The URL can be used to link to this page

Exhibit CC 05-20-2014 Item #12 Email, PowerPoint Grace Schmidt 0 From: Timm Borden Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 3:13 PM To: City Council Cc: Colleen Winchester; Carol Korade; David Brandt; Gary Chao; Chad Mosley;Winnie Pagan; Grace Schmidt Subject: Fees for Removal of Public Trees Councilmembers, As you know, Item #12 on tonight's agenda concerns the removal of trees at the Main Street Project. There are two components, the private trees and the public trees. For the public trees, a councilmember has asked whether or not the City may impose fees to compensate it for the difference in value of the trees which were removed and the replacement trees. The applicant proposes to replace the public trees in a 1.4:1 ratio to those removed, but there may be a remaining difference in value. Although it has not been done before, Council may provide direction to the Director of Public Works to determine the difference in value of what was removed and what is proposed for replacement and consider it in the street improvement agreement and encroachment permit processes. The valuation of the existing trees would take into consideration the species, health, and size, similar to the table in the municipal code that is used to determine the valuation for damaged trees. Timm Timm Borden, P.E. Director of Public Works City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 U408-777-3354 A408-777-3333 ®timmb @cupertino.org www.cupertino.org rm Cffy€S-( 1 r 5/20/2014 -s: �2 Main Street Cupertino TR-2014-17 Subject: Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal and replacement of additional trees that are unhealthy,in conflict with utilities,and/or not suitable for preservation as part of the Main Street Project. Application Summary: A. The applicant is proposing the removal and replacement of twenty-four(24)private trees on the project site ranging in size front'10 to 23 inches in diameter)as part of the Main Street project.In addition,48 non-specimen public street trees along the project street front and within the center median of Stevens Creek Boulevard are also proposed for removal. B. Provide input to the Public Works Department regarding the proposed removal and replacements of 48 public non-specimen street trees. Background February 25,2014 City Council Hearing: The City Council authorized the removal(TR-2013-39)of four trees on Stevens Creek Boulevard(6,7,9&10)located on a berm along Stevens Creek Blvd and up to 17 Ash trees(70-73,75-78,81,84-91)along N.Tantau Avenue that are determined to be dead or unhealthy(pursuant to Condition#3 of Resolution 14-123). The Council also directed the following: • Hold off the removal of any unhealthy trees along Tantau Avenue pending the review of the City's arborist report. • Replace the dead and unhealthy trees with replacements of 48-inch box Americana Ash trees. In addition to the private trees proposed for removal,48 public trees within the public right-of-way(along Vallco Parkway and Tantau Avenue)and the street median(in the middle of Stevens Creek Boulevard)were discussed as candidates for removal due to poor health,and conflicts with utilities and public improvements as part of a separate process administered by the Public Works Department. 1 0 5/20/2014 Applicant's Request Request: Since the February Council meeting,the followh tg has been done: • Detailed Site Survey-confirming location of the existing utilities and construction impact zones associated with the approved project infrastructure improvements along Stevens Creek,Vallco,and Tantau. • Updated City Arborist Report-confirming dae health,structural condition,and preservation suitability of the additional trees proposed for removal. In light of these new information,the applicant:is requesting that the City Council consider a new tree removal permit(TR-2014-17)to allow the following: 1. Removal and replacement of 24 additional private frontage trees in conflict with utilities/project infrastructures and/or decay ed health(four trees have already been removed and are being considered retroactively). 2. Reduce the required minimum planting size of the replacement frontage trees from 48-inch box to 24-inch box Americana Ash wid Pear Tree per the recommendation from the City's Consultant Arborist. Tree Removal Plan Private Trees ..... t 1w Pro3cr4>.�(",W " ...................... ... ...... i let:Summsq-"WAT{ >.hSftlEd STREET a .,... ...` 1',. x .» UPE RT Its �O .< , _� f n� r 1'Ehn Trek a F Er •a Intenor to the 3� t � F j i �� £ �..� ,$ 5•ab:yk 77 - Ash Trees-along 17 Ash Trees along rR h.4 :.. S r,... tevens°Creek"BTvd,, .................................................................................................................. 2 5/20/2014 Removal Reason/justification Private Trees a �x3'��rc:` s + :sr: •a aa �: , 3 k c'A Y,� " >�" y��k� located along Stevens Creek Boulevard trees#1 S;are In conflict with uttlittes and;approved site improvements tncludmg but not;limited to the main'water backflow apparatus, the fire � � department connection, the grading and construction activities associated with the new sidewalk/curb/gutte,r,and the approved entry driveway serving the mayor tenant building Tree �� >� ; "r�� #11;is located tntenor to the project,and located in the middle(rn clued conflict)of an approved � �� g,� ,��x parking lot drive aisle Trees;#2-11&11 vrere erroneously removed as part of the grading phase of � ��>�.R„ ka�.�`�,.�.,the.:.ro ect;antl:are bem considered retuo"active) ,Located m the middle of the berm at the southwest corner'of the probed site along Stevens Creek , . ;�'�� ;3s.��`��'° Boulevard Tree#8 is located on the berm between trees 6,7,9,&10(which were approved fore! " removal) This tree was left'out of the rE quest by the applicant at the February 2014 c Council ,; hea�in and:wasatended`;to bemcluded iti>the cec'" �., ; ?� ommendation,forremoval, R, <.. Located along the frontage''of Tantau Avenue These trees are mostly dead andJor m very poor < , <hea.lth.and are recommended for remON al b the Gi s Cori ultin Arborist City Consultant: Arborist Findings Private Trees y �` +"c �yyv.`s+w sP•�`�»y:°uz��e ta,�xc �a 8.� � �:s�'U`a$q°,5` Y Shame) Removal:Poor and weak structural x onddion wrthhigh risk of limb failure beyond recovery, Ash . Tredalsoas;in conflict with;ap"rovkl aili andsite irnprovements „ c s "Shame) Tree already removed Original irbonst report pin 2008 found thetrees rn very poor Ashy conddition br almost dead These tiecsare directly m conflict wdh the approved drNeway, serving the MatorTenant building at t e sout west corner of the'project Shame) Removal�IStructurally weak and de laced condition Tree condition will continue to decline' :and'recove rY is'unlikel Y. :. tier4E A Shame) Removal'Almost dead beyond re,-.-overy i Ash r .... u ur.. `• h,. E ��az� CMnese 'Tree already remoued Ongmal arborist report an 2008 found the trees rn good condition, serving t This tree was located directly;in th middle of the approved parking lot he M,ajor'; Tenantil3uilding and'Shops 7:&8 located at the'southwestof the:projett. & w Shame)5 Removal;Poor and declined condition beyond recovery ; , x� a ShaLme) Removal:Almost dead with aaargp wound at the.base Oil SFiamel Removal•Dy40.0' beyond recovery , Wi Shame) Removal Dead or almost dead and unsafe structure b i`>�''a Sha'mel Removal::Dying and beyond recov ry' t •�a �`%i �,` Ash u 1' a a Shame) Removal;Poor health and structure INiII continue to decline and recovery is unlikely A: ;As Shame) ' iRemoval Dead almost dead°and eying beyond recovery unsafe structure o ° 3 5/20/2014 Tree Removal Plan Public Trees _.r.i.r MAIN STREET e X »H PC R ,.. a U Y i 9W.�.h zz , w � €: � H ..,.. £is s «ac.ic 8�s'�.Se,�rs.•3k.;a= €. F r 9 A � • O � wl�w�'�S?. z L-8-3 Removal Reason/justification Public Trees O ii.� . ..3.co Xn. .E e S 8 •8r k e .N ma"�.`.i:;�:.:>.',�„'O.` ... Pukil€c trees along Uallco Parkway that are either almost dead or poor€n health and/or m conflict a � �� with underground ut€I€t€es/site improvements These trees are expected to continue to decline 'qaL � and recovery€s unlikely Trees 43&53 have beeri already been removed as part of the;grad€ng, <'�;s 2.�;�,� �� hase of:the ro•ect and are,bem cdrisidered.r`etroact€vel s Z.r T 2 `� Located at the middle of the Tantau Avenue frontage,in conflict with the existing underground -bifliN.line:s#..,:.. n .•.:..:, t ,x:::... Wrthm the median of Stevens Creek Boulevard Must be removed to facilitate the.reconstruction a � *Hz� of the median m order to address water runoff issues Trees 151 153,which died,have already; been.removed _ 4 5/20/2014 City Consultant: Arborist Findings Public Trees INR>.33 �a ¢3xi Elm "aa`FF< Shamel Remove The matonty of the trees �re!m poor<health and are anticipated to have significant �: Ash and unavoidable damage to tree i Dots with the sremoval&:;installation of the new'curb, .. "gutter,sidewalk,tomttrench and othE�e utilities . .'>.':. ,. ....... :: Shamel Remove The ex�stmg median uctio and landscape mound are proposed forreconstn y b the ti �' Ash Public Works Department to,adores various maintenance, irrigation, and stormwater runoff`concerns One of these trees has a(better condition{healthy/stable);the matonty have©nl a fair structure or worse, 3 White Already removed due to beingdead f � :'<'.>"�yi:..< `.3; 8 .. Q$h...>..v. ......:'.. ...... ,..n £ Shamel Removal The existing median and landscape mound are proposed,for reconstruction by; Ash the Public Works Department to°address various maintenance,irrigation,and stormwater', runoff concerns While the rnaton�y pf the'trees are in better health`{healthy),with fair or FQ worstf i s tructures,the.reconstr..action::plaris.tlirectl ,conflict with their.:p'reseryation„...,., . Mitigation and Replacement • Overall,onsite trees that are removed will be replaced at a ratio of approximately 4 to 1 (replacement/removal),and exceeds the ordinance replacement standard. • Along the project perimeter,the overall replacement plantings ratio for both public and private trees will be approximately 1.4,13 to 1(replacement/removal). • Along the project perimeter,the over all replacement planting ratio for the public trees will be approximately 1.4 to 1(replacement/removal) w 2111 f ..a.R.�. :.'�e'>>. :ak.<S `z il" IN NIMBI " k fl . m, �. 344 83 4141 a mac f (59 prenous+20vr7 nl+� Zr 'ily C w (12 SlE x e r�s Creek 39 V�ll�o x -34 2�Tantau) n 9 1401 } (JS ou rn nt+5 previous) 5 s 5/20/2014 4 Summary of Key Questions • Can the underground utilities be moved or relocated? No,it would be physically and economically infeasible. The underground utilities involved include water,electric,sewer,storm drain,and communication lines. All of these services are regulated by separate utility companies acid/or external agencies with their unique regulations and specifications. According to the applicant's civil engineer,the available space and locations for the underground utility trenches and lines are severely limited given the space available and have been optimized for the project site. • Are there healthy frontage trees that are recommended for retention? No. Based on the latest City Arborist report prepared by David Babby,all of the frontage trees(public&private)in question are recommended for removal due to their declined health,structural concerns,and low suitability for retention given site constraints and conflicts with utilities. Key Questiions Cont. • What is the largest appropriate replacement scree size along the project frontage? 24-inch box to optimize the potential for establishment,vigor,longevity and stability of replacement plantings.Planting larger trees would result in conflicts with both existing and proposed utilities and are not recommended based on the available planting room. • Can 60-inch box or larger trees be planted along the parking garage to help screen it? No. There is not enough room to plant anything larger than 24-inch box within the 4 foot 8 inch planting strip between the sidewalk and-the back of the curb. Between the back of sidewalk and the face of the parking garage,in addition to grading and slope considerations, there is a storm water line which would not provide adequate room for larger box trees without detrimentally impacting the utility. • What will the visual height discrepancy of they newly planted tree look like when compared to the existing healthy mature trees? Based on the City Arborist's recommendation,none of the existing Ash trees will be retained. All of the new replacement trees(Americana Ash&Pear Trees)will be of the same size and the visual quality of the project will be consistent throughout all three project frontages. 6 5/20/2014 P Conclusions Staff supports the removal of the proposed frontage private and public trees given following reasons: • Dead or poor health • Conflict with the existing and future utilities and public improvement features • Replacement of the declining and/or dead Shamel Ash trees with better species (Americana Ash&Flowering Pear)that will promote a healthier and aesthetically pleasing urban tree canopy. Recommeandation Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Approve the removal and replacement of twenty-four(24) private non-specimen trees (23 Shamel Ash and one(1) Chinese Elm)for the Main Street Project,pursuant to the draft resolution(Attachment A.). 2. Provide input to the Public Works Department regarding the proposed removal and replacement of 48 public,non- specimen street trees (45 Shame].Ash and three(3)Autumn Purple White Ash)for the Maid Street Project. 7 cc S/ Qy Grace Schmidt From: Timm Borden Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 3:13 PM To: City Council Cc: Colleen Winchester; Carol Korade; David Brandt; Gary Chao; Chad Mosley;Winnie Pagan; Grace Schmidt Subject: Fees for Removal of Public Trees Councilmembers, As you know, Item #12 on tonight's agenda concerns the removal of trees at the Main Street Project. There are two components, the private trees and the public trees. For the public trees, a councilmember has asked whether or not the City may impose fees to compensate it for the difference in value of the trees which were removed and the replacement trees. The applicant proposes to replace the public trees in a 1,4:1 ratio to those removed, but there may be a remaining difference in value. Although it has not been done before, Council may provide direction to the Director of Public Works to determine the difference in value of what was removed and what is proposed for replacement and consider it in the street improvement agreement and encroachment permit processes. The valuation of the existing trees would take into consideration the species, health, and size, similar to the table in the municipal code that is used to determine the valuation for damaged trees. Timm Timm Borden, P.E. Director of Public Works City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 U408-777-3354 8408-777-3333 ®timmb @cupertino.org www.cupertino.org TM ELM L&C 1