Loading...
13 Appeal re tree removal h~.........I. ,j\~: ::::J 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 FAX (408) 777-3333 CITY OF CUPEIQ'INO Community Development Department SUMMARY AGENDA NO. /3 AGENDA DATE June 20. 2006 Application: Applicant: Property Owner: Property Location: TR-2006-07 Anthony Christen Alan Firenzi, for the Firenz Trust 19900 Stevens Creek Boulevard SUBJECT: Consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve Application No. TR-2006-07, regarding the removal and replacement of: 1) One, approximately 36" diameter, Coastal Redwood on the east side of the building (retroactive approval), 2) Twelve (16.4" to 22" diameter) Canary Island Pines on the west side of the building (retroactive approval for seven pines previously topped). The 36" diameter Coastal Redwood will be replaced by a 36" boxed Coastal Redwood, and the twelve Canary Island pins will be replaced by 24" boxed Coastal Rewoods. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council may take either of the following actions: 1. Uphold the appeal of TR-2006-07 and approve (or modify) the applicants' tree removal request; 2. Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision to allow the removal of the trees. BACKGROUND: On May 9, 2006, on a 4-1 vote (Chien no), the Planning Commission approved and modified a tree removal request submitted by Anthony Christen on behalf of the property owner, Firenzi Trust, whose building is currently tenanted with Scandinavian Design Furniture (Exhibit A-I, B-1). The decision was subsequently appealed by Vice- Mayor Kris Wang who stated in her appeal: "That the trees were removed after the fact without penalty (Exhibit C-l)." Printed on Recycled Paper /3-/ TR-2006-07 Appeal Page 2 June 20, 2006 DISCUSSION: The tree removal permit applicant has filed a letter (Exhibit D-l), stating that the redwood tree and the topped Canary Island Pines were removed only after verbal consent was granted by a Service Center employee who indicated the pines and redwood trees were not a protected species under the tree ordinance. If the applicant had checked with the Planning Department instead, he would have been advised that the trees were part of an approved landscape plan and were protected. Removal or substantial pruning would require a City-approved tree removal permit. All tree removal work ceased after work was halted by Code Enforcement staff. Code staff has confirmed the accuracy of this account and has declined to prosecute the removal. The applicant filed a tree removal permit application to retroactively approve the past removal of the Coast Redwood and the topping of seven of the twelve Canary Island Pines. The application also sought to top the remaining five Canary Island Pines on the west side of the building. The property owner stated the pruning work was necessary to control maintenance costs from falling litter and improve safety for Lori Restaurant customers and their vehicles from falling cones and branches. The City Arborist reviewed the case and determined that the seven topped pines were essentially destroyed. The remaining pines were pruned on two different occasions, removing all of the lower branches. This work has occurred over several years and the trees are unlikely to regain their former shape. A majority of the commissioners decided that it was better to allow the removal of all of the pines along the west side of the building and start with new, uniform landscaping that was more suitable for the area than to retain the misshapen pines and some new trees. The May 9th Commission meeting minutes are not available yet. Enclosures: Exhibit A-I: Planning Commission Resolution No. 6385 Exhibit B-1: Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 9, 2006 Exhibit C-l: Appeal Form Exhibit D-l: Letter from Anthony Christen to City Council dated June 11, 2006 Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner Approved by: f Ust Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development G:planning/ pdreport/ appeals/TR-2006-07 David W. Knapp City Manager /.3-2 TR-2006-07 ty\t\ 81T: Pr- \ 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. APPROV At 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. /3 -,3 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 challen~g 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 A TIEST: APPROVED: I 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 /3-tf E~l-T\'BIT; ~-l 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. /3-5" 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 _~ , 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 /3 -(, May 9, 2006 TR-2006-07 Page 3 Exhibit: B o Removed Redwood O Topped Canary Island Pine o Canary Island Pine proposed for topping N G: \ Planning \ PDREPORT\ pcTRreporls \ 2006 \ TR-2006-07.doc /3-7 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. /3-g' 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. /.3-9 Resolution Page 3 TR-2006-07 May 9, 2006 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: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Marty Miller, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission G: 1 Planning 1 PDREPORTI RES 12005 1 IR-2006-07 res.doc /3 -/0 BARRIE D. COh:l: and ASSOCIATES ~\\~\t it Horticutural Consultants 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos. CA 95033 408/353-1052 AN ANALYSIS OF UNAUTHORIZED PRUNING AT 19900 STEVENS CREEK BL YD. 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 /3-// 19900 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino Assignment I was asked by Mr. Jung 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 l7lli, 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 prurung. 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. COA TE, CONSULTING ARBORlST APRIL 17TI1, 2006 /3 -/2.. 19900 Stevens Creek Blvd., Lupertino 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%. Tbe 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 tbe group of four near the north west comer of the property had a co-dominant leader, which strangely enough was not removed by tbe 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? Canal)' 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 vel)' 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 ARBORIST APRIL 17m, 2006 /3-/3 19900 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino 3 Since the stwnp 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 fmdings, 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 stwnps 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 too 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, ~,f).~ Barrie D, Coate BDC/pWg Enclosures: Assumptions & Limiting Conditions Sketch of site Tree Value Charts Photographs PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORlST APRIL 17m, 2006 /3 -/1 D/U~~II: U. ~'U'". I L and ASSOCI/--ES Horticutural Consultants 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, CA 95033 408135:> 1 052 Trunk Formula 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 17th, 2006 Date ofFaHuTe: March 2006 Appraisal Prepared for: Colin lung, City of Cupertino Appraisal Prepared by: Banie 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 % Reflional Plant Aoora/sal Committee Information 5. Snecies Ratin2 100"10 6. Renlacement Tree Size (so. inches 1 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 (ner "". inches): $27.50 Der in' Calculations Usin" Field and Remona/ Commillee Information II. Appraised Trunk Area Refer to ATA table, 4.4 na2e 39 llUide 974 SQ. in. ] 2. Appraised Tree Trunk Increase (TAme,) . TA. 974 in. (#11l- TA. 196 so. in. (#6) ~ 954.4 so. in. 13. Basic Tree Cost: (T AmCR) (#12) 954.4 sq. in. x UTC (#10) $ 27.50 per sq. in. + Installed Tree Cost (# 9) $ 1805. = $28 051. 14. Appraised Value: Basic Tree Cost (#13) $ 28,051 x Species (#5) 100"10 x Conditio~ (#2) 100 % x.Location (#4) 70% . = $19,636. 15. Round to nearest $100 ($5,000+) or $10 (less than $5,000) - $19,600. /3-/'='- BARRIE D. CC '.TE and ASSOCIATES Horticutural Consultants 23535 Summit Road LosGatos, CA 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 17'", 2006 Date of Failure: March 2006 Appraisal Prepared for: Colin lung, City of Cupertino Appraisal Prepared by: Banie D. Coate, Certified Arborist #0586 Field Observations O1Subiect Tree I. Species: Canary Island Pine (Pinus canariensis) 2. Condition: 85% (before recen1 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- 866% Rerdonal Piant Aooraisal Committee Information 5. SDecies Rati",!: 100 % 6. Reolacement Tree Size (sq. inches) TAR: 14.6 in. 1. 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 Vsinv Field and Revional Committee Information II. Appraised Trunk Area Trunk Diameter, SQuared (#3) x 785 = 314 sq. in. 12. Appraised Tree Trunk Increase (T A".ciJ E T ^' 314.,in. (#11) - TA. 14.6 sq. in. (#6) = 2994 sq. in. 13. Basic Tree Cost: (TA".,,) (#12) 299.4 sq. in. x UTC (#10) $ 37 per sq. in. + Installed Tree Cost (# 9) $ 1 805.00 =$ 12883. 14. Appraised Value: Basic Tree Cost (#13) $ 12 883 x Location 1#4) x Snecies 1#5) 100 % x Condition (#2L 85% 86.6% =$ 9483 15. Round to nearest $100 ($5,000+) or $10 (Jess than $5,000) =$ 9500. X 7 trees = $66,500.00 13-t, . . . . . 5 trees 80' -85' tall Pruned up to . 35' above grade. Removed . average of 8 branches per tree this year. . . . . These trees Topped at 22'. . . . '- w Stevens Creek Blvd. 4 trees Pruned up to 25' above grade. 56' _ 81' II ,Removed an average of 5 branches 16"- 22" ~BH of 4" diameter or larger this year. Removed 6-8 branches per tree 2-3 years ago 1990 Stevens Creek Blvd. BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES (4(1)353-1002 llS3SioIllIiRIlIII lmGU,GmI New'Y1!,lkway' . 36" (?) Redwood removed. 19900 Stevens Creek Blvd. Cupertino Prepared for: Colin Jung City of Cupertino, Planning Department 10300 Torre Avenue, Cu rtino . HORTICULTURAL CONSULTANTS CONSULTING ARBORISTS Date: A nl17"', 2006 I "' "-l . . Job # 04-06-079 IN , Not to scale . . . . 4 trees 16.4" - 20.5" DBH 65' - 75' tall Pruned up to 18'-21' Removed an average of 5 branches per tree of 4" in diameter. 190,," STEVENS CREEK BLVD, CUPERTINO, c,. ,/5014 2. 4 trees near the north west comer. ~ PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORlST .... 1. 4 trees at the north east comer. APRIL 17TH 2006 /3-1 f' 19,,_ S1EVENS CREEK BLVD, CUPERTINO, c., ,5014 .... 3. 5 fresh cuts. Branch scars lower than those were made 2-3 years ago. T 4. 5 remaining trees along west side. '" .. t'~ ,a ~ " , A PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORlST APRIL l7H',2006 /3-/9 19<'.0 STEVENS CREEK BLVD, CUPERTINO, c,_ -,5014 6. Longest limbs should have end weight .. removed. PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COA IE, CONSuLTING ARBORlST 1 5. Shoots emerging from old branch cuts. APRIL 17TH, 2006 /3-20 19900 STEVENS CREEK BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA 95014 "'- "( , ('() "' '-.......~..... .. .,. . c', ,'.,', , .',,'" . .'",- ' . .--- ;; ... 7. Seven trees have been topped. PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COA TE, CONSULTING ARBORlST APRIL 17TH, 2006 199"0 STEVENS CREEK BLVD, CUPERTINO, C" ,5014 ... 8. Site from which a Coast Redwood was removed. Note 4" - 12" cut roots. ... 9. Site from which tree was removed. PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COATE. CONSULTING ARBORIST . APRIL 17m. 2006 1.3-.22.. ~ BARRIE 0, COATE and ASSOCIATES Horo CUlural Consultants 23535 Summit Road Los Gat05. 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 appra iser/consultant. 6. This report and the values expressed herein represent the opinion of the appraiser/consultant, and the appraiser'slcansultant'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 anly 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 ta eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate all trees. ci5~~~ Barrie D. Coate ISA Certified Arborist Horticultural Consultant /3 -';3 Exhibit: C Photos of Topped and Untopped Canary Island Pines At 19900 Stevens Creek Boulevard :}r j~' {! ~ ,,-, .~. 2~ /..3 -;( '-I .1 /3 -.2S /3-2 (, /0 ~'....'tii~ ./1. .."._/,,~i r ! ! . . CUPERJINO 1. Application No. 2. Applicant(s) Name: 3. Appellant(s) Name: Address Phone Number Email e'(~;"';t c- City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3223 APPEAL TR- J.1tO~-07 ~~'\ Clrl~tJUc ltvh'\J-4 SuJ,W/.~ f J · ,,\ ~ 'S;('t-d ~--j,~l){'VIS WOJ1j { 0 3ot> T Wf -s2 (1,J..e, '111- 3l./:>- lWO-Vt)@UYJr+t~. ~ 4. Please check one: Appeal a decision of Director of Community Development uq(peal a decision of Planning Commission 5. Date of determination of Director or mailing of notice of City decision: s--q-o~ 6. Basis of appeal: if-.e~s ",JJ--f.J!- (~JJ rf'JU' tiv.- ~Lt G;~t ~. Signature(s) ~ 5". ('1.0(, Please complete form, include appeal fee of$145.00, and return to the attention of the City Clerk, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, (408) 777-3223. , No k 0,.1. ( ~/V<< ~ - c.~c,j f''v\ ~'\b.uv 0Lf(JW. r If j3-2t June 11,2006 5k:'lct't- D--I ~~J~N~::~~ Members of the City Council City of Cupertino City Ha\1 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CUPERTINO CITY CLERK RE: Appeal of Planning Commission decision to approve Application No. TR-2006-07 Dear Members of the City Council: Please find the enclosed narrative of events, information and supporting documentation regarding the above- reference matter for the meeting scheduled June 20, 2006. 1. In January 2006, the owners of 19900 Stevens Creek Blvd. hired a tree company to trim the trees located on the property. The owners requested that the twelve pines on the West side of the building be topped to within ten feet of the roof's parapet, and that the one Coastal Redwood on the east side of the property be removed due to the fact that the tree's roots had severely lifted the adjacent pedestrian walkway upward to in excess 000% slope and had created a significant abrupt change at the level of the very bottom of the pathway where the path meets the parking lot. 2. In January 2006, I spoke to the tree company representative before he began work and asked about the need for permits. He contacted the City and was told that since the trees were not City trees, that no permit was required. This miscommunication was confirmed by Colin Jung, Senior Planner for the City of Cupertino, in his Staff Report to the Planning Commission (Exhibit A), and by Code Enforcement decision not to prosecute the case. 3. Code Enforcement visited the property on January 24,2006, and a\1 work was immediately stopped. No further action was taken by Code Enforcement. 4. On April 4,2006, I filed an application for the tree removal permit and submitted an application fee of $ 4,053.00. 5. On May 9, 2006, the Planning Commission agreed to the removal of a\112 pine trees on the west side of the property with the stipulation that they be replaced by 12 thirty-six inch boxed Coastal Redwood. Additiona\1y, the Planning Commission retroactively approved the removal of the Coastal Redwood from the east side of the property with the stipulation that it be replaced with a species of tree agreed to by the owner and Colin lung, Senior Planner for the City of Cupertino. I would have liked to submit the minutes from the Planning Commission hearing, which included significant discussion regarding the miscommunication resulting in the unauthorized removal of trees, but as of June II, 2006, the most recent Planning Commission minutes available from the City of Cupertino website are for the meeting dated March 28, 2006. The owners look forward to resolving this matter and proceeding forward in accordance with the Planning Commission's resolution. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, ~ Anthony Christen Applicant for Owners of 19900 Stevens Creek Boulevard /.3-~'l CITY OF CUPERTINO Page lof2 t:..,d^,b;+ A )... (~Cq 6-<; CITY OF CUPEI\TINO ITEM 5 STAFF REPORT (Public Hearing) Application: TR-2006-07 Agenda Date: May 9, 2006 Applicant: Anthony Christen Property Owner: Alan Firenzi, for the Firenzi Trust Property Location: 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. COd~ enforcement declined to rcsecute the case as the tree contractor believed he did not need a ermit 0 to e trees as a result of a miscommunication with a city staff member. 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 http://www.cupertino.org/webcasts/pc_06_05_ 09/contentlitem05 .hlIn 6/11/2006/3-30 CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 2 of2 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 Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director http://www.cupertino.orglwebcasts/pc_06_05_09/content/item05.htm 6/11/2006 /3 -31