The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC Summary 05-24-04 To: From: Date: Subj: 1. 2. City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 (408) 777-3308 Mayor and City Council Members Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development May 25, 2004 REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISIONS MADE May 24, 2004 Chapter 19.32 of the Cupertino Municipal code provides for a eal of decisions made b the Plannin Commission Application TR-2004-02; Manzur Gill, 10131 Linda Ann Place Description Application to remove and replace a redwood tree that was protected as part of a planned development approval. Action The Planning Commission approved the application on a 5-0 vote. The fourteen-calendar day appeal will expire on June 7, 2004. Enclosures: Planning Commission Report of May 24, 2004 Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6248 Application DIR-2004-05; Umesh Mahajan, 23605 Oak Valley Road Description Director's Minor Modification (U-1997-06) with a referral to the Planning Commission to remove a protected eucalyptus tree. Action The Planning Commission approved the application on a 5-0 vote. The fourteen-calendar day appeal will expire on June 7, 2004. Enclosures: Planning Commission Report of May 24, 2004 Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6250 Approved Exhibits 3. Application U-2004-05; Nick Gera, 10550 S. De Anza Boulevard Description Use Permit for an auto service/ auto sales business and renovations to an existing building and landscaping. Action The Planning Commission approved the application on a 5-0 vote. The fourteen-calendar day appeal will expire on June 7, 2004. Enclosures: Planning Commission Report of May 24, 2004 Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6251 Approved Exhibits g:planning/Posl Hearing/summary 10 cc05-24-04 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: TR-20O4-02 Agenda Date: May 24, 2004 Applicant: Mansur Gill Property LocationfAPN: 10131 Linda Ann Place Application Summary: Application to remove and replace a redwood tree that was protected as part of a planned development approval RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve: 1. File number TR-2004-02, in accordance with the model resolution. BACKGROUND A redwood tree was removed from Lot 1 of a planned development. Retaining the redwood tree was part of the development approval. The tree is number 5 on the enclosed site Plan, Exhibit A. The empty planting area in the foreground of the picture below is the former location of the tree. The remaining redwood tree at the rear/ side of the property is also visible. The applicant for the tree removal states that the tree was too close to the house and posed a danger to people, property and traffic. He is applying for removal of the tree retroactively, so there is no arborist report to verify the necessity for tree removal. DISCUSSION Approval of a tree removal typically requires replanting of a large replacement tree. Staff recommends that a 36" box Bradford Pear be planted, which will match the Bradford Pear on the north side of the driveway, as shown below. I-I TR-2004-02 Page 2 May 24, 2004 A condition of approval also requires that the new fence around the subject property be painted white to match the white fence shown in the above picture. Submitted by: Ciddy Wordell, City Planner Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme~ ENCLOSURES Model Resolution Exhibit A: Approved Site Plan G:p lanningl pdrepo rt/pc TRreports/TR - 2 004-02 I-~ TR-2004-02 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 MODEL RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A REQUEST TO REMOVE A REDWOOD TREE AND REPLACE IT WITH A 36" BOX BRADFORD PEAR SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: TR-2004-02 Mansur Gill 10131 Linda Ann Place SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application to remove a redwood tree and replace it with another tree, as described in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support removal of the tree and has satisfied the following requirement: 1. The redwood tree was removed without a permit and the applicant is required to replace it with a 36" box Bradford Pear 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-2004-02, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of May 24, 2004 are incorporated by reference herein. { -~ Model Resolution Page 2 TR-2004-02 5/24/04 SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVAL ACTION Removal of the redwood tree is approved retroactively, and shall be replaced with a 36" Bradford Pear within 30 days of approval. 2. FENCE COLOR The perimeter fence on the property shall be painted white to match the fence on the north side of Linda Ann Place within 30 days of approval. 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. 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: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Taghi Saadati, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission \-~ TR-20O4-02 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6248 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A REQUEST TO REMOVE A REDWOOD TREE AND REPLACE IT WITH A 36" BOX BRADFORD PEAR SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: TR-2004-02 Mansur Gill 10131 Linda Ann Place SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application to remove a redwood tree and replace it with another tree, as described in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support removal of the tree and has satisfied the following requirement: 1. The redwood tree was removed without a permit and the applicant is required to replace it with a 36" box Bradford Pear 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-2004-02, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of May 24, 2004 are incorporated by reference herein. Resolution No. 6248 Page 2 TR-2004-02 5/24/04 SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVAL ACTION Removal of the redwood tree is approved retroactively, and shall be replaced with a 36" Bradford Pear within 30 days of approval. 2. TREE RECORDATION The applicant shall record a covenant on the property identifying the Bradford Pear and existing redwood trees as protected trees within 30 days of approval. 3. FENCE COLOR The perimeter fence on the property shall be painted white to match the fence on the north side of Linda Ann Place within 30 days of approval. 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: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Saadati COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: Chen, Giefer, Miller, Vice-Chair Wong and AYES: ATTEST: APPROVED: f sf Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development f sf Taghi Saadati Taghi Saadati, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission G:\ Planning \ PDREPORT\ RES \ TR-2004-02 res. doc <: E-< ..... ~ ~ . . ~[ 1> ! } ! }!j ~j !j J1 .... ~ Ij j' ~ ! h ~¡ i.~ "1~ . ej ~] t =1 .. =~ '~. - È:í .~ 11 H ~ '-t l~ i II 11 ~~lIJ ~ 0 ~ H !~ !i J~ lil!.~ I .', J! '1 « i I h. Ii 11 ~ f~ iJ ~ S 'C .~ ! gj ~ ~ ~ ~i 11> ~~ ~ ~.. : ~ ~ 4 in II ~. 0 P :! i ~ :! ~ ~s~ :~ :J u 0 9 9 !! 9 9 ,Ì!' .. < N N ~ , ~, 8, . , :¡¡; ! ! ..~ ..! !! r~ ~ '""" ! ~ . .! . ~'~ . ", ~ Q ~ Iq~ ~~ J ~ .. ~ - ~ . . .. . ... . ~:, . H. ~" - ! ~ ~1'¡jÆ'< ~r,~ ¡ 3 , . . . ! . .1.; ~ .. ~ ~r j ! . I- ~, ,£ ", I :;¡ .,j, ~~. ~ ¡ ~ N - - flU ~ ~ . ] . ~ ~ ~ g ¡ :; ~ ~ . z z I j ~ ~~ 0 ~ z ~I' ~ ~ laZlmIT1waSB;) -~ :3.1n~1!u:¡IS 9661 '; .lOW 3C :¡punoJ ¡('¡!v 9661 'tl Úvn.lqi1.!l 3C :UO!SS!lUlUOJ fJU!UUO¡á S6-n-91 7V AONááV A 11 : ~ ... - .f) 'C: ;: 0 - . 1 t . ~~ ~ bt)< ]., .E!:I , 1 c;¡:1 1. 1 gH ~'j ~ h. -m - . . -;\ . J ~ <1 d 1 U .! ~, 1~ n ~f ~J E' ~ . . 0 .~ ~ ¡:; ro ~ () ~ðt. Z ò § ~ þ: I ~,~ <8 B. p.. ~ ô ~ 8 ~ ~ . i' ~ CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: TR-2004-05 Applicant: Umesh Mahajan Owner: Umesh Mahajan Property LocationfAPN: 23605 Oak Valley Road (342-56-002) Agenda Date: May 24, 2004 Application Summary: Tree removal permit to remove one large eucalyptus tree protected as part of an approved use permit (U-1997-06) and approved tentative map (TM-1997-04). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny: 1. File number TR-2004-05, in accordance with the model resolution. BACKGROUND The subject tree is a 34-inch diameter manna gum (Eucalyptus viminalis) located in the rear yard of this residence. The canopy height is approximately 75 feet and the canopy spread is approximately 60 feet. The tree trunk is located about 36 feet away. The yard is not landscaped and currently consists of weeds, grasses and this single eucalyptus tree. This tree, as well as many other native and non-native trees, were protected as part of a comprehensive tree protection plan developed for the "San Jose Diocese" residential development implemented by the O'Brien Group. The original arborist report prepared by HortScience in 1997 identified each tree in and around the proposed development areas and their suitability for preservation - in advance of and independent of a development plan for the area. After suitability was determined, lot layouts and grading plans were prepared, which endeavored to retain as many good and moderate trees as possible. This protection plan called for a replacement ratio of 5 to 1 with native trees if any additional healthy trees were lost during final subdivision design. The applicant/ property owner has requested permission to remove the tree because of safety concerns involving fire danger and the propensity of the tree to drop branches and bark where his children play. The City Arborist, Barrie D. Coate and Associates, has prepared two reports dated March 18, 2004 and April 2, 2004 (Exhibit A & B). The first report describes the location and characteristics of this evergreen Eucalyptus tree and then assesses the likelihood of three concerns: l)uprooting and tree fall, 2) major limb ,-/-1 breakage, and 3) fire igniting the tree, posing a hazard to the Mahajan residence and neighboring homes. The second report assesses the likelihood and risk posed by smaIl diameter branch breakage. The City Arborist has determined that the risk of uprooting and tree fall on this residence is very unlikely. The tree is healthy and has an upright structure with a slight lean toward the north and northeast, which is away from the residence to the south and southeast. The risk of major limb breakage is also very low as there are no major branching defects, and the branch unions throughout the structure have open angles, which are very strong. There are no ragged branch ends or tom bark to indicate a recent large branch break. The probability of a fire crowrÎing in the tree is also very low as long as the property owner removes the grasses, debris and any flammable materials (fallen branches and bark) away from the base of the tree. The nearby house is fire resistant as it is coated with stucco and has a class A roof. Both reports discuss the propensity of many Eucalyptus trees to break branches. For this species, there is a natural frequency of small diameter (2 inches or less in diameter) branch breakage. The first report (Exhibit A) states that "this is not generally considered to be a serious hazard." The second report (Exhibit B) further documents this phenomenon (see report photos) and opines that the number of broken branches was numerous and likely to continue in the future. Additional photographs were taken by staff to show the tree and broken branches (Exhibit q. As the applicant's children are young, the City Arborist has opined that the applicant's concern for their children is reasonable. He has recommended that the tree be replaced in accordance with its appraised value with specimen trees that are native to the area. The appraised value is $2,070, which is equivalent to two 36-inch boxed native trees. The arborist recommends coast live oaks. Staff recognizes the extra concerns the public takes to protect small children from all possible dangers. Staff also recognizes that we don't cut every tree that drops a branch. For small children, small diameter branch breakage may pose a greater hazard. As an alternative to tree removal, staff suggests that the canopy could be contracted using the pruning techniques recommended in the first arborist report and the area under the canopy fenced to prevent entrance by small children if the 1-!J- parental concerns still remain strong. The yard is large enough to provide play areas away from the tree. Submitted by: Colin J ung, Senior Planner r W ~ J Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of C;r4nunity Developme~ ENCLOSURES Model Resolution for Denial of the Tree Removal Model Resolution for Approval of the Tree Removal Exhibit A: Arborist Report from Barie Coate & Associates dated March 18, 2004. Exhibit B: Arborist Report from Barie Coate & Associates dated April 2, 2004. Exhibit C: Additional tree photographs 1-3 TR-20O4-05 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 MODEL RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DENYING A REQUEST TO REMOVE A PROTECTED 34-INCH DIAMETER MANNA GUM TREE (Eucalyptus viminalis) AT 23605 OAK V ALLEY ROAD SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Owner: Location/ APN: TR-20O4-05 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 not met the burden of proof required to support removal of this tree in that measures can be taken to reduce the perceived hazard of small diameter branch breakage. 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 denied; 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-O5, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of May 24, 2004 are incorporated by reference herein. 4-1 Model Resolution Page 2 TR-2004-05 OS/24/04 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: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Taghi Saadati, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission 1-6 TR-2004-05 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 MODEL RESOLUTION 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-20O4-05 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. 1-(¡; Model Resolution Page 2 TR-2004-05 OS/24/04 SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVAL 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. 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. 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: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Taghi Saadati, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission if-? = ~ ~~M'~ BARRIE D. (LA IE and ASSOCIATES Horticutural O:;onsultants 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos. CA 95033 4081353-1052 EXHIBIT A AN ANALYSIS OF A EUCA L YPTUS TREE IN THE BACKYARD OF 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 Arbonst March 18,2004 Job #03-04-030 tj-t "'"' ,-u,",.o. AN ANALYSIS OF A EUCAL 'l?TUS TREE IN THE 8ACKY ARD OF 23W5 OAK VIlU.E'l ROAD, CUPERTINO Assignment I was asked by Colin lung, Planner, Community Development Department, City of Cupertino, to evaluate a eucalyptus tree at 23605 Oak Valley Road, Cupertino, California. The homeowner states that this tree is a safety and fire hazard to the dwelling and to adjacent dwellings. The su~ject tree is located in the back yard of the residence of Mr. and Mrs. Umesh Mahajan, 23605 Oak Valley Road Cupertino. No one was home at the time of the evaluation, March 18, 2004. The back yard is completely fenced and the side gate has a lock. No accommodation had been made for access. The next door neighbor located on the west was home. This neighbor showed me that the lock was not functioning and opened the gate. Observations The subject tree is a manna gum (Eucalyptus viminalis). [t has a trunk diameter of 34- inches at 54 inches above grade. The canopy height is approximately 75 feet and the canopy spread is approximately 60 feet. The trunk tree is located approximately 36 feet from the nearest part of the residence. A very small portion of the canopy extends over the corner of the residence. The trunk and the primary leaders have a slight lean toward the north, northeast, which is primarily opposite the direction of the residence (Sketch attached). The nearest neighboring residence to this tree is located toward the west at a distance of approximately 100- J 50 feet from the trunk. Currently the back yard is not landscaped. The existing plants consist of grasses, weeds, and this lone eucalyptus tree. This manna gum has a full dense canopy and the annual tip growth is approximately 12- 14 inches in the lower portions of the canopy. The health is excellent. The tree has a tàirly upright structure with a slight lean toward the north, northeast. There are no major branching defects, and the branch unions throughout the structure have open angles, which are typically very strong and unlikely to break. However, this species like most eucalyptus species are prone to breaking branches if the excessive interior thinning causes the tree to produce excessively long, endweight heavy branches. A few pruning scars show that this tree has been pruned in the last few years. There are no ragged ends of broken branches and there are no tears in the bark, indicating that a branch has not broken recently. [fbranches have broken from this tree, they have been relatively smal1 in diameter (approximately 2 inches in diameter or smaller). This is not generally considered to be a serious hazard. There is stringy bark hanging from the branch unions near the base of this tree. This is unsightly but characteristic of the species and can easily be removed. This evergreen tree like other eucalyptus species does drop !eaves throughout the year and can he rather messy, especially in gutters and down spouts. This tree exists on a mound, which elevates the root collar approximately] 8-24 inches above the surrounding grade. ]t appears that the original grade has been lowered to the PPOPdP,", OV "'Oud'" 1 DO"Ou om«11I TI"r. dOO"PIOT ..dPOu 'D ?nn. t.j-r Þ.N Þ.NÞ.LYSIS OF Þ. EUC,6,lYPTUS1REE IN THE BÞ.CKYÞ.RD OF 23605 OÞ.K VÞ.LLEYROÞ.D. CUPERTINO 2 lower edges ofthis mound. This is suspected to have been done at the time ofthe construction ofthis residence, estimated to have been less than 10 years ago. If the stability of this tree had heen compromised by this suspected grading, the tree would not likely be standing today. However, it would not be feasible to remove the mound surrounding the base of this tree because of the expected root loss. Hucalyptus viminalis and a few other eucalyptus species are listed in a publication by the East Bay Municipal Utility District titJed: Firescape: Landscaping To Reduce Fire Hazard as a highly flammable plant, June 1998. However, this publication states that these trees can be maintained by keeping the dry grasses, debris, and other flammable materials away from the base of the tree. The risk of igniting an even highly flammable plant may be reduced significantly by eliminating a "fire ladder." Ifno fuel source (as dead bark) is allowed to accumulate on the ground and no highly flammable 4-20 foot tall plants are planted at the base ofthe tree, there is no means for fire to reach the crown of the tree, so the fact that the tree is flammable is irrelevant. The moisture content in the plant is an important factor in evaluating fire hazard. When tbe moisture content is high. usually in the late fall, the winter, and the early spring in our climate, the risk of igniting virtually any plant is fairly low. As the moisture content in the plant decrease in the summer, the risk of igniting the plant becomes greater. This is, of course, the case when no irrigation is provided. In urban settings where landscapes are irrigated through the dry season, the moisture levels in the plants and trees remain high throughout the year, reducing the fire risk. This residence has stucco siding on the back of the house nearest this eucalyptus tree. The roof is a man made material that is fire retardant or fire resistant, typically required by new construction in recent years. It is entirely possible to prune this eucalyptus tree by a method called "drop-crotch" thinning to reduce the crO\VI1 height and diameter, especially in the area where the canopy extends over the roof of the residence. Under no circumstances should this tree be "topped." The tree would produce quantities of watersprouts which are very likely to break out. Any pruning must follow the enclosed [SA Pruning Instructions and be done by an ¡SA certified arborist or certified climher. It would be difficult to landscape the back yard at this site without posing a risk to this eucalyptus tree, hut it is feasible. There must be no trenching for irrigation or for any other purpose across the root zone of this tree within a distance of20 feet from the trunk. There must also be no grading cuts or excavations, within 20 feet of the trunk, with the following exceptions: I. Planting pits for landscape planting must be a minimum of 6 feet on center or greater. 2. Trenches may be done radial to the tree's trunk provided no roots larger than 2 inches are severed and provided no such trenching would be done closer than 14 feet from the trunk. CCOOdcon ov Ulr~.o, , oo,""u rmr<l" TI"" .COrlCrOT "'C"u .. ')fIl1A £1-10 AN ANALYSIS OF A EUCAL VPTUS 1REE IN THE BACKYARO OF 23SO5 OAK VALLEY ROAD, CUPERTINO 3 Conclusions The risk of this tree up-rooting and falling on this residence is very unlikely. Currently this tree is not within striking distance of the nearest neighboring residence, The risk of the breaking of a large branch is currently unlikely. Also, the risk ofthe breaking of small branches is moderate ifleft unpruned, but the risk would be minimal if the tree were pruned by "drop-crotch" thinning every 4-5 years, If the grasses and weeds in the back yard were to be mowed, the risk of a fire occurring below this tree would be rel.atively low. The fire risk could be further reduced by regularly irrigating this tree during the dry months of the year. It would be difficult but certainly not impossible to landscape the back yard of this residence while maintaining this eucalyptus tree. In my opinion, the preservation or removal of this tree may depend on the merits of a landscape plan and the intended use of the space. There are no horticultural, tree hazard or fire potential reasons for its removal. Res~tfUllY ~ " ......... Michael L. Bench, Associate ~LJ,~ Barrie D. Coate, Principal MLB/sl. End: ISA Pruning Standards Sketch p.O.A.on AV "~"AOI I AO"~" ~mIOI" TI"r. A.An.,<:T ,...~" .> OM. i-II - An Analysis Of A Eucalyptus Tree In The Backyard Of $ Bl.iRlED. COATI 23605 Oak Va/ley Road. Cupertino . and ASSOCIA US 14[81353-1052 Prepared for: 7"'5S"".~'"d lœColœ,CA 95Il1O City of Cupertino, Planning Depar1ment HORTICULTURAL CONSULTANT DATE: March 18, 2004 CONSULTING ARBORIST Job # 03-04-030 All dimensionS and tree locations are approximate. Mahajan Residence I N Existing Mound Eucalyptus: ~ .. - - Tree ,- >-:- /' .. \ I Slight ..r J, I \ 'Lean I ,. . ... .- -' Sketch No Scale Lj-Id-. Supplied by courtesy of: ;. MembeBanier D. Coate, Horticultural Consultant Consulting AIborist 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, CA 95030 4081353-1052 <American Society cI Consulting Arborists <International Society of Art¡oriculture PRUN'lNG. S1 AN DARDS WESTERN CHAPTER WESTERN CHAPTER h1t~M1~tioM~1 Socict'1 ofArboric,,", It\fre ARIZONA CALIFORNIA HAWAII NEVADA Certificatjon Committee. Po. Box 424 ..st. Helena. California 94574 <I- -/3 Written by: WC ISA Certification Committee Ed Perry, Editor John C. Britton, Chairman Ed Brennan Denice Froehlich Richard W Harris Steve Holcomb John M. Phillips Fred Roth These Standards address pruning in terms oftree growth and respon~e,Theyarenot intended as a training manual for pruning or climbing techniques. Tree prunihgisOften dangerous, with unseen hazards. Proper training in safe work practices andsupervi~ion is required fortree climbing. Itis the tree worker's responsibilityto exercise adequate precautions for safety. All tree maintenance must be performed in compliance with ANSI Z133.1, 1988 Safety Standards. @ \988 Adopted by the. Western Chapter ISA Executive Committee on May 18, 1988. Y-! t/ WESTERN CHAPTER ISA PRUNING STANDARDS Purpose: Trees and other woody plants respond in specific and predictable ways to pruning and other maintenance practices. Careful study of these responses has led to pruning practices which best preserve and enhance the beauty. structural integrity. and functional value of trees. In an effort to promote practices which ençourage the preservation of tree structure and health. the We. ISA Certification Committee has established the following Standards of Pruning for Certified Arborists. The Standards are presented as working guidelines, recognizing that trees are individually unique in form and structure, and that their pruning needs may not always fit strict rules. The Certified Arborist must take responsibility for special pruning practices that vary greatly from these Standards, I. Pruning Techniques A. A thinning cut removes a branch at its point of attachment or shortens it to a lateral large enough.to assume the terminal role. Thinning opens up a tree, reduces weight on heavy limbs, can reduce a tree's height. distributes ensuing invigoration throughout a tree and helps retain the tree's natural shape. Thinning cuts are therefore preferred in tree pruning. When shortening a branch or léader, the lateral to which it is cut should be at least one-half the diameter of the cut being made. Removal of a branch or leader back to a sufficiently large lateral is often called "drop crotching," B, A heading cut removes a branch to a stub. a bud or a lateral branch not large enough to assume the terminal role, Heading cuts should seldom be used because vigorous, weakly attached upright sprouts are forced just below such cuts. and the tree's natural form is altered. In some situations, branch stubs die or produce only weak sprouts, '-/ -/5 C. When removing a live branch. pruning cuts should be made in branch tissue just outside the branch bark ridge and collar, which are trunk tissue. (Figure I) If no collar is visible, the angle of the cut should approximate the angle formed by the branch bark ridge and the trunk. (Figure 2) D. When removing a dead branch, the final cut should be made outside the collar of live callus tissue. If the collar has grown out along the branch stub. only the dead stub should be removed, the live collar should remain intact, and uninjured. (Figure 3) E. When reducing the length of a branch or the height of a leader. the final cut should be made just beyond (without violating) the branch bark ridge of the branch being cut to, The cut should approximately bisect the angle formed by the branch bark ridge and an imaginary line perpendicular to the trunk or branch cut (Figure 4) F. A goal of structural pruning is to maintain the size of lateral branches to less than three-fourths the diameter of the parent branch or trunk. If the branch is codominant or close to the size of the parent branch, thin the branch's foliage by 15% to 25%, particularly near the terminal. Thin the parent branch less, if at all. This will allow the parent branch to grow at a faster rate, will reduce the weight of the lateral branch, slow its total growth, and develop a stronger branch atta.chmentlf this does not appear appropriate, the branch should be completely removed or shortened to a large lateral. (Figure 5) G. On large-growing trees, except whorl-branching conifers, branches that are more than one-third the diameter of the trunk should be spaced along the trunk at least 18 inches apart, on center. If this isnot possible because of the present size of the tree. such branches should have their foliage thinned 15% to 25%, particularly near their terminals. (Figure 6) H. Pruning cuts shoUld be clean and smooth with the bark at the edge of the cut firmly attached to the wood. I. Large or heavy branches that cannot be thrown clear, should be lowered on ropes to prevent injury to the tree or other property. J. Wound dressings and tree paints have not been shown to be effective in preventing or reducing decay. They are therefore not recommended for routine use when pruning. 2 '-I-I/¡; V-'" FIGURE I. FIGURE 2. In removing a limb without a branch collar, the angle of the final cut to the branch bark ridge should approximate the angle the branch bark ridge forms with the limb. Angle AB should equal Angle Be. J FIGURE 3. 3 When removing a branch, the final cut should be just outside the branch bark ridge and collar. v-- ..-""'- ( \. "- \ When removing a dead branch, cut out- side the callus tissue that has begun to form around the branch. L/ -/7 In removing the end of a limb to a large lateral branch, the final cut is made along a line that bisects the angle between the branch bark ridge and a line perpendicular to the limb being removed. Angle AB is equal to Angle Be. ~~ ( ~ 4' i ~ ;:;,~:&:;,' ~. ~ 1 "-1 ,"" ~ ~ ( ~- ( -- ~~ >~~-' r:;fv-; ') C~.ít / -Ã, ~(~~' r.'-:è~-',~, -,'-" -.... J v.-~"'" ....---. ,v.p~ -",< I' .J ""."9~'Z:'I../<",':..".",,,'"'- ~..--f ~~.., .,.~' ~-.z (;...'. - ~ '- ) r. ~k ~'--., - , l -~.t - ./ -...J ò <I ~~~: ~. r,\ ~ .; ~iT-~"\ ~ L~ç¡ J Wr, ,-,I.ß;.......-../ 'ì . --\..; . L '", J A ~ ....~ FIGURE 5. A tree with limbs tending to be equal- sized, or codom/nant. Limbs marked B are greater than % the size of the parent limb A. Thin the foliage of branch B more than branch A to slow its growth and develop a stronger branch attachment. FIGURE 6. Major branches should be well spaced both along and around the stem. . ' (" ""' 4 Y--/ð II. Types of Pruning- Mature Trees A CROWN CLEANING Crown cleaning or cleaning out is the removal of dead. dying. diseased, crowded, weakly attached, and low-vigor branches and watersprouts from a tree crown. B. CROWN THINNING Crown thinning includes crown cleaning and the selective removal of branches to increase light penetration and air movement into the crown. Increased light and air stimulates and maintains interior foliage, which in turn improves branch taper and strength. Thinning reduces the wind-sail effect of the crown and the weight of heavy limbs. Thinning the crown can emphasize the structural beauty of trunk and branches as well as improve the growth of plants beneath the tree by increasing light penetration. When thinning the crown of mature trees, seldom should more than one-third of the live foliage be removed. At least one-half of the foliage should be on branches that arise in the lower two-thirds of the trees. Likewise, when thinning laterals from a limb, an effort should be made to retain inner lateral branches and leave the same distribution of foliage along the branch, Trees and branches so pruned will have stress more evenly distributed throughout the tree or along a branch. An effect known as "Ilon's-tailing" results from pruning out the inside lateral branches. Lion's-tailing, by removing all the inner foliage, displaces the weight to the ends of the branches and may result in sunburned branches, water- sprouts, weakened branch structure and limb breakage. C. CROWN REDUCTION Crown reduction is used to reduce the height and lor spread of a tree. Thinning cuts are most effective in maintaining the structural integrity and natural form of a tree and in delaying the time when it will need to be pruned again. The lateral to which a branch or trul}k is cut should be at least one-half the diameter of the cut being made. D. CROWN RESTORATION Crown restoration can improve the structure and appearance of trees that have been topped or severely pruned using heading cuts. One to three sprouts on main branch stubs should be selected to reform a more natural appearing crown. Selected vigorous sprouts may need to be thinned to a lateral, or even headed, to contro/length growth in order to ensure adequate attachment for the size of the sprout. Restoration may require several prunings over a number of years. 5 Lf-/Y II. Types of Pruning - Mature Trees (continued) E. CROWN RAISING Crown raising removes the lower branches of a tree in order to provide clearance for buildings, vehicles, pedestrians, and vistas. It is important that a tree have at least one-half of its foliage on branches that originate in the lower two-thirds of its crown to ensure a well-formed, tapered structure and to uniformly distribute stress within a tree. When pruning for view. it is preferable to develop "windows" through the foliage of the tree, rather than to severely raise or reduce the crown. III. Size of Pru_ning Cuts Each of the Pruning Techniques [Section I) and Types of Pruning (Section II) can be done to different levels of detail or refinement. The removal of many small branches rather than a few large branches will require more time, but will produce a less-pruned appearance, will force fewer watersprouts and will help to maintain the vitality and structure of the tree. Designating the maximum size (base diameter) that any occasional undesirable branch may be left within the tree crown, such as Ih~ l' or 2' branch diameter, will establish the degree of pruning desired. IV. Climbing Techniques A. Climbing and pruning practices should not injure the tree except for the pruning cuts. B. Climbing spurs or gaffs should not be used when pruning a tree, unless the branches are more than thmw-line distance apart. In such cases, the spurs should be removed once the climber is tied in. C. Spurs may be used to reach an injured climber and when removing a tree. D. Rope injury to thin barked trees from loading out heavy limbs should be avoided by installing a block in the tree to carry the load. This technique may also be used to reduce injury to a crotch from the climber's line. 6 Lj-m 4 BARRIE D. (vA IE and ASSOCIATES EXHIBITB Horticutural Consultants 23535 Summit Road Los G_s. CA 95033 4081353-1052 A REVIEW OF THE EUCAL yprus TREE AT THE MAHAJAN PROPERTY 23605 OAK VALLEY ROAD, CUPERTINO Prepared at the Request of: Colin Jung 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-O4-030A rj-~I A REVIEW OFTHE EUCALYPTUS '¡.",ë AT THE INlHAJAN PROPERTY 23605 OAK VALLEY ROA~, ..PERTINO Assignment I evaluated a large eucalyptus tree in the back yard at the home of Mr. 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 April 2, 2004 meeting, Mr. and Mrs. Mahajan had received a copy of my evaluation. Their prilIlllI)' 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 of these photos show small diameter branches that have not yet broken but are likely to break in the near future, especially during a stOfin. Mr. and Mrs. Mahajan are concemed 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 of a fire igniting this tree, posing a risk to the home of Mr. and Mrs. Mahajan or to the neighboring homes. As stated in my report, all three of these concerns are possible, but, in my opinion, not very likely. However, during this second observation, I have more carefully studied the scars of the past small branch breakage. Indeed, the number of small branches that have broken from this tree are numerous. In my opinion, it is likely 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 ofthis 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 ~/J.d- A REVIEW OF THE EUCALYP :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 Formula method, 9th Edition, Guide for Plant Appraisal, International Society of Arboriculture. By this method, this manna gum tree has an appraised value of$2,O70, which is equivalent to two 36 inch boxed native trees. I recommend that these replacements be coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), 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 ton of the rootball during the dry months of the year for 3 years. Irrigation must be applied on top of the rootball, not directly on the trunk of the tree. Irrigation must be provided during the dry months (any month receiving less than 1 inch of rainfall). Irrigate with 10 gallons for each inch of trunk 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 I' and 2' ITom 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 for installation is November. MLB/sl.. Respectfully ~ .~ Michael 1. Bench, Associate ~.~ Barrie D. Coate, Principal Enclosures: Assumptions and Limiting Conditions Photos of Eucalyptus Tree . ISA Value Worksheet PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L BENCH. CONSUlTING ARBORIST APRIL 2. 2004 Lj --~ - BARRIE D. COAL and ASSOCIATES Horticutural Consultants 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, CA 95033 4081353-1052 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 appraiserlconsultant 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 opinion of the appraiserlconsultant, and the appraiser'slconsultant'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 appraisallevaluation/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. la.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 ARBORIST 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. d5~ ¿J. ~ Barrie D. Coate ISA Certified Arborist Horticultural Consultant L{ -;(1 AREVIEWOFTHE EUCALYPTU~ ,REEAT THE MAHAJAN PROPER1Y 23605 OAK VAllEY RoAD,CUPERTINO ~:' PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L BENCH, CONSUlTING ARBORIST APRil 2, 2004 q-a5 A REVIEW OF THE EUCALVPTUo .ÆEAT THE IMHAJAN PROPERTY 23605 OAK VALLEY ROAv, CUPERTINO PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L BENCH. CONSUlTINGARBORIST APRIL 2, 2004 LJ-J..b A REVIEW OF THE EUCALVPTUò ,KEEAT THE Ml\HAJAN PROPERTY 23605 OAK VAlLEY ROAu. CUPERTINO PREPARED BY: MlCHAB.l BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST APRIL2,2004 L/ -() Î AREVIEWOFTHE EUCALYPTUS TREE AT THE MAHAJAN PROPERTY 23605 OAK VALLEY ROAD, CUPERTINO PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTlNGARBORIST APRIL 2, 2004 tj --() 8' AREVIEWOFTHE EUCAlYPTUS .._"AT THE MAHAJAN PROPERTY 23605 OAK VALLEY ROAL. ,PERTINO PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST APRIL 2. 2004 t.f -}J! AREVIEWOFTHE EUCAlYPTU" ÆEAT THE~HAJANPROPERTY 23605 DAK VAUEYROA", CUPERTINO PREPARED BY: faCHAElL BENCH, CONSULTINGARBORIST APRIL 2. 2004 ~-()£J A REVIEW OFTHE EUCALYPTUS TREE AT THE MÞ.HAJAN PROPERTY 23605 OAJ( VALLEY ROAD. CUPERTINO PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L BENCH. CONSULTING ARBORIST APRIL 2, 2004 t.j -3/ A REVIEW OF THE EUCALYPTlJ. .ÆEAT THE M'\HAJAN PROPERTY 23605 OAKVAUEY RO,,", CUPERTINO PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST APRil 2. 2004 tj-~ , BARRIE D. CVr\rE AND ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, CA 95033 Date of A raisal: 4/2/04 Date of Failure: N/A Trunk Fonnula Method 9th Edition, Guide for Plant Appraisal for Trees Less Than 30" diameter I. S ecies: Manna Gum 2. Condition: 60% 3. Trunk Diameter, inches: 34 6. Re lacement Tree Size 7. Re lacement Tree Cost 8. Installation Cost 9. Installed Tree Cost #7 + #8 100 +3= 33% 30% 14.6 in. $902.50 $902.50 $1,805 $37 er in2 907.46 s . in. 892.86 . in. $34,841 $2,070 $2070 t¡~¿;3 .~(.. F '¡~31 TR-20O4-05 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. APPROVAL 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: Saadati COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: Chen, Miller, Vice-Chair Wong and Chairperson NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Giefer ATTEST: APPROVED: f sf Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development f sf Taghi Saadati Taghi Saadati, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission ~ BARRIE D. C-vATE and ASSOCIA T~S Horticutural Consultants 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos. CA 95033 4081353-1052 EXHIBIT B A REVIEW OF THE EUCAL YPTUS TREE AT THE MAHAJAN PROPERTY 23605 OAK V ALLEY ROAD, CUPERTINO Prepared at the Request of: Colin Jung 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-O4-O30A Af'i'Rov¡\!.'"l~-a::04 -05 -¡;;;;¡:;~- '>,.,'" ".".'...,.,'.'."'" ::>1~.r14- "".".'~..".""---~!:'..!.-.""'I L ",., I I " en. I :.'..' ':;,'C -_..,:-~^-".~ Q -. 7- CO" .. "'ro --- --.------- A REVIEW OF THE EUCALYPTlJ~ .REe AT THE MAHAJAN PROPERTY 23605 OAK VALlEY ROAD, CUPERTINO ,,' " ,",:,'; ',i"', ;,,'¡,{'!l;.,"~" . ,~; , ' ,;1 ',: b.' , r .t¡.\,' ... ' ~".',.,;N. ,,' ",' " I~':~'.'.I 'flJ .~... . 't.,!lt~ '..'./ 'iÍ_' , . I,',,'," ,.r' , ',~, ,. {11"li . ..~.,' '. r f . ~.~'." ; , . :' J.\\~~V': " ,,~~;L . oJ' .,n ".,.,, . ",.~" ~, ", , " ..' ,.,:¡ " ~. \I~';, ; ,',~,: ,:' . ""," ','.' ,'~ ',\~~';V~~'l~' ""';i,,"(J1',""",,'(~ .,'i' '~l"f"I:"'\; . ~ I/~:';' ',,~~"f'"~: "}:{' 'if' ";>~""" " ~' ~J :,. , '" '~'" "I .,' ~\ " 'I~~' , ~ ~';'~¿, ~f, '..., , "L'l~~ " "C~i' ,,' " .. ~~ì,: ~ ,I l~ ,\ N\,'~II\' ¡,. ~'!I\/':':' 'I ,~." I ~ 7 I I, J,,' , . .,~'«.. ..' ~:,., ' :'", , on..;;," ."f)'I'~' , ' '(~ .' , /..' : ~~.~,,'~ I, ¡ , I"~. , ( :;:~;~;J, I ~.r. . ,'" f" PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L BENCH. CONSULTING ARBORIST APRIL 2, 2004 A REVIEW OF THE EUCALYPWv ,.<EE AT THE MoIHAJAN PROPERTY 23605 OAK VALlEY ROAu, CUPERTINO PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L BENCH, CONSUlTINGARBORIST APRIL 2,2004 A REVIEWOFTHE EUCALYPTU~ ,KEEAT THE MAHAJAN PROPERlY 23605 OAKVALtEY ROAu, CUPffiTINO PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L BENCH. CONSUlTING ARBORIST APRIL 2, 2004 A REVIEW OF THE EUCALYPTUS TREE AT THE MAHAJAN PROPERTY 23605 OAK VALLEY ROAD, CUPERTINO PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST APRIL 2, 2004 A REVIEW OF THE EUCALYPTUS ,,_¿AT THE IMHAJAN PROPER1Y 23605 OAK VAliEY ROAL. ~PERTINO PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST APRIL 2, 2004 A REVIEW OF THE EUCALYPTU",;¡ffAT THE MAHAJAN PROPERTY 23605 OAK VAllEY ROAc,'CUPERTINO PREPARED BY: MICHAEl. L BENCH, CONSULTINGARBORIST APRIL 2, 2004 " BARRIE D. COA1.. and ASSOCIATES Horticutural Consultants 23535 Summit Rood Los Gatos. CA 95033 408l35~1052 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 appraiserlconsultant 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 appralser/consultant. 6. This report and the values expressed herein represent the opinion of the appraiserlconsultant, 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. 1 O.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 ARBORIST 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. ðf~ JJ. ~ Barrie D. Coate ISA Certified Arborist Horticultural Consultant CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: Agenda Date: Applicant: Owner: Location: U-2004-05 May 24, 2004 Nick Gera Nick Gera 10550 S. De Anza Blvd., APN 369-38-002 Application Summary: User permit for an auto service/ auto sales business and renovations to an existing building and landscaping. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve: 1. The use permit application, file number U-2004-05, in accordance with the model resolution. Project Data: General Plan Designation: Zoning Designationf Acreage: Height: Stories: Parking Required: Parking Supplied S. De Anza Blvd. Conceptual Plan P(CG) 0.40 acres 20'-0" 1 story 6 spaces - Commercial (1 stall/250) 17 spaces (8 customer/ employee parking and 9 vehicle display parking) Project Consistency with: General Plan: Zoning: Environmental Assessment: Yes Yes Negative Declaration BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting a use permit to allow an auto service/ auto sales business at a former gas station site. DISCUSSION: Parking Based on the commercial parking ratio of 1 stall per 250 square feet of building area, the proposed project is required to provide six parking stalls. The project site contains eight existing stalls along the easterly property boundary. The applicant is proposing 5-1 another nine new stalls along the northerly and westerly property boundary to display the automobiles for sale. A condition is added that limits the maximum number of vehicles for sale on the site to nine at any given time. Traffic The project is not expected to generate additional traffic since it is not increasing the square footage of the existing building. Currently there are two driveway entrances to the site (one off of De Anza Blvd. and the other off of Silverado Rd.). The applicant is proposing to revise the driveway entrance along De Anza Blvd. to limit it to one-way in only. This significantly improves the traffic circulation of the site and the intersection. Cars can only enter the project site from De Anza Blvd. and exit onto Silverado Rd. instead of exiting onto De Anza Blvd. Architectural Design The existing design of the building is preserved. The only feature that will significantly change is the deletion of the existing roof canopy located over the previous gasoline dispensing area as shown on the site plan. The applicant is requesting that a small portion of the canopy be retained near the entrance of the building. As proposed, the roof element will encroach into the required driveway (25'-0"), staff recommends that it be trimmed back further to stay clear of the required driveway area. The only other enhancement is the introduction of a new shade canopy around the northwest corner of the building. Final architectural treatments and revised plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to issuance of building permits. Landscaping At the request of staff, the applicant has widened the perimeter landscaping area along De Anza Blvd. and Silverado Road. Seven new London Plane trees are going to be planted in the new landscaping area. Trash Enclosure The applicant is also proposing to upgrade the existing trash facility to comply with the City's requirements by fully enclosing the trash bins and providing a roof over the enclosure to improve storm water quality. Enclosures: Model Resolutions Plan Set Submitted by: Gary Chao, Assistant Planner , Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme~ G: \ Planning\PDREPORT\pcUsereports\ U-2004-05.doc 2 g-t:L U-2004-05 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT FOR AN AUTO SERVICE/ AUTO SALES BUSINESS AND RENOVATIONS TO AN EXISTING BUILDING AND LANDSCAPING SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No(s): U-2004-05 Applicant: Nick Gera Location: 10550 S. De Anza Boulevard SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR USE PERMIT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Use Permit, as described in Section II. of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; 2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of this title. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Use Permit is hereby recommended for approval, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof; and 6-3 Resolution No. Page 2 U-2004-05 May 24,2004 That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based are contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. U-2004-05, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of May 24, 2004, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED PROTECT Approval is based on the plan set entitled: "Nicholas Gera, 10550 De Anza Blvd., Cupertino, CA," dated April 05, 2004 and consisting of two sheets, except as may be amended by the conditions contained in this approval. 2. 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. 3. UNDERGROUND TANK CLEAN UP Prior to final occupancy approval, the applicant or property owner must show evidence that the underground tank clean up has been completed to the satisfaction of the Santa Clara Valley Water District and Santa Clara County Fire Department. 4. REVISED ARCHITECTURAL PLANS REOUIRED The applicant shall provide revised drawings to show the roof canopy trimmed back further to stay clear of the required 25'-0" driveway area. The final architectural treatments and revised plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department 5. DRIVEWAY APPROACH The driveway approach plan must be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of any building permits. 6. TRASH ENCLOSURE The trash enclosure shall be at least 8'-6" by 10'-0" and the interior clearance is approximately 10 feet. Also there must be a small 2" high by 18"round curb at the entrance of the enclosure to eliminate any run-on. The final trash enclosure plan shall be 5-1 Resolution No. Page :; U-2004-05 May 24,2004 reviewed and approved by the Public Works DepartInent prior to issuance of any building permits. 7. PARKING & VEHICLE DISPLAY Eight parking stalls along the easterly property line must be reserved for employee and customer parking only. The rest of the stalls shall be available for vehicle displays. No more than nine automobile for sale shall be displayed and stored on site at any given time. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of May 2004, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Taghi Saadati, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission G:\Planning\PDREPORT\RES\ U-2004-5 res. doc 5-6 U-2004-O5 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6251 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT FOR AN AUTO SERVICE/ AUTO SALES BUSINESS AND RENOVATIONS TO AN EXISTING BUILDING AND LANDSCAPING SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No(s): U-2004-05 Applicant: Nick Gera Location: 10550 S. De Anza Boulevard SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR USE PERMIT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Use Permit, as described in Section II. of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; 2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of this title. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Use Permit is hereby recommended for approval, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof; and Resolution No. 6251 Page 2 U-2004-05 May 24, 2004 That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based are contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. U-20O4-05, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of May 24, 2004, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED PROTECT Approval is based on the plan set entitled: "Nicholas Gera, 10550 De Anza Blvd., Cupertino, CA," dated April OS, 2004 and consisting of two sheets, except as may be amended by the conditions contained in this approval. 2. 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. 3. UNDERGROUND TANK CLEAN UP Prior to final occupancy approval, the applicant or property owner must show evidence that the underground tank clean up has been completed to the satisfaction of the Santa Clara Valley Water District and Santa Clara County Fire Department. 4. REVISED ARCHITECTURAL PLANS REQUIRED The applicant shall provide revised drawings to show the roof canopy trimmed back further to stay clear of the required 25'-0" driveway area. The final architectural treatments and revised plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department 5. DRIVEWAY APPROACH The driveway approach plan must be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of any building permits. 6. TRASH ENCLOSURE The trash enclosure shall be at least 8'-6" by 10'-0" and the interior clearance is approximately 10 feet. Also there must be a small 2" high by 18"round curb at the entrance of the enclosure to eliminate any run-on. The final trash enclosure plan shall be Resolution No. 6251 Page 3 U-2004-05 May 24,2004 reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of any building permits. 7. PARKING & VEHICLE DISPLAY 6 parking stalls along the easterly property line must be reserved for employee and customer parking only. The rest of the stalls shall be available for vehicle display. The applicant shall work with staff to provide two additional stalls for vehicle display purposes. Revised site plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to issuance of building permits. The number of vehicles displayed or stored on site shall not exceed the number of available vehicle display parking stalls at any given time. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of May 2004, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chen, Giefer, Miller, Vice-Chair Wong and Chairperson Saadati COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: f sf Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development f sf Taghi Saadati Taghi Saadati, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission G: \P1amring\PDREPORT\RES\ U-2004-O5 res.doc ~ ,.¡e,.""... . .va......... ... ~ .'~.'.OG""'" Z I EX~TIHUI~' ~.U< ,,)..~ U>H~".'.'.' '.'-0' ,,~. Dt<IV'~'T{".' ~'T""" ~""","""""M"""T"" DE ANI A 61- YD SITE FI-AN SHEET INDEX A 1 SITe PI-AN/NOTes A~ El-eVATIONS P~O,JEc.T INFO~MATION ZONe: APN oc;.c.UP TYPe: c.ONST TYPe: SP~INKU:~S Te:NANT I"~ A~e:A DeMO N~Mee:~ 01" STO~Ie:S GROSS LOT SiZe: I"A~ e~IU::>INc;. He:IGofoIT N~Mee:~ 01" e:MPI-Oye:e:s HOURS 01" OPe:~ATION e:XISTINc;. use: P~OPOSe:D ~se: p~opose: PAVINe;. p~opose: I-ANDSCoAPINGo PI-ANNW De:Ve:1- c:::.oMM c;.e:N 56'1-5&-002 1'1 VN NO 1500 600 101" c.ANO"'.Y 1 1"1,5&"1101" .0&5 25.S"" .. (&,50AM-6,5OPM 1'1-1") Se:~VIGe: STATION A~TO se:lt.VIGoe:/SAI-e:S 14,652101" &5.20% 2,'155 101" t 6.60% Q ì(T' q- \1... = > ~ Ii; <N I,:L ...... ¡u ~ ¡¡)~ "V' ..... >< I:L:ì STANDA~D size AGGESSlel-e "7 ( q' X 1 ð') 1( 14' X 1ð') API'ROVAL ~-~S- __N...... ,.,'"c t". """',,'",, S!c9t/nc..¡- Pi".,..", ~",.",..._.",. .::::../ ,"'. rt III III 2 :;¡ It )/. z i z () II" F .0 g ~ ~It~ IIItllII 32e IIIj-< Zt-\) 2~< :;¡111~ It:!:t- \&oIIZ I:~~ r- ... II" \) rt r- 1'1 ... . tI ~ II .(.( It~.( III.(\) \& Ô IIIIIIŽ .(tI- Q\)~ \5=111 -()~ x-\) D,Te 0",0"'04 A1 J> tJ 1) ï -I m r m < )- ..... () z , ": ~ 1J 111 » 1J 111 r 111 < » -I Õ Z - ": ~ ~ ~ -i .. r ~ . " \) z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ < . -i 0 Z ~ ~ t 1111111111111 1111111111111 1111111111111 1111111111111 1111111111111 1111111111111 1111111111111 1111111111111 1111111111111 1111111111111 ........ ..... ....... ..... D CJ .. .. .. .. .. .. ... ... .. .. .. .. .. [j IJ 0 H b'-" ." H ~ç ~~ !, = = = - = 0 ~\J o. ¡~ NIGHOL....S GõEIIl.... 10550 DE ""HZ"" BLVD c::.UPEIIlTINO. c::..... ~ ~ ~ ~ % ~ § ! 11 1) () Z -I .. r m < )- ..... (j Z ~ ": ~ r m "11 -I m r m < ]> -I () Z , ": ~ ~I- ~)'J > -" """ ~ 0 ~ t"" :,':' . C "" I I .. f~ J~:f(, "'-Þ '.-t- +- ~ ... ,., t, , , \) IJ\ e ""'GõIll....INONE GONSTfltuc::.TION ""'....NIC.IIl....INONE .., 46 HE....IIlTL.A.ND DIIt M....NTEc::.....c::.......5SS..,LIGo6..14S..,20..4..,IIIS2