Exhibit CC 3-19-13 #13 Protected tree ordinance CC 3 -19 - i3 T-f-tfrvx.: ( 3
Simon Vuong Co( (
From: Beth Ebben on behalf of City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 5:27 PM
To: Planning Dept.
Subject: FW: Removing Trees From Protected Tree List
From the Planning Department's general mailbox:
Original Message
From: grenna50000yahoo.com [mailto:grenna50000ya hoo.com]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 9:06 AM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Cc: grenna50000yahoo.com
Subject: Removing Trees From Protected Tree List
Dear Planning Department,
I have been reading the City Council Packet on the Protected Tree List Ordinance for Tuesday,
March 19's City Council Meeting. Why are people trying to remove four of the trees on the
tree list? The California Bay Laurel is totally native to California as is the Western
Sycamore. There are incredibly large, ancient examples of each of these trees in our area,
some hundreds of years old.
The Deodara Cedar and the Blue Atlas Cedar are huge trees and who would want to cut those
down? There are some mature trees in our area and they provide incredible beauty and majesty
to our urban canopy all over the city.
I am greatly concerned about the attempts to remove these trees from the Protected Tree List.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Griffin
1
There was a huge Western Sycamore at Tanatu and Vallco Parkway (in front of
the office building there (former Tandem building) until it was taken down
about four years ago). It must been over 130 years old.
Then we have the Blue Atlas Cedar and the Deodara Sequoia? We have some of
these in Rancho that are at least 75 to 80 years old. So someone wants to be
able to cut these down?
I question the motivation here and wonder why we are rehashing the Protected
Tree Ordinance when we just did this about three or four years ago. Aren't
there more important things to be decided on rather than something from four
years ago?
I think there is a lot of misinformation going on in this topic for Tuesday
night, March 19. Frankly, I am tired of wasting everyone's time by rehashing
topics that were just discussed and this is happening over and over and over
again in the last two or three years.
I would really like to have someone explain that a Bay Laurel is not native.
I know of two or three trees personally around the area that are
100+years. I went to Redwood Glen as a sixth grader and the one thing I
100+remember is that the Bay Laurel is native. And that is from when I
100+was
ten or eleven years old.
I am not looking forward to this discussion on Tuesday because it sounds
like there is a lot of misinformation going on.
Let's leave the Tree Ordinance alone and concentrate on other things like
traffic problems?
Thanks,
Jennifer Griffin
2
There was a huge Western Sycamore at Tanatu and Vallco Parkway(in front of
the office building there (former Tandem building;)until it was taken down
about four years ago). It must been over 130 years old.
Then we have the Blue Atlas Cedar and the Deodara Sequoia? We have some of
these in Rancho that are at least 75 to 80 years old. So someone wants to be
able to cut these down?
I question the motivation here and wonder why we are rehashing the Protected
Tree Ordinance when we just did this about three or four years ago. Aren't
there more important things to be decided on rather than something from four
years ago?
I think there is a lot of misinformation going on in this topic for Tuesday
night, March 19. Frankly, I am tired of wasting everyone's time by rehashing
topics that were just discussed and this is happening over and over and over
again in the last two or three years.
I would really like to have someone explain that a Bay Laurel is not native.
I know of two or three trees personally around the area that are
100+years. I went to Redwood Glen as a sixth grader and the one thing I
100+remember is that the Bay Laurel is native. And that is from when I
100+was
ten or eleven years old.
I am not looking forward to this discussion on Tuesday because it sounds
like there is a lot of misinformation going on.
Let's leave the Tree Ordinance alone and concentrate on other things like
traffic problems?
Thanks,
Jennifer Griffin
2
CC- 3 - T4F4 (3
RFCETVED� � o , c A Se c4-�,
March 19, 2013 Cupertino City Council Meeting �Ir� $ 413
Review of Tree Ordinance Hearing
or
Civic Park Masters Association (CPMA) has an interest in the hearing.
CPMA DIRECTORS WHO COMMUNICATED WITH CITY
CPMA Secretary Emily Poon, and Board Member Tenny Tsai have worked on
behalf of CPMA ever since it was cited for removal of a small and sick oak tree in
Sept. 2012 and required to pay a retroactive tree removal permit fee of $2937.
2.
Emily Poon addressed the City Council on Oct. 2, 2011, but cannot attend the
Review hearing on March 19.
2.
Tenny Tsai wrote a clear statement of our case in Sept. 2013.
CASE OF SMALL OAK TREE REMOVAL
The small and sick oak tree was planted in a 7 ft by 7 ft planter, outside the
Chinese Stewhouse restaurant, at the corner of Torre Avenue and Town Center
Lane. CPMA consulted the tree ordinance and thought mistakenly that the tree
was exempt because of its small size.
An arborist stated that the tree was sick and was planted in the wrong place. The
roots would have caused damage to the concrete planter and the parking lot.
We are asking for leniency from the City, to allow CPMA to pay the standard tree
removal permit fee, rather than the $2937 retroactive tree removal fee.
ATTACHMENTS
Attached are a plan of the CPMA, with the location of the 7 ft. by 7 ft planter, an
arborist report of why the oak tree should be removed, and a letter from Tenny
Tsai, owner of Villagio Retail, which includes Amicis Pizza, Bitter and Sweet, etc,
CPMA is comprised of members which surround the large oval lawn which faces
City Hall. We represent
1.10251 Torre Avenue, the Dental building with the Stewhouse restaurant
2. Sterling Square Townhomes (51 townhornes)
3. Villagio Residential ( 80 condos and townhomes)
4. Villagio Retail ( 9 Retail spaces)
5. Three office buildings (20370,20380 and 20410 Town Center Lane)
We are volunteers who devote time and money to the upkeep of the oval lawn
park, known as Civic Park.
This park is located directly opposite Cupertino Community Hall, across the street
at Torre Avenue.
. .
City Cupertino of
(9\/CI 1--u-wc1 i 5 Ct✓L C PCA+k / D', ..i Ca-{"- Lo 20 o 5'
a t- C L-1'-e', i n u L t Ai-cur✓i 13.c C i✓(C., Payk Hat tias0,413 As.sQ ,
1
asemap Labels
tc:m.'...,...1.1
Street Names
Primary Address Labels -
Freeway 1
� 1v�clingk tEs 1
asemap ——— 1
Street Centerline 1
County Freeways 1
County Major Roads = 1
Right-of-Way
Parcels 1
:ommunity Development - t
City Boundary 8 — E +
—4
I
+ + p
+ 1 1 O
I-— —- — —J I c��}
.5
U
1 N
SCALE 1 : 2,944
---- — - ----r-- T
200 0 200 400 600
FEET
'EG Image,2550x3300 pixels)- Scaled(18%) htips: mail-attachment.googleusercontent.com!attachmenOui=2&i...
ARBORIST REPORT
SITE: 10251 Torre Ave. Cupertino
Civic Park Master Association
BY: Richard Smith, Arborist ISA WE8745A
Bay Area Tree Specialists
CONTACT: (408)836-9147/(408)466-3469
Fax: (408)448-2036
Web Site: www.bayareatreespecialists.com
MAILING ADDRESS: 3315 San Felipe Rd.PMB# 159 San Jose, CA 95125
TREES OBSERVED :
Quercus agrifolia: DBH 43",height 10',spread 6'.
CONDITION:
The tree had out grown the planter and was the wrong variety Probable
interference of electrical and irrigation devices.Causing damage to concrete planter
and parking lot. This tree was removed and replaced with a Maytenus boaria tree
which is slower growing and appropriate for the growing environment.
The cost to replant a Quercus agrifolia tree is approximately$900,this is a 48" box
replacement tree.
The cost of planting the 15 gallon Maytenus boaria was$360.
Richard Smith, Arborist ISA WE8745A August 22, 2012
10'2/2012 6:06 PM
September 10, 2012
Mr. Colin Jung
Planning Department
City of Cupertino
Re: Request for waiver of the penalty of removal of the tree without permit at the common area
of Civic Park Master Association.
Dear Colin:
On behalf of Civic Park Master Association, this letter is to follow up our meeting onFriday,
August 31, 2012 regarding our request for the waiver of the penalty dueto the tree removal
without permit.
I would like to take this opportunity to give you the back ground and the reason for removing
the tree without permit:
An oak tree of size about 7 inches in diameter, measuring 4 feet and 6 inches from natural grade
was removed on July 19, 2012.
The location is at 10251 Tone Ave, entrance to the parking lot. The owner of the common area
is Civic Park Master Association. The oak tree was situated in a 7 X 7 feet concrete raised bed
planter. According to arborists verbal comment was the oak tree planted in wrong place, roots
have no place to extend, and can damage to the planter&parking lot ground. The tree also
looked quite sick due to growth constrain.
The Association did not obtain a removal permit because at time we consulted with arborists and
Protected Trees Ordinance 14.18.035 with size exception. We were not aware of there is
another ordinance that is described in the City's Protected Tree Ordinance requires the permit to
remove any tree that is within the approved development. As matter of fact, we did not know
about the requirement until we received the letter of violation from city dated August 20, 2012.
On behalf of our Master Association, I hope we have been demonstrated to the city,that we
always followed the rules and regulation, and we have done a good job in maintaining the
common area of Civic Park MasterAssociation. It makes the surrounding of City Hall and City
Library a very desirable neighborhood. The violation we made was truly an honest
mistake. Respectfully, we are requesting you to grant us a waiver of the penalty in the amount
of$2,937. Instead, we will be happy to apply for RetroactiveTree Removal Permit with the
original application fee instead.
Thank you in advance for your consideration and assistance.
Sincerely
Tenny Tsai
Member of Civic Park Master Association
CC- Copy
C.-- 3/19/2013
(
Protected Trees Ordinance Amendment
MCA-2012-02
• Approval of minor amendments to Chapter
14.18 of the Municipal Code, Protected Trees
• Request Council direction on future
amendments to Chapter 14.18
Background
November 2012 Study Session
Council gave the following direction to staff to:
• Remove the reference to "public trees" and
• Change the penalty from a misdemeanor to an infraction
• Present a report regarding the following:
• Streamline the process in R1/A1/A/RHS zones and
consider inclusion of R2 zones for smaller protected
trees with required mitigation
• Review the size of trees and report on whether list of
specimen trees are native
• Review whether greater penalties should be imposed for
illegal removal of larger protected trees
1
3/19/2013
Proposed Changes to Protected Trees
Ordinance
• Clarifications on References to Public Trees
• Remove references to Public Trees in Chapter 14.18,
Protected Trees
• Misdemeanor to Infraction
• Reduced violations from a Misdemeanor to Infraction
• May limit City's options to resolve violations
• A range of options similar to enforcement provisions
in Chapter 14.12 may provide greater flexibility for
the City
• Environmental Review
• Not considered a project under CEQA
City Council Direction for Future
Amendments
A. Review the "specimen" tree list for native, non-invasive
trees
B. Protect native "specimen" trees regardless of size
C. Streamlined process for removal of "non-mature,
specimen" trees in R1/A/A1/RHS and R2 zones
D. Define "mature" vs "non-mature specimen" trees for
proposed streamlined process
E. Continue to encourage replacement and renewal of the
City's urban forest
F. Process to encourage voluntary tree planting
G. Effective approach to review the illegal removal of trees
2
3/19/2013
Native Specimen Trees
A. Review "specimen" tree list for native, non-invasive
trees
Quercus species Yes
Aesculus californica(California Buckeye); Yes
Acer macrophyllum(Big Leaf Mapl.e); Yes
Cedrus deodara(Deodar Cedar); No
Cedrus atlantica'Glauca' (Blue Atlas Cedar); No
Umbellularia californica(Bay Laurel or Review
California Bay);
Platanus racemosa(Western Sycamore) Review
Protection of Native Specimen Trees and
Streamlined Process
B. Protect native "specimen" trees regardless of size
• Mature or larger trees—keep current process (arborist
report, require mitigation, noticing)
• "Non-mature, specimen"—no arborist report, require
mitigation, no noticing
C. Streamlined process for removal of "non-mature,
specimen" trees in R1/A/A1/RHS and R2 zones
• Above approach will be implemented for all projects in
R1/A1/A/RHS zones and projects in R2 zones
3
3/19/2013
Mature vs. Non-Mature Trees & City's
Urban Forest
D. Define "mature" vs "non-mature specimen"
trees for proposed streamlined process
• Current ordinance defines specimen trees as 10 inches
in diameter (20 inches for multi-trunk trees)
• Trees start to mature at 8 to 10 inches in diameter,
when understory dies off
• Average of 10-12 inches could be established as a
typical size of a mature tree
• The appropriate size will be determined
E. Continue to encourage replacement and renewal
of the City's urban forest
• Projects with approved landscape plans—keep current
process
Illegal Tree Removals
F. Process to encourage voluntary tree planting
• Most cities have larger replacement requirements for
illegal tree removals than for a permitted tree removal
• Tree removal fees for illegal removal of public trees
based on diameter inch of removed tree
• Heritage tree removals or unusually large tree
removals are required to provide larger replacements
or penalties based on landscape unit value
• Arborist recommends approach adopted by other
cities instead of requiring larger fees for permits.
4
3/19/2013
Voluntary Planting
G. Effective approach to review the illegal removal
of trees
• New process for property owners in R1/A1/A/RHS/R2
zoning districts who desire to voluntarily plant
specimen trees
• Property owners may register these trees at planting
with the City, and record them on their deed
• Trees not subject to tree removal permits or mitigation
requirements, if removed
• Details and procedures of such a permit yet to be
finalized. To be presented to City Council at a later date
Environmental Review, Fiscal Impact, &
Budget Amendment Request
Relax Regulations
Amendment Type More Regulations Provide additional Without
mitigation mitigation
Less than
Environmental Environmentally Environmentally
Impact less than significant significant with Significant
mitigations
Type of CEQA Categorical Mitigated Negative Environmental
Review Exemption Declaration Impact Report
(EIR)
Est.Environmental $8000 $35,000 $90,000
Consultant Fees ,
Est.Arborist $6,000 $17,000 $20,000
Consultant Fees
Outreach& $11,000 $11,000 $11,000
Noticing
County Filing Fees $50 $2,206 $3,045
Total(Est.) $25,050 $65,206 _ $124,045
Time Frame 5-6 months 7-9 months 12-15 months
5
3/19/2013
Sustainability, Fiscal Impact
& Next Steps
• Sustainability Impact
• Impact of the project would be identified once the
environmental review documents are prepared
• Fiscal Impact
• Requires an expenditure of$65,000
• Next Steps
• Following City Council action, staff to contract with
environmental and other consultants and begin
drafting a second revised Protected Trees Ordinance
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council:
A. Introduce Ordinance No 13-2107 and conduct the first
reading
B. Provide direction to staff on the scope of further
amendments to Chapter 14.18 to be studied and
authorize the City Manager to enter into a consultant
services contract in an amount not to exceed $65,000
6