|
|
|
|
Project Title: |
15 Morningside Place Tree Permit |
|
|
|
|
County File: |
CDTP24-00056 |
|
|
|
|
Appellants: |
Heather and Mark Simone |
|
|
|
|
Applicant/Owner: |
Don Vivatson, Alder Pool & Landscape Co. (Applicant) / Craig M. and Caitlin Hornsby (Owners) |
|
|
|
|
Zoning/General Plan: |
R-20 Single-Family Residential District / RL Residential Low Density |
|
|
|
|
Site Address/Location: |
15 Morningside Place in the Alamo area of unincorporated Contra Costa County (APN: 188-270-040) |
|
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Status: |
Categorical Exemption - Class 3: CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(e), New Construction of Small Structures |
|
|
|
|
Project Planner: |
Maria Lara-Lemus, Planner I, (925) 655-2904 |
|
|
maria.lara-lemus@dcd.cccounty.us |
|
|
|
|
Staff Recommendation: |
Deny the Appeal and Uphold the Zoning Administrator’s Decision (See Section II for full recommendation) |
|
|
|
I. PROJECT SUMMARY
This is an appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s decision to approve a Tree Permit to allow the removal of four (4) code-protected trees on the project site, including three (3) Valley Oak trees and one (1) California Bay tree with trunk diameters measuring between 9-inches to 40-inches, for installation of backyard improvements (pavilion, pool, and sports court) on the west end of the property.
II. RECOMMENDATION
Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division (CDD) staff recommends that the County Planning Commission:
A. DENY the appeal by Heather and Mark Simone.
B. FIND that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA under Section 15303(e) of the CEQA Guidelines.
C. UPHOLD the Zoning Administrator’s decision to approve Tree Permit CDTP24-00056 based on the attached findings and subject to the attached conditions of approval.
D. DIRECT staff to file a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk.
III. BACKGROUND
This application was continued at the request of the applicant from the April 23, 2025 County Planning Commission, meeting, to its meeting on May 14, 2025. The Planning Commission did not open the public hearing on the application. There are no revisions to the proposed project.
IV. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. General Plan: RL Residential Low Density.
B. Zoning District: R-20 Single-Family Residential District.
C. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): Categorical Exemption - CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(e), New Construction of Small Structures, Class 3 exemption for construction of accessory structures.
D. Previous Applications:
1. CDTP19-00009: A Tree Permit to allow the removal of one dead 51-inch-diameter code-protected Valley Oak tree at 15 Morningside Place was approved by the Zoning Administrator on February 21, 2019.
2. CDLL23-00005: A Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure two adjacent parcels, APN 188-270-020 (Parcel A, 15 Morningside Place) and 188-270-014 (Parcel B, 40 Via Robles) was approved by the Zoning Administrator on October 2, 2023. Parcel A, the project site, increased in area from 20,838 square feet to 32,567 square feet, while Parcel B decreased in area from 31,727 square feet to 20,002 square feet.
V. BACKGROUND
A tree permit application was accepted by the Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division (CDD) on September 4, 2024, for the removal of four (4) trees to accommodate installation of planned backyard improvements, including a pavilion, a pool, and a sports court. These trees, which include three (3) Valley Oak trees and one (1) California Bay tree with trunk diameters measuring between 9-inches and 40-inches, are within a stand of four or more natural trees and meet the criteria established in County Code Section 816-6.6004 for protected trees.
The Arborist Report submitted by the applicant on September 4, 2024, assesses the impact of the planned backyard improvements on 13 trees in the vicinity of the planned improvements. In the report, the arborist identifies three trees with poor structure, excessive lean, and a potential for failure, that would be affected by construction of the backyard improvements and are recommended for removal, including two Valley Oak trees (identified by the arborist as trees #930 and #932) and one California Bay tree (tree #931). In addition, the arborist recommends removal of one Valley Oak tree (tree #928) with poor structure, excessive lean, and a potential for failure that is overcrowding three other Valley Oak trees (trees #938, #939, and #940), which would be preserved, and is leaning towards the existing single-family residence on the project site.
A Notice of Tentative Approval of a Tree Permit was sent to adjacent property owners on October 25, 2024, to inform them of the Zoning Administrator’s tentative approval of the Tree Permit for removal of the four code protected trees. On October 31, 2024, within the 10-day notice period, an appeal letter and accompanying $250 appeal fee were received by the CDD from Heather and Mark Simone, property owners of the adjacent property at 40 Via Robles. The letter states concerns about the long-term environmental and aesthetic effects that the removal of the four trees would have on the neighborhood.
On November 20, 2024, staff received a Supplemental Arborist Report that responds to the concerns stated in the appeal letter about the tree removal. In the supplemental report, the arborist re-evaluates the four trees proposed to be removed and reiterates the importance of removing the trees due to the poor structure, excessive lean and the potential for failure. The arborist states that the trees cannot be saved and are a concern for the safety of the property owner’s family. Both the Arborist Report and the Supplemental Arborist Report are included in Attachment D.
On December 4, 2024, staff visited the project site and the neighboring property at 40 Via Robles. Photographs taken by staff on the site visit are included in Attachment E. During the site visit, staff walked through the project site with the property owner, Mr. Hornsby. Mr. Hornsby explained his concern with the trees and how they posed a hazard for his family and his home. He also shared how he had invited neighbors including the appellants, Mrs. and Mr. Simone, to visit his home to have a better understanding of the condition of the trees.
Staff then visited with Mrs. and Mr. Simone. During the visit at the Simone’s property, other neighbors expressed their concern about the impact of the proposed tree removals and expressed a willingness to negotiate with property owner to resolve their concerns.
Staff suggested that the property owner and appellants meet to discuss the possibility of a compromise. However, on February 12, 2025, staff received an email from the appellants stating that they and the property owners are in agreement about proceeding with an appeal hearing.
Subsequently, on February 26, 2025, the applicant submitted a tree planting plan for the planting of 15 new trees, including 10 Arbutus Marina (Strawberry tree) and five (5) Lauras Noblis Saratoga (Bay Laurel). Attachment C includes the tree planting plan. Implementation of the tree planning plan is one of the conditions in the Conditions of Approval and Advisory Notes.
VI. SITE/ AREA DESCRIPTION
The project site at 15 Morningside Place is a 32,567 square-foot lot approximately 160 feet north of Via Robles, with access to Via Robles from a private street (Morningside Place). The property is roughly rectangular in form with relatively level topography.
The property is located within an established residential neighborhood that was largely developed around 1974 as part of the Rancho San Ramon Subdivision. The neighborhood consists of primarily regular square shaped lots, with areas between 18,400 to 41,000 square feet. The lots are developed with single-family residences and the accessory structures and buildings typical of residential development. The project site and surrounding neighborhood have both native species of trees and decorative landscape trees and plants.
VII. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant requests a Tree Permit to allow the removal of four (4) code-protected trees on the project site, including three (3) Valley Oak trees and one (1) California Bay tree with trunk diameters measuring between 9-inches to 40-inches, to accommodate installation of planned backyard improvements, including a pavilion, a pool, and a sports court on the west end of the property.
VIII. APPEAL OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S DECISION
A Notice of Tentative Approval of a Tree Permit was mailed on October 25, 2024 to property owners adjacent to the project site. The Notice advised of an appeal period extending through November 4, 2024. One letter of appeal was received from Heather and Mark Simone of 40 Via Robles on October 31, 2024. The letter states concerns about the removal of the four code protected trees, considering the long-term environmental and aesthetic impacts that the loss of the mature trees would have on the neighborhood. The appeal letter is included as Attachment F.
After the close of the appeal period on November 4, 2024, staff received additional written correspondence, including a letter from Scott and Carol Taylor of 50 Via Robles on November 6, 2024, and an email from Olga and Daniel Chekene of 55 Via Robles on November 11, 2024. The Taylor letter and Chekene email are included in Attachment G. The correspondence states similar concerns as the appeal letter
Following is a summary of the appeal points in the letter from Heather and Mark Simone and associated staff responses.
A. Appeal Point #1: The loss of trees will have an impact on the neighborhood’s character and ecosystem. The trees provide significant benefits to the neighborhood, increase property values, reduce the heat island effect, and improve air quality. Also, the removal of the trees will diminish the community’s natural beauty.
Staff Response: The Arborist Report prepared by Altas Tree Service Inc. dated August 22, 2024, and received on September 4, 2024, and the Supplemental Arborist Report received on November 20, 2024, identifies the three trees, including Two Valley Oak trees (identified by the arborist as trees #930 and #932) and a California Bay tree (tree #931) that would be affected by construction of the backyard improvements. The arborist states that these trees have poor structure, excessive lean, and a potential for failure. In addition, the reports identify one very large and dominant Valley Oak tree (tree #928) with poor structure, excessive lean, and a potential for failure, that has created overcrowding among three adjacent Valley Oak trees (trees #938, #939, and #940), and is leaning towards the existing single-family residence on the project site. In the reports, the arborist has stated that the four trees (trees #928, #930, #931, and #932) cannot be saved and are a concern for the safety of the property owner’s family.
As shown on the site plan in Attachment C, if the four trees are removed, eight (8) Valley Oak trees would remain on or directly adjacent to the property. In addition, as shown on the applicant’s February 26, 2025 tree planting plan, 15 new trees would be planted on the property. The remaining and new trees would maintain the neighborhood’s natural beauty, reduce the heat island effect, and improve air quality while allowing the property owner’s family to enjoy and feel safe in their backyard.
B. Appeal Point #2: The disturbance of the construction and the removal of the trees will risk the health of trees on their property and neighboring properties.
Staff Response: The Arborist Report assesses the impacts of the proposed project on the west end of the property. The arborist states that the construction will have minimal impact on the remaining trees, provided that tree protection zones (TPZ) are established during pre-construction and construction to prevent any damage to trees. The TPZ would protect tree roots during construction by including sturdy fencing around every remaining tree, which would keep the protection zones intact and clear of building materials, waste, and excess soil. If soil disturbance (scarping, grading, trenching, and excavation) is necessary, the arborist recommends that an ISA Certified Arborist provide supervision for this work and that soil disturbance is to be avoided within the drip lines of trees. Implementation of the arborist-recommended measures is included in the Conditions of Approval and Advisory Notes. The Conditions of Approval also include measures to reduce construction related impacts on the neighborhood, such as limited hours of construction, and requirements to maintain mufflers on equipment and reduce idling of equipment.
IX. STAFF ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
A. General Plan: The project site is located within the RL Residential Low Density 2045 General Plan land use designation. At the time the application was deemed complete on October 28, 2024, the property was located within the SL Single-Family Residential - Low Density General Plan land use designation.
The primary land uses allowed in the RL designation, and in the former SL designation, include single-family residences and the buildings and structures accessory to residential uses. The planned backyard improvements on the 32,567 square-foot property will not change the density of residential development for this site and are consistent with the residential uses allowed within the RL land use designation and the former SL land use designation. The proposed improvements are residential in nature, and consistent with the uses on the property which have been established since approximately 1976. Since no element of the project changes the residential use of the site, it is an appropriate use for the property.
B. Zoning: The project site is located within the R-20 Single-Family Residential District. The intent of the R-20 District is to provide for the orderly development of low density, single-family residential uses, accessory structures, and uses normally auxiliary to them. The project involves constructing backyard improvements, including a pavilion, a pool, and a sports court, all of which are consistent with the residential uses allowed in the R-20 District.
C. Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance: The project is subject to County Code Chapter 816-6 (Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance) due to the removal of trees that are within a stand of four or more natural trees and code-protected pursuant to County Code Section 816-6.6004. In the Arborist Report and Supplemental Arborist Report, the arborist states that four trees (identified by the arborist as trees #928, #930, #931, and #932) have poor structure, excessive lean, and a potential for failure, and the trees cannot be saved.
The project includes installation of a pavilion, a pool, and a sports court on the west end of the property. There is no alternative location on the project site that can reasonably accommodate this development. Therefore, the project substantially meets the criteria of Section 816-6.8010 for granting a tree permit.
X. CONCLUSION
The applicant requests a Tree Permit to remove four (4) code-protected trees in order to accommodate installation of planned backyard improvements, including a pavilion, a pool, and a sports court on the west end of the property. Staff finds that the proposed development is consistent with the RL Residential - Low Density 2045 General Plan land use designation and the former SL Single-Family Residential - Low Density General Plan land use designation, complies with the intent and purpose of the R-20 Single-Family Residential District, and meets the criteria for granting a tree permit. Therefore, staff recommends that the County Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator’s decision to approve Tree Permit CDTP24-00056, based on the attached findings and subject to the attached conditions of approval.