The URL can be used to link to this page

TR-2012-25b COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE•CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 (408)777-3308•FAX(408)777-3333 CUPERTINO August 22,2012 Linda Starnes Northpoint Homeowners Association 10880 Northpoint Way Cupertino,CA 95014 SUBJECT: TREE REMOVAL PERMIT ACTION LETTER- Application TR-2012-25 This letter confirms the decision of the Director of Community Development, given on August 22, 2012, approving a tree removal permit to allow the removal and replacement of 35 trees due to poor structure and damage to essential structures and infrastructure and denying the removal of 3 trees due to insufficient evidence in a planned residential complex (Northpoint HOA), located at 10880 Northpoint Way. The application is approved with the following conditions: 1. APPROVED PROTECT T'his approval is based on the arborist report prepared by Biota Tech Services consisting of one page; the arborist report prepared by Va1leyCrest Tree Care Services consisting of one page; and a peer review by consulting arborist, Michael Bench,consisting of four pages, except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution. 2. DENIED TREE REMOVALS The applicant shall not remove Tree 173b (8" White Birch near 20153 Northcrest Sq.), Tree 372d (13" Liquidamber near 10877 Northridge Sq.), and Tree 388 (20" Liquidamber near 20193 Northcove). Tree removal is denied due to insufficient evidence for removal at this time. 3. APPROVED TREE REMOVALS See the table below for the approved list of removals: A roved tree removal Address near Reason for removal Tree 45, 19" Eucal ius 11029 Northshore Dama e to walkwa Tree 52a,11" Li uidamber 20105 Northwind Sq. Very poor structure, hardscape Tree 52b,13" Li uidamber damage,limb failure Tree 52c,21" Li uidamber 20125 Northwind S . Tree 52d, 19" Li uidamber 20135 Northwind S . Tree 52e,16" Li uidamber 20145 Northwind S . Tree 73a,22" Eucal tus 20002 Northcrest Dama e to fence and atio Tree 101, 28" Montere Pine 11011 Northsk S . Dama e to roadwa ,curb Tree 105,28" Montere Pine 10983 Northsk S . Dama e to curb and stairs Tree 110a, 24" Canary Island 10965 Northseal Sq. Extremely poor structures Pine Tree 110c, 34" Canary Island 10967 Northseal Sq. Poor structure, increased risk of Pine failure Tree 113a,25" Montere Pine 10965 Northseal S . Increased otential for dama e Tree Removal Permit Action Letter Page 2 TR-2012-25 A roved tree removal Address near Reason for removal Tree 113b,24" Montere Pine to essential structures Tree 113c,28" Montere Pine Tree 118a, 24" Canary Island 20218 Northwest Sq. Extremely poor structures Pine Tree 119,22" Montere Pine 20179 Northwest Dama e to curb and walkwa Tree 126,29" Canar Island Pine 20269 Northwest Sq. Damage to roadway and curb Tree 126, 14" Canar Island Pine Tree 126,19" Canar Island Pine Tree 135,17" Li uidamber 20268 Northwest S . Damage to walkway Tree 135,21" Li uidamber 20248 Northwest Tree 140,26" Canar Island Pine 10974 Northseal S . Dama e to utili boxes Tree 152a, 23" Canary Island 10953 Northsky Sq. Damage to concrete/brick stairs Pine Tree 176a, 19" Liquidamber 10928 Northshore Sq. Broken limbs, very poor structure Tree 207a,23" Eucalyptus 10973 Northfield Damage to hardscape, potential to dama e essential structures Tree 249,20.5" Eucal tus 20317 Northbrook Dama e to curb, oor siructure Tree 295a,20.5" Eucalyptus 10894 Northview Damage to steps and patio, recent limb failure Tree 313a, 6" Eucalyptus 10861 Northforde Poor structure, historical limb failure Tree 313b, 16" Eucal tus 10841 Northforde Dama e to walkwa Tree 313c,26" Eucal tus 10831 Northforde Dama e to curb and sidewalk Tree 317b, 17" Eucalyptus 10801 Northforde Damage to hardscape, potential to dama e essential structures Tree 317c,16.5" Eucal tus 10821 Northforde Dama e to drivewa Tree 330,38" Eucal tus 10844 Northview Dama e to curb, oor structure Tree 416, 15" Canar Island Pine 20172 Northcove S . Poor structure,vi or Tree 418,28" Montere Pine 20232 Northcove S . Dama e to walkwa 4. TREE REPLACEMENTS The applicant will be required to plant thirty-five (35) 24-inch box replacement trees in accordance with the Protected Tree Ordinance, City arborist's report, and approved replacement plan. The replacements shall be planted within 30 days of the effective approval date of the tree removals. Modifications to tree species and location may be made to the approved replacement plan pending staff approval. A letter of completion from an ISA-certified arborist that indicates that the removal and replacements have been performed satisfactorily shall be provided to the City. 5. IN-LIEU TREE REPLACEMENT FEES The cost to procure, install, and replace 9 required 24-inch box replacement trees is approximately $2475.00, of which the applicant has paid on July 17, 2012, in accordance with the City's Protected Tree Ordinance. 6. 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 Tree Removal Permit Action Letter Page 3 TR-2012-25 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 received several comments from the public regarding the tree removals—some in support and some in objection. Those in support generally noted the history of property damage,limb failure,and other hazards caused by the trees proposed for removal. Those in objection generally noted insufficient notification time,other alternatives instead of removal,loss of benefits associated with the trees,harm to wildlife,and insufficient evidence for removal. This project was noticed to the public in accordance with the requirements of the zoning code,including the physical posting of notices on the trees proposed for removal. The City's consulting arborist was retained for the project to determine whether the removal of the trees was the most appropriate option. The arborist confirmed that 35 out of the 38 trees proposed for removal were warranted for removal due to various reasons,primarily property damage. The trees to be removed are required to be replanted on a 1:1 basis,as recommended by the consulting arborist. Some neighbors objected specifically to the removals of Trees 173b,372d, and 388. The City's consulting arborist evaluated these particular trees and did not find sufficient evidence to support their removal at this time. Therefore,the removal of these trees is denied. 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 and the trees cannot be removed until a final decision on the appeal has been made. If no appeal is made within the appeal period,the tree(s) may be removed after Wednesday, September 5,2012. Sincerely, George Schroeder Assistant Planner (408) 777-7601 georges@cupertino.org encl: Consulting arborist's peer review Tree removal and replacement plan CC: Kamal Karimana1,10964 Northseal Square,Cupertino,CA 95014 Pat Alvarado,10861 Northforde Drive,Cupertino,CA 95014 Darby Packie,20184 Northwind Square,Cupertino,CA 95014 Resident,20213 Northcove Square,Cupertino,CA 95014 Beatrice Kao,10953 Northsky Square,Cupertino,CA 95014 Gerrit Grosert,11014 Northseal Square,Cupertino,CA 95014 Elizabeth Reily,20345 Via Volante,Cupertino,CA 95014 Amelie Stephan,10998 Northshore Sq.,CuperHno,CA 95014 Marlene Spencer,10870 Northoak Sq.,Cupertino,CA 95014 � �: : -*.., w `�-�C l� -�25' �,�:;:;: ;_,:i�.n ��a�;;bar Review of Trees at a�_ � :., .... . _... �!..'_�_.,�..�5�,� , Northpoint HOA - _ Homestead Road, Cupertino Review of Trees Requested for Removal At the Northpoint HOA Homestead Road, Cupertino Assignment I was asked by Mr. George Schroeder, Planner for the City of Cupertino, to review the trees requested by the Northpoint HOA for removal and replacement. The Northpoint HOA has requested to remove a total of 40 trees. Observations I reviewed all of the trees requested for removal/replacement on March 20, 2012. With some exceptions, I agree with the request to remove/replace most of the trees listed. For sake of brevity and simplicity, I will list those with which I have observed to be justified in removal/replacement. These are Trees # 52A, 52B, 52C, 52D, 52E, 113A, 113B, 113C, 173B, 176A, 140, 152, 105, 101, 416, 119, 135 (20268 Northwest Sq), 135B (20248 Northwest Sq), 418, 372, 128 (29" at 20269 Northwest Sq), 128 (14"20269 Northwest Sq), 128 (19" at 20269 Northwest Sq), 110, 249, 330, 295, 207, 317 (10801 Northforde, 317 (10821 Northforde), 313 (10861 Northforde) 313 (10831 Northforde), 45, and 73A. All of these trees have caused damage to the sidewalk, the curb and gutter, or the adjacent paving. In some cases, the infrastructure damage is quite severe. In other cases, the damage is not so severe, but it is clear that the damage will only get worse if ignored. I recommend that the following trees be denied the request for removal/replacement on the basis of poor or inadequate documentation. These trees are as follows: Tree # 173A at 20153 Northcrest Sq. an 8" White birch is requested. This tree is shown in an open lawn space with 3 other white birch trees, but only 2 exist at this location. One is Tree # 173B, included in the list for approval previously. The second specimen is Tree # 173A is a 1.5" diameter staked specimen. Apparently Tree# 173A has already been replaced. Tree# 284 at 10875 Northview Sq. to remove a 10" DBH Ash Tree. —There is no ash tree (Fraxinus species) at the location shown on the map at this location. There is a large oleander (Nerium oleander) shub and there are two Red box or Silver pollar Gum (Eucalyptus polyanthemos) trees—one near the northwest corner of the back yard and one near the southwest corner of the back yard. The Red box specimen near the southwest corner has suffered a co-dominant limb failure previously and has poor structure. Prepared by Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist March 21, 2012 1 Review of Trees at Northpoint HOA Homestead Road, Cupertino Tree # 36 at 11040 Northsky Sq. is an 18"DBH Canary Island pine (Pinus canariensis). I could see no damage whatsoever at this location. It appears that the adjacent sidewalk had been replaced previously but there appeared to be no displacement recently. Tree # 25 at Northhurst/Northwood an 8" DBH Eucalyptus is requested. At the location indicated on the map, this tree is flowering cherry (Prunus species). Actually there are two flowering cherry trees in close proximity, both in poor condition. There is also an Australian willow (Geijera parvifolia) street tree, which is also in poor condition likely a result of the frequent irrigation for the lawn. Trees# 28 (2 specimens) at Northhurst/Northwood 2 Eucalyptus specimens are requested for removal. At the locations indicated on the map, these trees are European white birch (Betula pendula). There are no eucalyptus specimens immediately near this location. Comments and Recommendations As I walked the site to observe the trees requested, it is clear to me that there are many other specimens that will be requested for removal/replacement in the near future. I found some specimens that are worse than some of those requested, in my opinion. For example, Tree# 118 Canary Island pine in the island west of 20218 Northwest Sq. and Tree # 110 (Canary Island pine) east of 10965 Northseal Sq. have extremely poor structures. I recommend that these 2 be included on the list to be removed/replaced for safety reasons. There are likely others, which I did not see. It appears that the objective concerning the trees at the time of development above any other consideration was fast growth. The species (i.e, Monterey pine, Canary Island pine, Red Box eucalyptus) selected and the locations of planting suggest this objective. The American sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua) were likely selected for the brilliant fall colors, but at that time (approximately 35-40 years past) it was not known for a few years how destructive this species would become. The majority of the trees of these four species (Pinus radiata; Pinus canariensis; Eucalyptus polyanthemos; Liquidalbar styraciflua) will require replacement in the near future. These are the primary species, but there are other species at this site which will likely be problematic individually. It occurs to me that this current application is a good start, but may not be the most effective approach. For example, the removal of one or two Liquidambar trees in a given area where there are additional Liquidambar trees near infrastructure will not"fix" the problem. The other trees will continue to heave the sidewalks and patios in the near future. I envision re-occuring damage and additional requests for removal/replacement trees on a fairly regular basis for many years to come. This will no doubt be a long term expense. By this approach at other locations, I have seen the same sections of concrete replaced several times over time. Prepared by Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist March 21, 2012 2 Review of Trees at Northpoint HOA Homestead Road, Cupertino I suggest consideration be given to a long range plan, to include the removal/replacement of all of the destructive trees an entire given area. I suggest replacement trees that are known for infrequent or rare infrastructure damage. The planting at this site is dense, but I do not think the site is "over planted" so much as inappropriate species were selected for many locations. Trees, which are not known for destructive root systems (typically smaller trees than the destructive species here, would be recommended for small or narrow planter beds or islands. Larger trees may be used in larger open space areas. Should this be done, the smaller trees are recommend to receive proper pruning. I observed that many of the Crape myrtle (Lagerstormia indica). specimens have been topped, perhaps by the landscape gardeners. "Topping" is a very destructive practice and should not be done on any trees, including small specimens. It would be a shame to see numerous small replacement trees become treated as large shrubs. Proper pruning (ISA Western Chapter Standards) applies to all trees regardless of their ultimate size. With regard to the City replacement guidelines, I suggest consideration be given to replacement with only on a ratio of 1:1 even for larger specimen. Should the guideline suggest 2:1 or 3:1 the site would surely become "over planted". Also considering the large quantity of replacements, I suggest to use only 24 inch boxed specimens to ease this difficult transition. I suggest that the following list of small trees be considered as replacements, but this is by no means a definitive list. The following list of trees either are small or could be kept small, because of their adaptation to pruning: Dwarf Olive ( Olea europea'Skylark') Hybrid madrone (Arbutus `Marina') Saucer magnolia(Magnolia soulangiana) Crape myrtle (Lagerstromia indica) Western redbud (Cercis occidentalis) African sumac (Rhus lancea) Carob (Ceratonia siliqua) (gets to about 40 feet but it takes pruning very well and can easily be kept to 20 feet.) Grecian laurel (Laurus nobilis) Japanese maple (Acer palmatum - a Standard Green or a Coral bark('Sango Kaku') - these are two of the most reliable for this area. Trident maple (Acer buegerianum) Vine maple (Acer circinatum) Full Moon maple (Acer japonicum 'Vitifolium� No common name (Acer truncatum) Flaxleaf Paperbark (Melaleuca linarifolia) Oriental persimmon (Diospyros kaki) Prepared by Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist March 21, 2012 3 Review of Trees at Northpoint HOA Homestead Road, Cupertino All of the trees listed here require: (1) excellent drainage, (2) 10--15% organic compost mixed into the soil; (3)thorough irrigation to establish (approx 3 years), but moderate (every 2 weeks) to low irrigation (monthly) after well established; (4) planted on a mound 6-10 inches above soil grade; (5) slow release fertilizer added to mixture initially- these should need no fertilizer thereafter;(6)the planting hole should be dug and amended with compost about 6 inches deeper than the box or nursery container but should be at least 6-8 feet wide (diameter) minimum, because roots primarily grow naturally lateral not vertical. These 6 items are equally important if not more important than the species selected for success. Also, a116 of these items are essential to success. Respectfully submitted, .-�-------:-.e..�,�._ �-'�.__.____ Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist International Society of Arboriculture Certification # WE 1897 American Society of Consulting Arborists Member Prepared by Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist March 21, 2012 4 ZxH"e ��;?,�I:f 4 C, BIOTA TECH SERVICES,INC. �t /< �: _ �+ 1807 Pruneridge Avenue,Suite A - �� (' ` ;� � - ' Santa Clara,CA 95050 �(��`! �. _ �r,,�ss��,�r`' Phone:(408)248-3266 • Fax:(408)248-7713 � . � -„ �\�� VD�r£Dt�?NEO.kPE .�,�L%� #52A Liquidambar Permit Required, Very Poor Structure, Hardscape Damage, Limb Failure #52B Liquidambar Permit Required, Very Poor Structure, Hardscape Damage, Limb Failure #52C Liquidambar Permit Required, Very Poor Structure, Hardscape Damage, Limb Failure #52D Liquidambar Permit Required, Very Poor Structure, Hardscape Damage, Limb Failure #52E Liquidambar Permit Required, Very Poor Structure, Hardscape Damage, Limb Failure #113A Monterey Pine Permit Required, Debris Nuisance #113B Monterey Pine Permit Required, Debris Nuisance #113C Monterey Pine Permit Required, Debris Nuisance #173B White Birch Permit Required, 3/4 Dead, In Lawn, Root Rot , a , n awn, #176A Liquidambar Permit Required, Broken Limbs, Very Poor Structure , , eans - • . . ., � _., .. ; ,. �. g-- ,.� � _ ... .'..��-�_..� `� '�•%��"�°'� .._.w.Y.w, _. _ � . �... _� Permit List 825 Mabury Road San Jose,CA 95133 Tel: 408.453.5904 Va I I eyCrest Far 408 437 1817 T r e e C a r e S e r v i c e s www.valleycrest.com Date: 6-5-12 Location: Northpoint HOA Arborist Report regarding tree removals Please review the following request for tree removals at the Northpoint HOA community. There are 29 trees request for removal through ValleyCrest Tree Care. Each tree is represented in pink on the attached map. Trees are currently causing damage to the surrounding concrete, blacktop, walkways and/or stairs. In some cases damage to hardscaping has been repaired and new damage is occurring or is likely to occur again. The Northpoint HOA community is forested with many trees that have exceeded their usefulness in their locations. The community understands and appreciates the trees in the landscape and is committed to replanting on site when possible. Only one removal location provides adequate space to replant at the time of removals. Other locations do not provide ample space due to remaining trees, utilities, or are confined by hardscaping. Replant locations are indicated on the attached map in by the green dots. Replant size will be 24" box trees as indicated by the city arborists recommendation. Species selected for replant Akebono cherry, Japanese maple, saucer magnolia, white birch, and amur maple. All h-ee work performed by [�a!!ey Crest Tree Care Services is executed in accordance x�ith the "Practica!Specifications for Conh-act Tree Management"which encompasses the American National Standard ofPruning A-300. (/nllev Cresl Tree Care condtrcts all working procedures in a safe and orderly manner as establtshed bv OSHA and ANSlZ-133.1. If you have any questions please give me a call at (408) 406-0735 or email me at _bswan@valleycrest.co � .�.. ; . � _ .- ..... _ `Sincere y, Brent Swan - MS Plant Pathology Certified Arborist WE-0785A F�"�T'..!�a�9 I P!i � 1 �L�OC.� � �r : �, �..�..��A_ _ _T__ .,1�� o_ �w,...��.m � ��-l� ��_. . . ;;.. � � .�. _._ __._