Tree Removal Permit - 2000Planting Services
To: Central Park II HOA
From: Rolf Jacobs
RE: Landscaping
All of the trees that were delivered have now been installed. As you know, 3
of the trees from the nursery were unacceptable and I retumed them. They
are all out of both types (Nyssa and Podocarpus) in the required sizes at this
time but will have more this summer. I will install them at that time.
I have held off planting in from of the two chimneys facing Central Avenue
and I urge you to reconsider the use of tall trees in thee locations.
Podocarpus will eventually get to the tops of the chimneys. It is my
professional recommendation to not plant any tree which will come
close to the top of a chimney. It is far better to plant a shorter tree in front
of the chimneys. Something that never gets over 15 tol 8'. This would keep
the crown far enough away from the top of the chimney to avoid any
possibility of a fire. There are many choices that would look good, be
appropriate for the given site con~'tions, and stay within the height
limitation.
Please discuss this with everyone and let me know what you want to do.
There is no hurry. In fact, it is actually better to plant trees in the fall instead
of the summer. There is much less stress on the plant and less chance of
shock or death.
Thank you.
CITY or CAMPBELL
Community Development Department
February21,2001
Cecile Moorad
President, Central Park II Homeowners Association
221 N. Central Ave.
Campbell, CA 95008
Subject: PLN2000-160 Permit to remove 13 Pine Trees from 213-229 Central Ave.
Dear Cecile,
Thank you for the clarification of your replanting plans for the 13 pine trees already removed at 213-229
Central Ave. The City agrees to allow the Homeowner's Association a 30-day extension for the
replacement of all thirteen trees. Your replanting plan is approved as follows:
Thirteen 24-inch box trees will be replaced as follows:
· 10 Podocarpus gracilior
· 2 Nyssa sylvatica (one on each side of the Central Avenue driveway)
· 1 Quercus shumardii (on the east side of the Latimer Avenue driveway)
2. The replanting of all thirteen trees will be finished no later than April 12, 2001.
If you have any questions, please feel free to phone me at (408) 866-2142.
Sincerely,
Kristi Bascom
Planner I
cc~
Geoff Bradley, Senior Planner
William Seligmann, City Attorney
70 North First Street · Campbell, California 95008-1436 · ]"EL 408.866.2140 · FAX 408.866.8381 . TDD 408.866.2790
February 16, 2001
RECEIVED
Kristi Bascom
City of Campbell
70 North First Street
Campbell, CA 9~008
:EB 2 0 ZOO1
CiTY OF CAMPBELl.
PLANNING DEPT,
Dear Kris'th
Yes, the trees have been removed, as per written authorization in your letter to us dated
January 24, 2001. We have agreed to the 1:1 tree replacement ratio, and will replace
each of these trees with 24 inch box trees.
In a phone conversation, you agreed to allow us to finish the replanting in 60 days, not 30
as originally stated. We are in deep mud right now and need the time for the soil to dry
out. Also, the stumps have not been removed yet due to scheduling difficulties.
You and I discussed the revised replanting and I apologize for not supplying the revision
in writing. I assumed we had somewhat ora 'gentleman's agreement'.
At your suggestion, we have agreed to plant two Nyssa sylvatica by the driveways on
Central Avenue, although we are aware that the sunlight pattern offour buildings will
cause one of the trees to grow much slower than the other. However, your suggestion to
plant two Shumardii oak trees by the driveways on Latimer Avenue has been questioned
by our planting expert. Due to the size of these trees, we feel that it would be
inappropriate to plant two trees there, and will revert to the original plan of one
Shumardii oak by the Latimer driveway. The remaining 10 trees will all be Podocarpus,
as originally planned.
Since the last four trees were only removed on February 12th, theoretically we would not
have to have the entire replanting finiahed until April 12a, but we hope to have
everything in the ground by April Ia, weather permitting.
Sincerely,
CITY OF CAMPBELL
Community Development Department
February 13,2001
Cecile Moorad
President, Central Park II Homeowners Association
221 N. Central Ave.
Campbell, CA 95008
Subject: PLN2000-160 Permit to remove 13 Pine Trees from 213-229 Central Ave.
Dear Ms. Moorad,
The Planning Commission, at its meeting of January 23,2001, approved a resolution which allowed the
removal of the thirteen pine trees on your property at 213-299 N. Central Ave. in Campbell. The
Conditions of Approval for this permit stated:
Approved Project
Approval is granted for a Tree Removal Permit (PLN2000-160) to allow the removal of
thirteen (13) Pine trees except as may be modified by the Conditions of Approval
contained herein.
Replanting Plan:
a. The applicant shall submit a revised replanting plan for the review and approval by
the Community Development Director before any additional trees are removed.
b. The plan shall show a minimum replanting ratio of l : l and the trees shall be at least
24 inch box size.
c. Upon approval of the revised replanting plan, the tree removal is permitted and the
replanting shall take place within thirty days of the removal.
Failure to abide by the terms of these conditions shall nullify the approval.
We have not received or approved a revised replanting plan, yet the trees have already been removed.
Please see to it that this plan is submitted within the next week. Over the phone we discussed some
options for the revised replanting plan, but we will need that plan officially submitted for our review. The
Central Park II Homeowners Association is responsible for replanting thirteen 24-inch box trees
according to the approved replanting plan. According to the Conditions of Approval, the trees must be
replanted within 30 days of the date of removal of the pine trees.
Please call me at (408) 866-2142 if you need any clarification on this matter or have any questions.
Sincerely,
Kristi Bascom
Planner I
cc:
Geoff Bradley, Senior Planner
William Seligrnann, City Attorney
70 North First Street . Campbell, California 95008-1436 · TEL 408.866.2140 · FAX 408.866.8381 · TDD 408.866.2790
o~' CA~
· ORCH A~O '
CITY oF CAMPBELL
Community Development Department - Current Planning
January 24, 2001
Ms. Cecile Moorad
President, Central Park II Homeowners Association
221 N. Central Avenue
Campbell, CA 95008
Re: Appeal ofPLN2000-160 - Tree Removal at 213-229 N. Central Avenue
Dear Appellant:
Please be advised that the Planning Commission, at its meeting of January 23, 2001, adopted
Resolution No. 3324 upholding your appeal and overturning the Administrative Denial of a Tree
Removal Permit. This decision will allow the removal of thirteen pine trees on property located
at 213-229 N. Central Avenue. Replacement trees (24-inch box) must be planted on a 1:1 ratio.
This decision is effective in ten days, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk. California
Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, governs the time within which judicial review of this
decision must be sought.
If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me at (408) 866-2140.
Sincerely,
Kristi Bascom
Planner I
70 North First Street - Campbell, California 95008-1436 · TEL 408.866.2 140 · F^X 408.866.838 I · TDD 408.866.2790
RESOLUTION NO. 3324
BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL GRANTING AN APPEAL AND
OVERTURNING AN ADMINISTRATIVE DENIAL IN ORDER
TO ALLOW THE REMOVAL OF THIRTEEN (13) PINE TREES
ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 213-229 N. CENTRAL AVENUE
IN AN R-M-S (MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING
DISTRICT. APPLICATION OF MS. CECILE MOORAD, ON
BEHALF OF CENTRAL PARK II HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION. FILE NO. PLN2000-160.
After notification and public hearing, as specified by law, and after presentation by the
Community Development Director, proponents and opponents, the heating was closed.
After due consideration of all evidence presented, the Planning Commission did find as follows
with respect to application PLN2000-160:
1. The proposed Tree Removal Permit is consistent with the R-M-S (Multi-Family Residential)
zoning designation and the General Plan residential land use designation.
2. The proposed tree replacement plan of a 1:1 ratio of 24-inch box Shumard Red Oaks, Fern
Pines, and Tupelo Trees is consistent with the requirements of the Tree Protection Ordinance.
3. The proposed replacement trees will suffice as replacements for the trees to be removed and
will continue the diversity of tree species found in the community.
4. The existing Pine trees are causing substantial damage to the existing building and drainage
system.
5. The situation cannot be reasonably controlled or remedied through regular maintenance of
the Pine trees and property.
Based on the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission further finds and concludes
that:
1. The approved Tree Removal Permit is not consistent with the City's General Plan and
Zoning Ordinance.
2. The approved Tree Removal Permit is not consistent with the City's Tree Protection
Ordinance and should be modified.
The applicant is hereby notified, as part of this application, that he/she is required to meet the
following conditions in accordance with the ordinance of the City of Campbell and the State of
California. The lead department with which the applicant will work is identified on each
condition where necessary. Additionally, the applicant is hereby notified that he/she is required
to comply with all applicable Codes or Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of
California that pertain to this development and are not herein specified:
Planning Commission Resok,,on No. 3324
PLN2000-160 - 213-229 N. Central Avenue - Uphold Appeal and Allow Tree Removal Permit
Page 2
COM_M_UN!TV BEVF, LOPMFNT DEPARTMFNT
Appmvect Project: Approval is granted for a Tree Removal Permit (PLN2000-160) to allow
the removal of thirteen (13) Pine trees except as may be modified by the Conditions of
Approval contained herein.
Renlantln~ Plan:
a. The applicant shall submit a revised replanting plan for the review and approval by the
Community Development Director before any additional trees are removed.
b. The plan shall show a minimum replanting ratio of 1:1 and the trees shall be at least 24-
inch box in size.
c. Upon approval of the revised replanting plan, the tree removal is permitted and the
replanting shall take place within thirty days of the removal.
Failure to abide by the terms of these conditions shall nullify the approval.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day January, 2001, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Commissioners:
Commissioners:
Commissioners:
Commissioners:
Jones, Lindstrom, Lowe
Doorley, Gibbons
Francois, Hemandez
None
APPROVED:
Mel Lindstrom, Chair
ATTEST:
Sharon Fierro, Secretary
ITEM NO. 3
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OF JANUARY 23, 2001
Appeal of
PLN2000-160
Moorad, C.
Public Hearing to consider the appeal by Ms. Cecile Moorad of the
Administrative Approval of a Tree Removal Permit (PLN 2000-160) to allow
the removal of three (3) Pine trees from property located at 213-229 N.
Central Avenue in a R-M-S (Multi-Family Residential) Zoning District.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The Planning Commission may take one of the following actions:
1. Adopt a Resolution upholding the Administrative Approval of PLN2000-160 (Permitting the
removal of three trees only) and denying the appeal; or
2. Adopt a Resolution upholding the appeal and permitting the removal of thirteen (13) trees,
subject to the attached Conditions of Approval; or
3. Continue the item for further review.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
This project is categorically exempt under Section 15303 Class 4 of CEQA pertaining to minor
alterations in the condition of land.
BACKGROUND
Administrative Approval: On December 7, 2000, the Community Development Director approved a
Tree Removal Permit (PLN 2000-160) to allow the removal of three (3) Pine trees on property
located at 213-229 N. Central Avenue.
The trees are located at the townhouse development at the southwest comer of Central and Latimer
Avenues. The application was for the removal of all thirteen (13) Pine trees on site. Since these
trees measure over twelve inches in diameter and were required to be planted as a condition of
approval of development, they are protected under the City's Tree Protection Ordinance, and need
the tree removal permit in order to be removed.
The Pine trees were planted in 1981 when the nine-unit development was constructed. The trees
were included on the landscaping plan that was required as a condition of approval for the Site and
Architectural Review Permit for the construction of the buildings. The trees were initially a mixture
of 15-gallon and 24-inch box trees.
The Tree Removal Permit was approved for three trees only, based upon a letter from the County
Fire Department which stated that any trees located less than ten feet from a chimney pose a fire
hazard. There were three trees on this site that fell into this category, and they were approved for
immediate removal. However, the remaining ten trees were neither (1) diseased or in danger of
Staff Report - Planning Commissi¢.. Meeting of January 23, 2001
PLN 2000-160 - 213-229 N. Central Avenue
Pa$e 2 of 2
falling, (2) potentially causing damage to main buildings, or (3) restricting the economic enjoyment
or creating an unusual hardship for the property owner. Based on these guidelines, their removal
could not be approved by the Community Development Director. Therefore, an approval was issued
for three of the thirteen trees requested. The decision was appealed by the President of the
Homeowner's Association.
Appeal:
On December 11, 2000, the City received a fax from Ms. Moorad appealing the administrative
approval of Tree Removal Permit (PLN2000-160). The appellant followed up with a letter on
December 26, 2000 which further explained the reason for their appeal. The appellant hired an
arborist to examine the trees on site. The arborist did not find evidence of disease, but thought trees
numbered 5, 7, and 8 on the site plan should be removed because they are too close to the building.
(See Attachment 8)
Ms. Moorad objects to the approval allowing the removal of only three of these trees, and requests
approval to remove all thirteen trees on site. The appellant requests the reconsideration of the Tree
Removal Permit and also that they be allowed to replant on a 1:1 ratio with 15 gallon trees instead of
the 24-inch box trees as required by the Tree Protection Ordinance.
A copy of the resident's appeal letter is attached for your review. (See Attachment 4)
ALTERNATIVES
1. Adopt a Resolution upholding the appeal and approving the Tree Removal Permit (PLN2000-
160) with modifications to the Conditions of Approval; or
2. Refer the item back to the Community Development Director.
Attachments:
1. Findings for upholding the Administrative Approval and denial the appeal of PLN2000-160
2. Findings for upholding the appeal and denying the Administrative Approval of PLN2000-160
3. Conditions of Approval
4. Letter of Appeal submitted by Cecile Moorad, President of the Central Park II Homeowner's
Association
5. Letter from Travis Wise, property owner
6. Letter from Marc Calvanico, property owner
7. Letter from Warren and Sharon Wood, property owners
8. Site Plan
Prepared by:
Approved by:
//?
'~'~~ lle/GeoffI. B~ttdley: Sen~i~°r~~/
Attachment 1
FINDINGS FOR UPHOLDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL AND DENYING
THE APPEAL OF FILE NO. PLN2000-160
APPELLANT:
SITE ADDRESS:
P.C. MEETING:
Cecile Moorad, Central Park II Homeowner's Association
213-229 N. Central Avenue
January 23, 2001
Findings for upholding the Administrative Approval and denying the appeal of PLN2000-160 to
allow the removal of three (3) Pine trees on property located at 213-229 N. Central Ave.
The Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to File No. PLN2000-160:
1. The proposed Tree Removal Permit is consistent with the R-M-S (Multi-Family Residential)
zoning designation and the General Plan commercial land use designation.
2. The proposed tree replacement plan of a 1:1 ratio of 15-gallon Shumard Red Oaks, Fern Pines,
and Tupelo Trees is not consistent with the requirements of the Tree Protection Ordinance.
3. The proposed replacement trees will not suffice as replacements for the trees to be removed and
will not continue the diversity of tree species found in the community.
4. The existing Pine trees do not potentially cause substantial damage to the existing building,
sidewalks, parking area and drainage system.
5. The situation can be reasonably controlled or remedied through regular maintenance of the trees
and property.
Based on the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission further finds and concludes that:
1. The approved Tree Removal Permit is consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance.
2. The approved Tree Removal Permit is consistent with the City's Tree Protection Ordinance.
Attachment 2
FINDINGS FOR DENYING THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL AND UPHOLDING
THE APPEAL OF FILE NO. PLN2000-160
APPELLANT:
SITE ADDRESS:
P.C. MEETING:
Cecile Moorad, Central Park II Homeowner's Association
213-229 N. Central Avenue
January 23, 2001
Findings for denying the Administrative Approval and upholding the appeal of PLN2000-160 to
allow the removal of thirteen (13) Pine trees on property located at 213-229 N. Central Ave.
The Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to File No. PLN2000-160:
1. The proposed Tree Removal Permit is consistent with the R-M-S (Multi-Family Residential)
zoning designation and the General Plan residential land use designation.
2. The proposed tree replacement plan of a 1:1 ratio of 15-gallon Shumard Red Oaks, Fern
Pines, and Tupelo Trees is consistent with the requirements of the Tree Protection Ordinance.
3. The proposed replacement trees will suffice as replacements for the trees to be removed and
will continue the diversity of tree species found in the community.
4. The existing Pine trees are causing substantial damage to the existing building and drainage
system.
5. The situation cannot be reasonably controlled or remedied through regular maintenance of the
Pine trees and property.
Based on the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission further finds and concludes
that:
1. The approved Tree Removal Permit is not consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance.
2. The approved Tree Removal Permit is not consistent with the City's Tree Protection
Ordinance and should be modified.
Attachment 3
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR FILE NO. PLN 2000-162
APPELLANT:
SITE ADDRESS:
P.C. MEETING:
Cecile Moorad, Central Park II Homeowner's Association
213-229 N. Central Avenue
January 23, 2001
The applicant is hereby notified, as part of this application, that he/she is required to meet the
following conditions in accordance with the Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of
California. Additionally, the applicant is hereby notified that he/she is required to comply with
all applicable Codes or Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of California that
pertain to this development and are not herein specified.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
1. Approved Project: Approval is granted for a Tree Removal Permit (PLN2000-160) to allow
the removal of thirteen (13) Pine trees except as may be modified by the Conditions of Approval
contained herein.
Replanting Plan:
a. The applicant shall submit a revised replanting plan for the review and approval by the
Community Development Director before any additional trees are removed.
b. The plan shall show a minimum replanting ratio of 2:l and the trees shall be at least 15-
gallon size.
c. Upon approval of the revised replanting plan, the tree removal is permitted and the
replanting shall take place within thirty days of the removal.
Failure to abide by the terms of these conditions shall nullify the approval.
223 N. Central Avenue
Campbell, CA 95008-1426
January21,2001
Elizabeth Gibbons
City of Campbell
70 N. First Street
Campbell, CA
Dear Ms. Gibbons:
RECEIVED
,JAN 2 3 2001
CITY OF CAMPBELL
PLANNING DEPT.
I am writing in regards to the request for removing the pine trees from the Central Park II complex.
I recently bought the house on 223 N. Central Avenue, so I've only been a Central Park II resident for
2 months. However, within this short period, I have experienced the negative effects of the pine trees
located around our complex.
Due to limited parking and the location of my home, I am forced to park in a spot right underneath
one of the pine trees. The pine tree drips sap on my car making it look like glue rain droplets.
Unfortunately, the sap does not come off easily. I cannot clear my windshield with the wipers and
fluid. I must take my car to the car wash to have the gunk removed.
In the long term, I'll be paying more expenses than normal to clean my car. Additionally, if I don't
remove the sap immediately, the sap will damage my car's paint thereby depreciating my car's value.
It's sad to say that this type of tree's nuisances outweigh its efficacies.
Therefore, I urge the City Council to sympathize with the residents of Central Park II and allow us to
replace all the pine trees in our complex with a different type of tree.
/' Sincerely,
January 13, 2001
City of Campbell
70 N. First St.
Campbell, CA 95008
Attn: Kristi Bascom
RECEIVED
.lAN 1 6 7001
CITY OF CAMPBELL
PLANNING DEPT.
Dear Ms. Bascom:
I am writing to request that the City approve the remaining pine trees around the Central Park II
complex for removal.
When the members of the homeowners' association voted to have the trees removed, it was after
thoughtful and careful discussion. Some of the reasons that led to decision include:
The trees are over grown for the size of the buildings and they require maintenance and
trimming that the associate members can't afford to keep up with.
The trees cause a mess all year round. Right after the yard maintenance people
are finished cleaning the area, pine needles are already falling. The pine needles
clog our gutters, the roofs, and the parking areas. The pine needles eat into the gutters
and cause leaks. During the winter, when the pine needles are on the ground and are wet,
it is actually slippery and dangerous to residents and to guests.
I live in the front end unit where one of the trees is right over my roof and my
back yard area. I just spent an hour this morning, cleaning up the mounds of pine
needles in my back yard that just fell in the last two days from the most recent
storm.
We plan to replace the pine trees with trees that are more proportional to the
buildings and to the other trees on the street. We also want new ones that aren't as
messy. We, as the residents of the complex, have a keen interest in its appearance. We
want it to look nice and plan to improve it significantly.
Thank you for your consideration of this request. I trust that you will make the right decision for
the residents of the complex, for the neighborhood and for the city.
Regards,
Marc Calvanico
213 N. Central Ave.
Campbell, CA 95008
Travis A. Wise
Attorney At Law
RECEIVED
223 N. Central Avenue
Campbell, CA 95008
(408) 378-8854
travis@twise.com
Janua~ 11,2001
City of Campbell
Attn: Kdsti Bascom
70 N. First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
JAN ] $ 2001
CITY O; CAUPBELL
PLANNING DEPT.
Re: Petition to Remove Frees at Central Park II
Dear Mrs. Bascom:
I am writing in support of allowing the removal of the ten trees at the North Central
Avenue condominium complex (Central Park II). I am an owner of 223 N. Central
Avenue, which is one of the properties in the complex.
The trees in question are severely overgrown given the size of our buildings and the
size of the other trees in the neighborhood. An aborist has informed the
homeowner's association that pruning will not satisfactorily alleviate the problems
created by the trees. The problems caused by the trees unreasonably interfere with
my ability to enjoy my property; cause a detrimental economic effect the value of my
property; and create unreasonable hardships in terms of repairs and maintenance.
These problems are shared by the other homeowners in the complex.
The pine needles drop year-round into the gutters, clogging them with needles. Even
when the gutters are cleaned, they are soon clogged again. This causes water to
improperly drain off of the roof and away from the house, which had led to the rotting
of wood on my house where the water is improperly draining. The acid from the
needles is causing permanent damage to the gutters which will be expensive to
repair, and futile to repair if the trees are permitted to remain. The arbodst has
advised that gutter guards will not alleviate this problem.
The needles from the trees also clog the storm drains which are on the property.
This prevents water from being able to propedy drain from my back patio. Repairs to
the drain are futile because the problems will immediately reappear as the tree
continues to drop needles throughout the year.
· Page 2 Janua~11,2001
The trees drep substantial amounts of sap onto a large portion of our common
parking area. The sap rapidly accumulates (even ovemight), and over time will
deteriorate the paint on our vehicles. At least two parking spaces which are directly
beneath one of the trees are unusable because of this problem, and many other
spaces are detrimentally affected.
The president of the homeowner's association has informed me that the cost to
regularly trim these trees and regularly repair the gutters and storm sewers is well
beyond the financial capacity of our homeowner's association. The cost which we
would have to incur to maintain these trees in such a way that we are no longer
deprived of the enjoyment of our property is an unreasonable financial hardship on
our association and its members.
We should not be forced to choose between spending thousands of doilars that we
do not have to maintain the trees or giving up our ability to maintain and enjoy our
properties. There should be a third option available: To allow us to replace the trees
with trees which are aesthetically acceptable given the size of our buildings and the
other trees in the neighborhood, but which do not destroy our preperty in the way that
the current trees are doing.
Sincerely, j
Travis A. Wise
cc: Elizabeth Gibbons