Exhibit CC 04-15-14 Item #1 Protected Trees 4/15/2014
Protected Trees Study Session
MCA-2013-01
Study session to obtain ;further direction on
amendments,to the Municipal Code, Chapter
14.18— Protected Trees Ordinance
Background
Ordinance amended in March 2013 per Council
direction provided in November 2012:
• Reinove-reference to"Public trees"and
• change penalty from a misdemeanor to an infraction
Present a report regarding the following issues:
• Streamline and revise the tree removal process in Rl/Al/A/RHS/R2
zones
• Review sizelof trees in diameter for"protected"specimen trees
• Encourage,retention,of specimen trees, regardless of size
• Review an&update-specimen tree1ist
• Review penalties.are warranted for unlawful removal of larger trees
1
4/15/2014
Specimen Trees
A. Specimen Trees
'ecimgii}Tre..
rAd.Cha Dues (ifinm'stnfd
'.Qucrcuss ewes Na Chan e
Aesculuscahfornica(California Buckere)p No Chmr, e
Acer macro hrllum{Bi Leaf Ma le),- No Chan e
Cedrusdeodara"(Deodar Cedar); No Chan e
Cod rusatlantica"Glauca�(61oe A Has Cedar); No Chan,e
Nr»heRelaria -aAfrot*a.-(°aj-',,iu:el- , REMOVE Tree presents issues regardiagsbuchnnl-
Q314--a-B-41 integrity,decline,Nrdsnfol. Alsohosts
to Sudden Oak'Death.
Platenus rvicemoso(Weslern Sycamore) No Chan&
_�S ectmen;Tree-Re lacers re T^= --
�Ret%m' `ComiireutsTM'"'4°"� -
Tr es are fast-grouping and pe forru best tit
fnr,_,teresetiiags versus small lots,and are
)mtive tae fie Sawa,C,'uz mountain.aim
Pseudotsuga menziesii'(Douglas'Pir) ADD Minimum trunk diameter of l ii".or
greater should be coirsidered for threshold
r f prntectiriti..
Protection of' Native Specimen Trees and
Streamlined Process
B. Define "mature" vs"non-mature specimen" trees
for proposedstreamlined process
• Specimen trees are 2! 10 inches
• Trees start to mature when understory°dies off (8 to 10
inches)
• Typical,size-of mature tree - 10-12 inches
r. Recommended.specimen tree,size ? 12 inches
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
2
4/15/2014
Mature vs. Non-Mature Trees & Illegal
Tree Removals
D. Protect native."specimen" trees regardless of
size
• Non-Mature-trees—no arborist report, but require
mitigation
• Mature trees—keep current: process (arborist report,
require mitigation, noticing)
E. Process and Fees for Illegal Removal of Protected
Trees
• Current ordinance requires penalty fee for removal of
protected trees, not necessa:rily larger replacements
• Consider larger tree,replacement'requirements for
illegal removal of protected trees
Voluntary Planting
F. Process to Encourage Voluntary Tree Planting
• New process for property owners in R1/A1/A/RHS/R2
zones for voluntarily planted trees orrthe list
• Property owners may register°trees at planting with
City,and record trees on their deed
• Not subject to tree removal permits or mitigation
requirements, when removed
• Significant costs, to applica;+.zt due to survey of trees and
hiring of arborist
• Significant staff time administering process
3
4/15/2014
Community Meeting .
Comments from community meeting field on October.30,
2013:
• Requirements too onerous and burdensome and costs;areprohibitive
• Invasive.for:City to require replacements/tree'protection,except for
privacy trees
• Residents want more choice in'selecting trees and flexibility during the
tree removal permit process
• Provide an approved list of:arborists to choose from
• Provide educational materials
• Currently no pennit required for small specimen trees, but draft
ordinance proposed a permit whicli will create+additiona]barriers
• Voluntary tree planhng,program would create'a.complicated.process
Alternatives Presented to Planning
Commission Study Session
.Staff reviewed a range of alternatives and presented them to the Planning
Commission,on December 10, 2013.The following alternatives provide
the.most balanced approach:
• Alternative 1—Increase theisize of specimen trees,..from 10",to-12"diameter(no'
permit required)
• Alternative.2—Tier.system for tree removal.
• Tier,] (specimen trees(?10"to<24")provides fordimited number of tree
removals with no notification and arborist,report required for findings,but
replacements required.
• Tier r2(2 24")keeps the same tree removal permit process'igtact.
• ,Alternative 3—Keep current ordinance intact
• Alternative 4—Adopt ordinance consistent.prior Council direction
• All Specimen,Trees{regardless of size):Tree removal permit and mitigation
• Trees<12": No noticing oc a rboristreport
• Trees>12":Noticing and arbori'strreport(current process)
4
r
4/15/2014
Planning Commission Recommendation
Plannin =Commission recommended Alternative 2:
�. t Oveer thhe Count p�e'rms�itt requir'edi r r -iSt ndard I ermii Proceess° .
;r ..� No nohficanomrcgw�ed �t ..,. t � M�ttgahon Pequ�red 4 x�
Mrhganon Reqwred '' Findings*�� r�
- � Mtmum number of SpecimeniTr es n, 'rA),Ileallh s �` .y
k `' t _ p or posed for removahVor life of p r el)do g""B)S.£ety ''tr
T.
not exceed ''% G),Property
mra Threee 3"lrees or - .Value/n ma ev
£ lOY;of focal Spec,,L n Trees on.yarcelP Arbonsl Report to
Arbon�t&SurveyaReport r quved o'. n q Co firm}�ndmgs
.
a confirm.Cntrna only' ;, ""`. No`hficahon
Tas
F
Lcr'2 12 24
ca
Pcrmitre 9 red - s
Nohficehon required
Mitigation Regwred
Musrmiet rwdmys regarding '
I Iealth and Safety and/or
20 Value/DamageY """' _ t
Arbors)&Survey Report regwred;o
confii
4/15/2014
Environmental Considerations
• City Council authorized budget= $65,000
• Currently working with environmental consultant
and consultant arbor'i"st on producing draft reports
• Selection of Alternative 2 would trigger
authorization of additional funds: $7,100 to prepare
a revised Mitigated Negative Declaration.
• Selection of Alternative 1 or 4 is not anticipated to
trigger authorization of additional funds
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council select.
Alternative 2 for amendments to the Protected Trees
Ordinance to bring forth before the City Council.for
review and adoption, and'input on the:fee schedule
6
4/1512014
Next Steps
Staff will complete the environmental review and
bring forth an amended ordinance,to the City
Council in 3 to 4 months.
7
Simon Vuong
From: Roy Hampton [rhy10 @owldynamics.com]
Sent: Tuesday„April 15', 2014 12:43 PM
To: Simon Vuong'
Subject: protected trees ordinance
Attachments: cross-section_showing_split_in_trunk_of_oak tree_taken_down_about_2yrs_ago:jpg;
site of oak tree taken_down_about_2yrs_ago.j pg;
cactus_flowers_at site_of_oak_tree_taken_down_about_2yrs_ago.jpg;
cactus flowers_closeup_at_site_of oak tree taken_down_about_2yrs_ago.jpg;
large—oak_adjacent_to_site_of_oa k_tree_taken_down_about_2yrs_ago.j pg
Hello
I phoned in a comment today, my name is Roy Hampton, 21821 Oakview .Lane, Cupertino
I wanted to write the key points and send some photos, as we have to travel to Modesto today,
and cannot be at the meeting today..
[My wife, Yvonne, and :I have arrived at the previously scheduled meetings since January to
discover the meeting was postponed, but cannot attend the meeting today]
Key .points' I wanted to make in the few minutes I have to write this email are:
1) The Current ordinance is onerous; it is costly to residents, and takes a lot of everyone's
time for little gain.
2) The sun is a resource, "same as trees, and residents should have as much opportunity as
possible to use their property in a way to maximize the property utility to the resident.
3) Having a mandatory protected tree ordinance, whether the penalty is a misdemeanor or an
infraction is still excessively burdensome to Cupertino residents.
4) The city staff should have latitude to interpret and relax the ordinance, whatever it
becomes, in the favor of the residents. For example, if a case is presented ('as I did, with
photos and other arborist reports) that a tree is dangerous or some other liability concern
(roots causing broken private walkways, etc.) the city staff should have the power to
recognize the situation and approve removal of the tree -- without bringing in a "city
blessed” expensive arborist.
5) Consideration should include whether the resident has other trees on the property, and
permit residents to remove trees that are especially objectionable for resident's use of
their property..
I am including some photos:
cross-seetion_showi'ng_split_in_trunk_of_oak_tree_taken_down_about_2y rs_ago.jpg
I told staff and city arborist. of the issue, and finally convinced the city arborist of the
danger. This split is proof I' was correct, but the city charged me most of a $500 deposit to
retain a city arborist, who I then taught the problem with the tree and am proved correct. I
submitted photos of the damaged areas of the tree to city, and arborist, when I first applied
to take this tree down.
site_of_oak_tree_taken_down_about_2yrs_ago.jpg [see other uses of the land; flowers, and
grandchildren play area]
cactus_flowers_at_site_of_oak_tree taken down_about_2yrs_ago.jpg
See how the sun has now permitted other beautiful use of the property.
cactus_flowers_closeup_at_site_of_oak_tree_taken._down_about_2yrs_ago.jpg
i
large_oak_adjacent_to_site_of_oak_tree_taken down_about_2_y rs_ago.jpg
see other large trees on our property. The staff should have ability to consider the entire
residential picture., not only whether a particular tree is protected, with no consideration
to the impact of the tree on the residential use.
Thanks
Roy and Yvonne Hampton
2
1 I
Q% •v� +.L 's
J
r�' iR "
eeeeeee
Y ; !
� NE
N 14
�,vlof,
ml
t
l � �j►
r
` _- �M'� � -:��f+u�1 "✓w•,J•' far' - f .e�.�' ,.�y�g � J Iti q .�
t1 1T�F C. .�� .. .t+• I r $•Itl�
J ! I
`fir f .s..c'• � f i ._"C � � �" r.. ,/•'I -_. _b�'x'.< I i �j 0 a'�.
• ' "yS� I
.r• - , S e „� �,
i ' yyy y
1. L
1•
V
• I
7 � 1-
1 `