The URL can be used to link to this page

TR-2012-28b 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•planning(�cuqertino.org September 26, 2012 Naturescapes Attn: Jeffrey Brobst 560 Newhall St. San Jose, Ca 95110 SUBJECT: TREE REMOVAL PERMIT ACTION LETTER - Application TR-2012-28 This letter confirms the decision of the Director of Community Development, given on September 26, 2012, approving a tree removal permit to allow the removal of five (5) Fremont Cottonwood trees at an existing office complex (Cupertino City Center) located at 20400 Stevens Creek Boulevard. The application is approved with the following conditions: 1. APPROVED PROTECT This approval is based on the arborist peer report prepared by Michael Bench (#WE 1897), dated March 1, 2012, consisting of 3 pages and a tree removal and replacement site plan, except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution. 2. TREE REPLACEMENTS The applicant will be required to plant eight (8) 24" box replacement trees in accordance with the Protected Tree Ordinance, arborist report, and approved replacement plan. The replacement shall be planted within 30 days of the effective approval date of this tree removal permit. 3. 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 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, October 10,2012. Sincerely, Simon Vuong Assistant Planner (408) 777-1356 simonv@cupertino.or� enc: Arborist report Site Plan CC:Cupertino City Center,At(n:Lisa Huntress,20400 Stevens Creek Blvd#130,Cupertino CA 95014 Review Five Fremont Cottonwood Trees at 20400 Stevens Creek Boulevard �� Cupertino, California �� ',; , Assignment I was asked by Mr. Simon Vuong to do a peer review of the Arborist's Re� ared � by Mr. Richard Smith, concerning 5 Fremont cottonwood trees at the Cupertino City Center, 20400 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California. Observations I reviewed the Arborist's Report and inspected the trees on March 1, 2012. The map and the photos included in the report by Mr. Smith made it very easy to locate the subject trees. The trees are located in a row and are numbered 1-5 south to north. These 5 trees are Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii). There are no tree tags affixed to the trees for field reference. Mr. Smith observed that a percentage of branches on these trees have died. Based on this fact, he concluded that the trees have a"higher than acceptable chance of falling from wind or contact by a commercial vehicle." He suspects that the roots could have decay or disease. With this information, Mr. Smith recommends immediate removal, "due to progressive disease and the obvious amount of dead in the canopies. " Unfortunately Mr. Smith's argument is not compelling, because it is not supported by analysis or other facts, which would lead to conclusion that the trees are Hazardous. For example, the report provides no plausible explanation for the cause of the die-back in the canopies, except to presume that a disease may be present. The assertion that a disease exists does not necessarily need to be verified by laboratory analysis, but the suspected disease(s) must be identified by name based upon a detailed description(s) and consistent with descriptions by published authorities. A photo of diseased tissue would strengthen the argument. In most cases,this must be accompanied by a description of the conditions at this site that favor the development of the suspected disease. One explanation for the die-back is a combination of the following factors: (1) these trees are living in a very small planter bed (approximately 5 foot wide) and are otherwise completely surrounded by infrastructure (sidewalk, curb, paving, etc.); (2) the species Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii) is a very fast aggressive grower, both above and below ground; (3)the species requires copious amounts of water to maintain the aggressive growth; (4)these trees exist in partial shade as a result of the adjacent tall building; (5) the die-back has occurred in the lower portion of their canopies of Trees # 1, 3, 4, and 5, with Tree # 2 having die-back in the top of its canopy; (6)the adjacent sidewalk adjacent to Tree # 2 has been repaired in the past 2-3 years; (7) die-back in the canopy of most species, as a result of root injury, does not often occur in the canopies for several months following the root damage. Conclusions ,.,, �� The tiny planter bed is grossly inadequate for the aggressi'��o��t�n�.e��-�----M•�-,-�----.�--�-�'$ cottonwood. The root systems of these relatively young tr,��s�ave maximized`��lie � ,�.u. .. a-�6=ia _ �. , : _ _ �� .. _ ___. Prepared by Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist March 1, 2012 _ available growing space and are quickly becoming root bound. The absorption of moisture and nutrients may be reduced as a result of large roots talcing up the spaces, reducing the quantities of absorbing roots (this is often observed with potted plants). The tops of the canopies partially shade the lower branches. The tall adjacent building increases the shade of the lower branches. Leaves and branches without sufficient sunlight die. The trees lean away from the adjacent building by approximately 10 degrees from vertical. This is a natural response in search for sunlight for many species. The repaired sidewalk adjacent to Tree # 2 suggests that roots likely had been severed and removed to complete the sidewalk repairs. The color of the newer concrete is much lighter. Thus, it appears that the die-back in the top of the canopy of Tree # 2 is likely a result of the root losses sustained during the sidewalk repairs. The sidewalk adjacent to Tree# 5 had also been replaced, as evidenced by the lighter color of the concrete surface for approximately 15 feet. However this sidewalk, presumed to be newer than the original, is being lifted again. It appears that the root damage to Tree # 5 was not so severe as to cause die-back of the top of the canopy. No obvious disease is observed. No major disease is suspected. There is no indication that these trees are unstable. Additional Observations and Conclusions I am reasonably certain that the concrete sidewalk adjacent to Tree # 2 has been repaired (approximately 15 feet is a distinctly lighter color). It also appears that the concrete sidewalk adjacent to Tree # 5 has also been repaired,but possibly less recent. Nevertheless,the sidewalk is being lifted (heaved) near each of these 5 trees, as though the sidewalk were a wave. This is a very common problem with Fremont cottonwood specimens in landscapes with nearby infrastructure. The Fremont cottonwood is a riparian species. Its root system is extremely aggressive, requiring very large areas for root growth, compared to many other species,and a regular supply of copious quantities of water. The narrow planter bed afforded these 5 trees is effectively"tiny" compared to the needs of this species. The Fremont cottonwood species is suited for a riparian open space park, not for a "tiny" planter bed as seen here. Tree # 5 has also lifted the curb and has heaved a large area of the adjacent roadway. The infrastructure damage near these trees can be expected to become much more severe and much more costly in a relatively short time. Prepazed by Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist March 1, 2012 2 Recommendation I recommend that these 5 Fremont cottonwood trees be removed and replaced on the basis of current infrastructure damage and on the basis of much greater infrastructure damage in the future (in the event that they are preserved). Mr. Smith's report suggests Red maple (Acer rubrum) replacement trees,which is a fine species for many locations. However, it is also known for at least moderate infrastructure damage, especially in confined spaces. Virtually all tall up-right large tree species will eventually cause some infrastructure damage. However,the London plane species is one that can often live in confined spaces for many years before creating infrastructure damage. There are many specimens along the streets in the older neighborhoods of San Jose,which have not lifted the sidewalk or the curb in over 50 years. I suggest the cultivar Platanus acerifolia`Colombia'because of its resistance to Anthracnose disease. A Final Comment There are seven additional Fremont cottonwood trees (Populus fremontii� in the planter bed across the street (the east side) from these Trees # 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Among these seven specimens across the street, 3 have been topped. Overall, those seven cottonwood specimens are in no better condition ( 3 are in worse condition) than these 5 Fremont cottonwood trees, despite the fact that the planter bed on the east side of the street is wider (approximately 10 feet wide). I recommend that consideration be given to the removal and replacement of these other 7 Fremont cottonwood trees located on the east side of the street, as well. 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 1, 2012 3 Cu�ertix�o City . . �'��lt��' � S��e p�a�a 4 ^ " � � u �y �� • i� �, � / r��'<Z��'�ZtK ��G� � . �� . � �► �; TREES THAT NEED TO BE REMOVED �.,�,�,,..,, �, .�=G . �� .�� -- ' POO ,:5�� _ - :r �, _T� .. � _ . . �a� �.� . _ .�. .^ _ , r „r, .., �� , , � ..- � ��r/ __._ ( CCC ,��'.A�'I'M�1VTS �lf y� p'�RTA L (�� p, . ��V ��1��.19'.�9:.f�A V 1 T � �f y 1 / �, � / / � , / O B=I� . c r�M t.i JrU-i..,..�-'1,�U ly.y }� �� , �• C'_ 1� ; � � L � , �: � •�� J�UU C�� Q . GA,RA,G� Q'.." O .�..._.._ "-�i; :�:.�.�� ---�.�r, , � -,-�-____� S��L'��.,U�i , r I 6� � ��` ' � �. UERONA : i GYPR��S 6-(OTl�t,.. � , � Cuperti�no City Center S�te I'�an . � �� ''�� L�� ,�'c:�'�� L �� , sw �� ; o� T� � � �• �: Tree installation map � , . �cc.��,��rs y k /f r --�___. , ��,,. OB=l'� ' � COMMOIV � .,1 GA,RA,G� r.ruav�'u. V""'r' }� �' 1... � ,ir'---r--- — .. :?��'� ' : v' ' 'i �"----1�..' i!'��' ` , t ,�`�"4L Q � –.-..r_ I � I �" ,.: , � � _ .�. . pg_�, �.� �j S�CiRI+�l,C7E LUT � �0- I U � UU � _ 0� ` —.-.-._� O � " C��'lrl(' � �._., C .� ��.�� (',,,1�1 .1 4 UU�� —"–'�Uuu � � ��j �� _. ...�4�..1.�.�..�-�S7t.�� ^ q-�6 -�� __ _, � _ _ �._. PO RTAL I . � - �