Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Discretionary Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission takes discretionary review and approves 461 Chenery project with arborist and demolition conditions
Summary
After a contested hearing, the commission took discretionary review and approved the 461 Chenery Street permit with conditions: work is subject to the zoning administrator's determination on whether the project is tantamount to demolition, the sponsor must work with a certified arborist during construction, and replace the adjacent tree if an arborist concludes construction damages it (replacement in the 15–30 gallon range unless parties agree otherwise). Vote: 4–2.
The Planning Commission took discretionary review and approved the project for 461 Chenery Street subject to conditions requiring arborist oversight and the zoning administrator’s determination about demolition.
Neighbors had filed a discretionary review (DR) request. The DR requester, Maya Core Delon, presented two arborist reports alleging that excavation and a vertical addition would threaten a large California redwood on adjacent property and urged the commission to deny the permit or require heavy financial guarantees. The project sponsor’s representative, Daniel Fratton, said the sponsor was willing to hire an arborist, would replace the tree if damaged, and characterized the project as code‑complying and categorically exempt as an addition under CEQA.
Staff (Michael Smith and others) summarized the permit as an addition that includes raising the building to add a garage level, basement excavation, a small rear addition and a vertical addition; staff did not recommend taking mandatory demolition review but noted a zoning administrator review could find the work tantamount to demolition. Several commissioners expressed concern about tree preservation and sought clarity on legal authority to require tree protections where trees are on adjacent private property.
After public testimony and rebuttal, Commissioner Anthony moved that the commission take discretionary review, approve the project subject to the zoning administrator’s determination on demolition, require the sponsor to work with a certified arborist during construction, and replace the tree with a 15–30 gallon specimen if the arborist determines the tree was damaged and the DR requester agrees to tree work on her property. The motion passed 4–2; Commissioners Moore and Olague voted no.
The commission’s action allows staff and the zoning administrator to complete their determinations; the approval includes a condition that the sponsor will replace or pay for removal and replacement if construction causes loss of the tree. The commission and city attorney discussed landmark tree procedures and the limits of planning authority versus building inspection responsibilities for retaining walls and soils reports.
