Loading...
07-07-14 Searchable PacketCITY OF CUPERTINO AGENDA Monday, July 7, 2014 10350 Torre Avenue, Council Chamber CITY COUNCIL 5:05 PM Special Meeting ROLL CALL STUDY SESSION 1.Subject: Civic Center Master Plan Study Session Recommended Action: Accept this report and provide direction to staff in response to study session presentation and discussion. This Council study session seeks to provide an update on the status of the Civic Center Master Plan and Parking Garage project, including an overview of the community outreach to date, and to have Council consideration of and direction on three plan scenarios that will be presented at a general, broad-outreach community workshop. Staff Report 2.Subject: Study Session to discuss proposed changes to Municipal Code Chapter 14.18, Protected Trees Description: Application No(s): MCA-213-01 (EA-2013-02) Applicant(s): City of Cupertino Location: Citywide Recommended Action: Review the final scope of amendments to Municipal Code Chapter 14.18, Protected Trees Staff Report A - 4-15-14 CC Staff Report.pdf B - 4-15-2014 minutes.pdf C - Public Street Tree Fees.pdf Page 1 CITY OF CUPERTINO July 7, 2014City Council AGENDA ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases, State law will prohibit the council from making any decisions with respect to a matter not listed on the agenda. ADJOURNMENT The City of Cupertino has adopted the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §1094.6; litigation challenging a final decision of the City Council must be brought within 90 days after a decision is announced unless a shorter time is required by State or Federal law. Prior to seeking judicial review of any adjudicatory (quasi-judicial) decision, interested persons must file a petition for reconsideration within ten calendar days of the date the City Clerk mails notice of the City’s decision. Reconsideration petitions must comply with the requirements of Cupertino Municipal Code §2.08.096. Contact the City Clerk’s office for more information or go to http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=125 for a reconsideration petition form. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the City of Cupertino will make reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with qualified disabilities. If you require special assistance, please contact the city clerk’s office at 408-777-3223 at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Cupertino City Council after publication of the packet will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, during normal business hours and in Council packet archives linked from the agenda/minutes page on the Cupertino web site. Members of the public are entitled to address the City Council concerning any item that is described in the notice or agenda for this meeting, before or during consideration of that item. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located in front of the Council, and deliver it to the Clerk prior to discussion of the item. When you are called, proceed to the podium and the Mayor will recognize you. If you wish to address the City Council on any other item not on the agenda, you may do so by during the public comment portion of the meeting following the same procedure described above. Please limit your comments to three (3) minutes or less. Page 2 CITY OF CUPERTINO CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:114-0133 Name: Status:Type:Study Session Agenda Ready File created:In control:5/19/2014 City Council On agenda:Final action:7/7/2014 Title:Subject: Civic Center Master Plan Study Session Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council7/7/2014 1 Subject: Civic Center Master Plan Study Session Accept this report and provide direction to staff in response to study session presentation and discussion. This Council study session seeks to provide an update on the status of the Civic Center Master Plan and Parking Garage project,including an overview of the community outreach to date,and to have Council consideration of and direction on three plan scenarios that will be presented at a general, broad-outreach community workshop. CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 7/2/2014Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ - 1 - PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: July 7, 2014 Subject Civic Center Master Plan – Study Session Recommended Action Accept this report and provide direction to staff in response to study session presentation and discussion. This Council study session seeks to provide an update on the status of the Civic Center Master Plan and Parking Garage project, includ ing an overview of the community outreach to date, and to have Council consideration of and direction on three plan scenarios that will be presented at a general, broad-outreach community workshop. Background On February 19, 2013, Council received a presentation of the Civic Center Master Plan Framework which laid out three very conceptual scenarios for a master plan for the Civic Center. The Council provided direction to further develop the Civic Life plan of the Framework, with a process that would include community outreach, a solution to accommodate the demand for parking at the Civic Center, and consider financing options for realization of the master plan. In June 2013, Council approved the FY 2014 CIP budget which includes funding for the Civic Center Master Plan project, conceptual design for a Civic Center parking garage, and design for the expansion of the Library story room. On March 4, 2014 Council approved an agreement with the architectural firm of Perkins+Will for the requisite planning and design services. - 2 - Discussion Initial Community Outreach The consultant team participated in the Cupertino 2014 Earth Day festival on April 5th, during which they conducted 140 participant surveys inquiring about sentiments about the civic center site, including circulation at and around the site, parking, facilities, and programs. On April 7th, a web-based community engagement site, entitled Imagine Cupertino Civic Center, was activated to stimulate conversation about the civic center and collect more user surveys. Notice of it was distributed during the Earth Day Festival and by direct email notification to known interested residents and businesses. The initial survey cycle ran through April. A second survey was posted in the last week of June and will run through the end of July. On May 14th a small group of stakeholders convened at the Senior Center for a workshop. The session provided an overview of the project along with information gained from the Earth Day and web-site outreach efforts. The participants included near neighbors of the Civic Center (resident and business), members of the library community, teens, representatives from Commissions (Library, Pedestrian & Bicycle, Information Technology), and the cricket players community. Th e stakeholder group was selected to provide a broad overview of community “voices” that would help focus the program options for three conceptual plan scenarios to be presented and discussed at a larger community workshop planned for July 23rd. The information gained from these community interactions has helped to shape the three plan scenarios that will be presented to Council at this study session. Conceptual Plan Options ‘Civic Life’ Master Plan Options description The three Civic Center Master Plan options all build off the ‘Civic Life’ Master Plan Framework in 2012. All three options propose the same set of program elements that enhance civic and community life at the Civic Center. The program elements considered in all 3 options are – A. Additional parking for existing and future uses; B. Expansion of the Library Story Room to a 100-seat Program Room; C. Teen Recreation Center; D. New and expanded City Hall with community use program space like classrooms, large conference room, art gallery etc.; E. Quality food opportunities; - 3 - F. Outdoor amenities; and G. Sheriff’s office option. The options vary in the proposed location of the program elements, their space configuration, the parking solution and, the treatment of the open space within the Civic Center site. The options are by no means meant to be exclusive but, are a conceptual consideration of the different possibilities of an enlivened civic center district. Option 1: Civic Life - On the Plaza This option emphasizes the plaza as the heart of the Civic Center. All i mprovements are focused around the Library Plaza. Like the existing uses, all additional program front on to the plaza for greater activation of the plaza. The Teen Recreation Center is planned to be located on the plaza adjacent to the New City Hall giving the teens a prominent place at the civic heart of the city. The new and expanded City Hall provides an opportunity to establish a strong civic identity on the plaza. The plaza itself is envisioned to be enhanced and expanded to spill around the east side of the New City Hall opening up the plaza to larger and more community outdoor events. The existing and future parking need is met by a 2-level above-grade parking garage along the east edge of the library and a basement parking below the New City Hall. The south end of the block is maintained to serve the current Library Field functions, except for when it serves as a temporary parking lot while the parking garage is in construction. Option 2: Civic Life – Civic Garden (previously titled On the Block) This option engages the entire block in a garden like setting that ties together the civic, community and recreational uses of the entire block. All parking is envisioned to be tucked underground, below the Library Field and the New City Hall, freeing up the surface for an inviting civic garden with outdoor lounges, outdoor reading rooms, outdoor movie screening, amphitheater and other features that welcome the community to gather and socialize in a new civic and social heart of the city. The garden is an excellent opportunity to showcase the creek, the mature trees along the creek, and act as a demonstration garden for various site sustainability strategies. The intent of the garden is to seamlessly and harmoniously integrate all the uses on the site enabling the entire block to be considered an outdoor spill out program area. The Library Story Room expansion and the Teen Recreation Center are proposed as an extension of the south end of the library with a separate south entrance that opens out to the Memorial Grove. The new and expanded City Hall provides an opportunity to establish a strong civic identity on the block. - 4 - Option 3: Civic Life - On the Avenue In this option Torre Avenue is proposed to be transformed as a place of welcoming arrival in a wide promenade like setting that has the open space elements and the built program opening on to it. All new uses are proposed to front on Torre Avenue, including the New City Hall and the Teen Recreation Center. The Teen Recreation Center is located as a stand-alone building south of the Memorial Grove to synergistically build off the recreational possibilities associated with the adjacent Library Field. This location allows the Teen Center the opportunity to expand and grow at a later date. Torre Avenue lends itself to opportunities for drop-off zones, bike parking, food trucks, and attractive and engaging landscape features that establish a distinct identity for the civic center. The parking is proposed as an expanded surface lot along the east half of the block with vehicular access from Pacifica Avenue and Rodrigues Avenue. Underutilized on-street parking along the edges of the Library Field is tapped in this option to meet the parking demands. The design team is seeking Council direction to finalize the plans for discussion with the public at a general community workshop scheduled for July 23rd. What follows are some questions for consideration during the study session. Questions for the Council Consideration 1) Is the expansion of the library story room to acco mmodate a large group of 100 people serve the need to free up the Community Hall? 2) Is the Teen Recreation Center an appropriate use for the Civic Center? If yes, should it be integrated with the library building or a stand-alone building either on the Library Plaza or near the Library Field? 3) Is the Sheriff’s West Valley Substation use, with its need for 80 parking spaces, an appropriate use for the Civic Center? 4) Is adding food amenities in the Civic Center desirable? 5) Should the space program for the New City Hall share common areas, meeting rooms, and classrooms with the community after regular work hours. Should the New City Hall also be a general community use facility? How does the Council feel about this as a new image of the City Hall? 6) The community has expressed a desire to enhance the open space amenities and features in the Civic Center. Is that a direction for the plan? 7) The Community has strongly voiced a desire to see parking tucked underground to free up the surface for open space amenities. Is that a direction for the plan? 8) Do these three options represent the right mix of parking, open space, and program uses for the public to consider at a community workshop? - 5 - CEQA Status An Initial Study is scheduled to be prepared for the preferred plan and will be submitted at the time of Council approval of the Civic Center Master Plan. To date, the Existing Setting portion of the document has been drafted. Sustainability Impact This project will be designed to be consistent with City sustainability and environmental policies and objectives. Fiscal Impact Cost estimates and funding strategies will be considered as part of this project. The funding/financing options will be developed once the preferred alternative is selected in early September. Next Steps July 23, 2014 – A broad–based community workshop will be held at Quinlan Community Center to further refine the plans with the objective of identifying one plan as a preferred plan to recommend to Council. September 2014 – The community refined plans will be presented to Council for further consideration with the goal of selecting the preferred master plan. September 2014 – Community meeting to report out to public the preferred master plan. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Katy Jensen, Capital Improvement Program Manager Reviewed by: Timm Borden, Director of Public Works Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:114-0258 Name: Status:Type:Study Session Agenda Ready File created:In control:6/12/2014 City Council On agenda:Final action:7/7/2014 Title:Subject: Study Session to discuss proposed changes to Municipal Code Chapter 14.18, Protected Trees Description: Application No(s): MCA-213-01 (EA-2013-02) Applicant(s): City of Cupertino Location: Citywide Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report A - 4-15-14 CC Staff Report.pdf B - 4-15-2014 minutes.pdf C - Public Street Tree Fees.pdf Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council7/7/2014 1 Subject: Study Session to discuss proposed changes to Municipal Code Chapter 14.18, Protected Trees Description: Application No(s): MCA-213-01 (EA-2013-02) Applicant(s): City of Cupertino Location: Citywide Review the final scope of amendments to Municipal Code Chapter 14.18, Protected Trees CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 7/2/2014Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: July 7, 2014 SUBJECT Study Session for amendments to Protected Trees Ordinance (MCA-2013-01) RECOMMENDED ACTION Review the final scope of amendments to Chapter 14.18, Protected Trees Ordinance. DESCRIPTION Application: MCA-2013-01 Applicant: City of Cupertino Property Location: City-wide Application Summary: Study Session to consider potential Amendments to Chapter 14.18, Protected Trees, of the Cupertino Municipal Code BACKGROUND On November 5, 2012, the City Council conducted a study session to consider the scope and process of possible amendments to the Protected Tree Ordinance. The Council's direction consisted of amendments in two phases. In Phase one staff was directed to present an Ordinance amendment to address issues pertaining to public trees and to lower the penalties of unlawful tree removal from a misdemeanor to an infraction. This phase was completed on March 19, 2013. Phase two was to initiate the public process and present a draft ordinance and associated environmental review for potential amendments to streamline the tree removal process in the R1/A1/A/RHS/R2 zones. For the scope of the amendment “protected trees” are defined as “Specimen trees” in R1/A1/A/RHS/R2 zones. A list of Specimen trees is provided later in this report. Protected trees in planned development zones would continue to use the current tree removal permit process. At a second study session on April 15, 2014, the City Council reviewed the options presented by staff and provided the following direction:  Proceed with a two-tier tree removal permit system that allows removal of smaller size protected trees without noticing or an arborist report. Removal of larger protected trees would require noticing and an arborist report.  Consider creating a more lenient tree removal threshold allowable within a Mitigated Negative Declaration.  Provide more information regarding the tree replacement costs, minimum number of tree replacement for tree removals, photos of different sized tree replacements, water requirements of specimen trees.  Review the Specimen tree list for water use and drought tolerance and provide additional options for trees to replace those suggested for removal from the list.  Regarding fees for retroactive tree removal, the City Council wished to see a sample of fees based on the Public Works Department tree replacement formula. DISCUSSION Tree Removal Thresholds The City’s environmental consultant has reviewed the two-tier proposal concept and confirmed that it could be facilitated within the threshold of a Mitigated Negative Declaration provided that the following parameters are met. Increases beyond these parameters will require an Environmental Impact Report.  Exemption from Tree Removal Permits – Trees that are under 12” in diameter (37.7” circumference - when measured 4.5’ from natural grade) can be exempt from the tree removal permit process. This threshold is based on the consultant arborist’s information that on average, at about 8”-10” in diameter (25.13” - 31.42” in circumference), a tree starts to transform from its shrub-like form to a tree-like form. At about 10” – 12” in diameter (25.13” – 37.70” in circumference), the tree sheds its understory/lower branch area and its top canopy starts to secure itself, making it an established mature tree. Their recommendation is that a “mature” specimen tree should be defined as one that has a diameter between 10” to 12” (measured at 4.5’ from natural grade). Currently, protected trees that measure 10” or greater in diameter (when measured 4.5’ from natural grade) require tree removal permits.  Tier 1 process (no arborist report, no noticing, with replacements) - A more lenient tiered process could be applied to a tree sizes between 12” to 18” in diameter (37.70” to 56.55” in circumference). The earlier recommendation was for tier 1 to apply to trees between 10” to 24” (25.13” – 75.40” in circumference). However, due to the environmental significance and value of trees in the 18” to 24” range, the numbers of trees to be removed had to be limited (to no more than 3 or 10% on the parcel, whichever was greater). Additionally, the process would have required a survey of the existing trees on the site, making the process cumbersome for the applicant as well as staff. Based on the City Council’s direction to review the most lenient thresholds for trees to be exempt from the tree removal process and the Tier 1 category, staff is recommending the following changes to Tier 1:  Increasing the bottom threshold from 10” to 12” in diameter  Decreasing the upper threshold from 24” to 18” in diameter  Eliminating the limit on the number of trees removed  Eliminating the arborist survey requirement These adjustments make the process simpler to administer and more user friendly to the property owners.  Tier 2 process (arborist report, noticing, with replacements) – Based on discussions with the City’s consulting arborist and environmental consultant, trees that are larger than 18” in diameter are of significant size and environmental value. Removal of such trees will cause environmental impacts and should be conducted only if the City’s current findings are met.  Replacement location - All protected trees over 12” when removed, must be replaced with new trees onsite as opposed to providing money towards street tree or other funding. This is because the replacements are mitigations and should be planted immediately after removal and in the general location of the removal in order to reduce environmental impacts. Process Recommendation: Staff recommends the following two-tier system: Proposed Two-Tier System for Removal of Specimen Trees (R1/A1/A/RHS/R2 Zones) No Permits Trees that are less than 12” in diameter Tier 1 (Trees that are greater than 12” and less than 18” in diameter) Tier 2 (Trees that are 18” or greater in diameter)  Not applicable  Over the Counter Permit required  No notification required  No arborist required  Mitigation required (replacement & covenant)  Permit required  Notification required  Arborist and Survey Report required to Confirm Criteria and Findings.  Mitigation required (replacement & covenant) Specimen Tree List The City’s consultant arborist had recommended removal of the Bay Laurel (Umbellularia californica) from the Specimen tree list because of its invasive properties. The original recommendation was to replace it with the Douglas Fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii). Another option is the London Plane (Platanus acerifolia), which not only has desired water usage and drought tolerance but is also a better alternative since it is compatible with urban landscape settings adjacent to paving and buildings. Water usage for each of the trees on the Specimen tree list is provided below: Specimen Tree Add/Remove Water Usage Drought Tolerance Quercus (Oak) species No change Low High Aesculus californica (California Buckeye); No change Moderate Moderate Acer macrophyllum (Big Leaf Maple); No change Moderate Moderate Cedrus deodara (Deodar Cedar); No change Low High Cedrus atlantica 'Glauca' (Blue Atlas Cedar); No change Low High Platanus racemosa (Western Sycamore) No change Moderate Moderate Umbellularia californica (Bay Laurel or California Bay); REMOVE Moderate Moderate Platanus acerifolia (London Plane) ADD (PREFERRED) Moderate Moderate Pseudotsuga menziesii (Douglas Fir) ADD (ALT. OPTION) Moderate Moderate Established 12” Diameter Tree Established 18” Diameter Tree Specimen Tree Recommendation: Staff recommends removal of the Bay Laurel from the Specimen tree list and addition of the London Plane. Other Key Issues Issues that were discussed at the last study session include the following:  Process for tree removals in other zones, heritage trees, and privacy trees would not be changed.  Voluntary Tree Planting Program would not be added to the proposed process since it was determined to be costly for applicants and difficult to administer. Staff believes that the proposed revised two-tier system is significantly more user friendly and expedient than the current Ordinance, which satisfies the Council’s key objectives. Tree Replacement Cost According to the City’s consulting arborist the cost of planting a replacement tree (material + labor) can vary between types of tree, contractor’s installation efficiency, fluctuation in the cost of materials, site limitations/access. The following table outlines the average tree replaceme nt costs based on tree size: London Plane Tree Size Cost 15 Gallon $350 24 Inch Box $750 36 Inch Box $1650 48 Inch Box $4,000 Pictures of replacement trees at various planting sizes are provided below. Retroactive Tree Removal Fees The Council had requested examples of retroactive tree removal fees, as it applies to the property owner, if the fee schedule for removal of street trees was to be followed for protected trees on private property. Taking the example of Valley Oak tree of varying sizes and health, the tree fee table provided below shows retroactive tree removal fees if the schedule for street trees was followed. The “first time offender” public street trees fee should not be used to compare to the private tree retroactive fee cost because it is only intended to apply to cases where property owners accidentally removed or over pruned a tree that they thought was on their property but really belongs to the City. The table shows that on average, the assessment would be higher than the current retroactive tree removal fee for protected trees on private property. It should be noted that most retroactive tree removal processes are initiated after removal of the tree and that while the size and tree type can usually be gauged based on the remaining tree stump, it would be difficult to accurately assess the health of the tree. Also, basing the fees on the health of the tree would require the services of an arborist to even assess the fee for such permits. Additionally, the City’s environmental consultant recommends replacing trees in the location of the tree removals or on the same site instead of taking in money as an alternative for replacements and/or deferring such replacements. 15-gallon Black Oak 24” box London Plane 36” box Black Oak 48” box Black Oak Retroactive Tree Removal Recommendation: Given the reasons described above, staff recommends keeping the current Retroactive Tree Removal permit fees. Street Tree Penalty/Replacement Formula Current Retroactive Private Tree Cost Analysis Tree Size (Diameter) Based Tree Value ($) Species Rating (%) Health Rating (%) Total Fee* ($) “First Time Offender” Fee* (10% or $600, whichever is more) Current Retroactive Tree Removal Application Fees ($) Rough Replacement Tree Cost ($) Total Cost ($) 12” (poor health) $5,147 1.0 .5 $2,574 $600 $3,128 (1) 24” Box $750 $3,878 12” (fair health) $5,147 1.0 .75 $3,860 $600 12” (good health) $5,147 1.0 1.0 $5,147 $600 24” (poor health) $21,225 1.0 .5 $10,613 $1,061 $3,128 (2) 24” Box $1,500 $4,628 24” (fair health) $21,225 1.0 .75 $15,919 $1,592 24” (good health) $21,225 1.0 1.0 $21,225 $2,1223 36” (poor health) $48,653 1.0 .5 $24,327 $2,433 $3,128 (2) 24” Box or (1) 36” Box $1,500 $4,628 36” (fair health) $48,653 1.0 .75 $36,490 $3,649 36”(good health) $48,653 1.0 1.0 $48,653 $4,865 48” (poor health) $60,318 1.0 .5 $30,159 $3,016 $3,128 (1) 36” Box $1,650 $4,778 48” (fair health) $60,318 1.0 .75 $45,239 $4,524 48” (good health) $60,318 1.0 1.0 $60,318 $6,032 *No additional costs, such as stump removal, trimming or replanting will apply. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS The City’s environmental consultant has confirmed that the revised two-tier system could be accomplished within the process and threshold of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Once the Council provides final direction on the ordinance scope, staff will consult with the environmental consultant to complete the necessary environmental document and analysis. BUDGET AND FISCAL IMPACT The City Council authorized a budget of $65,000 to study the environmental effects of the potential amendments to the Protected Trees Ordinance in March 2013. In addition, City Council also authorized a budget for staff to work closely with consulting arborist, David L. Babby, to obtain advice and guidance on technical questions related to trees. However, with the revised two-tier system recommended, an additional $7,500 would be required. PERMIT STREAMLINING ACT This project is legislative in nature and not subject to the Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code Section 65920 – 65964). PUBLIC NOTICING & OUTREACH The municipal code does not require public noticing for study sessions, since it does not involve action or decision by the City Council. However, a courtesy citywide notice was sent informing residents of the previous Community Workshops, the Planning Commission, and the City Council meetings. The courtesy notice also included reference to a project website with the most up to date information directing those that are interested to follow up on any additional meetings. The following is a brief summary of the noticing completed for the project: NEXT STEPS Upon further direction from City Council, staff will work with the consultants to complete proposed ordinance and environmental review. Given the current workload and staffing, it is anticipated that a draft ordinance and Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared for Planning Commission and City Council review around Fall/Winter 2014. Prepared by: Gary Chao, Assistant Director of Community Development Reviewed by: Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager Approved by: David Brandt, City Manager ATTACHMENTS: A – April 15, 2014 CC Staff Report B – April 15, 2014 CC Minutes/Action Summary C – PW Tree Replacement Cost Schedule Notice of Public Hearing, Site Notice & Legal Ad Agenda  Legal ad placed in newspaper (at least 10 days prior to the hearing)  Courtesy citywide notice, with information on Community Meeting, Planning Commission and City Council Meeting date (postcard included reference to website for latest updates on changed meeting dates)  Community meeting held on October 30, 2013  Interested parties notified of meeting date  Posted on the City's official notice bulletin board (at least one week prior to the hearing)  Posted on the City of Cupertino’s Web site (at least one week prior to the hearing)         DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org   CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT  Meeting: April 1, 2014    Subject  Study Session for amendments to Protected Trees Ordinance (MCA‐2013‐01)     Recommended Action  1. Review alternatives to the scope of the amendments to Chapter 14.18, Protected Trees  Ordinance and provide staff with further direction  2. Authorize additional funding as necessary to complete the study and environmental review  based on the alternative.     Description  Application: MCA‐2013‐01  Applicant: City of Cupertino  Property Location: City‐wide  Application Summary: Study Session to consider potential Amendments to Chapter 14.18,  Protected Trees, of the Cupertino Municipal Code    Discussion  Background  On November 5, 2012, the City Council conducted a study session to consider the scope and  process of possible amendments to the Protected Tree Ordinance. The Councilʹs direction  consisted of amendments in two phases.  In Phase one staff was directed to present an  Ordinance amendment to address issues pertaining to public trees and to lower the penalties of  unlawful tree removal from a misdemeanor to an infraction.  Phase two was to present the City  Council with a draft ordinance and associated environmental review for potential amendments  on the following issues:  ƒ Streamline and revise the tree removal process in R1/A1/A/RHS/R2 zones  ƒ Review the size of trees in diameter for ʺprotectedʺ specimen trees  ƒ Encourage retention of specimen trees, regardless of size  ƒ Review and update the specimen tree list  ƒ Consider if greater penalties are warranted for unlawful removal of larger trees  Phase one of the project was completed on March 19, 2013, when the City Council amended the  Protected Tree Ordinance to clarify references to public trees and to modify penalties from a  misdemeanor to infraction (Attachment A).  The City Council directed staff to initiate the public  process for a comprehensive Protected Tree Ordinance amendment to study and address the  following specific areas:   a) Create an approach that allows a more streamlined process for removal of “non‐mature,  specimen” trees in R1/A/A1 and RHS zones as well as for R2 properties  b) Define “mature” vs. “non‐mature specimen” trees to improve implementation of the  streamlined process noted above  c) Protect all native “specimen” trees regardless of size  d) Review the “specimen” tree list to include only native trees and remove non‐native trees  and invasive species  e) Continue to encourage replacement and renewal of the City’s urban forest  f) Consider a process to encourage voluntary tree planting  g) Propose a more effective approach to review the illegal removal of trees.    Accordingly, staff commenced work on drafting the key points to be included in the ordinance  based on items “a” through “g” noted above.  Work also began on the environmental review.     DISCUSSION  Originally Proposed Draft Ordinance for Chapter 14.18, Protected Trees  Based on Council direction at the March 19, 2013 meeting, staff worked on the following  elements for a draft ordinance for Chapter 14.18, Protected Trees.  The key features of the  proposed ordinance were discussed with the Planning Commission on December 10, 2013 (see  Attachment B).  The Commission and staff comments in italics are provided below where  applicable:  (a) Specimen Trees  Based on a review of the specimen tree list with the City’s consulting arborist, the list of  specimen trees is proposed to be revised as follows (shown with strikeouts and underlines):    Specimen Tree Add/Remove Comments  Quercus species No change   Aesculus californica (California Buckeye);  No change   Acer macrophyllum (Big Leaf Maple);  No change   Cedrus deodara (Deodar Cedar);  No change   Cedrus atlantica ʹGlaucaʹ (Blue Atlas Cedar); No change   Umbellularia californica (Bay Laurel or  California Bay);  REMOVE Issues regarding structural integrity, decline,  and safety. Also hosts to Sudden Oak Death.    Platanus racemosa (Western Sycamore)  No change   Pseudotsuga menziesii (Douglas Fir) ADD  Fast‐growing, perform best in forested  settings, and native to the Santa Cruz  mountain area. Protected tree: trunk dia. >18”  Planning Commission recommendation:  Agreed on revisions to the specimen tree list.  (b) “Mature” vs “Non‐Mature” Specimen Trees  Currently, the ordinance defines specimen trees as those of a certain species and having a  minimum single‐trunk diameter of 10 inches (31‐inch circumference) or minimum multi‐ trunk diameter of 20 inches (63‐inch circumference) measured four and one‐half feet from  natural grade. The City’s consulting arborist has stated that, at the time when a tree grows  to about 8”‐10” in diameter, it transforms from a shrub‐like to a tree‐like form, securing  itself as an established tree. The understory, which is the lower branch area, begins to die off  and the plant begins to resemble a tree with the top canopy starting to mature. This lower  branch area forms a protective barrier over the root system and is critical for the health of  the tree. Each tree has a different growing pattern but an average of 10‐12 inches could be  established as a typical size for a mature tree.     Staff therefore recommends defining a “mature” specimen tree as one that has a diameter to  12 inches in diameter when measured at four and one‐half feet from natural grade.  Specimen trees that are smaller than 12” in diameter would be termed, “non‐mature” trees.    Planning Commission recommendation: Simplify the process.  See discussion later in the report.   (c) Streamlined Process for R1/A1/A/RHS Zones and Projects in R2 Zones  Under the proposed ordinance, the process discussed in item (b) would be available for all  projects in R1/A1/A/RHS zones and projects in R2 zones.  Arborist reports would continue  to be required for all projects that have an approved landscape plan as part of the approval.  Planning Commission Comments:  Agreed on a simplified process for the above zones.   (d) Protection of Native Specimen Trees  Based on the finalized list of Specimen trees, staff proposed the following process:  ƒ Removal permit process for “non‐mature” specimen trees ‐ removal applications for  trees below the “mature” size would not be required to provide an arborist report for  removal. Only mitigation will be required. Mitigation could be in the form of in‐kind  replacement of removed trees somewhere on‐site, or payment of an “in‐lieu” fee which  would cover the cost of planting an equivalent sized tree on public property off‐site.  ƒ Tree removal application process for mature trees – Tree removal applications for  mature trees would require an arborist report and replacements.    Planning Commission recommendation: Simplify the process.  See discussion later in the report.  (e)  Process and Fees for Illegal Removal of Protected Trees  Under the current Ordinance, tree replacement requirements for permitted and illegal tree  removals are the same.  For removal of trees under 36” diameter, the Ordinance requires  that replacement trees be planted, of a species and size consistent with the replacement  value of each tree to be removed.  The Ordinance also identifies a Replacement Table that  may be used as a basis for appropriate replacements.   In cases where the removed trees are  greater than 36” in diameter, larger replacements are required.      A review of other cities, similar to Cupertino, indicates that most cities’ replacement  requirements for illegal tree removals are larger than those required for a regular tree  removal permit. Heritage trees or unusually large trees that are removed illegally are  required to provide larger replacements based on landscape unit value.  The City’s  consulting arborists have recommended a similar approach.  Planning Commission recommendation ‐ Keep the current process for replacements for illegal tree  removals.  (f) Process to Encourage Voluntary Tree Planting  The proposed ordinance included an option for property owners in R1/A1/A/RHS/R2  zoning districts who desire to voluntarily plant specimen trees. Under this proposed  process, property owners could choose to register newly voluntarily planted trees and  record it on their deeds (similar to privacy protection trees). These voluntarily planted and  registered trees would not be subject to tree removal permits or mitigation requirements, if  removed.    Staff would like to note the following two issues related to this process:  1. Recording voluntarily planted specimen trees would require the recording of existing  trees and their locations on the site.  A survey of the site to determine location and the  type and size of existing and voluntarily planted trees will be required to ensure that the  appropriate trees are recorded on the deed.  This could result in cost to the applicant to  hire a qualified arborist and a surveyor.  2. The process would likely result in significant staff time spent in administering and  reviewing voluntary tree planting and removals.    Planning Commission Recommendation:  Do not include a Voluntary Tree Planting Program.    Community Meeting  A community meeting was held on October 30, 2013 to provide an update on the project and  the general direction of the changes being considered, and to receive feedback from residents  and applicants. City‐wide postcards were sent to each address in the City to notify the  community of the project and community meeting.  A total of 10 people attended the meeting.      Comments received at the community meeting included the following:   ƒ Lowering the threshold of trees to be considered protected (non‐mature) trees or protecting  all specimen trees regardless of size will make the process more burdensome for property  owners.   ƒ A streamlined process for R1/A/A1, RHS and R2 zones is appreciated but not at the cost of  lowering the threshold of trees to be considered protected.  ƒ The voluntary tree planting program described is too cumbersome and not attractive  enough to encourage property owners to voluntarily plant specimen trees.   ƒ Trees are an asset to making a community mature and beautiful, and a strong Protected  Trees Ordinance is required.   ƒ The current process is onerous and expensive, and   ƒ Provide flexibility to remove trees on private property.    Planning Commission Study Session   Staff reviewed a range of alternatives to the existing ordinance ranging from the proposed  ordinance to no ordinance (Attachment C).  Ultimately, staff presented the following four  alternatives to the Planning Commission at its December 10th, 2013 meeting with a view to  providing a balance between reducing some of the burdens on property owners in  R1/A/A1/RHS and R2 zones and ensuring the protection and renewal of the City’s urban and  hillside forests.    Alternative No. Key Elements  Alternative 1. Modify the current Protected Tree Ordinance with the following changes:   ƒ Update specimen tree list consistent with previous discussion  ƒ Streamline removal of trees in R1/A/A1/RHS and R2 zones:  ƒ Specimen Trees up to 12” diameter: Permit required but no noticing or arborist report   ƒ Specimen Trees > 12” diameter: Permit, noticing, and arborist report required    ƒ Process for tree removals in other zones, heritage trees, and privacy trees unchanged   ƒ No changes to illegal tree removals  ƒ No Voluntary Tree Planting Program.  Alternative 2.                              Adopt an Ordinance with the following key points:  ƒ Update specimen tree list consistent with previous discussion  ƒ Establish two tiers within Specimen trees that currently need a permit for removal in R1, RHS,  A1, A, and R2 properties to streamline tree removal process:  Tier 1 (≥ 10” to < 24”) Tier 2 (≥ 24”) or trees in Tier 1 that don’t  meet criteria  ƒ Over the Counter Permit required  ƒ No notification required  ƒ Mitigation required   ƒ Maximum number of Specimen Trees proposed  for removal (for life of parcel) do not exceed:  ‐ Three (3) trees; or  ‐10% of total Specimen trees on parcel  Criteria only.  ‐Property Value/Damage     ƒ Arborist & Survey Report required to confirm to confirm Criteria and Findings.  ƒ Permit required  ƒ Notification required   ƒ Mitigation required  ƒ Must meet Findings regarding   ‐ Health and Safety and/or   ƒ Arborist and Survey Report required Alternative 2.  (cont.)  ƒ Process for tree removals in other zones, heritage ƒ No changes to il  trees, and privacy trees unchanged  legal tree removals  ƒ No Voluntary Tree Planting Program   Alternative 3. Current Protected Tree Ordinance  ƒ Keep current specimen tree list  ƒ Process for Specimen tree removals in R1/A/A1/RHS:  ƒ Specimen Trees < 10” diameter: No permit required   ƒ Specimen Trees > or equal to 10” diameter: Permit, noticing, and arborist report required    ƒ Process for tree removals in other zones, heritage trees, and privacy trees unchanged   ƒ No changes to illegal tree removals  No Voluntary Tree Planting Program  Alternative 4.ouncil direction:  1/A/A1/RHS and R2 zones:   but no noticing or arborist report    arborist report required    or larger  er fees.   Adopt an Ordinance consistent with prior C ƒ Update specimen tree list   ƒ Streamline removal of trees in R ƒ Specimen Trees up to 12” diameter: Permit required ƒ Specimen Trees > 12” diameter: Permit, noticing, and ƒ Process for tree removals in other zones, heritage trees, and privacy trees unchanged  ƒ Update Illegal Tree Removal process to be consistent with arborist recommendation f tree replacements as opposed to high ƒ Establish Voluntary Tree Planting Program  Planning Commission Study Session   The Plannin ƒ ƒ  ed public trees.  ƒplex implementation process.  ion meeting is summarized below:  ing arborist, removal of trees, and replacement/in‐lieu fees are too  lacement trees.  want a  cted trees ordinance to be maintained.  Recommend keeping the Bay Laurel tree on the specimen tree list.    uncil on each of the features discussed in the  Proposed Draft Ordinance as well as the Planning Commission’s preferred alternative.  g Commission recommended in a 3‐2 vote to:  Explore Alternative 2.  For illegal tree removals, recommend flat fees as opposed to the use of a formula to assess the value of an illegally removed tree, such as the one used by the Public Works  Department for levying penalties for illegally remov Eliminate the voluntary tree program due to the com Public Comments   Additional community feedback at the Planning Commiss ƒ The costs for a consult high and the ordinance is unnecessary.  ƒ Trees are a valued resource in the City, but there needs to be greater flexibility and  consideration for reasons for removal of protected trees as well as rep ƒ The   existing tree stock and canopy is a valuable resource for the City and we  strong prote ƒ ƒThere should be a discussion regarding the difference for trees on large lots vs small lots. Staff is seeking direction from the City Co Fees  Currently, an illegal tree removal requires to the payment of a retroactive tree removal fee/fine   produces more replacement trees and  pearance, and location  ity’s Public Works Department, in 2012, adopted a formula to assess the value of illegally  ition will require a   replacement fee, whereas a small fruit tree in poor condition will require a nominal  actors and  rofessionals are subject to the full replacement tree value.     dule.  Options include   and replacements or  ion on the  areas of amendments to the Protected Tree Ordinance. It was determined that a Mitigated   begun the environmental review process by executing a contract  lanning Commission, amending and updating  of $3,128 per illegal tree removed, which contributes to the City’s tree planting fund.  The City’s  consulting arborists have indicated that a penalty which is based on the tree’s age, aesthetics, size, cost, environmental quality, ap could be considered as other surrounding communities have implemented.    A review of other cities, similar to Cupertino, indicates that tree removal fees for the illegal  removal of public trees are usually based on the diameter inch for the removed tree.    The C removed public trees.  For public trees, first, the removed tree is evaluated based on the size of  the tree. Then, a species rating is applied based on the species of the tree removed.  Less  valuable/desirable species are assigned lower ratings (i.e., oaks are more valuable than fruit  trees).  Finally, a condition rating is applied to the tree based on whether the tree is categorized  as good, fair, or poor. Under this formula, a large oak tree in good cond significant fee.  In addition, the Public Trees Ordinance allows first time offenders to be subject to only 10%  of the fee calculated under the formula, whereas repeat offenders and intentional  p   Staff would like to note the following two issues with such an approach:  ƒ In most cases, after a tree is removed, it is not possible to gauge the condition, quality and  appearance of a tree.  While tree species and a rough estimate of the trunk size can be  obtained from the base of the tree, it could be difficult to assess the condition of the tree.    ƒ Determining the fee based on size and quality of a tree will require an arborist.  Planning Commission recommendation: Retain a flat fee for the determination of the fee for  unpermitted tree removals.  Staff is seeking the City Council’s comments on revisions to the fee sche continuing with the current approach of a flat retroactive fine for each tree to create a formula similar to that for street trees.  ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS  At the March 19, 2013 City Council meeting, the council provided staff with direct Negative Declaration was needed to complete California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)  review. Since then, staff has with environmental consultant, David J. Powers and Associates (DJP).      If the City Council provides direction to staff to prepare a Draft Ordinance consistent with the  key points of Alternative 2 as recommended by P the Administrative Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration would be adequate environmental  he City Council authorized a budget of $65,000 to study the environmental effects and for staff  be available for City Council review around Summer 2014.   Alternative 3 (retain existing) would not require any further action by City Council.      meeting  held on December 10, 2013, and the City Council meeting held tonight April 1, 2014.  The  ference to a project website with the most up to date  The following is a brief summary of the noticing completed for the project:    review for the project.  Alternatives 1 and 4 would also require the preparation of an amended  and updated Mitigated Negative Declaration, while Alternative 3 (retain existing) would not  require any environmental review.    FISCAL IMPACT  T to work closely with consulting arborist, David L. Babby, to obtain advice and guidance on  technical questions related to trees in March 2013.      However, due to changes to the scope of work, Alternative 2 would require an additional $7,100  and an additional 3 to 4 months of review time.  Alternatives 1 and 4 are not anticipated to  require a revised budget and would  PERMIT STREAMLINING ACT  This project is legislative in nature and not subject to the Permit Streamlining Act (Government  Code Section 65920 – 65964).  PUBLIC NOTICING & OUTREACH  The municipal code does not require public noticing for study sessions, since it does not involve  action or decision by the City Council. However, a courtesy Citywide notice was sent informing  residents of the Community Meeting on October 30, 2013, the Planning Commission courtesy notice also included re information.      Notice of Public Hearing, Site Notice & Legal Agenda  Ad  ƒ Legal ad placed in newspaper   (at least 10 days prior to the hearing)  ƒ Courtesy citywide notice, with information  on Community Meeting, Planning  Commission  ƒ Posted on the Cityʹs official notice  bulletin board  (at least one week prior to  the hearing)     ƒ Posted on the City of Cupertino’s Web  and City Council Meeting date  (postcard included reference to website for latest  site (at least one week prior to the hearing)  updates on changed meeting dates)  ƒ Community meeting held on October 30, 2013  ƒ Interested parties notified of meeting date  NEXT STEPS  U e  the  nd  the  oject as noted earlier in the report.  pon further direction from City Council, staff Protected Trees ordinance and continue working environmental review.  A draft ordinance will be City Council for their consideration and adoptio level of environmental review required for the pr    will continue with the project to amend th  th the selectedwi consultants to complete   presented before the Planning Commission a n.  The timing of the project will depend on  Prepared by:   Simon Vuong, AICP, Associate Planner  Reviewed by:  Gary Chao, Assistant Director of Community Development  Aarti Shrivastava, Director of Community Development  pproved by:   A   David Brandt, City Manager        ATTACHMENTS:  A ‐ Chapter 14.18, Protected Trees, of the Cupertino Municipal Code  B ‐ Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report, dated December 10, 2013  C ‐ Protected Trees Ordinance: Matrix of Options                                                CUPERTINO APPROVED MINUTES CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL Regular Adjourned Meeting Tuesday, Apri115, 2014 CITY COUNCIL MEETING ROLL CALL At 4:07 p.m., Vice Mayor Rod Sinks called the City Council meeting to order in the Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA. Present: Vice Mayor Rod Sinks, and Council members Barry Chang, Orrin Mahoney, and Mark Santoro. Absent: Mayor Gilbert Wong. STUDY SESSION 1. Subject: Study session to discuss potential revisions to Municipal Code Chapter 14.18, Protected Trees Recommended Action: Conduct study session and provide direction Description: Application No(s): MCA-20'13-01 (EA-2013-02); Applicant(s): City; of Cupertino; Location: citywide Written communications for this item included an email from Roy Hampton and a staff PowerPoint presentation. Associate Planner Simon Vuong reviewed the staff report via a PowerPoint presentation. Jennifer Griffin asked Council to keep the Oak and Bay Laurel trees on the list. Council provided the following direction. and requested that staff bring back the information for a second Council study session: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 Cupertino City Council 1) Proceed with a two-tier system as discussed in the study session with the following change: a) Review more lenient thresholds for tree sizes in the two-tier system allowable within a mitigated negative declaration; 2) Provide watering requirements for each tree type on the existing and proposed specimen tree list; 3) Provide cost of tree replacements for various sizes required in the ordinance; 4) Provide photographs of tree replacement requirements in the ordinance (e.g. 24- inch box oak); and 5) Provide a list of replacement tree costs based on the tree replacement formula for street trees. Council recessed from 5:54 p.m. to 6:45 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At 6:45 p.m. Mayor Gilbert Wong reconvened the City Council meeting in the Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA and led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Gilbert Wong, Vice Mayor Rod Sinks, and Council members Barry Chang, Orrin Mahoney, and Mark Santoro. Absent: None. CEREMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATIONS 2. Subject: Technology, Information, and Communications Commission annual update Recommended Action: Receive the presentation Written communications for this item included a PowerPoint presentation. Chair Peter Friedland gave the annual update via a PowerPoint presentation. Council received the presentation. 3. Subject: Presentation from El Camino Hospital's Chief Executive Officer, Ms. Tomi Ryba regarding how the District and the Hospital are addressing the healthcare. needs of the community, and new developments to community benefit funds and mental health services Recommended Action: Receive presentation CITY OF CUPERTINO Resolution 13-030 Fees Effective July 1, 2013 Schedule B - Engineering Permit Parking Study $1,095.00 Streamside Review $397.00 Master Storm Drain Area Fees $3,152 / dwelling unit $4,280/acre $3,072/acre + $232/unit* *Maximum chargeable dwelling units of 20 units per acre. Commercial and Industrial $8,029/acre Public Educational Uses $3,152/acre Public Facility Uses $1,592/acre Stormwater Permit Inspections - Commercial Initial Inspection No charge Re-Inspection for Violations $100.00 New Public Tree Cost Schedule: Public Tree Planting Cost: 15 Gallon $159.00 24" Box Tree $338.00 48" Box Tree or Larger Actual costs PUBLIC TREE DAMAGE OR REMOVAL FEE SCHEDULE: This fee schedule is defined in Chapter 14.12 and establishes the fee to be paid to the City for damage to and/or removal of public trees. 1st time offenders, as defined in Chapter 14.12, shall be subject to a fee of 10% of the Public Tree Damage Fee or 10% of the Public Tree Removal Fee as defined below or $600, whichever is higher, per public tree damaged and/or removed. No additional costs, such as stump removal, trimming or replanting will apply. Repeat offenders, intentional actors and professionals, as defined in Chapter 14.12, shall be subject to the following fees: Public Tree Damage Fee: $100 per cumulative diameter inch of branch or root plus, if any, the actual costs incurred for immediate corrective pruning plus, if any, the calculated costs for future corrective pruning, as may be required to maintain the health of the tree. Low-Density Residential (Less than one dwelling unit per acre hillside zoning only) Single-Family Residential greater than one dwelling unit per acre and less than 5.2 dwelling units per acre Multiple Family greater than 5.2 dwelling units per acre CITY OF CUPERTINO Resolution 13-030 Fees Effective July 1, 2013 Schedule B - Engineering Public Tree Removal Fee: The fee for each tree removed shall be based upon the unmodified value of the tree removed (based upon diameter), multiplied by the species rating, multiplied by the condition rating. FEE = UNMODIFIED TREE VALUE x SPECIES RATING x CONDITION RATING For inputs, use the following values: UNMODIFIED TREE VALUE…………………...……….Refer to Unmodified Tree Value Table SPECIES RATING……….…………...……..……..………Refer to Species Rating Table CONDITION RATING………………....…………………..………..……..….Good = 1.0 Fair = 0.75 Poor = 0.5 The fee for trees less than 4 inches in diameter shall not be reduced by species or condition rating. Trees larger than 40” shall have the fee determined by the most recent edition of the ‘Guide for Plant Appraisal', published by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers, using the trunk formula method. No additional costs, such as stump removal, trimming or replanting will apply. Unmodified Tree Value Table: Tree size (diameter of trunk) 1” to 2” $338 2” to 3” $338 3” to 4” $1,009 4” to 5” $1,009 5” to 6” $1,363 6” to 7” $1,797 7” to 8” $2,309 8” to 9” $2,900 9” to 10” $3,570 10” to 11” $4,319 11” to 12” $5,147 12” to 13” $6,053 13” to 14” $7,038 14” to 15” $8,102 15” to 16” $9,245 16” to 17” $10,466 17” to 18” $11,767 18” to 19” $13,146 19” to 20” $14,604 20” to 21” $16,141 CITY OF CUPERTINO Resolution 13-030 Fees Effective July 1, 2013 Schedule B - Engineering 21” to 22” $17,757 22” to 23” $19,452 23” to 24” $21,225 24” to 25” $23,077 25” to 26” $25,008 26” to 27” $27,018 27” to 28” $29,107 28” to 29” $31,274 29” to 30” $33,521 30” to 31” $35,845 31” to 32” $38,249 32” to 33” $40,732 33” to 34” $43,294 34” to 35” $45,934 35” to 36” $48,653 36” to 37” $51,451 37” to 38” $54,328 38” to 39” $57,284 39” to 40” $60,318 Measurement shall be measured 4.5 feet above the ground level and rounded down to the nearest whole inch. If the tree is multi-trunk, use 1.5 times the diameter of the largest trunk to determine fee. If there is tree damage 4-5 feet above the ground, trunk diameter is to be measured 1 foot above ground level and 1 inch is to be subtracted from the diameter to determine fee. If the tree is removed to the ground, tree inventory data will be used to determine the trunk diameter. Species Rating Table: Common Name Species Rating% Acacia ACACIA 60 African sumac RHUS LANCIA 70 Alder ALNUS GLUTINOSA 80 Almond tree PRUNUS ALMOND 50 Apple MALUS SP 40 Apricot tree PRUNUS APRICOT 40 Ash FRAXINUS 80 Australian willow GEIJERA PARVIFOLIA 80 Bay laurel UMBELLULARIA CALIFORNICA**100 Big leaf maple ACER MACROPHYLLUM**100 Birch BETULA ALBA 60 Black oak QUARCUS KELLOGGII**100 Blue atlas cedar CEDRUS ATLANTICA**100 Blue oak QUARCUS DOUGLASII**100 CITY OF CUPERTINO Resolution 13-030 Fees Effective July 1, 2013 Schedule B - Engineering Brazilian pepper tree SCHINUS TEREBINTHEFOLIUS 40 California buckeye AESCULUS CALIFORNICA**100 California pepper tree SCHINUS MOLE 40 Camphor tree CINNAMOMUM CAMPHORA 70 Carob tree CERATONIA SILIQUA 70 Chinese elm ULMUS PARVIFOLIA 70 Chinese hackberry CELTUS SINENSIS 65 Chinese pistacio PISTACIA CHINENSIS 80 Chinese tallow SAPIUM SEBIFERUM 50 Citrus CITRUS SP 40 Coast live oak QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA**100 Coast redwood SEQUIOA SEMPRIVIRONS 95 Crape myrtel LAGERSTROMIA INDICA 80 Deodora cedar CEDRUS DEODARA**100 Eucalyptus EUCALYPTUS SP 60 Flowering cherry PRUNUS AKEBONO 80 Flowering pear tree PYRUS CALLERYANA 75 Fruitless mulberry MORUS ALBA 40 Holly oak QUERCUS ILEX 90 Honey locust GLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS 70 Interior live oak QUARCUS WISLIZENI**100 Jacaranda JACARANDA MIMMOSIFOLIA 70 Liquidamber LIQUIDAMBER STYRACIFLUA 40 Loquat ERIOBOTRYA DEFLEXA 60 Magnolia MAGNOLIA GRANDIFOLIA RUSSET 75 Magnolia (dwarf)MAGNOLIA GRANDIFOLIA ST MARY 75 Maidenhair GINKO BILOBA 80 Malaleuca(broad leaf)MELALEUCA LEUCADENDRA 60 Malaleuca(narrow leaf)MELALEUCA LINARIFOLIA 60 Mayten tree MAYTENUS 70 Olive OLEA EUROPAEA 40 Palm PALM*40 Peach tree PRUNUS PERSICA 40 Pine PINUS SP 30 Plum PRUNUS WILD PLUM 40 Privit LIGUSTRUM JAPONICUM 30 Purple leaf plum PRUNUS CERASFERA KRAUTER VESU 70 Red hoursechesnut AESCULUS X CARNEA 90 Red maple ACER REBRUM 70 Red oak QUERCUS SUBER 90 Redbud(eastern)CERCIS CANADENSIS 75 Silk tree ALBIZIA JULIBRISSIN 50 Sycamore PLATANUS**100 Tristania TRISTANIA LAURINA 70 Tulip tree LIRIODENDRON 60 CITY OF CUPERTINO Resolution 13-030 Fees Effective July 1, 2013 Schedule B - Engineering Valley oak QUARCUS LOBATA**100 Walnut JUGLANS 70 Zelkova ZELKOVA SERRATA 65 *All palms on Palm Ave are protected heritage trees and will be rated @ 100% **Protected tree species per 14.18 (A) If plans are submitted on paper, the City's cost to scan the plans, plus 10%, will be charged.