DIR-2004-05b
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
FAX 777-3333
Department
May 25,2004
51
Mr. U mesh Mahajan
23605 Oak Valley Road
Cupertino, CA 95014
SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION LETTER - TR-2004-05
This letter confirms the decision of the Flamling Commission, given at the meeting on
May 24,2004, approving a request to remove a protected 34-inch diameter Manna Gum
Tree (Eucalyptus viminalis) and replace it with two 36-inch box Coast Live oaks, located
at 23605 Oak Valley Road, according to Planning Commission Resolution No. 6250.
Please note that an appeal of this decision can be made within 14 calendar days from
the date of this letter. If this happens, you will be notified of a public hearing that will
be scheduled before the City Council.
Sincerely,
('\
\ I
\, I
"I,,)
-j
i,
-;:;;:r
C 1. J ( ) \,-.,/1
o In urrg
Senior Planner
g:jplanninglpos t heari nglac Nonie tterTR - 2 004-05
TR-2004-05
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 6250
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A
REQUEST TO REMOVE A PROTECTED 34-INCH DIAMETER MANNA GUM TREE
(Eucalyptus viminalis) AND REPLACE IT WITH TWO 36-INCH BOX COAST LIVE
OAKS AT 23605 OAK V ALLEY ROAD
SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Owner:
Location/ APN:
TR-2004-05
Umesh Mahajan
Umesh Mahajan
23605 Oak Valley Road (342-56-002)
SECTION II: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application
to remove a Manna Gum (Eucalyptus) tree, as described in this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support removal of
this tree and has satisfied the following requirements:
1) The Eucalyptus, due to its propensity for small diameter branch breakage, is
unsuitable for retention in the backyard of a residence.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, application for Tree Removal is hereby approved as modified;
and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this
Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning
Application TR-2004-05, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission
Meeting of May 24, 2004 are incorporated by reference herein.
Resolution No. 6250
Page 2
TR-2004-05
OS/24/04
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
1. APPROV AL ACTION
One Eucalyptus tree in the rear yard of 23605 Oak Valley Road may be removed and
must be replaced by two 36-inch box Coast Live Oaks planted in the rear yard.
2. CONFORMANCE WITH APPROVED LANDSCAPING PLAN
The applicant shall submit landscape plans for review and approval by the Director
of Community Development prior to tree removal.
3. REPLACEMENT OAK TREES
The replacement oaks shall be transported, planted and watered in accordance with
the recommendations found in the Barrie D. Coate arborist report dated April 2,
2004.
4. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees,
dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to
Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of
a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications,
reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day
approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and
other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you
fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements
of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of May 2004, at a Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: Chen, Miller, Vice-Chair Wong and Chairperson
Saadati
COMMISSIONERS: Giefer
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
ill Steve Piasecki
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
/ sl Taghi Saadati
Taghi Saadati, Chairperson
Cupertino Planning Commission
BARRI E D. C"-..IA TE
and ASSOCIATES
Horti cutural':::onsultants
23535 Summit Road
Los (;at05, ':::A 95033
408/35 3~ 1 052
A REVIEW OF THE EUCALYPTUS TREE AT
THE MAHAJAN PROPERTY
23605 OAK VALLEY ROAD, CUPERTINO
Prepared at the Request of:
Colin .lung
City Planner
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
Site Visit by:
Michael L. Bench
Consulting Arborist
April 2, 2004
Job #03-04-030A
EXHIBIT B
5}
A REVIEW OF THE EUCALYPTUS I, 'we' ,AT THE MAHAJAN PROPERTY 23605 OAK VALLEY ROAl" >PERT1NO
Assignment
I evaluated a large eucalyptus tree in the back yard at the home ofMr. and Mrs. Mahajan,
23605 Oak Valley Road, Cupertino, California, on March 18,2004. Mr. and Mrs.
Mahajan had expected to meet me by appointment for this evaluation, which was done
without their presence. As a consequence, Mr. and Mrs. Mahajan asked that I meet them
at their home, at another time which I did on April 2, 2004.
Observations
By the time of this Apri12, 2004 meeting, Mr. and Mrs. Mahajan had received a copy of
my evaluation. Their primary concern was that I had not adequately addressed the tree's
potential for small diameter branch breakage. In their opinion, this is an ever present
hazard, especially due to the fact that Mr. and Mrs. Mahajan have young children, as well
as the neighbor located on the west side. Mr. and Mrs. Mahajan believe that the
possibility of breakage of the small branches are a hazard to the young children.
With this concern of Mr. and Mrs. Mahajan in mind, I examined the eucalyptus tree for
small diameter branch breakage, defined as branches that are 1-2 inches in diameter at the
point of attachment. As I studied this tree, I observed that there have been numerous
branches that have broken out of this tree in the past. Photos of many of the stubs or the
scars, where these small diameter branches once existed, are provided in the
Attachments. Some ofthese photos show small diameter branches that have not yet
broken but are likely to break in the near future, especially during a storm. Mr. and Mrs.
Mahajan are concerned about the risk to their children and to the neighboring small
children of the neighbor on the west side, of and injury by one of these small branches.
When I evaluated this tree on March 18, 2002, I focused on three questions: (1) the
likelihood that this tree may uproot and topple over~ (2) the likelihood of major limb
drop~ and (3) the likelihood ofa fire igniting this tree, posing a risk to the home ofMr.
and Mrs. Mahajan or to the neighboring homes. As stated in my report, all three ofthese
concerns are possible, but, in my opinion, not very likely. However, during this second
observation, I have more carefully studied the scars ofthe past small branch breakage.
Indeed, the number of sman branches that have broken from this tree are numerous. In
my opinion, it is hkely that this phenomenon will continue. This species (Eucalyptus
viminalis) is among several eucalyptus species that are known for branch breakage,
especially of small diameter branches, as observed here. It is my experience that it is very
difficult to predict many of these breaks by visual inspection even by a trained arborist.
Conclusions
As a result of this second observation, the risk of small diameter branch breakage by this
tree in the future is predictable since that is a characteristic of the species. It is my
opinion, that the concern by Mr. and Mrs. Mahajan for their children is reasonable.
Recommendations
I recommend that this manna gum tree be replaced in accordance with its appraised value
with specimens that are native to this area.
PREPARED BY MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST
APRIL 2,2004
A REVIEW OF THE EUCAL YP ,-REE AT THE MAHAJAN PROPERTY 23605 OAK VALLEY F , CUPERTINO
2
I have prepared an appraisal of this manna gum tree based on the Trunk Fonnula method,
9th Edition, Guide for Plant Appraisal, International Society of Arboriculture.
By this method, this manna gum tree has an appraised value of $2,070, which is
equivalent to two 36 inch boxed native trees. I recommend that these replacements be
coast live oak (Quercus agrif()lia), because of its adaptability. It would be essential that
replacement trees be planted so that the root collar (s) would be at least 6-8 inches above
the existing soil grade after planting.
Replacement trees must be irrigated directly on top of the rootball during the dry months
of the year for 3 years. Irrigation must be applied on top ofthe rootball, not directly on
the trunk of the tree. Irrigation must be provided during the dry months (any month
receiving less than I inch of rainfall). Irrigate with 10 gallons for each inch oftrunk
diameter every 2 weeks during the first year. Irrigate with the same quantity monthly
during the second and third years. One alternative may be the use of a simple soaker
hose, which must be located 1 i and 2' from the trunk.
It is critical that the nursery tree rootball not be allowed to become dry during transport or
during the period in which it may be stored while waiting for planting. The best time tor
installation is November.
Re~tfullY~_~....
Michael L. Bench, Associate
~,~
Barrie D. Coate, Principal
MLB/sl..
Enclosures:
Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
Photos of Eucalyptus Tree
ISA Value Worksheet
PREPARED BY MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST
APRIL 2, 2004
A REVIEW OF THE EUCAL YPTU;;:, i REE AT THE MAHAJAN PROPERTY 23605 OAK VALLEY ROAD. CUPERTINO
~,~,"
~'\'
PREPARED BY MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORISr
APRIL 2, 2004
A REVIEW OF THE fUCAl YPTUu ,KEE AT THE MAHAJAN PROPERTY 23605 OAK VALLEY ROA"" CUPERTINO
PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L BENCH, CONSULTING ARBOR 1ST
APRil 2, 2004
A REVIEW OF THE EUCAL YPTlJ.::. , KEE AT THE MAHAJAN' PROPERlY 23605 OAK VALLEY ROA\), CUPERTINO
PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST
APRIL 2, 2004
A REVIEW OFTHE EUCALYPTUS TREE AT THE MAHAJAN PROPER1Y 23605 OAK VALLEY ROAD, CUPERTINO
PREPARED BY MICHAEL L BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST
APRIL 2,2004
A REVIEW OFTHE EUCALYPTUS .. ._cAT THE MAHAJAN PROPERTY 23605 OAK VALLEY ROAl, PERTlNO
PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST APRil 2, 2004
A REVIEW OFTHE EUCAL YPTUv ",~EE AT THE MAHAJAN PROPERTY 23605 OAK VALLEY ROM...., CUPERTINO
PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST
APRIL 2,2004
A REVIEW OFTHE EUCALYPTUS TREE AT THE Ml\.HAJAN PROPERTY 23605 OAK VALLEY ROAD, CUPERTINO
PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L BENCH, CONSULTING ARBOR 1ST
APRIL 2, 2004
A REVIEW OFTHE EUCALYPTIJ" ,<EE AT THE MAHAJAN PROPERTY 23605 OAK VALLEY ROA~, CUPERnNO
PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST
APRIL 2. 2004
BARRIE D. Cc".. rE
AND ASSOCIATES
Horticultural Consultants
(408) 353-1052
23535 Summit Road
Los Gatos, CA 95033
Trunk Fonnula Method
91h Edition, Guide for Plant Appraisal
for Trees 1,e~ Than 30" diameter
i
iQwner of I~EoJ?~treet._rylr':lI~d Mrs. Mall~jl:ln
I Location: 23605 Oak Valley Rd., Cunertino
r--'" _..,.. _,._,,,,.....__.t'__~...,.....,..__
-I
I
-1
I
I
I
I
.._'_.~-~_...-'----I
!
1
"--~-"-'l
I
'-~--------j
--I
I
....-I
I
._~~__-.J
I
I
J
$~::50~ _u_~_~
J
~r~~
Date of p..J2praisal:
4/2/04
Date of Failure: N/A
f..__~\ppraisal Pr~l_?!!~~cl_f()~lty..QI~:~I'.Crtino, ~21in_J 111!fL_...,...._______
I
A r~i~a.!.~repared by:....___Michati!:,I3_ench,--('~..r:tl!led Ar_~Qrist # 18~Z..
Piel{!gfJ..~~en'ations ()l::~uJJject Tree___.._ _._~__..._
I,
IL5pecies: Mann~~ Gum (Eucalyptus viminalis),.
! 2. Condition; 60%..______
!
f3c Trunk Diameter, inches:_~u
I 4, Location Value %
! Site 80% + Contribution 10% + Placement 10% = 100 -7 j =
'r--' " - ,'~" ",......, , _...-
LHegiunall:!(mt AppraisaU::'ommittee h!!<:~rmatlOn oL~E.f!!:.'ies __._~~__
i
i 5. Species Rating
~" ''''_.~- -~~~-
I
"''''0'
.,., )10
30%
6. Rcpla(;_~ment Tree Siz:e (sq. inchc.5'2! AR
I 7. Replacement Tree Cost
1---
~~,~.~~!Jation Cost._.."",
!
$902.50
i 9", Installed Tree Cost (#7 + #8) _.______ $1 ,80~_.
[~;).~J.~it -rre:-:~::'ost (P.~~~q. inch~:L__.." ~_.___~}7
i Ca/culat!~)_rIJi (}singL:"t.f!.{q and Regi..~~I1a1 C'omnlllt~e fntbrmgtion _~,..._
j II. Appraised Trunk Area
1__Jmnk Di~!~~!~'r. squarcQJ#3) x.785'~~__~_______ 29]-4~ ~_.__.._
I 12. Appraised Tree Trunk Increase (TA1NCR) =
~---::;-I~.C',:J07. 46, jg,_(# II L:_Tp..R--L 4. 6 S~l~II,f#,j)~_ ,_._!i92. 86 sq,i!~.___
i b. BaSIC Tree Cost
i (TAmcR) (#12) 892.64 sq. in x UTC (#10) $37 per sq. in.
+ Installed -free Cost (#9) $1,805 =
r" .
i 14. Appraised Value =
I Basic Tree Cost 13) $34,841 x Species
I (#?LJ.Q-~ x Condition (#2) J&1.Q x [,ocation (!'!t]1j:Q= ._~~.!07Q___________.
:-15:" Ro'u"nd to near~~.!.~~LOO ($-S:ooq+) or $lo"iI~than $5000)= $2,070
i
-l
_.~
\
I
!
~
i
I
- I
-_==~-=.-- ,=:]
$34,841
BARRIE D. COA l_
and ASSOCIATES
Horticutural Consultants
23535 Summit Road
Los Gatos" CA 95033
4081353-1 052
ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
1. Any legal description provided to the appraiser/consultant is assumed to be correct.
No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character nor is any opinion rendered as to
the quality of any title.
2. The appraiser/consultant can neither guarantee nor be responsible for accuracy of
information provided by others.
3. The appraiser/consultant shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason
of this appraisal unless subsequent written arrangements are made, including payment of an
additional fee for services.
4. Loss or removal of any part of this report invalidates the entire appraisal/evaluation.
5. Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any
purpose by any other than the person(s) to whom it is addressed without written consent of
this appraiser/consultant.
6. This report and the values expressed herein represent the opi,nion of the
appraiser/consultant, and the appraiser's/consultant's fee is in no way contingent upon the
reporting of a specified value nor upon any finding to be reported.
7. Sketches, diagrams, graphs, photos, etc... in this report, being intended as visual aids, are
not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering reports or surveys.
8. This report has been made in conformity with acceptable appraisal/evaluation/diagnostic
reporting techniques and procedures, as recommended by the International Society of
Arboriculture.
9. When applying any pesticide, fungicide, or herbicide, always follow label instructions.
10. No tree described in this report was climbed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take
responsibility for any defects which could only have been discovered by climbing. A full root
collar inspection, consisting of excavating the soil around the tree to uncover the root collar
and major buttress roots, was not performed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take
responsibility for any root defects which could only have been discovered by such an
inspection.
CONSULTING ARBORISr DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training, and experience to
examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to
reduce risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations
of the arborist, or to seek additional advice.
Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree.
Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often
hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or
safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments,
like medicine,. cannot be guaranteed.
Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some
degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk. associated with trees is to eliminate all trees.
oJ~~~
Barrie D. Coate
ISA Certified Arborist
Horticultural Consultant