Loading...
05 TR-2006-07 Anthony Christen CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: Applicant: Property Owner: Property Location: TR-2006-07 Agenda Date: May 9, 2006 Anthony Christen Alan Firenzi, for the Firenzi Trust 19900 Stevens Creek Boulevard, APN: 369-05-038 (former Suburban House furniture store) Application Summary: TREE REMOVAL 1) Retroactive approval for the past removal of: a) an approximately 36" diameter Coastal Redwood on the east side of the building. b) Seven Canary Island Pines (16.4" to 22" in diameter) that were trimmed and topped on the west side of the building. 2) Request to trim and top the five remaining Canary Island Pines (18" to 22" in diameter) on the west side of the building in a manner similar to the others. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Approve the tree removal that has already occurred and require replacement trees for the ones that were lost and damaged in accordance with the model resolution. 2) Deny the removal request of the five Canary Island Pines on the west side of the building that were not previously topped. BACKGROUND: On January 24, 2006, Code Enforcement staff investigated a tree removal at 19900 Stevens Creek Boulevard, the former Suburban House furniture store. The code enforcement officer found that several of the canary island pines along Stevens Creek Boulevard had already been trimmed, and that seven large pines on the west side of the building had already been trimmed and topped. The officer halted the tree cutting and informed the tree contractor that he needed a city permit to remove as much of the tree as he was removing. As a result, the five remaining pines on the west side of the building were not topped. Code enforcement declined to prosecute the case as the tree contractor believed he did not need a permit to top the trees as a result of a miscommunication with a city staff member. 5-1 TR-2006-07 Page 2 May 9, 2006 DISCUSSION: All trees that are part of a City-approved landscape plan are considered protected and require a city permit before they can be removed, unless it is an emergency situation or a utility clearance action conducted by P.G.& E. City Arborist Barrie Coate and Associates reviewed the pruning and tree removal on the subject property (See exhibit A). He concluded that a redwood tree that was removed from the east side of the building (See exhibit B) was at least 36" in diameter. The City Arborist also noted that all of the Canary Island Pines (Pinus canariensis), 20 trees in all, have been pruned over the years. Based on his observations, staff concludes that only the 12 pines on the west side of the building (Exhibit B) have been "removed" or are proposed for "removal." The City definition of removal is "removal of more than 25% of the foliage in anyone year." The previous topping of seven of the pines and the proposed topping of five more pines constitute 100% removal of the foliage. The City Arborist states that over time the Canary Island Pines will produce water sprouts from branch removal sites on the trunks and the lower trunks will gradually fill in with new foliage. It has been staff's experience that branches grown from water sprouts are weaker, have poorer attachments to the trunk and are more likely to break. The Arborist considers the seven previously topped pines as effectively destroyed and recommends replacement. Other recommendations regarding future pruning and maintenance are listed in the arborist report. Staff believes a reasonable level of tree replacement would be a 36" box coastal redwood for the removed redwood, and 24" box coastal redwoods for each previously topped canary island pine. These recommendations were placed in the model resolution. Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner _~ Þ Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Community Development Directo~ Enclosures: Model Resolution Exhibit A: "An Analysis of Unauthorized Pruning at 19900 Stevens Creek Blvd. Cupertino, CA 95014" by Barrie D. Coate dated April 17, 2006 Exhibit B: Location Map showing location of certain trees at 19900 Steven Creek Blvd. Exhibit C: Photo of topped and un-topped Canary Island Pines G: \ Planning \ PD REPORT\ pcTRreports \ 2006 \ TR-2006-07.doc 5-) TR-2006-07 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING: 1) APPROVAL OF A RETROACTIVE REMOVAL OF ONE APPROXIMATELY 36" DIAMETER COASTAL REDWOOD TREE AND SEVEN CANARY ISLAND PINES (16.4" TO 22" DIAMETER) 2) DENIAL OF A REQUEST TO REMOVE (TOP) FIVE REMAINING CANARY ISLAND PINES (18" TO 22" DIAMETER) LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING AT 19900 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: TR-2006-07 Anthony Christen (for Alan Firenzi) 19900 Stevens Creek Boulevard SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application to retroactively approve the removal of eight (8) trees and approve the removal of another five (5) trees; 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 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: 1) approved with respect to the previously removed trees and 2) hereby denied with respect to topping of any other tree; and That the subconcIusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application TR-2006-07, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of May 9, 2006 are incorporated by reference herein. 5-3 Resolution Page 2 TR-2006-07 May 9, 2006 SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVAL ACTION Approval is based upon the Exhibits A, B and C that are part of the City staff report dated May 9, 2006 for this project, except as may be modified by the conditions contained in this resolution. 2. TREE PRUNING Any future pruning of the Canary Island Pines shall be conducted by an ISA certified arborist and be limited to end-weight reduction by 20% from any branch over 20 feet long for the purposes of reducing the likelihood of limb drop 3. TREE REMOVAL & REPLACEMENT Only the seven Canary Island Pines on the west side of the building that were previously topped shall be removed and the stumps ground out. Each removed tree shall be replaced by a 24" box Coastal Redwood. The chips and buttress roots of the removed Coastal Redwood shall be removed and a 36" box Coastal Redwood shall be planted as a replacement. 4. TREE PROTECTION BOND AND TREE MONITORING: A tree protection bond in the amount of $30,000 shall be provided. The applicant shall contracted with a ISA certified arborist to monitor the health of the new trees and provide an annual report to the Community Development Director for a two year period after planting. The tree bond will be released if the trees remain healthy after the two year period. 5. 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. 1£ 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 frorn later challenging such exactions. 5/~ BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES ~kbì-\- It Horticutural Consultants 23535 Summit Road Los GaIoS, CA 95033 408135:>-1052 AN ANALYSIS OF UNAUTHORIZED PRUNING AT 19900 STEVENS CREEK BLVD. CUPERTINO, CA 95014 Prepared at the request of: Colin Jung City of Cupertino Planning Department 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Prepared by: Barrie D. Coate Consulting Arborist April 17th, 2006 Job# 04-06-079 5-(p 19900 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino Assignment I was asked by Mr. J ung to inspect the unauthorized pruning of pine trees and removal of a redwood tree at 19900 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino. I visited the property on Aprill?,b, 2006, to analyze the pruning which had been done and to evaluate the redwood tree which had been removed. It is my understanding that the applicant wishes to top trees adjacent to the building in addition to the removal oflower limbs which has already been done. Findings There are 20 Canary Island Pines (Pinus canariensis) which range between 56' and 85' tall and have trunk diameters of 16.4" to 22" DBH (diameter at 4.5' above ground) on the site: The enclosed sketch shows the relative location of the trees on the property. All of these trees have been pruned to some degree, some of them severely. In addition a Coast Redwood tree (Sequoia sempervirens) was removed from the east side of the property when a new concrete pathway was installed All of these Canary Island Pines had lower branches removed from approximately 10-15' above grade apparently two to three years ago. Recently more branches have been removed from about 15' - 25' above grade, in each case, removing an average of 5 branches of 4" diameter or larger during the most recent pruning. In this case, it should be taken into account that a larger number of branches than those recently removed were removed apparently two or three years ago, so in fact the trees over the last two or three years have been pruned from approximately 10' above grade to 25' above grade. The most severely pruned are the 12 trees on the west side of the building, seven of those having been destroyed by having been topped at 22' above grade. It is my understanding that the owners are concerned that limbs would drop from these trees on to the building, and for that reason want them topped. Specific Trees The four trees in the north east corner of the property adjacent to the main driveway entry have been the least pruned, and in my opinion, not damaged by the pruning. Since the City Regulations prohibit removal of more than 25% of the foliage in anyone year. PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORlST APRJL 1711i,2006 5-,} 19900 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino 2 I would estimate that these trees have not had more than 25% of their foliage removed this year, even though if one were to total the foliage removed during the previous pruning approximately two years ago and the current pruning, the total would exceed 25%. The second group of trees is at the north west comer of the property in front of the building. Those trees have been pruned more severely by removing all branches up to approximately 25' above grade. Considering these trees are 56-81' tall, this means that approximately one-half to two- thirds of the normal foliage remains on the trees, and that an average of5 branches of 4" of diameter or larger were removed from those trees recently, and an average of 8 branches per tree were removed from each tree approximately two or three years ago. One of the four trees in the group of four near the north west comer of the property had a co-dominant leader, which strangely enough was not removed by the pruning crew, even though they removed more normal branches in the same area. The most severely pruned of the 20 trees are those on the west side of the building. Of the 12 trees there, 7 have been topped at 22' above ground. The five remaining trees which have not been topped are 80 - 85' tall with 18-22" trunk diameter. They have been pruned up to above 35' in height which is 40% of their total height. The seven most southerly trees have been topped at 22' and are effectively destroyed. What will be the result of this pruning? Canary Island Pines will produce water sprouts £Tom branch removal sites on the trunk over time and gradually produce new foliage on the lower trunk where branches have been removed. The five most northerly trees along the west side of the property are beginning to do that now. Many of these trees have 20' long branches which present some potential for limb breakage either over the building or the adjacent parking lot for the adjacent Lori's Diner. The Coast Redwood which has been removed. During the installation of the new entry pathway on the east side of the building, three very large roots (of 10-14" diameter) were cut. The entire tree £Tom which they originated was removed. Based upon the condition of redwood trees in nearby property and the condition of other conifer trees in the area, I presume that it was a healthy well formed specimen. PREPARED BY BARRJE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORlST APRlL 17TH. 2006 5 -ß 19900 Stevens Creek Blvd.. Cupertino 3 Since the stump was ground, it is impossible to know precisely how large this tree was, but considering the very large size of these remaining buttress roots, one must assume that the tree was at least 36" trunk diameter (DBH). Conclusion Based on these findings, I have included the calculation of value of the redwood tree and the seven Canary Island Pines whose tops were cut off at 22'. The pines are valued at $66,500, the redwood at $19,600. Recommendations I. I recommend that the owner be warned against any further removal of low branches from these trees. 2. I recommend that an ISA Certified Arborist be hired to do end-weight reduction by 20% from any branch over 20' long to reduce the likelihood of limb drop from the trees. 3. I recommend that the seven trees which have been stub cut at be removed and the stumps ground out and be replaced with 48" box specimens. 4. I suggest that a bond be retained to gain assurance that the replacement trees will be properly watered by water applied directly on top of the root ball, and their health be inspected at one and two years after planting. 5. After the chips and remaining buttress roots are removed, I suggest that a 72" box Coast Redwood be planted as a replacement for the tree which was removed. Respectfully submitted, ~I}.~ Barrie D. Coate BDC/pWg Enclosures: Assumptions & Limiting Conditions Sketch of site Tree Value Charts Photographs PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORlST APRIL Ii"', 2006 5-0 and ASSOCIATES Horti cutural Consultants 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, CA 95033 408135~1052 Trunk Fonnula Method 9th Edition, Guide for Plant Appraisal for Trees Larger Than 30" diameter Owner of Property (tree): Unknown Location: 19900 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino Date of Appraisal: April 17"', 2006 Date of Failure: Mareh 2006 Appraisal Prepared for: Colin Jung, City of Cupertino Appraisal Prepared by: Barrie D. Coate, Consulting Arborist Field Observations of Subiect Tree 1. Species: Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) 2. Condition: 100"10 3. Trunk Diameter, Inches: 36" 4. Location Value %: Site 90 % + Contribution 60 % + Placement 60 %= 210 +3- 70 % ReYional Plant Am1raisal Committee ¡,;¡ormation 5. SDecies Ratimz 100"10 6. Reolacement Tree Size Iso. inches) TAR 19.6 in. 7. Replacement Tree Cost: $902.50 8. Installation Cost: $902.50 9. Installed Tree Cost (# 7 + # 8): $1,805.00 10. Unit Tree SDecies Cost (Der sa. inebes): . $27.50 ner in' Calculations Usin" Field cind Rerrional Committee Information 11. Appraised Trunk Area Refer to AT A table, 4.4 Daile 391lUide 974 SQ. in. 12. Appraised Tree Trunk Increase (TAo.clÙ= TA. 974 in. 1#1)) - TA. 19.6 <n. in. (#6) = 954.4 SQ. in. 13. Basic Tree Cost: (TA..,.) (#12) 954.4 sq. in. x UTC (#10) $ 27.50 per sq. in. + Installed Tree Cost 1# 9) $ 1805. - $28,051. 14. Appraised Value: Basic Tree Cost (#13) $ 28,051 x Species (#5) 100% x Condition" (#2) 100 % x Location riM) 70"10 . = $19636. 15. Round to nearest $100 ($5,000+) or $10 Oess than $5,000) - $19,600. 5~IO BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES Horti ctJIUrel <::onsullants 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos. '::A 95033 4081353-1052 Trunk Formula Method 9th Edition, Guide for Plant Appraisal for Trees Less Than 30" diameter Owner of Property (tree): Unknown Location: 19900 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino Date of Appraisal: April 17th, 2006 Date of Failure: March 2006 Appraisal Prepared for: Colin Jung, City of Cupertino Appraisal Prepared by: Barrie D. Coate, Certified Arborist #0586 Field Ob.ervoJWns of Subiect Tree 1. Species: Canary Island Pine (Pinu. canariensi.) 2. Condition: 85% (before recent pruning.) Many low branches have been removed. 3. Trunk Diameter: 20" average for 7 trees. 4. Location Value %: Site 90 % + Contribution 90"/0 + Placement 80%= 260 .,. 3 = 866% Regional Pfant Aooral.a! Committee Information 5. Species Ratin2: 100 % 6. Replacement Tree Size (sa. inehes) TAR: 14.6 in. 7. Replacement Tree Cost: $902.50 8. Installation Cost: $902.50 9. Installed Tree Cost (# 7 + # 8): $1 805.00 J O. Unit Tree Species Cost (per sq. inches): $37. per in> Calculations U.ine Field and Reeiona! Committee Information II. Appraised Trunk Area Trunk Diameter, Squared (#3) x 785 = 314 sa. in. 12. Appraised Tree Trunk Increase (T A..CRJ z TA,. 314.. in. (#11) - TA,. 14.6 sq. in. (#6) = 299.4 sq. in. 13. Bssie Tree Cost: (T A..c..) (#12) 299.4 sq. in. x lITC (#10) $ 37 per sq. in. + Installed Tree Cost (# 9) q 805 00 -$ 12883 14. Appraised Value: Basic Tree Cost (#13) $ 12883 85 % x Locatjon (#4' x Species (#5) 100 % x Condition (#2) 86.6% -$ 9483 15. Round to nearest $100 ($5,000+) or $10 (less than $5,000) =$ 9.500 X 7 trees = $66,500.00 5-11 d) - to . () . en en 0 d) .... ß õ z . . ~ ~ "0 ~ as ~ d) ... U en ¡;: d) ~ 2 [/) o 00 to ~ .., >, '" r<) ] ON (.) ;¡ .., n.> ~ ~ e "g.o.~ : I>b.,.,-S 8- Q)'õ~V) :> 00 .., o ~ 1-0-'= ~~.:g~ .. å) ¡..., E Vì>°.c '" to ... oc=~o? ..... = (1) \0 0..-08-0 ~ Q).~ ( ) -0 :> -0 :> Q.) 0" 0 S 8;,¡. 8 t:: (1) '+-t Q.) ~..:o..: :r: ::::¡:Q ;gO . . ~' "'00'" .., '" .., , , ¡."".... 1: -'-0'-0 'T"" - . . . . . 'õ~ ..,'E :r: Ñ gp.., ~ I ~ Q) Q óo~þ - to'" f,.,:;;¡.gc8-. o+::S CCjrnIU N \n g.13 ~ õ .1 r-- 1J ð ~ § ~ ,I S ê.5:.a '-O.,.,e.... c ~ \0 ~ I-'-( I.t") ._ . "'0 > ..- ¡:Q ~ Q) I-< U [/) ¡::: Q) > Q) -+-' [/") o 0\ 0\ ....... >, ''''0 -0' . 0-0 ~! ;:0 ~ ~ _I '-' "" 0 ~ '-0 8 ;>' .. v ~ ~..: ~ Z . . e_" . . oj " ... o '" ..,. --I>b o..;¡ - ~rnlt) ;g ª'~-o oJS >, , 0..,.., '" VJ V) '1::J > 0.0 u .- ~o¡>Q)~o",,§o:S tJoê.,.,ê~15~ v)ooQ..¡('f')~~oo':: -g ã3 "'" ~ U j o o 0> 0> ..... o c ï: 8. ::I U 1=="" 8~ Q~ ...... .,.. =~ ¡;§ Iii ..ø:;¡ . ..",,~ ~... 19 :I ~ ~ 1¡ ~ m~ . . . '" ",'" ~ 10 tJ-o .., 8- ~ 0.. ..c:: 0 E-<E-< Q C ::I .., .5 Õ U L.; J2 ë 4) -êg [ï: ~::I QU .5 4) C ::I C C .!!I 4) a.> .« ~~ 8.~ ::10 U:;;¡ 'õ~ >- "" U ~ [ ~ a. . <0 o o N ; ..... ..... '2 « ~ o 0> ..... o , ~ ~ o 'It .c o .., (/) I- z(/) ~I- -'(/) ::>- (/)0:: zO OlD U~ -'e> ~~ ::>1- 1--' -,::> ::>(/) UZ -0 ~U o J: . . 5,/) 19900 STEVENS CREEK BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA 95014 2. 4 trees near the north west corner. ~ PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COA TE, CONSULTING ARBORlST .... 1. 4 trees at the north east comer. APRIL 17TI\ 2006 5-/3 19900 SJEVENS CREEK BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA 95014 Á 8. Site ftom which a Coast Redwood was removed. Note 4" - 12" cut roots. ... 9. Site ftom which tree was removed. PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COATE. CONSULTING ARBORlST . APRIL 171M, 2006 5~' 7 - BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES HorticU!ursl Consultants 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos. CA 95033 408135>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 appraiser/consultant 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 appraiser/consultant, 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. lO.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. cØ~ ¿J. ~ Barrie D. Coate ISA Certified Arborist Horticultural Consultant 5-11(; TR-2006-07 Page 3 May 9, 2006 Exhibit: B 19900 Stevens Creek Boulevard Tree Location Map o Removed Redwood O Topped Canary Island Pine o Canary Island Pine proposed for topping N G: \ Planning \ PDREPORT\pcTRreports \2006 \ TR-2006-07.doc 5-,Q Exhibit: C Photos of Topped and Untopped Canary Island Pines At 19900 Stevens Creek Boulevard >- .,:' " :fk. ~ _~.:: .....d _ __ 2~ .5 ~ j)) .I S~~I 5/J), 5-)3