The URL can be used to link to this page

PC Summary 05-09-06 City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 (408) 777-3308 To: Mayor and City Council Members From: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development Date: May 12, 2006 Subj: REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISIONS MADE May 9, 2006 Chapter 19.32 of the Cupertino Municipal code provides for a eal of decisions made b the Plannin Commission 1. Application TM-2006-04; James Chen (Tsang residence), 10067 Bianchi Way Description Approving a Tentative Map to subdivide a .24 acre parcel into one.11 acre parcel, one .09 acre parcel and a remaining .04 acre parcel. Action The Planning Commission approved the application on a 5 - 0 vote. The ten-calendar day appeal will expire on May 22, 2006. Enclosures: Planning Commission Report of May 9, 2006 Planning Commission Resolution No. 6386 Approved Plan Set 2. Application TR-2006-07; Anthony Christensen (former Surbaban House site), 19900 Stevens Creek Blvd Description Tree Removal Permit approving the retroactive removal of one approximately 36" diameter coastal redwood tree and the removal of twelve canary island pines Action The Planning Commission approved the application on a 4 - 1 vote. The ten-calendar day appeal will expire on May 20, 2006. Enclosures: Planning Commission Report of May 9, 2006 Planning Commission Resolution No. 6385 Approved Plan Set g:planning/Post Hearing/summary to cc050906 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Agenda Date: May 9, 2006 Application: Applicant: Property Owner: Property Location: TM-2006-04 James Chen David and Cathy Tsang 10067 Bianchi Way, APN: 395-07-023 Application Summary: TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide a 0.24-acre parcel into two parcels approximately 0.1 acre and one common area in a Planned Development district. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the tentative map, file number TM-2006-04, in accordance with the model resolution. Project Data: General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: Special Planning Area: Total Acreage (gross): Net Acreage per parcel: Existing Density: Proposed Density: Project Consistency with: General Plan: Zoning: Environmental Assessment: Commercial/ Office/ Residential P (Mixed Use Planned Development) Heart of the City 0.237 acre Lot 1: 0.11 acre; Lot 2: 0.09 acre Common lot: 0.04 acre 8.33 du/ gr. acre 8.33 du/ gr. acre (no development change proposed) Yes Yes Categorically exempt. BACKGROUND: The 0.237-acre, rectangular parcel is developed with two single-family residences. These residences were constructed in 2000 as a planned development with two houses on the same property under single ownership. The owner now wants to subdivide the property . DISCUSSION: The property is in the Mixed Use Planned Development area. The property owner wants to create two lots and a common area. The property owner is creating a common :L~ TM-2006-04 Page 2 May 9, 2006 lot since both the houses on the property have access to their garages through this area and he wants to retain it as a common driveway. This application will create a new flag lot, which are generally discouraged. However, the property currently functions like a flag lot and nothing significantly changes if one is created. Due to the lack of on-street parking spaces, the applicant is providing two additional parking spaces on site, one on each of the two residential parcels. These parking spaces are proposed to be pervious pavers on sand. The applicant proposes the removal of two redwood trees. One tree is being removed to provide one parking space on parcel one. The other tree is being marked for removal due to its proximity to a proposed streetlight per the Public Works Department requirements. Though the applicant is proposing the streetlight next to the redwood, staff feels that other options should be considered before the tree is removed. A condition has been added to the model resolution directing the applicant to explore other locations on the property for the installing the streetlight. The applicant is proposing to plant two new 36" box oak trees on the two parcels. A condition of approval requires the property owner to record a covenant on the property that provides notification of all protected trees on the property and the requirement of a City permit for tree removal. Prepared by: Approved by: Piu Ghosh, Assistant Planner Ciddy Wordell, City Planner ,,-¿l. C:cL--ét;/ Zü~-/ Enclosures: Model Resolution Plan Set G: \ Planning \ PD REPORT\ pcTMreports \ 2006tmreports \ TM-2006-04.doc d. -:J TM-2006-04 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A TENT A TIVE PARCEL MAP TO SUBDIVIDE A 0.24-ACRE PARCEL INTO ONE O.l1-ACRE PARCEL, A 0.9-ACRE AND A 0.04-ACRE REMAINDER PARCEL AT 10067 BIANCHI WAY SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: TM-2006-04 Applicant: James Chen (for David and Cathy Tsang) Location: 10067 Bianchi Way (APN: 395-07-023) SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Tentative Subdivision Map as described in Section I of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Subdivision and Procedural Ordinances of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: a) That the proposed subdivision map is consistent with the City of Cupertino General Plan. b) That the design and improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the General Plan. c) That the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of development contemplated under the approved subdivision. d) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially harm fish and wildlife or their habitat. e) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements associated therewith is not likely to cause serious public health problems. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application TM-2006-04 for a Tentative Map is hereby approved as modified, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on page 2 thereof, and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning ;2-3 Resolution No. Page 2 TM-2006-04 May 9,2006 Application TM-2006-04, as set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of May 9, 2006, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION Ill: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS This approval is based on the exhibit entitled "Tentative Map, 10067 Bianchi Way, Cupertino, California" consisting of one sheet and dated February 23, 2006, except as amended by the conditions contained in this resolution. 2. COVENANT FOR TREE PROTECTION The applicant shall prepare and record a covenant that runs with the land, prior to final map approval, acknowledging the protective status as specimen trees of all trees on the property with a trunk diameter of 10 inches or more measured at a height of 4.5 feet from natural grade, excluding deciduous, fruit-bearing trees. Such specimen trees are subject to city tree removal procedures as specified in Cupertino Municipal Code Section 14.18. The covenant shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to recordation. 3. TREE REMOVAL The applicant shall explore other locations on the property for the proposed streetlight. If another location is not feasible, the applicant shall explore the option of installing the streetlight without removing the tree. No trenching within the critical root zone area is allowed. If trenching is needed in the vicinity of trees to be retained, the City's consulting arborist shall be consulted before trenching or root cutting beneath the drip line of the tree. Removal of the redwood tree adjoining the proposed streetlight shall be the last option. 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. IV. CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 5. STREET WIDENING Street widening, improvements and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer. 6. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed in accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. G: IPlanningIPDREPOR1ìRES\2006\TM-2006-04 res. doc ;24 Resolution No. Page 3 TM-2006-04 May 9,2006 7. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of visual interference to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located. 8. TRAFFIC SIGNS Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City, as needed. 9. STREET TREES Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way and shall be of a type approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125. 9. GRADING Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404 permits maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/or Regional Water Quality Control Board as appropriate. 10. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Pre- and Post-development calculations must be provided to identify if storm drain facilities need to be constructed or renovated. 11. FIRE PROTECTION Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the City. 12. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of underground utility devices. Ordinance No. 331 requires all overhead lines to be underground whether the lines are new or existin~. The developer shall submit detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer. 13. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for undergrounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits. Fees: a. Improvements Permit: b. Grading Permit: $2,130 min or 5% of Off-site Improvement Costs $2,000 min or 6% of On-site Improvement Costs G: IPlanningIPDREPOR1ìRES\2006\TM-2006-04 res. doc ,2,-5 Resolution No. Page 4 TM-2006-04 May 9, 2006 c. Development Maintenance Deposit d. Storm Drainage Fee: e. Power Cost: f. Map Checking Fees: g. Park Fees: Bonds: a. On & Off-Site Improvements Bond: 100% Labor/Material Bond, 100% Performance Bond $1,000.00 Paid ** $ 2,000.00 N/A -The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule. ** Developer is required for one-year power cost for streetlights 14. TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas. 15. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be included in your grading and street improvement plans. Erosion and or sediment control plan shall be provided. CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF ENGINEERING/SURVEYING CONDmONS (Section 66474.10 of the California Government Code) I hereby certify that the engineering and surveying conditions specified in Section IV of this resolution conform to generally accepted engineering practices Ralph Qualls, Director of Public Works City Engineer CA License 22046 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of May 2006, 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: G: IPlanningIPDREPOR11RES\2006\TM-2006-04 res. doc ,2-{¡¡ Resolution No. Page 5 TM-2006-04 May 9, 2006 ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development G: IPlanningIPDREPOR1ìRES\2006\TM-2006-04 res. doc Marty Miller, Chairperson Planning Commission 12. -'7 TM-2006-04 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6386 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO SUBDIVIDE A 0.24-ACRE PARCEL INTO ONE O.l1-ACRE PARCEL, A 0.9-ACRE AND A 0.04-ACRE REMAINDER PARCEL AT 10067 BIANCHI WAY SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: TM-2006-04 James Chen (for David and Cathy Tsang) 10067 Bianchi Way (APN: 395-07-023) SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Tentative Subdivision Map as described in Section I of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Subdivision and Procedural Ordinances of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: a) That the proposed subdivision map is consistent with the City of Cupertino General Plan. b) That the design and improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the General Plan. c) That the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of development contemplated under the approved subdivision. d) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially harm fish and wildlife or their habitat. e) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements associated therewith is not likely to cause serious public health problems. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application TM-2006-04 for a Tentative Map is hereby approved as modified, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on page 2 thereof, and Resolution No.6386 Page 2 TM-2006-04 May 9, 2006. That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application TM-2006-04, as set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of May 9, 2006, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS This approval is based on the exhibit entitled "Tentative Map, 10067 Bianchi Way, Cupertino, California" consisting of one sheet and dated February 23, 2006, except as amended by the conditions contained in this resolution. 2. COVENANT FOR TREE PROTECTION The applicant shall prepare and record a covenant that runs with the land, prior to final map approval, acknowledging the protective status of all trees on the property with a trunk diameter of 6 inches or more measured at a height of 4.5 feet from natural grade, excluding fruit trees. Such protected trees are subject to city tree removal procedures as specified in Cupertino Municipal Code Section 14.18. The covenant shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to recordation. 3. TREE REMOVAL The applicant shall consider other locations on the property for the proposed streetlight. If another location is not feasible, the applicant shall explore the option of installing the streetlight without removing the tree. No trenching within the critical root zone area is allowed. If trenching is needed in the vicinity of trees to be retained, the City's consulting arborist shall be consulted before trenching or root cutting beneath the drip line of the tree. Removal of the redwood tree adjoining the proposed streetlight shall be the last option. 4. COMMON AREA (PARCEL 3) MAINT ANANCE The applicant shall record a covenant and deed restriction running with the land, prior to final map approval, obligating the existing and future property owners of Parcels 1 and 2 to maintain the common area designated as parcel 3 prohibiting the parking of any vehicles in the common area and leaving the common area free of debris, weeds and other obstructions. 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. 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. G: IPlanninglPDREPOR 71RES120061 TM-2006-04 res. doc Resolution No.6386 Page 3 TM-2006-04 May 9, 2006 SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 6. STREET WIDENING Street widening, improvements and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer. 7. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed in accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. 8. TRAFFIC SIGNS Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City, as needed. 9. STREET TREES Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way and shall be of a type approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125. 10. GRADING Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404 permits maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/or Regional Water Quality Control Board as appropriate. 11. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Pre- and Post-development calculations must be provided to identify if storm drain facilities need to be constructed or renovated. 12. FIRE PROTECTION Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the City. 13. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of underground utility devices. Ordinance No. 331 requires all overhead lines to be underground whether the lines are new or existing. The developer shall submit detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer. 14. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for undergrounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits. G: IPlanningIPDREPORl1RES\2006\TM-2006-04 res. doc Resolution No.6386 Page 4 TM-2006-04 May 9, 2006 Fees: a. Improvements Permit: $2,130 min or 5% of Off-site Improvement Costs $2,000 min or 6% of On-site Improvement Costs $1,000.00 Paid ** b. Grading Permit: c. Development Maintenance Deposit d. Storm Drainage Fee: e. Power Cost: f. Map Checking Fees: g. Park Fees: $ 2,000.00 N/A Bonds: On & Off-Site Improvements Bond: 100% Labor/Material Bond, 100% Performance Bond -The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule. ** Developer is required for one-year power cost for streetlights 15. TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas. 16. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be included in your grading and street improvement plans. Erosion and or sediment control plan shall be provided. CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF ENGINEERING/SURVEYING CONDITIONS (Section 66474.10 of the California Government Code) I hereby certify that the engineering and surveying conditions specified in Section IV of this resolution conform to generally accepted engineering practices / s/Ralph Oualls Ralph Qualls, Director of Public Works City Engineer CA License 22046 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of May 2006, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: G:IPlanningIPDREPOR11RES\2006ITM-2006-04 res. doc Resolution No.6386 Page 5 TM-2006-04 May 9, 2006 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Miller, Vice-Chair Giefer, Saadati, Wong Chien COMMISSIONERS: none COMMISSIONERS: none COMMISSIONERS: none NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: / s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development / s/Marty Miller Marty Miller, Chairperson Planning Commission G: IPlanningIPDREPORnRES\2006\TM-2006-04 res. doc 11ENT A T~VIE MAP All THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF Ct...a.....O. CALFORNA l_¡-_ I &1 I ! i ú5 =. i: I¡ "L f: if '" '" W:10'_O SCALE: " FEBRUARY 2005, " I I I I I , ~ ~ ______ J T I I I -1 .'. i''''''W ?' 1}1 ~:J.OD/P -{yf J'\' ¡ ; ~._. v J'_. õ.... ---'¡IJÛk~1~ N..::o~ ~";, ',' '"'''' ZC¡-..QIR ..l·"·'" _ ~hl: .>:.~~"~ ~ -'~..... \ I i I , ! ¡ i . "'.' .. '0 -DA""Z-23-0fø 1Ie"1.! tll:::O~ -MJ ..- 0605 õiif Q. <C :is w > ~ t- Z W t- « Z 0:: >-0 «!!: ~<i -u :r: _ uo Zz «- -I- COo:: .....W ~a. 0:;) ~u 1 ~ " 395-07-23 DAVID D. TSANG AND CAl'HY C. TSANG 21677 RAINBOW DRIVE CUPERTINO, CA 95014 DAVID D. TSANG AND CATHY C. TSANG 21677 RAINBOW -DRIVE CUPERTINO, CA 95014 JAMES C. CHEN, C.E., S.E. P.O.BOX 20302 SAN JOSE, CA 95160 (408)268-0612 SINGLE fAMilY RESIDENTIAL SINGLE fAMilY RESIDENTIAL APN: OWNER: SUBDMDER: ENGINEER: EXISTING USE: PROPOSED USE: "'" \r-- '0 (),T 20 \, SCALE: 1 INCH \ t. ~ ~ I I I "'~i "i.~ - - . ~ :t \...) <: ~ Qj I I I i I I I I ì--- .l ----'---'------- ------ l I I I I I I I ¡ ¡ '. SOURCE OF WATER: SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY SOURCE OF ELECTRICITY: P. G. & E SEWAGE DISPOSAl; CUPERTINO SANITARY DISTRICT STORM DRAINAGE: CITY OF CUPERTINO Ð(JSTING ZONING: MEO / HIGH DENS!TY RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY PROPOSED ZONING: MEO / HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY __d ACREAGE: 10,34:4 SQ. FT. O.24~' ACRES GROSS: 10.324 SQ. FT. 0.24 - ACRES PARCEL 1: 3.iJeI SO.FT O.oq ACRES PARCEL 2' 4~7r}3 SQ.FT Q. f, ACRES COMMON AREA: LeM SQ.FT 0.04 ACRES I I (Pfi!OfYJ~O i, "II~/L ~\liæ.~ EA~"'EItIT , I Ra.Js' .tt =fZ52'1S" L~2þ.08' _ntðrt>$p --- (XlSTlNfiS'Rfi)Oþ ø,,~ ~ =~ ~ ,- # 20.00' , "iT L,il L I I I I L{)T j() -- LO o oJ " í.) T L,jf I /' ~T'u&H"" 1 ~) "- ~ .. "' 2.5<: R· A-90' L-. :57,'00"£ _45.£ II£~~'-_i =II"II ~I ,.L.- I ~ I~I® I PARKIN(; I ~- LW--:l® 20_00' SéTlJACK I~ 1.'10-0,"> l........j>J ~~-- R=8' .tt =90"0'41" L= 12.57' If ;';"1 f><: ~" LOT 39.00' N-oo''';'' 1#i.01 -PARcEL. 3 ~...,..,. 1888 SQ.n 0.04 ACRES 'j:,. - £ ',r' N 8g"S7'()(J" .1Kr --. N 89"57'00" E ,. i :.1: ~"' G:4R'1C£ PAD: 371.83 66"7X;'@ '" ~~ ~ --r-~ I® M VICINITY MAP if ~-::::!!!£:..'''- -- STEVENS CREEK - - - BOULEVARD~!. . ® 'I ....__L " " A> " .. - ~ @ .. , . 'd!!f , I +-- I I. I a < a " I ,~ ~ Ii o z ~.j ,r - ",-¡;w ~íXÆ 3"""" ~ :- ~ <~ " ~I (.J..'" I I 1 pARCEl. - 1 3718 SQ. FT. 0.09 ACRES (£) STRUCT TO R[MAIN FIN. FL 373.00 PAD: 371. 00 88.50' 'II:; ~i; 0. Q GARAGE PAD: 371.33 r Ice 1..0' toi£W ;' .1 ="J I ~~p! I ego, , L_' ". ~ -- S-;9'57'oo" ~ i'Ão/'ß("2 4718 SQ. FT. 0.11 ACRES (£) STRUCT TO REMAIN FIN. FL 374.00 P~3722!l.- L...J ¡ 8, ~b! 75.00' s; 25.00' ~ ~ SClBACK ~ " ~® " SI4D ~I " I I L~ i' :_/ r ~ , j! ¡ II II ¡ , II , ! ¡ 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 .~ ø 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 oftopped 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 subconclusions 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. 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. 5~~ BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES ~~\'b¡-\- ft Horticutural Consultants 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos. CA 95033 408J35~ 1 052 AN ANALYSIS OF UNAUTHORIZED PRUNING AT 19900 STEVENS CREEK BLVD. CUPERTINO, CA 95014 Prepared at the request of: ColinJung City of Cupertino Planning Department 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Prepared by: Barrie D. Coate Consulting Arborist Aprill7'h, 2006 Job# 04-06-079 5-& 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 April 17th, 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 of lower 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 comer 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 ARBORIST APRIL 17m, 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 of 5 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 from 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 from 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 BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORlST APRIL 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 $19,600. Recommendations I. I recommend that the owner be warned against any further removal of low branches fÌom these trees. 2. I recommend that an ISA Certified Arborist be hired to do end-weight reduction by 20% fÌom any branch over 20' long to reduce the likelihood of limb drop fÌom the trees. 3. I recommend that the seven trees which have been stub cut at be removed and the stumps ground out and be replaced with 48" box specimens. 4. I suggest that a bond be retained to gain assurance that the replacement trees will be properly watered by water applied directly on top of the root ball, and their health be inspected at one and two years after planting. 5. After the chips and remaining buttress roots are removed, I suggest that a 72" box Coast Redwood be planted as a replacement for the tree which was removed. Respectfully submitted, ~$.~ Barrie D. Coate BDC/phlg Enclosures: Assumptions & Limiting Conditions Sketch of site Tree Value Charts Photographs PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORlST APRIL 17m, 2006 5-~ UAKKII: U. LVI'I I: and ASSOCIATES Horticutural Consultants 23535 Summit Road Los Gates. CA 95033 4081353-1052 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 ¡ 7th, 2006 Date of Failure: March 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% 3, Trunk Diameter, Inches: 36" 4. Location Value %: Site 90 % + Contribution 60 % + Placement 60 %= 210 : 3- 70 % Revional Plant Al)[)raisal Committee Information 5. SDecies Ratin"- 100"10 6. ReDlacement Tree Size 1 sa. 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 (DOl' sa. inches): $27.50 ner in' Calculations Usinf! Field and Revional Committee Information II. Appraised Trunk Area Refer to AT A table, 4.4 Da,,-e 39 2Uide 974 SQ. in. 12. Appraised Tree Trunk Increase (TAme,) = TA.. 974 in. I#J]) - TA. 196 on. in, 1#6) ~ 954.4 SQ, in. 13. Basic Tree Cost: (TAo.,.)(#12) 954.4 sq. in. x UTC (#10) $..l:U!) per sq. in. + Installed Tree Cost (# 9) $ 1805. = $28,051. 14, Appraised Value: Basic Tree Cost (#\3) $ 28,051 x Species (#5) 100"10 x Conditio~ 1#2) 100 % x Location 1Í14) 70"10 . = $19,636. 15. Round to nearest $100 ($5,000+) or $10 (less than $5,000) - $19,600, 5/10 BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES Horticutural Consultants 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, CA 95033 408/353-1 052 Trunk Fonnula 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 17w, 2006 Date of Failure: March 2006 Appraisal Prepared for: Colin Jung, City of Cupertino Appraisal Prepared by: Barrie D. Coate, Certified Arborist #0586 Field Observations of Subiect Tree I. Species: Canary Island Pine (Pinus canariensis) 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"10 + Placement 80"10= 260 .;. 3 = 86.6% Regional Plant Aooraisal Committee Information 5. Species Ratin2: \00 % 6. Replacement Tree Size (SQ. inches) TAR: 14.6 in, 7. Replacement Tree Cost: $902.50 8. Installation Cost: $902.50 9. Installed Tree Cost (# 7 + # 8): $1,805.00 10. Unit Tree Species Cost (per sq. inches): $37, per in' Calculations Vsin" Field and Retrional Committee Informotion II. Appraised Trunk Area Trunk Diameter, Squared (#3) x 785 = 314 sa. in. 12. Appraised Tree Trunk Increase (T Ao.c.J E TA.o. 314.. in. (#11) - TA. 14.6 sq. in. (#6) = 299.4 sq. in. 13, Basic Tree Cost: (TAm",,) (#12) 299.4 sq. in. x UTC (#10) $ 37 per sq. in. + Installed Tree Cost (# 9) $ I 805.00 =$ 12883, 14. Appraised Value: Basic Tree Cost (#13) $ 12 883 x Location (#4) x SDecies (#5) 100_% x Condition (#2) 85% 86.6% = $ 9483 15, Round to nearest $100 ($5,000+) or $\0 (less than $5,000) =$ 9500, X 7 trees - $66,500.00 5-11 () - '" <.) c/} o - - o Z ~ ~ :> ~ ~ () ..... u c/} s:: () :> () - VJ . . o OJ:) ., ~ " >, <I> r<) ~ 'N u æ " Go> ~ ~ e --g.D.~ :: 5O",;S 8- a.> ~ ~ V) ð 0,) OD.,g .<:> ~ æ u .,,,,-:§ V") C1) 0 1-0 N~¡"'..c oc=EOO - c:S 0..0 0.." a"O ::s o.~ (1) ." >." > Q) 0... 0 5 a ~ a c:: C1) t.¡..¡ Q) "'"'~o~ ;r: =IJQ SQ .. " -" (I) co N " N " ' , ...." , -'D'D "<T "'- . . . . . .....' 0"" " ".....0 -OJ:) ;r: N"" ,..,.., I ¡:.:¡ () ..... " "þ Q ~i;j.... fr,:;;¡,gc:8-. o";';¡ p.. Cd r.n ~ N~;:s13~õ Ic--.,,>u¡:; ~ I "2 ~ lLg¡ .... o..cV 'D'" '"' c: I"""'t...o ~ ¡...¡..¡ t.r)._ c/} () () l:3 . -d" » "0 .". , , 0'" ~I ~ ~ ~ - c: -, "-" 0 G) "'CÏ ~I ""0 a ~g , "" ;> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ œ'f! ........ Ž CI a. ~ c: ~;:, co CD ;:, 0 .><: ..., 0 a> ~ ~ .5 ClÜ N r-- c: - 0 iU 0 0 .- G) t. cb iU Ü c: Ü c: ;:, 'f! c: c: .... 0 ¡..., (II L.: .!!!G) , U ~ 8. Q.-~ :¡: .... .E 0 ;:, « 'It rn ü 1! ~~ Q ~ .0 œ 0 iU 0 a. 8.~ ..., ;> 0 !!! Q a> ;:,0 iU a> Q. üg -+-' .... ÕO r:/J. .... >- 0 :t: 0'\ ü 0'\ ....... en I- zen ~ ~I- ~ ..Jen ::>- IS :I I enD:: zO ~ ~ OCD è - '11<:5 ~ ~! ü~ ...... ..JC) = -< ~ Îä.!! -= ê2~ ;::i ::>1- I-..J "'-'.¿p.... . ..J::> ...,'"tL~iti ::>en üZ ~.... -0 ~ü 0 J: . . . . .'" . . . . . . . ". . .,; "0 .... o OJ 8-t¡j --50 N ]0." .....j3~ ",N ::s > "0 0..c: .. 0 Q) d) f.I:I a:¡ õ <1>","0 >OJ:)u:.¡:¡ ~O?~~e~;- ,þ." " ~ Po ",,,".s!¡ '" "'oo",",r<)~~ooJ: " 5-1.:2 ..c: 0 E-<E-< 19900 STEVENS CREEK BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA 95014 2. 4 trees near the north west comer. .. PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORIST ... I. 4 trees at the north east comer. APRIL 17"\ 2006 5-/3 19900 STEVENS CREEK BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA 95014 6. Longest limbs should have end weight .. removed. PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COA TE, CONSULTING ARBORIST "'IiI 5. Shoots emerging from old branch cuts. f APRIL 17111.2006 5~(5 .." ~ .." > '" '" " OJ -< OJ > ¡:; ¡;; ~ n o :>- ..... ",,' n !ž '" c ~ Z (;) > '" OJ § '" ..... þ. :-I CI.) (þ ~ (þ ::I ::t (þ (þ '" ::r ~ (þ a' (þ (þ ::I õ' 't:I 't:I (þ p.. '" '" o o ~ -< tr! Z '" n ::<i tr! tr! i'<: to c- .â n Sã tr! ~ Ž .0 n > '" V> =: ... > .." '" ¡::: --> ~ N 8 '" 5-11e 19900 STEVENS CREEK BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA 95014 '" 8. Site from which a Coast Redwood was removed. Note 4" - 12" cut roots. .... 9. Site from which tree was removed. PREPARED BY BARRÆ D. COATE. CONSULTING ARBORlST , APRIL 17"" 2006 5~17 - BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES Hofti cUlUral Consultants 23535 Summit Roed Los GetDS. CA 95033 408/353-1052 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. lQ,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. cð~ ¿J. ~ Barrie D. Coate ¡SA Certified Arborist Horticultural Consultant 5-¡ß 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: 1 Planning 1 PDREPORTlpcTRreports 12006 1 TR-2006-07.doc 5-/q Exhibit: C Photos of Topped and Untopped Canary Island Pines At 19900 Stevens Creek Boulevard ,...' Á}: ......_ ø. __ 2~ .5<10 .1 S-JI 5/d). TR-2006-07 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6385 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING THE REMOVAL OF ONE APPROXIMATELY 36" DIAMETER COASTAL REDWOOD TREE AND THE REMOVAL OF TWLEVE CANARY ISLAND PINES AT 19900 STEVENS CREEK 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 approved 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-2006-07, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of May 9, 2006 are incorporated by reference herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVAL ACTION Approval is based upon the Exhibits A, Band 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. Resolution Page 2 TR-2006-07 May 9, 2006 2. TREE REMOVAL & REPLACEMENT Twelve Canary Island Pines on the west side of the building 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. 3. 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. 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 9th day of May 2006, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Miller, Vice-Chair Giefer, Saadati, Wong COMMISSIONERS: Chien COMMISSIONERS: none COMMISSIONERS: none ATTEST: APPROVED: / s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Is/Marty Miller Marty Miller, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission G: \ Planning \ PDREPORT\ RES \2005 \ TR-2006-07 res. doc