Loading...
Tree Permit - 2001 City of Campbell 70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA 95008 MEMORANDUM To; From: Subject: Mayor and Members of the City Council Bernard M. Strojny, City Manager ~ Date: September 27, 2001 Request from Planning Commission to Refund Appeal Filing Fee for a Tree Removal Permit on common area property located behind 108 and 110 Salice Way On August 28, 2001, the Planning Commission reviewed an appeal of an Administrative Denial of a Tree Removal Permit. The Planning Commission approved a resolution upholding the appeal and overturning the Administrative Denial of the Tree Removal Permit on common area properly located behind 108 and 110 Salice Way. The appeal was filed by Ms. Carolyn Ferrari, who is the owner of the affected unit at 110 Salice Way and the Secretary of the Board of Directors of the Homeowners Association. The Homeowners Association Manager filed the tree removal permit application, which does not require payment of an application fee. The trunk of the mature ash tree is within three feet of a walkway and a wall enclosing the patios of the townhomes. The tree is causing noticeable lifting of the wall, concrete patios and the walkway. Other problems reported include damage to the landscape lighting and irrigation systems and difficulty opening a water heater closet off the patio. After a thorough exanfination of the tree and site, the Community Development Director determined that although the damage the tree has caused is noticeable, it does not meet the criteria required to approve the removal of a protected tree under the Tree Protection Ordinance. This criteria stipulates that the tree must be causing or have the potential to cause substantial damage to. [he existing main buildings. The Planning Commission approved the tree removal permit after making the determination that there was substantial evidence that the tree can potentially cause substantial damage to the residences. The Planning Commission is not bound by the determination of the Community Development Director, and has authority make an independent determination as to whether the criteria required to approve a Tree Removal Permit is met. The appellant presented an Arborist's Report that stated that the severity of root pruning required to facilitate the replacement of patio and walkway pavement and the wall would be very detrimental to the health of the tree and compromise the structural integrity. On its own initiative, the Plmming Commission took minute action (4-1) asking that Council consider issuing a refund of the fee paid by the appellant. The appellant did not request a refund of the $100 appeal filing fee. The Planning Commissioners who voted for the minute action commented that the basis of charging appeal fees was to prevent frivolous appeals, but that the appellant in this case was not making a frivolous appeal. The Commissioners also felt that there was a strong argument for refunding the fees since the appeal was upheld. Since Zoning Code specifies that an appeal may be made to the planning commission by the applicant or any other interested party from any discretionary administrative interpretation made by the Community Development Director. The appeal must be accompanied by a filing fee, which is currently set at $100 by the City Council. This fee was approved in February 2001. The City Attorney has determined that since the amount of the appeal fee is set by a Resolution of the City Council, the Council retains the authority to adjust the fee in a particular case (down to zero if they desire) by a subsequent Resolution. Since the Planning Commission took final action on this item, there is no process for the Commission to refer this item to the City Council. If you would like to have this matter come before the Council, please contact me. encl: Plammng Commission Minutes of August 28, 2001 August 29,2001 Ms. Carolyn Ferrari, Secretary, Board of Directors Rose Villas II Homeowners Association 1 I0 Salice Way Campbell, CA 95008 Re: Appeal of PLN2001-27 - Tree Removal at 108 & 110 Salice Way Dear Appellant: Please be advised that the Planning Commission, at its meeting of August 28, 2001, adopted Resolution No. 3373 upholding your Appeal and overturning the Administrative Denial of a Tree Removal Permit. This decision will allow the removal of one evergreen ash tree on common area property located behind 108 and 110 Salice Way. A replacement tree (36-inch box) must be planted within 30 days of the effective date of this approval. 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 revie~v of this decision must be sought. As a second action on this application, the Commission took minute action asking the City Council to consider approving a refund of the $100 Appeal filing fee. Council has the discretion on whether or not to take action on this recommendation. We will keep you informed of any activity m this regard. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me at (408) 866-2140. Sincerely, Darcy Smith Planner II Cc' Bridgecliff Management/Rose Villas II Attn: Jeff Lucero 1975 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 30 San Jose, CA 95125 Sandi Nelson, Biota Tech Services, Inc. 1807 Pruneridge Avenue, Suite A Santa Clara, CA 95050 70 North First Street . Campbell, California 95OOS-1436 . ]EL 408.866.2140 . F.XX 408.866.8381 · TDD 408.866.2790 RESOLUTION NO. 3373 BEiNG A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL GRANTING AN APPEAL AND OVERTURNING AN ADMINISTRATIVE DENIAL OF A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT IN ORDER TO ALLOW THE REMOVAL OF AN ASH TREE ON COMMON AREA PROPERTY LOCATED BEHIND 108 & 110 SALICE WAY IN A PD (PLANNED DEVELOPMEN) ZONING DISTRICT. FILE NO. PLN2001-27. After notification and public hearing, as specified by law, and after presentation by the Community Development Director, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed. After due consideration of all evidence presented, the Planning Commission did find as follows with respect to application PLN2001-27: 9 The proposed tree replacement plan of one (1) 36-inch box tree (species to be determined) tree is consistent with the requirements of the Tree Protection Ordinance. The proposed replacement tree will be a sufficient replacement for the ash tree to be removed and will continue the diversity of tree species found in the community. The ash tree has the potential to cause substantial damage to existing townhomes or interfere with utility services. The situation cannot be reasonably controlled or remedied through reasonable relocation or modification of the walkway, patio and wall and monitoring of the sewer line for damage. Based on the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission further finds and concludes that: The tree can potentially cause substantial damage to existing or proposed main buildings (e.g., dwellings or other main buildings) or interfere with utility services and cannot be controlled or remedied through reasonable relocation or modification of the structure or utility services. There is a reasonable relationship and a rough proportionality between the Conditions of Approval and the impacts of the project. The applicant is hereby notified, as part of this application, that he/she is required to meet the fbllowing conditions in accordance with the ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of California. Where approval by the Community Development Director, City Engineer, Public Works Director, City Attorney, or Fire Department is required, that review shall be for compliance with all applicable Conditions of Approval, adopted policies and guidelines, ordinances, laws and regulations, and accepted engineering practices for the item under review. 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 Resolutio,~_ 40.3373 PLN2001-27- 108 & 110 Salice Way Uphold Tree Appeal and Overturn Administrative Denial of Tree Removal Permit Page 2 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Approved Project: Approval is granted for a Tree Removal Permit (PLN2001-27) to allow the removal of one (1) evergreen ash except as may be modified by the Conditions of Approval contained herein. Replacement Tree: The applicant is required to plant one (1) 36-inch box tree to replace the ash tree in the common area of the property in close proximity to the location of the ash tree. The replacement tree shall be a species that it is included in the City's Water Efficient Landscaping Guidelines (WELS). The replacement tree must be installed within 30 days of the final approval date of the Tree Removal Permit following the appeal period. Failure to abide by the terms of these conditions shall nullify the approval. th PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28 Commissioners: Commissioners: Commissioners: Commissioners: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: day of August, 2001, by the following roll call vote: Doorley, Francois, Gibbons, Hernandez and Jones None Lindstrom and Lowe None APPROVED: Tom Francois, Acting Chair ATTEST: Sharon Fierro, Secretary. Planning Commission Minutes of August 28, 2001 Page 8 · Said that he is typically a defender of the Tree Ordinance but after speaking with the neighbor and viewing the damage on site, this instance is an example of when the letter of the Ordinance does not suit. · Pointed out that the gate doesn't close properly, the water heater closet does not open and there is considerable patio damage. · Added that he is convinced that the residents of this complex are removing and replacing this tree grudgingly. Commissioner Jones stated his support for this replacement and there is an obvious need. Suggested to lower the replacement tree size to 24-inch box instead of the more expensive 36- inch box. Acting Chair Francois disagreed to that recommendation, adding that a "mature" tree is the key phrase and the applicant is willing to replace this tree with a large mature tree. Commissioner Jones said that it is his personal opinion that this requirement is a heavy financial burden on the applicant. City Attorney Seligmann advised that the Commission actually has no discretion to reduce the size of the replacement tree. The requirements are spelled out in the Code. Commissioner Hernandez added that it is a tough call but that the Commission must live by the Ordinance. Agreed that there is the potential to cause damage and that he could support the replacement of this tree. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hernandez, seconded by Commissioner Jones, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3373 upholding an appeal and granting a Tree Removal Permit (PLN2001-27) to allow the removal of an evergreen ash tree on common area property located at 108 and 110 Salice Way. AYES: Doorley, Francois, Gibbons, Hernandez and Jones NOES: None ABSENT: Lindstrom and Lowe ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Jones asked if this applicant paid the $100 Appeal Fee. Director Sharon Fierro replied yes. Commissioner Jones asked if there is a provision for refund. Director Sharon Fierro replied no. Commissioner Jones suggested that the Commission consider asking Council to refund the $100 Appeal Filing Fee to this applicant. Planning Commission Minutes of August 28, 2001 Page 9 Commissioner Gibbons asked why an exception to this fee is warranted. Commissioner Doorley said that he originally advocated against the imposition of an Appeals fee. Commissioner Jones agreed. Added that he specifically does not like to see an Appeal fee on Administrative decisions. Commissioner Gibbons cautioned that this discussion has already been held and Council adopted the imposition of the Appeal fee. Director Sharon Fierro added that Council had discussed the potential for refunding fees for successful appeals but rejected that idea. City Attorney William Seligmann said that Council does have the authority to refund if it elects to do so. Acting Chair Francois suggested a minute action asking Council to consider the refund of this Appeal fee in this case. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Doorley, seconded by Commissioner Jones, the Planning Commission took minute action asking that Council consider issuing a refund of the $100 Appeals Filing Fee paid by Ms. Carolyn Ferrari in order to Appeal the Administrative Denial of a Tree Removal Permit (PLN2001-27) on property located at 108 and 110 Salice Way. AYES: Doorley, Francois, Hernandez and Jones NOES: Gibbons ABSENT: Lindstrom and Lowe ABSTAIN: None Acting Chair Francois advised that this action is final in 10 days unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk and added that the request for refund is solely at the discretion of Council. REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR The written report of Ms. Sharon Fierro, Community Development Director, was accepted as presented with the following additions: · Advised that there will be two agenda items at the September 11th Planning Commission meeting. · Informed that Council is forming an Anniversary Planning Committee to plan the celebration of the City's 50th Anniversary. Each Board and Commission is asked to appoint a representative on this Committee. · Announced that Chair Lindstrom has submitted his letter of resignation from the Planning Commission effective at the end of September. ITEM NO. 3 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 2001 Appeal of PLN2001-27 Ferrari, C. Public Hearing to consider the appeal by Ms. Carolyn Ferrari, on behalf of the Rose Villas II Homeowners Association, of an Administrative Denial of a Tree Removal Permit (PLN2001-27) to allow the removal of an evergreen ash tree on common area property located behind 108 and 110 Salice Way in a P-D (Planned Development) Zoning District. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission may take one of the following actions: 1. Adopt a Resolution upholding the Administrative Denial of a Tree Removal Permit (PLN2001-27) and denying the appeal; or 2. Adopt a Resolution upholding the appeal and overturning the Administrative Denial of a Tree Removal Permit (PLN2001-27), 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 The property was developed in 1976 with 28 townhomes and contains approximately 40 trees on the site. The subject tree is the evergreen ash tree located in the interior courtyard, which is a private open space area with a pool for the townhouse complex. Administrative Denial: On July 23, 2001, the Community Development Director denied a Tree Removal Permit (PLN 2001-27) to allow the removal of one evergreen ash tree with a 28-inch diameter on common area property located behind 108 and 110 Salice Way. Staff met with the homeowners' association manager on July 19th to discuss the application and examine the damage caused by the tree. The trunk of the tree is within three feet of a walkway and a wall enclosing the patios of the townhomes. There is noticeable lifting of the wall, concrete patios and the walkway. Other problems reported include damage to the landscape lighting and irrigation systems and difficulty opening a water heater closet off the patio. After a thorough examination of the tree and site, staff determined that although the damage the tree has caused is noticeable, it does not meet the criteria required to approve the removal of a protected tree under the Tree Protection Ordinance. Satisfactory evidence was not presented that the tree is causing or can potentially cause substantial damage to the existing main buildings or that retention of the tree restricts the economic enjoyment of the property or creates an unusual hardship by severely limiting the use of the property in a manner not typically experienced by owners of similarly zoned and situated properties. Staff Report - Planning Commissar., Meeting of August 28, 2001 PLN2001-27 - 108 and 110 Salice Way The tree does not show any visible signs of disease or poor health. The tree is a healthy, mature ash tree that is the largest on the site and is an aesthetic and physical asset to the residential development. Appeal: On August 2, 2001, the City received a letter appealing the administrative denial of Tree Removal Permit from Ms. Carolyn Ferrari, on behalf of the Rose Villas II Homeowners Association. Ms. Ferrari is the Secretary of the Board of Directors of the Homeowners Association who lives at 110 Salice Way. The appellant states that the Homeowners Association has spent significant resources to consider various option to preserve the tree and repair the damaged areas; however, they have decided that the damage caused by the tree and the expenses required to preserve the tree are so significant that the tree should be removed and replaced with a more suitable species that will not cause such extensive damage. Ms. Ferrari states that although the tree could be salvaged at a considerable expense to the homeowners association, the tree will eventually need to be removed. The appellant hired a certified arborist to examine the tree who recommended that the tree be removed. He states that although the tree is currently in good health and is reasonably well structured, the severity of root pruning required to facilitate the replacement of pavement and the wall would be very detrimental to the health of the tree and compromise the structural integrity. He notes that severe soil compaction may damage the sewer line and that the concrete foundations and the concrete slab floors may eventually become damaged as the root expansion continues. The arborist concludes that the replacement of the tree with a more suitable species of tree is more practical than salvage procedures. Attachments: 1. Findings for upholding the Administrative Denial and denying the appeal of PLN2001-27 2. Findings for upholding the appeal and overturning the Administrative Denial of PLN2001-27 3. Conditions of Approval 4. Letter of Appeal submitted by Ms. Carolyn Ferrari, on behalf of the Rose Villas II Homeowners Association 5. Arborist's Report 6. Tree Location Map 7. Photos 8. Location Map Prepared by: Approved by: Darcy Smith, Planner II GeoffI. Bradley, Senior Planner ,/ J:\Reports~Appeals\PLN 2001-27 108 & 110 Salice Way - Appeal of TRP Denial Attachment # 1 FINDINGS FOR UPHOLDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE DENIAL AND DENYING THE APPEAL OF PLN2001-27 APPELLANTS: SITE ADDRESS: DATE: Ms. Carolyn Ferrari, on behalf of the Rose Villas II Homeowners Association Common area property located behind 108 and 110 Salice Way August 28, 2001 Findings for upholding the Administrative Denial of PLN2001-27 on common area property located behind 108 and 110 Salice Way and denying the appeal. The Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to File No. PLN2001-27: 1. The ash tree is currently in good health and is reasonably well structured 2. The ash tree does not have the potential to cause substantial damage to existing townhomes or interfere with utility services. 3. The situation can be controlled or remedied through reasonable relocation or modification of the walkway, patio and wall and monitoring of the sewer line for damage. Based on the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission further finds and concludes that the evidence does not demonstrate that: 1. The tree is irreparably diseased. 2. The tree presents a danger of falling that cannot be controlled or remedied through reasonable preservation and/or preventative procedures and practices such that the public health or safety requires its removal. 3. The tree can potentially cause substantial damage to existing or proposed main buildings (e.g., dwellings or other main buildings) or interfere with utility services and cannot be controlled or remedied through reasonable relocation or modification of the structure or utility services. 4. The retention of the tree restricts the economic enjoyment of the property or creates an unusual hardship for the property owner by severely limiting the use of the property in a manner not typically experienced by owners of similarly zoned and situated properties, and the applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the approval authority that there are no reasonable alternatives to preserve the tree. Attachment #2 FINDINGS FOR UPHOLDING THE APPEAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE .~-~ OF FILE NO. PLN2001-27 I AL APPELLANT: SITE ADDRESS: DATE: OVERTURNING THE Ms. Carolyn Ferrari, on behalf of the Rose Villas II Homeowners Association Common area property located behind 108 and 110 Salice Way August 28, 2001 Findings for upholding the appeal and overturning the Administrative Denial of PLN2001-27 on common area property located behind 108 and 110 Salice Way. The Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to File No. PLN2001-27: 1. The proposed tree replacement plan of one (1) 36-inch box tree (species to be determined) tree is consistent with the requirements of the Tree Protection Ordinance. 2. The proposed replacement tree will be a sufficient replacement for the ash tree to be removed and will continue the diversity of tree species found in the community. 4. The ash tree has the potential to cause substantial damage to existing townhomes or interfere with utility services. 3. The situation cannot be reasonably controlled or remedied through reasonable relocation or modification of the walkway, patio and wall and monitoring of the sewer line for damage. Based on the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission further finds and concludes that: 1. The tree can potentially cause substantial damage to existing or proposed main buildings (e.g., dwellings or other main buildings) or interfere with utility services and cannot be controlled or remedied through reasonable relocation or modification of the structure or utility services. 2. There is a reasonable relationship and a rough proportionality between the Conditions of Approval and the impacts of the project. Attachment #3 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR FILE NO. PLN 2001-27 APPELLANTS: SITE ADDRESS: DATE: Ms. Carolyn Ferrari, on behalf of the Rose Villas II Homeowners Association Common area property located behind 108 and 110 Salice Way August 28, 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. Where approval by the Community Development Director, City Engineer, Public Works Director, City Attorney, or Fire Department is required, that review shall be for compliance with all applicable Conditions of Approval, adopted policies and guidelines, ordinances, laws and regulations, and accepted engineering practices for the item under review. 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 Approved Project: Approval is granted for a Tree Removal Permit (PLN2001-27) to allow the removal of one (1) evergreen ash except as may be modified by the Conditions of Approval contained herein. ° Replacement Tree: The applicant is required to plant one (1) 36-inch box tree to replace the ash tree in the common area of the property in close proximity to the location of the ash tree. The replacement tree shall be a species that it is included in the City's Water Efficient Landscaping Guidelines (WELS). The replacement tree must be installed within 30 days of the final approval date of the Tree Removal Permit following the appeal period. Failure to abide by the terms of these conditions shall nullify the approval. August 1,2001 Attachment RECEIVED AUG ;; 22001 CI1' , CLERK'S OFFICE Carolyn Ferrari Secretary, Board of Directors Rose Villas II Homeowners Association 110 Salice Way Campbell, CA 95008 City of Campbell Planning Commission 70 North First Street Campbell, CA 95008-1436 Re: Appeal: Application for Tree Removal Permit to Remove Ash Tree behind 108 and 110 Salice Way PLN 2001-27 To the Planning Commission of the City of Campbell: I am writing as the Secretary of the Board of Directors of the Rose Villas II Homeowners Association in regard to the above referenced matter. Over the years, the Rose Villas II HOA has been an advocate to maintain the Ash tree, as the Homeowners Association appreciates the aesthetic value that it brings to the Rose Villas II community. However, during the past few years, the Ash tree has caused, and will continue to cause, extensive damage to several structures and areas within Rose Villas II, which include: - Concrete walls (raised and separated) - Lighting and electrical systems, as well as irrigation lines in the area - Concrete patios (raised and severely cracked in large areas) - Main pathways/walkways in common area (severely damaged and present a safety hazard) - Water heater closet (not easily accessible; part of main structure/home) Per Jeff Lucero's (Rose Villas II HOA Manager, Bridgecliff Management Group) letter to the City of Campbell (dated July 10, 2001 ), the Rose Villas II Board of Directors has been working for the last year to remove the Ash tree and replace the tree with an aesthetically pleasing, non-obtrusive type of tree, in addition to repairing the damage caused by the Ash tree over the years. Rose Villas II reached its decision following consultations with various experts and many months of lengthy discussions. Rose Villas II's decision to remove and replace the Ash tree was supported by Biota Tech Services (per its letter of May 30, 2001). Recently, in order to assist Rose Villas II and the City of Campbell in developing a complete understanding of the situation, issues, and recommendations with regard to the Ash tree, Rose Villas II asked Tony Tomeo, horticulturist and arborist, Los Gatos Horticulture, (ISA #WC5197) to access the potential for structural damage to the residential building, which may result from continued expansion of the root system of the Ash tree. Observations in Mr. Tomeo's complete report (dated July 28, 2001 ), which is attached to this letter, include the following: Utility closets at the rear of the residences have been constructed on concrete slabs that are independent of those on which the residences have been constructed. Because they lack adequate foundations and footings associated with standard foundations of the residences, they may easily be damaged as the patio pavement was. The sewer line extends from the rear of the building very near the tree. - This species is a very large tree that is not proportionate to the site. Although damage to adjacent structures is currently confined, the tree will continue to grow. Sewer lines (contemporary) that are not normally damaged by tree roots can be crushed by severe soil compaction. Likewise, concrete foundations and the concrete slab floors beyond them may eventually become damaged as root expansion continues. Damage under and beyond foundations is a much slower procedure, but very difficult and expensive to repair. This species also exhibits an aggressive root system. Surface roots are attracted to the moist outer surfaces of concrete where they expand and displace the concrete. The pavement and wall have already been severely damaged by elevation by several inches. Some of the concrete pavement of the adjacent walkway that has already been damaged and replaced is again damaged and required replacement... Although the tree could be salvaged with considerable expenditure of resources, it will eventually require complete removal. Replacement with a more suitable species of tree is therefore more practical than salvage procedures. Mr. Tomeo's recommendations: Removal of the tree is recommended. Selection of replacement species should be limited to those that exhibit complaisant root systems. However, mid-sized, deciduous shade trees are preferred. Mr. Tomeo has also provided Rose Villas II with a list of some tree species suitable for replacement of the Ash tree. The list is also attached to this letter, for your review and reference. Lastly, during the past year, Rose Villas II has invested much time and money/budget in researching and considering various options to resolve the ongoing, costly, and hazardous issues associated with the Ash tree. The options considered include the following: OPTION: CLIP THE TREE ROOTS TO PREVENT MORE EXTENSIVE DAMAGE AND RE- PAVE/REPAIR The option to clip the roots has already been implemented in the past. The roots were clipped approximately three years ago, but experts say that to clip them again would damage and/or weaken the tree to the point where the tree could fall onto the residences. OPTION: RE-PAVE AROUND THE TREE The option to just re-pave around the tree is no longer an option, as the roots continue to grow under structures and create additional damage. The fact that the TREE ROOTS HAVE BECOME SO EXTENSIVE AND LARGE that a resident could not open, more halfway, the water heater closet - someone must take it off by the hinges to gain access to the water heater ... Hence, the Ash tree is already encroaching on the main structure. This is a SAFETY HAZARD, not to mention the fact that the roots are now within inches of the sewer line and foundation, which could cause thousands of dollars in additional damage. OPTION: REMOVE THE TREE AND REPLANT WITH ANOTHER TREE THAT WILL NOT CAUSE EXTENSIVE DAMAGE Considering the extensive damage, and the fact that the type of tree - Ash - is not an appropriate type of tree to plant so close to the residences, the only viable option is to remove the tree and replace it with an appropriate tree that will not cause such extensive damage. Everyone is a winner with the choice of this option. Rose Villas II is ready and willing to continue to act responsibly and move forward to replace the Ash tree with another lovely tree that will be valued and appreciated by the Rose Villas II community. It has already spent much valuable time and money in considering all possible ways to keep the Ash tree. Once again, the Ash tree will be replaced by a tree that does not cause such extensive damage to the Rose Villas II community. With all do respect, Rose Villas II has no more time to be casual about the continued damage that this tree is causing to its community. Tony Tomeo, horticulturist and arborist, has outlined in his complete report (dated July 28, 2001), that the Ash tree can also potentially cause substantial damage to existing main buildings or interfere with utility services, which is viewed by the City as a valid reason to remove a tree. Mr. Tomeo has also provided Rose Villas II with a list of some tree species suitable for replacement of the Ash tree, which is very large and not proportionate to the Rose Villa's II site. In order to prevent further damage and much more significant expense to the Rose Villas II community, please issue the Tree Removal Permit to remove the Ash tree behind 108 and 110 Salice Way as soon as possible. Thank you for your consideration. Please contact me with any questions or concerns. Carolyn Ferra~ri Secretary, Board of Directors Rose Villas II Homeowners Association (408) 374-9744 Attachments cc: Board of Directors, Rose Villas II Jeff Lucero, Bridgecliff Management Group/1975 Hamilton Avenue #30, San Jose, CA 95125 Los Gatos Horticulture 152 suite 4 Carlton Avenue Los Gatos 95032 408 - 358 2574 .Assignment: Assessment of potential for structural damage to residential building, which may result fi-om continued expansion of root system of single shamel ash tree, /,'rCtxmt~,~ td,de/. (This species is also known as evergreen ash.) Observations: The trunk of the tree is ~vithin three feet of concrete pavement and a garden x~ all. Tile pavement and wall have already been severely damaged by elevation by several i~ches. Some of the concrete pavement of the adjacent walkway that has already been damaged and replaced is again damaged and required replacement. The co~crete patio contained within the garden wall has not yet been replaced. (Neighbori,g residents have indicated that severe root pruning had been performed prior to the replacement of the damaged concrete several years ago. The severe root prunil~g x~as on the south side of the tree farther from the residence.) Althottgh most of the damage is within the patio of the adjacent residence, damage is also evident in the patios of the other residences. The surrounding lawn has also been elevated several inches. Utility closets at the rear of the residences have been constructed on concrete slabs that are independent of those on which the residences have been constructed. Bccause they lack adequate foundations and footings associated with standard foundations of the residences, they may easily be damaged as the patio pavement ~as. Yhe sexver line extends from the rear of the building very near the tree. The severity of root pruning required to facilitate replacement of pavement and otller structures would be very detrimental to the health of the tree and compromise strtlctural integrity. Such severe root pruning would not easily compartmentalize (Ileal) a~ld xx ould likely promote the advance of decay into large support roots and e~ e,ttlall~' i~lto the trunk of the tree. Diminished root dispersion also inhibits response to leverage o~ the trunk, which occurs as a result of wind resistance. The severity of crox~, reduction necessary to compensate for the diminished root dispersion would also be very detrimental to the health of the tree. Los Gatos Horticulture 152 suite 4 Carlton Avenue Los Gatos 95032 408 - 358 2574 Although new roots are evident near the newer concrete to the south of the ti'ce, the structural integrity was likely compromised to a minor extent by previous root priming at that location. The tree is currently in good health and is reasonably well structured. Notes: This species is a very large tree that is not proportionate to the site. Although damage to adjacent structures is currently confined, the tree will continue to grow. Sex~er lines (contemporary) that are not normally dmnaged by tree roots can be crushed by severe soil compaction. Likewise, concrete fotmdations and the concrete slab floors beyond them may eventually become damaged as root expansion contilmes. Damage under and beyond foundations is a much slower procedure, but very difficult and expensive to repair. This species also exhibits an aggressive root system. Surface roots are attracted to the moist outer surfaces of concrete where they expand and displace the COllcrete. Although the tree could be salvaged xvith considerable expenditure of resources, it will eventually require complete removal. Replacement with a more suitable species of tree is therefore more practical than salvage procedures. Recommendations: Reinoval of the tree is recommended. Selection of replacement species should be limited to those that exhibit complaisant root systems. However, mid-sized, deciduous shade trees are preferred. Los Gatos Horticulture 152 suite 4 Carlton Avenue Los Gatos 95032 408 - 358 2574 Notes: Tree species suitable for replacement of tree to be removed include, but are not limited to: red oak red maple Norway maple Idaho locust flowering pear Acer rubrum (various cultivars) Acer platanoides* Robinia ambigua 'Idahoensis' Pyrus calleryana 'Bradford' Tree se~-~'ices recommended to perform the removal of the tree include: (More referrals are available by request.) Commercial Tree Care, Robert Lenney 985 8733 www.commercialtree.com *Many cultivars of Norway maple are not practical for this application because of ~'oracious root systems. Although most within this group are no longer readily a~ ailable, selections should be limited to more contemporary cultivars that have been de~eloped lbr urban landscapes. Many of the contemporary cultivars are known by their cult/var names but not as Norway maples. Many others are hybrids of various species of maples. PAMELA J. DARR 101 WEST RINCON AVENUE CAMPBELL, CA 95008 408/378-7352 August 23, 2001 Ms. Sharon Fierro, Secretary City of Campbell Planning Commission 70 N. First Street Campbell, CA 95008-1436 RE: File No. PLN2001-27 Address: 108 & 110 Salice Way CITY OF PLANNING DEPT, Dear Ms. Fierro: I received a notice of the Public Hearing to be held on August 28, 2001 to consider an Appeal by Ms. Carolyn Ferrari on behalf of Rose Villas II Homeowners Association of the Administrative Denial of a Tree Removal Permit which would allow the removal of an ash tree on common area property. As a concerned homeowner and due to the fact that I am unable to attend the hearing, please consider this letter as my request for your reconsideration and that this permit be granted. It is apparent that the tree is causing damage to the homeowners property at 108 and 110 Salice Way by way of uplifting the patio floor, walls and affecting the actual structure of the unit wherein the gate to the patio and the door to the water heater are inoperable. It is just a matter of time until the tree roots actually cause damage to the foundation of the living room entry way if that has not already occurred. Also, the tree roots are causing a hazard in the common area due to the uplifting of the walkway inlo and out of thc common re'ea. As a concerned homeowner, it is imp~,rlan~ that the walkway be repaired properly to eliminate the possibility of liability for personal injury. The only feasible way to repair this walkway and not have it damaged by the tree roots in the future is to remove the ash tree and plant a replacement tree that does not have the potential of root damage. Thank you for your time and consideration to my request for approval of the Tree Removal Permit. Rega~rd~, cc: Carolyn Ferrari 0f · CA/14/~ CITY oF CAMPBELL Community FJcv¢lopment Department - Current Planmng August 17, 2001 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Campbell has set the time of 7:30 p.m., or shortly thereafter, on Tuesday, August 28, 2001, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California, for a Public Hearing to consider an Appeal by Ms. Carolyn Ferrari, on behalf of Rose Villas II Homeowners Association, of an Administrative Denial of a Tree Removal Permit (PLN2001-27) to allow the removal of an ash tree on common area property located behind 108 and 110 Salice Way in a PD (Planned Development) Zoning District. This project is Categorically Exempt. Interested persons may appear and be heard at this hearing. Please be advised that if you challenge the nature of the above project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing described in this Notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Campbell Planning Commission at, or prior to, the Public Hearing. Questions may be addressed to the Community Development Department at (408) 866-2140. Decisions of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council. Appeals must be submitted to the City Clerk in writing within 10 calendar days of an action by the Commission. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, listening assistive devices are available for all meetings held in the Council Chambers. If you require accommodation, please contact the Community Development Department at (408) 866-2140, at least one week in advance of the meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF CAMPBELL SHARON FIERRO SECRETARY PLEASE NOTE: When calling about this Notice, please refer to File No. PLN2001-27 Address: 108 & 110 Salice Way 70 North First ~qtrcct · Campbell, Ca]ilornia 95008-1436 . Ill 408866.2140 · ~:AX 408.866.8381 · II)l) 408.866.2790 CITY OF CAMPBELL Community Development Department - Current Planning Jeff Lucero Rose Villas II Homeowners Association Manager Bridgecliff Management Group P.O. Box 906 Campbell, CA 95009 July 23, 2001 Subject: Denial of-Application for Tree Removal Permit to Remove Ash Tree at 108 Salice Way/Rose Villas _ri PLN 2001-27 Dear Mr. Lucero: Thank you for meeting with Geoff Bradley, Senior Planner, and me at the Rose Villas g on Thursday, July 19 to examine the ash tree that the Homeowners Association wishes to remove. After a through examination of the issues with the tree lifting the sidewalk and rear patios of the units at 108 and 110 Salice Way, it has been determined by the Planning Division that there are reasonable alternatives to accomplishing these repairs and retaining the tree. While the damage the tree has caused is noticeable, it does not meet the criteria of the Tree Protection Ordinance that stipulates that the Community Development Director can only approve a tree removal permit if any of the following general criteria are met: Diseased or Dan~er of Falling. The tree or trees are irreparably diseased or presents a danger of falling that cannot be controlled or remedied through reasonable preservation and/or preventative procedures and practices such that the public health or safety requires its removal. Potential Damage. The tree or trees can potentially cause substantial damage to existing or proposed main buildings (e.g., dwellings or other main buildings) or interfere with utility services and cannot be controlled or remedied through reasonable relocation or modification of the structure or utility services. Economic Enjoyment and Hardship. The retention of the tree restricts the economic enjoyment of the property or creates an unusual hardship for the property owner by severely limiting the use of the property in a manner not typically experienced by owners of similarly zoned and situated properties, and the applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the approval authority that there are no reasonable alternatives to preserve the tree. A minor reduction of the potential number of residential units or building size due to the tree location does not represent a severe limit of the economic enjoyment of the property. 70 North First Street . Campbell. California 95OO8-1436 . TEL 408.866.2140 . F;,X 408.866.8381 · TDD 408.866.')790 July 23, 2001 Tree Removal Permit (PLN 2001-2 7) - Rose Villas II Homeowners Association Page 2 The Community Development Director has determined that satisfactory evidence has not been presented that the tree is or can potentially cause substantial damage to the existing main buildings or that retention of the tree restricts the economic enjoyment of the property or create an unusual hardship by severely limiting the use of the property in a manner not typically experienced by owners of similarly zoned and situated properties. A detailed arborist report, which was requested previously, has not been submitted; however, the tree does not show any visible signs of disease or poor health. The tree appears to be a healthy, mature ash tree that is the largest on the site and is a tremendous aesthetic and physical asset to the residential development. There are reasonable alternatives to preserve the tree, which include consulting with a licensed arborist when the aforementioned repairs are undertaken to ensure that significant roots are not damaged and that every precaution is taken to ensure there is no adverse damage to the tree during construction. The pathway near the tree could also be realigned to prevent encroachment into the root zone of the tree. The application for a Tree Removal Permit for the ash tree at Rose Villas II is herby being denied since this case does not meet the criteria required for approval under the Tree Protection Ordinance. Should you desire to appeal this decision to the Planning Commission, an written appeal letter and the applicable fee must be submit to the City Clerk within ten days of this decision, on or before Thursday, August 2, 2001. This letter should contain the grounds for the appeal. The appeal will be scheduled for hearing at the earliest regular heating of the Planning Commission Should you have any questions regarding this application, please do not hesitate to contact me at (408) 866-2193. Sincerely, Darcy Smith Planner II CC~ Geoff Bradley, Senior Planner Sharon Fierro, Community Development Director Biota Tech Services Inc., Attention: Sandi Nelson, 1807 Pruneridge Avenue, Suite A, Santa Clara, CA 95050 Resident, 108 Salice Way, Campbell, CA 95008 Resident, 110 Salice Way, Campbell, CA 95008 ROSE ¥1LLAS II HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION c/o Bridgecliff Management Group P.O. Box 906 Campbell, CA 95009 408-559-8001 FAX 408-371-5130 E-Mail jeff@bridgecliff, com July 10, 2001 City of Campbell Community Development Department Attn: Darcy Smith, Planner II 70 North First Street Campbell, CA 95008-1436 Re: Application for Tree Removal Permit to remove Ash tree behind 108 Salice Way. PLN 2001-27 Dear Darcy Smith, I am writing on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Rose Villas II Homeowners Association in regard to the above referenced matter. The Board of Directors has been working for the last year to remove the Ash tree behind units 108 & 110 Salice Way in Campbell, and replace the tree with an aesthetically pleasing, non-obtrusive type of replacement tree, in addition to replacing the damage done by the Ash tree over the years. As the attached pictures will show, there is a severe trip hazard caused by the tree uprooting a common area sidewalk, the only of it's kind on that side of the courtyard. In addition, there are two units' rear patios that have been affected structurally, with the Ash roots uplifting the patio walls and the patio foundations causing their gates to not function properly and thus also pose a security issue. The Board of Directors approved the plan to remove the Ash tree by Biota Tech Services for the safety and concern of the Association and its members, and replace the sidewalk and rear patios of units 108 & 110 Salice Way. The Ash tree has already had its roots cut on the sidewalk side on a couple of occasions in recent years and repairs have been needed to the lighting and electrical system, as well as irrigation lines in the area. The Board wishes to replace the Ash tree with a 24- gallon Crepe Myrtle (Lagerstroemia indica). The Board of Directors for years has desired to keep the Ash tree due to its aesthetic value to the community. One Board member in particular lives in one of two affected units and her neighbor in the other affected unit have desired to keep the tree in the past despite it's posed problems in the future. However, the future has come to present, the damage is substantial and needs to be remedied, and we are prohibited from doing so at this point, due to a lack of permit granted by the City of Campbell. I am curious to know if someone visited the site to view the tree from your department. As you can tell in the attached pictures, there would be no need for your reference in your letter dated May 10, 2001, that "the situation does not meet any of the criteria listed," of which two of the three are applicable. If an on-site meeting is desired, I would be more than happy to meet with anyone to help resolve this matter. Please review the Permit Application, attached photos, and attached drawing for the current sidewalk/tree plan and the proposed plan and let me know what the City finds. If you have questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at 408-559-8001 xl 1, or by e- mail at jeff(&,bridgecliff, com. Thank you in advance for your help and prompt attention to this matter. Sincerely, Jeff Lucero Association Manager On behalf of the Board of Directors CC: Board of Directors Geoff Bradley, Senior Planner CITY OF CAMPBELL Community Development Department - Current Planning July 9, 2001 Biota Tech Services Inc. Attention: Sandi Nelson 1807 Pruneridge Avenue, Suite A Santa Clara, CA 95050 Subject: Application for Tree Removal Permit to Remove Ash Tree at 108 Salice Way. PLN 2001-27 Dear Madame: The Campbell Planning Division has reviewed your application for a permit to remove an ash tree at 108 Salice Way in a P-D (Planned Development - Residential) Zoning District. Although you state in the your letter that the tree is interfering with utilities and causing hardscape damage, the Community Development Director cannot approve your tree removal permit without receiving a detailed arborist report supporting these arguments and a detailed replanting plan that includes a site plan of the subject property with the location and species of the proposed replacement tree. The Community Development Director does not support the replacement of the ash tree with a crepe myrtle tree because it is not a species similar to the ash tree. It is recommended that your replace it with an Ash or a London Plane tree. Should you have any questions regarding this application, please do not hesitate to contact me at (408) 866-2193. Sincerely, Darcy Smith Planner II cc: GeoffBradley, Senior Planner Bridgecliff Management/Rose Villas II, 1975 Hamilton Avenue #30, San Jose, CA 95125 70 North First Street · Campbell, California 95008-1436 · FEI_ 408.866.2140 FXX 408.866.8381 . q"l)~) 408.866.2790 BIOTA TECH SERVICES I,,,¢. 1807 Pruneridge Avenue, Suite A Santa Clara, CA 95050 Phone: (408) 248-3266 · Fax: (408) 248-7713 ARBORIST May 30, 2001 MEMO Attn: Darcy Smith City of Campbell 70 North First Street Campbell, CA 95008-1436 RE: PLN 2001-27 Subject: Removal of Ash Tree at 108 Salice Way We have received fnformation from Bridgecliff::Management: that the Ash tree (#38) is causing damage to the existing structures at Rose Villas II and .is beginning to interfere with utilities located within the root zone of the tree. Repairs to this damage are scheduled to begin but would on y:be:temporary if this tree remains: Retention of this tree woUld also restrict the economic enjoyment of the property and severely imit the useof this area. The Ash: tree is located in the 'common area' of the association and the current~:":;UPheaval of the bardscape around the tree has caused a significant trip hazard as well as restricting the use of the walkways within the area. Repairs toarea are also scheduled but would ..be temporary without removal of the Ash tree. The Management: Company and Homeowners' Association request that you allow them to remove the Ash tree that is causing these problems and all;ow them to replace it with a 24" boxed Crepe Myrtle. Bruce Bowden, a Certified Arborist with our company, agrees with the decision to remove and replace the ASh tree with a more suitable species for the area. Thank you for your consideration. If you have any additional questions please do not hesitate to call Sandi Nelson Vice President Biota Tech Services, Inc. Contractors License No. 636510 · Certified Personnel CITY OF CAMPBELL Community Development Department - Current Planning May 10, 2001 Biota Tech Services Inc. Attention: Sandy 1807 Pruneridge Avenue, Suite A Santa Clara, CA 95050 Subject: Application for Tree Removal Permit to Remove Ash Tree at 108 Salice Way. PLN 2001-27 Dear Madame: The Campbell Planning Division has reviewed your application for a permit to remove an ash tree at 108 Salice Way in a P-D (Planned Development - Residential) Zoning District. Under the Tree Protection Ordinance, the Community Development Director can only approve a tree removal permit if any of the following general criteria are met: Diseased or Dan~er of Falling. The tree or trees are irreparably diseased or presents a danger of falling that cannot be controlled or remedied through reasonable preservation and/or preventative procedures and practices such that the public health or safety requires its removal. Potential Damaae. The tree or trees can potentially cause substantial damage to existing or proposed main buildings (e.g., dwellings or other main buildings) or interfere with utility services and cannot be controlled or remedied through reasonable relocation or modification of the structure or utility services. Economic Enjoyment and Hardship. The retention of the tree restricts the economic enjoyment of the property or creates an unusual hardship for the property owner by severely limiting the use of the property in a manner not typically experienced by owners of similarly zoned and situated properties, and the applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the approval authority that there are no reasonable alternatives to preserve the tree. A minor reduction of the potential number of residential units or building size due to the tree location does not represent a severe limit of the economic enjoyment of the property. Although you state in the application that the tree is causing hardscape damage, the situation does not meet any of the criteria listed above. Consequently, the Community Development Director cannot approve your tree removal permit. If you feel that you can meet one of the three criteria listed above, please submit a more detailed written explanation of how the tree 70 North [Z~rst qtrcct · Campbc[h California 9500,5 1436 r}[ 406 $~6.2140 !:xx 408.S60 5381 il)l) 405.866,2790 meets this criteria and a detailed arborist report supporting these arguments. You will also need to submit a detailed replanting plan that includes a site plan of the subject property with the location and species of the proposed replacement trees. Should you have any questions regarding this application, please do not hesitate to contact me at (408) 866-2193. Sincerely, Darcy Smith Planner II cc: GeoffBradley, Senior Planner BridgecliffManagementJ Rose Villas II, 1975 Hamilton Avenue #30, San Jose, CA 95125