Rose Garden Resident

News

Neighbors want to stop the removal of 10 trees

Owners of Garden Alameda complex apply for permits

By Mary Gottschalk

The issue of trees at the Garden Alameda office complex, between Pershing and Schiele avenues, is a volatile one.

It seems to pit the property owners who believe removing diseased trees is a safety issue against neighbors who see every tree removal application as a criminal request.

The latest skirmish in this ongoing battle is over an application to remove nine living trees and one dead tree, and obtaining after-the-fact approval for three trees removed without permits.

At the May 3 San Jose Planning Director's meeting, Principal Planner Susan Walton decided to continue the matter to the May 17 meeting at the request of neighbors fighting the permits.

Jim Rees, a representative of the Boccardo Management Group, which owns the property, did not speak at the hearing, but afterward said, "We've been misunderstood.

"The attraction of that property is the trees. When we purchased the property in 1996, it had a lot of deferred maintenance," Rees said. "The people we bought it from didn't have a tremendous amount of money to keep the property up."

An arborist was hired to do a full tree map of the property, which now has 302 trees and is home to 37 different species. Ten of the trees are on San Jose's Heritage Tree List, but none of those are on the removal request.

Rees says that after buying the property, they started a pruning schedule.

"A lot of these trees hadn't been touched with any care for 10 years. We spent a lot of time and money to get the trees back up to a healthy place," he said.

The three area residents who did speak were in opposition to granting approval for the removal permits. Several residents sent emails to the planning department.

Nancy Dunne, a Hoover Avenue resident, said to Walton, "I want you to deny this request."

Dunne distributed photographs showing one of the trees they want to remove with another showing the significantly smaller-size tree that would replace it. She also included eight photographs showing stumps and empty spots where trees have been removed on the property and not replaced.

Debra Arant, a Sequoia Avenue resident and a member of the Shasta-Hanchett Park Neighborhood Association board of directors, read a letter from the group opposing the permits.

"The trees located at this property have been part of the community for many years, helping to define the unique quality and character of the neighborhood. The large almond tree, in particular, is a favorite of the neighbors," Arant read.

Arant ended by saying if the city wasn't willing to deny the application that city officials should at least defer it, asking the city arborist to make an inspection and recommendation rather than just accept the report submitted by the owners.

At the May 3 meeting, planning staff recommended granting the permits, with the exception of one for an iron bark eucalyptus.

However, along with the recommendation to approve came recommended stringent conditions on the permits.

For each of the three trees removed without a permit, staff asked for eight trees of at least 24-inch box size to be placed on the property.

Additionally, for each tree-removal permit granted, they asked for four trees to be planted in the surrounding neighborhood.

Rees said he understands that it's not always easy to recognize a diseased tree.

"There was a big, beautiful 200-year-old oak tree in front of one of the buildings. It was rotten on the inside, but looked beautiful on the outside," he said.

Citing its beauty, Rees did not go along with the arborist and property manager's recommendations to remove the tree.

"Another year went by and they said, 'It looks beautiful, but it's hollow on the inside.' The city arborist came out and agreed, so we got a permit from the city and cut it down," Rees said.

In the past few years, Rees said a half-dozen trees have fallen at the complex.

Walton said continuing the hearing will allow time for the city arborist to make an inspection. Additionally, she said she agreed that no new permits should be issued until new trees were in place to replace those removed without a permit.

A decision on whether to grant the permits will be made at the May 17 meeting at 9 a.m. in the city council chambers of San Jose City Hall. If that decision is appealed by either side, it would then go to a hearing before the planning commission.

Whatever the decision, it's likely that more tree removal-permit requests will be coming up.

Planner Erin Morris, who has been handling the requests, said that this is only the first phase. The private arborist found that at least 16 of the pine trees on the property are diseased, suffering from pine pitch canker and in decline.

Dunne said if the property owners are going to continue removing trees, "they should change the name to Desert Alameda."

Rees said, "We're a very good neighbor. I don't know why the neighbors see us as the evil developer. The trees are a big, big asset to us."

Rees said he was annoyed they are being portrayed as out-of-town developers.

"The Boccardo family has been in this valley for many, many years," Rees said. "My grandfather Jim Boccardo was a pillar in the community. My mother went to Hoover Junior High, and my grandfather's first law firm was on The Alameda, where the new Long's [drugstore] is.

"We're not a fly by-night-developer who breezes in and cuts down trees. I do think we're being misunderstood."