SC 11-19-19 PacketCITY OF CUPERTINO
SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION
AGENDA
Environmental Education Center, 22221 McClellan Road
Thursday, November 21, 2019
4:00 PM
Amended Special Meeting
NOTICE AND CALL FOR A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CUPERTINO
SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a special meeting of the Sustainability Commission is
hereby called for Thursday, November 21, 2019 commencing at 4:00 p.m. at the
Environmental Education Center, 22221 McClellan Road, Cupertino, CA 95014. Said special
meeting shall be for the purpose of conducting business on the subject matters listed below
under the heading, “Special Meeting."
SPECIAL MEETING
Amended on 11/18/19 at 4:50 p.m. to add call for Special meeting notice.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1.Subject: Minutes from October 24, 2019
Recommended Action: Approve minutes from October 24, 2019
A - Draft Minutes
POSTPONEMENTS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the commission on any matter not
on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases, State law will prohibit the
commission from making any decisions with respect to a matter not listed on the agenda
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
OLD BUSINESS
Page 1
11/21/19
1 of 65
Sustainability Commission Agenda November 21, 2019
2.Subject: Discuss November 19th City Council Study Session on building electrification
policy and reach codes adoption process
Recommended Action: Discuss reach codes process and provide any feedback to staff
A - November 19, 2019 City Council Agenda
NEW BUSINESS
3.Subject: Review City of Cupertino Draft Ethics Protocol
Recommended Action: Review Draft Ethics Protocol and provide any written feedback
to staff
A - Draft Ethics Protocol
4.Subject: Discuss if limitations can be applied to natural gas usage in nonresidential
facilities via a fee structure or licensing process by the City
Recommended Action: Decide if the Commission wishes to address this topic as a
Work Program item
5.Subject: Discuss Protected Trees Ordinance (Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 14.18)
and staff update on recent assessment of Cupertino’s tree canopy
Recommended Action: Receive update and consider if this subject is of interest to the
Commission for future discussion
A - November 18, 2014 City Council Staff Report
B - December 2, 2014 City Council Staff Report
C - Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 14.18: Protected Trees
D - 2019 Cupertino Tree Canopy Assessment Report
6.Subject: Review submitted applications for 2019 Sustainability Grants for Students
program
Recommended Action: Review applications, select program awardees, and decide
grant amounts for each awardee
A - Sustainability Grants Applications Cover Page
STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), anyone who is planning to attend the
next meeting who is visually or hearing impaired or has any disability that needs special assistance
should call the City Clerk's Office at 408-777-3223, 48 hours in advance of the meeting to arrange for
assistance. Upon request, in advance, by a person with a disability, meeting agendas and writings
distributed for the meeting that are public records will be made available in the appropriate alternative
format. Also upon request, in advance, an assistive listening device can be made available for use
during the meeting.
Page 2
11/21/19
2 of 65
Sustainability Commission Agenda November 21, 2019
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the members after publication of the agenda will
be made available for public inspection. Please contact the City Clerk’s Office in City Hall located at
10300 Torre Avenue during normal business hours.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please be advised that pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code 2.08.100
written communications sent to the Cupertino City Council, Commissioners or City staff concerning a
matter on the agenda are included as supplemental material to the agendized item. These written
communications are accessible to the public through the City’s website and kept in packet archives. You
are hereby admonished not to include any personal or private information in written communications to
the City that you do not wish to make public; doing so shall constitute a waiver of any privacy rights
you may have on the information provided to the City.
Members of the public are entitled to address the members concerning any item that is described in the
notice or agenda for this meeting, before or during consideration of that item. If you wish to address the
members on any other item not on the agenda, you may do so during the public comment.
Page 3
11/21/19
3 of 65
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Text
Subject: Minutes from October 24, 2019
Approve minutes from October 24, 2019
File #:19-6552,Version:1
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/16/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
11/21/19
4 of 65
1
CITY OF CUPERTINO SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION
Environmental Education Center, 22221 McClellan Road
Thursday, October 24, 2019 4:00 p.m.
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
At 4:02 p.m. Chair Weber called the meeting to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Anna Weber, Gary Latshaw, Meera Ramanathan, Angela Chen, Vignesh
Swaminathan (arrived @ 4:04 p.m.). Absent: None.
Staff: André Duurvoort, Sustainability Manager; Gilee Corral, Sustainability Program Coordinator
Guests: Members of the public
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Subject: Minutes from September 19, 2019
Vice-Chair Latshaw moved and Commissioner Ramanathan seconded to approve the minutes from September
19. The motion carried. Ayes: Weber, Latshaw, and Ramanathan. Noes: None. Abstain: Chen. Absent:
Swaminathan.
POSTPONEMENTS - None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Bruce Karney talked about a new Civic Engagement Training for youth and distributed a handout.
Chair Weber moved and Vice-Chair Latshaw seconded to reorder the agenda items as follows: Item #3 then
agenda resumption at Item #2. The motion carried unanimously.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS – None.
NEW BUSINESS
3. Subject: Presentation from staff on draft Climate Action Plan progress report
Gilee Corral gave a presentation on the draft CAP progress report for 2018.
Chair Weber opened public comment and the following individuals spoke:
Jennifer Griffin talked about trees and the benefits of mature trees in the community.
Dashiell Leeds on behalf of the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter talked about building retrofits, educating
installers and residents, and cooperating to set regional goals around existing buildings.
Chair Weber closed public comment and the Commission discussed the CAP report update. Vice-Chair
Latshaw asked about the increase in natural gas usage in the community, and staff answered that it was due to
11/21/19
5 of 65
2
increases in the nonresidential sector. Vice-Chair Latshaw asked if the City has authority to control
nonresidential natural gas usage via licensing. The Commission discussed the idea, raising further questions
about whether it would be a tax, if the Commission could take it up as a Work Program item, etc.
Vice-Chair Latshaw started to make a motion to establish the regulatory authority the City has over existing
businesses. The Commission discussed the motion wording.
Commissioner Swaminathan moved and Vice-Chair Latshaw seconded to add to a future Commission agenda
to discuss the City’s authority to use a licensing or fee structure to restrict natural gas usage in facilities. The
motion carried unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS
1. Subject: Discuss policy options on green building code local amendments, including regional building
electrification reach codes and consideration of CALGreen Tier 1 and 2 options
Corral provided procedural guidance and reviewed the Commission’s options for making a recommendation
to Council on the reach codes. André Duurvoort presented staff’s policy recommendations and a summary of
public feedback received to date on Cupertino’s reach code adoption process. His presentation included
information on recent Council actions and draft reach code policies from neighboring cities for context.
Duurvoort noted Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE)’s heat pump water heater program and an upcoming
BayREN homeowner workshop on November 6th.
Chair Weber opened public comment and the following individuals spoke:
Bruce Naegel talked about concerns of indoor pollution and emissions associated with natural gas usage and
spoke in favor of minimizing the amount of natural gas usage.
Jennifer Griffin talked about the process of adopting reach codes, the recent PG&E power outage, propane
tanks and generators, and expressed her desire to ensure the public understands what the reach codes involve.
Ida Rose Sylvester on behalf of Fossil Free Buildings Silicon Valley spoke in favor of an all-electric reach code.
Dashiell Leeds on behalf of the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter spoke in favor of an all-electric reach code
similar to the City of Mountain View’s reach code – distributed written comments.
Sharon Refrem on behalf of AIA Silicon Valley spoke in favor of an all-electric reach code.
David Kaneda (Cupertino resident) spoke in favor of an all-electric reach code with no exceptions for gas
cooking.
Rhoda Fry (Cupertino resident) spoke in favor of an all-electric reach code and Tier 2 requirements if allowing
for mixed fuel, especially in high density projects, with no exemptions for low income housing. She expressed
her desire for the City to look into fire codes for continuous insulation.
Chair Weber closed public comment and the Commission engaged in an extensive discussion on the reach
code policy options. Multiple considerations, questions, and issues were raised, including:
11/21/19
6 of 65
3
• Vice-Chair Latshaw raised the urgency of climate change and arctic heating, spoke in favor of a natural
gas ban, noted that cost of construction is already so high, the increase cost of a gas line will not
disincentivize developers from installing gas.
• Commissioner Ramanathan agrees with electrification, raised the need for backup power during
outages. PG&E’s Power Safety Shutoff events and implications of these events on the reach code policy;
backup power options. Duurvoort clarified that reach codes will not preclude anyone from having
diesel of propane backup generators outside of their house or building.
• Staff recommendations on low rise residential as “mostly electric” were designed to gain the most
benefit in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction for the least cost.
• Commissioner Swaminathan raised need to consider longer term impacts of a natural gas ban, gas
infrastructure as stranded assets. Duurvoort recommended adding the transition from natural gas as a
discussion item for the November Commission meeting.
• SVCE incentives; options for incentivizing renovation or capping existing gas lines versus requiring all
electric new construction; cost effectiveness requirements by the state; confusion for developers having
to comply with different codes in the region.
• Use of exemptions, how to treat ADUs, whether to exempt commercial kitchens from an all-electric
requirement, desire to protect facilities that serve vulnerable populations (i.e. hospice care), how to
treat other uses (i.e. laboratories), need to balance burden on staff in dealing with lots of exemption
requests from developers. Duurvoort clarified that hospitals and educational facilities are not affected
by this building code amendment.
The Commission discussed draft policy options from the City of Mountain View and there was general
agreement that the Mountain View approach was in the right direction.
Commissioner Swaminathan made a motion to keep residential at the “2A” level per staff recommendation,
require all electric for commercial, and keep multi-family at the “high reach” level. The Commission discussed
the motion and it was withdrawn.
Commissioner Ramanathan moved to recommend to Council a reach code policy that would require
commercial office and retail to be all electric. Vice-Chair Latshaw seconded the motion. Commissioner
Swaminathan asked if it would include the land use that Mountain View defined, the Commission briefly
discussed this. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Swaminathan asked a member of the public who spoke at public comment who is a
professional architect if an all-electric code would slow down the permitting process for residential
development; she replied that she did not think it would, that it would be the same or faster for all electric as
for mixed fuel, with cost savings up front for the developer.
Duurvoort created a slide in his presentation to capture the Commission’s recommendations to City Council
on the building reach code policy. The Commission agreed policy recommendations for the building reach
code as follows:
Single-Family/Duplex (including detached ADUs):
All-Electric Required— (includes Heating/Cooling, Water Heater, Clothes Dryer, Cooking Appliances,
Fireplace and Fire Pit)
11/21/19
7 of 65
4
High rise Multi-Family (4+ stories), Mixed-Use, Hotel/Motel:
• All-Electric Required — (includes Heating/Cooling, Water Heater, Clothes Dryer, Cooking Appliances,
Fireplace and Fire Pit).
• For-Profit Kitchen applicants may appeal to use natural gas for cooking equipment, if listed.
• electrical equivalent alternative is not available. (This language is draft; final language to address
Council- approved revision TBD).
• Prewiring is required for future use of electric appliances where natural gas installed.
Commercial (Office, retail):
• All Electric—Heating/Cooling, Water Heater, Clothes Dryer, and Cooking Appliances.
• Natural Gas allowed in no cases.
• For-Profit Kitchen applicants may appeal to use natural gas for cooking equipment, if listed electrical
equivalent alternative is not available. (This language is draft; final language to address Council-
approved revision TBD).
• Prewiring is required for future use of electric appliances where natural gas installed.
Commissioner Swaminathan made a motion and Vice-Chair Latshaw seconded to approve the policy
recommendations as stated above. The motion passed unanimously.
The Commission took a break at 7:10 p.m. and Chair Weber resumed the meeting at 7:15 p.m.
Duurvoort reviewed the SVCE model code for electric vehicle charging infrastructure. He noted that there is
not a known “optimal” level for EV charging, and that a cost effectiveness study is not required for these
measures. The Commissioners discussed the model code with some discussion, including possibility of going
to 100% for EV charging for multifamily (Vice-Chair Latshaw), changing nature of clean vehicle tech and
consideration of hydrogen fuel cell adoption (Commissioner Swaminathan).
Vice-Chair Latshaw made a motion and Commissioner Swaminathan seconded to recommend that City
Council adopt the Silicon Valley Clean Energy model code electric vehicle infrastructure policy
recommendations as presented by staff. The motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Swaminathan left at 7:35 p.m.
STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS
Commission updates:
Commissioner Ramanathan noted that the Reach Codes Subcommittee agreed on a reach code
recommendation.
Staff updates:
- BayREN homeowner workshop - Nov 6th.
- Upcoming home electrification event in San Jose.
- City of Sunnyvale staff were invited to attend the next meeting to discuss Speaker Series collaboration.
- Green grants program info was emailed to all Commissioners for distribution / promotion.
ADJOURNMENT- 7:45 p.m.
11/21/19
8 of 65
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Text
Subject: Discuss November 19th City Council Study Session on building electrification policy and
reach codes adoption process
Discuss reach codes process and provide any feedback to staff
File #:19-6553,Version:2
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/16/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
11/21/19
9 of 65
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
10350 Torre Avenue, Council Chamber
Tuesday, November 19, 2019
5:30 PM
Televised Special Meeting Study Session (5:30) and Regular Meeting (6:45)
NOTICE AND CALL FOR A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a special meeting of the Cupertino City Council is hereby
called for Tuesday, November 19, 2019, commencing at 5:30 p.m. in Community Hall
Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014. Said special meeting
shall be for the purpose of conducting business on the subject matters listed below under
the heading, “Special Meeting." The regular meeting items will be heard at 6:45 p.m. in
Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California.
SPECIAL MEETING
ROLL CALL - 5:30 PM
STUDY SESSION
1.Subject: Study session regarding policy options to reduce the use of natural gas and
increase electrification of Cupertino’s building stock via local amendments to the 2019
California Energy & Green Building Standards Codes (Reach Codes).
Recommended Action: Provide direction on policy options to reduce the use of natural
gas and increase electrification of Cupertino’s building stock via local amendments to
the 2019 California Energy and Green Building Standards Codes.
Staff Report
A - CC Resolution No. 18-094 Declaring a Climate Emergency
B - ReachCodesPresentation_10.16.19
C - ReachCodesWrittenCommunications_CC_SC
D - Signed Letter of intent
E - SustainabilityCommissionRecommendation_10.24.19
ADJOURNMENT
REGULAR MEETING
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - 6:45 PM
Page 1
11/21/19
10 of 65
City Council Agenda November 19, 2019
ROLL CALL
CEREMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATIONS
1.Subject: Certificates of Appreciation to the Cupertino Citizen Corps for their assistance
with the recent Public Safety Power Shutdown (PSPS)
Recommended Action: Present Certificates of Appreciation to the Cupertino Citizen
Corps for their assistance with the recent Public Safety Power Shutdown (PSPS)
2.Subject: Certificates of Appreciation to volunteers at the Silicon Valley Korean School
(SVKS)
Recommended Action: Present Certificates of Appreciation to volunteers at the Silicon
Valley Korean School (SVKS)
3.Subject: Proclamation for Lung Cancer Awareness Month
Recommended Action: Present proclamation for Lung Cancer Awareness Month
4.Subject: Presentation by Cupertino-Copertino, Italy Sister City Committee adult
delegation regarding recent trip
Recommended Action: Receive presentation by Cupertino-Copertino, Italy Sister City
Committee adult delegation regarding recent trip
5.Subject: Presentation by Judy Miner, Chancellor of Foothill-De Anza Community
College on the planning process for the facility that will replace De Anza's Flint Center
Recommended Action: Receive Presentation by Judy Miner, Chancellor of Foothill-De
Anza Community College on the planning process for the facility that will replace De
Anza's Flint Center
POSTPONEMENTS
6.Subject: Continue Item No. 15 Adoption of the 2019 California Energy and Green
Building Standards Codes with local amendments to a future meeting date and item
will be renoticed. These topics will be discussed in the study session.
Recommended Action: Continue Item No. 15 Adoption of the 2019 California Energy
and Green Building Standards Codes with local amendments to a future meeting date.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Council on any matter not on
the agenda. The total time for Oral Communications will ordinarily be limited to one hour. Individual
speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. As necessary, the Chair may further limit the time allowed to
individual speakers, or reschedule remaining comments to the end of the meeting on a first come first
heard basis, with priority given to students. In most cases, State law will prohibit the Council from
Page 2
11/21/19
11 of 65
City Council Agenda November 19, 2019
discussing or making any decisions with respect to a matter not listed on the agenda.
REPORTS BY COUNCIL AND STAFF (10 minutes)
7.Subject: Report on Committee assignments
Recommended Action: Report on Committee assignments
CONSENT CALENDAR
Unless there are separate discussions and/or actions requested by council, staff or a member of the
public, it is requested that items under the Consent Calendar be acted on simultaneously.
8.Subject: Annual adoption of Other Post-Employment Benefits (“OPEB”) Trust
Investment Policy.
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 19-135 accepting the City Investment
Policy for the OPEB Trust.
Staff Report
A - Draft Resolution
B - OPEB Trust Policy
9.Subject: Annual adoption of Pension Trust Investment Policy.
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 19-136 accepting the City Investment
Policy for the Pension Trust.
Staff Report
A - Draft Resolution
B - Pension Investment Policy
10.Subject: Treasurer’s Investment Report for period ending September 30, 2019
Recommended Action: Accept staff report and provide recommendations.
Staff Report
A - Chandler Investment Report 09.30.2019
B - Wells Fargo Mkt Cost Report
D - LAIF Statement
11.Subject: Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Senate Bill (SB)
2 Planning Grants Program Application
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 19-137 authorizing application for, and
receipt of, SB 2 Planning Grants Program Funds
Staff Report
A - Draft Resolution
B - SB 2 Planning Grants Program Application Form
12.Subject: Application for Alcoholic Beverage License for Welcome Market Inc (dba 99
Ranch Market), 10425 S. De Anza Boulevard
Page 3
11/21/19
12 of 65
City Council Agenda November 19, 2019
Recommended Action: Recommend approval to the California Department of
Alcoholic Beverage Control of the Application for Alcoholic Beverage License for
Welcome Market Inc (dba 99 Ranch Market), 10425 S. De Anza Boulevard.
Staff Report
A - Application
13.Subject: Application for Alcoholic Beverage License for Welcome Market, Inc (dba 99
Ranch Market), 10983 N. Wolfe Rd.
Recommended Action: Recommend approval to the California Department of
Alcoholic Beverage Control of the Application for Alcoholic Beverage License for
Welcome Market Inc (dba 99 Ranch Market), 10983 N. Wolfe Road.
Staff Report
A - Application
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
14.Subject: Second reading of Municipal Code Amendments to the Cupertino Municipal
Code, Title 5, adopting new policies regulating the sale of tobacco, such as requiring a
local permit to sell tobacco products, prohibiting the sale of flavored tobacco,
prohibiting new businesses from selling tobacco near schools and reducing tobacco
retailer density, prohibiting tobacco sales at pharmacies and in vending machines, and
limiting storefront signage.
Recommended Action: Conduct second reading and enact Ordinance No. 19-2190; "An
ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino adding chapter 5.50 to title 5
(Business Licenses and Regulations) to regulate the sale of tobacco products and
repealing chapter 10.27 of the Municipal Code (Cigarette and/or Tobacco Vending
Machines)"
Staff Report
A - Draft Ordinance to Regulate the Sale of Tobacco Products
PUBLIC HEARINGS
15.Subject: Adoption of the 2019 California Energy and Green Building Standards Codes
with local amendments has been continued to a future meeting date and item will be
renoticed. These topics will be discussed in the study session.
Recommended Action: Adoption of the 2019 California Energy and Green Building
Standards Codes with local amendments has been continued to a future meeting date.
ORDINANCES AND ACTION ITEMS
16.Subject: Update on Library Expansion Project, selection of Conceptual Design,
approval of project delivery method, and direction on project funding.
Page 4
11/21/19
13 of 65
City Council Agenda November 19, 2019
Recommended Action: 1. Conceptual Design: Select either the One-Story or the
Two-Story Conceptual Design. Additional actions listed below as determined by
Conceptual Design selection.
2. One-Story Conceptual Design
a. Approve use of a traditional Design-Bid-Build project delivery method.
b. Authorize the City Manager or her designee to negotiate and enter into all
agreements as necessary with a qualified architectural firm and construction/project
management firm for an amount not-to-exceed $808,200.
3. Two-Story Conceptual Design
a. Authorize use of a Design-Build project delivery method, using best value selection,
assuming Design-Build is determined to be feasible.
b. Approve Resolution 19-138 executing a loan agreement of up to $3,000,000 from the
General Fund to Capital Fund for the Library Room Expansion.
c. Approve Budget Amendment 1920-070 increasing appropriation by $3,000,000 for
the Library Expansion Project.
d. Authorize the City Manager or her designee to negotiate and enter into all
agreements as necessary with a qualified architectural firm and construction/project
management firm for an amount not-to-exceed $1,870,500.
4. Staffing: Authorize transfer of a 3-year Limited Term Project Manager in the
Department of Public Works from the new City Hall project to the Library Expansion
Project.
Staff Report
A - Draft Resolution
B - Program List
C - One-Story Conceptual Design
D - Two-Story Conceptual Design
E - Preliminary Project Schedule
17.Subject: Approve the First Quarter Financial Report for Fiscal Year 2019-20
Recommended Action: 1. Accept the City Manager’s First Quarter Financial Report
for Fiscal Year 2019-20
2. Adopt Resolution No. 19-139 approving First Quarter budget adjustments
3. Adopt Resolution No. 19-140 amending the Compensation Program for the
Unrepresented (Management and Confidential) Employees
Staff Report
A - Draft Resolution Approving Budget Adjustments
B - First Quarter Financial Report FY19-20
C - Detailed Description of Year End and Adjustments made through 9/30/19
D - First Quarter Budget Adjustments Journal
E - Draft Resolution Amending the Unprepresented Employees' Compensation
F - Unrepresented Comp - Clean
G - Unrepresented Comp - Redlined
Page 5
11/21/19
14 of 65
City Council Agenda November 19, 2019
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - CONTINUED (As necessary)
COUNCIL AND STAFF COMMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
ADJOURNMENT
The City of Cupertino has adopted the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §1094.6; litigation
challenging a final decision of the City Council must be brought within 90 days after a decision is
announced unless a shorter time is required by State or Federal law.
Prior to seeking judicial review of any adjudicatory (quasi-judicial) decision, interested persons must
file a petition for reconsideration within ten calendar days of the date the City Clerk mails notice of the
City’s decision. Reconsideration petitions must comply with the requirements of Cupertino Municipal
Code §2.08.096. Contact the City Clerk’s office for more information or go to
http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=125 for a reconsideration petition form.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), anyone who is planning to attend the
next City Council meeting who is visually or hearing impaired or has any disability that needs special
assistance should call the City Clerk's Office at 408-777-3223, 48 hours in advance of the Council
meeting to arrange for assistance. Upon request, in advance, by a person with a disability, City Council
meeting agendas and writings distributed for the meeting that are public records will be made available
in the appropriate alternative format. Also upon request, in advance, an assistive listening device can be
made available for use during the meeting.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Cupertino City Council after publication of
the packet will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall,
10300 Torre Avenue, during normal business hours and in Council packet archives linked from the
agenda/minutes page on the Cupertino web site.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please be advised that pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code 2.08.100
written communications sent to the Cupertino City Council, Commissioners or City staff concerning a
matter on the agenda are included as supplemental material to the agendized item. These written
communications are accessible to the public through the City’s website and kept in packet archives. You
are hereby admonished not to include any personal or private information in written communications to
the City that you do not wish to make public; doing so shall constitute a waiver of any privacy rights
you may have on the information provided to the City.
Members of the public are entitled to address the City Council concerning any item that is described in
the notice or agenda for this meeting, before or during consideration of that item. If you wish to address
the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located in front
of the Council, and deliver it to the Clerk prior to discussion of the item. When you are called, proceed to
Page 6
11/21/19
15 of 65
City Council Agenda November 19, 2019
the podium and the Mayor will recognize you. If you wish to address the City Council on any other
item not on the agenda, you may do so by during the public comment portion of the meeting following
the same procedure described above. Please limit your comments to three (3) minutes or less.
Page 7
11/21/19
16 of 65
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Text
Subject: Review City of Cupertino Draft Ethics Protocol
Review Draft Ethics Protocol and provide any written feedback to staff
File #:19-6554,Version:1
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/16/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
11/21/19
17 of 65
______ _ _
CITY OF CUPERTINO ETHICS PROTOCOL
The citizens, businesses and organizations of the City are entitled fair, ethical and
accountable local government that has earned the public’s full confidence for integrity.
To this end, the City Council has adopted this Ethics Protocol for City Council, appointed
officials, and staff of the City of Cupertino to promote public confidence in the integrity
of local government and its effective and fair operation.
A. Comply with Law
City elected/appointed officials and staff comply with the laws of the nation, the State of
California and the City in the performance of their public duties. These laws include, but
are not limited to: the United States and California constitutions, the Cupertino Municipal
Code, City ordinances and policies, and laws pertaining to conflicts of interest, election
campaigns, financial disclosures, employer responsibilities and open processes of
governments. The City ensures its elected/appointed officials and staff receive regular
training on ethics as required by state law.
B. Conduct of Members
The professional and personal conduct of City elected/appointed officials and staff
should be above reproach and avoid even the appearance of impropriety. City
elected/appointed officials and staff should refrain from abusive conduct, personal
charges, or verbal attacks upon the character or motives of others, including members
of the Council, boards and commissions, the staff, or the public.
C. Respect for Process
City elected/appointed officials and staff perform their duties in accordance with the
processes and rules of order established by the City Council governing the deliberation
of public policy issues, meaningful involvement of the public, and implementation of
policy decisions of the City Council by City staff.
D. Decisions Based on Merit
City elected/appointed officials and staff base their decisions on the merits and
substance of the matter at hand, rather than on unrelated considerations.
E. Conflict of Interest
In order to assure their independence and impartiality on behalf of the common good,
City elected/appointed officials and staff do not use their official positions to participate
in or influence decisions in which they have a material financial interest, an
organizational responsibility, or a personal relationship, which may give the appearance
of a conflict of interest.
F. Gifts and Favors
City elected/appointed officials and staff limit and report gifts as required by state law,
and follow advice provided by the City Attorney.
11/21/19
18 of 65
______ _ _
G. Confidential Information
City elected/appointed officials and staff respect the confidentiality of information
concerning the property, personnel, and affairs of the City. They neither disclose
confidential information without proper legal authorization, nor use such information to
advance their personal, financial or other private interests.
H. Use of Public Resources
City elected/appointed officials and staff do not use public resources, such as City staff
time, equipment, supplies or facilities, for private gain or personal/political purposes.
I. Representing the City & Advocacy
When formally authorized to represent and/or advocate for the official policies or
positions of the City, elected/appointed officials and staff must do so accurately and in
a limited fashion that does not go beyond the scope of their authority. By contrast, when
City elected/appointed officials and staff are presenting their individual opinions and
positions on issues potentially relevant to the City, they must explicitly state they do not
represent their body or the City and must not allow any inference that they do.
J. Positive Work Place Environment
City elected/appointed officials and staff support the maintenance of a positive and
constructive work place environment for City employees and for citizens and
businesses dealing with the City. City elected/appointed officials recognize their special
role in dealings with City staff, taking care not to create any perception of inappropriate
direction to staff.
1163555.1
11/21/19
19 of 65
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Text
Subject: Discuss if limitations can be applied to natural gas usage in nonresidential facilities via a fee
structure or licensing process by the City
Decide if the Commission wishes to address this topic as a Work Program item
File #:19-6555,Version:1
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/16/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
11/21/19
20 of 65
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Text
Subject: Discuss Protected Trees Ordinance (Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 14.18) and staff
update on recent assessment of Cupertino’s tree canopy
Receive update and consider if this subject is of interest to the Commission for future discussion
File #:19-6556,Version:1
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/16/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
11/21/19
21 of 65
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: November 18, 2014
Subject
Municipal Code Amendment regarding the Protected Tree Ordinance
Recommended Actions
1. Adopt a Negative Declaration (EA-2013-01) per the California Environmental Quality Act;
and
2. Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 14-2126 “An Ordinance Of The City Council Of
The City Of Cupertino Amending Chapter 14.18 Of The Cupertino Municipal Code
Relating To Permit Thresholds City Wide, Streamlining The Tree Removal Permit Process
For R1/A1/A/RHS/R2 Zones, And Modifications For Readability,”MCA-2013-01
(Attachment A)
Description
Application: MCA-2013-01, EA-2013-02
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Property Location: City-wide
Application Summary: Consider adoption of amendments to Chapter 14.18, Protected Trees, of
the Cupertino Municipal Code to streamline and update the tree removal review and approval
process, and to improve readability/consistency.
Background
In November 2012, the City Council conducted a study session to consider the scope and
process of possible amendments to the Protected Tree Ordinance. Council’s direction consisted
of amendments in two phases:
Phase I - address issues pertaining to public trees and lower the penalties of unlawful
tree removal from a misdemeanor to an infraction;
Phase II - initiate the public process and present a draft ordinance with requirements for
associated environmental review.
The phase I ordinance amendment was completed in March 2013. As part of the phase II
process, a citywide community workshop and a Planning Commission study session were held
on October 30, 2013 and December 10, 2013, to solicit community input on the Protected Tree
Ordinance.
11/21/19
22 of 65
On April 15, 2014, the City Council considered input from the Planning Commission and the
public and provided general ordinance parameters for staff to evaluate and study. On July 7,
2014, the Council reviewed a set of refined ordinance amendment options (see Attachment B)
and authorized staff to proceed with the ordinance amendment process and environmental
impact analysis with the following key ordinance features:
Two-tier system (specimen trees between 12” to 24” in diameter – Tier One process;
specimen trees over 24” in diameter – Tier Two process)
Exempt specimen trees under 12” in diameter from the process
A streamlined tier one process
A standard review process for the tier two process
A more flexible tree replacement process
Discussion
Proposed Ordinance Amendment
Currently in R1/A1/A/RHS/R2 zones, the Ordinance exempts all specimen trees that are less
than 10 inches in diameter. In addition, the removal of specimen tree that are 10 inches and
greater would require arborist report, noticing, replacement planting, recordation of a covenant.
Please see Table 1 below for a summary of the current tree removal requirements:
Table 1. EXISTING ORDINANCE
Tree Removal
Permit
Required
Arborist
Report Noticing Recordation In-Lieu Fee
Non-specimen trees in
R1/A1/A/RHS/R2 (trees not
on the specimen species list)1
N/A N/A N/A N/A
Specimen trees in
R1/A1/A/RHS/R2 Zones -
Single Trunk ≥10” DBH
Multi-Trunk 26” DBH
In-lieu
available
only when
replacement
planting
infeasible
Privacy Protection Trees/
Development
Trees2/Heritage Trees
1Except trees planted as part of an approved development permit landscaping plan
2Trees planted as part of an approved development permit landscaping plan (subdivision, multi-family, non-commercial).
Based on Council directions, the proposed ordinance amendment will include the specific
changes summarized in the following section of the staff report. Please refer to Attachment B
for actual amended ordinance text.
Two-Tier Tree Removal Permits
11/21/19
23 of 65
All specimen trees that are less than 12 inches in diameter are exempted from the process.
Tier One (Ordinance Section 14.18.110)
A more streamlined process for specimen trees 12 to 24 inches in diameter (no arborist
report, no noticing, no covenant).
Optional in-lieu fee at the discretion of the property owner.
Capping the maximum number of trees eligible to be removed within a period of 36
months.
Tier Two (Ordinance Section 14.18.110)
Standard process for specimen trees larger than 24 inches in diameter (arborist report,
noticing).
The key requirements of the proposed amendments to specimen trees are summarized in Table
2 below:
Table 2. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
Tree
Removal
Permit
Required
Arborist
Report Noticing Recordation Optional In-
Lieu Fee
Maximum
Removal
Cap
R1/A1/A/RHS/R2 Zones – Tier 1
Protected Specimen Trees Single
Trunk between 12” DBH/ Multi-
Trunk 26” DBH and Single Trunk
24”DBH/Multi-Trunk 48”DBH
1 2
R1/A1/A/RHS/R2 Zones – Tier 2
Protected Specimen Trees Single
Trunk 24” DBH/ Multi-Trunk 48”
DBH
1 N/A
1In-lieu fee option available at the discretion of the applicant/property owner.
2Maximum Removal Cap - If an applicant/ property owner would like to remove more than six trees or five percent of trees on the property
within a 36-month period in R1/A1/A/RHS/R2 zones, the permit will fall under the second tier process that requires an arborist report and
notification.
Tree Replacement Process
Currently, the Ordinance requires all removed specimen trees to be replaced with
replacement tree(s) based on the value and size of the removed trees. Only in cases
where the physical planting of replacement trees are deemed to be infeasible by a
professional arborist, the applicant has the option of paying an in-lieu fee is made
available.
The Ordinance has been amended per the Council’s direction to allow the
applicant/property owner the option of planting the replacement tree(s) or paying an
in-lieu fee at 1.5 times the cost of planting the replacement tree (material, labor and
maintenance). See Section 14.18.190 of the revised ordinance text.
11/21/19
24 of 65
Staff recommendation:
The Council should provide input on whether the increased in-lieu fee should be
applied to all circumstances. Staff recommends that the proposed Ordinance is
structured to allow payment of a standard in-lieu fee (the cost of planting the
replacement tree) in circumstances when planting replacement trees are not feasible due
to site constraints and/or overcrowding of existing trees and the alternate in-lieu fee (1.5
times the cost of planting the replacement tree) should be applied to applications in
which the site can physically accommodate replacement trees but the applicant wishes
not to plant the replacement.
Other Changes
Maximum Removal Cap
At the July 2014 City Council Study Session, the Council suggested that a maximum
tree removal cap be required to help moderate the rate of tree removals on residential
properties. The Ordinance text has been amended to reflect a tree removal cap of six (6)
trees or 5% of the total trees on the project site within time period of 36 months.
Specimen Tree List
Currently there are seven (7) designated specimen tree species in the Tree Ordinance.
The City arborist is recommending that the Umbellularia Californica (Bay Laurel or
California Bay) be eliminated from the list because it is known to carry Anthracnose
Fungus, a disease that can kill nearby Oak trees. The City arborist recommends that the
Platanus Acerifolia London Plane be added to the specimen list, because it is virtually
identical to the Western Sycamore (also a specimen species) in physical form and water
usage properties. London Planes are also well suited for typically confined residential
applications.
Retroactive Tree Removal Fees/Pending Code Cases
The Council had previously considered applying the public works street tree penalties
towards private retroactive tree removal applications. However given that on average
the public works street tree penalties are higher than the current retroactive tree
removal fees for protected trees on private properties, staff recommends keeping the
current retroactive tree removal permit fee.
Once the Council approves the revised tree ordinance, all of the unpermitted tree
removal code enforcement cases that have been previously on hold will be reinitiated
and the appropriate mitigation measures will be required.
11/21/19
25 of 65
Readability and Consistency
Minor and non-substantive refinements or clarifications, have been made to the
Ordinance text to enhance readability, clarity, and consistency. These enhancements
include, clarifying definitions of mature vs. non-mature trees, rearranging the ordinance
for clarity, and clarifying the scope of tree management programs.
Public Outreach
The following is a brief summary of the noticing completed for this meeting:
Environmental Review
An environmental impact assessment was performed in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and an Initial Study was prepared and circulated.
In summary, no significant environmental impacts have been identified. The
Environmental Review Commission reviewed the Initial Study on October 23, 2014 and
recommends a Negative Declaration for the project (See Attachment D).
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Council approve the proposed Tree Ordinance Amendments
based on the revised ordinance text (Attachment A). The Council should decide
whether the increased in-lieu fee should apply to cases where planting replacement
trees would be physically infeasible.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Tiffany Brown, Associate Planner
Notice of Public Hearing, Site Notice &
Legal Ad
Agenda
Legal ad placed in newspaper
(at least 10 days prior to the hearing)
Courtesy citywide notice, with
information on Community Meeting,
Planning Commission and City Council
Meeting date (postcard included reference to
website for latest updates on changed meeting
dates)
Community meeting held on October 30,
2013
Interested parties notified of meeting date
Posted on the City's official notice
bulletin board (at least one week
prior to the hearing)
Posted on the City of Cupertino’s
Web site (at least one week prior to the
hearing)
11/21/19
26 of 65
Reviewed by: Gary Chao, Assistant Director of Community Development; Aarti
Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager
Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager
Attachments:
A. Ordinance No. 14-2126
B. Proposed Changes to Chapter 14.18, Protected Trees
C. July 7, 2014 City Council Staff Report
D. Initial Study and Negative Declaration
11/21/19
27 of 65
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: December 2, 2014
Subject
Second Reading and enactment of Municipal Code Amendment regarding the Protected Tree
Ordinance to streamline tree removal permitting in certain zoning districts, update approval
process, and make other modifications for readability/consistency.
Recommended Actions
Conduct the Second reading and enact Ordinance No. 14-2126, “An Ordinance Of The City
Council Of The City Of Cupertino Amending Chapter 14.18 Of The Cupertino Municipal Code
Relating To Permit Thresholds City Wide, Streamlining The Tree Removal Permit Process For
R1, A1, A, RHS, and R2 Zones, And Modifications For Readability,”MCA-2013-01 (Attachment
A)
Description
Application: MCA-2013-01
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Property Location: City Wide
Application Summary: Adoption of amendments to Chapter 14.18, Protected Trees, of the
Cupertino Municipal Code to streamline and update the tree removal
review and approval process, and to improve readability/consistency.
Background
On November 18, 2014, the City Council conducted the first reading of the proposed
amendments to Chapter 14.18 for Protected Trees with the following changes/directions:
Clarify no noticing and postings shall be required for Specimen trees less than 24 inches
in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Where it is physically infeasible to plant replacement tree(s) on the subject property, the
required in-lieu fee shall be equivalent to the cost of labor + materials.
Add a finding for the tree removal of Mature Specimen trees between 12 to 24 DBH.
Provide additional information on the Bay Laurel tree in order for the Council to decide
if it should be removed from the Specimen Tree list.
Also, provide information on the London Plane tree as directed or optional replacement
to the Bay Laurel.
11/21/19
28 of 65
Discussion
Revised Ordinance
Please refer to Attachment B for the revised ordinance incorporating all of the Council-specified
changes and additional minor clarifications identified in track changes.
Specimen Tree List – Bay Laurel & London Plane
The Council directed staff to leave the Bay Laurel on the Specimen Tree List, and provide
additional information for the Bay Laurel and London Plane trees.
The City’s consulting arborist provided the following information on these two types of trees
and recommended the removal of the Bay Laurel from the Specimen Tree List, and if a
replacement is needed, offered the London Plane as the alternate:
Bay Laurel
Indigenous to Cupertino, but not considered endangered in the region. This tree is
considered a riparian tree and is found in Cupertino’s foothills. Grows in a canyon or
near a creek or stream and has moderate water usage. Not a common tree within the
City’s urban forest.
Considered to be an aggressive tree that in ideal conditions can grow up to four feet a
year, with a maximum height averaging 70 feet.
Commonly harbors two types of disease: 1) Anthracnose Fungus, also known as the
sudden Oak death disease; and 2) Ganoderma Applanatum Fungus, which affects the
leaves of the tree and can spread to nearby Oaks or other trees within a 50 foot range.
The Ganoderma Applanatum Fungus is a shelf or mushroom like fungus that plants its
feet into the trunk of the tree and slowly digests the interior of the tree, undermining its
structural integrity. The disease is passed though microscopic dust transported by the
wind into wet wounds of neighboring trees.
London Plane
Very common tree in Cupertino’s urban forest. Commonly used throughout the region
as street trees or shade for public places/plazas.
Low to moderate water usage.
Prevalent in Cities such as Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and Atherton.
A non-aggressive tree, in ideal conditions can grow up between 12 and 18 inches a year,
with a maximum height averaging between 60 and 70 feet.
Not known to have maintenance issues but do have small seed ball droppings (size of a
quarter).
Specimen Tree List Options
The City Arborist had previously recommended the removal of the Bay Laurel due to the
diseases that it harbors that may potentially harm Oak trees. The Council will consider if the
Bay Laurel should be removed or replaced from the Specimen Tree list. The City’s
Environmental Consultant confirmed that the Council may remove the Bay Laurel from the
11/21/19
29 of 65
Specimen Tree list without having to replace it. Removal of the Bay Laurel would not change
the conclusions in the Initial Study or result in any new significant environmental impacts.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Council decide on whether to remove or replace the Bay Laurel from
the Specimen Tree list, and conduct the second reading for approval of the proposed Tree
Ordinance Amendments based on the revised ordinance text in Attachment A.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Tiffany Brown, Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Gary Chao, Assistant Director of Community Development
Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager
Attachments:
A - Ordinance No. 14-2126
B - Amended Chapter 14.18, Protected Trees (with redlines)
11/21/19
30 of 65
11/14/2019 CHAPTER 14.18: PROTECTED TREES xx
library.amlegal.com/alpscripts/get-content.aspx 1/18
Print
Cupertino, CA Municipal Code
CHAPTER 14.18: PROTECTED TREES
Section
14.18.010 Purpose.
14.18.020 Definitions.
14.18.030 Actions prohibited.
14.18.040 Retention promoted.
14.18.050 Protected trees.
14.18.060 Plan of protection.
14.18.070 Heritage tree designation.
14.18.080 Heritage tree list.
14.18.090 Heritage tree identification tag.
14.18.100 Recordation.
14.18.110 Application and approval authority for tree removal permit.
14.18.120 Action by Director.
14.18.130 Notice and posting.
14.18.140 Tree Management Plan.
14.18.150 Exemptions.
14.18.160 Tree replacement.
14.18.170 Retroactive tree removal permit.
14.18.180 Review, determination and findings
14.18.190 Notice of action on permit - Appeal.
14.18.200 Protection during construction.
14.18.210 Protection plan before demolition, grading or building permit
granted.
14.18.220 Penalty.
14.18.010 Purpose.
In enacting this chapter, the City of Cupertino recognizes the substantial economic,
environmental and aesthetic importance of its tree population. Protected trees are considered a
valuable asset to the community. The protection of such trees in all zoning districts is intended to
11/21/19
31 of 65
11/14/2019 CHAPTER 14.18: PROTECTED TREES xx
library.amlegal.com/alpscripts/get-content.aspx 2/18
preserve this valuable asset. The City finds that the preservation of protected trees, and the
protection of all trees during construction, is necessary for the best interests of the City and of the
citizens and public thereof, in order to:
A. Protect property values;
B. Assure the continuance of quality development;
C. Protect aesthetic and scenic beauty;
D. Assist in the absorption of rain waters, thereby preventing erosion of top soil, protecting
against flood hazards and the risk of landslides;
E. Counteract air pollutants by protecting the known capacity of trees to produce pure oxygen
from carbon dioxide;
F. Maintain the climatic balance (e.g., provide shade);
G. Help decrease potential damage from wind velocities;
For the above reasons, the City finds it is in the public interest, convenience and necessity to
enact regulations controlling the care and removal of protected trees within the City in order to
retain as many trees as possible, consistent with the individual rights to develop, maintain and
enjoy their property to the fullest possible extent.
(Ord. 14-2126, § 3 (part), 2014; Ord. 13-2107, § 2 (part), 2013; Ord. 2085, § 2 (part), 2011; Ord.
2003, 2007; Ord. 1573, § 2, 1991; Ord. 1543, § 2, 1991)
14.18.020 Definitions.
Unless otherwise stated, the following definitions pertain to this chapter.
A. “Approved development tree(s)” means any class of tree required to be planted or retained
as part of an approved development application, building permit, tree removal permit or code
enforcement action in all zoning districts.
B. “Arborist” is an individual certified by the International Society of Arboriculture.
C. “City” means the City of Cupertino situated in the County of Santa Clara, California.
D. “Dead tree” means a tree that is not living whatsoever as objectively verifiable, or a tree that
has declined to such an extent that its demise is imminent with no opportunity for recovery or
repair to a reasonable viable level as determined by the Director of Community Development.
E. “Developed residential” means any legal lot of record, zoned single-family, duplex,
agricultural residential and residential hillside, with any structure (principal or accessory)
constructed thereon.
F. “Development application” means an application for land alteration or development,
including but not limited to subdivision of property, rezoning, architectural and site approval, two-
story residential permit, minor residential permit, planned development permit, variance, and use
permit.
G. “Diameter at breast height (DBH)” means the diameter of a single tree trunk measured four
and one-half feet from natural grade. For multi-trunk trees, the diameter shall be inclusive of all
trunks/stems. In cases where a tree trunk is irregular in shape, the circumference may be used to
measure the size of the tree. Where the natural grade is at a slope, the measurement shall be
11/21/19
32 of 65
11/14/2019 CHAPTER 14.18: PROTECTED TREES xx
library.amlegal.com/alpscripts/get-content.aspx 3/18
taken at the median grade. Median grade is the average grade in between the ground at he
highest point and the ground at the lowest point of the tree trunk.
H. “Heritage tree” means any tree or grove of trees which, because of factors including, but not
limited to, its historic value, unique quality, girth, height or species, has been found by the
Planning Commission to have a special significance to the community.
I. “Owner” shall include the legal owner of real property within the City, and any lessee of such
owner.
J. “Person” shall include an individual, a firm, an association, a corporation, a copartnership,
and the lessees, trustees, receivers, agents, servants and employees of any such person.
K. “Private property” shall include all property not owned by the City.
L. “Privacy planting” means any privacy protection planting, including trees and/or shrubs,
required pursuant to Chapter 19.28.
M. “Public property” includes all property owned by the City.
N. “Protected tree” means any class of tree specified in Section 14.18.050.
O. “Retroactive tree removal permit” means a permit required after removal of a protected tree.
P. “Specimen tree” means any class of tree specified in Section 14.18.050.
Q. “Specimen tree, mature” means any specimen tree with a minimum single-trunk of twelve
inches DBH (thirty-eight inch circumference) or multi-trunk DBH of twenty-four inches (seventy-
five-inch circumference) or greater.
R. “Specimen tree, non-mature” means any specimen tree with a single-trunk less than twelve
inches DBH (thirty-eight-inch circumference) or multi-trunk DBH of less than twenty-four inches
(seventy-five-inch circumference).
S. “Tree removal” means any of the following:
1. Complete removal, such as cutting to the ground or extraction, of a protected tree; or
2. Severe pruning, which means the removal of more than one-fourth of the functioning leaf
and stem area of a protected tree in any twelve-month period as determined by the Community
Development Director.
T. “Tree removal permit” means a permit for tree removal of any protected trees pursuant to
Section 14.18.050. (Ord. 14-2126, § 3 (part), 2014; Ord. 13-2107, § 2 (part), 2013; Ord. 2085, §
2 (part), 2011; Ord. 2056, (part), 2010; Ord. 2003, 2007; Ord. 1886, (part), 2001; Ord. 1835,
(part), 1999; Ord. 1810, (part), 1999; Ord. 1715, (part), 1996; Ord. 1573, § 3, 1991; Ord. 1543, §
3, 1991)
14.18.030 Actions Prohibited.
A. It is unlawful to deliberately act in a manner that shall cause any protected tree to be
irreversibly damaged or to die; and
B. It is unlawful to remove any protected tree in any zoning district without first obtaining a tree
removal permit as required by Section 14.18.110, unless a permit is not required per Section
14.18.150.
11/21/19
33 of 65
11/14/2019 CHAPTER 14.18: PROTECTED TREES xx
library.amlegal.com/alpscripts/get-content.aspx 4/18
(Ord. 14-2126, § 3 (part), 2014; Ord. 13-2107, § 2 (part), 2013; Ord. 2085, § 2 (part), 2011; Ord.
2003, 2007)
14.18.040 Retention Promoted.
Protected trees are considered an asset to the community and the pride of ownership and
retention of these species shall be promoted. The Director of Community Development may
conduct an annual review of the status of heritage trees and report the findings to the Planning
Commission.
(Ord. 14-2126, § 3 (part), 2014; Ord. 13-2107, § 2 (part), 2013; Ord. 2085, § 2 (part), 2011; Ord.
2003, 2007; Ord. 1715, (part), 1996; Ord. 1543, § 4.1, 1991)
14.18.050 Protected Trees.
Except as otherwise provided in Section 14.18.170, the following trees shall not be removed
without first obtaining a tree removal permit:
A. Heritage trees in all zoning districts.
B. All mature specimen trees of the following species on private property (see Appendix A):
1. Quercus (native oak tree species), including:
a. Quercus agrifolia (Coast Live Oak);
b. Quercus lobata (Valley Oak);
c. Quercus kelloggii (Black Oak);
d. Quercus douglasii (Blue Oak);
e. Quercus wislizeni (Interior Live Oak);
2. Aesculus californica (California Buckeye);
3. Acer macrophyllum (Big Leaf Maple);
4. Cedrus deodara (Deodar Cedar);
5. Cedrus atlantica 'Glauca' (Blue Atlas Cedar);
6. Umbellularia californica (Bay Laurel or California Bay); and
7. Platanus racemosa (Western Sycamore).
C. Approved development trees(s).
D. Approved privacy protection planting in R-1 zoning districts.
(Ord. 14-2121, § 3 (part), 2014; Ord. 13-2107, § 2 (part), 2013; Ord. 2085, § 2 (part), 2011; Ord.
2003, 2007)
14.18.060 Plan of Protection.
As part of a development application:
11/21/19
34 of 65
11/14/2019 CHAPTER 14.18: PROTECTED TREES xx
library.amlegal.com/alpscripts/get-content.aspx 5/18
A. The approval authority shall adopt a maintenance plan for protected trees. It shall be the
property owner(s) responsibility to protect the trees.
B. Privacy planting in R-1 zoning districts shall be maintained. Landscape planting
maintenance include irrigation, fertilization and pruning as necessary to yield a growth rate
expected for a particular species. Where privacy planting dies, it must be replaced within thirty
days with the location, size and species described in Ordinance No. 1799 (privacy protection) and
its appendix. The affected property owner, with privacy protection planting on his or her lot, is
required to maintain the required planting and shall be required to comply with Section 14.18.100.
(Ord. 14-2126, § 3 (part), 2014; Ord. 13-2107, § 2 (part), 2013; Ord. 2085, § 2 (part), 2011; Ord.
2003, 2007; Ord. 1810, (part), 1999; Ord. 1630, (part), 1993; Ord. 1543, §§ 4.4, 4.5, 1991)
14.18.070 Heritage Tree Designation.
A. Initiated by. Application for designation of a heritage tree may only be initiated by the owner
of property on which the tree is located, unless the tree is located on public or quasi-public
property. Any person may apply for a designation of a heritage tree if the tree(s) are located on
public or quasi-public property.
B Application. In addition to requirements of Section 14.18.110, an application for a heritage
tree designation shall include:
1. Assessor’s parcel number of the site;
2. Description detailing the proposed heritage tree’s special aesthetic, cultural, or historical
value of significance to the community; and
3. Photographs of the tree(s).
C. Approval authority.
1. Application for designation of a heritage tree shall be referred to the Planning Commission
for review and determination in accordance with Chapter 19.12 of the Cupertino Municipal Code.
2. The Planning Commission, may, by resolution, designate a tree or grove of trees as a
heritage tree(s).
(Ord. 14-2121, § 3 (part), 2014; Ord. 13-2107, § 2 (part), 2013: Ord. 2085, § 2 (part), 2011; Ord.
2003, 2007; Ord. 1715, (part), 1996; Ord. 1630, (part), 1993; Ord. 1543, § 4.2, 1991)
14.18.080 Heritage Tree List.
A heritage tree list shall be created and amended by resolution. The list shall include the reason
for designation, tree circumference, species name, common name, location and heritage tree
number.
(Ord. 14-2121, § 3 (part), 2014; Ord. 13-2107, § 2 (part), 2013; Ord. 2085, § 2 (part), 2011; Ord.
2003, 2007; Ord. 1543, § 4.3, 1991)
14.18.090 Heritage Tree Identification Tag.
Heritage trees shall have on them an identification tag, purchased and placed by the City,
inscribed with the following information:
11/21/19
35 of 65
11/14/2019 CHAPTER 14.18: PROTECTED TREES xx
library.amlegal.com/alpscripts/get-content.aspx 6/18
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HERITAGE TREE NO. ____
is protected by the Protected Trees Ordinance.
Do not prune or cut
before contacting the City Planning Department
at (408) 777-3308.
(Ord. 14-2121, § 3 (part), 2014; Ord. 13-2107, § 2 (part), 2013; Ord. 2085, § 2 (part), 2011; Ord.
2003, 2007; Ord. 1543, § 4.7, 1991)
14.18.100 Recordation.
Heritage tree, privacy planting, and approved development trees are required to be retained as
part of an application under Section 14.18.050C. and Section 14.18.050D. and shall have
retention information placed on the property deed via a conservation easement in favor of the
City, private covenant, or other method as deemed appropriate by the Director. The recordation
shall be completed by the property owner prior to final map or building permit issuance, or at a
time as designated by the Director of Community Development when not associated with a final
map or building permit issuance.
(Ord. 14-2126, § 3 (part), 2014; Ord. 13-2107, § 2 (part), 2013; Ord. 2085, § 2 (part), 2011; Ord.
2003, 2007; Ord. 1573, § 4.6, 1991; Ord. 1543, § 4.6, 1991)
14.18.110 Application and Approval Authority for Tree Removal Permit.
No person shall directly or indirectly remove or cause to be removed any protected tree without
first obtaining a tree removal permit, unless such tree removal is exempt per Section 14.18.150.
An application for a tree removal permit shall be filed with the Department of Community
Development and shall contain the following information based on the size and type of the
protected tree:
A. Application requirements.
1. An application request to remove a mature specimen tree with a single-trunk DBH of
twelve inches to twenty-four inches (multi-trunk twenty-four to forty-eight inches DBH), shall
provide the following:
a. A drawing outlining the location of the tree(s) and proposed tree replacements.
b. A written explanation of why the tree(s) should be removed.
c. Signature of the property owner and/or homeowner’s association (where applicable)
with proof of a vote of the homeowner’s association;
d. Permit fee, where applicable.
2. An application request to remove a heritage tree, privacy planting tree, approved
development tree, or mature specimen tree with single-trunk DBH greater than twenty-four inches
or multi-trunk greater than forty-eight inches DBH, require the following in addition to application
requirements a. through d. listed above:
a. Photograph(s) of the tree(s).
11/21/19
36 of 65
11/14/2019 CHAPTER 14.18: PROTECTED TREES xx
library.amlegal.com/alpscripts/get-content.aspx 7/18
b. An arborist report from an arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture.
c. Notice and posting per Section 14.18.130.
d. Other information deemed necessary by the Director of Community Development to
evaluate the tree removal request.
B. Maximum tree removal cap. In the R1, A1, A, RHS, and R2 zones, an applicant may
remove up to six mature specimen trees or five percent of mature specimen trees on the property
(whichever is greater) with a single-trunk between twelve and twenty-four inches (multi-trunk
between twenty-four and forty-eight inches) within a thirty-six month period. The thirty-six month
period will start from the date of the approved tree removal permit. Applications requesting to
remove additional trees within a thirty-six month period will require an arborist report and
notification per Section 14.18.130.
C. Approval authority.
1. The Director of Community Development shall have the final review and determination on
applications for protected tree removals in accordance with Section 14.18.120; except for heritage
tree removals and tree removals in conjunction with development applications. The Director of
Community Development may refer the application to another approval authority for a report and
recommendation.
C. Application for tree removals in conjunction with a development application shall be
considered by the approval authority concerning the same property as the affected tree removal
permit application, and the determination on the tree removal permit shall be made concurrently
by the approval authority.
D. Application for removal of a heritage tree shall be referred to the Planning Commission for
final review and determination in accordance with Chapter 19.12.
(Ord. 14-2126, § 3 (part), 2014; Ord. 13-2107, § 2 (part), 2013; Ord. 2085, § 2 (part), 2011; Ord.
2003, 2007; Ord. 1630, (part), 1993; Ord. 1573, § 8.1 (part), 1991; Ord. 1543, § 8.1 (part), 1991)
14.18.120 Action by Director.
Upon receipt of a complete tree removal permit application, the Director of Community
Development or his or her authorized representative will:
A. Review the application pursuant to Section 14.18.180;
B. At the Director’s discretion, conduct a site visit, within fourteen days, to inspect the tree(s)
for which removal is requested. Priority of inspection shall be given to those requests based on
hazard or disease; and
C. Send notices or schedule a hearing in accordance with requirements in Section 14.18.130
and Chapter 19.12.
(Ord. 14-2126, § 3 (part), 2014)
14.18.130 Notice and Posting.
A. Notice and posting shall be provided as indicated in Sections 19.12.030 and 19.12.110F for
the following tree removal permits:
11/21/19
37 of 65
11/14/2019 CHAPTER 14.18: PROTECTED TREES xx
library.amlegal.com/alpscripts/get-content.aspx 8/18
1. Mature specimen trees with single trunk over twenty-four inches DBH or for multi-trunk
over forty-eight inches DBH;
2. Heritage trees;
3. Privacy planting trees;
4. Approved development trees; and
5. Mature specimen trees exceeding the maximum tree removal cap (Section 14.18.110B).
B. Where approval of a tree removal permit that is subject to the notice and posting
requirements of this section is granted by the City, the property owner shall retain the posted
notice on site until the tree is removed.
C. Specimen trees with single trunk under twenty-four inches DBH or multi-trunk under forty-
eight inches DBH, and trees listed under exemptions in Section 14.18.150 do not require notice or
posting.
(Ord. 14-2126, § 3 (part), 2014; Ord. 13-2107, § 2 (part), 2013; Ord. 2085, § 2 (part), 2011; Ord.
2003, 2007)
14.18.140 Tree Management Plan.
A tree management plan may be approved for a property that includes criteria for the removal of
certain trees in the future by anticipating the eventual growth of trees on the property and
specifying a time frame in which the trees may require removal to prevent overcrowding of trees.
Additional criteria may be considered for the phased removal of trees, including, but not limited to:
site maintenance, accessibility improvements, natural tree lifespan, and landscape/site
improvements that are determined to be appropriate by the Community Development Director.
A. Application. An application for a tree management plan shall contain the following:
1. A tree plan indicating all existing trees to be retained and all new trees to be planted that
are part of the approved landscape plan;
2. Labeling of the species, size in DBH at planting time or at time of tree management plan
approval, location and eventual growth size of each tree on the plan;
3. A written explanation of the specific tree(s) to be removed, including the eventual growth
size in DBH at which time the tree is to be removed, and a time frame in which the tree(s) will
reach the eventual growth size;
4. Tree survey plan indicating the number, location(s), variety and size (measured four and a
half feet above grade) of tree(s) to be removed;
5. A strategic replacement planting plan to manage growth during tree growth phases;
6. An arborist report from an arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture for
all mature specimen trees; and
7. Notice and posting to residence, Section 14.18.130.
B. Approval authority. An application for a tree management plan in conjunction with a
development application shall be considered by the approval authority concerning the same
property as the affected tree
11/21/19
38 of 65
11/14/2019 CHAPTER 14.18: PROTECTED TREES xx
library.amlegal.com/alpscripts/get-content.aspx 9/18
management plan application, and the determination on the tree management plan shall be made
concurrently by the approval authority. In the instance where a development applicant is not
required per Table 19.12.030, the Director of Community Development shall review and approve
the tree management plan.
C. Recordation. The property owner shall have retention information placed on the property in
accordance with Section 14.18.100, referring the approved tree management plan, upon
approval.
D. Permits. Trees that are listed to be removed in the tree management plan may be removed
within the specified time frame per the tree management plan without a tree removal permit,
except for trees designated as heritage trees.
(Ord. 14-2126, § 3 (part), 2014; Ord. 13-2107, § 2 (part), 2013; Ord. 2085, § 2 (part), 2011; Ord.
2003, 2007)
14.18.150 Exemptions.
A. A tree removal permit is not required in the following situations:
1. Non-mature specimen tree(s) with single-trunk less than twelve inches DBH or multi-trunk
less than twenty-four inches DBH.
2. Thinning out/removing of trees in accordance with a recorded tree management plan that
has been approved in accordance with Section 14.18.140.
3. Public utility actions, under the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission of the State
of California, as may be necessary to comply with their safety regulations, or to maintain the safe
operation of their facilities.
B. The following circumstances warrant the removal of trees prior to securing a permit from the
City; however a tree removal permit application, with no application fees or noticing required,
must be filed within five working days as described in Sections 14.18.170. Tree replacements
may be required in conjunction with approval of this tree removal permit (Section 14.18.160):
1. Removal of a protected tree in case of emergency caused by the hazardous or dangerous
condition of a tree, requiring immediate action for the safety of life or property, including but not
limited to, (e.g., a tree about to fall onto a principle dwelling due to heavy wind velocities, a tree
deemed unsafe, or a tree having the potential to immediately damage existing or proposed
essential structures), but only upon order of the Director of Community Development, or any
member of the sheriff or fire department. However, a subsequent application for tree removal
must be filed within five working days as described in Sections 14.18.110 through 14.18.120. The
Director of Community Development will approve the retroactive tree removal permit application
and may require tree replacements in conjunction with the approval. No application fee or other
approval process shall be required in this situation.
2. Dead trees, as determined by the Director of Community Development prior to removal.
However, a subsequent application for a tree removal must be filed within five working days as
described in Section 14.18.110 through 14.18.120. The Director of Community Development will
approve the retroactive tree removal permit application and may require tree replacements in
conjunction with the approval. No application fee or other approval process shall be required in
this situation.
(Ord. 14-2126, § 3 (part), 2014; Ord. 13-2107, § 2 (part), 2013; Ord. 2085, § 2 (part), 2011; Ord.
2003, 2007; Ord. 1835, (part), 1999; Ord. 1715, (part), 1996; Ord. 1630, (part), 1993; Ord. 1543,
§ 7.1, 1991)
11/21/19
39 of 65
11/14/2019 CHAPTER 14.18: PROTECTED TREES xx
library.amlegal.com/alpscripts/get-content.aspx 10/18
14.18.160 Tree Replacement.
A. Tree replacement:
1. The approval authority may impose the following replacement standards for approval of
each tree to be removed in conjunction with an approved tree removal permit, unless deemed
otherwise by the approval authority. Table 14.18.160A may be used as a basis for this
requirement.
Table 14.18.160A - Replacement Tree Guidelines
Diameter of Trunk Size of
Removed Tree (Measured 4½
feet above grade)
Replacement Trees
Up to 12 inches*One 24" box tree
Over 12 inches and up to 18
inches
Two 24" box trees or One 36"
box tree
Over 18 inches and up to 36
inches
Over 36 inches One 36" box tree
Heritage tree One 48" box tree
* Does not apply to R1, A1, A, RHS, and R2 zones except
required privacy plantings trees in R1 zones
2. The approval authority shall work with the applicant/property owner of the tree removal
permit to determine the location of the replacement tree(s).
B. In lieu fees. The following provisions apply to all zones unless otherwise noted below:
1. If a replacement tree cannot reasonably be planted on the subject property as determined
by a certified arborist, an in-lieu fee shall be paid by the person requesting the tree removal
permit. Fees shall be paid to the City’s Tree Fund to:
a. Add or replace trees on public property in the vicinity of the subject property; or
b. Add trees or landscaping on other City property.
2. The in-lieu fee for a mature specimen tree with trunk size equal to or less than thirty-six
inches, shall be based upon the purchase and installation cost of the replacement tree as
determined by the Director of Community Development.
3. The in-lieu tree replacement fee for a heritage tree or tree with a trunk size greater than
thirty-six inches, shall be based upon the valuation of the removed tree by using the most recent
edition of the ISA Guide for Plant Appraisal published by the Council of Tree and Landscape
Appraisers.
4. If the subject property is within the R1, A1, A, PHS, and R2 zones, the person requesting
the tree removal permit has the option to pay the fee in-lieu of planting a replacement tree. Where
the applicant would like to plant a replacement tree, but demonstrates it is physically infeasible to
plant on the subject property, the in-lieu fee shall be based on the purchase and installation cost
of the replacement tree as determined by the Director of Community Development. In cases
where it is physically feasible to plant, but the applicant chooses to pay the in-lieu fee instead of
11/21/19
40 of 65
11/14/2019 CHAPTER 14.18: PROTECTED TREES xx
library.amlegal.com/alpscripts/get-content.aspx 11/18
planting a replacement tree on the subject property, payment shall be equivalent to one and one-
half the calculated in-lieu tree replacement fee.
(Ord. 14-2126, § 3 (part), 2014; Ord. 13-2017, § 2 (part), 2013; Ord. 2085, § 2 (part), 2011)
14.18.170 Retroactive Tree Removal Permit.
An application for a retroactive tree removal shall be required for any protected tree removal
prior to approval of a tree removal permit. The application shall be filed with the Development of
Community Development on forms prescribed by the Director of Community Development and
shall be subject to the requirements of a tree removal permit. The applicant shall pay a retroactive
tree removal permit fee as determined by the Director of Community Development.
(Ord. 14-2126, § 3 (part), 2014; Ord. 13-2107, § 2 (part), 2013; Ord. 2085, § 2 (part), 2011; Ord.
2003, 2007)
14.18.180 Review, Determination and Findings.
A. The approval authority shall approve a tree removal permit only after making at least one of
the following findings:
1. That the tree or trees are irreversibly diseased, are in danger of falling, can cause
potential damage to existing or proposed essential structures, or interferes with private on-site
utility services and cannot be controlled or remedied through reasonable relocation or
modification of the structure or utility services;
2. That the location of the trees restricts the economic enjoyment of the property by severely
limiting the use of property in a manner not typically experienced by owners of similarly zoned
and situated property, and the applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the approval
authority that there are no reasonable alternatives to preserve the tree(s).
3. That the protected tree(s) are a detriment to the subject property and cannot be
adequately supported according to good urban forestry practices due to the overplanting or
overcrowding of trees on the subject property.
4. That the mature specimen trees with single trunk between twelve inches DBH and twenty-
four inches DBH, or multi-trunk between twenty-four inches DBH and forty-eight inches DBH in
R1, A1, A, RHS, and R2 zones will be replaced by planting a replacement tree and/or by
contribution to the City’s Tree Fund.
B. The approval authority may refer the application to another department or commission for a
report, its review, recommendation and/or decision.
C. The approval authority shall approve, conditionally approve or deny the application.
D. The approval authority may require tree replacement(s) or accept a tree replacement in-lieu
fee per Section 14.18.160 in conjunction with a tree removal permit.
(Ord. 14-2126, § 3 (part), 2014; Ord. 13-2107, § 2 (part), 2013; Ord. 2085, § 2 (part), 2011; Ord.
2003, 2007; Ord. 1573, § 9.1, 1991; Ord. 1543, § 9.1, 1991)
14.18.190 Notice of Action on Permit - Appeal.
11/21/19
41 of 65
11/14/2019 CHAPTER 14.18: PROTECTED TREES xx
library.amlegal.com/alpscripts/get-content.aspx 12/18
A. Notice of the decision on an application for a protected tree removal permit shall be
provided in accordance with Section 19.12.150. The notice of decision shall be personally
delivered or mailed to the applicant.
B. Any decision made by the approval authority on the tree removal application may be
appealed in accordance with Chapter 19.12.
(Ord. 14-2126, § 3 (part), 2014; Ord. 13-2107, § 2 (part), 2013; Ord. 2085, § 2 (part), 2011)
14.18.200 Protection During Construction.
Protected trees and other trees/plantings required to be retained by virtue of a development
application, building permit, or tree removal permit shall be protected during demolition, grading
and construction operations. The applicant shall guarantee the protection of the existing tree(s)
on the site through a financial instrument acceptable to the Director of Community Development.
(Ord. 14-2126, § 3 (part), 2014; Ord. 13-2107, § 2 (part), 2013; Ord. 2085, § 2 (part), 2011; Ord.
2003, 2007; Ord. 1543, § 10.1, 1991)
14.18.210 Protection Plan Before Demolition, Grading or Building Permit Granted.
A. A plan to protect trees described in Section 14.18.200 shall be submitted to the Director of
Public Works and to the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of a demolition,
grading or building permit. The plan shall be prepared and signed by a licensed landscape
architect or arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture and shall be approved by
the Director of Community Development. The Director of Community Development shall evaluate
the tree protection plan based upon the tree protection standards contained in Appendix A at the
end of this chapter.
B. The Director of Community Development may waive the requirement for a tree protection
plan both where the construction activity is determined to be minor in nature (minor building or
site modification in any zone) and where the proposed activity will not significantly modify the
ground area within the drip line or the area immediately surrounding the drip line of the tree. The
Director of Community Development shall determine whether the construction activity is minor in
nature and whether the activity will significantly modify the ground area around the tree drip line.
(Ord; 14-2126, § 3 (part), 2014; Ord. 13-2107, § 2 (part), 2013; Ord. 2085, § 2 (part), 2011; Ord.
2003, 2007; Ord. 1543, § 10.2, 1991)
14.18.220 Penalty.
Violation of this chapter is deemed an infraction unless otherwise specified. Any person or
property owners, or his or her agent or representative who engages in tree cutting or removal
without a valid tree removal permit is guilty of an infraction as outlined in Chapter 1.12 of this
code and/or may be required to comply with Sections 14.18.160 and 14.18.170.
(Ord; 14-2126, § 3 (part), 2014; Ord. 13-2107, § 2 (part), 2013; Ord. 2085, § 2 (part), 2011; Ord.
2003, 2007; Ord. 1810, (part), 1999; Ord. 1731, (part), 1996; Ord. 1543, § 12.1, 1991)
APPENDIX A
STANDARDS FOR THE PROTECTION OF TREES DURING GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION
11/21/19
42 of 65
11/14/2019 CHAPTER 14.18: PROTECTED TREES xx
library.amlegal.com/alpscripts/get-content.aspx 13/18
OPERATIONS
The purpose of this appendix is to outline standards pertaining to the protection of trees
described in Section 14.18.200 and Section 14.18.210 of Chapter 14.18. The standards are
broad. A licensed landscape architect or International Society of Arboriculture certified arborist
shall be retained to certify the applicability of the standards and develop additional standards as
necessary to ensure the property care, maintenance, and survival of trees designated for
protection.
Standards
1. A site plan shall be prepared describing the relationship of proposed grading and utility
trenching to the trees designated for preservation. Construction and grading should not
significantly raise or lower the ground level beneath tree drip lines. If the ground level is proposed
for modification beneath the drip line, the architect/arborist shall address and mitigate the impact
to the tree(s).
2. All trees to be preserved on the property and all trees adjacent to the property shall be
protected against damage during construction operations by constructing a six-foot-high fence
around the drip line, and armor as needed. The extent of fencing and armoring shall be
determined by the landscape architect or arborist. The tree protection shall be placed before any
excavation or grading is begun and shall be maintained in repair for the duration of the
construction work.
3. No construction operations shall be carried on within the drip line area of any tree
designated to be saved except as is authorized by the Director of Community Development.
4. If trenching is required to penetrate the protection barrier for the tree, the section of trench in
the drip line shall be hand dug so as to preclude the cutting of roots. Prior to initiating any
trenching within the barrier approval by staff with consultation of an arborist shall be completed.
5. Trees which require any degree of fill around the natural grade shall be guarded by
recognized standards of tree protection and design of tree wells.
6. The area under the drip line of the tree shall be kept clean. No construction materials nor
chemical solvents shall be stored or dumped under a tree.
7. Fires for any reason shall not be made within fifty feet of any tree selected to remain and
shall be limited in size and kept under constant surveillance.
8. The general contractor shall use a tree service licensee, as defined by California Business
and Professional Code, to prune and cut off the branches that must be removed during the
grading or construction. No branches or roots shall be cut unless at first reviewed by the
landscape architect/arborist with approval of staff.
9. Any damage to existing tree crowns or root systems shall be repaired immediately by an
approved tree surgeon.
10. No storage of construction materials or parking shall be permitted within the drip line area
of any tree designated to be saved.
11. Tree protection regulations shall be posted on protective fencing around trees to be
protected.
(Ord. 14-2126, § 3 (part), 2014; Ord. 13-2107, § 2 (part), 2013; Ord. 2085, § 2 (part), 2011; Ord.
2003, 2007)
11/21/19
43 of 65
11/14/2019 CHAPTER 14.18: PROTECTED TREES xx
library.amlegal.com/alpscripts/get-content.aspx 14/18
APPENDIX B
REFERENCE PHOTOS OF SPECIMEN TREES PROTECTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
SECTION 14.18.050B
EXAMPLES OF SOME OAK TREE VARIETIES
11/21/19
44 of 65
11/14/2019 CHAPTER 14.18: PROTECTED TREES xx
library.amlegal.com/alpscripts/get-content.aspx 15/18
11/21/19
45 of 65
11/14/2019 CHAPTER 14.18: PROTECTED TREES xx
library.amlegal.com/alpscripts/get-content.aspx 16/18
11/21/19
46 of 65
11/14/2019 CHAPTER 14.18: PROTECTED TREES xx
library.amlegal.com/alpscripts/get-content.aspx 17/18
11/21/19
47 of 65
11/14/2019 CHAPTER 14.18: PROTECTED TREES xx
library.amlegal.com/alpscripts/get-content.aspx 18/18
(Ord. 14-2126, § 3 (part), 2014)
11/21/19
48 of 65
CUPERTINO,
CALIFORNIA
JULY | 2019
URBAN TREE CANOPYASSESSMENT
11/21/19
49 of 65
Someone is
sitting in the
shade today
because someone
planted a tree a
long time ago.
-Warren Buffet
PREPARED BY
PlanIT Geo, LLC, Arvada, Colorado
PREPARED FOR
City of Cupertino, CA
URBAN TREE CANOPYCUPERTINO,CALIFORNIA
AN ASSESSMENT OF
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
4........................................................................................................................................................... PURPOSE OF THIS ASSESSMENT
4............................................................................................................................................. URBAN TREE CANOPY IN CUPERTINO
4....................................................................................................... ASSESSMENT BOUNDARIES AND ANALYSIS RESULTS
4..................................................................................................................................................................................RECOMMENDATIONS
04
PROJECT METHODOLOGY
6................................................................................................................................................................................................... DATA SOURCES
6................................................................................................................................................................................ MAPPING LAND COVER
7................................. IDENTIFYING POSSIBLE PLANTING AREAS AND UNSUITABLE AREAS FOR PLANTING
7........................................................................................................................................................... DEFINING ASSESSMENT LEVELS
06
STATE OF THE CANOPY AND KEY FINDINGS
9............................................................................................................................................................................... CITYWIDE LAND COVER
11......................................................................................................................................................... CITYWIDE URBAN TREE CANOPY
13...............................................................................................URBAN TREE CANOPY BY PLANNING NEIGHBORHOODS
15............................................................................................................. URBAN TREE CANOPY BY CENSUS BLOCK GROUPS
16...................................................................................................................................................URBAN TREE CANOPY BY PARCELS
09
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS23
REPORT APPENDIX
25.......................................................................................................................................................................... ACCURACY ASSESSMENT
27................................................................................................................................................................................ GLOSSARY/KEY TERMS
25
TABLE OFCONTENTS
URBAN TREE CANOPY CHANGE ANALYSIS
17................................................................................................................................. CITYWIDE URBAN TREE CANOPY CHANGE
18...............................................................................................URBAN TREE CANOPY BY PLANNING NEIGHBORHOODS
20............................................................................................................. URBAN TREE CANOPY BY CENSUS BLOCK GROUPS
21...................................................................................................................................................URBAN TREE CANOPY BY PARCELS
17
QUANTIFYING ECOSYSTEM BENEFITS22
11/21/19
50 of 65
4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EXECUTIVESUMMARY
JULY 2019 UTC ASSESSMENT | CUPERTINO, CA 5JULY 2019UTC ASSESSMENT | CUPERTINO, CA
23%URBAN TREE CANOPY
PURPOSE OF THIS ANALYSIS
The City of Cupertino is located within Santa Clara
County, California (Figure 1). It is approximately 11 square
miles or 7,231 acres of which 7,226 are land acres. Across
the city, trees along streets, in parks, yards, and natural
areas constitute a valuable urban and community
forest. This resource is a critical element of the region’s
green infrastructure, contributing to environmental
quality, public health, water supply, local economies
and aesthetics. The primary goal of this assessment
was to provide a baseline and benchmark of the City’s
tree canopy, interpret the results across a range of
geographic boundaries, and evaluate how the City’s
canopy has changed since 2009.
URBAN TREE CANOPY IN
CUPERTINO
Land cover results of this study indicated that in 2018, the
City of Cupertino had 23% urban tree canopy (or 1,684
acres of the 7,231 total acres); 18% non-canopy vegetation
(1,291 acres), 10% soil/dry vegetation (758 acres), 48%
impervious (3,494 acres); and less than 1% water (5 acres).
Urban tree canopy (UTC) and possible planting area
(PPA) results are based on land area which is equal to
the total area minus water area (7,231 - 5 = 7,226 acres).
UTC cover was 23% (1,684 acres), 27% (1,983 acres) was
suitable for future tree plantings, and 49% (3,558 acres)
was unsuitable due to its current land use or other
restraint. In further dividing the City’s urban tree canopy,
9% was overhanging impervious surfaces, and 91% of all
canopy was overhanging pervious surfaces. Cupertino
lost less than 1% (34 Acres) urban tree canopy since 2009.
ASSESSMENT BOUNDARIES
This study assessed UTC, PPA, and canopy change
metrics at multiple geographic scales in order to provide
actionable information to a diverse range of audiences.
By identifying what resources and opportunities exist
at these scales, the city can be more proactive in their
approach to protect and expand their urban tree canopy.
Metrics were generated at the following geographies:
the citywide boundary (1); planning neighborhoods (20);
census block groups (39); and parcels (15,472).
RECOMMENDATIONS
The results of this analysis can be used to develop a
continuing strategy to protect and expand the urban
forest in Cupertino. The UTC, PPA, and canopy change
metrics should be used as a guide to determine where
the City has been successful in protecting and expanding
its urban forest resource, while also targeting areas to
concentrate future efforts based on needs, benefits,
and available planting space. Cupertino should use
these results to ensure that their urban forest policies
and management practices continue to prioritize its
maintenance, health, and growth.
27%POSSIBLEPLANTING AREA
48%IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
Figure 2. | Based on an analysis of 2018 high-resolution imagery, Cupertino contains 23% tree canopy, 27%
areas that could support canopy in the future, and 48% total impervious areas.
Figure 1. | Cupertino occupies approximately 11 square miles in Santa Clara County, California.
1,684 ACRES OF
CANOPY
23% OF CUPERTINO
WAS TREE CANOPY IN
2018
11/21/19
51 of 65
6
PROJECT METHODOLOGY PROJECT METHODOLOGY
JULY 2019 UTC ASSESSMENT | CUPERTINO, CA 7JULY 2019UTC ASSESSMENT | CUPERTINO, CA
Land cover, urban tree canopy, and possible planting areas were mapped using the sources and methods described
below. These datasets provide the foundation for the metrics reported at the selected geographic assessment scales.
DATA SOURCES
This assessment utilized high-resolution (1-meter) multispectral imagery from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s
National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) collected in August 2018 and LiDAR data from the City of Cupertino
collected in 2016 to derive the land cover dataset. The NAIP imagery was used to classify all types of land cover
whereas the LiDAR data was mostly used to distinguish tree canopy from other types of vegetation. Additional GIS
layers provided by the City of Cupertino were also incorporated into the analysis.
MAPPING LAND COVER
An initial land cover dataset was to be created prior to mapping tree canopy. The land cover data set is the most
fundamental component of an urban tree canopy assessment. An object-based image analysis (OBIA) software
program called Feature Analyst was used to classify features through an iterative approach. In this process, objects’
spectral signatures across four bands (blue, green, red, and near-infrared), textures, pattern relationships, and object
height were considered. This remote sensing process used the NAIP imagery and LiDAR to derive five initial land
cover classes. These classes are shown in Figure 3 and described in the Glossary on page 27.
After manual classification improvement and quality control were performed on the remote sensing products,
additional data layers from the city (such as buildings, roads, sidewalks, and parking lots) were utilized to capture
finer feature detail and further categorize the land cover dataset.
Figure 3. | Five (5) distinct land cover classes were identified in the 2019 tree canopy assessment: urban tree
canopy, other non-canopy vegetation, bare soil and dry vegetation, impervious (paved) surfaces, and water.
URBAN TREE
CANOPY
OTHER
VEGETATION
SOIL AND DRY
VEGETATION IMPERVIOUS WATER
DEFINING ASSESSMENT LEVELS
In order to best inform the City Council and all of Cupertino’s various stakeholders, urban tree canopy and other
associated metrics were tabulated across a variety of geographic boundaries (Figure 5). These boundaries include
the city boundary, planning neighborhoods, census block groups, and parcels.
• The City of Cupertino citywide boundary is the one (1) main area of interest over which all metrics are summarized.
• Twenty (20) planning neighborhoods were assessed to quantify tree canopy at an easily-conceptualized scale for
local residents and community members.
• Thirty-nine (39) census block groups were assessed to provide information at a small geographic scale. Census
block groups (CBGs) are used by the U.S. Census Bureau to assure statistical consistency when tracking
populations across the United States and can be valuable indicators of environmental justice as they are directly
linked with demographic and socioeconomic data.
• The smallest unit of analysis was parcels, of which there were over fifteen thousand (15,472) in total. This unit is
helpful for assessing the canopy on an individual piece of property.
Figure 4. | Vegetated areas where it would be biophysically feasible for tree plantings but undesirable
based on their current usage (left) were delineated in the data as “Unsuitable” (right). These areas
included recreational sports fields, golf courses, and other open space.
IDENTIFYING POSSIBLE PLANTING AREAS AND UNSUITABLE AREAS FOR PLANTING
In addition to quantifying Cupertino’s existing tree canopy cover, another metric of interest in this assessment was
the area where tree canopy could be expanded. To assess this, all land area in Cupertino that was not existing tree
canopy coverage was classified as either possible planting area (PPA) or unsuitable for planting. Possible planting
areas were derived from the Non-Canopy Vegetation, Impervious, and Soil classifications. Unsuitable areas, or
areas where it was not feasible to plant trees due to biophysical or land use restraints (e.g. golf course playing areas,
recreation fields, etc.), were manually delineated and overlaid with the existing land cover data set (Figure 4). The final
results were reported as PPA Vegetation, PPA Impervious, PPA Other, Total PPA, Unsuitable Vegetation, Unsuitable
Impervious, and Total Unsuitable.
PROJECTMETHODOLOGY
11/21/19
52 of 65
STATE OF THE CANOPY AND KEY FINDINGS
JULY 2019 UTC ASSESSMENT | CUPERTINO, CA 98
PROJECT METHODOLOGY
JULY 2019UTC ASSESSMENT | CUPERTINO, CA
The results and key findings of this study, including the land cover map and canopy analysis results, are presented
below. These results, or metrics, help inform a strategic approach to identifying existing canopy and future planting
areas. Land cover percentages are based on the total area of interest while urban tree canopy, possible planting area,
and unsuitable percentages are based on land area. Water bodies are excluded from land area because they are
typically unsuitable for planting new trees without significant modification.
CITYWIDE LAND COVER
In 2018, tree canopy constituted 23% of Cupertino’s land cover; non-canopy vegetation was 18%; soil/dry vegetation
was 10%; impervious was 49%; and water was <1%. These generalized land cover results are presented below in Table
1.
The impervious land cover class was then subdivided into more specific classifications. Approximately 17% of
Cupertino was buildings, 9% was roads, <1% was parking lots, 1% was sidewalks, and 21% was “other impervious”. The
detailed land cover results, including impervious classifications, are presented in Figure 6.
Table 1. | Generalized land cover classification results.
City of Cupertino Total Area Tree Canopy Impervious
Surfaces
Non-Canopy
Vegetation
Soil & Dry
Vegetation Water
Acres 7,231 1,684 3,494 1,291 758 5
% of Total 100%23%48%18%10%<1%
Figure 5. | Four (4) distinct geographic boundaries were explored in this analysis: the full city boundary,
planning neighborhoods, U.S. census block groups, and parcels.
STATE OF THE CANOPY ANDKEY FINDINGS
City Boundary Planning Neighborhoods
Census Block Groups Parcels
11/21/19
53 of 65
10
STATE OF THE CANOPY AND KEY FINDINGS STATE OF THE CANOPY AND KEY FINDINGS
JULY 2019 UTC ASSESSMENT | CUPERTINO, CA 11JULY 2019UTC ASSESSMENT | CUPERTINO, CA
Figure 6. | Land cover classes for Cupertino, California based on 2018 NAIP imagery.
CITYWIDE URBAN TREE CANOPY
This urban tree canopy assessment utilized the land
cover map as a foundation to determine Possible
Planting Areas throughout the City. Additional layers
and information regarding land considered unsuitable
for planting were also incorporated into the analysis.
Note that the results of this study are based on land
area, which excludes water bodies, as opposed to total
area, which includes water bodies (note the difference
between Total Acres and Land Acres in Table 2).
Results of this study indicate that within the City of
Cupertino, 1,684 acres are covered with urban tree
canopy, making up 23% of the City’s 7,226 land acres;
1,226 acres are covered with other vegetation, soil/dry
vegetation, or impervious surfaces such as parking lots
where it would be possible to plant trees (PPA), making
up 27% of the City; and the other 3,558 acres were
considered unsuitable for tree planting, making up 49%
of the City. The unsuitable areas include recreational
sports fields, golf course playing areas, buildings, and
roads
Figure 7. | Urban tree canopy, possible planting area,
and area unsuitable for UTC in the City of
Cupertino.
Cupertino
Urban Tree Canopy Potential
Table 2. | Urban tree canopy assessment results by
acres and percent. (Percentages based on land acres.)
City of Cupertino Acres %
Total Area 7,231 100%
Land Area 7,226 100%
Urban Tree Canopy 1,684 23%
Possible Planting Area -
Vegetation 1,139 16%
Possible Planting Area -
Impervious 87 1%
Possible Planting Area -
Other 758 10%
Total Possible Planting
Area 1,983 27%
Unsuitable Vegetation 93 1%
Unsuitable Impervious 3,465 48%
Total Unsuitable Area 3,558 49%
11/21/19
54 of 65
12
STATE OF THE CANOPY AND KEY FINDINGS STATE OF THE CANOPY AND KEY FINDINGS
JULY 2019 UTC ASSESSMENT | CUPERTINO, CA 13JULY 2019UTC ASSESSMENT | CUPERTINO, CA
Figure 8. | Urban tree canopy, possible planting area, and unsuitable areas in the City of Cupertino.
Table 3. | Detailed urban tree canopy classifications.
City of Cupertino Acres %
UTC with Pervious Understory 1,539 91%
UTC with Impervious Understory 145 9%
Figure 9. | Urban tree canopy in Cupertino by planning neighborhoods.
URBAN TREE CANOPY BY PLANNING NEIGHBORHOODS
UTC and PPA were assessed for 20 planning neighborhoods in Cupertino. UTC varied greatly throughout
neighborhoods ranging from 9% in Bubb Rd to 39% in Inspiration Heights. Oak Valley had the highest percentage of
PPA with 50%, while the lowest PPA percentage 6% was found in Bubb Rd and Vallco Shopping District. The greatest
opportunity for future canopy expansion was in Monta Vista South which contained 22% of all PPA in Cupertino.
The City’s 1,684 acres of urban tree canopy were further divided into two subcategories based on whether their
canopy had an impervious or pervious understory. Tree canopy overhanging an impervious surface can provide
many benefits through ecosystem services such as localized cooling provided by shading of impervious surfaces and
increased stormwater absorption. Results indicated that a majority of Cupertino’s UTC was overhanging impervious
surfaces, as 91% of all tree canopy had a pervious understory. Impervious understory may actually be higher than
reported due to an incomprehensive impervious layer.
11/21/19
55 of 65
14
STATE OF THE CANOPY AND KEY FINDINGS STATE OF THE CANOPY AND KEY FINDINGS
JULY 2019 UTC ASSESSMENT | CUPERTINO, CA 15JULY 2019UTC ASSESSMENT | CUPERTINO, CA
Table 4. | Urban tree canopy assessment results by planning neighborhoods. UTC and PPA results include acres, percent
of area covered by UTC or PPA (%), and distribution of the City’s total UTC or PPA within each planning neighborhood.
Figure 10. | Urban tree canopy, possible planting area, and area unsuitable for UTC in the City of Cupertino.
Tree Canopy Potential by Planning Neighborhoods
URBAN TREE CANOPY BY CENSUS BLOCK GROUPS
Census block groups are linked to all demographic and socioeconomic U.S. Census data which makes them useful
for assessing the equitable distribution of tree canopy. Results indicated that UTC in Cupertino is not uniformly
distributed throughout the city. The census block group with the lowest percent UTC had 8% while the highest
contained 46% UTC. The average canopy cover for a census block group in Cupertino was 21%. PPA was also not
uniformly distributed and ranged from 14% to 60%. In general, higher UTC and PPA percentages were found in the
less developed western part of the City compared to the urban core. For the complete results by census block group,
refer to the UTC Results spreadsheet.
Figure 11. | Urban tree canopy in Cupertino by census block groups.
Planning Neighborhood Land Area Urban Tree Canopy Possible Planting Area
Acres Dist.Acres %Dist.Acres %Dist.
Bubb Rd 36 1%3 9%0%2 6%0%
Creston-Pharlap 307 4%78 25%5%76 25%4%
Fair Grove 67 1%13 20%1%7 10%0%
Garden Gate 288 4%45 16%3%60 21%3%
Heart of the City 596 9%92 16%6%65 11%3%
Homestead Rd 234 3%28 12%2%29 12%1%
Homestead Villa 55 1%15 27%1%12 22%1%
Inspiration Heights 778 11%303 39%18%343 44%18%
Jollyman 343 5%60 18%4%79 23%4%
Monta Vista 184 3%31 17%2%36 20%2%
Monta Vista North 942 13%293 31%18%283 30%15%
Monta Vista South 1,084 16%329 30%20%419 39%22%
North Blaney 291 4%42 15%3%57 20%3%
North De Anza Blvd 128 2%18 14%1%10 8%1%
North Vallco Park Guidelines 269 4%46 17%3%65 24%3%
Oak Valley 464 7%93 20%6%230 50%12%
Ranch Rinconada 403 6%80 20%5%59 15%3%
South Blaney 410 6%72 17%4%92 22%5%
South De Anza Blvd 41 1%5 13%0%3 8%0%
Vallco Shopping District 70 1%11 16%1%4 6%0%
Totals 7,226 100%1,659 24%100%1,933 28%100%
11/21/19
56 of 65
URBAN TREE CANOPY CHANGE ANALYSIS
JULY 2019 UTC ASSESSMENT | CUPERTINO, CA 1716
STATE OF THE CANOPY AND KEY FINDINGS
JULY 2019UTC ASSESSMENT | CUPERTINO, CA
Figure 13. | Examples of urban tree canopy loss (red) (left) and gain (yellow) (right).
URBAN TREE CANOPYCHANGE ANALYSIS
Table 5. | Urban tree canopy change for the City of Cupertino.
UTC LOSS UTC GAIN
In addition to assessing Cupertino’s urban tree canopy using current 2018 imagery, this study also quantified
changes in urban tree canopy using June 2009 imagery. This analysis mapped tree canopy in 2009 using identical
methods to those used for 2018 data. 1-meter high resolution NAIP aerial imagery was used for both time periods as
the primary data source. LiDAR data from the Santa Clara County LiDAR dataset collected in 2006 was also used in
this analysis.
To ensure an even comparison, both the 2009 and 2018 land cover data were analyzed using the most current
assessment boundaries despite the fact that the configuration of these boundaries may have changed in that
time frame. Changes between 2009 and 2018 were assessed at all scales. With the region continuing to experience
population increases and associated development, it is increasingly important to measure the extent of canopy and
monitor changes that occur.
CITYWIDE URBAN TREE CANOPY CHANGE
Cupertino’s current urban tree canopy coverage throughout the City is 23% with 1,684 acres. In 2009, canopy coverage
was 24% with 1,718 acres. A total of 34 acres of canopy were lost in that timespan or a change of -.5% citywide.
Preservation of the City’s existing canopy through management planning is important, and planting efforts have
been made to replace lost tree canopy in some areas around the City. Although these trees are still very small and
do not account for much of the citywide canopy, they will grow over time and contribute to the city’s overall canopy
cover.
This study achieved 98% overall accuracy (see Appendix). With a 95% confidence interval, there was a 2.1% margin
of error equating to 23.3% canopy cover +/- 2.1% or a range of 21.2% to 25.4%. Therefore, compared to 2009 coverage
(23.7%), there could have been a change ranging from -2.6% to 1.6% taking into account the 2018 margin of error.
Accuracy was not calculated for the 2009 tree canopy data.
Figure 12. | Urban tree canopy in Cupertino by parcels.
URBAN TREE CANOPY BY PARCELS
UTC and PPA were assessed within the City’s 15,472 parcels. This unit of measure provides the finest possible scale
at which to assess canopy, short of quantifying every individual tree, defining UTC and PPA metrics for every single
piece of public or privately-owned property within the City. Results showed that four of Cupertino’s parcels were
completely covered in canopy, and 577 had no canopy at all. The average UTC of all parcels was 19% compared to the
citywide average of 23% indicating that a large number of parcels have a lower UTC and the city’s average value is
strongly influenced by a few heavily forested parcels. 31% of parcels had over 23% canopy, the citywide average, while
69% of parcels had below the citywide average canopy. For complete study results refer to the parcels shapefile and
attribute table in the UTC Results folder.
City of Cupertino Total Area UTC 2009 UTC 2018 UTC Change
Acres Acres %Acres %Acres %
Urban Tree Canopy 7,231 1,718 24%1,684 23%-34 -0.5%
11/21/19
57 of 65
18
URBAN TREE CANOPY CHANGE ANALYSIS URBAN TREE CANOPY CHANGE ANALYSIS
JULY 2019 UTC ASSESSMENT | CUPERTINO, CA 19JULY 2019UTC ASSESSMENT | CUPERTINO, CA
Figure 14. | Urban tree canopy change by planning neighborhoods.
URBAN TREE CANOPY CHANGE BY PLANNING NEIGHBORHOODS
UTC change was also assessed for planning neighborhoods in Cupertino. Twelve out of 20 neighborhoods experienced
a UTC loss or no gain. The largest canopy gain was in the Monta Vista North planning neighborhood (3%). North
Vallco Park Guidelines lost 10% UTC since 2009 due to redevelopment of the Apple headquarters. Newly planted
trees in this area should reach or exceed 2009 canopy coverage if properly cared for. The planning neighborhood
with the lowest canopy in 2009 was Bubb Rd which experienced a 1% loss (1 Acre).
Table 6. | Urban tree canopy change by planning neighborhoods.
Urban Tree Canopy Change by Planning Neighborhoods
Figure 15. | Urban tree canopy change in Cupertino by planning neighborhoods.
Planning Neighborhoods Land Area UTC 2009 UTC 2018 UTC Change
Acres Acres %Acres %Acres %
Bubb Rd 36 4 11%3 9%-0 -1%
Creston-Pharlap 307 73 24%78 25%4 1%
Fair Grove 67 16 23%13 20%-2 -3%
Garden Gate 288 44 15%45 16%1 0%
Heart of the City 596 100 17%92 16%-7 -1%
Homestead Rd 234 31 13%28 12%-3 -1%
Homestead Villa 55 14 26%15 27%1 1%
Inspiration Heights 778 334 43%303 39%-31 -4%
Jollyman 343 60 18%60 18%0 0%
Monta Vista 184 28 15%31 17%3 1%
Monta Vista North 942 267 28%293 31%25 3%
Monta Vista South 1,084 311 29%329 30%17 2%
North Blaney 291 51 17%42 15%-8 -3%
North De Anza Blvd 128 24 19%18 14%-6 -5%
North Vallco Park Guidelines 269 72 27%46 17%-26 -10%
Oak Valley 464 83 18%93 20%10 2%
Ranch Rinconada 403 87 22%80 20%-7 -2%
South Blaney 410 73 18%72 17%-2 -0%
South De Anza Blvd 41 6 13%5 13%-0 -0%
Vallco Shopping District 70 15 21%11 16%-4 -6%
Totals 6,989 1,694 24%1,659 24%-36 -1%
11/21/19
58 of 65
20
URBAN TREE CANOPY CHANGE ANALYSIS URBAN TREE CANOPY CHANGE ANALYSIS
JULY 2019 UTC ASSESSMENT | CUPERTINO, CA 21JULY 2019UTC ASSESSMENT | CUPERTINO, CA
URBAN TREE CANOPY CHANGE BY PARCELS
Canopy cover change was assessed for Cupertino’s 15,472 parcels. 52% of all parcels (8,161) had an increase in canopy,
44% (6,907) had a decrease, and 4% (404) had no change. 2% had complete canopy loss while less than 1% of parcels
had increases that doubled the canopy cover. 13% of all parcels had a canopy increases greater than 10%. The average
change amongst all parcels was -0.2% indicating that the parcels closely reflect the citywide change results.
Figure 17. | Urban tree canopy change by parcels.Figure 16. | Urban tree canopy change by census block groups.
URBAN TREE CANOPY CHANGE BY CENSUS BLOCK GROUPS
As one of the smaller geographic units, census block groups provide an additional measure for understanding
canopy change in Cupertino. Some block groups lost as much as 8% of their canopy, while others gained up to 5%
in areas where canopy growth contributed to gain in UTC. The greatest losses of canopy tended to be concentrated
near the northeastern and western sides of the City, while the north and southwestern parts experienced a 1-5% gain
in canopy. Refer to the UTC Results spreadsheet for complete UTC results by census block groups in Cupertino.
11/21/19
59 of 65
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
JULY 2019 UTC ASSESSMENT | CUPERTINO, CA 2322
QUANTIFYING ECOSYSTEM BENEFITS
JULY 2019UTC ASSESSMENT | CUPERTINO, CA
Using the best available science from i-Tree tools, values were calculated for some of the benefits and functions provided
by trees and forests in Cupertino. The urban forest holds millions of dollars of savings in avoided infrastructure costs,
pollution reduction , and stored carbon.
AIR QUALITY
Trees produce oxygen, indirectly reduce pollution by lowering air temperatures, and improve public health by
reducing air pollutants which cause death and illness.
• The existing tree canopy in Cupertino removes 61.95 tons of air pollution annually, valued at $739,250.
STORMWATER AND WATER QUALITY
Trees and forests mitigate stormwater runoff which minimizes flood risk, stabilizes soil, reduces sedimentation in
streams and riparian land, and absorbs pollutants, thus improving water quality and habitats.
• On average, each acre of tree canopy in Cupertino absorbs 20,000 gallons of water. This benefit of avoided
runoff is valued at roughly $215 per acre/per year. Extrapolated citywide, this means that Cupertino’s existing tree
canopy provides $362,177 annually in stormwater benefits.
CARBON STORAGE AND SEQUESTRATION
Trees accumulate carbon in their biomass; with most species in a temperate forest, the rate and amount increase
with age.
• Cupertino’s trees store approximately 71,253 tons of carbon, valued at $12,152,254, and each year the tree canopy
absorbs and sequesters approximately 2,236 tons of carbon dioxide, valued at $381,312.
QUANTIFYINGECOSYSTEM BENEFITS
The City of Cupertino has demonstrated that it values its natural resources and wants to maintain a healthy and
sustainable urban environment. This tree canopy assessment represents an important step in ensuring the long-
term health of its urban forest. A greater percent of canopy cover can be achieved with proper planning, investment,
and care of existing trees. The City should continue to monitor the health of the urban forest and implement the
following recommendations to ensure the urban forest is considered during future city planning and development
to sustain and enhance the benefits that trees provide to the community.
Target new
tree plantings
to benefit
areas of recent
development.
1. Leverage the results of this assessment to
promote the urban forest
To preserve, protect, and maintain Cupertino’s tree
canopy, the City should continue to have a tree
canopy assessment performed on a regular interval.
As the City changes, they will be able to use these
data to ensure that their urban forest policies and
management practices prioritize its maintenance,
health, and growth. The City’s urban forest provides
Cupertino with a wealth of environmental, social, and
even economic benefits which relate back to greater
community interest in citywide initiatives and
priorities. These results can be used to identify where
existing tree canopy cover should be preserved,
where there are opportunities to expand the City’s
canopy cover, and which areas would receive the
greatest benefits from the investment of valuable
time and resources into the urban forest in Cupertino.
The results of this assessment can and should be used to encourage investment in forest monitoring, maintenance,
and management; to prepare supportive information for local budget requests/grant applications; and to develop
targeted presentations for city leaders, planners, engineers, resource managers, and the public on the functional
benefits of trees in addressing environmental issues. The land cover and geographic assessment scale data should
be disseminated to diverse partners (IT, GIS, Public Works, Trees Division) for urban forestry and other applications
while they are current and most useful for decision-making and implementation planning. The information from
this study can help refine canopy cover goals for the short- and long-term.
2. Use UTC/PPA and change results to prioritize future plantings
The City of Cupertino and its various stakeholders can utilize the results of the UTC, PPA, and change analyses to
identify the best locations to focus future tree planting and canopy expansion efforts. While the City has canopy
coverage spread throughout its entire area, breaking up the results by several different geographic boundaries
demonstrated that this canopy is not evenly distributed. These results can be used as a guide to determine which
areas would receive the greatest benefits from the investment of valuable time and resources into Cupertino’s urban
forest.
3. Use data from this study to quantify the expansion of green infrastructure
Cupertino’s goal to plant 2,500 new trees by 2020 demonstrates the City has placed a high priority on expanding
green infrastructure. With the help of trees planted on the Apple 2 campus they are well above that goal. With the
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
11/21/19
60 of 65
APPENDIX
JULY 2019 UTC ASSESSMENT | CUPERTINO, CA 2524
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
JULY 2019UTC ASSESSMENT | CUPERTINO, CA
50% OF THE OAK
VALLEY PLANNING
NEIGHBORHOOD IS
PLANTABLE SPACE
benchmark this study provides, the City can quantify the acreage
these new trees have already contributed. The data show areas of
tree growth since 2009 demonstrating the potential contribution
of young trees in the coming years. Cupertino should use data
from this study to quantify the impact of current goals and to set
informed goals for the future.
4. Implement land cover data to identify and make use of possible planting areas.
The City should seek to make the most use of possible planting areas in city-owned medians using data from this
assessment. These areas only make up a small part of the plantable space in Cupertino, but the ecosystem service
benefits that trees in these areas would provide would be relatively high considering their proximity to impervious
surfaces. The land cover datasets provided with this assessment can be analyzed within other boundaries not
included in the scope of this project. It would be beneficial to overlay the plantable space data with a geographic
scale such as zoning or land use as possible planting area is frequently most concentrated in private residential areas.
The city could then develop targeted education and outreach efforts to inform residents on the environmental,
social, and financial benefits of preserving trees and planting in open spaces.
5. Use the TreePlotter™ software suite to evaluate a variety of possible management scenarios
In addition to the examples above, the City can also use the incorporated TreePlotter™ tools (CANOPY and
INVENTORY) to monitor the health and diversity of its trees and explore a wide range of targeted in-depth planting
scenarios based on several prioritization criteria such as current tree canopy, possible planting area, air quality,
wildlife habitat connectivity and energy conservation. CANOPY allows stakeholders to visualize existing land cover,
create custom weighted priority planting maps, and quantify impacts that canopy growth or loss has on air quality
and carbon sequestration in the City. These tools should be used to identify areas in the most need of the benefits
trees provide.
THE INTERNAL ACCURACY ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED IN THESE STEPS
1. Two hundred (200) sample points, or approximately 18 points per square mile area in Cupertino
(11 sq.miles), were randomly distributed across the study area and assigned a random numeric value.
2. Each sample point was then referenced using the NAIP aerial photo and assigned one of five generalized
land cover classes (“Ref_ID”) mentioned above by a technician.
3. In the event that the reference value could not be discerned from the imagery, the point was dropped
f rom the accuracy analysis. In this case, no points were dropped.
4. An automated script was then used to assign values from the classification raster to each point (“Eval_ID”).
The classification supervisor provides unbiased feedback to quality control technicians regarding the
types of corrections required. Misclassified points (where reference ID does not equal evaluation ID)
and corresponding land cover are inspected for necessary corrections to the land cover.1
Accuracy is re-evaluated (repeat steps 3 & 4) until an acceptable classification accuracy is achieved.
SAMPLE ERROR MATRIX INTERPRETATION
Statistical relationships between the reference pixels (representing the true conditions on the ground) and the
intersecting classified pixels are used to understand how closely the entire classified map represents Cupertino’s
landscape. The error matrix shown in Table A1 represent the intersection of reference pixels manually identified by a
human observer (columns) and classification category of pixels in the classified image (rows). The blue boxes along the
1 Note that by correcting locations associated with accuracy points, bias is introduced to the error matrix results. This means that
matrix results based on a new set of randomly collected accuracy points may result in significantly different accuracy values.
REPORT APPENDIX
ACCURACY ASSESSMENT
Classification accuracy serves two main purposes. Firstly, accuracy assessments provide information to
technicians producing the classification about where processes need to be improved and where they are
effective. Secondly, measures of accuracy provide information about how to use the classification and how well
land cover classes are expected to estimate actual land cover on the ground. Even with high resolution imagery,
very small differences in classification methodology and image quality can have a large impact on overall map
area estimations.
The classification accuracy error matrix illustrated in Table A1 contain confidence intervals that report the high
and low values that could be expected for any comparison between the classification data and what actual, on
the ground land cover was at the time of the assessment. This accuracy assessment was completed using high
resolution aerial imagery with computer and manual verification. No field verification was completed.
11/21/19
61 of 65
26
APPENDIX APPENDIX
JULY 2019 UTC ASSESSMENT | CUPERTINO, CA 27JULY 2019UTC ASSESSMENT | CUPERTINO, CA
Table A1. | Error matrix for land cover classifications in Cupertino, CA (2018).
diagonals of the matrix represent agreement between
the two-pixel maps. Off-diagonal values represent the
number of pixels manually referenced to the column
class that were classified as another category in the
classification image. Overall accuracy is computed by
dividing the total number of correct pixels by the total
number of pixels reported in the matrix (51 + 32 + 91 +
21+ 0 = 195 / 200 = 98%), and the matrix can be used to
calculate per class accuracy percentage’s. For example,
51 points were manually identified in the reference map
as Tree Canopy, and 52 of those pixels were classified as
Tree Canopy in the classification map. This relationship
is called the “Producer’s Accuracy” and is calculated
by dividing the agreement pixel total (diagonal) by
the reference pixel total (column total). Therefore, the
Producer’s Accuracy for Tree Canopy is calculated as:
(51/52 = .98), meaning that we can expect that ~98% of
all 2018 tree canopy in the Cupertino, CA study area was
classified as Tree Canopy in the 2018 classification map.
Conversely, the “User’s Accuracy” is calculated by
dividing the total number of agreement pixels by the
total number of classified pixels in the row category. For
example, 51 classification pixels intersecting reference
pixels were classified as Tree Canopy, but two pixels
were identified as Vegetation and one pixel as Soil/Dry
Vegetation in the reference map. Therefore, the User’s
Accuracy for Tree Canopy is calculated as: (51/54 = 0.94),
meaning that ~94% of the pixels classified as Tree
Canopy in the classification were actual tree canopy.
It is important to recognize the Producer’s and User’s
accuracy percent values are based on a sample of the
true ground cover, represented by the reference pixels
at each sample point. Interpretation of the sample
error matrix results indicates this land cover, and more
importantly, tree canopy, were accurately mapped in
Cupertino in 2018. The largest sources of classification
confusion exist between tree canopy and vegetation.
ACCURACY ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Interpretation of the sample error matrix offers some important insights when evaluating Cupertino’s urban tree
canopy coverage and how land cover reported by the derived rasters and the human eye. The high accuracy of the
2018 data indicates that regardless of how and when it was achieved, Cupertino’s current tree canopy can be safely
assumed to match the figures stated in this report (approximately 23%).
GLOSSARY/KEY TERMS
Land Acres: Total land area, in acres, of the assessment boundary (excludes water).
Non-Canopy Vegetation: Areas of grass and open space where tree canopy does not exist.
Possible Planting Area - Vegetation: Areas of grass and open space where tree canopy does not exist, and it is
biophysically possible to plant trees.
Possible Planting Area - Impervious: Paved areas void of tree canopy, excluding buildings and roads, where it is
biophysically possible to establish tree canopy. Examples include parking lots and sidewalks.
Possible Planting Area - Total: The combination of PPA Vegetation area and PPA Impervious area.
Soil/Dry Vegetation: Areas of bare soil and/or dried, dead vegetation. These areas are considered suitable for tree
planting.
Total Acres: Total area, in acres, of the assessment boundary.
Unsuitable Impervious: Areas of impervious surfaces that are not suitable for tree planting. These include buildings
and roads.
Unsuitable Planting Area: Areas where it is not feasible to plant trees. Airports, ball fields, golf courses, etc. were
manually defined as unsuitable planting areas.
Unsuitable Vegetation: Areas of non-canopy vegetation that are not suitable for tree planting due to their land use.
Urban Tree Canopy (UTC): The “layer of leaves, branches and stems that cover the ground” (Raciti et al., 2006) when
viewed from above; the metric used to quantify the extent, function, and value of Cupertino’s urban forest. Tree
canopy was generally taller than 10-15 feet tall.
Water: Areas of open, surface water not including swimming pools.
11/21/19
62 of 65
URBAN TREE CANOPYASSESSMENT
CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
JULY | 2019
11/21/19
63 of 65
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Text
Subject: Review submitted applications for 2019 Sustainability Grants for Students program
Review applications, select program awardees, and decide grant amounts for each awardee
File #:19-6557,Version:1
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/16/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
11/21/19
64 of 65
2019 Sustainability Grants for
Students Applications
are available on request in the
Sustainability Division’s office
408-777-1364
11/21/19
65 of 65