Loading...
CC 04-04-2017 Oral Communications News Update - 4/4/2017 �- Following a hearing on February 13 regarding the property owner's appeal of the City citations for a zoning violation (absence of a grocery store) at Edgewood Plaza, the hearing officer has ruled that the amount of the penalties imposed by the city are justified. The officer ordered the property owner to pay the cumulative penalty of $248,250 and ruled that the penalties imposed by the City are justified and no reduction is necessary. The respondent has 20 days to appeal the ruling ., ,F �� � �� � / r� ✓`}��L/�/�". r CITY OF PALO AVTO _ Edgewood Plaza - AL - � Edgewood Plaza Project Documents " k - " _ �- Administrative Hearing 3 - r - — Decision Letter to the Citv of Palo t Alto regarding reauest = for hearing and notice of * protest of administrative citations nos. 61-67 12/21/16 io Letter to the Citv of Palo Alto regarding reauest News Update - 4/4/2017 for hearing and notice of Following a hearing on February 13 regarding the protest of administrative citations 11/21/16 property owner's appeal of the City citations for a zoning violation(absence of a grocery store) at Letter from City of Palo Edgewood Plaza, the hearing officer has ruled that Alto to Sand Hill the amount of the penalties imposed by the city are Property Com_nanv justified. The officer ordered the property owner to 11/14/16 pay the cumulative penalty of$248,250 and ruled that the penalties imposed by the City are justified and no Letter from Citv of Palo reduction is necessary. The respondent has 20 days to Alto to Sand Hill appeal the ruling. Property On December 21, 2016, the City had received a letter Companv 9/12/16 contesting additional citations associated with the Letter from Citv of zoning violation. The property owner appealed the Palo Alto to propertv owner representatives i i City's citations to an independent hearing officer. reaardinq non- compliance. News Update - 2/1/2017 Edaewood Plaza Final *IMPORTANT HEARING TIME AND SEIR LOCATION CHANGE* Draft Supplemental EIR The hearing previously scheduled on Monday, February 13 at 9 a.m.regarding the property Amendment to FEIR owner's appeal of the City's citations for a zoning violation(absence of a grocery store) at Edgewood Edgewood Plaza FEIR Plaza has been rescheduled to 9:30 a.m. and has been moved to the Council Conference Room at City Ed2ewood Plaza Project Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue in Palo Alto. Draft EIR News Update - 12/21/2016 EIR Annendix A NOP EIR Appendix B NOP On December 21, 2016, the City received a letter Responses contesting additional citations associated with the EIR Appendix C Initial zoning violation (absence of a grocery store) at Study Edgewood Plaza. As noted in the December 1 news update,the property owner's appeal of the City's IS Appendix A Air citations will result in a hearing to be conducted by an alt independent hearing officer. The appeal hearing had IS Appendix B Tree been tentatively scheduled for January 10, 2017, but Re ort has now been postponed to a later date that has yet to IS Appendix C Historic be determined. The City will continue to keep Arch,P&T interested stakeholders informed via this web page. IS Appendix D Hist. Arch. Peer Review News Update - 12/01/2016 IS ADEendix E Hist. Arch. Memo P&T On November 21, 2016 the City received a letter, IS ADDendix F Hist. which contests both the violation of Palo Alto Arch. Memo Municipal Code Section 18.38 for which the property IS Appendix G G owner was cited and the accompanying Geotechnical ReDort administrative penalties for that violation. The letter IS Appendix H also requests a hearing to appeal those paid penalties, Greenhouse Gas which were $1,000 per day. The City expects to IS ADDendix I Phase I receive additional letter(s)requesting additional 2080 Channinia hearing(s) following the issuance and payment of IS ADDendix J Phase I increased administrative penalties of$5,000 per day, ESA West Parcel which will begin this week. IS Appendix K Phase II Subsurface Invest Consistent with provisions of the City's Municipal IS Appendix L Flood Rate MaD Code, the property owner's request for an appeal will I result in a hearing to be conducted by an independent IS Appendix M Noise hearing officer. The date of the hearing has Report Salter tentatively been set for January 10, 2017 in the IS Appendix N Noise Community Room at City Hall at a time to be Peer Review determined. After the hearing, the hearing officer IS Appendix O may conclude the hearing or continue it and request Transportation Impact additional information. Following the conclusion of Analysis the hearing, the hearing officer must issue a written decision within 30 days. The hearing officer's decision may not be appealed further, but is subject to For additional judicial review. In other words, either party may information,please pursue the matter further in court. The City contact the Code Attorney's office will prepare a written response in Enforcement Lead, advance of the hearing. James Stephens at(650) 329-2428 or via email. News Update - 9/26/2016 There is still no resolution to the long-running zoning violation resulting from the absence of a grocery tenant at Edgewood Plaza. As a result, City Manager Jim Keene recently sent a letter to the developer, Sand Hill Property Company, which is available here, and on October 4, 2016, he will be asking the City Council to increase the daily penalty that is being charged for this violation. If adopted, the revised penalty schedule would effectively double the fine of$1,000 per day that is currently being charged to the Edgewood Plaza developer. The increased penalty would also be available for the City to use in other instances where there are substantive violations of Planned Community(PC) zoning ordinances that are not swiftly abated. A copy of the staff report and proposed penalty schedule can be found here. News Update - 6/16/2016 at 9 a.m. Based on recent conversations with Edgewood Shopping Center property owner representatives, the City has learned that The Fresh Market and Lucky Supermarkets are in negotiations to establish a Lucky grocery store at the center. Longtime residents may recall Lucky once being located at the site. News Update - 4/20/2016 at 1:22 p.m. The City learned recently that Andronico's will not be opening at Edgewood Plaza. What appeared to be a promising agreement between Fresh Market and Andronico's fell apart at the last minute. This is unfortunate. The City was not involved in the negotiations and does not have access to the specific terms of any agreement. Sand Hill Property Company has informed the City that it is now exploring other possible grocers. Sand Hill Property Company continues to be in breach of its agreement with the City to establish and maintain a grocery store at this location as required by the City Council approved Planned Community ordinance. The grocery store is one of several community benefits provided to the neighborhood in exchange for certain development rights. On September 30, 2015, the City began assessing penalties to the property owner for violating the terms of the Planned Community ordinance. A recent accounting of the fees assessed to the property owner for this violation was $193,250. To date, the City has collected $179,250. Sand Hill Property Company has been responding with timely payments. City staff are exploring options to encourage a resolution to this violation and anticipates making a report to the Council within the next several months. News Update - 9/30/2015 at 5:30 p.m. On Sept. 30,the City issued a citation for violation of an ordinance that requires the continued operation of a grocery store at Edgewood Plaza. In March 2015, Fresh Market ceased operation, and no new grocery store has been established since that time. There have been recent news reports about Adronico's locating at the site, but the City has not received any official notification from the grocer. The citation issued today includes a penalty of$500, and will increase to $750 on Oct. 1 and $1,000 for each day thereafter until the property is brought into compliance with the ordinance. News Update - 8/24/2015 at 3:30 p.m. Starting on September 30, daily fines up to $1,000/day will be assessed against the property owner for its failure to find a suitable replacement market. The fee is set by code and that is the maximum allowed by the code. College Terrace was a different situation, since during discussions about a grocery store to replace JJ&F,there was a restrictive covenant put in place (with the approval of the property owner) that increased the penalty to $2,000/day if the replacement tenant left and another grocery store was not put in place within 6 months. Download the letter from City of Palo to property owner representatives regarding non- compliance. The recent closure of the Fresh Market at Edgewood Plaza has prompted a number of questions from the community,most particularly about the requirement of the developer(Sand Hill Property Company)to ensure that another grocery story occupies the site. The City's ordinances that provided Sand Hill Property Company the right to develop their site mandates a series of"public benefits"that includes providing a grocery store in the 20,600 square foot building. The owner is obligated now to find a grocery store to occupy the Edgewood store, and to ensure that the building continues to be used for that purpose. Although the ordinance itself does not specify a penalty for non-compliance,the City does have a penalty schedule that could be applied if necessary of $500 per day, escalating to $1,000 per day, for zoning violations. The ordinance (5224) does state that that the public benefit outlines that the building be must "primarily used for grocery store uses". In terms of timing,the City is following a similar protocol as it did with the College Terrace Center market developer by allowing six months for a new grocery store to be put in place. City staff have sent I i several letters to Sand Hill Property i Company requesting information on their plans for the space with a reminder about potential daily penalties. The six month period will end in September. It is possible that the owner of the property could propose an alternate use for the building, but would have to apply for a change to the zoning ordinances, which would be a public process and require City Council approval. At a minimum, the City would have to consider whether the new tenant meets the requirements of the current ordinances. Sign up below to receive an email from the City of Palo Alto on any new information on the status of Edgewood Plaza Shopping Center. Last Updated: Apr 4, 2017 Edgewood Plaza Update li To: City of Cupertino—City Council Members Cc: Catarina Kid—Senior Planner,Aarti Chrivastaba—Director of Community Development From: Cathy Helgerson—Phone Number— Subject: Application (File Number R-2017-03) I would like to add this information to the existing letter I wrote to the City in response to their return responses to me as follow: I am not complaining about the building of a home at 20696 Greenleaf Drive in Cupertino, Ca.the only thing I would like to see happen is that the tree I have been mentioning in the paperwork to the planning department be spared. Please read my paper work on the subject it has the details and also there e-mails back and for between the City Planning Dept. and myself. I was told by the Planning Department if I wanted to appeal the building application I would have to do it on an appeal form and pay an appeal fee of$230.00 dollars and clearly state my reason for the appeal. I do not think I should pay$230.00 dollars because I am not objecting to the building of the house only to the destruction of the Modesto Ash tree that is probably about 50 feet tall and the appeal cost should be waved. I did not know it was a beautiful Modesto Ash tree so now I know, it is not in poor condition and I feel it should be allowed to live.There are other trees on the property and I feel maybe they also should be given a change to thrive and not be killed. There is something wrong with these building projects that just allow the trees on the properties to be cut down and just because they say they will plant other trees is not reason to kill the trees that are there. The Cupertino Planning Department employee Catarina Kid pretty much told me that my efforts to appeal would be a waste because the project had been approved and the tree is on the property of the home owner. I feel that I must try to save this tree and it would be a terrible pity if someone did not at least try. There is also a major rat infestation in Cupertino and around my house this has been going on for decades and the City has mentioned to me that they are aware of the problems but it seems there is no real plan to rid the City of this infestation. I am concerned that once the house behind me is knocked down that the rats in the house will flow over to my home this should not be allowed to happen and the City has stated it has happened before. I pay taxes to the City and I have had someone come out and try and help me with this rat problem but it is not a lasting remedy.The City needs to start a major process to get rid of the rats contracting with companies that can help control the rat infestation and the citizens should not have to pay for it.The way things are now we the Citizens have to pay for a vermin control company to come out at our expense and that does not get rid of the overall infestation in our city. I hope you will take both matter I have mentioned into discussion please let me know before April 10, 2017 because I have to file an appeal. e �A/ 0 r7 To: City of Cupertino—Catarina Kid—Senior Planner To: City of Cupertino—Aarti Chrivastaba—Director of Community Development From: Cathy Helgerson - Phone Number: Subject: Application (File number R-2017-03) This application is for a Two Story Permit to allow the construction of a new 4,290 square foot single family residence located at 20696 Greenleaf Drive which I have been notified about this build and am now going to comment. I live behind this proposed construction for over 32 years at 20697 Dunbar Drive and was just notified in writing about this new building. I would like to mention that in the past I have had to have cut down one very large tree on my property due to a beetle infestation and I-was-very sad to see it go:I love trees and try and preserve them as much as I can. The property at 20696 Greenleaf Drive has a very large tree on the property which I have been told they wish to destroy this tree is maybe 45 years old and seems to be alive and well. The tree is not in any way going to be an obstruction to the new proposed home that they wish to build,as you face the property it is on the right side in the far front corner and is bothering no one. In the past there was another tree right next to this one same size and had to be cut down due to a beetle infestation it was sad to see it go. I do not think that this tree should be cut down if it is not beetle infested and hope and ask that it will not be cut down. I spoke to Catarina Kidd Senior Planner about this the other day and she said that they wish to cut this tree down and that they will plant other trees. I feel that this tree deserves to live and it has been there way before I started to live in Cupertino 32 years ago it is a beautiful tree. I am not sure what kind of tree it is and if it is on the endangered list but if it is not it should be on the Heritage List the age and size of the tree should make it so. Please try and help me save this tree. I do not think it is ok to destroy a tree that is not even in the way of.a building project why is this being allowed just because it is on the property of the property owner is no reason. I look outside my kitchen window every morning and see this tree it is beautiful please do not destroy it. I am trying to save this tree at all costs and so should the City if there is nothing wrong with the health of the tree. I spoke to the Director of Community Development Aarti Chrivastaba who told me she would speak to Catarina Kidd Senior planner in the Planning Department about this matter. I was also told that she would get an arborist to look at the tree right away and call me back. I love trees and have many around my home and pay money each year to take care of them we here in Cupertino need to protect our trees and I don't mean just the Heritage trees or the endangered trees but all of them. I would also like to try and save other trees in Cupertino with some kind of ordinance. It is a terrible same if this tree is cut down afterso many years of-providing clean air for unto breath and a home for birds and animals please do all you can to help me save this tree. I look forward in hearing from you this matter is urgent! Thanks 4/4/2017 Gmail-20696 Greenleaf Drive File number R-2017-03 CC- Y IV M Gmail � Cathy Helgerson < 20696 Greenleaf Drive File number R-2017-03 10 messages Cathy Helgerson < Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 3:39 PM To: catadnak@cupertino.org Hello, I am sending you this comment on the property at 20696 Greenleaf Drive for your review and have talked to Aarti Chrivastaba Director of Community Development who is helping me by sending out a arborist to look at the tree. I would ask that you forward this e-mail to her because I do not have her e-mail address and that both of you can talk this over. Thanks, Cathy Helgerson CAP - Citizens Against Pollution City of Cupertino Appl. for building at 20697 Greenleaf Dr..docx 15K Catarina Kidd <CatarinaK@cupertino.org> Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 4:22 PM To: Cathy Helgerson < Kathy, Your email is received. Aarti Shrivastava advised me of your conversation and concern. I'll work with the city arborist to take a look at your letter, as well as the tree, and get back to you. I will also advise the property owner of your comments. Sincerely, Catarina S. Kidd, AICP, Senior Planner City of Cupertino I Community Development 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 408-777<tel:408-777-3247>-3214 I catarinak@cupertino.org<mailto:catarinak@cupertino.org> On Mar 8, 2017, at 3:39 PM, Cathy Helgerson < mailto: > wrote: <City of Cupertino Appl. for building at 20697 Greenleaf Dr..docx> Cathy Helgerson < Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 7:10 AM To: Catarina Kidd <CatadnaK@cupertino.org> Hello, Thank you I hope to hear from you soon and would like to see the arborst's report can you e-mail me that report? Cathy Helgerson [Quoted text hidden] https://m ai I.googl e.com/m ai I/?ui=2&i k=95847d65cc&view=pt&search=i nbox&th=15ab04a6f26e2bcd&si m I=15abO4a6f26e2bcd&si m I=15b21 aba l l472d75&si m I=... 1/6 4/4/2017 Gmail-20696 Greenleaf Drive File number R-2017-03 Catarina Kidd <CatarinaK@cupertino.org> Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 1:56 PM To: " < Kathy, This is the update regarding the tree in question at Greenleaf Drive: The city arborist visited this property on 3/15/2017,to confirm the species identified on plan and to comment on conditions, summarized below. The Modesto Ash tree is in poor condition with an unnatural lean and structural defects that cannot reasonably be corrected.Additionally there is an Australian Willow(Geijera parviflora) in the public Right of Way. It is growing under the power lines and has a significant lean. The property owner will be required to remove this tree, pay a tree planting fee and Public works will replant a replacement tree appropriate to be growing under power lines. The Pine tree has no signs of decline,disease or beetle infestation. However,the Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 14.18.050 defines what is a "protected tree," which this pine is not. Therefore no permit is specifically required for the pine tree removal. As a courtesy,we contacted the property owner of 20696 Greenleaf Drive to discuss,along with sending on a copy of your letter/comments. Given the proximity of the pine tree to the proposed carport and driveway area,the owner is intending to remove the tree. She will be planting additional trees in both the front yard and back yard, as required by and consistent with the Cupertino Code. Thank you for your comments and your care for trees in Cupertino. Sincerely, Catarina S. Kidd,AICP,Senior Planner City of Cupertino I Community Development 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 408-777-3214 1 catarinak@cupertino.org Cathy Helgerson < Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 7:54 AM To: Catarina Kidd <CatarinaK@cupertino.org> https://m ail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=95847d65cc&view=pt&search=inbox&th=15abO4a6f26e2bcd&sim l=15abO4a6f26e2bcd&sim l=15b21 aball472d75&sim l=... 216 4/4/2017 Gmail-20696 Greenleaf Drive File number R-2017-03 Hello Catarina, Thanks for your assistance it is truly to bad to hear that the City and the Home owner will not let the tree continue it has been there for over 40 years and counting I will miss seeing it outside my kitchen window so much and so will the birds that reside and make it their home. I would assume that this matter is up to the home owner I can only home they can change their minds especially to know that the tree is not beetle infected and I still believe that the tree should be spared. Cathy Helgerson CAP - Citizens Against Pollution [Quoted text hidden] Cathy Helgerson < Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 3:27 PM To: Catarina Kidd <CatadnaK@cupertino.org> Hi, There is another problem how soon will they be building the house because it is vacant there is a very strong rat problem in Cupertino so you should know. I would like to talk to the City about this and see if they can put some traps out at the end of my street and in the area it is really a big infestation and it has been a problem for way to many years. Catarina I am very worried that all of the rat that are living behind me will soon be chased out from next door and as soon as they start to tear things down will run over to my house. I would like to know how the City of Cupertino is handleing this terrible problem please help me. I have had all kinds of problems and I can discuss this with you on the phone so please call me. Thanks Cathy Helgerson [Quoted text hidden] Catarina Kidd <CatadnaK@cupertino.org> Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 1:45 PM To: Cathy Helgerson < Cathy, This is a private property matter and not a service that the city provides. If you are concerned about rats, consider contacting an exterminator who can help you identify and eliminate entry points and food sources, help you set traps, and give you professional advice or consider contacting your neighbor to courteously work together on this issue. Sincerely, Catarina S. Kidd,AICP,Senior Planner City of Cupertino I Community Development 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 408-777-3214 1 catarinak@cupertino.org https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=95847d65cc&view=pt&search=inbox&th=15abO4a6f26e2bcd&siml=1 iml=15b2laball472d75&siml=... 3/6 4/4/2017 Gmail-20696 Greenleaf Drive File number R-2017-03 From: Cathy Helgerson [maiIto: Sent:Wednesday, March 29, 2017 3:28 PM To:Catarina Kidd<CatarinaK@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: 20696 Greenleaf Drive File number R-2017-03 [Quoted text hidden] Cathy Helgerson < Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 4:41 PM To: Catarina Kidd <CatahnaK@cupertino.org> Hello Catarina, I see that I will have to go to the City of Cupertino City Council about this matter of the rats. I did not receive a formal denial from the City about the tree the letter you signed and addressed from the HMC Associates is not a denial letter please send me one if you did I can not find it can you resend it. I would like you to e- mail it to me ok. Thanks Cathy Helgerson [Quoted text hidden] Cathy Helgerson < Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 5:02 PM To: Catarina Kidd <CatarinaK@cupertino.org> Hello, I am not sure what form to use to file my appeal there are 2 on the web can you let me know? Cathy Helgerson [Quoted text hidden] Catarina Kidd <CatarinaK@cupertino.org> Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 9:53 AM To: Cathy Helgerson < 1. The Appeal form is the link on the City Clerk's page that says "Appeal form"see link below. http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=l 25 The application you are appealing is not a tree permit. It is a two-story permit and has nothing to do with public trees; therefore the other appeal link for public trees appeal does not apply. Do not use the public trees form. If you appeal, you must do so by April 10, 2017, 5.p.m. at the City Clerk's office, along with your appeal fee of $230 and your appeal form stating clearly in item #7 the reason for your appeal. 2. You wrote "I did not receive a formal denial from the City about the tree the letter you signed and addressed from the HMC Associates is not a denial letter". As stated above, the application filed by Tracy Hsu and her architect, HMC Associates, is a two-story residence permit, which has been approved. There is no "denial letter'applicable here. Sincerely, Catarina S. Kidd, AICP, Senior Planner City of Cupertino I Community Development 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 408-777<tel:408-777-3247>-3214 I catarinak@cupertino.org<mailto:catarinak@cupertino.org> From: Cathy Helgerson [mailto: https://mai l.google.com/mail/?u0=2&ik=95847d65Gc&view=pt&search=inbox&th=15abO4a6f26e2bcd&sim l=15abO4a6f26e2bcd&si ml=15b21 abal1472d75&sim l=... 4/6 4/4/2017 Gmail-20696 Greenleaf Drive File number R-2017-03 Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:02 PM To: Catarina Kidd Subject: Re: 20696 Greenleaf Drive File number R-2017-03 Hello, I am not sure what form to use to file my appeal there are 2 on the web can you let me know? Cathy Helgerson On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 4:41 PM, Cathy Helgerson < mailto: > wrote: Hello Catarina, I see that I will have to go to the City of Cupertino City Council about this matter of the rats. I did not receive a formal denial from the City about the tree the letter you signed and addressed from the HMC Associates is not a denial letter please send me one if you did I can not find it can you resend it. I would like you to e- mail it to me ok. Thanks Cathy Helgerson On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 1:45 PM, Catarina Kidd <Catari naK@c u pertino.org<mai Ito:Catari naK@cuperti no.org» wrote: Cathy, This is a private property matter and not a service that the city provides. If you are concerned about rats, consider contacting an exterminator who can help you identify and eliminate entry points and food sources, help you set traps, and give you professional advice or consider contacting your neighbor to courteously work together on this issue. Sincerely, Catarina S. Kidd, AICP, Senior Planner City of Cupertino I Community Development 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 408-777<tel:408-777-3247>-3214 I catarinak@cupertino.org<mailto:catadnak@cupertino.org> From: Cathy Helgerson [mailto: mailto: ) Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 3:28 PM To: Catarina Kidd <CatadnaK@cupertino.org<mailto:CatadnaK@cupertino.org>> Subject: Re: 20696 Greenleaf Drive File number R-2017-03 Hi, There is another problem how soon will they be building the house because it is vacant there is a very strong rat problem in Cupertino so you should know. I would like to talk to the City about this and see if they can put some traps out at the end of my street and in the area it is really a big infestation and it has been a problem for way to many years. Catarina I am very worried that all of the rat that are living behind me will soon be chased out from next door and as soon as they start to tear things down will run over to my house. I would like to know how the City of Cupertino is handleing this terrible problem please help me. I have had all kinds of problems and I can discuss this with you on the phone so please call me. Thanks Cathy Helgerson tel:(408)%20253-0490> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 7:54 AM, Cathy Helgerson < mailto: > wrote: Hello Catarina, Thanks for your assistance it is truly to bad to hear that the City and the Home owner will not let the tree continue it has been there for over 40 years and counting I will miss seeing it outside my kitchen window so much and so will the birds https://mail.google.com/mailnui=2&ik=95847d65cc&view=pt&search=inbox&th=15ab04a6f26e2bcd&siml=15abO4a6f26e2bcd&si ml=15b21 aball472d75&sim l=... 516 4/4/2017 Gmail-20696 Greenleaf Drive File number R-2017-03 that reside and make it their home. I would assume that this matter is up to the home owner I can only home they can change their minds especially to know that the tree is not beetle infected and I still believe that the tree should be spared. Cathy Helgerson tel:(408)%x20253-0490> CAP -Citizens Against Pollution On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 1:56 PM, Catarina Kidd <CatarinaK@cupertino.org<mailto:CatadnaK@cupertino.org>> wrote: Kathy, This is the update regarding the tree in question at Greenleaf Drive: The city arborist visited this property on 3/15/2017, to confirm the species identified on plan and to comment on conditions, summarized below. The Modesto Ash tree is in poor condition with an unnatural lean and structural defects that cannot reasonably be corrected. Additionally there is an Australian Willow(Geijera parviflora)in the public Right of Way. It is growing under the power lines and has a significant lean. The property owner will be required to remove this tree, pay a tree planting fee and Public works will replant a replacement tree appropriate to be growing under power lines. The Pine tree has no signs of decline, disease or beetle infestation. However, the Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 14.18.050 defines what is a "protected tree,"which this pine is not. Therefore no permit is specifically required for the pine tree removal. As a courtesy, we contacted the property owner of 20696 Greenleaf Drive to discuss, along with sending on a copy of your letter/comments. Given the proximity of the pine tree to the proposed carport and driveway area, the owner is intending to remove the tree. She will be planting additional trees in both the front yard and back yard, as required by and consistent with the Cupertino Code. Thank you for your comments and your care for trees in Cupertino. Sincerely, Catarina S. Kidd, AICP, Senior Planner City of Cupertino I Community Development 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 408-777<tel:408-777-3247>-3214 I catari nak@cuperti no.org<mai Ito:catarinak@cupertino.org> https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=95847d65cc&view=pt&search=i nbox&th=l5abO4a6f26e2bcd&si m 1=15abO4a6f26e2bcd&sim 1=15b21 aba11472d75&sim 1=... 616