.03 TM-2007-04 Rick Bleszynski
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application:
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Property Location:
TM-2007-04 Agenda Date: April 24, 2007
Rick Bleszynski
Rick Bleszynski
10185, 10215j10227 Empire Avenue, APN 326-22-002, -029
Application Summary:
TENT A TIVE MAP to resubdivide three lots into three parcels, ranging from 6,650 to
7,047 square feet in a P(RES) planned development zoning district.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the tentative map, file no.
TM-2007-04, in accordance with the model resolution.
Project Data:
General Plan Designation:
Existing Zoning Designation:
Total Acreage:
Net square footage per parcel:
Existing Land Use:
Proposed Land Use:
Existing Density:
Proposed Density:
Low Density Residential (4.4 - 7.7 Duj gr. Ac.)
P(RES) Planned Residential Zoning District
0.491 gross acre
Lot 1: 6,650 sq.ft.; Lot 2: 6,650 sq.ft.;
Lot 3: 7,047 sq.ft.
Duplex and single-family residential
Single-family residential (3 dwellings)
6.11 duj gr. acre
6.11 duj gr. acre
Project Consistency with: General Plan:
Zoning:
Environmental Assessment:
Yes
Yes
Categorical Exemption
BACKGROUND:
The applicant, Rick Bleszynski, proposes to resubdivide three lots, consisting of two
residential lots and an abandoned half-street, into three usable lots that will
accommodate single-family residential development. Existing land uses on the project
site consist of a duplex on one lot and a single-family dwelling on another. The adjacent
land uses are single-family residences to the north and east, a duplex to the south, and
single-family residences and a duplex to the west.
This neighborhood is a former unincorporated pocket that developed in the County
with a variety of residential land uses.
3-1
TM-2007-04
Page 2
April 24, 2007
DISCUSSION:
General Plan Conformance
The number of existing dwellings will equal the proposal and the overall density will
remain at 6.11 dwellings per gross acre, which is conforming to the general plan land
use designation.
Zoning Conformance
The planned development residential zoning for this neighborhood recognized the
historical development patterns of residential use in this area that do not generally
conform to City development standards. The zoning states that single-family
residences should strive to follow the R1 zoning standards, and duplexes should follow
the R2 zoning standards. The proposed lot sizes and dimensions are more than
adequate to develop under the R1 zoning standards at a future date with lot sizes over
6,000 square feet and lot widths of 70 feet. The proposed lot sizes are considered
substandard for duplex development, which is not contemplated.
Residential development plans have not been submitted yet. In this P(RES) zoning
district a Two-story Residential Permit is required for a R1 zone-conforming, two-story
residence. Otherwise, a use permit hearing before the Planning Commission is required
for non-R1-conforming residences.
Project Trees
The project site was surveyed by the City Arborist, David Babby, who prepared the
attached report titled: "A Tree Inventory and Evaluation of the Proposed Three-Lot
Subdivision at 10215 & 10185 Empire Avenue, Cupertino, California" dated March 1,
2007 (Exhibit A). The data in the table below is keyed to the tables and map found in
the report.
Tree Inventory
Tree Name Trunk Suitability for
Tree Size Tree Arborist
No. (inches) Condition Preservation Recommendations
1 Bay (California) 6.5, 6 Fair Low
Laurel
2 Ca Black 13 Fair Low
Walnut
3 Ca Black 12 Fair Low
Walnut
4 Crape Mvrtle 2.5 Good Moderate Retain
5 Flowering 4.5 Good Moderate Retain
Crabapple
6 Maple 14 Poor Low
7 Chinese Tallow 6 Fair Low
Tree
3';)
TM-2007-04
Page 3
April 24, 2007
Trunk Suitability for
Tree Size Tree Arborist
No. Tree Name (inches) Condition Preservation Recommendations
8 Chinese Tallow 8 Good Moderate
Tree
9 Fruit tree 9 Poor Low
(Prunus sp.)
10 Italian Stone Pine 12.5 Fair Moderate
11 Chinese Hackberry 3 Fair Low
12 Italian Stone Pine 20.5 Fair Moderate
13 Norfolk Is. Pine 4 Good Moderate
14 Chinese Hackberry 4 Fair Low
15 Norfolk Is. Pine 5 Good Moderate
16 Italian Stone Pine 13.5 Good Moderate
17 Bigleaf Maple 6 Poor Low
18 Deodar Cedar 7 Good High Retain
19 Almond 10 Fair Moderate
20 Colorado Blue 3.5 Good Moderate
Spruce
21 Deodar Cedar 10.5 Dead Low
22 Japanese 8 Good Moderate
Persimmon
23 So. Magnolia 12.5 Good High Retain
24 Colorado 8 Good High Retain
Spruce
25 Colorado Blue 11 Good High Retain
Spruce
26 English Walnut 13 Poor Low
27 Holl ywood 15.5 Fair Moderate Retain
Juniper
28 Hollywood 6 Fair Low
J uni per
29 English Yew 10 Fair Low
30 English Yew 10 Fair Low
31 English Yew 10 Fair Low
None of the trees are of the appropriate species and trunk size to qualify as specimen
trees under the City's Heritage and Specimen Trees Ordinance. With respect to the
draft protected tree ordinance under consideration by the City Council, none of the
targeted trees are of a species or trunk size to be classified as protected, except for one
Deodar Cedar (tree no. 21) that is already dead.
3,:)
TM-2007-04
Page 4
April 24, 2007
The applicant is proposing to remove 11 trees of the 31 inventoried, which are either
dead, in poor condition or locate in the development footprint of the houses (tree nos. 2,
3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 21 and 22.) There are six other trees not shown as proposed for
removal that are also in the development footprints and are likely to be removed (tree
nos. 11, 14, 15, 29, 30 and 31.)
Staff is recommending that several trees be slated for preservation that could grow to a
sufficient size and stature to be a genuine property and neighborhood asset. The trees
are:
Tree No. Tree Name Trunk Size (inches)
18 Deodar Cedar 7
23 Southern Magnolia 12.5
24 Colorado Spruce 8
.25 Colorado Blue Spruce 11
Tree protection measures have been incorporated in the resolution for approval,
including the arborist's recommendations, tree protection bond and the requirement of
a recorded tree protection covenant.
The 11 trees proposed for removal have an appraised value of $5,390. The six other
trees that are likely to be removed have an appraised value of $290. The value total for
the 17 trees is thus $5,680. This value is approximately equivalent to one new 24-inch
box tree, one new 36-inch box tree and two new 48-inch box trees. Staff recommends
planting either Coastal Redwoods or Deodar Cedars as replacements.
Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner C ~ r-
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development 0 ,-\--0 <"
Enclosures: Model Resolution for TM-2007-04
Exhibit A: Arborist Report
Plan Set
G: IPlanninglP DREPOR lipcTMreports \2006tmreports \TM-2007 -04. doc
?/'1
TM-2007-04
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO.
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A
TENT A TIVE MAP TO CREATE THREE PARCELS, BETWEEN 6,650 AND 7,047
SQUARE FEET, AT 10185, 10215/10227 EMPIRE A VENUE
SECTION I: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application
for a Tentative Parcel 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 is not likely
to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and
unavoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat.
5) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements associated
there 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 Parcel Map is hereby approved,
subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2
thereof; and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this
resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application
No. TM-2007-04 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of
April 24, 2007, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
3/)
Resolution No.
Page 2
TM-2007 -04
April 24, 2007
SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: TM-2007-04
Applicant/Owner: Rick Bleszynski
Location: 10185, 10215/10227 Empire Avenue
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
The recommendation of approval is based on the Tentative Parcel Map titled: "APN
326-22-029 TENT A TIVE MAP CUPERTINO" consisting of 1 page labeled Sheet 1 of
1, and dated'2/6/07, except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this
Resolution.
2. DEMOLITION REQUIREMENTS
All buildings and structures proposed for demolition shall be removed prior to final
map approval. All demolished buildings and site materials shall be recycled to the
maximum extent feasible subject to the Building Official. The applicant shall
provide evidence that materials will be recycled prior to issuance of demolition
permi t.
3. 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.
4. 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, which are the Deodar
Cedar, Southern Magnolia, Colorado Spruce and Colorado Blue Spruce: trees no. 18,
23, 24 and 25. In addition, the following measures shall be added to the protection
plan:
. ';r F or trees to be retained, chain link fencing and other root protection shall
be installed around the dripline of the tree prior to any project site work.
.';r No parking or vehicle traffic shall be allowed under root zones, unless
using buffers approved by the Project Arborist.
!3..~
Resolution No.
Page 3
TM-2007 -04
April 24, 2007
-> 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 dripline of
the tree.
~ Wood chip mulch shall be evenly spread inside the tree projection fence to a
four-inch depth.
~ Tree protection conditions shall be posted on the tree protection barriers.
~ Retained trees shall be watered to maintain them in good health.
~ A covenant on the properties shall be recorded that identifies all the protected
trees, prior to final occupancy.
Additional tree protection measures are recommended and specified in the
March I, 2007 arborist report prepared by Arbor Resources and titled: /I A
Tree Inventory and Evaluation of the Proposed Three-Lot Subdivision at
10215 and 10185 Empire Avenue, Cupertino, California./I These report
recommendations are incorporated by reference into these conditions of
approval.
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.
5. TREE PROTECTION BOND
The applicant shall provide a tree protection bond in the amount of $12,000 to
ensure protection of trees nos. 18, 23, 24 and 25 on the site prior to issuance of
grading, demolition or building 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.
6. TREE REPLACEMENT
The applicant shall plant as replacement trees Coastal Redwoods or Deodar Cedars in the
following quantities and sizes: one 24-inch box, one 36-inch box and two 48-inch box trees.
The location and type of trees shall be incorporated into the building plans to be reviewed
and approved by the Director of Community Development.
3-'7
Resolution No.
Page 4
TM-2007-04
April 24, 2007
SECTION IV:
DEPARTMENT
7. OFF SITE IMPROVEMENTS
Curbs and gutters, sidewalks, streetlights, street widening and related structures
shall be installed in accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City
Engineer.
CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS
If street lighting is required, street lighting shall be installed and shall be as
approved by the City Engineer. Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to
preclude glare and other forms of visual interference to adjoining properties, and
shall be no higher than the maximum height permitted by the zone in which the
site is located.
8. GRADING
Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance
with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404
permits maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/ or Regional
Water Quality Control Board as appropriate.
9. DRAINAGE
Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
10. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities
Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of
Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of
underground utility devices. Ordinance No. 331 requires all overhead lines to be
underground whether the lines are new or existing. The developer shall submit
detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject
to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer.
11. 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. Grading Permit Fee:
$ 6% of On Site Improvement Costs or
$ 2,060.00 minimum
$ 5 % of Off Site Improvement Costs or
$ 2,194.00 minimum
b. Checking and Inspection Fee:
.3~f)
Resolution No.
Page 5
TM-2007 -04
April 24, 2007
c. Development Maintenance Deposit:
d. Storm Drainage Fee:
e. Power Cost:
f. Map Checking Fees:
g. Park Fees:
$ 2,000.00
$ 602.57
**
$ 3,348.00
$ 15,750.00
Bonds (Required):
a. On-Site Improvements Bond: 100% Performance Bond
b. Off-Site Improvements Bond: 100% Performance Bond; 100% Labor/Material
Bond
-The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule
adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified
at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the
event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then
current fee schedule.
** Developer is required for one-year power cost for streetlights
12. EASEMENTS
The applicant must obtain written approval from each utility company (PG&E,
California Water, Cupertino Sanitary District), Santa Clara County Fire and City of
. Cupertino to determine the type and location of easements on said parcel map.
13. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water
Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil.
14. AMENDED DEVELOPMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP)
REQUIREMENTS
a. Permanent Stormwater Quality BMPs Required
In accordance with chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and
Watershed Protection, of the City Code, all development and redevelopment
projects shall include permanent BMPs in order to reduce the water quality
impacts of stormwater runoff from the entire site for the life of the project.
b. Stormwater Management Plan Required
The applicant shall submit a Stormwater Management Plan for this project.
The permanent storm water quality best management practices (BMPs)
included in this plan shall be selected and designed in accordance with chapter
:3-9'
Resolution No.
Page 6
TM-2007-04
April 24, 2007
9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the City
Code.
c. BMP.Agreements
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.
CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF
ENGINEERING/SURVEYING 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 24th day of April 2007, at a Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll
call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
Steve Piasecki, Director
Community Development Department
Lisa Giefer, Chairperson
Planning Commission
G: \Planning\PDReportlRes\2007\ TM-2007 -04.doc
3,.tO
."'.......'.
~... .. .
ARBOR RESOURCES
Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care
Exhibit A
A TREE INVENTORY AND EVALUATION
OF THE PROPOSED THREE-LOT SUBDIVISION
AT 10215 & 10185 EMPIRE AVENUE
CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
APPLICANT: Rick Bleszvnski
APNS: 326-22-002 & 326-22-029
Submitted to:
Colin lung
Community Development Department
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
Prepared by:
David L. Babby, RCA
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #399
ISA Certified Arborist #WE-4001A
March 1, 2007
P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 . Email: arborresources@comcasLnet
Phone: 650.654.3351 . Fax: 650.240.0777 . Licensed Contractor #796763
3-11
David 1. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist
March 1, 2007
SECTION
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
6.1
6.2
EXHIBITS
A
B
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE
PAGE
INTRODUCTION .... .................. .... ...... ... ...... ..... ............. 1
TREE COUNT AND COMPOSITION ....00............................1
SUITABILITY FOR TREE PRESERVATION ....................... 3
TREES TO POTENTIALLY RETAIN .................................3
REPLACEMENT VALUES ...............................................5
RECOMMENDATIONS ........... ............... ............. ............ 5
Design Guidelines ............................................. .... . . . . ..5
Protection Measures Before and During Construction . . .... . . .. .. 7
EXHIBITS
TITLE
TREE~ENTORYTABLE
SITE MAP
J ,/ ;)
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist
March 1, 2007
1.0 INTRODUCTION
I have been retained by the City of Cupertino Community Development Department to
inventory and evaluate trees located at 10215 and 10185 Empire A venue, Cupertino. The
proposed project involves subdividing two existing lots into three lots for the purpose of
constructing three new, single-family residences; this process also involves demolishing
two existing dwellings. I visited the site on 2/27/07 and this report presents my analysis
and recommendations.
The plan reviewed for this report is a Tentative Map prepared by KW Engineering, Inc.,
dated 2/6/07. A copy of this plan is presented in Exhibit B and identifies the assigned
numbers and approximate tree locations.
2.0 TREE COUNT AND COMPOSITION
Thirty-one trees of 19 vanous speCIes were inventoried for this report. They are
sequentially numbered as 1 thru 31 and the table below identifies their name, number and
percentage. Specific data recorded for each tree is presented in Exhibit A.
PERCENT
NAME TREE NUMBER(S) COUNT OF TOTAL
California Laurel 1 1 3%
Walnuts 2,3,26 3 10%
Crape Myrtle 4 1 3%
Crabapple 5 1 3%
Maple 6,17 2 6%
Chinese Tallow 7,8 2 6%
Fruit Tree 9,22 2 6%
10215 & 10185 Empire Avenue, Cupertino
City of Cupertino Community Development Department
Page 1 of9
~ --I '3
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist
March 1, 2007
PERCENT
NAME TREE NUMBERCS) COUNT OF TOTAL
Italian Stone Pines 10, 12, 16 3 10%
Chinese Hackberry 11, 14 2 6%
Norfolk Island Pine 13, 15 2 6%
Deodar Ced ar 18,21 2 6%
Almond 19 1 3%
Colorado Spruce 20,24,25 3 10%
Southern Magnoli a 23 1 3%
Hollywood Juniper 27,28 2 6%
English Yew 29-31 3 10%
Total
31
100%
All trees are relatively young and were planted in the recent past. None are indigenous to
the area.
Due to the trees' species and/or size, none of the inventoried trees are defmed as "specimen
trees" per Section 14.18.020(1) of the Ordinance.
Six of the inventoried trees are missing from the Tentative Map. They include #4, 11, 14
and 29-31 and their locations, as presented in Exhibit B, are approximate and shall not be
construed as being surveyed.
For identification purposes, I attached round, metallic tags to the trees' trunks. These tags
contain engraved numbers that correspond to tree numbers presented in this report
10215 & 10185 Empire Avenue, Cupertino
City of Cupertino Community Development Department
Page 2 of9
3 ~f tf
David 1. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist
March 1, 2007
3.0 SliT ABILITY FOR TREE PRESERVATION
Each tree has been assigned either a "high," "moderate" or "low" . suitability for
preservation rating as a means to cumulatively measure their physiological health,
structural integrity, location, size and specie type. These ratings and applicable tree
numbers are presented below; note that the "high" category is comprised of four trees (or
13-percent), the "moderate" category twelve trees (or 39-percent), and the "low" category
fifteen trees (or 48-percent).
Hie:h: Applies to trees #18, 23, 24 and 25. These trees appear vigorous and in stable
condition. They have a high potential of providing long-term contribution to the site
and are considered the most suitable for retention and protection.
Moderate: Applies to trees #4, 5, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20, 22 and 27. They
appear worthy of retention; however, their longevity and contribution is less than those
of high suitability and more frequent care is needed during their remaining life span. In
general, these trees are worthy of protection, however, not at the expense of major
design revisions.
Low: Applies to trees #1-3, 6, 7, 9, 11, 14, 17, 21, 28 and 28-31. These trees are
predisposed to irreparable health problems and/or structural defects that are expected to
worsen regardless of measures employed. In many instances, they are in a weak, dying
or dead condition and present a significant risk of tree and/or branch failure.
4.0 TREES TO POTENTIALLY RETAIN
My study reveals that 8 trees appear suitable for retention and can likely provide an
amenity to the future development. They include #4, 5, 16, 18, 23, 24,25 and 27, all of
which are situated either beyond or immediately inside or outside the proposed envelopes.
Given their locations, it appears probable that some or most can be retained and
10215 & 10185 Empire Avenue, Cupertino
City of Cupertino Community Development Department
Page 3 of9
.:3 -(5
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist
March 1, 2007
successfully protected throughout development. Guidelines for achieving this are
presented in Section 6.0 of this report. A discussion of these trees is presented below.
· Trees #4 and 5 are small, ornamental trees located along the rear property
boundary of parcell. Both can seemingly serve as a landscape amenity for the
future development, and given their small size, could easily be relocated or, if
necessary, replaced.
· Tree #16 is a moderately-sized, 13.5-inch diameter, Italian stone pine situated in
the front yard of parcel 2, about five feet from the proposed building envelope.
This tree has a relatively good structure and form (especially compared to the other
two stone pines on-site) and appears vigorous.
· Tree #18 is a young, seven-inch diameter deodar cedar that is also situated on
parcel 2 and near the sidewalk. It appears in overall vigorous and stable condition
and can be expected to serve as an amenity for the future development.
· Tree #23 is a tall, 12.5-inch diameter southern magnolia and is seemingly the most-
prominent tree on-site. It is situated in the front yard of parcel 3 and is a sufficient
distance from the building envelope. This tree appears stable but in only good to
fair health.
. Trees #24 (8-inch diameter) and 25 (ll-inch diameter) are small spruce trees
situated along the southern side of parcel 3. Tree #24 is located near the sidewalk
and has the greatest probability of being retained. Tree #25 is just within the
proposed building envelope and can possibly be retained with a sufficient setback
from its trunk.
· Tree #27 is a sizeable juniper that is situated along the western property boundary
of parcel 3. This type of tree is very tolerant of impacts related to development and
its survival is highly likely. Note that its trunk is located partially on the
neighboring property.
10215 & 10185 Empire A venue, Cupertino
City of Cupertino Community Development Department
Page 4 of9
3-/~
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist
March 1, 2007
5.0 REPLACEMENT VALVES
Per City standard,. the appraised value (i.e. assigned monetary value) of trees being
removed is used as the basis for identifying replacement values (fruit-bearing trees are
exempt). The appraised value of each qualifying tree is presented within the last column of
the table in Exhibit A and has been calculated using the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 91h
Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), 2000.
The size and amounts of trees to install will need to be roughly equal to the total, appraised
value of trees removed. Replacement tree values and sizes are derived from past City
arborist reports and are as follows: $375 for a 24-inch box; $1.000 for a 36-inch box size
tree; $2.125 for a 48-inch box; $2.650 for a 54-inch box; $3.500 for a 60-inch box size;
and $10.000 for a 72-inch box.
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations presented within this section serve as guidelines for achieving adequate
protection of trees that will be retained. They should be carefully followed and
incorporated into construction plans. Please note that any or all recommendations are
subject to revision upon reviewing project plans.
6.1 Design Guidelines
1. The location, assigned number, and trunk diameter of all inventoried trees should be
shown on all site-related plans and reflect information presented within this report.
Also, the circles identifying the trees' trunks should be shown to scale.
2. The canopy dimensions of trees to be retained should be shown on the site-related
plans, as well as conform to the dimensions presented within the table in Exhibit A.
10215 & 10185 Empire Avenue, Ctpertino
City of Cupertino Community Development Department
Page 50f9
3-/1
David 1. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist
March 1, 2007
3. For design purposes, all features should be established outside from beneath the
canopies of retained trees, to include future residences, trenching, soil cuts, fill, and
soil scraping. In areas where this is not feasible, the tree-related impacts should be
reviewed to verify whether the tree can likely tolerate the anticipated impacts.
4. The following plans should be reviewed for tree-related impacts: site, grading and
drainage, underground utility/service, building elevations, and landscaping (both
irrigation and planting).
5. All walkway and pathways proposed beneath a tree's canopy (including base materials,
edging and forms) should be established entirely on top of existing soil grade (i.e. a no-
dig design).
6. This report (or a revised, future version) shall be incorporated into the fmal set of
project plans, titled Sheets T-l, T-2, etc. (Tree Protection Instructions), and referenced
on all site-related plans (i.e. site plans, grading and drainage plan, and landscape plans).
7. Trenching for utilities and services should be routed outside the canopies of retained
trees. I should be consulted in the event this is not feasible.
8. The permanent and temporary drainage design for the project should not require water
being discharged beneath the trees' canopies.
9. The proposed landscape design should conform to the following guidelines:
a. Turf and plant material should be avoided beneath the canopies of trees # 18, 24 and
25. As an alternative, I suggest a four-inch layer of coarse wood chips (decorative
or from a tree company). Plant material and turf installed beneath canopies of all
other trees should be limited and planted at least five from their trunks.
b. Irrigation should not spray within five feet from the trunks of existing trees and not
be in contact with the trunks of new trees. Irrigation should not be applied beneath
the canopies of trees #18,24 and 25.
10215 & 10185 Empire Avenue. Cupertino
City o/Cupertino Community Development Department
Page 60/9
5'16
David 1. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist
March 1, 2007
c. New trees being installed should be double-staked with rubber tree ties, and all
forms of irrigation shall be of an automatic drip or soaker hose system placed on
the soil surface and not in a sleeve.
d. Trenching for irrigation or lighting should be avoided beneath the canopies. If
necessary, they should be routed in a radial direction to the trunks.
e. Stones, mulch and fencing should not be placed against the trunks of existing or
new trees. Plastic ground cover should also be avoided beneath canopies.
f. Tilling beneath canopies should be avoided, including for weed control.
g. Bender board or other edging material proposed beneath the canopies should be
established on top of existing soil grade (such as by using vertical stakes).
10. To achieve the greatest assurance of proper installation, all new trees shall be installed,
including necessary irrigation, by an experienced and knowledgeable state-licensed
landscape contractor. The work shall be performed to professional industry standards.
6.2 Protection Measures before and during Development
11. Tree protective fencing shall be installed prior to any demolition, grading or surface
scraping. It shall be comprised of six-foot high chain link mounted on eight-foot tall,
two-inch diameter steel posts that are driven 24 inches into the ground and spaced no
more than 10 feet apart. Once established, the fencing must remain undisturbed and be
maintained throughout construction until fmal inspection. Please note that the
recommended fencing layout can be provided upon review of future plans that identify
all inventoried trees, specify trees to be removed, and show the trees' canopies and
accurate trunk diameters. Also, note that fencing should be installed to encompass the
entire area beneath tree canopies and be established no further than five feet from a
home's foundation and two feet beyond the edge of an existing or proposed driveway
and sidewalk.
12. Unless otherwise approved, all construction activities must be conducted outside the
designated fenced areas (even after fencing is removed). These activities include, but
are not limited to, the following: demolition, grading, stripping of topsoil, trenching,
10215 & 10185 Empire Avenue, Cupertino
City of Cupertino Community Development Department
Page 70f9
3-19
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist
March 1, 2007
equipment cleaning, stockpiling/dumping of materials, and equipment/vehicle
operation and parking.
13. All existing, unused lines or pipes beneath the canopies of retained trees should be
abandoned and cut off at existing soil grade.
14. Prior to construction, a four-inch layer of coarse wood chips ()4- to %-inch in size)
should be spread on unpaved soil beneath the canopies of retained trees (but not piled
against the trunks). These wood chips can be obtained from tree service companies
and/or by contacting www.reuserinc.com.
15. Where beneath tree canopies, overcut and trenching should not extend 12 to 24 inches
from the edge of a future foundation or walkway. This specification should also
pertain to trenching for the installation of any drain lines, utilities and services.
16. Any approved digging or trenching beneath a canopy shall be manually performed
using shovels. Roots exposed with diameters of two inches and greater should remain
intact and not be damaged. In the case of trenching, the conduit or line may need to be
tunneled beneath.
17. For the first three feet below existing grade, a post-hole digger shall be used when
digging post-holes for any sections of new site fencing installed beneath tree canopies.
In the event roots of one to two inches in diameter become encountered, the hole(s)
should be shifted to either side.
18. Recommendations that are presented within Section 6.1 of this report and pertain to
site development should also be followed.
19. Throughout development during the months of May thru October, supplemental water
should be supplied to retained trees. In doing so, I recommend soaker hoses are used
and spread in a manner to evenly distribute water to the root zone beneath the canopies
10215 & 10185 Empire Avenue, Cupertino
City of Cupertino Community Development Department
Page 8 of9
:3 "JO
David 1. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist
March 1, 2007
(but not against their trunks). The rate should be 10 gallons per every inch of trunk
diameter applied every three to four weeks.
20. The pruning and removal of trees shall be performed under supervision of an individual
certified by the ISA. All pruning . shall abide by ISA standards and be limited to the
removal of dead branches, encroachments, and reduction of heavy limb weight.
21. To avoid unnecessary root loss of retained trees, any stump being removed beneath
their canopies should occur using a stump grinder rather than being pulled up with an
excavator or backhoe.
22. Great care must be taken by equipment operators to position their equipment to avoid
the trunks and branches of trees.
23. The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited
beneath canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage beneath or near canopies.
Herbicides should not be used beneath the trees' canopies; where used on site, they
should be labeled for safe use near trees.
Prepared By: IJv:xJ ~
David L. Babby, A
Date: March 1, 2007
~,;;;~~
flff A~":':"-"";~'\
li~ AS '.'\\
l.\~ !tS\C\,~E.!!
'\~. kJ..L:l I\.' /1
\~.;. ,~/;
~"/r~,,:.. ...,.>,.;/
Uj" ._:. //"
.~.-/
10215 & 10185 Empire Avenue, Cupertino
City of Cupertino Community Development Department
Page 9 of9
3 ....,')/
TREE
NO_
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
TREE NAME
~c;
c..",
I "a
~....
- c..
.5 c..
'-'<t:
~ E
;;; ca
~E:
is.z
~.g
::l --
.... ::l
[C-oO
I:::
.~
ca
C:">
Q) ~
'" 0
Q)....l
.... --
~ Q)
.... Ol
~ ~
>."0
_ 0
:'::::;E
:&1==
_ en
-:; :E
C/l '-'
~
o
r55
-
o
Z
~
-
'"
....
o
~
I::: Ib
0-';:
".::: 0
:.0-
c: '"
o Q)
u'7?
~~
-0
~o
::r:::::
~
-
'"
....
o
~
-€ Ib
....-,;:
~o
- .
c: -
- '"
"@~
3 'b
~~
20
- -
C/l '-'
'0
ca
Q)
c:C1
01::;
_ 0
-- 0
"O~
C:I::;
(3 -;
~~
.... 0
Q) 0
;'0
0,-,
~
S
:c:
en
-OJ
::r::
"0
Q)
0;
-~
'"
~
'"
c:
tU
E:
c:
o
Q)
::l
"@
>
"@
'"
-0;
....
c..
c..
<t:
ll)
ll)
....
[C-o
>.
c..
o
c:
ca
u~
"'O~
~'-'
ca"O
a ca
".;:: ~
'" c..
~C/l
Q)
Q)
....
[C-o
c:
Q)
a
-0
Q)
c..
C/l
California Laurel
( Umbel/ularia calif arnica )
Comments: Beneath high-voltage lines_
California Black Walnut
(Juglans hindsii )
Comments:
California Black Walnut
(Juglans hindsii )
Comments:
Crape Myrtle
(Lagerstraemia indica)
Comments:
Flowering Crabapple
(Malusfloribunda)
Comments:
Maple
(Acer sp.)
Comments: Previously topped (severely).
Chinese Tallow Tree
(Sapium sebiferum )
Comments: Grows within tree #lO's canopy - very crowded growing environment.
Chinese Tallow Tree
(Sapium sebiferum )
Comments:
Italian Stone Pine
(Pinus pinea )
Comments:
Site: 10215 10185 Empire Avenue, Cupertino
Prepared for: City of Cupertino Comm. Develop. Depart.
Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA
10f3
March 1, 2007
3/d3
TREE
NO.
TREE NAME
Chinese Hackbeny
(Celtis sinensis)
Comments:
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
~d
0..",
I 0;
~....
. 0..
.S 0..
'-"'-ct:
:u c
Q) '"
e~
.~ '""
o<B
-2~
::l .-
.... ::l
f-<O
c
.~
<<;
E::~
Q) ~
'" 0
~t::!
i:l....B
.... '"
c.8 ~
0"8
:.::::;E
:0",;:;
"'-
_ eo
. :; ::E
r/) '-'
-
o
Z
~
.....
'"
....
o
~
c II
o~
"= 0
:.a -~
c '"
o Q)
U'i]l
-:5';ft.
- 0
~::
..... '-'
~
-
'"
....
o
~
.-2 I~
~~
E -~
- '"
- Q)
"'~
.... II
E~
28
U5:::
~
'"
Q)
cO
01:;
..... 0
.- 0
"Oi:l...
C1:::;
o ._
U '"
~5;;
.... 0
Q) 0
:>0
o~
~
~
'-"
:c
eo
'0
::c:
"0
Q)
<<;
.g
'"
W
'"
c
'"
~
c
o
~
o
..c
r/)
Q)
::l
o;j
>-
o;j
'"
'(;3
....
0..
0..
-ct:
Q)
Q)
....
f-<
;>-.
0..
o
C
'"
u~
"t:Sc:t::
Q) '-"'
<<;"0
e '"
0= ~
'" 0..
Wr/)
Q)
Q)
....
f-<
c
Q)
e
"u
Q)
0..
r/)
Italian Stone Pine
(Pinus pinea )
Comments: Five trunks originate at three feet above grade.
Norfolk Island Pine
(Araucaria heterophylla)
Comments:
Chinese Hackbeny
(Celtis sinensis)
Comments:
Norfolk Island Pine
(Araucaria heterophylla)
Comments:
Italian Stone Pine
(Pinus pinea )
Comments:
BigleafMaple
(Acer macrophyllum)
Comments: Has been topped.
Deodar Cedar
(Cedrus deodara)
Comments:
Almond
(Prunus dulcis)
Comments:
Colorado Blue Spruce
(Picea p. 'Glauca')
Comments:
Site: 10215 10185 Empire Avenue, Cupertino
Prepared for: City of Cupertino Comm. Develop. Depart.
Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA
20f3
March 1, 2007
'3 ~;)tf
TREE.
NO.
TREE 'INVENTORY TABLE
TREE NAME
Q)d
0.. .~
, cd
,-.. ...
. c..
3~
~ ~
Ei5:
.S ....
oc.S
~.g
::l .-
.... ::l
f-O
c:::
.9
'i<i
t~
ll> 0
~e2
~B
... cd
c.E ~
.0"8
:.:::~
:E-;:.
cd-
..... bD
.:; :E
ifJ ~
'"
s::
cd
i5:
ll> c:::
ll>
~ 0
c::: ~
ll> 0
E ...c::
'u ifJ
ll> .....
c.. 0
ifJ Z
ll>
::l
OJ
>
OJ
'"
.~
c..
c..
<t:
ll>
ll>
...
f-
,-.. ,-..
..... .....
~ '" '0
,-.. ...
0 0
S ~ ~ cd
ll>
:c >, Ib ell c::: 0
c.. s:: ~ "i: ~ .g l::;
bD 0 .~ ~o 0
Jj c::: 0 :a 0
cd :a ..... ..... . p...
u c::: ..... c:::
,-.. c::: '" ...... '" l::;
-0 -0 c::: 0 ll> ll> 0 'e;j
ll> ll> U i::l:l OJ i::l:l U
'i<i 'i<i '-' II E II f.L.
-0 -5 'if. ~ OJ ::c
.3 ,3 cd r..> 0 ... 0
~ OJ 0 ::l 0 ll> 0
'" '" c.. ll> 0 ;:: 0 ;> S
w W ifJ ::c ifJ ~ 0
Deodar Cedar
(Cedrus deodara)
Comments:
Japanese Persimmon
(Diospyros kaki )
Comments:
Southern Magnolia
(Magnolia grandifIora )
Comments:
Comments:
Colorado Blue Spruce
(Picea p. 'Glauca')
Comments:
English Walnut
(Juglans regia)
Comments: Tree has been pollarded and is in poor condition.
Hollywood Juniper
(Junipents c. 'Torulosa') 75% 50%
Comments: Its trunk is partially situated on the neighboring property. This plant is more of a shrub than a tree.
English Yew
(Taxus baccata) 25%
Comments: Has been topped and is situated against existing home.
English Yew
(Taxus baccata)
Comments: Has been topped and is situated against existing home.
English Yew
(Taxus baccata)
Comments: Has been topped and is situated against existing home.
Site: 10215 10185 Empire Avenue, Cupertino
Prepared for: City of Cupertino Comm. Develop. Depart.
Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA
30f3
March 1, 2007
3~(~ 5
; I,IH
rnK
J':>lF"IR
~\~~~
~ '''L---~ _
D';
PG&E VAULT
~E)C.B.
lC310.81
RIM.3u7.81
/----
/
I
~
\
'()
~
EXISTING R/W
~N
10215 & 10185 EMPIRE AVENUE, CUPERTINO
z
o
a
z
<l:
ro
<l:
0:
o
....
l/l
l/l
'"
0:
o
>-
z
<(
"
W
0:
l/l
l/l
z Vl
<( Vl
:::E ,
L.l..-.~________
n:: ~
w
Q:
w
_n.....J",.
...
~
,
...
~;!.
cr-- \...J ":0-
.~. ~--_. ~~'EMPIRE
IJ.J ..-.
~ <1: _
<(. ~---,
---;;: ~
~ >,
~
(N)R/W
. Ncl:19'Q~ _.;;-..,
.~. \7' smEE"T/Df::C;:"~j~~ c.J
ll.W7"T{' ~~RUIT ~U ;;i
~1' ~
u.I [<( ...., U1
g!:: ~ 14"PtIE.,;1' 61O"FRUIT.lIf.'2 J ~
Vl~~~~J' ETB'~I< ,'. 1
'II.. t - @ "R~'E ~;. .;~~O)2~ ~. k. ~It
- " , Vl . -1/01.8 -l;.i . - i::;'
~ ",. .... ....,... .1I"'f.j .1,
~ :~8 '.~' l' 3 ':;;;;~"C\'PR~~ is t
~ ..,. . I,. ~ lVi
:x . ~<. 2S"PIN; ~1aCEL 2 .
in~. 1'~EA=7000 S.F. GRos,:,I".
...,/ . ,'..':' 6510 S.F. NET
TREE /; ~1'&. ; I
6"P1/~E)( y. )(1~Uli I to" ,
7:, <f"~NE (', '" I t' (E)ev R II"
----'-20': SE &CK l 20' SE TBACK . G
.., Fi RE - LACE .
(E) GARAG ....
TO BE REMOVED. Q Z8 . . I (TRi~,
.....,],,] ~. . '. '03' \"
..... ,0 "J' . v' J 1l'. SWAL
1.27.--_ -.J... "Ii _
217.93 6"CYPRESS 14'CYPRES~
,...
L- 20' S[iOJ\CK
CI r--\
~ ~I "-...... (E) 1 STORY H0
'r. ~' TO BE REMOVED \
l/l GARAGE 313.83 )
. ~ FF314.5
" PAD313.5
. PARCEL 1
;-'1 AREA=7000 S.F. GROSS
g ~1 2 6510 SF NET
'~I- l' EE -,3
<.0 I " :'Z"1REE
zl~" '~
:;:
Vl
:~.30 20' SET~1',
J r.M'IAr.r; ,,' .,.,
u .
<(
a:.
>-
w
l/l
PARCEL 3
AREA=7J9E ~F. GROSS
C906 S.F. "!::T
I ~'\.
Z
2()' SE 1BACK
46"TREE . '5'
~. -- ..
1'7, = 7~6' _
S20'19'00"W
~'..r, t.lt"})Y ,,% SWALUO./~
~ r __ _ ....
. .-- - ~.~
.:i:'~'
. ^:>
Map has been reduced in size and is not to scale,
GRAPJDC SCALE
. ~.. .
k,....... . . I I
(--)
1_.. II.
I
I
EXlS1IlCR/W
lNlDS or HCltlCl .. tlU1olIO
LJHlS or QAAOI.
J
LNlOS or WNlC
u.NDS or ANGER
LEGEND
[All'lHWOllll,
m
DIS1INC'n'fl: IIOl.JNDAWr - - - - .. - -
COII1alIl UII: .dA" . .C" -..... .y...,...~..... ...'........., .~.,..
COfIEIl LN - - -
PCNal POLE pp
WAlER llE1ER llII
S'roRII DRMI SO
SNlITNfY sno ss
EllISlINO ELEVA1IOIl 3l1'.1:l\l
PIIClPOSED EUVA1IClIl 514.08
1REE TO BE SAIlED .
1REE TO BE IlEIlO\O ..
WAlER VAL~ 'iW
~ ~
EAR'IIl $WALE ,.....
+ u' t
~
.... -.E
BENCH 11_'
CITY IlENCII IIARIC AT TOP 0; CUAB ON N<l'1Il SlOE or Sl[\'EN CREEl< B.. 25'
EAST or CENlER LINE 0; IIIPERlAL AVE., EUVAllON 32!1. 17'
APN .~'-~~-D~.
-.- lEE ... -.- ~ -.- , '" lEE
f
KEY YAP
.... ........
APH 32e- 22-029 .. 32e- 22-002
CMNER " DE'IELOPEII: IIICK aESZVN9<l
AIlDlIESS: 1187 BELLCIlCNE ClllCl.E. SARATOCA. CA 95070
PREPARED BY: K W ENClMEIlING, INC.
51'" VAlLEY WAY. IILPlTAS, CA eo35
ElCIS1ING LAND USE: SINOI.E rAIIII.Y .. 1WO r.....LY
PIlCIPO!IED LAND USE: SINOI.E r.....n RESIDENllAL
OENERAL PlAN DESlGNA11ON: RESIDEII'1IAL 4.4- 7.7 DWC/AC.
ZllNItG: P{RES)
GROSS AREA-0,411 ACRES
NET AREA 0.457 ACRES
36 C. Y.
15 CoY.
~. 'pE~fLS
"'7 ~-(o 7
DAlE: 2/6/07
~ W f6~~~ 1IN!Xf:"
CIVIL ENGINEERS " LAND SURVEYORS " PLANNERS
516A VALLEY WAY
t.tILPIT AS. CA 950.35
TEL (408) 9.35-Sg48 fAX. (408) 9.35-9904
CI>lJ fU: 07774
CUPERTINO
SHEET 1 Of 1
fti4 ..A.. IF>>