Loading...
12 Tree Removal appeal 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 FAX (408) 777-3333 CITY OF CUPEIQ1NO Community Development Department SUMMARY AGENDA NO. /2 AGENDA DATE March 7. 2006 SUBJECT: Consider an appeal of Application No. TR-2006-0l, regarding the Community Development Director's Denial of a Request to remove two Canary Island Pines (16" and 19" in diameter) from the common landscape area of the Cupertino Commons, a planned residential development surrounded by the Sports Center, Stelling Road, Alves Drive and Anton Way. The appellants are Nancy Hurtienne and Milton & Dorothy Levitan. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council may take either of the following actions: 1. Uphold the appeal of TR-2006-01 and approve (or modify) the applicants' tree removal request; Or 2. Deny the appeal and uphold the Community Development Director's decision to not remove the trees. BACKGROUND: On January 20, 2006, the Director of Community Development approved with modifications the Cupertino Commons HOA's request to remove certain common area trees that were either diseased, in poor health or posed a genuine hazard under his authority granted under CMC Section 14.18.170 (Exhibit A-I). The trees were examined by Cupertino Commons' arborist Gil Mitchell of Tree Health Professionals, Inc. and his report was reviewed by City Arborist Barrie Coate of Barrie Coate & Associates. Both arborists agreed that six trees should be removed, but their opinions differ on the two Canary Island Pines that are the subject of this appeal (tree nos. 140 and 176). The pines are in good health and have good structures, but the Cupertino Commons' arborist recommends removal because of the hazard caused by squirrel-induced pine cone drops, which could injure people. Some of the branches of these trees extend over private yards and walkways. The City Arborist does not recommend removal. He notes that most pines drop cones and the extension of branches over the roofs and yards of the residences contributes to the wooded character Printed on Recycled Paper }2..-/ TR-2006-01 Appeal Page 2 March 7, 2006 and charm of this development. He recommends drop crotch pruning of the longest limbs to improve the structure of the pines. The Director of Community Development agreed with the City Arborist and did not find the dropping cone hazard to be an adequate justification to remove these otherwise healthy trees and denied the removal of them. The Director's decision was appealed by the property owners residing closest to the pines: Dorothy & Milton Levitan (tree no. 140) and Nancy Hurtienne (tree no. 176). The appellant information is attached (Exhibit B-1). A tree location map is also attached (Exhibit C-l). . DISCUSSION: The Levitan's justification for removing tree no. 140 is fire hazard. The tree drops dry needles on the townhouse roof and the surrounding grounds. They pose a fire hazard because of potential sparks from neighboring patio and Quinlan Center (Memorial Park) barbeques and cigarette butts tossed from the sidewalk onto the landscaped areas. Staff spoke to Santa Clara County Fire Department staff about these concerns. Cupertino's local liaison, said he very rarely recommends the removal of a tree for fire safety reasons for properties, such as this one, that is outside of the city's fire hazard zone. The Fire Department prefers educating residents on other preventive measures, such as property maintenance to reduce the levels of combustible materials and identifying and avoiding possible sources of ignition. The City's Fire liaison said a barbeque would be an unlikely source of ignition, unless it occurred under a tree. Flying embers are caused mainly by the combustion of wood, not coal or gas, which are the main fuel source for barbeques. Ignition from a Memorial Park source is highly unlikely as all of the barbeque stations are located in open areas away from trees and City ordinances prohibit open pit fires in the park. Cupertino Commons contracts with a gardening service to maintain their common areas. Staff assumes this service includes the regular removal of accumulations of pine needles. Ms. Hurtienne's concerns are with falling cones that drop from tree no. 176. The cones are heavy and drop like small sharp missiles. She says she has nearly been hit several times on her balcony or in the yard. She indicates that there is plenty of mature trees nearby, so the pine's removal would not be significant. The canopy of tree no. 176 extends over the roof and entrance/walkway of the Hurtienne residence, and the perimeter landscape area that wraps around the development. Other than the walkway to the residence, there are no public walkways under this tree canopy. 12-2 TR-2006-01 Appeal Page 3 March 7, 2006 Staff would like to point out that there are dozens of Canary Island Pines located in this development, most with canopies that extend over private yards, walkways and surface parking areas. If a tree removal were approved because of dropping cones, it would be difficult not to grant other tree removal requests for similar reasons in this development and others throughout Cupertino. Enclosures: Exhibit A-I: Director's Minor Modification (Tree Removal) staff report with arborist reports Exhibit B-1: Appellant information Exhibit C-1: Tree Location Map Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner Submitted by: Approved by: ~~?~ æ~,"..I4./CU) Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development David W. Knapp City Manager G:planningl pdreportl appeaIs/TR-2006-01 /2r3 E)(~\i'b,\--; It-I CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 (408) 777-3308 To: Mayor and City Council Members Chairman and Planning Commissioners From: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme~~....... Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner Date: January 20, 2006 Subject: Director's Minor Modification, TR-2006-01, to remove selected trees from a planned single-family residential cluster development known as the Commons of Cupertino located between Stelling Road, Alves Drive and Anton Way Chapter 19.132 of the Cupertino Municipal Code allows for administrative approval of minor changes in a project. The Director reports his decision to the City Council and Planning Commission in time to allow an appeal of the decision within fourteen calendar days. DISCUSSION: The applicant, Nancy Hurtienne, representing the Commons of Cupertino Homeowners Association, is requesting approval for the removal of eight common area trees. The request is being made under the Community Development Director's authority to approve the removal of "specimen" trees if deemed unsafe, diseased or can cause potential damage to existing or proposed essential structures (CMC Section 14.18.170). In this particular case the "specimen" trees proposed for removal are part of an approved landscape plan for the complex. The trees were evaluated by Gil Mitchell, an ISAcertified arborist with Tree Health Professionals, Inc. in a reported dated December 5, 2005 (Exhibit A). The tree locations are shown in Exhibit B. Tree Health Professional's recommendations were further reviewed by City Arborist Barrie Coate and Associates in his report dated January 9, 2006 (Exhibit C). An inventory of the selected trees and each arborist's findings/recommendations are presented in the table below: /2--'1 TR-2006-01 Page 2 January 20,2006 Tree . Name/Species· Treé Health Professionals' I City Arb?risfS. Findi~gs& Reåsons for RemOval . No. (diameter in inches) .. . Recommendations 113 Bloodgood Sycamore Poor health. Most of canopy Agreed. No replacement as (Platinus acerfolia) (7") consists of waterspout growth. there is no loss to canopy. 130 Flowering Cherry Dying. 4 main limbs have died Agreed. Tree in poor condition (Prunus sp.) (7") back and have been removed, and should be removed. only one limb remains. 135 Pink Iron bark Eucalyptus Poor health and structure. Agreed. Tree should be (Eucalyptus sideroxylon) Recent major branch failure. removed. (17.5") Other major branches not . healthy. 140 Canary Island Pine Avg. health & structure. Squirrels Excellent health. Tree's (Pinus canadensis) (19") loosen cones, causing falling structure could be improved cone hazard/liabiiity. with drop crotch pruning of the longest limbs. Not recommended for removal 176 Canary Island Pine Avg. health & structure. Squirrels Excellent health. Not (Pinus canadensis) (16") loosen cones, causing falling recommended for removal cone hazard/liabiiity. 217 European White Birch Poor health. Twig dieback Agreed. Species inappropriate (Betula pendula) (4") throughout canopy. for climate. 224 Pink lronbark Eucalyptus Wounds on major branches, bark Agreed. Tree in very poor (Eucalyptus sideroxylon) separation from trunk with dark condition (19") oozing fluid 248 European White Birch Poor health. Twig dieback Agreed. Species inappropriate (Betula pendula) (3") throughout canopy. , for climate. The City Arborist supports the removal of six of the eight trees: tree nos. 113, 130, 135, 217, 224 and 248 due to poor health, disease or a realistic hazardous condition. The City Arborist does not support the removal of the Canary Island Pines, which are in excellent health and can be pruned without need of a removal permit to improve their structure. All pines drop cones regardless of the presence of squirrels and staff does not see this as an adequate justification to remove these pines. The landscaping of this residential complex has matured considerably since its construction in the 1970's and staff does not see the need to replace every tree that is removed given the extensive canopy of the remaining trees. The exception would be the small landscape islands in the middle of the driveway where the White Birches are G: \ Planning 1 PDREPORTlpeTRreports \ 20061 TR-2006-01.doc ( ~ -r> TR-2006-0l Page 2 January 20,2006 planted (tree nos. 217 and 248). The tree removal permit is conditioned to require the planting of a 24" box Crape Myrtle or. similar small stature tree that is adapted to the local climate. ACTION: The Director of Community Development approves the removal of tree nos. 113, 130, 135,217,224 and 248, but not the removal of the Canary Island Pines (tree nos. 140 & 176). The two White Birches shall be replaced with 24" box Crape Myrtles or a similar small stature tree recommended by the applicant's arborist. The approval is effective January 20, 2006. The 14-day appeal period expires February 3, 2006. Enclosures: Exhibit A: Tree Evaluation @ Commons of Cupertino HOA prepared by Tree Health Professionals, Inc., dated December 5,2005. Exhibit B: Commons of Cupertino Tree Location Map Exhibit C: A Review of Tree Removal Recommendations by Tree Health Professionals Regarding Trees at the Commons HOA, Cupertino prepared by Barrie D. Coate and Associates, dated January 9,2006. G: \ Planning \ PD REPORT\ peTRreports \ 2006 \ TR-2006-01.doe 11--(0 £'x\<\bit: Ii Tree Health Professionals, Inc. . .",C;~l~~'~k::.'..i'~".' ." , .. f.' , I "t ""~;--~''''',.:...,.L..".. _, "", ".J-~.,.,..,- '.'_"'~'.___~"_ c.'."c·.::,/!.' ,;:·,;,;.l3';::;, L/ / l ':)."'1-0. ., .. .;,... ''''''',' ·'~~~-r,-..:'.::""~:,"",,,,,,,". '"~.. TREE EVALUATION @ COMMONS OF CUPERTINO HOA Prepared At The Request Of: Ms. Nancy Hurtienne 10144 Congress Place Cupertino, CA 95014 Site Visit By: GiI Mitchell Registered Consulting Arborist ISA Certified Arborist December 2, 2005 December 5,2005 ,~ .,~\ "I" 137 E. Hamilton Ave., Suite 201 . Campbell, CA 95008 . (408) 929·3040 . Fax (408) 871-0284 I ''')2 -7 TREE EV ALUA TlON @ COMMONS OF CUPERTINO HOA December 5, 2005 Page 2 of3 Assignment The assignment was to evaluate eight trees that are suggested to be removed. The diameter of the trunk of each tree was taken at four and one half feet above ground line unless specifically noted. The evaluation was done from the ground and the trees were not climbed. The trees are numbered and their numbers are found on the trunk of each tree. Summary Five of the eight trees are suggested for removal because they are in poor health or they have poor structure. Two of the eight trees are suggested for removal because their cones have become hazardous to the residents that live nearby. One of the eight trees are suggested for removal based on trunk/branch wounds and its proximity to hardscape. Specific Observations Tree #113 is a bloodgood sycamore (Platinus aærfolia 'Bloodgood') tree. The trunk measures 6.75 inches in diameter. The tree is in poor health and most of the foliar canopy consists of watersprout growth. The tree is suggested to be removed because it is in poor health. Tree #130 is a flowering cherry (Prunus sp.) tree. The trunk measures 6.75 inches in diameter at a height of 40 inches above ground line. The tree originally consisted of five scaffold branches originating from approximately 42 inches above ground line. Four of the five scaffold branches have died and have been removed. There is one scaffold branch that remains which is creating a rather unsightly tree. The tree is suggested to be removed because it is has poor structure. Tree #135 is a pink ironbark eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sideroxylon) tree. The trunk measures 17.5 inches in diameter. One of the three main scaffold branches failed within the last year. The tree has been topped repeatedly and the remaining scaffold branches include watersprouts that range from poor to average health. The tree is suggested to be removed because it is in poor health and has poor structure. Tree #140 is a Canary Island pine (Pinus canariensis) tree. The trunk measures 18.75 inches in diameter. The tree is in average health and has average structure. Although the foliar canopy is out of balance and grows over one residence and two backyards. Squirrels find the seeds in the cones very appealing and have created a hazardous condition because they cause the cones to drop to the ground. When the cones drop they turn into little missles that can hit people in the head and hurt them. The tree is suggested for removal because of the potential liability of people being injured. Tree #176 is a Canary Island pine tree. The trunk measures 16 inches in diameter. This tree is in the same condition as tree #140. It grows over one residence and one backyard. This tree has the same potential for liability as tree #140 and is suggested for removal. Tree #217 is a white birch (Betula pendula) tree. The trunk measures 4.25 inches in diameter at a height of 50 inches above ground line. This tree is in poor health judging by the lack of growth since the last tree evaluation in 2002. There is twig dieback throughout the foliar canopy. The tree is suggested to be removed based on its poor health. Tree #224 is a pink ironbark eucalyptus tree. The trunk of the tree measures 19.25 inches in diameter. There are several wounds on the scaffold branches and the trunk that show a separation of bark and copius amounts of dark colored oozing fluid. The foliar canopy appears J;)-i TREE EV ALUA TION @ COMMONS OF CUPERTINO HOA December 5. 2005 Page 3 of 3 to look in average health but the wounds suggest that there could be problems with the root system of the tree. A laboratory analysis of the wounds was not performed. The tree is growing in a very confined location with the street and curb on two sides and two utility boxes on one side. The tree is suggested to be removed based on the wounds and the close proximity to the street and utility boxes. Tree #248 is a white birch tree. The trunk of the tree measures 3.25 inches in diameter at a height of 42 inches above ground line. The tree has twig dieback in various areas of the foliar canopy. The tree has hardly grown since the last evaluation in 2002. The tree is suggested for removal based on its poor health. Respectfully submitted by, ~:J øJ' / // fJ .~tfl~ 7/~Æ%i:;!/ Gil Mitchell, RCA ISA Certified Arborist Enclosures: Statement of Limiting Conditions I ).- 9 Tree Health Professionals, Inc. Statement of Limiting Conditions Please note: Recommendations given by Gil Mitchell of Tree Health Professionals, Inc. are based upon research and recommendations from the agriculture and horticulture departments of major universities in the United States, primarily the University of California, and also from the International Society of Arboriculture. Due to the variability and unpredictability of plant materials, hidden defects, soils, climate, workmanship and various other factors, Gil Mitchell of Tree Health Professionals, Inc. can make no warranty, expressed or implied, regarding any recommendations given. The owner or person(s) responsible for implementing any recommendations given by Gil Mitchell of Tree Health Professionals, Inc. assume(s) all risks involved, and agree(s) to indemnify Gil Mitchell of Tree Health Professionals, Inc. and hold Gil Mitchell of Tree Health Professionals, Inc. harmless from any loss, cost of damage, including but not limited to attorney fees and defense, costs of claims by the undersigned, or by third parties. Regarding trees: The measures noted within this report are designed to assist in the protection and preservation of the trees mentioned in this report and to help in their short and long term health and longevity. This is not however, a guarantee that any of these trees may not suddenly or eventually decline, fail, or die, for whatever reason. Because a significant portion of the roots are far beyond the dripline of the tree, even trees that are well protected during construction often decline, fail or die. Because there may be hidden defects within the root system, trunk or branches of trees, it is possible that trees with no obvious defects can be subject to failure without warning. A~ o~tt~, "17 137 E. Hamilton Ave., Suite 201 . Campbell, CA 95008 . (408) 929-3040 . Fax (408) S71-0284 I '!HI" IJ-¡ù ~~i~. , .' , -~.. , .!'(",> -, .. J d ~ II / ;)-- /J- BARRIE D. CO..fE and ASSOCIATES Horticutural Consultants 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos. CA 95033 408135~ 1052 RECEIVp.... JAN 1 9 2C3 E)(~¡\oìt: C Ît:.;l,t#-:C:i - '.\: ",'.:F~~·'':''··, ~:'~,<~_" '. 1,~''-.-;';'::~~--'~' :'7,' ,-.0- - -_.,- --~ -",M!c.. ,.,' ....._ ..._."~"'<. ....' ..... - -- --¿ 6·'~~-~¡·,:;. L';' ,-., i""<,. ._;:_ ';,',,; \'J: A REVIEW OF TREE REMOVAL RECOMMENDATIONS BY TREE HEALTH SPECIALTIES REGARDING TREES AT THE COMMONS HOA, CUPERTINO Prepared at the Request of: Colin Jung City of Cupertino 10300 Tone Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 Site Visit by: Barrie D. Coate Consulting Arborist January 9, 2006 Job #01-06-007 /)--'13 COMMONS OF CUPERTINO HaM. .~ER'S ASSOCIATION I was asked by Colin Jung to review the tree removal recommendations from Oil Mitchell of Tree Health Professionals on this property. Mr. Mitchell recommended removal of 8 trees, primarily due to poor structure. Summary I agree that trees #130, 135,217,224, 113, and 248 are in too poor condition to retain. Canary Island pines # 140 and 176 on the other hand have no defects that endweight reduction would not solve. They are, indeed messy but that is the characteristic of pines. They contribute to the woodsy character of the property and provide screening rrom the adjacent street. I. Tree #130, a flowering cherry tree, is indeed in such poor condition that it should be removed. 2. Tree # 135 is a Eucalyptus sideroxylon rosea which recently lost a major limb. This tree is not located as shown on the map but I am using the label on the tree to identify it. I agree that this tree should be removed. Unfortunately the adjacent tree #136 is also has a very poor structure and inevitably will drop limbs in the coming years. 3. Tree #140 is a canary island pine (Pinus canariensis), which, in my opinion, is in excellent health with a good structure and certainly is not in danger of dying. The tree's structure could be improved to virtually perfect condition if drop crotch pruning of the longest limbs in the upper 40 feet of height were done this winter. The tree is certainly in competition with adjacent Podocarpus trees in the adjacent private yard but other than that is an excellent specimen. The tree does no doubt drop cone parts but that is a characteristic of most pine trees. Ironically there is another Canary Island pine #146 near by which has a codominant leader, a defect which often results in results in limb failure rrom a Canary Island pine but that tree is not mentioned in this removal request. I see no valid reason for removal of tree #140. 4. Tree #176 is another Canary Island pine with excellent health with an evenly branched structure. PREPARED BY: BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORIST JANUARY 9. 2006 );)--/i COMMONS OF CUPERTINO HOMI. JER'S ASSOCIATION The tree does indeed have some branches suspended over the adjacent residence but that is characteristic of the heavily wooded character of the property and creates part of its chann. I see no reason to remove this tree. 5. Tree #217, a European white birch, is one offour in two entryway islands. None of these trees are in very good health nor should they be expected to be due to the inappropriate choice of trees for this site. The removal of this one tree should certainly be aBowed but at some point the homeowner's association should consider replacing all of those birch with a more appropriate species. 6. Tree #224, a pink ironbark, I agree is in very poor condition and should be removed. It was too dark to get an acceptable picture of it. 7. Tree #113 is a sycamore tree is crowded in with many other sycamores and other species. As a result it is a poor specimen and its removal would Dot cause a loss to the canopy. - 8. Finally, tree #248 is a white birch tree in very poor health which, in my opinion, should be removed. Respectfully submitted, ~hh.l:L~. ~ B~:-C;ate~- BDC/sl Enc!.: Pictures PREPARED BY: BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORIST JANUARY 9. 2006 2 f)'f) A Review Of Tree Removal Recommendations By Tree Health Specialties Regarding Trees At The Commons HOA, Cupertino . t Photo 1 - Tree #130. .¡, Photo 2 - Tree #135 showing limb loss sites. Prepared by: Barrie D. Coate, Consulting ArIiorist January 9, 2006 JJ-(~ A Review Of Tree Removal Recommendations By Tree Health Specia/tíes Regarding Trees At The Commons HOA, Cupertino Prepared by: Barrie D. Coate, Consulting Arborist <- Photo 3 - Canary Island pine #140. . .. Photo 4 - Canary Island pine #176. January 9, 2006 }-Il A Review Of Tree Removal Recommendations By Tree HeaIIfr Specialties Regarding Trees At The Commons HOA, Cupertino _ Photo 5 - White birch #217. ,¡. Photo 6 - Sycamore #113. Prepared by: Same D. Coate, Consulting Arbortst January 9, 2006 (J- -/'t b.\;,bt: ß-I ITS) ~ ~ [E ~ \§ [E1fRI Uù FEB - '2006 lW City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3223 CITY OF CUPEIQ1NO CUPERTINO CITY CLERK APPEAL Address 1:>1R-eC-1Dt.;?~ t--'lIr-¡DR MoC/IFIG-Anc'I-I TR-2cnY;;-o/ I !\...\ þ. ¡.... (, \.I I-L..I re 1""1 r-:=. N.t-.l 1"_ í tl.!.U-OI1 ~ O",otÍ>'j L.evlh~n ~ f..I.4n(.1¡'.h",b~nV1'¿' ¡ £) I 4- L(- W:.N..u:.R ç:. 4 <; PL CLI pE F- If N. ò 1. Application No. 2. Applicant(s) Name: 3. Appellant(s) Name: Phone Number 'tog 2..ÇÇ'tIl'i? Email N- f-\-u. r b e.......... e_ GV í", 4(\ . GO ,..... AfN 3U·':;"3 -D25 32-£ - .!J5'" 'ù35 4. Please check one: Ji- Appeal a decision of Director of Community Development . 0 Appeal a decision of Planning Commission 5. Date of determination of Director or mailing of notice of City decision: ..la\). 2'O.)..ceb , 6. Basis ofappeal: CA-'-IÞ-¡<:¿..ï í .,Li'-ND f'l¡.j.~'7 #- 1'+01-.it: ¡ 1 (, c,ve... hc......c'-vclou·,7 -l-v ¿¿-? /1.. /'c I' '-~' n'}on [) 1)7 c r .. L..t¿t~ 0/1 c.i . uJ:,; Please complete fof , include appeal fee of $145.00, and return to the attention of the City Clerk, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, (408) 777-3223. /)-'Ií Milton Levitan 21035 Freedom Dr. Cupertino, CA 94014 dotbust@webtv.net Jan. 28,2006 To: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development Colin Jung, Senior Planner Barrie Coate, City Arborist City of Cupertino We are writing to appeal the City's denial to remove the Canary Island Pine tree (listed as #140 on The Commons tree removal application) The tree is in front of our home, facing Alves Dr. . This tree is not just a "nuisance" but we feel is a real threat to our home. It is directly over a portion of our roof and the ground below in front of our dining room. During the summer and fall months, the dry needles are continually dropping on the roof and the ground and are a serious fire hazard. At times the needles are piled 6-8 inches deep on the roof. On windy days,we fear sparks flying from neighboring patio barbeques and the large outdoor barbeques at the Quinlan Center directly across the street could ignite the dry needles. Also, we have seen cigarette butts tossed from the sidewalk onto our bank and consider that a fire risk, too. We would not object to another smaller tree being planted to replace the pine tree. Please take another look at this problem and consider our appeal for the removal of this tree. Thank you. Dorothy and Milton Levitan I )-- d-D Milton Levitan 21035 Freedom Dr. Cupertino, CA 95014 dotbust@webtv.net Feb.25,2006 To: Cupertino City Council CUPERTINO CITY CLERK Subject: Appeal of TR-2006-01 We are appealing the Community Development Director's decision to deny the removal of the Canary Pine tree located on Alves Drive, directly in front of our home located at 21035 Freedom Dr. (Tree #140 on the Arborist's report). The basis of our appeal is that this tree "can cause potential damage to an existing structure" (CMÇ Section 14.18.170.) as the dry needles which pile up on our roof are a fire hazard. This tree is directly over a section of our roof. We have lived here for almost 30 years and, as the tree has grown, the problem with the dropping dry needles has grown yearly. Sparks from the barbeques in the adjoining patios (and from the large barbeques at Quinlan Center across the street) can fly on windy days and could easily ignite the dry needles which pile up 4-5 inches at times. We do not consider this problem to be a "nuisance" but a very real threat to our home and our neighbor's homes. We would not object to this tree being replaced by a smaller one of another variety. Thank you for your consideration of this serious problem. Dorothy and Milton Levitan ~ '{~~ tþt~ / ~~ };:)')I To: City of Cupertino Appeal of Decision: Tree Removal #TR-2006-01 Director of Community Development, Steve Piasecki And Senior Planner, Colin Jung From: Nancy Hurtienne Homeowner at the "Commons" for 24 years I am asking if you would reconsider a tree removal. The denial is dated January 20, 2006. The tree is a 28 year old Canary Island Pine located in the common area just outside my fence. It has become a dangerous tree due to the heavy, solid cones that drop from its branches. They fall both inside/outside the fence and directly onto my walkway and front door area. I've been afraid to work or walk in this area due to many falling, some very near me. Anyone would sustain an awful wound if one fell on them. If this should happen because the tree's removal has been denied, everyone is open to injury, including other homeowners, visitors including their children, maintenance workers, delivery people, cars, etc. GiI Mitchell, our arborist, had his assistant nearly hit by a cone that fell very close to him recently. I've kept some of the heavy fallen cones as exhibits if you need to see them. I'm asking for authorization to remove tree #176. In addition, I ask you to consider the fact that there are several other, aged trees in this same common area. They include four very tall Redwoods, including one with a major sized trunk, plus a springtime white flowering tree. Nancy Hurtienne 10144 Congress Place Commons of Cupertino NHurtienne(â)msn.com Date: Feb. 1, 2006 !;}')-r CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Meeting Date: March 7, 2006 fõ) !E ~ !E ~ WI !E rR\ !1ll FEB 2 7 2006 ~ From: Nancy Hurtienne 10 I 44 Congress Place Cupertino Commons of Cupertino Homeowner 24+ Years CUPERTINO CITY CLERK .Appeal # TR-2006-01 APN nos. 326-53-025 & 326-53-035 Dear City Council Members: This appeal comes from two "Commons" homeowners and each of us has a separate request for the removal of a Canary Island Pine tree. The two trees are planted outside our fences in the common area facing Alves Drive. This is my appeal. It concerns one of the pines denied removal by the Director of Community Development and the Senior Planner. The Canary Island Pine stands just outside my front door. The branches spread out over my roof, my sidewalk and the common area. Until recently, only the heavy needle drop was a problem. Now it's the heavy, pointed cones that drop in the space that's become a hazardous problem. The squirrels try to hold and eat the seeds in the cone and because of the weight, the cones fall from their grasp and drop like small sharp missiles. I've nearly been hit a few times, both in my yard and on my balcony. I've been afraid to walk outside my door. Others have experienced the same scary feeling. A hit would be disastrous to anyone. So far, only a car window has been cracked by a falling cone. This tree was planted approximately 30 years ago. In 1976 the trees were young and small, but now we are paying the penalty for their size, height and hazardous properties. In this same area, in addition to the Canary Island Pine, there are four very tall Redwood trees and a spring flowering tree. I've enclosed a picture which will show all the trees in the common area outside my fence facing Alves Drive. I am hoping you will grant the removal of this Canary Island Pine. It has become a danger to all who walk under the branches, in my yard and the common area. Thank you for considering this request, Nancy Hurtienne Jd.;)-] CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS APPEAL TREE REMOVAL # TR-2006-01 APN nos. 326-53-025 & 326-53-035 Located at The Commons of Cupertino Tree is a CANARY ISLAND PINE IJ-';)i-{ "10 0(\1 o r<) G · z · ~ ::¡ · u ç; ,: :j- ~ z 0 0 . u 0 · 7- · · ~ ;ß u · \-== ~ z · · · 0 · · w ~ · > ~ z 0 0 u · '.3 0 I'- - , 0 -;z. ~ \= ;; -IT ~-;T-,-cr-""'-«--r-·-~-d"-"'--- r or I 11'1 I :: I ,.. leg: I Lt 1: k,NIN1 ININ g,;.J~ ' r ~ '!I'!J~ãi. '~:o=. 01 ~ ::.:," ~I',· <\;11' ¡¡I' ~I~ !!!I'" ~ ~ I I I I t ''''1 I I" I I I I'" I _Ir 1.L ..! _~ t I _'.!._ I _ CI .. r Õ~IQI"'-O,.",~!!..J o"o,"1--r.·;,....J-Õ6"õoT~~ ' I '·-M-lJt ",01,,1 '1L n-l L . 3:1"7<1 (o'f>AfJdJ 03.J.lNn·..·' --) n 1110' ps. .. í--r;nr--¡ r-lrì-~r/-1-!!.oo/J¡-~.p., ; I.. O) ~I :;I'" I I I cr I - r I" N II.\ t~ II I rill --~ff---1J" ~:! ~ :'!J ~~ ~ ~~ !eJ1lI , 7 ~ ~ ~ ". ~ ~ ~~ II q- I 0"1 N I _ I " I ,., I ,., J III I '" I ~--å--ì L..JL-L_Ci.._L_'l....l_..!.'L.J I:: - !DI =I; ~ I N \iii I!! ~ r-Ir-r-cr--r-or-.,....-,Œ-.. ~__~~___L~ c:s I: ~ : :ß : I:i : :R : I ~ ~ ~I ~~ F "'I f~ ::::1 :~ ~I ~ .. ~ ~: r---crör--T-' L'.... I I I I I 101 -Ii: I 1'<1 I I I", I 1 I 1:1 ~ ~I::¡I~ I- u .1-----1.. I _" I~ L_'L.... ,iiïøÎ '6001 It:..._il:t_..J L..J.t_ I rL-- :-n- --1., illfOI 86001 UO",.....;c I I ..(þ',tI (øIDAI/d) L-GOõi-L-¡6~oT ~ ~ ~ ~~ nr~é!~ rDIOI "001 r{""J'-1:.!.,-______ 31Þ'N3S L..ï-~--':-' I 1 -crì--.r-l~ 1 -~ L... J~- I I 1 : 1 r-"'5"~iI--ï~ rL - o.~ '. ~·I". ~I t\: ... ~ ~ ø:\ ~ ~ ~ * õ;¡ ~¡¡ ~ ""~u ---1:[ II N I: .... ¡ . 'f ~ ~ r--¡m- --l :k _ .,. ; I .,. 1 .,. I I. to. :tl ...I~ / I LJL-LJ~ L-_"_J-_¿L-I I'"· 1~ J ---,- ,J.__'!!"Of.---""'" I ' I _____. I.. , ",,;¡ -----1 I'" IaI '"I~ r--rif'..---' \.c( L_ - JJ_ __J" I J~ ~ ~ ~ IO;!!! ;;¡ "'~ -. ct i Cf) ,at !! ....L-øt.I:If---~ \ \: ; I 1 ß!5 1... OIl t\l1 =:: Z en 1"' - "'::: ~ ~ r.L--~---r J ~ ~ ;~:! ~I .J~ ~ r- U «< t IO) 1.. c::. (r-¿r-'""k-""" LlJ-ir-'t-lf-~ ~ I = : 2 : --:1-rrï ., .... I '" 1 ~ I' ' -1-11.(.\iJ ~ ~ ~ø ~.,:j , 't::I",,~I""~I~''¡ '" ",I' :1;1 I I 1 I ,II i;!liI I';; I , I j I I 1 1 L_I!._L_ª_J lL_¿!.._J...-'L-.r--ª-::-I 1 ~~ID' ~~¡(" ..101 ~OIOJ ~~OO' L JL.J 3:Jtt7d (BIDllpd) SS3UÐNO:J ~6001 6rlDI 6~'01 G -1\0--.... _6"~-f! 6110' 660DI CI) "'-11'-1 r a ft'dI'"p.,!DIO.!. 66001f"îC' W 1p, I 1 I "1 Er -:--"-1 I > ~ ~ I ~ I I ~ ,'~:;'Ii::;I~::¡~~I~~"'~~~~ ¡I: 1 1 I I ~ ., 1 ~~. 1 ;;.J " I . I . I I ~ I .-----:---'"L_I1!_.l_~_~ t <II -....!L...J ......_U-_J.._IiL_J2 .. M' ~. A'IM '. é I -~ M - @ \ , \ Q'IO!! ÐNIl131S ) '" > a:: o ® C ù.."<6\ ~N:) ® Tî€., e.. Co 'IY',,'Y\ () \,\ S 'N "I ¡ I I .. "I~ I I ; "' .!! r-õ,"ñ---' ~ 1 ;ow.1 .J.. ¿ I;¡;~ W') ··W.... .~ rL-O- _,J :. ~ t11 ~~ ru"i'}---.,' :;1 Wi ~ ~~ 'r--,&----/ 1.. t\ t)1 ...I~ ~ (" "! "'t~ !:i: r--O£."f1----.Jì " I., O) !91 ~~ ~ ('''' ") I;; 1--&--ì' .~~ ~ .'; I .,~ l¡-- -~~--~..?\ 1 II:! "" 1 I" ~ ~ ~~ L..sL£~~..9i.JII\-U.i" Lc u:cl:-o 1" . '<>1 <D .. <D ~ ~ ® 0- U .. 0: ~ "'" h, läJ r-,,-J· . o '" (1;1_ 11')1 <II a: ~t LT--~--- ::1.. "'I m.. ~I" ..1 - - ,1---- .' !III 11\1 G ';;1 n T---~-- ::1.. ,.. ¡Sl'" ~I OIl ~ ~L..--n~-- ~~ ""-I ~ . tL.B-1eœ:o--!i.-_ N01N'I t-~ CI. f' ~n §1~§ _i'ì' .u~ WI"~ ~ . <1>8",1 ....Ð~>' ~ f §i~ ~-g"iJ i !!- õ . . ~ 0 EXthß\I": C I -#: /.2. I. f;)(~~"h to 101 i , I .. JoiÍ a ,.' ., - ~'ì;' ., .11:;\ ". ... :. ~ -' , '<. t:. '/ I ~ . ",,' ~- k ~ 1.R.-2a'\:- ¿I ·f"' 'Jr»6 (. 1-:- >"", ;,,,.,¡ '1/. ~~._ '-'.,..........~--.t.J. ( ¡ : ¡. v'r I.J ,. .~ ~ :j ~ .' ¡' , , , 5 --.,.,.'. ~ <4iZ.' r, , t ;1.... <.i '1 140 ..:- ..;.... );~ì: .:'\;¿:\!,..,-,1 COMMONS O~ CÙPERTtNO 0C1œI!R 2005 - J" :-~\' ,~7~~" ..'!""...., '~·:'·4· ~; ::'.-;"~; .. ~ . t....-:,i../..:/"., :.¡;'. j':' .~~~..;~~., 'C.-'·- "._ ~~/,~1, .' ;..~ :-;; ','./.. . '.... '~"I , .',';';¡ - i - . . ," 0' \ ~ ~,.. '~L". ~}; ,:~.~.,. Jf) _. .-. . ,. ,". . . ~ ~i I ~. I. I I ~l": L: ' ---. . I I I ì I i I i i ~ I . i , ~".". ~ te'ê' ~~ ~ ~~ ,to *', " ',: . ~. ) ~ ~ ~. ~. ,~ ~~p~, , ---- 47 Canary Island 38 of them overhana avard, Pines, hto \:; -EXtl ....... 0' ---. r .. ~.:/.' ·,t·;· ,:.: ·t. ~-~-"':" ~ .' -', '< t:. II 1/ M. Q I~ ·1 "": , - .. . . . , .~' , 'íI " ~ ~ . .' 1~ª ~ ~ -' ...J ~ ,. "-"" ~II¡ <4iZ.' "--!! I '.'t ,,""; COMMONS OJ! cuPERTINO OCTOIIER 2005 "....,.{': " " ""'-""":J:"'Ã' ·tr~?:!~ ;~: , ,:~~: 'iH - , --'...... ., 1 '\" ,.- 'I,., },;,',- <t. " . :$ ~1 ~lH ~It; J: , I I I ."-. I r ¡ I I -r~·2(i'i.-"\ I-Jö'~"'6 c', f~~,-V ,:. ,'" '~::-L_. ("'v -. . , ':'" .i , "~' :i.~4' "'l·..:;~;,^: '....}. 4#i ,::. ..¡, {!'-J~ .~' .i~;~)~¿~/. ~1;;", ~ '~01'~,' ~'~ ,~.~.' ': . ~l' J ' 1. .~'. .....~____