Loading...
TR-2012-03b OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT � ,, CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE•CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 C U P E RT 1 N O (408) 777-3308• FAX (408)777-3333•planninq(a�cupertino.org February 9,2012 Dolly Sandoval 10720 Alderbrook L,n Cupertino,CA 95014 SUBJECT: TREE REMOVAL PERMIT ACTION LETTER- Application TR-2012-03: This letter confirms the decision of the Director of Community Development, given on February 9, 2012, approving a Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal and replacement of a 30 inch diameter Coast Live Oak located,located at 10720 Alderbrook Lane,with the following conditions: 1. APPROVED PROTECT The approval is based on the arborist's inspection report prepared by Michael Bench (ISA Certified #189�, entitled, "An Inspection of a Coast Live Oak, 10720 Alderbrook Lane, Cupertino° dated September 20, 2011, except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution. 2. TREE REPLACEMENTS The applicant will be required to plant one (1), 36 box Bay Laurel tree on the property in accordance with „ the Protected Tree Ordinance and the approved replacement plan. The replacements shall be planted within 30 days of the expiration date of the appeal period. 3. PROTECTED TREE COVENANT The applicant shall be required to record a covenant recording the replacement tree as a protected tree within 30 days of planting the replacement tree in accordance with the City's Protected Trees Ordinance. 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. Staff has made the findings necessary to grant the tree removal permit in accordance with Section 14.18.180 of the Protected Trees Ordinance. Please note, however, that an appeal of this decision can be made within 14 calendar days from the date of the mailing of this decision. If this happens,you will be notified of a public hearing,which will be scheduled before the Planning Commission. If no appeal is made within the appeal period,the tree may be removed beginning Friday,February 24,2012. Sincerely, George Schroeder, Assistant Planner 408-777-7601, georges@cupertino.org An Inspection of an Oak Tree at 10720 Alderbrook Lane,Cupertino An Inspection of a Coast Live Oak 10720 Alderbrook Lane, Cupertino Assignment I was asked by Mr. George Schroeder, City of Cupertino, to inspect an oak tree at the property of Dolly Sandoval, 10720 Alderbrook Lane, Cupertino, California. The objective was to inspect the tree for further hazardous potential, given the fact that a large limb recently fell resulting in damage to the back yard fences of three homes. Observations The subject tree is a coast live oak(Quercus agrifolia), a species indigenous to this area. The tree is located in the back yard at 10720 Alderbrook Lane, Cupertino. I did not measure the trunk of this tree, but I estimate that the trunk measurement to be approximately 30 inches in diameter at 4 '/z feet above soil grade (the standard measurement location of the International Society of Arboriculture). The canopy height is approximately 45-50 feet, and the canopy spread is approximately 50-60 feet. The canopy covers most of the area in the back yard at this residence and it extends over the residence approximately to the ridge on the east side of the roof. This tree has a very dense canopy. The leaf color is deep dark green suggesting ample nutrients, and the annual branch tip growth is approximately 5-10 inches, which is exceptional. The central leader has essentially split in half and fallen at approximately 20 feet above grade. The leader that fell was approximately 16-18 inches in diameter. This failure is the result of a genetic growth flaw seen in many species, called co-dominant leaders with imbedded bark. As this structure matures, tremendous pressure developed between the two leaders at the point of connection. The bark imbedded between them acts as a wedge. Rapid end weight growth and exceptional health, as seen in this case, contributes to the potential for breakage. It appears that this failure could have been prevented by cabling combined with end-weight pruning, had this weakness been recognized at an earlier stage. I observed no disease or insect infestation of the internal wood on the surviving leader. Thus, this failure was not caused by disease or insect infestation. The surviving leader is approximately 10-12 inches in thickness and approximately 16-18 inches wide at the point of the break. The wood within this area appears to be very sound. This means that the wood supporting the upper canopy is effectively an oak beam, approximately 10 X 16 (or a little larger) inches in size. This should be exceedingly strong. The open wound created by this failure is approximately 16 inches wide extending down the trunk approximately 2 feet. The tree will not be able to seal this wound effectively to prevent internal decay. Over time,the surviving central leader will become compromised by internal decay. However, this does not occur quickly, especially in an exceptionally healthy tree, as this specimen. The tree has internal mechanisms to create an internal barrier in an attempt to prevent internal decay, but for a wound this size the decay pathogens will eventually win the battle. This process is slow and typically takes several years to develop. I have seen trees with this type of failure survive for 20-30 years. There are numerous contributin���s��.cluding th , at��l�.-_��,. �, which affect the process. It is certainly possible that the surviving leader coul t�rt� �-Ll- Prepared by Michael L.Bench, Consulting Arborist �~' :-�-�: . September 20,2011 e,1:.....i.. . .-.. w.J .....,V .,_...�........... .. . . ... . �. G���� 10 years, if there are internal cracks, which are not visible. However, in my experience, the likelihood of this secondary failure would take several years, especially for a healthy coast live oak, as seen here. There are no effective procedures to repair this tree or to seal the wound to prevent the inevitable slow decay process. Conclusions The failed leader is a result of natural causes. The existing surviving leader will eventually fail after attack by disease and insects, but this process should take several years. This unfortunate failure is the beginning of the end for this tree. I do not consider this tree to warrant Emergency Removal. The fact that there is no effective way to repair the damage, and the fact that internal decay will eventually compromise the surviving structure, I suggest that the tree be approved for removal. It would be essential, in my opinion, to grind the stump and to remove the major roots to the extent possible. This is recommended to prevent the disease, oak root fungus (Armellaria mellea), from creating a"hot spot" of spore inoculum, which could invade replacement trees and plants. Replacement Considerations This tree exists in a raised planter bed. It appears that two replacement specimens could be planted in this raised bed. In this event, only 24 inch boxed specimens or 15 gallon specimens would be feasible to be planted in this area. Larger specimens (i.e., 36 inch boxed specimens or larger) would require renovations to the infrastructure. The front yard has been re-landscaped recently. A replacement tree in this relatively new landscape would likely create a disruption in the new design. Respectfully submitted, �----�--�:..c e.�____ Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist International Society of Arboriculture Certification# 1897 American Society of Consulting Arborists Member �_..�, :,:� , . �� :,. d:..�.1. �, , _.�_.-�z.?��-�.3:.... .. . � —Li—i� ��