01. Stevens Creek Corridor SS
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CUPERTINO
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE. CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777.3110. FAX: (408) 777.3366
Agenda Item No. -L
MEETING DATE: Deceinber 18,2007
To: Mayor and City Council
ISSUE:
December 18th Stevens Creek Corridor Study Session
INTRODUCTION:
The project has been designed pursuant to the scope, schedule and budget reviewed by Council on
October 17, 2006. On Junel9, 2007, Council adopted the FY 07/08 budget, including funding for
the first phase of construction scheduled for 2008. All permits needed to build the project are
received or in process. Permitting agencies involved include: California Department of Fish and
Game, Army Corps of Engineers, with input from National Marine Fisheries Service, Santa Clara
Valley Water District and the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Agencies contributing funding to the project include: the State of California Resources Agency--
Department of Parks and Recreation, the Department of Water Resources and the Santa Clara
Valley Water District. A number of different grant programs have been tapped. A spreadsheet
summary .of grant funding/status is attached as Exhibit A.
The 80% construction documents have been reviewed and the consultant team is preparing the
100% complete plans for bidding. The City Manager has asked for a study session to review the
details of the soon-to-be-bid project.
This report will:
· Briefly discuss what was approved for the 2008 phase of construction at the regular Council
meeting of October 17, 2006
· Discuss some aspects of project implementation and conformance with the approved master
plan and environmental document. Tree impacts are of particular concern and will be
addressed in detail. A companion video upda,te/tree walk has been distributed to those on
our email subscription list.
· Discuss what is included in the base project funding, with a discussion of desirable items to
be priced as add/alternate bid items. The most significant of these items is a green parking
lot.
BACKGROUND:
Approved 2008 construction as directed at the regular Council meeting of October 17. 2006.
The overall goals for the project were adopted by the City Council in September 2003 after an
extensive community visioning process that involved hundreds of residents. These goals have
guided project development over many years. They were further defined when the City Council and
Water District Board of Directors agreed to work together toward stream restoration and trail
development. For the benefit of Council members recently elected, we offer the City Council!
Santa Clara, Valley Water District mutual goals for the Ste\'ens Creek Corridor as defined in the
2004 Collaborative Action Plan (CAP), attached as Exhibit B. Although the original CAP
agreement funded a portion of project planning and environmental review only, the District has
since committed to contribute $1.2M more to this project, which achieves inlportant restoration
goals.
Elements of Phase I construction:
Not every goal will be met with a single p}:lase of construction, but the current effort will result in
significant progress. Please note: some construction is underway at McClellan Ranch. This "pre-
project" is known as the McClellan Ranch Facilities Improvement Project and includes
improvements to the 4-H area, limited trail development and reconstruction of the blacksmith shop.
The next phase, Phase I, will be bid in early 2008 for construction. Phase I is the focus of this
report and includes:
· Construction of a multi use trail from McClellan Ranch to the Blackberry Farm parking lot
· Removal of low flow stream crossings within Blackberry Farm and the removal of a
diversion dam just upstream of the Scenic Circle Bridge
· Construction of a new 800 person picnic area on the west bank of Stevens Creek
· Construction of a vehicular/pedestrian bridge connecting the new west bank picnic area to
the pool area .
· Construction of a new entry kiosk between the bridge and parking lot
· Construction of an environmentally friendly parking lot (to be discussed later in this report)
· Relocation of the golf course maintenance facility out of the riparian zone with construction
of a new golf course maintenance building. The golf course maintenance building will also
have restrooms accessible from the course for golf patron use
· Creek restoration throughout Blackberry Farm with a new meander though the existing
parking area and some realignment of the channel at Horseshoe Bend to reduce down
cutting and scour
· Construction of the environmental classroom, in a separate construction package, (page 5)
Elements of the first phase of construction worthy of additional review include: the parking lot
design, opportunities for solar installation on the new golf course maintenance building, special
historical interpretation features, environmental classroom construction and creek restoration
elements, including tree removal. If aspects of this project seem complex, be advised that, as.a
green project done in cooperation with numerous resource agencies, how we execute the project is
as important as the final result.
Habitat restoration:
As Council is aware, a restored creek is at the heart of our proposed park project. Much
engineering and environmental anaJ.ysis has gone into the design of creek channel improvements.
Significant components of the restoration include pulling the creek thalwag (channel centerline)
east in the area of Riviera Road to stabilize the sacked concrete slope. Channel length is made up
through the existing parking area - resulting in a significant parking lot size reduction and
enhancement of habitat restoration areas. Please see the attached diagram of channel modifications
labeled Exhibit C.
In addition to the horizontal realignment of the thalwag, the creek bed is proposed to be regraded to
minimize height of drops and down cutting. Grade structures, made of rocks and boulders, will be
incorporated into the channel for engineered stabilization, and the banks of the creek will be
biologically stabilized with root wads and tree trunks harvested from within the corridor.
The cross section and wetted area will also be re-formed, connecting the channel to the flood plain
and providing a bench for riparian species to grow. The additional plant material will provide shade
for fish, and cover and forage for a number of native wildlife species. The creek has been scouring
the chailnel banks. Please see the attached photos labeled Exhibit D. The roots of the trees shown
are still holding bank soil, but are now unstable. This generation of trees (about 50 years old) has
been falling in the corridor.
Tree removal is of significant concern for this phase of the project. In the environmental document
approved on June 20, 2006, it was disclosed that as many as 72 trees might need to be removed in
what we have now identified as the Phase I project. At that time, we indicated that the total number
would be a worst case number and that we would endeavor to design the project is a manner that
provides the greatest tree protection. In fact, the tree impacts are much less that initially reported.
A total of 54 trees will need to be removed; their type, size and condition are noted in the chart
labeled Exhibit E. In addition, David Babby consulting arborist, will be on hand to answer
questions the Council may have regarding trees.
Attached as Exhibits F to H, are diagrams that illustrate the trees to be removed. These diagrams
are of limited usefulness; while they show the distribution of trees; they do not reflect the quality of
canopy to be removed vs. that to be retained. We have distributed video footage that more clearly
shows tree impacts. A comprehensive update, running approximately 15 minutes, was emailed to
o~r subscribers in advance of this meeting, along with this staff report.
Exhibits I and J, show tree and shrub distribution post project. A total of 5,500 native trees, shrubs
and grasses will be added back into the corridor as a part of this project. Tree replacement is
budgeted to be done at a ratio of approximately 6 new trees to one removed tree.
ParkinQ: lot design:
The master plan and environmental document state that modifications to the existing parking lot
should be constructed of permeable paving material. The 50% cost estimate reviewed by Council
on October 17, 2006 assumed patching and reuse of the existing pavement. Closer inspection of the
pavement section has shown nearly complete failure. It is expected that after a year of construction
staging, there will be little pavement left. There is no money in the current project budget for a new
parking lot, but staff has proceeded with the design of environmentally friendly paving, and plans to
bid the upgrade as an alternate bid item for Council consideration.
The total number of parking spaces to be provided from the San Fernando entrance is 350. To
accommodate neighborhood traffic. concerns , no more than 100 of the 350 spaces shall be available
year-round. Parking will be in greatest demand on weekends between early May and late
September - the weekends, historically, that Blackberry Farm was in operation. Based on the old
Blackberry Farm calendar, the heaviest use will occur about 22 days per year, and that is when all
the parking will be needed. During the off-season or on summer weekdays less parking will be
required. Staff considered the cost, footprint and desirability of 350 cars worth of pavement in the
park, and opted for some peak: period meadow parking.
Within the meadow-parking zone, subsurface reinforcement will be installed in the travel lanes to
support the vehicle loads. The meadow parking will be planted of the toughest drought tolerant
species available and will be irrigated by a rotor system. When not needed for parking it will
provide a greener view from the retreat center. Note also that the proposed parking lot design
includes a significant number of trees.
For the year-round parking, a pervious paving system that is installed with subsurface stabilization
is recommended. The recommended paving is suitable for year-round use will support emergency
vehicles, and will be presented in more detail at the study session.
The cost of the add/alternate parking bid item is estimated at approximately $500,000 for the
summer use "meadow" parking, and approximately $350,000 for the year-round "winter" parking
area upgrade. Council will have an opportunity to review the true cost of the alternate after the bids
are open and can decide whether or not to fund the purchase at the time of award of construction
contract.
Solar analysis:
Pursuant to City Council direction given on September 4, 2007, staff is obtaining an analysis of the
cost and benefit of installing solar on existing and proposed buildings within Blackberry Farm. The
analysis will be presented to the City Council on February 19,2008. We are designing the roof for
the new golf maintenance building to support solar panels.
The maintenance building and environmental Classroom are Phase I projects, but will be bid as
separate items. The golf maintenance building will be purchased as a pre-engineered metal
structure with fa<;ade improvements detailed by the project architect. This structure will need to be
put in place early so that the current maintenance activities can be moved away from the stream
channel where the majority of construction work will be occurring.
The environmental classroom construction will follow after the park work is well underway. The
environmental classroom will need to be the subject of further Council discussion. As noted on
Exhibit B, some grant funding is specifically available for environmental classroom construction,
with additional Proposition 50 money available through a Conservation Corps partnership. Staff is
currently engaged in work at McClellan Ranch with the Corps and will need to evaluate the final
product and timeliness of delivery with the Council before electing to build the environmental
classroom with the Corps. On October 17, 2006, the environmental classroom presented to the City
Council was a small metal building with roll-up doors on three sides. Although it would keep the
rain off students enrolled in winter creek education classes, it would be a minimal facility. Staff
would like to delay the discussion of how to approach the environmental classroom project until the
current San Jose Conservation Corps contract has been completed.
Historical features:
It was early recognized that rich oppOltunities for historic interpretation existed within the corridor.
We have designed the entry to Blackberry Farm to interpret the fruit growing history ofthe valley.
Please see the attached sketch labeled Exhibit K. Incorporated into the design is a windmill,
wooden ranch-style fencing, fruit trees and fruit box benches - and of course, blackberries. With
the entry orchard, arbors for growing clas~ic grape varieties, hundreds of new trees, and overall
rustic detailing, staff hopes the community will respond well to the aesthetic theme. An overall
interpretive sign age plan for the trail is on the to-do list and staff is currently in conversation with
the Cupertino Historical Society to develop a theme for the Stocklmeir property.
Proiect funding:
As mentioned, parking lot funding is not included within the base budget, and the type of
construction to be employed for the environmental classroom is still under consideration. Given
that, the current estimated cost for Phase I construction, scheduled to commence Spring 2008,
is $6.5M.
RECOMMENDATION:
No Council action is required at this time. This study session is intended to bring Council current
with project progress. We expect this project to be advertised for bidding in early 2008, with an
exact date to be determined once we have received final feedback from the pemlitting agencies.
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION
TO CITY COUNCIL:
\.
~-~/yv~.
Therese Anlbrosi Smith, Director
Parks and Recreation
~
David W. Knapp, City Manager
~
~<
E-;E-;
--
~~
~E2
O~
U~
Zl
<>c
....:i~
8~
~p
E-;rJ.J
~~
~~
~0
<~
Uu
~u
~rJ.J
1!i
c:: '"
e la.
~ Ie.
"'0 11~
~ ct
::l - U
~ ~
00 ~
...
'0
,~
;-~
~"'-
~
"
"
6
" ..
e ~ 's.
Jtll~
~~1i
"'-"'-...:I
:'''0
,0
'"
~
o
==
g
"
"
0-
'S
"
" >.
.s:di
E f c
~ ~.~)
",oe
-
'"
.~ ,
~ '"
1: .!3
a'il
'il :J
~Q
c
'" '"
~~~
~]o
.~.s ;2S
P::t:.s
~
"
::a II
,Ii :a
0.:J
~Q
c
'" "
~~s
0925
'~~$
"">.
"''''.0
I
.
,
,
t",
t"
~s
'"
"0
"
'5
II
><
w
uC;
"'-
:0'"
"C:!
8:::
;;
"
o
8
<:
:.i
'....
~
~1i
'" 'iiJ
::;O::g
" .
.3? ~
v "
ou
00
000
~qq
.00
~~~
00 V> V>
1~
:E=<
-
u
..
'0'
..
~~
u';:
'" 0-
~] ~
~8~
o
o
'"
U ..
<: e
~~Qr::8
o...~<8M
~N-o~~
-e85o~
::>!:!."'W~
13 S
~ ~ :~
c:::: "CI
~~!l
~Y-a
~ '[ ~
::;Oo..u
"
" -0
a 0.
~ vidd
~ :e:a ~I
'fi ~ ~ ~
e.o~]
~ 8=] 's.j
00
0
0
'"
>.
::E
"
u
~ "
00 ~ "
Oll ;=:
;;;'e~~
Mo..c...Cl
"0
.'l
"
u
"
><
W
M\D
:oS2
,,00
0-
u~
.c
B
0 '"
0- 6
:-~
00 0
V> or,
-
~
.c
0..
0:
u
u
Vl
"0
"
~ "
.9....
'" "
iJ:.g = 0
]~~~
-g~gj~
j8W~
"3
"
u a
6
" 0
0 e
.~ ~
~~
wu
e
~l
.5 ~ ~o
8 ~ 's;
i='@';;:
.~g{'E~
a 'bO I)
~ a ~J 00
o-u~s..
'"
0
'"
>.
'"
::g
"
u
"
U ~ 0
~ .g. E ~
~~~~
M.~ c.. Cl
11
'5
II
01
U'D
IiS2
,,-
0'"
u;r;
.....rt;
3 lil
o 0.-
~ gj.~
~::a ~
o 8 ~ ~
8 ... ~ bll...---
...: ~ ".!:l::g
i5l~].s;g
"3
"
~ a
0
0 e
.lol '"
~~
wu
.;g '"
"
" "
z ~ -
@ ~~g;8
~ ~<~~
:r: .~ 8 --g ~ :)
~a3~~~~
..
s~
]'3
0.0:\
0."
'" u
I @
v "
:0.9
.~ .S
" '"
w;::g
."l
.0.
'"
U
"
0..
2i
;2S
"
u
"
-.~ @.E
258{::O
~ 0.. Il,) ~
\0 .~ 0... Cl
"0
.'l
"
II
><
w
u..,.
~~
5~
U<:l
'" .c
'D 8
'"
~6
S;~
""'"'"
~ :;j
~o..
U ~
'" 0
""0
~'E
J;58
c '"
'" "
t5 ~
~~_~N
..9~E~J:
CQ --"""O'"<t
~8-g8~
~!:!.,gW""
."
9.S
]~
0.0:\
0."
'" u
I @
~ ~
.0 _
.- "
~ 'a
w;::g
."l
.0.
'"
U
~
0..
o
'"
;0
Il
'"
-.~ 8.S
~l~~
~.;a~c
"0
.'l
"
II
'"
w
~Q
8~
o.c
08
o '"
66
E!~
~
'" 0
~~]~
~ ~ 0 ~
lZlUUCl..
"0
"
o
_0:\
~ ~
~~ ~g
._ ~ ..".0
~~ b~
~8~B~
p., C!..<r: :u= =II::
c
E it
i~ ,,'
Ijl ~
~.~ il
'i:<:~
(~ .
-- G)"
:.s c
'Iii =a
,~'"
';ff Q,
,C:
:l
Q
,8
\<( i'I
'i
I-
~
4,1-11
':I
t~
.~
I-
po
;
:8
~:=
~~
:-f
,""
1-
1.~
~
~
.@
o
'0
"
'"
"
o
.'"
::l
fl
~
l-
e
~
'"
...
.'"
""
~l
'0
"0
en
~
e
:c
~ 0
Q.g
9 ~
..ego..
3~:a
'" <>: '"
6 oJ ii
co ~ 5
<Oc.
"
8
'"
en
'"
M
a "
:l
en
il
15
al
~
<J",
b~
oon
8~
"
,.
o
-fJ
"
"
0'"
01
q<>:
8~
"'0
""-
~~
~~
u ...
'" 0
0'0
~'E
~8
Jl
~-o~
~ ~ 0
o"@ e
Cl ~ a~
~~~o~
~ ~ 8-~ ~
]!j
@ fj -
.,; ~ fj
~ 0 6
~ .~ B
::E~8
"
~
1!
.9
0.
:2
ti
i1
"" b
.~ ]
tJ~
v 0.
.~ 8
2 0
c.. u
~
;e
""
'0
5
al
"
v
u
'"
o
o
o
U
~ ,B]
~ ~ ~ ~
::a U 0....9
o.!j:j :<: u.8 <t:
.8 0 lIl"f1 ~g
~ ~ glj~ i5 .9j~
~I~ o..'q 0 ~ 0 0
~C~4-.~.t:;~
;AOo..:a~E~
o
.~P c
:G .8
Q t) ~
~~) ~ ~.~
'2 c n,) ~
~8~~
a:~ti~
o
o
.'"
<
"
,.
.'" '"
~ e -g U"l
o """
~t.L.&3
u=6B~
VlUCl..;tt:
'"
.@
~
'0
0
'"
0
0
.'"
::l
fl
"
<>:
~
~
'0
0
'"
0
0
.'"
~
"
<>:
0
0
N
0
8
N
,...;
;.,
~
'"
"
u
0
.... 8-
8 ....
0
N 0
,...; ~l
Jl 8B'
" '"
~ '0
'"
E.~
u '"
9 .-
@'2
en!]
o"'O~
O@"
o ~;.,
oo~ ~
t;o~
...
"'0
~ ~ C'I
U !-..g
~.g~u
~ 'g ~-&
Viu<>:cI::
'" - '"
~u9
~ S,lrl
~ <l.) ..::.:: 8.q-
g-s a c:ab
.:;1 El c.. !;l,;n;
-t: 0 ~ :=.-
- p.<t:: ;;. ~ N
'r; 8.0 C2 .... 8
8.8:5< @~
en<t:u..UOo
-'0
U "
.g., u
2 '"
0.0
.s 8
.... '"
o .-
!;J e.'O
;::8~
" ,,~
<(-62
'B
o
'" ~
~ 0
.3 E
o...3i~
UU'"
~:E~
""
o
o
N
'"
;.,
~
'0
!]
"
ll....
~8
uN
'" .
0'"
c: ;.,
0-
u~
o
o
o
o
o
'"
""
'B
;;
8
!>'<
o
...,
c:
.8
~ ~
.!;~e.
~88
~
0.
2
c..
EXHffiIT B
City CounciVSanta Clara Valley Water District
mutual goals for the Stevens Creek Corridor
. Plan to maximize ecosystem processes that are sustainable and self-maintaining,
which minimizes invasive species management and remove non-native vegetation
over time to restore ecological processes
. Preserve and restore the natural environment of the creek corridor for park users
and as a habitat for wildlife
· Protect and restore riparian and aquatic habitat along the creek corridor
· Provide for members of the community to enjoy the property in the creek corridor
year-round and serve more resid~nts
. Minimize the effects of park operation on surrounding residents and on the creek
corridor
. Provide a trail or trails compatible with the natural setting that will accommodate
a variety of trail users, with appropriate routing of paths, points, over looks,
vegetative screening and site-specific interpretive elements
. Acknowledge and interpret the history of the area though a series of historical
markers an through the preservation of buildings at McClellan Ranch and
Stocklmier property
. Encourage educational uses of the creek corridor and support environmental
programming at McClellan ranch
. Improve the habitat for steelhead trout
~,t~ I'
! I
I
I
,I (
/1
/
u
F::
0:1
s::
x:
~
"
I
-:""'--r--:fi
) I .
(.
I " ~ J
i'
r!.'),
i'l "
ir.I]I:i'
'I
I':, ,
I
;.11 1'1
! !; II
, .
,.
"
, ,
, I
,I I /, '
:~, \, I I
I;
,
;:: ....
'/
,I
i
\
\
/,
,I [
II
I'l
I
/:;~
/-.,
/
,I)
/
\
'-
.lg:":'-' .
I , Ii l
,;, I j I
, .'!
. 'I. ,
\j \ j..."
\' y;;.,; :;/ ..
\ ). :f:<:~/:;,/;;/
'':\i'I'i!rii[,'i
,j",!!,I/II'I'1
". Ii "I II
i 1:lllilll[I,
, 1\!,i,"lii'ii:
.,11 ii'"
I J; I'I'! I:',' '\
1 : i ill: \'\\11
rl,l, 11.1
I I ,'-~.. f ;' I ,j :
,illtIIP/ Ii,::
I i'l {''/
I /1/ "~ :
, /
,1,,/'
, "
.-............ .'
, ,
......- ....-
,"j
;'('f
','i!i
; i
./
.//J}.
.' .;.
" ~'I.
, ,
/,
",
I!
/<;!fp'X~ '
f ! I I
, ,
. !
f'
~' A
-1
5d
::;~
~i3
;h~
~~
\
\
\
\
u!
!;"',
\
,
~:--,,_. ,
~. -'-..-
.,/. <:>,---
.,~:: ~,~: ./-
i ,., ~~
'1 "I.II~,r,,,,~
.J;~'" .-
: ~Jt\.' " ........
),~.
t~
!
.\
\
) J
/ J;. 'I'.
/i/I'
/
I
r -,U!
i!t--lJ "" ,
I
~~
Ii:; ;/~
,i';. t
'.l'. ~:'i
.~\..,.-J!
I 1::[
.. ',<
/'
., ,.
r'
-:~..
/
I
/'
//
/
"
~" J.
r
\ ./
8
Lu ili I
w .u
:r:
(f) :>;
~ 2
"5 Ii ~ ci.'t
U1 !f~';!.'~
I,: '
o
! ~
~ ~~
~\2o...hl
....~. iii z
H~o 0
~~fE~
~~8 ~
f.)~ ~ ~
~;5 ~
O~! D
t ID
"'"
GJ
"
\
I;
m
i..
V"
Ie
c...
, "'I
IlDJ
~lr
zp
=-=~~
~r- .
~
~
1l i'l
jll
l~:I11
_.~:~
~
~....~
:~ ~;~
o~...~
~
S
g g~
~~~
~~~
M~~
;.?<wu
~~
~ 0
is ~ M
Jl
~ ~
~ g
EXHIBIT D
Cupertino Stevens Creek Corridor Park & Stream Restoration I I I
Blackberry Farm, Trees to be Removed - Listed by Location -EXHIBIT E
I I I
I ICan Provide Use Trunks Estimated
Cupertino Removal Cuttings and/or Life
Protected I Native Req'd, for Creek Rootballs in Diameter Exoectancy
'Otv. Common Name IBotanical Name Tree Tree Safety Restoration Restoration fIncbes) (Years) ~
I I
Enlrv Area I I
I I
1 EngHsh Walnut IJuKla11S re~ X 13 Unhealthy, single branch alive, remove
I I I
Reach A Creek Restoration (Horseshoe Bend) I I I
I I I I I
1 Siberian Elm I Wmus pumila X 32 0-25 Larae cavity in trunk, comnromised structure, remove
i ISiberian Elm Wmus oumila I I 6,10,7 Multi-trunk with weak structure
1[ Chinese Elm I Ulmus parvifolia I I 19 0-10 Sirnificant wound, comoromised, do not transplant
4 cavities, primary cavity in trunk compromises entire tree, do not
1 California Buckeye Aescu/us califomia X X 19,11 0-25 transolant
ilCalifornia Black Walnut IJu~lans hindsii I I X I 10 Poor form, leaning, competina for liaht
1 I Siberian Elm [Ulmus pumila I I 12
1 Chinese Elm Ulmus parvifolia X 22 0-10 Extensive decay in main trunk & 1 leader, remove
i I Chinese Elm I Ulmus varvlfolia I I I 7
1 I Chinese Elm T Ulmus parvifo/ia I I I 10
1 Monterey Pine Pinus radiata X I 34 0-25 failure
1 Siberian Elm Ulmus ownila I I 7,6
1 Arrovo Willow Salix lasioleois I I X X 10,13 I
1 Red Willow Salix laevi9:ata I X X 15
1 Red Willow Salix laeviqata X X 6
1 Red Willow Salix laeviqata X X 5,7 Multi-trunk
1 Red Willow Salix laevi~ata X X 7
1 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila 10,7,7 Multi-trunk
1 Monterey Pine tllUS radiata X X 22 DvinE:, imminent demise, remove
1 I Siberian Elm Ulmus vumila I I I 10
1 Black Cottonwood Pooulus triclwcarva X X I 19 Healthv, fast growina, approx. 25 years old
1 Black Cottonwood I Povulus trichocarva X X I 11 Healthy, very poor trunk laner Clankv')
PaQe 1
I I ICupertino Removal Cuttings I andlor I Life I
I I I Protected I Native Req'd, for Creek Rootballs in I Diameter I Exoectancv I
Q!y, I Common Name IBotanical Name Tree I Tree Safety Restoration Restoration (Inches) I (Years) I ~
I I IMajor cavity on side opposing the lean, unsafe, recommended for
1 California Sycamore Platanus racemosa X X X X 32 0-15 removal, 60-70 years old
1 I Douglas Fir [Pseudotsura /nmziesii I X 16 0-100 Poor taper, fast ~owing, approx. 20 years old
1 I Black Cottonwood Populus trichocarpa I X X 39 50+ Healthy, has had some lar"e limb failure, 50-75 years bid
1 I Black Cottonwood Populus triclwcarpa I X X 5 Young,S to 7 years old, ' ll1ky'
1 Black Cottonwood Pavulus trichocarpa I X X 6 I Young,S to 7 years old, ' ll1kv'
1 Black Cottonwood Populus trichocarva X X I 5 I IY oung,5 to 7 years old, ' aI1ky'
1 California Sycamore Platanus racemosa I X I 6 I I
1 Coast Redwood Sequoia sempervirerzs X X I 36 Ion" lived Healthy, approx. 30-50 years old
1 Coast Redwood Seauoia sempervirerzs X I X I 29 lonlr lived Healthy, approx. 30 vears old
1 Black Cottonwood Populus trichocarpa X X I 3 I Sapling
I I
Reach B Creek Restoration, West Bank I I
I I I
1 I Coast Live Oak Ouercus aQ1"ifolia X X 9 IBadlv damaged with large, rotting cavity.
1 I Coast Live Oak Quercus a9Tifolia X X X 27 50+ Suppressed canopy
1 I Coast Live Oak I Quercus a9Tifolia X X X 29 25-50 branches
1 I Coast Live Oak I Quercus agrifolia I I Cavity 8" xIS", 30' high on NW side central leader with interior
decay compromises the top of the tree, some poor wound closures,
X X X 31 0-50 Ipoor candidate to move due to structural defects
1 Coast Live Oak Quercus awifol ia X X X X I 11 I 0-25 Unhealthy, poor structure, cavity, significant wound, remove
I Unhealthy, very poor structure, internal cavity, decay above,
1 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia X X X X 20 0-25 topped, remove
1 Coast Live Oak I Quercus affifolia X I X X I 29 25-50 Healthy, structural form not ideal
1 California Sycamore IPlatanus racel1wsa X X X 37,28 25-50 Two trunks
1 Monterev Pine Pinus radiata X 28 I 0-20 Double leader
I
Reach B Creek Restoration, East Bank I I I
I I I
1 Deodar Cedar Cedrus deodora X X 21 I 25-50 Healthv
1 London Plane Tree Platanus acerifolia I 17 25-50 Healthy
Mature, half of roots undermined by creek, compromised stability,
1 Monterev Pine Pinus radiata X 31 0-20 'potential uprootin", health otherwise OK
1 Monterev Pine Pinus radiata I I X 33 0-20 Mature, half of roots undermined bv creek, otherwise healthy
Page 2.
I I ICupertino Removal Cuttings and/or I I Life
I I IProtected Native Req'd, for Creek Rootballs in I Diameterl Expectancy
Qty, ICommon Name IBotanical Name I Tree Tree Safetv Restoration Restoration I ~ I (Years) ~
I I Poor condition, shrub-like structure, trunk undermined, species
1 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila X 11 0-10 not recommended for occupied areas
1 [Monterev Pine Pinus radiata I I X I 31 0-25 Mature, healthy
1 Tree of Heaven Ailanthus altissi11la I 15,9 INonnative, invasive, female [re-seeds], wound on one trunk
1 Coast Live Oak ')uercus a!lTifolia I X I 6 Saplin~
1 Monterev Pine Pinus radiata I I X 34 0-20 IMature, expect limb failure
IIMonterey Pine Pinus radiata I I X I 18 I Leaner, competin".for li<ffit
I Species not recommended for occupied areas due to extremely
1 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila X 20 0-10 weak structure, hi~hlv prone to lar"'e limb failure, brittleness, a"e
1 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila X 17 0-10 Species not recommended for occuoied areas
1 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila X 16 0-10 Species not recommended for occuoied areas
I I I
54 Subtotal, number of affected trees for proiect implementation
:l1 Subtract removals for safety I I I
43 Subtotal I I I
I I
OTHER TREES TO BE REMOVED FOR SAFETY I I
Poor health, significant dead wood, in decline, removal
1 Blue gum Eucalyptus globulus 19 recommended or severely prune. West bank near N bridl!e
1 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila X 13 Hazardous amount of decay. Remove. East bank Reach B.
I Hazard - 20 ' hollow trunk with single, large 45' tall branch that is
1 California Sycamore Platanus racemosa X X X 66 weakly attached. Possibly top and leave trunk as habitat. West
1 Italian Alder Alnus cordata X 14 Dyin~, remove. Near driveway.
I I I I I
3-4 Subtotal, additional removals recommended for safet;, I
I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I
I I I I I I
Page 3
LEGEND
_ EXISTING TREES
GOLF C.OUR5E
~
: -.. '. - -
~ ~.",:-' ~
'-
".' -":
:-:....
,,;'
'-.'
c -\'
\"
'-
..... .
_J '.';'" .::..... ':: ,,-..
"
."':-:.---_.
-~
,''''''' ~....-:.::-::..,
..... ,
. ":-=---
.-..~;:-::
..........
.--"-
.:
t
NORTH
SCALE: 1"-30'
EXHIBIT F- STEVENS CREEK CORRIDOR PARK AND TREE REMOVAL PLAN
EXISTING TREES WITHIN EXISTING PARK
ItUl'Cr...l.:.l
. JOCltIO to
,..
,(~~n..
LEGEND
. EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN
EXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING TREES TO BE USED
IN RESTORATION
60LF C.OURS:::
-
-- ------
"
o
--
'.....,;\,
~'ST.
~~~
".
\
..... .., 0"-_
. ..... ..
"
...... '.
...............
.....
.........:..
EXHIBIT H- STEVENS CREEK CORRIDOR PARK AND TREE REMOVAL PLAN
EXISTIING TREES TO BE REUSED
t
NORTH
NOT TO SCALE
LEGEND
. EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN
e NEW PROPOSED TREES
'-
"
GOLF C.O;JR.5=
~$T.
", ~~~!.
. .,
. .....
."-.,
"
EXHIBIT J- STEVENS CREEK CORRIDOR PARK AND TREE REMOVAL PLAN
ALL NEW PROPOSED TREES
t
NORrrl
NOT TO SCJJ.I: