The URL can be used to link to this page

TR-2013-32b OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT � ,. CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 C U P E RT 1 N O (408) 777-3308• FAX(408)777-3333• plannin�cupertino.orq September 13, 2013 Terry Brown 10491 Scenic Blvd Cupertino, Ca. 95014 SUBJECT: ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING MEETING ACTION LETTER — ASA-2013-04, TR-2013- 32 This letter confirms the decision of the Administrative Hearing Officer, given at the meeting of September 12, 2013; approving an Architectural and Site Permit to allow for modifications to the parking lot payout to facilitate reciprocal ingress and egress at the Stanley Square Center in the Monta Vista Special Planning District; and a Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal and replacement of four Flowering Pear trees as part of the modifications to the parking lot layout, located at 21666—21686 Stevens Creek Boulevard, according to Resolution Nos. 25 and 26. Please be aware that if this permit is not used within one year, it shall expire on September 12, 2014. Also,please note that an appeal of this decision can be made within 14 calendar days from the date of the mailing of the notification this decision. If this happens, you will be notified of a public hearing, which will be scheduled before the Planning Commission. Sincerely, ` C�N �,',��=1�`� Ci`1 Ge oeder Associate Planner City of Cupertino Enclosures: Resolution No. 25 and 26 CC:PortEolio Realty Management,Attn:Joann Scherrer,4020 Moorpark Ave#218,San Jose CA 95117 TR-2013-32 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 26 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING MEETING OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO TO ALLOW A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT FOR THE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF FOUR FLOWERING PEAR TREES AS PART OF MODIFICATIONS TO THE PARKING LOT LAYOUT 21666-21686 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD SECTION I• PROJECT DESCRIPTION &RECITALS Application No.: TR-2013-32 Applicant: Terry Brown Property Owner: Barbara Kalman, et al. Location: 21666-21686 Stevens Creek Boulevard (APN 357-17-012) Subject: Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal and replacement of four trees. WHEREAS, the Administrative Hearing Officer of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Tree Removal Permit as described in Section I. of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Administrative Hearing Officer held a public hearing on September 12, 2013 in regard to the application; and NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED: After careful consideration of the maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the Administrative Hearing Officer hereby approves Application no. TR-2013-32 based upon the findings described in Section II of this resolution, the public hearing record, and the minutes of the Administrative Hearing meeting of September 12, 2013, and subject to the conditions specified in Section III of this resolution. SECTION II: FINDINGS: 1. That the trees are irreversibly diseased, are in danger of falling, can cause potential damage to existing or proposed essential structures, or interferes with private on-site utility services and cannot be controlled or remedied through reasonable relocation or modification of the structure or utility services; The City's consulting arborist has determined that the trees proposed for removal are all in conflict with the proposed new building and site improvements, and, given their condition, are not suitable for preservation or relocation. 2. That the location of the trees restricts the economic enjoyment of the property by severely limiting the use of property in a manner not typically experienced by owners of similarly zoned and situated Resolution No.26 TR-2013-32 September 12,2013 property, and the applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the approval authority that there are no reasonable alternatives to preserve the tree(s). The City's consulting arborist has determined that the trees proposed for removal are all in conflict with the proposed new building and site improvements, and, given their condition, are not suitable for preservation or relocation. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. Planning Division: 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on plan sets received on August 23, 2013, titled "A Mixed Use Project with all new Construction for 10049 Imperial Ave., Cupertino, CA, 95014", consisting of five sheets labeled "Sheet No. 1 to Sheet No. 5 " and titled "Imperial Ave. Street Elevation,"consisting of twelve sheets labeled "L1.0 to L.4.0 and Sheet 1 to Sheet 6"drawn by Ray Rooker Architect, Reed Associates Landscape Architecture, and Nordic Engineering Inc. and, "A Review of the Existing Trees at 10049 Imperial Avenue, Cupertino, California," prepared by Michael Bench, Registered Consulting Arborist # WE-1897 dated November 26, 2012 and July 31, 2013, respectively; except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution. 2. ACCURACY OF PROJECT PLANS The applicant/property owner is responsible to verify all pertinent property data including but not limited to property boundary locations, building setbacks, property size, building square footage, any relevant easements and/or construction records. Any misrepresentation of any property data may invalidate this approval and may require additional review. 3. ANNOTATION OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The conditions of approval set forth shall be incorporated into and annotated on the first page of the building plans. 4. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS T'he conditions of approval contained in file no. ASA-2013-04 shall be applicable to this approval. 5. APPROVED TREE REMOVALS See the table below for the a roved list of three tree removals onsite: Approved tree Reason for removal General location Approval removal findin s section Tree 5, 6" Conflict with proposed South side property 14.18.180 (A)(1) Flowerin Pear essential structures line Tree 6, 6" Irreversible disease Planter along rear Flowerin Pear property line Tree 7, 6" Flowerin Pear Tree 8, 6" Flowerin Pear Resolution No.26 TR-2013-32 September 12,2013 6. TREE REPLACEMENTS AND FINAL PLANTING PLAN The applicant shall plant replacement trees in accordance with the replacement requirements of the Protected Tree Ordinance. T'he trees shall be planted prior to final occu�anc�of site�ermits. The final planting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development with consultation by the City Arborist �rior to issuance of building p�. The Director of Community Development shall have the discretion to require additional tree replacements as deemed necessary. The City Arborist shall confirm that the replacement trees were planted properly and according to plan prior to final occupancy. 7. TREE REPLACEMENT BOND The applicant shall provide a tree replacement bond in an amount determined by the City Arborist prior to removals and issuance of demolition and grading perxnits. The bond shall be returned after the required tree replacements have been planted and verified by the City Arborist. 8. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/or agencies with regard to the proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Any misrepresentation of any submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Development Department. 9. INDEMNIFICATION To the extent perxnitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the "indemnified parties") from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside, or void this ordinance or any permit or approval authorized hereby for the project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys' fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its choice. 10. NOTICE OF FEES DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS T'he Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactio ns. 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. SECTION IV: CEQA REVIEW This Tree Removal Permit is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines since it involves minor parking lot alterations to an existing developed site. Resolution No.26 TR-2013-32 September 12,2013 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 12�" day of September, 2013 at a Regular Meeting of the Administrative Hearing Meeting of the City of Cupertino, State of Cali fornia,by the following roll call vote: AYES: HEARING OFFICER: Chao NOES: HEARING OFFICER: none ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/George Schroeder /s/Gar�Chao George Schroeder Gary Chao Associate Planner City Planner Attach ment 2 Oak Tree at ��n M.., y. v � �_�,�` .� � 10049 Imperial Avenue ��.!,��/'�,m� �� z....�, '�'"�If��i �°°'��.�,�a:'' , , �r Cupertino, California � � _�.�/� . .... ..._rr�.:,. � ._.___�,...�. AN EVALUATION OF AN OAK TREE AT 10049 IMPERIAL AVENUE � - �° i-� CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA �� - �- �- -� Assignment �� `�� I was asked by Piu Ghosh, Planner, City of Cupertino, to evaluate an oak tree at 10049 Imperial Avenue, Cupertino, California. The plan provided for this evaluation is the Topographic Survey, prepared by Nordic Engineering, Inc., Sheet 1, dated July 2012. Observations I inspected the subject oak tree on November 26, 2012. The subject tree is a coast live oak(Quercus agrifolia). The trunk of this tree measures 18.2 inches DBH (Diameter at Breast Height= 54 inches above grade). The canopy is approximately 30 feet in height, and the canopy spread is approximately 25 feet in diameter. This tree is located in the back yard ' 'A� adj acent to the garage at the location � � �. � ��,�� _ noted. It appears that the foundation of �,,.. "�� ".��`� � this garage is a concrete slab on grade. ��, ��ry °4.� � �, . ,. ,�� . `�" ��.�.� ,� . ,�. ,;.° " . . . � ..� - , , . � ��,��,� �� '�� F '�d'o«�� ' �� -,�. �,�r The canopy is dense, a primary indicator � � �, ��, � �� of good health. �"�'� ��,� �. y � �� ,�, �� .�. '��;�; � � ""'�`' ��,� :_.�n�_ �� a� The annual tip growth is 6-8 inches, � � �- � -�� - � ��w: � � � �� =�� which is good for this species. � � � �, . �� " -� ��'�``�° ��^� �-`� „•-� � � � �; ��,,,��" "� �� '�� _ �: ; � �� -�� ,-�:� ��.� � �� The leaf color is deep dark green, �`� � ;«� ��` characteristic of a healthy specimen of �. , . ��'' :,�� .,. , �. .;u.,.,,.. '' �� . := ` ��. �, . . �. ��' �°�� t�11S SpeC1eS. �� , ��,�� ' 8�r,».: g „�. �� ,+��,,...% �� i��' �� '�. �'� There is minor branch tip die back, caused `� r '�� a�� by oak twig blight(Cryptocline �,� ��, . CZ1Z2Y2SCe1ZS� which is rarely a serious ,�� n �� ,�� K - w� �� health risk to coast live oak trees. The 7 � '�� ,� ` ` �= �;,a � .� � � infection to this tree at this time is minor. ., R ��. {,,- �«�> W��,Y ::,.r��w °��' , �, This tree has been recently pruned on the south side (facing the garage). This has created visible gaps seen in this photo in the canopy above the garage. Some of the pruning cuts were very poorly done, leaving stubbed branches, which is often called "topping". This type of pruning (topping) is a destructive form of pruning, and is not recommended. This topping has affected approximately '/ of the overall canopy. Prepared by Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist November 26, 2012 Oak Tree at 10049 Imperial Avenue Cupertino, California Although the lower trunk of this tree leans slightly(approximately 5 degrees)to the north, this is not a significant problem concerning its stability. There are two eye-bolts in the trunk on the west side, which is also not a concern concerning health or stability. There are no visible significant weaknesses in the branching structure, except for the "topped"portion of the canopy on the south side. The plan proposes to construct a driveway across the area where this oak tree exists. Conclusions This coast live oak overall is healthy except for a minor infection of oak twig blight, which can be controlled by spraying or eradicative pruning (removing the branch tips about 1 foot behind the dead twigs). The structural integrity is good, despite the fact that a percentage of the canopy has been topped. This can be corrected by proper pruning. There is no compelling reason to remove this tree for health or structural reasons. It would be possible to transplant this tree with a good expectation of success,provided it would be done by an experienced tree mover. Experienced tree movers include: Pacific Tree Moving(408)231-7017 or(831) 475-6190 Environmental Design(831) 915-0358 John Arnaz Tree Movers (408) 266-1717 Valley Crest Tree Company(818) 367-5803 Respectfully submitted, ..---..--,'`�__ �..— Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist International Society of Arboriculture Certification#WE 1897 American Society of Consulting Arborists Member Prepared by Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist November 26, 2012 r� _ .��: i� 4��' ��;��'p�`'R"l;��=�i� —�� A Review of the Existing Trees at : .,� 10049 Imperial Avenue ''"'`�`a'�� °.�°�°�� _ �. � Cupertino, California �--. ��IJ� �� ,�.. , ,, � .�.�,W..,_.. ._...�.�r,�,.�..,�. A REVIEW OF THE EXISTING TREES AT , _. = 10049 IMPERIAL AVENUE 7c G��'2 .�c��'D�t' CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA `-� Assignment I was asked by George Schroeder, Planner, City of Cupertino, to evaluate the trees at 10049 Imperial Avenue, Cupertino, California. The plans provided for this evaluation were prepared by Ray Hooker, Architect. I have marked up the Site Plan to show the locations of the trees reviewed for this report. Observations I inspected the trees on July 31, 2013. °��'�� ' �''��`� ��' "�� Tree # 1 (in this photo to the left) is a Victorian Box tree (Pittosporum undulatum). ;,; ,,,,,; ,, ,,,,, , , , _ „-, It has four trunks, measured to be 10, 9, 8, 8 �,. �-,-; , �� r„ � �� inches DBH (Diameter at Breast Height= 54 �y� �� ,��-��`�� ` inches above grade). The canopy is ' �� ' - . � r �,� approximately 30 feet in height, and the � .. r� � �� .- canopy spread is approximately 30 feet in p� , �� °�� ` '� ��# � � �` �� ;�� d�� "� � diameter. Its health is good. Its structural :' a° �,� ��;` ��A�r=� �'" - - =��; integrity is fair. ��° ��r ��°� �� _,;�� `� The proposed construction project would . ;� . �� " � � ""�� ° remove this tree. �" �a� }� �wa�� 4 �..��Oh�F� � '+Z`+M f��tw 71 YV��:. A� I �"� �9 .. .+S��l �' s�^ �M� A o r:� w P � E � e . . ":r � A.K . �.- . �.. :�. � �rv � "' `_' "�"' " ,�.� '"��, � " �. � d`� .. `B4��. ,4,k'�� .,�,� i � � � ' � ��°. <,G��"' - ^ i C; ..... .r� � � �. . . � � � � a � `� ,��47 � "� . �V �� 3_ � _"'�'= _ �E , y .�', �. � �� r �. "�, ��;�� . ,, x: *`'t`; Tree # 2 (in this photo on the right) is a �°�� w��Y Coast Live Oak ueYCUS a ra olia . The �� `�' � � �� Q g .f ) II� � a � � � trunk of this tree measuies 18.2 inches � � �� " �� , , . w DBH. The canopy is approximately 30 �� ,� " �� f u �� .,:�[ .;�,� feet in height, and the canopy spread is � �� x, . ,,, approximately 25 feet in diameter. �, � "� � �� , �, �� . ,�� ,�� . �� .e �� .�� .,; >�.� x�. � „��a� �,��, � �� ,wr�� ;� ,.,�M d Prepared by Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist July 31, 2013 1 A Review of the Existing Trees at 10049 Imperial Avenue Cupertino, California The overall condition of Tree# 2 is quite good. The project proposes to transplant Tree # 2 into the new landscape. Tree # 3 is a California Pepper(Schinus molle). Its dual trunks were measured to be 13 and 10 inches DBH. The canopy is approximately 20 feet in height, and the canopy spread is approximately 25 feet in diameter. This tree is sub-dominant(growing out from under the canopy of)to Tree # 4. The plan shows to preserve this tree in the new landscape, but the proposed adjacent paving construction would likely damage the roots of this tree severely. I would not expect Tree # 3 to survive. Tree # 4 is a California Pepper(Schinus molle). Its dual trunks were measured to be 25 and l 8 inches DBH. The canopy is approximately 35 feet in height, and the canopy spread is approximately 50 feet in diameter. ��,�-� . � Y�g � e � � . ,. . � � , Tree # 4 has a serious fungus infection on ,� a ., � � ; � : � ' ; �� the trunk, called Artist s Conk (Ganodermcc �� applenatum) as seen in the photo to the left. � `� �� .,� � � �z��, ��, � ` � �, � This fungus makes a hard woody shelf, but .��.,� A� .` � °� � ` ° # � '�� the underside is creamy white and soft. The k � , A �_ . � '�� ',•�� , � � red dust around it are the spores, which fly in �'� '� � �� `' �;g�'" the wind to infect other trees. '� .} �,�.�� . . w .� �► �`� � , � *^,w�`'.�,,. �� "�.r � �� `� �-�- � �.�� ,�� There is no treatment for this disease, which ., .. � ;��.� �� " �� `�"��°� � � � typically will hollow out the interior of the � � � �� trunk until the tree falls over. The rocess is +-�:r..� �� p ��-�'�� -`� �` � � � �� slow and often takes several years, but it is :� ,,.. �_.� �� ., � �� inevitable. This disease is incurable. `� �� ::� ��: ,� �� 5� � �t �. � �'' ��,� : � . ° � .� The plan shows to preserve this tree in the _��:��-� �� `��'�� ,� new landscape, but I recommend to remove �� , � .. ��;�� .�. ��"�.� °� �� . �5�'`� this tree for safety reasons. t 'v��.'k i y� . . � _ ' � �.'�' ,y/ ' . �i� S � •�" �F°� � iyi,� � .�'`�.� +�a �g'�� . s "Rt, .,r�. , ��wt�� , . .• Trees # 5, 6, 7, and 8 are all small young Flowering Pear(Pyracs calleryana `Aristocrat'). These have trunk diameters measured to be 5 or 6 inches DBH. The canopies are approximately 12 feet tall and approximately 15 feet wide. The plans pi•opose to remove Trees # 5, 6, 7, and 8. Although these trees are relatively small, they were rec�uired to be planted when Monta Vista Market modified their parking lot over l 0 years ago. Thus, Trees # 5, 6, 7, and 8 are protected trees. Their removal for this project would require replacement. Prepared by Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist July 31, 2013 2 A Review of the Existing Trees at 10049 Imperial Avenue Cupertino, California Recommendations 1. It would be essential that the transplanting of Tree #2 be done by an experienced tree mover. Experienced tree movers include: Pacific Tree Moving(408) 231-7017 or(831) 475-6190 Environmental Design (831) 915-0358 John Arnaz Tree Movers (408) 266-1717 Valley Crest Tree Company (818) 367-5803 2. Per the protected tree ordinance, the removal of Trees# 1, 5, 6, 7, and 8 would require the replacement of 5- 24 inch box trees at least. I recommend that the replacements be planted in the new north side planter between the market and the project site, or in the west side planter. 3. If Trees # 3 and/or#4 would be removed, they would require that 4- 24" boxed or 2- 36" boxed replacement trees be planted. Respectfully submitted, -- �.—._ Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist International Society of Arboriculture Certification# WE 1897 American Society of Consulting Arborists Member Prepared by Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist July 31, 2013 3 • • or a � iona . n orma � on . ee � e _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ o -