those two special use permits.

Okay, so let's move on to public hearing.

Um this is a continuation of two weeks ago.

So many of you probably saw me two weeks ago.

Uh this is a live tree removal permit.

The file number is TR25479 to allow removal of 20 ordinance-sized Canary Island pines from the common area of a multifamily residential property located at 479 Mill River Lane within the Millbrook and River Oaks common area.

Um, this is the Millbrooks and at River Oaks Owners Association is the owner.

This is in Council District 4.

It is exempt uh pursuant to CEQA guidelines uh 15301 H for existing facilities.

And um uh I'm gonna let staff uh let me know what their recommendation is.

So what I'm gonna do is this is a continuation.

I did take public testimony last time, so we don't have to this time, but as I understand uh the applicant would like to speak again, and I think others, you know, if the applicant would like to speak again, I'll give everyone uh a chance to speak again.

So we will reopen public testimony and do the um typical public testimony where we'll have staff report first and then we'll have five minutes applicant public.

You will have two minutes and then we'll have five-minute applicant again.

Okay, so that's how we're gonna do that this morning.

Um, so with that, let me go ahead and turn it over to staff for a report.

Um, as a reminder, I continued the hearing to ask for um some additional information uh from our city arborist office on the fire risk trees.

All right.

Thank you.

Um Danielle, can I share screen, please?

Thank you.

All right.

Uh good morning, hearing officer.

Good morning, everybody.

Uh, my name is Jason Lee, project manager for this file for the planning division.

Um, I think as we all know, this project is a live tree removal permit to allow the removal of 20 Canary Island pine trees from the common area of Millbrook at River Oaks.

Uh, I think I'd just like to note at the beginning, like two weeks ago, all trees are up for discussion and a decision this morning, but that for a live tree removal permit, removal of all trees is not, you know, you it's not all 20 have to be removed or all 20 cannot be removed.

Findings are made individually for each tree requested for removal.

So, as requested at the March 25th hearing, staff has consulted with the city arborist team and their supervisor, the city forester, regarding removal of those trees that were rec uh that were recommended for approval due to fire fire risk along the northeastern border of the site and the appropriateness of the replacement trees proposed for the site.

The city arborist team and the city forester do not recommend the removal of those trees of those trees along the northeastern border for the following reasons.

First, no authority, for example, code enforcement or an insurance company have asked for the removal of these trees.

Second, the site is not in a mapped fire hazard zone.

And third, the riparian vegetation is a significant distance from the community and does not pose a threat of being a ladder fuel with the levee, open space, and trail all serving as fire breaks.

Therefore, staff is revising the recommendation to align with the Arborist team's advice, as they are the subject matter experts within the city.

Staff therefore no longer recommends approval of tree of the removal of trees 252, 254 through 258 and 260.

Staff would like to note that tree 251, which was previously considered along these trees in the same bucket, has been conclusively shown to be less than five feet from a multifamily building and therefore can be removed as unsuitable.

Staff also asked the Arborist uh team regarding the replacement trees proposed for the site.

In short, the Arborist team stated that because the replacement locations are mostly within the community and therefore it's considered an urban environment.

Non-native trees can be appropriate for the site, as native trees do not necessarily do well in urban environments.

The Arborist team stated that Melaleuca Linarifolia is inappropriate for the site.

The Arverist team did not provide tree replacement recommendations, but generally encouraged the applicant to continue working with a landscape designer to ensure the suitability of trees proposed for the site, whether native or non-native, now and into the future.

Staff also notes that the number of replacement trees required will be decreased if not all trees are approved for removal.

And notes again that replacement trees species can be changed with the future permit adjustment.

If not, all trees can be accommodated on site.

The applicant can also elect to pay an indoor fee of $1,000 per replacement tree.

That's the current fee.

Staff recommends that the director consider the exemption and then pursuant to the Arborist advice, approve removal of 13 of the ordinance sized trees listed in the application, and not approve removal of seven ordinance sized trees listed in the application.

That concludes staff presentation.

The applicants are Eamon Carly with the HOA and Sarah McMahon with commercial tree care.

Okay.

All right.

Application.

Hi, good morning, um, city staff.

Um, thank you for your time.

Um I just like to um I submitted some uh most of the comments that I'm going to make to uh Jason and Martina yesterday.

Um so I'd just like to make some comments about the fire risk.

Um I mean, fire risk must be evaluated based on the real conditions, not the map designation alone.

The current position of the city arborists relies heavily on Millbrick not being within the mapped fire hazards severity zone.

However, these maps, as defined by Calfire are planning tools based on a broad regional inputs such as vegetative vegetation, slope, and weather.

They're not predictive models of real-world fire behavior and do not evaluate site-specific conditions, including ignition patterns, fuel accumulation, vegetation maintenance, local environmental factors.

Relying on zone designation as a proxy for actual risks substitutes generalized classification for a site-specific analysis, which is inconsistent with how these maps are intended to be used.

Current fire science shows that it is increasingly risk is increasingly concentrated where homes meet vegetation, particularly in areas with repeated ignition history.

That condition exists along the Coyote Creek corridor adjacent to our community.

In the past five years, multiple fires have occurred directly nearby, including at least one event where a shift in wind direction could have resulted in catastrophic impact.

Map zones are planning tools, not predictors of real world fire behavior.

Actual outcomes regularly exceed these boundaries.

Recent fire shows that catastrophic loss is not confined to designated hazard zones.

The Tubbs fire in Santa Rosa destroyed suburban neighborhood, not considered high hazard.

The campfire in paradise, the total loss of the town driven by ember spread, marshall fire, over 1,000 homes lost in a suburban area outside traditional wildfire zones.

Fuel conditions, wind and proximity disruptures drive outcomes, not hazard zone designations.

These same conditions exist in our community.

Wildfire science shows areas with repeated ignition have higher future fire probability.

The fires along Coyote Creek corridor are not theoretical.

They are documented and recurring.

This is ignorant this is an active ignition corridor adjacent to residential community.

It took over five years to achieve basic vegetation clearing along the shared boundary with the city of our community working with the city.

Fire spread behavior requires site-specific evaluation.

The assumption that the levee, trail, and open space act as a fire break does not align with established fire behavior.

Researcher from the National Institute of Standards and Technology and Calfire shows ember-driven fires routinely cross roads, trails, and open space.

Ignites spot fires well ahead of the main front.

Additionally, the determination that vegetation does not function as a ladder fuel was made without a site visit.

The position that removal is unjustified because no external authority has required it sets impractical threshold, waiting for code enforcement insurance mandates, prior damage means acting only after risk materializes.

The community is proactively working to reduce exposure, align with defensible space principles, address increasing insurance pressures.

This aligns with a sub-established fire prevention practice.

If removal is denied and fire occurs, the record will show the risk was identified.

At that point, the issue is not whether the risk was known but how it was addressed.

Deny removal does not reduce the risk, it preserves this despite being identified.

This creates a materially different liability posture than allowing reasonable preventive action.

California's fire prevention framework has reflected by Calfire and the California office of a state fire marshal is grounded in proactive risk reduction, recognizing the conditions of all faster than policy.

Action is encouraged when risk is identifiable, mitigation is feasible, delay increases exposure.

Delaying action here leaves the community exposed despite a clear opportunity to reduce risk.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

And you'll have uh five minutes after, and then hang tight.

I'll likely have questions for you or your artist.

Okay.

Uh so let's go to public comments.

Um, would any members of the public like to make comments on this item?

If so, please raise your hand now.

All right, I see three hands raised.

Support staff, do you want to kind of let people know who's first?

Steve, you are unmuted.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Okay.

So again, I I've looked at all the data and I do support Eamon's position.

Um again, I Eamon has also agreed to um take a second look at the tree replacements and select more appropriate species.

So I'm on board with that.

Um, my only question is to the staff.

Um, given that it's bird nesting season, are there uh recommended times to perform the removal?

I'll ask uh staff to address that um when we find it.

Okay.

And again, I I just want to reiterate my support for what Eamon said.

Thank you.

Stephen Yang.

Yeah, Carol, uh can you need permission to share a screen?

I think so.

Danielle, I think you have to stop your share.

I have to promote you two panelists just a second.

Okay, you should be able to unmute now.

Okay, great.

The screen is up.

Okay, thanks.

Yeah, so uh just continue.

Uh I uh yeah, so my uh my position was to the same as uh the the recommended staff revice to preserve trees and 252, 254, CO258, and 26.

So uh once that's uh the CH defensible space standards.

Uh they uh uh they do not mandate wholesale to removal beyond the immediate CBO25, but uh Ember is his own.

And in the uh 5 to 100 feet zone, zone one, zone two, uh it's uh the state standards uh uh explicitly emphasize strategy pruning and elimination of leather fuels, and which I think the HOA should pruning has been doing pretty well.

And the DC again was the evidence from last time.

They uh they have enough distance, I mean, from the structure.

The second is that the uh overclearing actually I mean increasing a fire risk, uh, which is actually goes against the HOA's initial intention.

So there is no any specific uh fire risk assessment uh and evaluation to justify the removal of the all the trees.

And uh uh second is that uh uh uh in the in in uh in a court ruling into 2010, uh where Santiago County versus uh California Chapel institution.

The uh the the final rule uh from the super court from San Diego also was rule against the wild tree removal and uh uh defy the the fire risk uh uh arguments and also the same uh arbitration report also have marked these tree fire risk being low.

Uh the third one uh arguments I want to mention was about the wild policy.

Yeah, the wild policy impact.

So these trees are very popular among River Oaks area, so all the red uh uh area are marked was all Kenoty pie pine trees, and if these trees was being proved as removal, this will have a much wider uh uh impact on the community.

Yeah, so these are three arguments I have.

Thanks.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, Shani.

Thank you.

This is Shani Kleinhouse with the Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance.

Um, you know, I I thank staff for their real consideration of the issues we brought up uh regarding precedent setting.

Um the description of what fire risks are essentially could include every tree in the city.

And if not only along the riparian corridors, and if um trees are removed based on fear, the impact to the region can be quite substantial.

And I think that is very um given how important trees are to the community and their role as infrastructure for climate resilience, it would be a very profound impact regionally, if oh yeah, there are trees somewhere and it could you know that could catch on fire can send embers everywhere.

It's just pretty scary to hear that as someone who cares about birds and trees.

Um also ask on behalf of organization to consider requiring a bird survey, bird nesting survey uh prior to removal of trees during the nesting season.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh would anyone else like to speak on this before we go back to the applicants?

Um case seeing no hands.

Uh Eamon, uh, you can make some additional statements if you'd like.

Okay, thank you, Martine.

Um, so I'm not gonna comment any further on the the fire risk.

I mean, for those trees that we had listed that as the one reason for removal, they were that wasn't the only reason for removal.

So I appreciate that you've approved um tree 251 that we showed us within five feet of the building.

And so I just like to make brief comments on the the other trees.

So tree number two fixed is at the junction of two walkways, which have high traffic leading to the gates of the Coyote Creek levee trail.

Um this tree also drops the most pine cones of any of the Canary Island pines in our community.

So we believe that this tree is a threat to public health and safety because of the pine cones.

Trees number two five four and two five five, these two trees are over a grass recreation uh area used by the community and neighborhood dog owners.

These two trees are we believe these two trees are a threat to public health and safety due to the dropping pine cones.

Trees 256, 257, and 258.

These three trees are very close together, 12 feet between 256 and 257, 9 feet between 257 and 258.

Removal of one would likely destabilize the others.

We have already experienced this with other pines which had to be emergency removed to prevent them falling on houses.

These trees are leaning over the adjacent patios as noted in the Arborist report.

Tree number 258 is also blocking the growth of the redwood uh tree next to it.

Tree number 260 is at the junction of two public walkways which have high traffic leading to the gate up to Coyote Creek Levy.

Um part is the main pathway between Millbrook and Crescendo, and the other part is the main path along the back of Melbourne, which is a high traffic path because it is between the two gates to Coyote Creek Levy.

With the already approved removal of tree number 259, which is dying, it is likely that this is likely that this tree, which is very close, close to tree 259 will become more stable when 259 is removed.

This tree is we believe that this tree is a threat to public health and safety due to the dropping pine cones.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, so with that, I'm going to uh close public testimony again.

I may have some questions.

Um staff, can you speak very quickly to the uh bird nesting um questions?

Sure.

Um for bird nesting, we typically do not put bird nesting condition or nesting bird conditions in our tree removal permits.

Having said that, if there the presence of nesting migratory birds exists, then the tree cannot be removed under you know, federal law, the migratory bird bird treaty act and various state laws.

Um it is possible, you know, that we can put nesting bird conditions in and require a survey.

Um removing a tree where there are nesting birds, regardless of if there is a condition or not, would be contrary to you know, state and federal law and could incur significant significant fines.

Um we we do now have standard environmental conditions for nesting birds, but we do not usually use them for tree removal permits only.

So, but it is something that we're and what are the standard conditions look for nesting birds, right?

And don't remove the trees if you need them.

I mean, I think that's obviously reasonable.

You don't want to, you know, violate the federal laws and all of this pay laws around disturbing nesting birds.

Uh so you know, you're gonna want to look for them if it's nesting season anyway.

So I just think it's probably pretty reasonable to just put that in the permit.

That okay.

I'm just curious at what like what are we talking about?

Are we talking they have to like give us a survey, or is it just more of a heads up, folks?

You know, and this would be a violation of your permit if you don't do this.

Hold on.

Let me let me or David's here.

Okay.

Good morning.

Um, so David can principal planner, cities environmental review team.

So just you know, we do have standard conditions for migratory bird surveys um for larger development projects.

Um, this would require um surveys seven days prior to the um any sort of activity, including vegetation removal grading, um ground disturbance.

Um, you know, however, it would only be in effect from February 1st until August 31st.

Um, that is the migratory bird nesting season.

Um that is commonly applied to all projects.

And I could see that you know, if planning, if staff and um the hearing officer wanted to, that it could be a condition for this um project given the amount of trees that are removed.

Um, I will say again, like Jason has mentioned, this is already a requirement that has actually predated even the California Environmental Quality Act.

Um so it is something just also for everyone to be aware of.

And most many um contractors are aware of it already, but if they're not, um yeah, anything that disturbs a nesting um bird during the migratory bird nesting season would violate um state and federal law.

Um thank you.

So so just sorry, just for my clarity.

So it would they would just need to do this on their side.

It wouldn't be that we have to review it and it would delay it.

It would just be a permit requirement, and if they don't do it, it would be a violation.

Or is it a we have to receive it and review it situation?

Uh our standard condition says that the applicant shall submit the biologist report with the survey um to staff.

Um there are previous tree removals, right?

That hey, uh uh uh neighbor or whatever has reported in a nesting bird, and we've just told them, hey, told the applicant, hey, uh you probably need a biologist to look at this.

And because it wasn't a condition, you know, we can't we're not gonna make you submit it, but if there is a nesting bird and you remove the tree, that's a violation of federal law, and you could get reported and and find great leaf for that.

Yeah, I mean, I like I don't want to delay it by making us review their survey or anything like that, but it's not, you know, you need to look for them because yeah, that it's not unreasonable to look for birds during nesting season to ensure when it's like this number of trees, you're not removing any birds.

Um, so we could we do the condition, but just uh require like not require them to submit it to us unless we request it.

Does that make sense?

So the condition would require a biologist to require biologist report or uh David, do you think I mean I just do you think it needs to be a biologist?

I think it would, I mean, I don't think it's a reasonable put in the permit, look for the bird nest, and if you have the bird nest, don't remove the trees, right?

Yeah, I think that you know the thing I said like for typical planning permits that are requiring some sort of construction.

Now we do require this prior to grading permit issuance prior to a ground disturbance, like some action because tree removal for this doesn't have any right further action.

Subsequent further action.

So basically is what we you know, my recommendation be that they you know have somebody that's you know, I mean a biologist would know where to look at the trees and be able to figure out that okay, this is actually a nesting bird rather than just like, oh, there's a bird that's hanging out there, but it's not nesting.

So, you know, there could be, I would say there's value in that you don't just conservatively say, well, there's a tree, there's a bird, therefore we can't remove it.

There the actual idea is that the bird is actually nesting in the tree or could be disturbed.

So I mean, I think it's better to have a biologist take a look at it now.

You know, if they have that report and just send it to us and we have it for the records, um, we wouldn't necessarily review it because we don't have anything to review for, or if they know basically you know that would be one option.

Otherwise, you know, they basically they just do it and they make sure they have that record when they go forward um with the um tree mobile, just so that we know that there was somebody that actually did take a look at it prior to the remote.

Martino, would you accept a condition that basically says that um applicants must comply with state and federal law relating to nesting birds?

Yeah, I think let's let's do that.

And you know, um, you know, as David said, right?

Just do do your due diligence to ensure that you're not violating state and federal law applicant the regards to uh nesting birds, right?

Okay, I think we probably need to confirm that uh the applicant agrees to that.

Uh applicant, would you have any concerns if we put a permit condition that says you know, do not violate state or federal law with related to nesting birds.

I'm gonna so you know, honestly, I don't think that's an unreasonable condition, right?

I mean, could just not putting in the permit doesn't make it go away.

And I think it's a good just can you hear me now, Martinez?

Yes, yes.

Yeah, I mean, I we don't have any concerns about that.

And I mean, to be honest, I don't think there's any nesting burdens in those trees because of the squirrel activity.

Yeah.

Yeah, just you know what I mean.

Do your due diligence to make sure so that is someone doesn't come back later.

Yeah, I mean, uh Sarah and I had we had talked about this before previously.

Okay, yeah.

So we'll just put the condition, don't you know, conform with the law.

Um, we won't make you have us uh hire a biologist to send it to us, but again, you know, do your due diligence because as Jason said, it can be severe.

Um, okay.

All right.

So with that, let me just speak a little bit to to the question or removal.

And I may have, I think I will have some additional questions.

Um, yeah, you know, so here's the thing is is I actually I do think uh, you know, I it's kind of as I mentioned before, this is somewhat uncharted territory with this.

What do we do?

Where's our threshold for removing trees due to fire concerns?

Um and and you know, I think looking at this one, I think despite this not being mapped as high fire hazard severity, I think given the specific condition with the creek, the grass which does, you know, um ignite fairly easily in a cigarette butt can light the grass on fire.

And we've seen fires out there.

So I I think it's reasonable to apply the the standards for um tree defense and mitigation that would apply to the high and verified fire hazard severity zones and kind of consider it that way given the specific conditions here.

This really isn't the same as you know, something that's truly in the middle of the city surrounded by streets and other similar developments.

There is a little bit more of a risk here that is uh unique to these properties facing this this large grassy area.

Um so given that, however, um, you know, looking at those standards, it it does not require removal just just for removal's sake in these areas.

Um and so uh yeah, I I I actually was um so what it it calls for is it calls for the trees to trimming for the trees to be uh the branches at least 10 feet from each other if you're within that 30 foot zone when it comes to you know what to do with the trees.

Um and so yeah, looking at it, and I'm glad um your applicant, your updated presentation actually did answer a couple of my questions there.

Can you pull up the slide with your recommendations again in the map?

I think that would be helpful.

Um let me just talk, let's first go through okay.

So 251 we verified is within five feet of the structure.

Um maybe I'll go through them in order, the ones kind of in question.

Uh so Jason, and can you confirm?

So Jason, the uh 250 was recommended by the arborist as having a high risk, high risk of cone damage.

Okay.

Correct.

Uh and then 251 we found was in fact within five feet of the structure.

So removal would be supported based on the city's current policies regarding that.

Um 252, I think based on the original arborist recommendation did not have a finding of high cone or cone damage, correct?

It was not a it was a low cone damage.

I think it was moderate.

It was moderate.

Okay.

Yeah, okay.

Um so it's moderate cone damage.

Okay.

And then 253 was high.

High cone damage because of the okay.

And then uh 254 and 255.

Low.

Low cone damage.

Okay.

Uh in the original arborist report, and these were solely fire, and they are not within 10 or kind of close to 10 feet of the other trees.

Okay, correct.

Um, and so then, yeah, I had actually noticed 256 through 258, uh, according to what I found and kind of looked at, is that the trunks of those trees are within 10 feet of each other.

So it wouldn't be possible to prune those to ensure that the canopy stays 10 feet from each other.

Um is the arborist, the applicant's arborist.

Can you confirm that uh in your professional opinion, would you say removal of say 257 would be possible, or would it be these trees are too close to each other that if one was removed, the remainder would have to go.

Um I'm can are you able to speak to that?

I see Sarah with her hand raised.

All right, and you should be able to unmute yourself now, I believe.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay.

Yeah, I think because of the close proximity of those trees next to each other, it's gonna be very difficult to remove one without causing damage or unstabilizing or causing poor structure to the others.

Also the concern was that those three trees are kind of what you consider companion trees, meaning that they all kind of grew up next to each other.

They grew up used to the protection of each other.

So once you remove one, you expose the others to the extra wind and elements that it's not used to that it hadn't grown up being, you know, and grown a tolerance to.

So that was another concern about just removing one of those three.

Okay, and then while I have you, is the is there a similar concern around because I think 259 is in poor condition, so it was recommended for removal based on that.

Is there a similar concern with 259 and 260?

Yes, those are close together as well.

And kind of grown up as companion trees, and um, because you know, we're gonna be working to remove with our equipment, it's gonna be difficult to remove one without the other.

Okay.

And then on the, I think what that left was uh what 25254 and 55.

Would you change your recommendation on cone damage potential on those ones?

Um yeah.

Um so it was another arborist who wrote a report, but I did I did when I walked that property, those there's a prolific amount of crunk cones on that site.

And they have done pruning, they do maintain the trees, they do maintain the um the cleanup and trying to trim to reduce cone droppets, and it just that site just has an excessive amount.

And I mean, myself, even walking through doing my inventory or my observations, cones almost fell on my head a couple times, so I can't imagine living there.

And even though there's not no structure, it's kind of a uh a grassy area where people and pedestrians do kind of hang out.

Maybe they even want to sit down and hang out for a little bit.

And if they're stationary, they're more at risk of cone droppage.

So I would I would recommend those as well.

And is there you would say this is like an unusual amount of cones for this type of tree?

You in your seem they were very prolific out there.

Those trees have a ton of cones and and you really don't understand it till you walk the property because even when it was brought to my attention about the pollen, I was like, oh, pollen, no big deal.

But when you go to that site, everything is covered in yellow.

It's from the cones.

It's just the whole sidewalks is like a solid yellow.

It's they're very prolific uh out there.

Yeah.

With the cone production.

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

Yeah, no, I mean, I think I, you know, we all saw the evidence of the broken tree windows or excuse me, car windows was quite um like that.

So yeah, that was quite interesting to me.

Okay.

Okay.

That is um very helpful in formation.

Um thank you.

Okay.

Um so I'll I will I'll say this.

Okay, this is interesting.

I'm gonna deliberate now.

Uh close public hearing for real and deliberate.

You know, I I think um, I think I have now new additional information that has very helped me uh kind of change a recommendation.

Um again, as I so I'll just walk through it.

Um, so you know, as I mentioned that I said it before, and I'll reiterate that the trees um 261 through 269, you know, we believe given the proximity of the structures conditioned pines that those were uh clear removal.

So um speaking to let's speak to 250 through 260.

Um, you know, again, as I mentioned, I think for fire defensibility, I I'm willing to apply the standards for this being in a very high fire hazard severity zone.

So I think given that um I I would speak on 256 through 258, given the proximity of those trees to each other, uh, they can't maintain that 10 foot of canopy separation and um removal of one of those trees would damage the others.

So I think um I think we can make the findings.

I would say I I will say we're gonna make the findings on 256, 257, and 258, uh, given the need to create separation between the trees and the inability to do so without removing all of those trees.

Um let's see, 250.

Uh we had already determined uh the previous arboris had already said was a high cone damage, uh 251 within five feet.

So we'll make the finding based on that.

Um 252, 253, 254, and 255.

Um, you know, I'll say this is I actually think given the arborists' um opinion that this is uh kind of unusually high cone situation here, um, given the evidence I've seen of the cones like literally breaking car windows in other locations, and that this these are active outdoor areas, and we very much do want to encourage people to use their outdoor space.

Um, given the applicant's willingness to work with uh the community member on creating a uh a replacement program of as much native trees and appropriate trees as possible.

Um I actually am going to make the findings for those trees.

So it was 252, 4 and 5 based on the cone damage, uh, not based on the fire, but we're gonna go with those one based on the cone damage and the evidence that these cones have in fact damaged property and these are outdoor areas.

Uh 256, 7, and 8, as I mentioned.

Um, I think we will make the findings based on the fire risk, um, based on the need to create the 10 feet between the trees and the inability to do so without removing the trees.

Um, and then similarly, I will make the findings for both 259 and 260 for that same reason.

Um, 259 is recommended removal for health and safety, and then the complexity of removing uh 260 and the likelihood that that would damage that tree irreparably.

Um, I think at that point, let's just go ahead and replace these with more appropriate trees.

Uh Jason, did I miss any findings on any of the questionable ones?

I don't believe so, but I I will go through it to make sure I have 251 and 262 through 266 as unsuitable.

Uh health and safety risk to property.

I now have 250, 252, 253, or sorry.

Yeah, 250, 252, 253, 254, 255.

And then two five two six one, two six, seven, two six eight, two, six, nine.

Um fire severity regarding 10 foot and um irreparable damage if we remove one of the trees for 256, 257, and 258, and irreparable damage.

Um to 260 because 259 is being approved for removal for poor health.

Okay.

Does that sound correct?

That sounds correct to me.

Okay.

Okay.

So with that, um, thank you all for your patience.

This has been a very, very challenging decision.

Um, and you know, I'm trying to to really balance everything.

I think again, the the somewhat unique situation is I I've been doing this for 20 years.

I've looked at tree removals for 20 years.

I've never seen cone damage that looks like that myself.

So I don't know what's going on with these trees, but um I think you know, I I do feel comfortable making those findings for the cone damage for those trees and not just simply because of the fire hazard severity.

So um, and then again, yeah, the as I mentioned, you know, given this this proximity, I think we're willing to look at that, you know, um, defensibility space and apply those standards here on on the remainder of the trees.

Um, okay, so with that, as I mentioned, we have approved the removal of all the trees.

Um, applicant, I very much encourage you to work with the community member who had offered their assistance on uh creating a nice new replacement plan using natives where um is possible and appropriate.

And um with that, I am concluding our director's hearing of April 8th, 2026.

And uh Martina, yes.

Confirm we are adding the uh condition regarding nesting.

Yes, thank you.

And then just the condition just stating, you know, comply with state and federal law with regard to um nesting birds.

So just do your due diligence.

Uh, you know, make sure that you don't have nesting birds and you're able to back that up if the issue does ever arise as a question and you need to defend yourselves there.

Okay.

Okay.

Um again, thank you all.

And you know, I'll mention this decision is appealable to the planning commission for anyone who uh would like to um reconsider this decision I've made this morning.

Okay.

Thank you all.