Planning Director Hearing on Tree Removal and Permits - April 8, 2026
Planning Director Hearing – April 8, 2026
This meeting of the San José Planning Director Hearing, conducted by Hearing Officer Martina Davis, addressed a deferral, two consent calendar items, and a contested live tree removal permit. The hearing focused on a proposal to remove 20 Canary Island pine trees from a multifamily common area, with extensive debate over fire risk, cone hazards, and replacement species.
Deferral
- Item PD24010/ER24167 – A plan development permit to convert an existing building into a restaurant/banquet hall with late-night use at 113 Burnout Road was deferred to the April 15, 2026 director’s hearing. Two public speakers confirmed the deferral process; the item was not heard on the merits.
Consent Calendar
- SP2307/ER23042 – Special use permit for demolition and construction of a three-story mixed-use building (15,438 sq ft) with restaurant, adult daycare, office, and five affordable housing units at South Bascomb Avenue and Jewel Drive. Approved with infill exemption (CEQA 15332).
- SP25031/ER254254 – Special use permit to demolish two non-conforming structures and build a 400 sq ft pump house for a community pool at 1434 Gurloch Drive. Approved as accessory structure (CEQA 15303).
Both items were approved without public comment.
Public Hearing: Live Tree Removal Permit (TR25479)
Staff Report (Jason Lee): The proposal sought removal of 20 ordinance-sized Canary Island pines from the Millbrook and River Oaks common area (479 Mill River Lane). After consultation with the city arborist and city forester, staff revised their recommendation: no longer approve removal of trees 252, 254–258, and 260 due to lack of fire authority mandate, absence from mapped fire hazard zones, and presence of fire breaks (levee, trail, open space). Staff recommended approval of 13 trees, including tree 251 (within 5 ft of a building) and those with high cone damage or proximity issues.
Applicant Position (Eamon Carly with HOA, supported by arborist Sarah McMahon): Argued that fire risk should be evaluated on site-specific conditions, not zone maps. Cited recent fires along Coyote Creek corridor and scientific literature on ember spread (Tubbs Fire, Camp Fire, Marshall Fire). Claimed the levee and trail do not act as effective fire breaks. Emphasized proactive risk reduction is consistent with CalFire principles. Also argued that trees 252, 254–258, and 260 pose threats from falling pine cones (documented damage to car windows) and that trees 256–258 are too close together to prune safely without destabilizing them. Tree 260 is adjacent to dying tree 259 (approved for removal); removal of 259 would likely damage 260.
Public Comments:
- Steve (resident): Supported the applicant’s position and asked about bird nesting restrictions during removal. Requested appropriate replacement species.
- Stephen Yang: Opposed removal of trees 252, 254–258, and 260. Cited defensible space standards (pruning, not removal) and argued over-clearing increases fire risk. Noted that a court ruling (Santiago County vs. California Chapel Institution) ruled against wholesale tree removal based on fire risk. Emphasized that the trees are popular in the neighborhood.
- Shani Kleinhouse (Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance): Thanked staff for considering precedent-setting impacts. Warned that removing trees based on fear would have profound regional effects on climate resilience. Requested a pre-removal bird nesting survey.
Applicant Rebuttal (Eamon Carly): Clarified that fire risk was not the only reason for removal of each disputed tree. Detailed:
- Tree 252: at a high-traffic walkway junction, drops many pine cones – health/safety threat.
- Trees 254–255: over a grass recreation area – cone hazard.
- Trees 256–258: only 12 ft and 9 ft apart; removal of one would destabilize the others; leaning toward patios; tree 258 blocks a redwood.
- Tree 260: at a walkway junction near approved removal of tree 259; removal of 259 would destabilize 260; also a cone hazard.
Key Outcomes
Hearing Officer Martina Davis deliberated and applied high-fire-hazard standards (even though the site is not mapped as such) due to site-specific conditions (adjacent creek, grass, history of fires). She approved removal of all 20 trees based on the following findings:
- Trees 250, 252, 253, 254, 255: Approved due to high cone damage risk (unusually prolific cone production causing property damage and risk to public safety in active outdoor areas).
- Trees 256, 257, 258: Approved due to inability to maintain 10-ft canopy separation (required for fire defensibility) and risk of destabilization if only one is removed.
- Trees 259 (poor health) and 260: Approved because removal of 259 (already recommended) would irreparably damage 260; both are companion trees.
- Tree 251: Within 5 feet of a building (approved as unsuitable).
- Trees 261–269: Already deemed clear removal due to proximity to structures (not contested).
Condition: The permit includes a condition to comply with all state and federal laws regarding nesting birds (Migratory Bird Treaty Act). The applicant must do due diligence (e.g., a pre-removal survey) to avoid disturbing active nests; no pre-approval of survey report is required, but the applicant must be able to demonstrate compliance if questioned.
The decision is appealable to the Planning Commission.
Meeting Transcript
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.
openpublica.com