The Cupertino Courier

Cover Story

Photograph by Brian Connelly

Marcos Kubow loads tree branches into a wood chipper. When Cupertino residents want to remove a tree, they're supposed to get a permit.

A New Leaf

Cupertino may revise its expensive tree- removal permits

By HUGH BIGGAR

If a tree falls in Cupertino, the question is not whether it makes a sound but if the person taking it out followed the rules.

Increasingly, it seems, the answer is no, especially for Cupertino's officially protected trees.

The reasons for people not following city rules are as complicated as the rules themselves, and in response, the city is now considering amending its tree ordinance.

"The real impetus [for the amendment] is people removing trees without a permit and then coming to the planning commission retroactively," said Ciddy Wordell, a city planner.

Generally, tree-removal permits in Cupertino are needed for complete removal of a protected tree, or severe pruning (removal of about a quarter of the tree in a year). Those who wish to remove such trees, including California buckeye, big leaf maple, deodar cedar and blue atlas cedar trees, must pay $2,536 and follow several steps.

The first is applying for a tree-removal permit from the city stating the number and location of trees to be removed, with photos of the trees and the reason for the removal of each. The city then reviews the application and refers it to the planning commission for final review. The site is also inspected by the Department of Community Development, with priority given to requests based on hazard or danger of disease. Finally, the city may also require the applicant to pay for a report from a staff-approved arborist.

There also exceptions to these rules, especially if a tree is believed to be a threat, or falls under the jurisdiction of public utilities. California's pending Solar Rights Act may also affect these rules.

All of this, of course, assumes individuals know the rules and elect to follow them.

All bark and no bite

In a letter to the editor, Cupertino resident Jim Carlisle said he learned of the city's tree regulations after it was too late. Having already removed two trees from his yard, Carlisle later learned of the tree permit requirement in the Courier.

Business owner Anthony Christen had a similar experience. He had a tree service remove a coast redwood and two 12 Canary Island pines on his property on Stevens Creek Boulevard after the service told him the city did not require permission. This was not the case. The trees should have been included as a part of an approved landscape plan. Christen told the city he did not know he needed a permit and found the city's protected tree list confusing.

Since Christen removed the trees without permission, he could have been fined or charged with a misdemeanor, a course the city chose not to take.

Later, Vice mayor Kris Wang appealed the planning commission's approval of the application to ensure that some trees were replanted. At the time, Wang said the lack of any penalty set a bad precedent.

Such lack of enforcement has troubled other residents.

"In my neighborhood a lot of people are talking about all the old trees getting cut down," said Keith Murphy, who lives on East Estates Drive.

Murphy and some of his neighbors were particularly upset when developers of the Market Place Shopping Center removed several palm trees in 2004.

Although the trees were not designated by the city as historic, protected trees, Murphy said they were replacements for historic palms taken out in the 1950s.

"The city council has said they have put them back, but they haven't, and I guess they are hoping people will forget," Murphy said. "They are historical artifacts as Cupertino has gone from rural to suburban to urbanized."

Trees' historic value to Cupertino plays a role in their preservation. A row of 33 palm trees on Palm Avenue, for instance, received heritage tree status in 1996 since the trees once marked the entry to the historic Las Palmas Winery owned by John Doyle.

Trees make other, practical contributions as well, including helping absorb rain waters to prevent erosion, protecting against flood hazards and the risk of landslides and counteracting air pollution. As a part of this, American Forests, a nonprofit agency, recommends cities in the dry Western states have a tree canopy of about 25 percent.

Trees can also be nice to look at, a welcome source of shade on a hot day and provide communities with personality in an era of generic strip malls.

For all of these reasons, the city drafted a tree ordinance to help preserve trees. The resulting confusion, though, has made it clear more guidance is needed.

Possible changes

As a part of that process, the city planning commission is now scheduled to discuss the issue Sept. 26. City staff has directed the planning commission to address such topics as:

* the adequacy of the protected tree list

* giving notice of trees to be removed

* deciding whether the planning commission or city staff should oversee the process,

* penalties to be imposed for illegally removing trees.

Other hot topics could include improved online information, having people who cannot replace trees pay compensation to a city fund, and whether fees should vary for commercial properties, housing developments and private homeowners.

At the moment the flat fee of $2,536 is higher than several neighboring communities. Sunnyvale, for instance, charges a permit fee of about $200. "The fee is intended to recover staff costs," Wordell said, adding such fees are to be a part of the amendment talks.

Murphy is among the residents hoping the talks about protecting healthy trees take root. "It's about trying to hold on to things that give you a sense of community and heritage," he said. "And protecting trees is a win for the city because it's an easy way for them to show respect for residents rather than have it be just another brick in the wall between the city and property owners."