TR-2017-23 Arborist Report.pdf WILSON & ASSOCIATES
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
815 SAN DIEGO ROAD�BERKEIEY,CA 94707
PH:510-644-9602�E:cwilson615@gmail.com
Date: June ll, 2016
Re: Arborist Report
Building at 21625, 21627, 21631 Stevens Creek Blvd.
Cupertino, California
Re: Existing Trees
Memo:
As requested, we evaluated two existing trees at the above referenced proper[y at the
northwest comer of Stevens Creek Blvd. and Peninsula Ave. in Cupertino. We visited the site on
the morning Friday July 31, 2015 to evaluate these existing trees and again on the morning of
Saturday, June 11, 2016.
The site currently has a two story office building and parking lot on a level site. There is
existing perimeter landscape planting in fair to good condition. There were two large trees we
were asked to evaluate.
Tree No. 1.Eucalyptus sideroxylon /Pink Ironbark. Situated on the reaz, northeast side of
building between the building and the Peninsula Avenue sidewalk. 40" DBH(Diameter at Breast
Height). Approximately 50'height and 40'spread. Fair to good health condition. Fair to poor
branching and structure. Probably several decades old. Likely it was planted when the building
was constructed. This is not a native species, and is not particularly valuable.
This tree is typical of a lree of this age and species in that it had rapid growth, has a high
crown, single tnmk, and poor branching structure in the upper crown. It appears to have been
correctively pruned fairly recently. It leans away from the building towards the street. The
extensive aggressive root system has begun to damage the sidewalk, adjacent exterior stainvay
into the building, and a utility pad under the stairway, which were all being lifted up by the tree
roots. The stauway to the second floor's support posts and footings are severely damaged. The
building foundations are also being affected by the tree roots.
Although this tree is in relatively good condition, it has grown too large for its small
planting azea, is out of scale with the building, is a species very susceptible to limb breakage, and
needs substantial supplementary irrigation.
Tree No. 2. Eucalyptus sideroxylon/Pink Ironbark. Situated on the front, south side of the
building betv✓een the building and the Stevens Creek Blvd. sidewalk. 30" DBH. Approximately
50' height and 40' spread. Fair to good health condition. Fair to poor branching and structure.
Also likely planted when the building was constructed.
Similar to the Tree No. 1 noted above in age, structure, health and condition. Although
planted in an even smaller planting area, there is not as much root damage to adjacent structures
evident. This tree has a substantial lean out into the street. Indeed nearly all the crown of the tree
overhangs the sidewalk and street.
Arborist Report June 11, 2016
21625,21627, 21631 Stevens Creek Blvd.,Cupertino Page 2 of 5
Again, although this tree is in relatively good condirion, it has substanrially overgrown its
planting azea, is out of scale with the building and would be even more susceptible to possible
damage to the street and property due to its structural deficiency. This tree and its roots are also
damaging the nearby stairway to the second floor and appeaz to be affecting the building
foundations.
Although both these trees area in relatively good health, we would recommend their
removal and replacement with a better suited species at this time. They have out-grown their
aesthetic utility, wiil cause even more damage to the surrounding structures in the future, could
cause substantial property damage from limb drops, and would require frequent pruning and
thinning.
Recommended replacement trees might be: {�� r � �/'
• Geijera parvt Austr ' Willow �IJtLU� ��� N' �� o��"t �t �
• Lagerstroemia h � s e Myrtle
Eoth of these trees are smaller stature, ore manageable trees. Eoth were seen in the �-
neighborhood and were performing well. These trees might be planted from 15 gallon can or 24"
box specimen nursery stock.
Please contact us with any quesrions.
Sincerely,
(JV�`6 l�u�tSGo �
Charles Wilson
ISA Arborist WE-7138A
Justification Statement
Requested Action:tree removals at 21625 Stevens Creek BIvd,95014
APN#:Traa 8822; Lot 33
Property Owner: Eugene Mandere
Projed Contact:Sharon Hill
408-833-5668
sharonhilidesign@ protonmail.com
We request to remove two Eucolyptus nicholii on said property located at the intersection of Stevens
Creek Blvd and Peninsula Avenue.These mature eucalyptus provide significant urban canopy; and,
despite issues they have presented over time with lifting of concrete pads and auxiliary building
structures,we have faithfully pruned and maintained them according to ISA standards with the belief
that the issues they pose are outweighed by the aesthetic beauty they offer.
However, recently we discovered a significant amount of root and trunk rot on the tree along Peninsula
Avenue, Specimen C, to such a degree that there is great concern for the immediate safety of the
general public due to both the size of the tree and its proximity to pedestrian rights of way and traffic on
Peninsula Avenue.
An examination of the trunk and buttress roots revealed bark which easily falls away. The trunk wood is
damp and crumbly. An examination of some of the larger Iateral roots revealed the same. Due to the
lean of the tree,these roots would be its main stabilizing force and they are clearly compromised to the
extent that at least twenty-five to thirty percent of the trunk all the way around the tree and lateral
roots, located on the building side of the tree,are thoroughly rotted and a visual inspection makes clear
just how significant it is. The soil is soft and spongy from the decay of the absorbing roots where it was
once firm and impossible to excavate. Please see accompanying photos as Eucalyptus(A).
Furthermore,on March 30, a Iimb of 8' diameter and approximately 10' long came down and the decay
is very visible in the limb( see accompanying photos) indicating it has spread throughout the tree.The
limb also damaged a AT&T utility line which had to be repaired and this particular location is a main
infrastructure point.
The Eucalyptus tree situated along Stevens Creek does not display the same degree of decay and rot as
Specimen C; however,a significant chunk of rot has been detected on the building side of this tree and
that rot extends to some of the lateral roots that anchor this tree which leans even more than
Specimien C. It is not known at this time what the extent of the decay is, but some termite pilings were
visible on the bark and both trees seem to have been equally affected by recent sidewalk replacement
work.This tree has more structural defects in that most of the crown is supported by two co-dominant
leaders from which other main branches arise from narrow angles of attachment. Independently,this is
not of the greatest concern as mitigation measures can and have been performed to reduce load on
weak attachments; however,the visual observation of decay combined with the inherent structural
weakness presents a different scenario. In addition, accompanying photos display splitting and fissuring
of the bark which is more than what we are accustomed to seeing on this tree. Moreover,the tree,
located not more than 12"from the building, and its ability to develop and maintain sufficient anchoring
roots to offset the degree of lean and preponderance of canopy in the upper third of the tree in this
limited space is clearly in question particularly with decay present.
What is known is that both trees were in relatively good health not long ago.They had been pruned in
2014 and were inspected and deemed healthy, albeit limited by their relative incompatibility with their
location.The soil around them was very firm and planting anywhere near them was impossible. Now,
we find, around both trees,the soil to be spongy, loose, and composed largely of decaying woody
material. In both cases,we noted that the sidewalk work seems to correlate with a significant change in
the health of these trees. In three years, never has a single limb broken from either of these trees until
now and the process of decay seems to be occurring rether rapidly.
While Specimen A may not visually display decay to the extent of that of Specimen C, it is logical to
infer the eventual outcome will be similar given the trees are of the same age and variety, and similar
proximity to recent construction. In regard to Specimen A,we feel it is imperative to remove the tree
immediately.There can be no doubt as to the extent of decay and it is clearly a liability issue.
With Specimen A, it is most likely a matter of time before the extent of decay is as apparent.This tree,
however, is actually more dangerous in terms of its structure, lean,and amount of canopy at least thirty
feet above ground and over sidewalks and Steve�s Creek Boulevard. In addition, its focation in such
close proximity to existing structures is not acceptable by more recent standards which stipulate the
hazards to foundations by placing trees so close to them.
We understand removal of trees in a planned development is a process and support wholeheartedly the
importance of urban canopy. However, we request that a permit for the removal of Specimen A be
issued immediately due to the increasing level of urgency associated with its rapid deterioretion and
that an examination of Specimen A be performed whereby we believe a similar conclusion will be
reached. We would like a permit to remove both trees and replace them as soon as possible.
�y`� • " c 4 x .
. T ' �`��'� � � ���
v �
" ` � �,3 .�, . '" � . �
4; �� t ;� � 1
, � .
��L,. - � . ., � � ' . 4 y �� �s
_Y., . -�` �. . . y ��. ,-3�..
� s, . ;o, � , . . ..., -.
� �
�
' � -:A,1 . . . d ._� . :� f.,..
�' `S�".� � , ._1� .. ..�} � t f�',���� _
24� �.�� � \, -; � � t <.z� _.
- � �� . r �-.��`i' �. .'a�{� . i.3 � R
..: � ��i:� w`y,._ - ' , fh ' r -�+�',�.
. .\�� �: ..� - - . S� t � .
4� � r
-� �a� �.
�i� �. . ' ` �+�, '�c �� , .�s,�
� F.
� .? .. ° . , f; .�, •,`" + �?`_ " � � � �� �x�
s
, i?� I f� o_'_ �•
. � ��'� � .Y' 'fi' .
_ . . - F qtA. ; . �, �« _ . w
__- ,
� , • �. : , t� .
- , ,
� :�:: . ;' ; :.� ' � `_
-- ' __ rf ��j�� _ 4 ��� . f �. .. .
' = .. . ip� . � ��.
�-� � . � ' � "'�'.. _�1 y i ��
+ ` � . . �, . 3r '- } 'a�i� '
- ' "•.-.;�... �, � ' . �T� .
�� � ^� `� < '.
.� . •
� �.e ��-�e-
� " , ��,{ � ��� - -
' E �' ' '
� ♦ .
hPa ` � -:� a '� � ;� .
.. f': ` �� tz � �� � . ..
� ` . - � .:���.: i .
? � � � .
.,� - � . � : � . ��
�s�' _ .�� �y,.� S`'_�. . .�.._ _. x3 �i .
, ' y ' � _; �` r '�` �
� ` �.: :�� .:
1` �� . i ` -' a t,
� � p k 4.: t, �:
� i :�3��:� . . � +e .t�_ �...
q +� i s
,if '1�� ;' . .h. �o . . ,.�', . .
� �1 � � � � � .i. .' !
,F 1 ��., �-� 1j .
s` �: { �
' � � �
t1�4• � �. .,f; i , � �
,4 _ ;.
, — ti.
� �• .'; �/ ;- --
� f
���.�. .. — �
.
1i F
- .;,�'
[R �
� , �,...
.
- _
_ � .�` . -
.i i . .�'{ .. -
��
_ _ � �y F
� -
S
� - _� � -
$�_
/ ' a �
.
�� ; �` ` '�r4 �� �, , ,
�:� ` '
�� ,+�. Y y ��
� i.��,{i ,M`F1 . ' f �! �;.s , y - f
y �• f- S>
•� l �� ,, _ ..
i j •�/,�t �.i . �a (� �
. �.Y� Ai }���". � 1 'yt � ���� � `R-^
�{ +�' �Tf�. ► �'' ��� v�.
��,_� . � �' •ifii r #� , ,
,$�' �.� . ' � ,� , ' � �� '�
:.'I�y i f.1' � -. 1 ��. +V. J • i •� _
ft � � �4`'F�_ .]� ,i• I, - . 5�.,`0
i S • � f
. . L� � ' f� � '/ -�.
� ( � ���^ f . , � : %. .
+ R 4�,� ��1. . �'�� � '� ��� 1.� ' ti�. '
(`!Zl � ` a �..
<.� .���'r.'-a ;�`R ' 1��:� � •
T�� � _ Fl� . t ., . _ .
f�� ��}Z �� � ��`
1 ,' � _
�� '� + t
1. �
�i'
� - '. . . i� � .
,: _ '�� ��� . � ,, .:i � -3�,--��
_ °��, . � . � .�
_ �� „�+�; : , , ��
,-. ; �` 'y
>
;; °� � :�; ;;:
j-
"�� � �~� ��`• ..
�� �i�:� ( 4 � � ��Sri� - ♦ �t��i. ' .
;=.�'4�� ♦ r ,_ /. •J'. � e�lF ��
/ .r Y -. .- '•k �� .:a
3�; ' : - f � � �^,
- ,.. '}'kM� � .
�'Z�._
.{ � � q _`�r;: _
�.>� 7l�: . ��: .;'
' c
��!�.,;�• -•, , a�
.� ' ,� �� �f ,i,�•�, , �
. �
7 ��
��;� :
a . F ,�� ,.,;9 ;:
�' ' j� : }� ��' �:
-� ` � S i. ;
:q.' ..�._.j3, ._ , ,'; :
� � • �q
�e .'}• .�.�� . +t
' ' �t .
a i
.4P
.ii� .
t�
;
:` �
mf�
�
_..__
, . �r .. Y , ,' .
: c. � . . "� � ' �'�-- _��.
. . . : .
.t d e �
� / �
% � � I /�
qPN mAa � 2�6Z s S`��rEn�s �aEE� �.�ro .
N���
.�/�/
� ����yd /� �
� O / ��� /.
� "o�ytl 1'���N� �'� \C� d //
p"' o
n, ,�,�Y� d1(�`�N � m
'o� ��'���u ¢�` /
�/�"� `,c I� �%
� `" �`,� I� , �� . d � T
A � � n� q
fi\9• � IN � 4� � CQ(�%.�y \\ �i
! � ,,`1� �,'�5 'O �, 'O ��ao ��a ��
/� . 4 IN ; j n
4a.e11 ` bd,�? ` 1V %pC ` �'. tu S � � Z O
�n q ...� n.a� 4 '� ` IN\ yo n c
R<ml u '��,�_.� O\�� o.�o` ca `� I� `` '�9`.4� � �
C V �6
N O �� ��E \ Q ti
4� ` y�l 'aC �3,p..d. " y �oc o � + n N
I n oa 0+ •
a�C° .5 : ., � . �aa W, . m
m �$409 9• � m a^'5y_: 1O / �
� 4Q4 ` `�� �o�� b ` IiT� ...��. . ' y N
Nm $nOo� \� `a'r� ���.+,' o. S O
J x _,i,y�� � F �e� �r S a� � D z
A`y.. o° : `�'m��. . J tm �.� �+`"•dY�d�.� �'` \ e'�0' o
yMi�'I�: p•�` - . Ny �� �p ; _ I
''�� . 11` ` �4`R1 `�Y � ^' �'ia�oa,' \ IO
- iw w� y`'x�3o° . v'�aq` z
� � r „' c: aa,' , - o 'x �
♦^°:'� ay�.q' �`O , e � ��m �4 � �r.d6�a m
_' _ N ,i L,__ ` r .a.4`!`0 \ >
� � ���'_,� '�-_ ;�= ,d'8 s
-'� R: ��• �.�_�`y°' C c slVrn b � y(n >
n iv � _"� j .� _ �N 'Po ^ rn` 9 '.lm'� P' �3�d,�3
I �y ��� la ... .�`` � /��\d
Vd
m ry .., �c' � ,o,o. P� o
za ,. ; g- �� .. xo � r
mm ' �msr__ . �e.u. � - . _aA�IHAMBRA ' ~ �n' O >
om x,—,..r- ' ,�� - �.. . . _a.AVE.—__� w A
m 8� '
� s Ooo` ss:ac�'' y
O �
w - N o
r � o
< ��e v c
� `.-a m _ _ — t"n -�
y..
A C
2
HWY. g5 m WEST VALLEY FREEWAY V �
0
A
�
JK^ D
p=O
£a n
���a ; I �'x
s;�m f �
s��� ii ��+IIi//—
CR�� O �j�H
���� � Nm
� ��
���
�
N
�
�
d '
� C T C T C •
>
O
d' T C > C C
�
a�+ X X
� � �
@ ' ' _ O/ _ _
N
� (�'1 ti M l0 00 V1 N N
N
Gl
LJ
�
M
h �
�O N d
> �
CD T g �o I�- �p C1
a. a u m �
� Y O U � U C Q � 'Y j=,
� � N C � = O 0 � f6 fO
CJ j N ..�, .7� �.�. in � � t'''o t`�a
� � u W � v � � � �O 01 � �
� � ~ •O. > > 7 N U i+ N 'O U
u
�y �i F VI W U W Q Q � Vaf U U
{/) p�p
2
N a h
t0
�"� Y Y y y Y �C �
N w w � � v a`�i
a a a'
U V � �a U U m
0 C C v=i H C � C v�i
f�'0 > > C C > N > C
U y � C C � Y � C
J 1% VI d d 1% J Vl �.
Q [� U � w
ci M .--I �i .-1 c-1 �--I
� �