01. TM-2006-07 Scott Kelly
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application:
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Property Location:
TM-2006-07, EA-2006-08
Scott Kelly
Charles Varian Trust
10114 Crescent Court
Agenda Date: July 25, 2006
Application Summary:
Tentative Map to subdivide a 2.4 acre parcel into five parcels ranging from 10,254 sq. ft.
to 13,176 sq. ft. and a remainder parcel equaling 37,073 sq. ft. to be dedicated to the
Santa Clara Valley Water District. The parcel is located in a R1-10 zoning district
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the tentative map, file
number TM-2006-07 and EA-2006-08, in accordance with the model resolution.
Project Data:
General Plan Designation:
Zoning Designation:
Acreage (gross):
Density:
Residential Low 1-5 DUjGross Acre
R1-10
104,974 sq. ft.
3.21 duj gr. acre
Project Consistency with: General Plan:
Zoning:
Yes
Yes
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Environmental Assessment:
BACKGROUND:
On July 11, 2006, the Planning Commission heard the item and directed staff to gather
more information and resolve the following.
);> Public street vs. private street
);> Pavers vs. asphalt with percolation trenches
);> Arborist review
);> Geotechnical review
);> Retaining wall height.
DISCUSSION:
Public Vs. Private Street
The street for the subdivision is proposed to be private because a sub-standard 20-foot
private street serves the subject property and the subdivision street is also proposed to
be sub-standard. The sub-standard 20-foot private street on Crescent Court is shown in
Exhibit A. The existing sub-standard right-of-way used to be an easement that the
subject property owners had from the property owner immediately to the north of the
subject property at 10106 Crescent Court. When the property owner to the north
developed their property, they dedicated 20 feet along the eastern edge of their
property for a 20-foot public right-of-way that would service the subject property.
i -I
TM-2006-07
Page 2
~~OO6
Some of the commissioners expressed a desire to expand this portion of the existing
right of way and the new 20-foot stretch of roadway proposed as part of the project to a
standard size street by taking land from Varian Park. Since the City's right of way
includes travel and parking lanes and easements for the utilities that, per the City
standards, should be outside the travel lanes, the minimum width of the right-of-way
would be 38 or 40 feet. This would mean taking between 18 and 20 feet from the
existing park.
Another option would be for the City to accept the sub-standard right-of-way as a
public street, to be publicly owned and maintained. The Public Works Department does
not want to set a precedent of accepting sub-standard streets for future applicants.
Please note that though the street shall be a private street for maintenance purposes, a
public access easement is to be recorded to allow the public access on the street.
Pavers vs. Asphalt with percolation trench
The applicant is proposing the construction of percolation trenches under the street in
lieu of pavers. Additionally, the applicant is proposing to construct bio-swales on the
residential lots. These trenches and swales will filter and help ground water percolate
into the ground. There will be an overflow control measure so that water does not back
onto the streets if the percolation trench becomes over saturated.
The Public Works Department has reviewed this design proposal and they are in
support of it. Modifications have been made to the model resolution to reflect this
change.
Tree Removal
Some of the commissioners were also concerned about three oaks (tree #4, 5 and 26)
that are proposed for removal with this subdivision. Staff is proposing the protection of
these three trees. The City's Arborist has prepared a tree report on these trees and he
recommends the removal of trees #4 and #5 and replacement per his recommendations.
His report states that tree #26 could be saved subject to his recommendations. His
recommendations for saving the oak include keeping the footing of the building at least
6 feet away from the trunk and that pruning should be restricted to 10-15% of the
canopy. His report also says that it would be possible to relocate tree #26. Staff's
position is that this tree should be saved for now. The decision to transplant or remove
the tree, subject to the discretion of the Director of Community Development, should be
made when building plans are presented and it appears that it will be impossible to
design around the tree.
The commission indicated that it was interested in saving a California Pepper Tree
(Tree #27) on lot 4. Staff has incll:1ded tree #27 as a protected tree for the subdivision in
the CC&R's to be recorded for the subdivision. When the building plans for the lots are
submitted, the removal of this tree and any other tree on the subdivision shall be
reviewed and approved, subject to the discretion of the Director of Community
Development.
(--d
TM-2006-07
Page 3
~
Geotechnical Review
The applicant and staff agree that the Geotechnical report recommends a setback of 25
feet from top of the cliff on lots 4 and 5 for all primary and accessory structures. Such
structures may encroach into this setback subject to geotechnical review of the
mitigation measures incorporated into the design.
Staff recommends that a slope easement be recorded for lots 4 & 5, prohibiting principal
structures, accessory structures, including porches, including guesthouses, detached
garages and swimming pools within 25 feet from the top of the cliff, unless measures to
stabilize the cliff are incorporated into the design and construction. However, the
applicant is concerned about the negative connotation of the term "easement" and
wants the language incorporated into the CC&R's instead. Staff, however, prefers and
easement so' that the property owner and anyone receiving development proposals can
readily determine this restriction. A slope easement has been used in several
subdivisions within the city.
Retaining Wall Height
The applicant had initially proposed a four-foot retaining wall on the plans at the bend
in the street. However, staff felt that this was a safety hazard and would impede in the
40-foot vision triangle that is required to make a safe turn. Staff and the applicant have
reviewed the plans and determined that it is possible to engineer a retaining wall
limited to three feet in height from the curb level thereby leaving the 40-foot sight
triangle clear of obstruction. This has been indicated on the plans. Staff additionally
recommends that since the retaining wall is going to be three feet in height, which is the
maximum height allowed in the sight triangle, a requirement be included in the
CC&R's indicating that no landscaping other than a lawn is permitted within the 40-
foot sight triangle.
Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, Assistant Planner ~ (
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developmen~-" ...--'-.-~
Enclosures: Model Resolution
Plan Set
Exhibit A: Map showing the 20-foot right of way
Exhibit B: Arborist Report for tree #4, #5 and #26
Staff Report dated July 11, 2006
G: \ Planning \ PDREPORT\pcTMreports \ TM-2006-07b.doc
, --3
TM-2006-07
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO.
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A TENT A TIVE SUBDIVISION MAP TO
SUBDIVIDE A 2.4-ACRE PARCEL INTO FIVE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
PARCELS WITH AN AVERAGE LOT SIZE OF 11,329 SQ. FT. IN A R1-10 ZONING
DISTRICT AND ONE 37,073 SQ. FT. PARCEL TO BE DEDICATED TO THE SANTA
CLARA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT LOCATED AT 10114 CRESCENT COURT
SECTION I: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application
for a Tentative Subdivision Map, as described in Section II of this Resolution; 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
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said
application; and has satisfied the following requirements:
1) That the proposed subdivision map is consistent with the City of Cupertino
General Plan.
2) That the design and improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent
with the General Plan.
3) That the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of development
contemplated under the approved subdivision.
4) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not
likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and
unavoidable injure fish and wildlife or their habitat.
5) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements associated
therewith is not likely to cause serious public health problems.
6) That the design of the subdivision and its associated improvements will not
conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or
use of property within the proposed subdivision.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the application for Tentative Subdivision Map is hereby
recommended for approval, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this
Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof; and
That the subconc1usions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this
( r- t.f'
Resolution
Page 2
TM-2006-07
July 25, 2006
resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application
No. TM-2006-07 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of July
25,2006, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
TM-2006-07
Scott Kelly (Nancy Fedders and Charles Varian)
10114 Crescent Court
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
The recommendation of approval is based on Exhibit titled: "Tentative Tract
Map, 10114 Crescent Court, Cupertino, CA," consisting of 1 pages stamped July
19, 2006, except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this
Resolution.
2. IRREVOCABLE OFFER OF DEDICATION
The applicant shall make an irrevocable offer of dedication to the Santa Clara
Valley Water District subject to the requirement that the City of Cupertino and
the Water District sign a Joint Use Agreement. If the City and the Water District
are unable to reach an agreement, the offer of dedication shall revert to the City
of Cupertino.
3. PRIVATE ROADWAY PERCOLATION TRENCH
The private roadway shall have percolation trenches with catch basins to direct
the runoff into the trenches.
4. SWALES
Swales shall be provided on each of the lots to help with percolation of water in
to the ground.
5. NO PARKING ZONE
The portion of the roadway that is 22 feet wide shall have 'No Parking' signs
posted per City standards.
6. NEW RET AINING WALL ALONG ROADWAY
The retaining wall along the roadway shall be no taller than 3 feet from the curb
and shall be faced with attractive materials such as stone veneer or natural stone.
7. PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT
Applicant shall record a public easement access over the private roadway. The
agreement shall be recorded in conjunction with recordation of the final map,
and shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content by the City
Attorney.
1--5
Resolution
Page 3
TM-2006-07
July 25, 2006
8. TREE REMOVAL
No trees other than those shown being removed on the Tentative Subdivision
Map or fruit trees have been approved for removal as part of this subdivision.
The trees to be protected shall also be recorded as outlined in condition #11
below.
In the event that any of the protected trees must be removed during the
construction process due to reasons deemed appropriate by the Director of .
Community Development, then comparable diameter replacement tree(s) or field
grown tree(s) must be planted at the same location or at locations visible to the
public at the discretion of the Director.
Two 60-inch box or field grown oak trees shall replace trees #4 and 5. The
applicant shall plant coast live oaks, in numbers deemed appropriate by the
Director of Community Development and in places visible to the public subject
to an arborist's report, for the trees that are being removed.
9. TREE PROTECTION
As part of the demolition or building permit drawings, a tree protection plan
shall be prepared by a certified arborist for the trees to be retained and trees on
neighboring properties but identified by the arborist as being at risk during
construction. In addition, the following measures shall be added to the
protection plan:
a. For trees to be retained, chain link fencing and other root protection shall
be installed around the drip line of the tree prior to any project site work.
b. No parking or vehicle traffic shall be allowed under root zones, unless
using buffers approved by the Project Arborist.
c. 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 any trenching or root cutting beneath the drip
line of the tree.
d. Tree protection conditions shall be posted on the tree protection barriers.
e. Retained tree shall be watered according to the requirements of the tree to
maintain them in good health.
The tree protection measures shall be inspected and approved by the certified
arborist prior to issuance of building permits. The City's consulting arborist shall
inspect the trees to be retained and shall provide reviews prior to issuance of
demolition, grading or building permits. A report ascertaining the good health
of the trees mentioned above shall be provided prior to issuance of final
occupancy.
10. TREE PROTECTION BOND
The applicant shall provide a tree protection bond in the amount of $60,000 to
ensure protection of 13 oak trees, 1 Colorado Spruce, 1 Redwood tree and 1
California Pepper Tree on the site prior to issuance of grading or demolition
I-~
Resolution
Page 4
TM -2006-07
July 25, 2006
permits. The bond shall be returned after completion of construction, subject to a
letter from the City arborist indicating that the trees are in good condition.
11. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS & RESTRICTIONS (CC&R's)
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that address the following shall
be recorded:
a. Roadway Maintenance Agreement: A reciprocal maintenance agreement
shall be required for all parcels that share a common private drive or
private roadway with one or more other parcels within the tract.
b. Protected Trees: Trees to be retained are: #1,2,3, 7, 8, 13, 14, 16, 18, 20,23,
26, 27, 28, 29 and 30. New trees are to be planted, the location of which
shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community
Development and recorded in the CC&R's.
c. Slope Easement: A slope easement shall be recorded at the rear of lots 4
and 5 of the subdivision prohibiting principal dwellings, accessory
structures, including porches, including guesthouses, detached garages
and swimming pools within 25 feet from the top of the cliff, unless
measures to stabilize the cliff are incorporated into the design and
construction. The top of the cliff does not coincide with the property line.
d. Lot 5 Foundation: The residence on Lot 5 shall be supported on drilled
piers.
e. Lot 1 Landscaping: No landscaping other than a lawn is permitted within
the 40-foot sight triangle for corner lots.
f. Geotechnical Plan Review: The applicant's Geotechnical consultant
should review and approve all Geotechnical aspects of the development
plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and
design parameters for foundation and retaining walls) to ensure that their
recommendations have been properly incorporated.
The results of the Geotechnical plan review should be submitted by the
Geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City for review
and approval by City Staff prior to approval of building permits.
g. Geotechnical Field Inspection: The Geotechnical consultant should
inspect, test (as needed), and approve all Geotechnical aspects of the
project construction. The inspections should included, but not necessarily
be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface
drainage improvements and excavations for foundation and retaining
walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete.
The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions should be
described by the Geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the
City Engineer for review prior to final project approval.
h. Future Trail: A note shall be recorded that informs future homeowners
that the City of Cupertino owns land around the subdivision and there
might be future trails along Stevens Creek.
1-1
Resolution
Page 5
TM -2006-07
July 25, 2006
The CC&R's shall be recorded in conjunction with recordation of the final map,
and shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content by the City
Attorney.
12. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN
A construction management plan shall be prepared by the applicant and
approved by staff prior to any grading, development or construction. Staging of
construction equipment shall not occur within 20 feet of any residential property,
within the 20-foot right-of-way or within 25 feet of the top of cliff on lots 4 & 5.
13. 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.
SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT
14. STREET WIDENING
Street widerung, improvements and dedications shall be provided in accordance
with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer.
15. ROAD SITE IMPROVEMENTS
Curbs and gutters, sidewalks, retaining walls and related structures shall be
installed in accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City
Engineer. .
16. 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.
17. FIRE HYDRANT
Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City, Santa Clara County Fire
and San Jose Water Company, as needed.
18. GRADING
Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance
r r'6
Resolution
Page 6
TM-2006-07
July 25, 2006
with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404
permits maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers andj or
Regional Water Quality Control Board as appropriate.
19. DRAINAGE
Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Development
in all other zoning districts shall be served by on site storm drainage facilities
connected to the City storm drainage system. If City storm drains are not
available, drainage facilities shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
* Pre- and Post Development Calculations are required to determine if
additional storm drain facilities shall be required.
20. FIRE PROTECTION
Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the
City and Santa Clara County Fire, as needed.
21. 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. 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.
22. 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 under
grounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of
construction permits.
Fees:
a. Checking & Inspection Fees:
$2,130.00 min.
b. Grading Permit:
$ 5 % of Road Site Improvement Costs or
$ 6% of Site Improvement Costs or
$2,000.00 min.
c. Development Maintenance Deposit: $ 3,000.00
d. Storm Drainage Fee: $ 3,096.00
e. Power Cost: **
f. Map Checking Fees: $ 6,750.00
g. Park Fees: $ 63,000.00
h. Street Tree By Developer
** Based on the latest effective PG&E rate schedule approved by the Public
Utility Commission (P.U.c.)
/,-q
Resolution
Page 7
TM-2006-07
July 25, 2006
Bonds:
a. Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Road Site improvements
b. Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Road Site improvements
c. Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements
-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.
23. TRANSFORMERS
Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment
enclosures shall be screened with fencing <;l.nd landscaping or located
underground such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas.
24. DEDICATION OF WATERLINES
The developer shall dedicate to the City all waterlines and appurtenances
installed to City Standards and shall reach an agreement with San Jose Water for
water service to the subject development.
25. AMENDED DEVELOPMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES lBMP)
REQUIREMENTS
The applicant must include the use and maintenance of site design, source
control and stormwater treatment BMP's, which must be designed per approved
numeric sizing criteria. The property owners with treatment BMPs will be
required to certify on-going operation and maintenance.
Also, the applicant and the City shall enter into a recorded agreement and
covenant running with the land for perpetual BMP maintenance by the property
owners(s). In addition, the owner(s) and the City shall enter into a recorded
easement agreement and covenant running with the land allowing City access at
the site for BMP inspection.
26. NPDES CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT
The applicant must obtain a notice of intent (NOI) from the State Water
Resources Control Board, which encompasses a preparation of a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), use of construction Best Management
Practices (BMP's) to control storm water runoff quality and BMP inspection and
maintenance.
27. EROSION CONTROL PLAN
The developer must provide an approved erosion control plan by a Registered
Civil Engineer. This plan should include all erosion control measures used to
retain materials on-site. Erosion Control notes shall be stated on the plans.
28. LETTERS OF APPROVAL
The developer must gain will serve letters from all utility companies prior to
issuance of final map.
1---/0
Resolution
Page 8
TM-2006-07
July 25, 2006
In addition, the applicant must obtain written authorization from the Santa Clara
Valley Water District (SCVWD) and all other applicable agencies prior to
issuance of final map.
CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF
ENGINEERINGjSURVEYING CONDITIONS
(Section 66474.18 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 25th day of July 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:
ABST AIN:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
G: \ Planning \ PDREPORT\RES \2006\ TM-2006-07 res.doc
Marty Miller, Chair
Planning Commission
1""/1
111'_fII.WC
--.......
~-. ~-
>>f.ur~, ...
-...
NIlWl\'D1.IQ
........ BY
PROJECT INFORMATION
APPlJCANT:
KEU Y GORDON DEVELOPMENT CORP.
12241 SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE RD.
SARATOGA
CAUfORNIA 95070
4O!l-87J.-8n4
ENGINEER:
OIfNER:
THE FEDDERS-VARIAN U\IING TRUST
10114 CRESCENT COURT
CUPERnNO
CAUfORNIA 95014
408-255-0980
MARIUS E. NELSEN. R.C.E. 20597, EXP. 9/07
NELSEN ENGINEERING
21801 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD
CUPERTINO. CAUFORNIA. 95014
TEL. (408) 2S7-6452 FAX, (~) 257-6821
PROPERTY AlJDRESS AND APN:
10114 CRESCENT CT.
CUPERTlNO, CAUFORNIA
APN: 326-17-009 AND -030
PROPOSED NUMBER OF LOTS:
PROJECT AREA: 104.974 SQ. fT. (2.4 AC)
UTILITIES:
ELECTRIC AND GAS, P.G. & E.
WATER. SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY
TELEPHONE, see
SEWER, CUPERTlNO SANITARY DISTRICT
EXISTINC LAND USE: SINGLE F AMIL Y RESlDENTlAL
PROPOSED LAND USE: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTlAL
\ SOURCE OF CONTOUR:
\ TOPOGRAPHIC FIElD SURIIEY BY
\ ~ELSEN ENGINEERING
,
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
,
\
\
\
!to \
\
\
,
~ " a ..
z !
e ;: I
~ I
~ ...
" "
ffi " z ..
" 1O
... u ~
g
cg
IUn: ~
I\IU u
...= .;
z
IU\; S
c: ..
"
()
,
SCALE: 1- _ 20'
-=.-:::=1- .
.-
I."
.....
FOUNO 3/4-wtoN PIPE,
BEARS SJ5'OO" os-..
0.54 F[[f fROM
PR(ftRty tlBER
~;:\~,u. ~',,"-:""RErMN
\~c _~~RD
.. ____ _ _ PMlPOSEDRQIIO
~~
"
'"
iRF:e'RTVRD I
i JUL ?",---""fl 2:Jr06
~y;- ~
l-
n:::
CL:::>
<cO
:20
I-~
UW<C
<Coo
D::(J)
f- W -
wn:::~
>0_
- f-
~~D::
f-""'-W
Z.....-CL
Wo:::>
f-.....-U
ElOSf......j
~1C<1Gt'
.....,...
-"'...
SECTION A-A
3- AC (M:R
6" t1.AS$ 2 A.B.
COI.IPACTED TO 95X
on AIL A BID
NOT 10 SCALE
ROAD SECTION
ROAD SECTION
sr,.Of<<l1OH.ZZ
ml+e:J102i-80
~---~ \
j}--;:~ -. .
ACCESS CONfiGURATION
_/'"
""1Ir-
1-.20"
CAD
..., tHi-el
.....
.. 1 "'-
....
ROAD PROfilE
VICINITY MAP
"""'......
'_: UL - cLJ - cLJLJb LJ 1 ; 1 f r' r- KUI'I ; bHKt"<: 1 t:. l-UH I t:.
'-tUb ,,)::>,,)lc,,)b
IU: f ((,,),,),,),,)
EVALUATION OF lREES AT THE KELL Y GORDON DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. 10114 CRESCENT COURT. 1
CUPERTINO
Assignment
I was asked by Piu Ghosh, to review the proposed plans for the Kelly Gordon
Development Project, 10114 Crescent Ct., Cupertino, and to discuss the feasibility of
preserving Trees # 4, 5, and 26.
T prepared an Arborist's Report, dated on April] 3,2006, for this site.
Observations
As I stated in the Arborist's Report, Trees # 4 and 5 are stump sprout specimens. This
occurs when the original trunk is destroyed or removed and the tree has sufficient stored
carbohydrates to produce new sprouts at the stump. Bear in mind that these new sprouts
emerge from buds that are attached to the outer layer of wood just under the bark. This
means that these sprouts (called stump sprouts) will always be very weak and highly
prone to breaking apart at the stump. This weakness does not improve as these trees
mature. In fact, the more dense the canopies become, the more weight must be supported,
and the more likely these watersprout stems will split apart.
In the event that Tree # 5 is preserved, approximately 40%-50% of its canopy would have
to be removed in order to construct the new residence on Lot 1. Very few trees are able to
survive this quantity of canopy loss, because it represents a major reduction in
photosynthesis production required for survival. The ISA (International Society of
Arboriculture) suggests that no more than 25% oftbe foliage be removed during a single
prumng. .
It appears that Tree # 4 could lose approximately 30-40% of its canopy for the same
reason. This also would be classified as severe canopy loss.
In the event that either Tree # 4 or # 5 would survive the canopy loss, the new growth in
the surviving stump sprout stems would result in greater likelihood oftheir failure.
Stump sprout specimens are not considered worthwhile candidates for transplanting
because of the high risk of splitting apart during transplant.
Tree # 26 is located in conflict with the footing of the new residence on Lot 4. For Tree #
26 to survive, the building would have to be redesigned to accommodate the following:
1. The footing would have to be a minimum distance of 6 feet from the trunk.
2. The canopy loss must be limited to approximately 10%-!5% of the canopy. This
quantity is recommended because some root loss would also be expected. The
expectation of survival must involve both root loss and canopy loss together,
because they are not independent, unrelated events.
As an alternative, Tree # 26 may be considered as a possible candidate for transplanting.
Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist
June 23rd, 2006
r'.c
, ,.-11
_'UL-C~-C~~b ~~;~or r~UI.I.DH~~~C ~UH1C
IUD ...JJJ.l.C...JU
IW. I I IJ.....JJ....J
1--. ....J
EV ALVA nON OF TREES AT THE KELLY GORDON DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, 10114 CRESCENT COURT, 2
CUPERTINO
Recom mendations
] . I recommended that Trees # 4 and 5 be removed and replaced with coast live oak
(Quercus agrifolia) specimens from quality nursery stock.
2. I recommend that Tree # 26 be considered for transplant:ing or be replaced with
coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) quality nursery stock.
Respectfully submitted,
-.......
MLB / sh
Enclosures:
Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist
June 23m, 2006
/-(5
JUL-20-2005 01:18P FROM:BARRIE COATE
408 3531238
TO: T( L:S,;S-i.j
1-'.4
.,
BARRIE D. COATE
and ASSOCIATES
Honlcl.lturel ConliUltanlS
2353S Summit Road
La s Gates. CA 9503 3
408135~ 1052
ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
1. Any legal description provided to the appraiser/consultant is assumed to be correct.
No responsibility i's 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 appraisalfevaluation/diagnostic
reporting techniques and procedures, as recommended by the International Society of
Arbori cu Iture:'
9. When applying any pesticide, fungicide, or herbicide, always follow label instructions.
10. 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
~espon~ibility for any root detects which could only have been discovered by such an
inspection.
CONSULTING ARBORIST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Arborists are tree speciaJists who use their education, knowledge, training, and experience to
examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health ot 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 controJled. 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.
d5aJrkie JJ. ~
Barrie D. Coate
I SA Certified Arborist
Horticultural Consultant
,,-1 &
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application: TM-2006-07, EA-2006-08 Agenda Date: July 11, 2006
Applicant: Scott Kelly
Property Owner: Charles Varian Trust
Property Location: 10114 Crescent Court
Application Summary:
Tentative Map to subdivide a 2.4 acre parcel into five parcels ranging from 10,254 sq. ft.
to 13,176 sq. ft. and a remainder parcel equaling 37,073 sq. ft. to be dedicated to the
Santa Clara Valley Water District. The parcel is located in a R1-10 zoning district
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the tentative map, file
number TM-2006-07 and EA-2006-08, in accordance with the model resolution.
Project Data:
General Plan Designation:
Zoning Designation:
Acreage (gross):
Density:
Residential Low 1-5 DU j Gross Acre
R1-10
104,974 sq. ft.
3.21 duj gr. acre
Environmental Assessment:
Yes
Yes
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Project Consistency with: General Plan:
Zoning:
BACKGROUND:
The project is located on 10114 Crescent Court and is surrounded by single-family
residential uses to the west and south, by the 6.3 acre Varian Park to the north and by
Stevens Creek to the east. Currently the site is developed with one single-family
residence (see Exhibit A). The home is not considered historic nor is it listed on the
City's General Plan Historic Resources List. The home was constructed in 1951 based
on the County's database. The residence will be demolished as part of the final map
process.
DISCUSSION:
Site Analysis
The project is located in an R1-10 zoning district with a minimum lot size requirement
of 10,000 square feet. The proposed lots range from 10,254 to 13,176 square feet and
conform to the minimum lot widths (measured at the front setback line) of 60 feet. The
residential density at 3.21 d.u'; gross acre is also consistent with the general plan land
use designation (Low Density Residential, 1-5 DU j gr. Acre). At this time, the applicant
has not submitted architectural and site plans for the future homes proposed on the
lots. However, setback lines have been provided on the map to conceptually show
development envelopes in which the future homes could be constructed.
/---11
TM-2006-07
Page 2
July 11, 2006
The applicant is also making an irrevocable offer of dedication of 37,073 square feet
along the creek to either the Santa Clara Valley Water District or the City of Cupertino.
The Water District occasionally uses an existing unfinished walkablej drivable path that
leads down to the creek for access to conduct maintenance. This dedication is
contingent upon the City of Cupertino and the Santa Clara Valley Water District
signing a joint use agreement for allowing the future option to use the land for
recreational purposes. In the event the two agencies cannot reach an agreement, the
dedication of land will revert to the City of Cupertino.
This dedication is in conformance with the City's General Plan's Environmental
ResourcesjSustainability Element's Goal of "Protection of Special Areas of Natural
Vegetation and Wildlife Habitation as Integral Parts of the Sustainable Environment."
Policy 5-9: Development Near Sensitive Areas
Encourage the clustering of new development away from sensitive areas such as
riparian corridors, wildlife habitat and corridors, public open space preserves
and ridgelines. New developments in these areas must have harmonious.
landscaping plans approved prior to development.
Policy 5-11: Natural Area Protection
Preserve and enhance the existing natural vegetation, landscape features and
open space when new development is proposed.
Policy 5-14: Recreation and Wildlife Trails
Provide open space linkages within and between properties for both recreational
. and wildlife activities, most specifically for the benefit of wildlife that is
threatened, endangered or designated as species of special concern.
Storm water runoff from the subdivision shall be collected in a new storm water system
and conveyed to the existing public storm drainage facilities. No additional drainage
shall occur toward the creek thus preserving the existing natural vegetation and
landscape features.
Private Road
Access to the project is by a 22-foot wide private roadway widening to a 28-foot wide
roadway (cul-de-sac) from a roadway easement off of Crescent Court. A 28-foot private
road provides sufficient room for two 11-foot travel lanes and a six-foot parking lane on
the side of the street. "No Parking" signs shall also be posted on the 22-foot wide
portions of the private roadway so that the fire lane is kept clear.
Staff recommends that the private road be paved with semi-pervious stone pavers or
similar interlocking pavers to enhance the storm water quality of the project and to also
help preserve the root systems of existing mature trees. This is consistent with other
. subdivisions that have been approved in single-family neighborhoods. Examples are
TM-2004-05, the three lot subdivision on Greenleaf Drive on the CA Water Service
property, TM-2004-09, the five lot subdivision on South Stelling Road and more recently
a four lot subdivision on Alcazar Avenue, TM-2005-13.
/r16
TM-2006-07
Page 3
July 11, 2006
Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&R) and a private road maintenance
agreement shall be submitted to the City for review and approval ensuring that the
individual property owners will properly maintain the roadway and'the streetlights.
The CC&R will also record a public access easement on the private roadways.
Tree Removal
The City's Arborist prepared a tree report on the portions of the site that are to be
developed (Exhibit B). The report identified 31 trees on-site and 8 trees off-site
(identified as # 21, 22 and 34 on Exhibit B). A total of 19 trees are proposed for removal
as part of this project (Exhibit C). Out of these trees, ten are coast live oaks of which two
trees are considered specimen size (Tree # 4 & 5). Most of the trees removed are either
located in the roadway, in building pads, are in poor health, or removal is necessary to
keep other trees healthy.
The applicant is proposing the removal of the two specimen sized trees on Lot 1 since
there are several oak trees in the future rear yard overcrowding the more mature oaks.
Staff, with direction from the Environmental Review Committee, recommends that
either one or both of the two specimen sized trees be saved if it is possible to prune the
oaks without irreparable damage. Staff also recommends that trees #14 and #26, both
coast live oaks, be retained as protected trees since they do not interfere with roadways
or building pads and are in good health.
The City's Consultant Arborist has prepared a report to determine the replacement
strategy for the tree removal proposed (Exhibit C). He has provided the replacement
value of each of the trees and the average cost of planting different sizes of oak trees.
Staff recommends that 60-inch box oak trees be planted in high visibility areas to
replace the value of trees being removed. In addition, staff will determine the location
of the new oaks being planted prior to the recordation of final map.
Geotechnical Review
A Geotechnical Report has been prepared for the project by Murray Engineers Inc. The
City's Consultant Geologist has reviewed this report and concurs with the findings and
recommendations in the report (Exhibit D). The Geologists agree that the cliff is stable
and recommend that the buildings and associated improvements on lots 4 and 5 (the
two lots closest to the cliff) be set back 25 feet from the top of the cliff and that the
residence on lot 5 be supported on drilled piers.
Staff recommends that a slope easement be recorded for lots 4 & 5, prohibiting
accessory structures, ~cluding porches, including guesthouses, detached garages and
swimming pools within 25 feet from the top of the cliff, unless measures to stabilize the
cliff are incorporated into the design and construction.
The applicant is required to record the condition that the residence on lot 5 shall be
supported on drilled piers in the CC&R's for the subdivision. Additionally, two
conditions with regard to the Geotechnical requirements need to be recorded in the
CC&R's. The conditions require a Geotechnical Plan Review and a Geotechnical Field
frlCj
TM-2006-07
Page 4
July 11, 2006
Inspection prior to the issuance of building permits as recommended by the City's
Geologist.
Construction Management
Since this site is located off a sub-standard right of way and near Stevens Creek, a
comprehensive construction operation plan must be submitted to the City for review
and approval prior to issuance of grading addressing the following:
. Staging area
G> Tree protection
. Construction hours and limits
. Construction vehicle and truck routes
. Dust and erosion control
. Garbage and debris container location and pick up schedule
. Signage advising contractors of the restrictions
Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, Assistant Planner ____,
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developm~^",-<
Enclosures: Model Resolution
Plan Set
Exl:tilJ~t A: Location Map. .
Exhibit B: Arborist's report dated April 13, 2006
ExhibIt C: Tree Replacement Strategy .
Exhi.bit.o: City's Geologist. Repbrt .. .
ExhibitE: Recommendation of EnviroI1IIl.ental Committee
G: \Planning\PDREPORT\pcTMreports \ TM-2006-07.doc
(~;20
EV ALVA nON OF TREES AT KELLY GORDON DEVELOPMENT, 10114 CRESCENT COURT,
CUPERTINO
2
Assignment
I was asked by Mrs. Ciddy Wordell, City of Cupertino, to evaluate the existing trees located
at 10114 Crescent Court, Cupertino.
The plan provided for this evaluation is the Tentative Tract Map prepared by Nelsen
Engineering, Sheet I, dated March 2006.
Summary
A total of39 trees are included in this inventory. Of these 39 trees, 31 are located on this
property, and 8 are located on adjacent properties.
All of the 38 trees are identified and given condition ratings. Some trees and/or
circumstances concerning them are briefly described here.
Of the total 39 trees, Trees # 1,3,4,5,8, 13, 18,20,24,29,30, and 34 are protected by city
regulation. Of these 12 protected trees, Trees # 4,5, 8, 18, and 24 are proposed to be
removed by the current plan.
Procedures are recommended here to help preserve those "Specimen Trees" planned to be
retained in their present locations.
Observations
There are 39 trees included in this tree survey. Trees # 1-20 and # 23-33 are located on this
site. Tree # 21 (representing 3 specimens), Tree # 22 (representing 4 specimens), and Tree #
34 are located on neighboring properties. These neighboring trees are located near the
property boundary and may be exposed to damage by trenching, excavation, or soil
compaction. For this reason, these neighboring trees are included. The attached map shows
the locations of all 39 trees and their approximate canopy dimensions. Numbered metal
labels have been affixed to only the trees that are located on this property for field reference.
No labels were affixed to the trees on neighboring properties.
The 39 trees are classified as follows:
Trees # 1-5, 7-14, 18,20,24,26,28,29,30,34 - Coast live oak
(Quercus agrifolia)
Tree # 6 - Acacia (Acacia species)
Tree # 15 - Avocado (Persea Americana)
Trees # 16, 17 - Colorado blue spruce (Picea pungens glauca)
Tree # 19 - Silk tree (Albiziajulibrissin)
Tree # 21 - Juniper species (Juniperus species), representing 3 topiary trees
Tree # 22 - Italian cypress (Cupressus sempervirens), representing 4 essentially
identical specimens
Tree # 23 - Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens)
Tree # 25 - Carolina Laurel Cherry (Prunus caroliniana)
Tree # 27 - California pepper (Shinus mol/e)
Tree # 31- Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus species)
Tree # 32 - Bailey's Acacia (Acacia baileyana)
Tree # 33 - Bronze loquat (Eriobotrya def/exa)
Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist
April 13th, 2006
I r ;}3
EV ALUA nON OF TREES AT KELLY GORDON DEVELOPMENT, 10 114 CRESCENT COURT,
CUPERTINO
3
The particulars about these 39 trees (species, trunk diameter, height, spread, and structure)
are included in the attachments that follow this text.
In addition to these 39 trees, there are also approximately 25 fruit trees of low quality
primarily on the Lots # 1,2, and 3. There are also numerous trees located on the steep slope
toward the south side of Lots # 4 and 5. None of these trees are included in this survey.
The health and structure of each specimen is rated on a scale of 1-5 (Excellent - Extremely
poor) on the data sheets attached to this text. Based on these health and structure ratings
combined, I have given each tree an overall condition rating as follows:
Excellent Good Fair Poor Extremely Poor
Specimens Specimens Specimens Specimens Specimens
1,3, 7, 14, 2, 8, 13, 23, 4,5,6,9, 10, 24, 32, 15, 19
16;17,20, 26, 27, 30, 11, 12, 18,
21.22,28, 34 25,31
29,33
Methods
The trunk measurements of the existing trees are taken using a standard measuring tape at 4
Y2 feet above soil grade. This is referred to as DBH (Diameter at Breast Height). The height
and canopy spread of each tree is estimated using visual references only. The estimated shape
of the canopy relative to the other nearby trees has been added to the attached map.
Comments about Specific Trees
Trees # 4,5, and 18, all coast live oaks (Q. agrifolia), are stump sprout specimens. This
means that the original leader had been damaged or removed. The new leaders, usually
several, growing from the stump are poorly attached and highly prone to splitting out. This
poor structural condition does not significantly improve as the tree matures.
Trees # 9, 10, II, and 12, all coast live oaks (Q. agrifolia), have been '~opped". As a result,
they will always have weak branching structures where the topping had occurred.
Tree # 19, a Silk tree (Albiziajulibrissin), is actively splitting in half I suggest this tree be
removed regardless of construction.
Tree # 23, a coast redwood (S. sempervirens) has a wire tied around one leader to support the
existing wood fence. This wire is girdling the leader and should be removed. Another method
would have to be used to support the fence.
Tree # 24, a coast live oak (Q. agrifolia) has grown through an existing chain link fence. The
interlocking wire goes completely through the trunk at about 4 feet above grade. This often
results in a weak trunk structure.
Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist
April 13th, 2006
f-n
EV ALVA nON OF TREES AT KELLY GORDON DEVELOPMENT, 10 114 CRESCENT COURT,
CUPERTINO
4
Protected Trees
The City of Cupertino (Chapter 14.18)" finds that the preservation of specimen and heritage
trees on private and public property, and the protection of all trees during construction, is
necessary for the best interests of the City and of the citizens and the public thereof" The
City "finds it is in the public interest to enact regulations controlling the care and removal of
specimen and heritage trees..." A "Heritage Tree" means "any tree or grove of trees which,
because of factors, but not limited to, its historic value, unique quality, girth, height or
species, has been found by the Architectural and Site Approval Committee to have a special
significance to the community." A "Specimen tree" means any of the following:
Species Measurement from Single Trunk Multi-Trunk
Natural Grade Diameter/Circumference Diameter/Circumference
Oak trees; 4 'h feet 10 inches (31 inches C) 20 inches D (63 inches C)
California
Buckeve
Big Leaf 4 'h feet 12 inches (38 inches C ) 25 inches D (79 inches C)
Maple;
Deodar Cedar;
Blue Atlas Cedar
The "Specimen Trees" at this site are: Trees # 1,3,4,5,8, 13, 18,20,24,29,30, and 34.
Should construction occur as proposed, the following "Specimen Trees" would be removed:
Trees # 4, 5, 8, 18, and 24.
Risks to Trees by Proposed Construction
The management of materials and equipment, often as part of the staging area(s), commonly
poses a risk to existing trees. Protective fencing is the primary defense for existing trees.
Prevention is key to tree protection, because repair or remediation is usually ineffective.
The trees at this site would likely be at risk of damage by construction or construction
procedures that are common to most construction sites. These procedures may include the
dumping or the stockpiling of materials over root systems, may include the trenching across
the root zones for utilities or for landscape irrigation, or may include construction traffic
across the root system resulting in soil compaction and root die back.
If underground utilities are installed, it would be essential that the location of the trenches
must be planned prior to construction, and that the trenches be located at the exact locations
. - as shown on the proposed plans.
Currently chain link fencing is in place protecting coast live oak Tree # 34. Should this fence
or a portion of this fence be removed for construction of the new roadway, Tree # 34 may be
exposed to risk of damage on its west side.
Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist
April 13th, 2006
/ --;25
EVALUATION OF TREES AT KELLY GOROON DEVELOPMENT. 10114 CRESCENT COURT,
CUPERTINO
5
Also. there is an open space on the east side of the existing driveway across from Trees # 6
and 7. Should this be used as a staging area. Tree # 34 may also be as risk of materials and
equipment parkecJ or piled inside its dripline. if the existing fence were removed.
Although Trees # 21(representing 3 topiary junipers) and # 22 (representing 4 Italian cypress
trees) are not protected by the city ordinance. it is likely that these trees are important to the
neighbor. If grading were to occur to the west side property boundary. these 7 trees may
suffer serious root damage. If grading were to be a minimum of 6 feet from the west side
property boundary, these 7 trees should not be damaged.
Recommendations
1. I recommend that protective fencing be provided during the construction period to
protect those trees that are to be preserved This fencing must protect a sufficient
portion of the root zone to be effective. The recommended locations of protective
fencing are provided on the attached map. Occasionally it may be essential to have a
certified arborist make decisions about the location(s) of protective fencing at the
project site.
I recommend that protective fencing must:
. Consist of chain link fencing and having a minimum height of 6 feet.
. Be mounted on steel posts driven approxiIDately 2 feet into the soil.
. Fencing posts must be located no further than 10 feet apart.
. Protective fencing must be installed prior to the arrival of materials, vehicles, or
equipment.
. Protective fencing must not be moved, even temporarily. and must remain in
place until all construction is completed.
2. There must be no grading, trenching. or surface scraping inside the driplines of
protected trees, unless specifically described in another section of this report. I
recommend that there be no grading within 6 feet of the west side property boundary
in relation to Trees # 21 and 22.
3. Trenches for any utilities (gas. electricity. water. phone, TV cable. etc.) must be
located outside the driplines of protected trees, unless approved by a certified arborist.
4. If Trees # 16 and 23 are preserved, they must be irrigated throughout the entire
construction period during the dry months (any month receiving less than 1 inch of
rainfall). Irrigate a minimum of 10 gallons for each inch of trunk diameter every two
weeks. A soaker hose or a drip line is preferred for this purpose. -
S. Materials must not be stored, stockpiled, dumped, or buried inside the driplines of
protected trees.
6. Excavated soil must not be piled or dumped, even temporarily, inside the driplines of
protected trees.
7. Any pruning must be done by an arborist certified by the ISA (International Society
Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist
April 13th, 2006
I ?Ie.
EVALUATION OF TREES AT KELL Y GORDON DEVELOPMENT. 10114 CRESCENT COURT,
CUPERTINO
6
of Arboriculture) and according to ISA, Western Chapter Standards, 1998.
8. Any pathways or other hardscape inside the driplines of protected trees must be
constructed completely on top of the existing soil grade without excavation. 'Fill soil
may be added to the edge of finished hardscape for a maximum distance of
approximately 2 feet from the edges to integrate the new hardscape to the natural
grade.
9. The sprinkler irrigation must not be designed to strike the trunks of trees.
10. Landscape irrigation trenches must be a minimum distance of 10 times the trunk
diameter from the trunks of protected trees.
11. Landscape materials (cobbles, decorative bark, stones, fencing, etc.) must not be
installed directly in contact with the bark of trees because of the risk of serious
disease infection.
12. The plants that are planted inside the driplines of oak trees must be of species that are
compatible with the environmental and cultural requirements of oaks trees. A
publication about plants compatible with California native oaks can be obtained from
the California Oak Foundation, 1212 Broadway, Suite 810, Oakland, 94612.
Respec
~
Michael L. Bench, Associate
B~~i~
MLB/sh
Enclosures:
Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
Map
Tree Chart
Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist
April13lh, 2006
f ~:;t 1
.--- ~------_.-.--------
,
BARRIE D. COATE
and ASSOCIA lES
(400) 353-1052
23535 Sum mil Road
Los Galos, CA 95030
Plant Name
Tree #
1 Coast Live Oak
--------- ---------------------------------
Quercus agrifolia
2 Coast Live Oak
--------- ---------------------------------
3 Coast Live Oak
--------- ---------------------------------
4 Coast Live Oak
5 Coast Live Oak
--------- ---------------------------------
6 Acacia
--------- --------------------.------------
Acacia species
7 Coast Live Oak
--------- ---------------------------------
8 Coast Live Oak
9 Coast Live Oak
10 Coast Live Oak
1
~
~
Measurements
! ! !! !
I-
W
~ I- 0 0
W W W
~ ~ !;( ~
~ ,~ N ~ ~
~\'w I-
~:I- ,@ i= ~
o::::<n 0::: enw w
w:>-
I- ,en w I- 0
W ;...!. I- I <(
~ .1- W <9 w
<(;-1 I I ~ _ 0:::
_;::J m m <( w a..
o:~ 0 0 '" I en
, I
18:"; 16 8 25:3545
____&__~___~____ ___~___L___
, , . , , ,
, , , , , ,
, ! . , , !
Pest/Disease Problems Recommend Status
: T I ; , ,
, , , , , ,
, -' , , ,
, 10: I , ,
, , ---, I
I ' I I 10 . iO ,
, ~I I I' , M
, ........ , ;::.' I . ..J
, I .... , ,
, W I 0 ....... , ~ ....
, , ,
, en , w W I -
I <( , rr: ~ , 0 ~
, . I
, W -, W .......' 0::: :!: ('0.
, en ......., lO ' > 10' it: w
, lO , I . , ' w w ('0. w
, is ...... I 0 en ~:
, ' I ........' is N a: 0 w 0:::
, ...... I >-: 0 If
.......' ~ ........, :::i C it: w I-
lO' 0 <(: rr: rr: w i= 0::
, : 0 (). :s :s I- z D.. I- 0
...... , 0 w: 0:: w w
........, ~ ..J
en: 0::: ~ 0: ....J ....J W :!: ~ W I-
0 0 u. CJ ()
1-: u ~: 0 0 en en :!: ~ w
()' 0 z: 0 0
w: w l- I- 0 0 I-
en: w <( ::J: 0 0 w w 0 :!: 0:: 0
z: 0::: w 0:::: 0 0 ~ ~ w w W 0::
-, I- 0 1-: rr: rr: a: a: I a..
, I
, ,
, , I
_____~____L___~___~______L____ ___4___~___~___ ---- .......
, . , , , , I I
, , , , , , I I
. , , I . I . I
Condition Pruning/Cabling Needs
! . , ! ! !
, I
, ,
I I
, ,
I si
I
, .......
I ...... , Z 10
I , , - I- ,
, N' N 0 ~
I ........' I ........
, ......
, CJ , ~ CJ ~
I ~ (9 ~
I Z CJ ~
-, z 0
10, ~ CJ Z 0::: CJ 0::
I , Z w
...... I Z Z 0 z 0
......... ~ I- 0 0
......., w ~ z en en z w oc
lO, I <(
I I 0::: Z -I W W W a..
~I ::J 0 0::: () I- 0::: 0::: Z
........, (9
I: 0 i= 0 w en
~ ~ ~ ~ > Z
1-1 is 0::: 0 W Z
..J' ::J ~ -I
<(I 0::: z 0 0 0 0 ~ m :::>
w; I- 0 0::: 0::: 0::: 0::: W tS 0:::
I' en U I U U,U.U 0::: a...
,
I
1 : 1 I
____L___~____ ___
, , ,
, , I
! ! I
9:..J:5: :12:25:201:3: :
----T--~---~----,---~---r--- ---r---1----~---
, I I I I' I' I
I I , , " ,'I
, , , , I I I"
I , I I " 'I I
_~~_l_~JL~~JL____j_~~JL~!!l~~ __~_l_~_j____l___
I , I , 'I "I
I I , I 'I I I 1
I I , , I' !!!
I." I I I I I T I
11 : ~ : 11 : 8/7 : : 30: 30 1: 4: :
----T--~---~----~---~---r--- ----~---~----~---
I I I I I I "I
I , I I I I I' I
, I I , I I I I I
, , I I I' I I .
11 : ..j: 8 : 5: : 20: 25 1; 4: :
----t--1r---1r----i---1r---~--- ----~---~----t---
I I I , I I "I
~ I ! ! !' 'I!
13! : ! ! !35! 20
----.--~---~----~---~---~---
I I I I I ,
I I , I I ,
I I I I I I
I I I I
8:";:5: :9:15:15
----t--1r---1r----i---1r---~---
. .
, !
, ,
, !
. , I
3: 2: :
----~---~----.---
, , I
, , I
I , I
, . ,
1 : 1; :
----~---~----t---
, , I
! ! '
, I ,
1 : 2: :
----~---~----+---
, , I
, I I
I , .
, , ,
1 : 4: :
----~---~----t---
, I I
~ I !
, , ,
1 : 4: :
----~---~----~---
, , I
, , ,
, , ,
Job Name: Kelly Gordon Development, 10114 Crescent Court, Cupertino
Job #: 04-06-075
Date: April 13th, 2006
, I , I I I
10: : : : :20:15
----.--~---~----~---~---~---
I I I , , I
, I I I , I
I I , I . I
1 , I I , I
6: : : : : 12: 15
----t--1r---1r----1---~---~---
I I I I I I
~ I ~ : : :
I I I I 1 I
6: : : : : 12: 15
----+--~---~----~---~---~---
I I I I I I
I . I I I I
, I I I I I
I I
, .
I ,
___~____~___~____L___~___&___
, I . , 1 I
. , , , I I
I I I I I !
I I I Iii
, , I I I I
I I I , , ,
---T----r---'----r---~---T---
I , 1 I , I
I I I , I .
I , , , I I
, I , , I I
I , , , I I
I I I I I I
___~____L___J____L___~___~___
, I , I I I
I 1 I I I ,
, I , , , I
I , I I , ,
, I 1 I I ,
, , I I I ,
---~----~---'----r---~---T---
I I I I I I
I , 1 I I ,
I I , , I ,
, I , I I ,
, , I I , 1
I , , I , I
---t----~--~i----~---~----t---
I I , , , I
! ! ! ! I I
, , I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I , I I
---~----~---~----~---~---.---
I , I I I I
I I I I I I
, , , I I ,
I , I I I ,
I I I . , I
, , I I 1 I
---i----~---i----~---~----t---
I I I , I I
, I , , ~ ~
, I I I , I
. I , I I I
, I , I I I
---.----~---~----~---~----.---
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I . I I I I
, I I I I I
, I I I I I
, 1 I I I ,
---1----~---~----~---~----t---
I , I I I I
~ ~ : ~ : :
, , I I I I
I , I . . I
I I r I I I
___.____~---~.-M-~---~----+---
I I I . I ,
I I I . r ,
I I I I I I
I I I I I
I , I I I
I I 'I ,
-----~----~---~---~------r----
I I I I I
, I I I ,
, , I I I
I I I I I
I , I I I
I , I I I
_____.J____&.___......___.l_.. ____&.____
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I 1
I , 'I I
I I I I I
, I 'I I
-----~----~---~---~------~----
I . I I I
, I I I I
I I I I I
I I I' I
I I I I I
I I I! I
-----~----t---~---t------~----
I I I I I
! ! I I !
I . I I I
I , I I I
I I I I .
-----~----.---~---~------~----
, I 'I I
I , I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
-----~----t-~-1r---t------~----
I I I I ,
I I ~: I
I I I I ,
I I . I I
I I I I I
-----~----+---~---~------.----
I , I I ,
I I I I I
, I . I 1
I I I I I
I I I I ,
I I I I I
-----~----t---;----t------~----
. , I 1 I
, , I I I
, , I I I
I I I I I
, I I ~ I
I I I I I
-----~----~---~---~------~----
, I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I
, I I
I , I
---~---_r---,---
I , I
I I I
I I I
I I ,
. , I
I I I
---~---~---~---
I I ,
, I I
! I ,
, i i
I , I
I , I
---~---~---1---
, , ,
, I ,
, I I
I . I
I , ,
, , I
---t---1r---i---
, , I
I I I
, , ,
I , ,
, I ,
---.---~---1---
I I .
, I ,
, I I
, . ,
, , ,
I , I
---t----~---~---
, , ,
I ~ !
, , ,
, I ,
I I I
---.---~---1---
I , I
, , I
, . I
, I ,
, I I
I I I
---t---~---~---
I . I
: ~ I
I I I
, , ,
, , ,
---+---~---~----
, I I
, , ,
I , ,
1 = Best, 5 = Worst
Page 1 of 4
~
BARRIE D'-COATE
and ASSOCIATES
(400) 353-1052
23535 SulAlIlil Road
l05 Galas, CA 95030
Tree #
Plant Name
11 Coast Live Oak
--------- ---------------------------------
12 Coast Live Oak
--------- ---------------------------------
13 Coast Live Oak
--------- ---------------------------------
14 Coast Live Oak
--------- ---------------------------------
15 Avocado
--------- ---------------------------------
Persea americana
___~~___ 9..~~~~~.9.~_~J~_E!_~P!..~~~_________
Picea pungens g/auca
17 Colorado Blue Spruce
18 Coast Live Oak
19 Silk Tree
A/bizia julibrissin
20 Coast Live Oak
Measurements
I
I-
W
W I- 0
I.L wOw
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ,~ C\l ~ ~
@I~ @ i= ~
0::: :(/) (/) w
w :>- 0::: w 0
I- Iv,> W I- LD
w ,- I- I
~ ,I- W CJ
<( :-1 I I ~ 0:::
':::I m m <( W ll.
o I~ 0 0 n I (/)
T!! T
7: 1 1 1 115115
----+--~---~----~---~---~---
, I I I I I
I I I . I , I
, I I I I I
I I I I I ,
7 1 1 1 I : 12: 15
____+__~___~----4___~---~---
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
, I I I I I
! ! ' ,
13: I I I 1251 20
----+--~---~----~---~---~---
I I , I I ,
I , , I I I
I I I I , I
I I , I I I
6: : : : : 151 15
----.--~---~----~---~---~---
I , I I , I
I I I I I I
I I I I . .
! !
21 1 ! ! 1 ! 10115
----T--~----r----~---li---r---
, , , I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
1 I I 1 1 I
14: : : : 125115
----~--~---~----~---~---~---
, ,
I ,
, ,
!
:20:20
! !
11
,-
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
130:30
,
,
,
Condition
! :
,
,
.
,
I
,
,
,
I
,
,
,
Ie>
lO:z
I . I--~
..... ,
-'
W
0::: Z
:::I 0
I- i=
o i5
:::I Z
~ 0
en U
:
,
,
,
,
si
.....'
, ,
C\l'
-'
-,
10,
, I
..... ,
-,
II
1-1
-I ,
<(I
W'
II
,
; i T
1 ' 4, ,
----~---~----.---
, , ,
, , ,
, , ,
, , ,
1 I 4 I :
----~---~----.---
, , ,
, , ,
I , ,
1 : 3: I
----~---~----+---
, , ,
, , ,
I , ,
, , ,
1 : 1: ;
----~---~----~---
, , ,
, I ,
, , I
315! 1
----r---'----r---
, , ,
, , ,
, I ,
, , ,
1 I 1: :
----~---~----~---
,
,
,
! :
1 1 I
1 4
1 5
1
1
12 " 12 11/!
8
:
;
'-'J
-~
Job Name: Kelly Gordon Development, 10114 Crescent Court, Cupertino
Job #: 04-06-075
Date: April 13th, 2006
9 / 8
:
I 13 201 30
11 " 9
:12 15125
, I
I I
, ,
Pruning/Cabling Needs
:! !
I
,
,
I
,
,
,
,
N Z'
..... 0
:-!. e> e> ~
CJ Z Z 0::: CJ
Z Z Z 0 Z
i= LD Z ~ (f.)
<( -I I W <(
0:: 0 I- 0::: 0:::
O~o:::~~~~
000 0
0::: 0::: 0::: 0:::
I 0 0 0 0
l-
I
Q
~
o
Z
w
w
>
o
~
W
0::
~
o
W
o
W
W
Z
en
W
-I
m
<(
o
Pest/Disease Problems
it)
,
.....
-
,
,
I
,
,
I
,
,
I
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
I
,
,
-'
10'
':
.....,
-,
en:
1-'
01
wI
enl
ZI
-,
,
,
-'
10'
I :
..... ,
-,
W
(/)
i'li
(f.)
o
~
0:::
o
W
W
0:::
t-
:
I
I
,
I
I
,
I
I
I
,
,
I
.
,
-'
10:
, ,
..... ,
_I
o
o
~
o
<(
W
o
I
I
I
,
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
Ii)
I
.....
)::'
<(
o
w
o
~
Z
:::I
0:::
1-:
:
,
,
I
........
LO ,
, I
:;:.'
o
w
a:::
w
>
o
()
a:::
::i
..J
o
()
~
o
o
a:::
T , , : T
I I I I I
-----~----+---~---~------.----
I I I- I 1
1 1 .. I I
I I I I I
I 1 I I I
I I 1 I 1
I 1 1 I ,
_____~____.___~___4______~----
I 1 1 I I
I I I I I
"' I I I I
; ; I I I
I I . I 1
-----~----+---~---i------+----
I I " l 1
I I I I I
I I I I I
1 1 I I I
1 I I I 1
1 , 'I I
-----~----~---~---~------~----
I I I I .
I . I I .
. I I I I
ii, 1 1 I
I I I 1 I I
---~----~---~----~---~----.---
I , . I I .
1 I I 1 1 I
I I 1 I . I
I 1 I 1 I 1
I 1 I I I 1
1 I I I I I
---.----~---~----~---~---.---
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I . . I ,
: : : , , ,
. I I I I I
---~----~---~----~---~----+---
I , I , I I
. I . I I I
I I 1 1 I 1
, , I I 1 f
I , 1 , I .
I I I I I I
---.----~---~----~---~---.---
I I 1 I I I
I I I , I I
f I I I , ,
, , : : : :
I , 1 I I ,
---{----~---~----~---~---~---
I I -I I I I
I I I I I I
I I 1 , I I
I , I I I I
1 I I I , 1
I I I 1 , I
--_._---~---~----~---~---_.---
-, ! !
! !!
:
! !
I
I
I I
, I
!
;
I ,
, ,
:! !
~
~
o
oc
ll.
CJ
Z
Z
:::I
0:::
ll.
I I : I ,
I , I I 1
1 I I I I
-----'----T---~---~------r----
I I . I I
I I I I I
, I I I I
1 I I I ,
1 1 I I 1
, 1 t ~ 1
-----~----~---~---~-~----.----
I ,
I I
, ,
:
.-
!
!
!
I
,
:
:
,
,
:
, ,
, ,
, I
Recommend
I ! !
I
,
,
,
,
.
: ..J
, <C
wi>
~ _10:: 0
uJ It?: :E
~ ~I~ ~
0:: :J c
a::: W i= z
:)l-o:::UI
6~~:E
() en (f.) :E
~ 0 0 0
o W W 0
~ ~ ~ ~
rii
.....
......
; ; I
I , I
---+----~---~---
, , ,
, , ,
, , ,
, , ,
, , ,
, , ,
---.---~---~---
, , ,
, , ,
, , I
, , ,
I , ,
---+---~---~---
, , ,
, , I
, , ,
, , ,
, I ,
I , ,
---~---~---.----
, , ,
, I ,
, , ,
: : :
, , ,
---~----~---~---
, , ,
I , ,
, , I
, , ,
, , ,
, , ,
--_.---~---~---
I , I
, , ,
, , I
T
,
,
,
I
.
,
I
,
,
,
,
:
,
,
:
,
,
,
,
I
I
,
,
l
,
,
;
,
I
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
I
,
,
I
!
I
,
!
,
I
,
,
,
,
,
,
!
,
,
!
-
M
,
....
-
~
a:
o
a:
Do
..J
<C
~
:E
UI
0:
,
I
,
:
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
I
,
!
,
,
!
Status
('0.
W
W
0:::
I-
W
CJ
<(
I-
~
W
I
('0.
W
W
0:::
I-
o
W
I-
o
W
I-
o
0:::
ll.
1 = Best, 5 = Worst
Page 2 of 4
Measurements Condition Pruning/Cabling Needs Pest/Disease Problems Recommend Status
--------- ! I ! I : ! T ! : ; ! !
I , ,
, , I , , , ,
, , I , - ' , ,
I , , I 10' , I
, , I I , : ......., ,
, , s! , LO I G) ,
, , I ....- , . , I -
, , , it) - S' , , ..J C")
l- I , ....- , I S , ,
, I , , N I Z l- t W Q , ~ ....
BARRIE D. COATE w I I (\II , 0 ..- (/) W I -
, I , I LU ,
w II- a I -' ..- - <( (/) , ~
u. 0 :(9 I i= (9 ~ 0:: , 0
and ASSOCIATES 'w w ~ <.9 ~ w it) LU jj -' 0:: :e ('0.
~ W I- -IZ - (9 <( ~ (/) -, > 10' 0: w
w !;{ '9:i= <.9 z Z 0:: (9 a 10 , , (/) , ' w W ('. W
....- u.. <( W 0:: 0 , , ..- 0 ~) N 0:: 0 w
~,~ z z 0 Z 0 ....- , -, Ci 0::
(400) 353-1052 (\I ~ ~ ""-'ii Z a -, >-, () 0:: ::::i 0: w
_, <( I- en 0 -, ~ 0 I-
@'UJ i= I ~ Z <(I a::: ~ 0::
23535 SUllmil Road II- @ i= -, w' w (I) Z w 0:: 10, 0 W i= z a- 0
(I) 10, o::lz <( UJ a.. I , 0 0' :s l- I-
o::M (/) I, ....I I W W ....- , 0 w: 0:: W W
Los Galos. CA 95030 0:: UJ ~, ::>10 0:: 0 I- 0:: 0:: Z -, ~ ....I ....I ~ W ..J UJ
UJI>- UJ UJ <.9 (I): 0:: 0: :e ct I-
W 0 I 1-'- a (I) 0 0 u.. <.9 U
I-'(/) l- I- L5 Ul!:: 0:: ~ ~ ~ ~ > Z 1-: 0 ~: () () :e > <(
W" I- UJ (I) (/) UJ
I- I 0 Z 0' Z: 0
:E'l- UJ <.9 ....I ::>10 ~ ....I UJ: UJ 0 I-- I-- 0 a 0 l- I-
'....I :r: :r: ~ 0:: <( o::lZ 0 0 0 0 ~ a:l ::> UJ <( ::>: 0 0 0 :e 0:: 0
<(b (I): UJ W
a:l a:l <( W a... UJ 1-10 0:: 0:: 0:: 0:: UJ <( 0:: 0:: UJ 0::: 0 0 ~ ~ W\W w 0::
Tree # Plant Name i51~ 0 0 j=i :r: (I) :r: (l)IU :r: 0 U () 0 0:: U a... ~; I- 0 1-: a::: a::: 0:: 0:: :r: a...
, I ! ,
21 Juniper 4 ! 10, 5 1 1 3 trees ,
I
I
! , , ., , I ! : , I
Juniperus species I , I , I
, 1 , , ,
Italian Cypress I , I
22 6 '40: 6 1 1 4 trees I
I
CUfJressus semfJervirens , 1 ,
, I
1 , .
! ! T T ! ! ! T T ! : ! ! !
23 Coast Redwood 20 .J 16 16 80!35 1 3 1 3 i
! ! ! , ! ! ! ! ! ! ! I ! ! !
Sequoia sempervirens I ,
, I
I 1 I
24 Coast Live Oak 10 15: 15 1 5 , I
I I
, , ........ .......
I I I
, I I
! ! ! ! : ! I
25 g.~r.!?~~~~..~~~r.~.L9..~~!!Y................. 8, ,:15:15 2 3 , 1 I
, , I I
................. ...........f.......f........,...........f.......,.......Y'...... ........................,...... .......r..............:T.......Y'............n.T....... ............1.......'.......,.......,........................ ......T...... Y'...........u.. ........ .......
Prunus caroliniana , I , , I I I I , , , I I , , I 1 I I I , , ,
, I , , , I I I I , I , I I , , , , I , I , 1
, I , , , , , , , I 1 , , I , , , , I I I I I
26 Coast Live Oak ...!...\..~..l...~...L......l...~..L~.~.b.? ...~...L.~..l........l....... .......l........I.......1.......L......I.......1...... ...........1.......l.......1...... .1... ........L....... .......l.......L......I.......
................. ................................................................ ........ .......
I . I I I I I , , I I I I I . . . I : I I I ,
1 , , , I I , , , , 1 , I , I 1 , , I I , , ,
I , , I 1 I , , , I I , , 1 , , I I I , , , ,
, , , T -r ; ; ; , ; ; ; ; , , , T I ; :
27 ~~~!~~J~_~~J?Je~!______________ 20 ! :25;35 , ,
I , , 1 1 2 I , , 1 I I I , , , I , , I I ,
--------- , , I I , , I , , I , I I I I I I I ........
----T--~----r----~---~---r--- ----r---'----T--- ---~----r---'----r---~---T--- -----'----T---~---~------r---- ---T----r---~--- .......
Shinus molle I I , I I , , , , , I , , , , I , , I , I , ,
1 I , , , , , I , , , , , , , , I , , I , I ,
I , , I , , , , , , , I I I , , , I I I I , ,
. . I I . . , , I I , I , , I , I I I , I , 1
28 Coast Live Oak 9 I.J: 7; :12:20:25 1 I 1 I , I , , , , 1 I I I , , I , I
, , , , , , , I , I I , , I 1 I I
--------- --------------------------------- ____~__~___~____~___~___L___ ___L___~____L___ ___~____~___~____L___~___~___ _____~____~___~___~______L____ ---~---~---~--- ---- .......
, , I , , , I I , I , I I , , I , , I , I I ,
, I I I , , 1 , , I I , I , , I I , , , I , I
I I , I I I , , , , I , , , , , ! I I I 1 , I
29 Coast Live Oak 16 i ; I , :25:25 1 , 1 I , ; , I I , , ; ; , , I , ,
I , I , I , , I , I I , , , , , I , ,
, , I , , , I I I , , I , , , I , , I
--------- --------------------------------- ----T--~---~----,---~---r--- ----r---'----y--- ---T----r---~----r---~---T--- -----,----~---~--- ------r---- ---T----r---,---- ....... ........
I I I , , , I I , , , 1 I , , I , , , I , ,
, 1 I , , , 1 , , , , 1 , , , , , , I I , ,
, , I , I , , , , , I , , I I , I I , I , ,
I , , I I I , , , I I 1 I , 1 I I I , , , I
30 Coast Live Oak 131 I : : 120:20 1 : 2: : , , , I , , , I , , I , 1
, I , , I , , , . I 1 1 ,
--------- --------------------------------- ____~__~___~____~___~___L___ ____L___J____~___ ___~____~___~____L___J____~___ -----~----~---~--- -----_&._--- ___~___~___J___ ---- .......
, , I , , , , , , , I I , , I I I I , , , ,
, I , , , I , , , , I I I , , , I , , , , ,
I , , , I ! I , , , , . , , , , , , , . I ,
1
~
'....)
Job Name: Kelly Gordon Development, 10114 Crescent Court, Cupertino
Job #: 04-06-075
Date: April 13th, 2006
1 = Best, 5 = Worst
Page 3of4
-
BARRIE D. COATE
and ASSOCIATES
Horti curural Consultants
23535 Summit Road
Los Gatos. CA 95033
408135:>-1052
ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
1. Any legal description provided to the appraiser/consultant is assumed to be correct.
No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character nor is any opinion rendered as to
the quality of any title.
2. The appraiser/consultant can neither guarantee nor be responsible for accuracy of
information provided by others.
3. The appraiser/consultant shall not be I'equired 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.
1 a.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.
~~~~
Barrie D. Coate
ISA Certified Arborist
Horticultural Consultant
/--3:;
SCALE. 1" = 20'
FOCNQ.3/'''IRON PIPE
PR
_S43'10'4S'"E_ _
,
i"
"'.
"'''
;..,.--:
"'<')
b <')
'"
2
)g
C
<0
<')
:::
-y
EXIST. GRADE
INSTALL COENRC'C~~B.
GUTTER P
STANDARDS (SEE
DETAIL) 2 A B
8 I~V~~A~~OPERL y
COMPACTED SUBGRADE
.,. .f!'::\
.. '~J
FOUND 3/4"lbN ~1" 21
22 BEARS S35'00 06 w.
. 0 5< iEET FROM
PROPERTY CORNER
CONSULTANTS
HORTICUL TURALG. ^ "'BORISTS
CONSUL TIN ""
_ BARRlED.COATE
and ASSOCIATES
1400)3S~1052
23535 SumllK Road
l15Galos,.CA g~a3'~
I CENTERL~~~1~~~8~
FLO\\\JNE CURB
m=lDl.36
--'~~-'
,.j I... .....,~l.._~~__ _I. _.....
T n:>CI nllmh~.... ..................."....
"ct
atthe Kelly Gordon Development ProJe
Evaluation of trees
10114 Crescent Court, Cupertino.
b . Ciddy Wordell, Cit)' of Cupertino
Requested y.
Co . lting Arborist
M' hael L. Bench, n,u
Prepared by: ~
Job # 04-06-075
Date: riI13'h, 2006
EXHIBIT C
Assignment
I have been asked by Piu Gosh, Planner, City of Cupertino, to provide a replacement
strategy for the trees that would be removed at the Kelley-Gordon Development Project,
10114 Crescent Court, Cupertino.
The trees plam1ed to be removed, for which a replacement strategy is requested, are Trees
# 4,5,6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19,24,25,26,27,31,32, and 33.
Replacement Strategy
It has been our practice to recommend replacements based on the appraised value of the
trees planned to be removed. The values ofthe trees for this project are addressed
according to ISA (International Society of Arboriculture) standards, 9th Edition, Trunk
formula method.
The trunk formula method is based on an individual tree's trunk diameter (or diameters in
the case of multi-stem specimens), but includes adjustments for the following elements:
. Species performance in this climate area
. The species rate of growth (this is related to growth rates of nursery stock and the
cost to produce them; the cost per square inch of trunk diameter addresses the fact
that slower growing plants are more costly to produce)
. The tree's overall current condition
. The tree's location (this factors in an impression of the general condition of the
area, the contribution that this tree has provided to the site, and the importance of
that contribution relative to other specimens on site)
Using the trunk formula method as designed by the ISA, I have applied it to the
Microsoft Excel spreadsheet program in order to complete the calculations. By this
process, the appraised values are as follows:
Tree # 4 - Coast live oak -
Tree # 5 - Coast live oak-
Tree # 6 - Acacia species -
Tree # 7 - Coast live oak -
Tree # 9 - Coast live oak -
Tree # 10 - Coast live oak -
Tree # 11 - Coast live oak -
Tree # 12 - Coast live oak -
Tree # 14 - Coast live oak -
Tree # 15 - Persea Americana -
Tree # 17 - Picea pun gens 'Glauca' -
Tree # 19 - Albizia julibrissin -
Tree # 24 - Coast live oak-
Tree # 25 -. Prunus caroliniana -
$ 2530.00
$ 1770.00
$ 360.00
$ 1850.00
$ 540.00
$ 540.00
$ 730.00
$ 730.00
$ 900.00
$ 170.00
$ 1570..00
$ 90.00
$ 720.00
$ 680.00
/- 33
Tree # 26 - Coast live oak -
Tree # 27 - Schinus molle -
Tree # 31 - Eucalyptus species -
Tree # 32 - Acacia baileyana -
Tree # 33 - Eriobotryia deflexa -
$ 840.00
$ 2600.00
$ 200.00
$ 40.00
$ 4250.00
Total Appraised Value
$21,]10.00
A copy of the Excel spreadsheet calculations, including factored percentages impact on
value, can be provided upon request.
In terms of replacements trees, I recommend that native species nursery stock specimens
be used, such as coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia). I suggest any combination of the
following sizes approximately equal to the above total value: .
boxed specimen - average cost planted
24 inch box - $ 375
36 inch box - $ 1000
48 inch box - $ 2125
54 inch box - $ 2650
60 inch box - $ 3500
72 inch box - # 10, 000
Respectfully submitted,
MLB/BDC
1--31
r~ COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
... CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
RECEIVED JUN 2 3 2006
June 21,2006
C0036A
TO:
Ciddy Wordell
Cupertino City Planner
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
EXHIBIT D
SUBJECT:
RE:
Supplemental Geologic and Geotechnical Peer Review
Kelly, Proposed Subdivision
10114 Crescent Court
At your request, we have completed a supplemental geologic and geotechnical peer
review of the subject application for a proposed subdivision using the following
documents:
. Geotechnical Investigation (report) prepared by Murray Engineers, Ine., dated
June 13, 2006.
In addition to our review of the above referenced documents, we have reviewed
pertinent technical data from our office files and have had discussions with the Project
Geotechnical Engineer.
DISCUSSION
The applicant proposes to subdivide the existing property into 6 parcels. We
understand that one parcel will be donated to the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the
remaining 5 are proposed for future residential development. A new extension from the
east end of Crescent Court would be constructed for access to the parcels. An existing
residence will be demolished to accommodate the subdivision. An existing unimproved
access road to Stevens Creek would become part of Water District property. Portions of the
property are within State defined Earthquake Induced Landslide and Liquefaction Zones.
It is our understanding that sanitary sewer effluent of future proposed residences would be
piped to the sanitary sewer pipeline in Crescent Court.
In our previous review report, dated April 12, 2006, we recommended that an
engineering geologic investigation be performed to address the long-term stability of the
terrace embankment on Lots 4 and 5, characterize the site seismic setting, and provide
appropriate geologic recommendations for residential development. In addition, we
recommended that supplemental geotechnical engineering recommendations be provided.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION
Based . upon our review of the referenced document, it appears that Murray
Engineers, Inc. (ME!) has assumed the role of Project Geologist and Project Geotechnical
Northern California Office
330 Village Lane
Los Gatos, CA 95030-7218
(408) 354-5542 . Fax (408) 354-1852
e-mail: losgatos@cottonshires.com
www.cottonshires.com
Central California Office
6417 Dogtown Road
5an Andreas, CA 95249-9640
(209) 736-4252 . Fax (209) 736-1212
e-mail: cottonshires@starband.net
1-35
Ciddy Wordell
Page 2
June 21,2006
C0036A
Engineer. MEI has performed a geologic and geotechnical investigation of the site,
including the excavation of two additional exploratory boreholes, and has performed
analyses of the potential for geologic hazards to adversely impact the proposed lots. They
conclude that the steep embankment of Stevens Creek has the potential to constrain
development on portions of Lots 4 and 5, but if appropriate setbacks are incorporated, and
pier-supported foundations are utilized where recommended, then the site is suitable for
the proposed subdivision. Based upon our review of the slope stability analysis performed
011 tIle sleep embankment adjacent to Lol 4, il appears that MET has utilized regional shear
strength data tabulated for the Cupertino Quadrangle by the California Geologic Survey. It
is our opinion that site specific data is generally more appropriate than the regional data,
which is intended as more of a guideline than for site specific use. By correlating the on-site
blow count data to shear strength parameters (friction angles), we have evaluated the slope
stability analysis performed by MEI where regional shear strength parameters have been
used, and conclude that their analysis may overestimate the factor of safety by 10 to 15
percent. Since ME!' s seismic slope stability screening analysis resulted in a factor of safety
of 1.16, the 10% to 15% difference could still result in a factor of safety of greater than 1.0.
Consequently, it is our opinion that ME!' s recommended 25-foot setback appears justified.
If it is desired to extend portions of the development into the 25-foot setback zone, then
recommendations for deep, reinforced concrete piers should be provided. .
Consequently, we recommend approval of the Tentative Tract Map from a geologic
and geotechnical standpoint. The following should be performed prior to building permit
approval:
1. Geotechnical Plan Review - The applicant1s geotechnical consultant should
review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the development plans (i.e., site
preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for
foundations and retaining walls) to ensure that their recommendations have
been properly incorporated.
The results of the geotechnical plan review should be summarized by the
geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City for review and
approval by the City Staff prior to approval of building permits.
2. Geotechnical Field Inspection - The geotechnical consultant should inspect, test
(as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction.
The inspections should include, but not necessarily be limited to: site
preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements
and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of
steel and concrete.
The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project should
be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City
Engineer for review prior to final project approval.
COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
t,.-3tp
Ciddy Wordell
Page 3
June 21, 2006
C0036A
LIMIT ATIONS
This peer review has been performed to provide technical advice to assist the City
with discretionary permit decisions. Our services have been limited to review of the
documents previously identified, and a visual review of the property. Our opinions and
conclusions are made in accordance with generally accepted principles and practices of the
geotechnical profession. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, either expressed or
implied.
Respectfully submitted,
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
CITY GEOTECHNI AL CONSULTANT
~~ce
Associate Engin~ering Geologist
CEG 1923
~J :::>
Patrick 0, Shires
Principal Geotechnical Engineer
GE 770
JMW:POS:st
COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
1-- 3'7
EXHIBIT E
CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
June 28, 2006
As provided by the Environmental Assessment Procedure, adopted by the City Council
of the City of Cupertino on May 27, 1983, as amended, the following described project
was reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee of the City of Cupertino on
June 28, 2006.
PROTECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
TM-2006-07 (EA-2006-08) ,
Scott Kelly (Kelly Gordon Developement)
10114 Crescent Court
DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST
Tentative Map to subdivide a 2.4 acre property into five parcels, with parcel sizes
greater than 10,000 square feet and an approximately 35,000 square foot parcel for creek
dedication
FINDINGS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration finding that the project is consistent with the General Plan and
has no si iy' ic~t~~Jll[ironmental impacts.
,
\ I
\\ , Jf., I _ '-'-
\ ~ ~ .4'-1:.'H-.A-.
Steve Piaseckl
Director of Community Development
g/ercjREC EA-2006-08
t--3B