12. Gordon Development
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
Fax: (408) 777-3333
(IWOf
CUPEI\TINO
Community Development
Department
Summary
Agenda Item N o. ~
Agenda Date: September 19, 2006
Application: TM-2006-07, EA-2006-08
Applicant: Scott Kelly (Kelly Gordon Development)
Owner: Charles Varian and Nancy Fedders (Charles Varian Trust)
Location: 10114 Crescent Court, APN 326-17-009 & 326-17-030
Application Summary:
· TENT A TIVE MAP APPLICATION to subdivide a 2.4 acre parcel into five
residential parcels ranging from 10,254 sq. ft to 13,176 sq. ft. and a 37,073 sq. ft.
parcel to be dedicated to the Santa Clara Valley Water District.
· ENVIRONMENT AL DETERMINATION: Mitigated Negative Declaration
recommended. The project will have no significant, adverse environmental
impacts with the proposed mitigation measures.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission recommends approval of:
1. The negative declaration, file number EA-2006-08.
2. The tentative map application, file number TM-2006-07, in accordance with Planning
Commission Resolution No. 6406.
Project Data:
General Plan Designation:
Zoning Designation:
Acreage (Net):
Maximum F.A.R. Allowable
Project Consistency with:
General Plan:
Zoning:
Residential Low 1-5 DU / Gross Acre
R1-10
2.4 acres
45%
Yes
Yes
Environmental Assessment:
Mitigated Negative Declaration.
(J--l
Applications: TM-2006-07, EA-2006-08
Varian Subdivision
Page 2
September 19, 2006
BACKGROUND
The project is located at 10114 Crescent Court. The proposed project is on a developed
site accessed by an unimproved driveway from the existing right of way to the lot with
one single family home. The parcel is bounded by Varian Park to the North, Stevens
Creek to the East, and other existing single-family homes to the South and the West. To
the east of the property is a steep cliff that leads down to the creek. There is an
unimproved walkable path to the North of the property leading down to the creek.
DISCUSSION
On August 8,2006, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of
this tentative map on a 3-0-2 vote (Giefer and Chien absent) (Exhibit A) to subdivide the
existing parcels into five residential and one remainder lot dedicated to the Santa Clara
Valley Water District subject to a modified resolution.
Planning Commission
The Commission's comments were:
1. The project is compatible with the neighborhood.
2. They agreed with staff's recommendation of recording a slope easement for lots 4
and 5 despite the applicant's misgivings about the negative connotation of the
term "easement." They agreed that recording the restriction in the CC&R's
would be less effective and less transparent than recording the easement on the
tentative map.
The commissioners also considered recording a building envelope for lots 4 & 5
instead of an easement. However, they agreed that this would be more restrictive
than the easement since there would be portions of lot 5 that would
unnecessarily have restrictions on development.
3. The commissioners recommended incorporating additional language from a
letter of clarification requested from Murray Engineers, the applicant's
Geotechnical consultant, with regard to a clearer definition of the structures that
need further review prior to installation (Exhibit B). This Ianguage"...or mitigate
the impact of cliff retreat" was requested by the commissioners to be added to
the slope easement condition in the resolution.
4. With regard to the trees, the commission felt it was not necessary to remove trees
#7 & 8 (oak trees in excellent health) since they do not affect the subdivision and
no building plans have been submitted for the relevant lot. They felt it would be
possible to design a home around the trees. They mentioned that if it was not
possible to design around the trees, the relocation or removal of the trees could
be discussed at that time. They disagreed with staff's recommendation to
relocate tree #26, an oak tree in excellent health. They recommended removal
and replacement of this tree.
5. Some of the Commissioner's were concerned about the street serving the
development should be a private street. However, both the Public Works
{1- J-
Applications: TM-2006-07, EA-2006-08
Varian Subdivision
Page 3
September 19, 2006
Department and the applicant feel that it would be appropriate to keep the street
private, which allows public access. The Commission, however, directed staff to
highlight the two options of enabling acceptance of the street as a public street.
The two options the Commissioner's were considering were:
a. Taking enough land from Varian Park to meet the minimum public right-
of-way standards, or
b. Accepting a substandard right-of-way.
6. The Commission was also concerned about the chain link fence that runs through
Varian Park preventing access from Crescent Court into the tot lot and the
developed portion of the park. They are submitting a Minute Order to the
Council requesting that the fence be removed.
Applicant
The Commission heard from the applicant who spoke during the public hearing and
provided the following comments:
o The applicant provided a new arborist's report (Exhibit C) prepared by their
arborist assessing the health of trees #7, 8 and 26. The City's consultant arborist
and the applicant's arborist have differing opinions on the health of the trees and
the potential to transplant the trees, as shown in the table below:
Tree Health/Structure Ability to transplant Recommendation
Number
City's Appl. City's Appl. City's Appl.
Arborist Arborist Arborist Arborist Arborist Arborist
Excellent/ Excellent Retain or
7 Fair/Fair with tree N/A Remove
Excellent spade Transplant
Excellent/ Excellent Could be Retain or Retain or
8 Fair/Fair with moved with
Very Good boxing tree spade Transplant Transplant
Excellent/ Excellent Totally Retain or
26 Poor / Poor wi th tree Remove
Fair space unsuitable Transplant
The City uses a consultant arborist in assessing trees since it provides neutral
assessment and is unbiased. Therefore, staff recommends that the council rely on
the recommendations of the City's Arborist while making its decisions.
o The applicant was concerned about the replacements being recommended by
staff. However, this was due to a misunderstanding on behalf of the applicant
where he understood that the replacements being required were above and
beyond the total value of trees being removed from the property.
o The applicant was also concerned about the slope easement. The applicant is
concerned that recording an easement on the property would restrict the value of
(;L-3
Applications: TM-2006-07, EA-2006-08
Varian Subdivision
Page 4
September 19,2006
the property and would have a negative connotation.
Public
The Commission also heard from members of the public who spoke during the public
hearing and provided the following comments:
o It is difficult to relocate trees and they do not survive. Either trees should be left
where they are or should be replaced with appropriate replacements.
o There are some concerns about the intersection of Crescent Court and Crescent
Road being too narrow.
o Too many trees being removed for development of the property.
Staff
The applicant has requested removal of trees #7 and #26 and relocation of tree #8. Staff
recommends retaining trees #7 and #8 and relocating #26. Trees #7 and #8 are located
on the periphery of lot 1 and it will be easy to design a house around these two trees.
Tree #26 is in excellent health per the City's consultant arborist and a prime candidate
for transplantation. Staff recommends that it be relocated to lot 5.
ENCLOSURES
Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6406
Exhibit A: Staff Report to Planning Commission dated August 8,2006
Exhibit B: Letter from Murray Engineers, Inc dated July 5th, 2006
Exhibit C: Arborist Report prepared by Arborwell dated August 3rd, 2006
Exhibit D: Planning Commission Resolution No. 6409 (Minute Order)
Plan Set
Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, Assistant Planner
Submitted by:
Approved by:
~/ 'zu~
Ciddy Wor&ll
City Planner, Community Development
~~
David W. Knapp
City Manager
G:\ Planning \ PDREPORT\ CC\ TM-2006-07 CCSR.doc
12-Y
TM-2006-07
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 6406
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP TO
SUBDIVIDE A 2.4-ACRE PARCEL INTO FIVE SINGLE F AMIL Y RESIDENTIAL
PARCELS WITH AN AVERAGE LOT SIZE OF 11,329 SQ. FT. IN A R1-10 ZONING
DISTRICT AND ONE 37,073 SQ. FT. PARCEL TO BE DEDICATED TO THE SANTA
CLARA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT LOCATED AT 10114 CRESCENT COURT
SECTION I: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application
for a Tentative Subdivision Map, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the
Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held
one or more public hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said
application; and has satisfied the following requirements:
1) That the proposed subdivision map is consistent with the City of Cupertino
General Plan.
2) That the design and improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent
with the General Plan.
3) That the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of development
contemplated under the approved subdivision.
4) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not
likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and
unavoidable injure fish and wildlife or their habitat.
5) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements associated
therewith is not likely to cause serious public health problems.
6) That the design of the subdivision and its associated improvements will not
conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or
use of property within the proposed subdivision.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the application for Tentative Subdivision Map is hereby
recommended for approval, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this
Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof; and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this
I J-:)
Resolution No. 6406
Page 2
TM-2006-07
August 8,2006
resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application
No. TM-2006-07 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of
August 8,2006, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
TM-2006-07
Scott Kelly (Nancy Fedders and Charles Varian)
10114 Crescent Court
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
The recommendation of approval is based on Exhibit titled: "Tentative Tract
Map, 10114 Crescent Court, Cupertino, CA," consisting of 1 pages stamped July
19, 2006, except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this
Resolution.
2. IRREVOCABLE OFFER OF DEDICATION
The applicant shall make an irrevocable offer of dedication to the Santa Clara
Valley Water District subject to the requirement that the City of Cupertino and
the Water District sign a Joint Use Agreement. If the City and the Water District
are unable to reach an agreement, the offer of dedication shall revert to the City
of Cupertino.
3. PRIVATE ROADWAY PERCOLATION TRENCH
The private roadway shall have percolation trenches with catch basins to direct
the runoff into the trenches.
4. SWALES
Swales shall be provided on each of the lots to help with percolation of water in
to the ground.
5. NO PARKING ZONE
The portion of the roadway that is 22 feet wide shall have 'No Parking' signs
posted per City standards.
The portion of the roadway that is 28 feet wide shall have either 'No Parking'
signs or a red curb on the west side of the street.
6. NEWRETAININGWALLALONGROADWAY
The retaining wall along the roadway shall be no taller than 3 feet from the curb
and shall be faced with attractive materials such as stone veneer or natural stone.
7. PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT
Applicant shall record a public easement access over the private roadway. The
agreement shall be recorded in conjunction with recordation of the final map,
and shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content by the City
Attorney.
{ l.-~
Resolution No. 6406
Page 3
TM-2006-07
August 8, 2006
8. TREE REMOVAL
The applicant shall prepare a new tentative map showing the trees to be
protected on the map. The trees to be protected shall also be recorded as outlined
in condition #11 below. Fruit trees are not being protected as part of this
tentative map application.
In the event that any of the protected trees must be removed during the
construction process due to reasons deemed appropriate by the Director of
Community Development, then comparable diameter replacement tree(s) or field
grown tree(s) shall be planted at the same location or at locations visible to the
public at the discretion of the Director.
Two 60-inch box or field grown oak trees shall replace trees #4 and 5. The
applicant shall plant coast live oaks, in numbers deemed appropriate by the
Director of Community Development and in places visible to the public subject
to an arborist's report, for the trees that are being removed.
9. TREE PROTECTION
As part of the demolition or grading permits, a tree protection plan shall be
prepared by a certified arborist for the trees to be retained and trees on
neighboring properties but identified by the arborist as being at risk during
construction. In addition, the following measures shall be added to the
protection plan:
a. For trees to be retained, chain link fencing and other root protection shall
be installed around the drip line of the tree prior to any project site work.
b. No parking or vehicle traffic shall be allowed under root zones, unless
using buffers approved by the Project Arborist.
c. No trenching within the critical root zone area is allowed. If trenching is
needed in the vicinity of trees to be retained, the City's consulting arborist
shall be consulted before any trenching or root cutting beneath the drip
line of the tree.
d. Tree protection conditions shall be posted on the tree protection barriers.
e. Retained tree shall be watered according to the requirements of the tree to
maintain them in good health.
The tree protection measures shall be inspected and approved by the certified
arborist prior to issuance of demolition or grading permits. The City's consulting
arborist shall inspect the trees to be retained and shall provide reviews prior to
issuance of demolition and grading permits.
10. TREE PROTECTION BOND
The applicant shall provide a tree protection bond in the amount of $60,000 to
ensure protection of 12 oak trees, 1 Colorado Spruce, 1 Redwood tree and 1
California Pepper Tree on the site prior to issuance of grading or demolition
permits. The bond shall be returned after completion of construction, subject to a
letter from the City Arborist indicating that the trees are in good condition.
I ~-{
Resolution No. 6406
Page 4
TM-2006-07
August 8, 2006
11. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS & RESTRICTIONS (CC&R's)
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that address the following shall
be recorded:
a. Roadway Maintenance Agreement: A reciprocal maintenance agreement
shall be required for all parcels that share a common private drive or
private roadway with one or more other parcels within the tract.
b. Protected Trees: Trees to be retained are: #1,2,3, 7,8, 13, 14, 16, 18, 20, 23,
28, 29 and 30. New trees are to be planted, the location of which shall be
reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development and
recorded in the CC&R's.
c. Lot 5 Foundation: The residence on Lot 5 shall be supported on drilled
pIers.
d. Lot 1 Landscaping: No landscaping other than a lawn is permitted within
the 40-foot sight triangle for corner lots.
e. Geotechnical Plan Review: The applicant's Geotechnical consultant
should review and approve all Geotechnical aspects of the development
plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and
design parameters for foundation and retaining walls) to ensure that their
recommendations have been properly incorporated.
The results of the Geotechnical plan review should be submitted by the
Geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City for review
and approval by City Staff prior to approval of building permits.
f. Geotechnical Field Inspection: The Geotechnical consultant should
inspect, test (as needed), and approve all Geotechnical aspects of the
project construction. The inspections should included, but not necessarily
be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface
drainage improvements and excavations for foundation and retaining
walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete.
The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions should be
described by the Geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the
City Engineer for review prior to final project approval.
g. Future Trail: A note shall be recorded that informs future homeowners
that the City of Cupertino owns land around the subdivision and there
might be future trails along Stevens Creek.
The CC&R's shall be recorded in conjunction with recordation of the final map,
and shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content by the City
Attorney.
12. SLOPE EASEMENT
A slope easement shall be recorded at the rear of lots 4 and 5 of the subdivision
prohibiting principal dwellings, accessory structures, including porches,
including guesthouses, detached garages and swimming pools within 25 feet
from the top of the cliff, unless measures to stabilize the cliff or mitigate the
ll-'D
Resolution No. 6406
Page 5
TM - 2006-07
August 8, 2006
impact of cliff retreat are incorporated into the design and construction. Note:
The top of the cliff does not coincide with the property line.
13. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN
A construction management plan shall be prepared by the applicant and
approved by staff prior to any grading, development or construction. Staging of
construction equipment shall not occur within 20 feet of any residential property,
within the 20-foot right-of-way or within 25 feet of the top of cliff on lots 4 & 5.
14. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER
EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees,
dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute
written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the
dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified
that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications,
reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section
66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period
complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally
barred from later challenging such exactions.
SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT
15. STREET WIDENING
Street widening, improvements and dedications shall be provided in accordance
with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer.
16. ROAD SITE IMPROVEMENTS
Curbs and gutters, sidewalks, retaining walls and related structures shall be
installed in accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City
Engineer.
17. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION
Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer.
Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of
visual interference to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the
maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located.
18. FIRE HYDRANT
Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City, Santa Clara County Fire
and San Jose Water Company, as needed.
19. GRADING
Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance
with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404
permits maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/or
!~-1
Resolution No. 6406
Page 6
TM-2006-07
August 8, 2006
Regional Water Quality Control Board as appropriate.
20. DRAINAGE
Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Development
in all other zoning districts shall be served by on site storm drainage facilities
connected to the City storm drainage system. If City storm drains are not
available, drainage facilities shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
* Pre- and Post Development Calculations are required to determine if
additional storm drain facilities shall be required.
21. FIRE PROTECTION
Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the
City and Santa Clara County Fire, as needed.
22. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities
Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of
Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of
underground utility devices. The developer shall submit detailed plans showing
utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of
the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer.
23. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of
Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking
and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for under
grounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of
construction permits.
Fees:
a. Checking & Inspection Fees:
$2,130.00 min.
b. Grading Permit:
$ 5% of Road Site Improvement Costs or
c. Development Maintenance Deposit:
d. Storm Drainage Fee:
e. Power Cost:
f. Map Checking Fees:
g. Park Fees:
h. Street Tree
$ 6% of Site Improvement Costs or
$2,000.00 min.
$ 3,000.00
$ 3,096.00
**
$ 6,750.00
$ 63,000.00
By Developer
** Based on the latest effective PG&E rate schedule approved by the Public
Utility Commission (P.U.c.)
Bonds:
a. Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Road Site improvements
I :2--(0
Resolution No. 6406
Page 7
TM-2006-07
August 8, 2006
b. Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Road Site improvements
c. Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements
-The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule
adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified
at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the
event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then
current fee schedule.
24. TRANSFORMERS
Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment
enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located
underground such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas.
25. DEDICATION OF WATERLINES
The developer shall dedicate to the City all waterlines and appurtenances
installed to City Standards and shall reach an agreement with San Jose Water for
water service to the subject development.
26. DEVELOPMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP)
REQUIREMENTS
The applicant must include the use and maintenance of site design, source
control and stormwater treatment BMP's, which must be designed per approved
numeric sizing criteria. The property owners with treatment BMPs will be
required to certify on-going operation and maintenance.
Also, the applicant and the City shall enter into a recorded agreement and
covenant running with the land for perpetual BMP maintenance by the property
owners(s). In addition, the owner(s) and the City shall enter into a recorded
easement agreement and covenant running with the land allowing City access at
the site for BMP inspection.
27. NPDES CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT
The applicant must obtain a notice of intent (NOI) from the State Water
Resources Control Board, which encompasses a preparation of a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), use of construction Best Management
Practices (BMP's) to control storm water runoff quality and BMP inspection and
maintenance.
28. EROSION CONTROL PLAN
The developer must provide an approved erosion control plan by a Registered
Civil Engineer. This plan should include all erosion control measures used to
retain materials on-site. Erosion Control notes shall be stated on the plans.
29. LETTERS OF APPROVAL
The developer must gain will serve letters from all utility companies prior to
issuance of final map.
In addition, the applicant must obtain written authorization from the Santa Clara
( :L-Il
Resolution No. 6406
Page 8
TM-2006-07
August 8, 2006
Valley Water District (SCVWD) and all other applicable agencIes pnor to
issuance of final map.
CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF
ENGINEERING/SURVEYING CONDITIONS
(Section 66474.18 of the California Government Code)
I hereby certify that the engineering and surveying conditions specified in Section
IV. Of this resolution conform to generally accepted engineering practices
Ralph Qualls, Director of Public Works
City Engineer CA License 22046
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of August 2006, at a Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll
call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABST AIN:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Miller, Saadati, Wong
COMMISSIONERS: none
COMMISSIONERS: none
COMMISSIONERS: Vice Chair Giefer, Chien
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
/s/Ciddy Wordell
Ciddy Wordell
City Planner
/ s / Marty Miller
Marty Miller, Chair
Planning Commission
G:\ Planning \ PDREPORT\RES\2006 \ TM-2006-07 res.doc
{ :l-{ 1-.
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 6409 (MINUTE ORDER)
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING THAT THE COUNCIL AUTHORIZE REMOVAL OF THE FENCE
DIVIDING V ARIAN PARK
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
TM-2006-07 (EA-2006-08)
Scott Kelly (Kelly Gordon Development)
10114 Crescent Court
The Planning Commission discussed the Tentative Map application for the project at
10114 Crescent Court on August 8th, 2006. In the course of hearing the item, the
Planning Commission expressed concern over the chain link fence that divides Varian
Park preventing access from Crescent Court into the tot lot and the developed portion
of the park. Therefore, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council
authorize the removal of the fence to allow the residents of the new development and
the neighborhood access to the park.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of August, 2006 at a Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll
call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Miller, Saadati, Wong.
COMMISSIONERS: none
COMMISSIONERS: none
COMMISSIONERS: Vice-Chair Giefer, Chien
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
/s/Ciddy Wordell
Ciddy Wordell
City Planner, Community Development
/ s/Marty Miller
Marty Miller, Chairperson
Planning Commission
(2-( 3
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEP ARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application:
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Property Location:
TM-2006-07, EA-2006-08
Scott Kelly
Charles Varian Trust
10114 Crescent Court
Agenda Date: August 8, 2006
Application Summary:
Tentative Map to subdivide a 2.4 acre parcel into five parcels ranging from 10,254 sq. ft.
to 13,176 sq. ft. and a remainder parcel equaling 37,073 sq. ft. to be dedicated to the
Santa Clara Valley Water District. The parcel is located in a R1-10 zoning district
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the tentative map, file
number TM-2006-07 and EA-2006-08, in accordance with the model resolution.
Project Data:
General Plan Designation:
Zoning Designation:
Acreage (gross):
Density:
Residential Low 1-5 DUjGross Acre
R1-10
104,974 sq. ft.
3.21 duj gr. acre
Project Consistency with: General Plan:
Zoning:
Yes
Yes
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Environmental Assessment:
BACKGROUND:
On July 11, 2006, the Planning Commission heard the item and directed staff to gather
more information and resolve the following.
>- Public street vs. private street
>- Pavers vs. asphalt with percolation trenches
>- Arborist review
>- Geotechnical review
>- Retaining wall height.
DISCUSSION:
Public Vs. Private Street
The street for the subdivision is proposed to be private because a sub-standard 20-foot
private street serves the subject property and the subdivision street is also proposed to
be sub-standard. The sub-standard 20-foot private street on Crescent Court is shown in
Exhibit A. The existing sub-standard right-of-way used to be an easement that the
subject property owners had from the property owner immediately to the north of the
subject property at 10106 Crescent Court. When the property owner to the north
developed their property, they dedicated 20 feet along the eastern edge of their
property for a 20-foot public right-of-way that would service the subject property.
11-{~
TM-2006-07
Page 2
August 8, 2006
Some of the commissioners expressed a desire to expand this portion of the existing
right of way and the new 20-foot stretch of roadway proposed as part of the project to a
standard size street by taking land from Varian Park. Since the City's right of way
includes travel and parking lanes and easements for the utilities that, per the City
standards, should be outside the travel lanes, the minimum width of the right-of-way
would be 38 or 40 feet. This would mean taking between 18 and 20 feet from the
existing park.
Another option would be for the City to accept the sub-standard right-of-way as a
public street, to be publicly owned and maintained. The Public Works Department does
not want to set a precedent of accepting sub-standard streets for future applicants.
Please note that though the street shall be a private street for maintenance purposes, a
public access easement is to be recorded to allow the public access on the street.
Pavers vs. Asphalt with percolation trench
The applicant is proposing the construction of percolation trenches under the street in
lieu of pavers. Additionally, the applicant is proposing to construct bio-swales on the
residential lots. These trenches and swales will filter and help ground water percolate
into the ground. There will be an overflow control measure so that water does not back
onto the streets if the percolation trench becomes over saturated.
The Public Works Department has reviewed this design proposal and they are in
support of it. Modifications have been made to the model resolution to reflect this
change.
Tree Removal
Some of the commissioners were also concerned about three oaks (tree #4, 5 and 26)
that are proposed for removal with this subdivision. Staff is proposing the protection of
these three trees. The City's Arborist has prepared a tree report on these trees and he
recommends the removal of trees #4 and #5 and replacement per his recommendations.
A survey was conducted by the applicant's civil engineer to determine the location of
several of the trees that were not shown on the original tentative map plans submitted
to the Planning Department. The survey indicated that the arborist incorrectly showed
the location of trees # 7 (oak), #8 (oak), #14 (oak), #26 (oak) and #27 (California Pepper).
Since the trees were not shown on a plan, the arborist estimated the location of the trees
to prepare a comprehensive report.
The survey shows that trees #7, #8 and #14 are located on the periphery of the building
pads of Lots 1 and 2. Staff believes that it is possible to design houses around these trees
and recommends retention of these three trees. If homes cannot be designed around
these trees, based on the arborist's recommendations (Exhibit C), staff recommends that
these trees be relocated. Since the trees do not affect the subdivision, staff recommends
that the trees be saved for now and the decision to relocate the trees be made at the
discretion of the Director of Community Development, when building plans are
presented.
(L-()
TM-2006-07
Page 3
August 8, 2006
Trees #26 & #27 are within the building pad of Lot 4. Since the two trees are very close
to one another, both trees cannot be transplanted. The arborist recommends that #26, an
oak tree, is an excellent candidate for transplantation. Staff's position is that this tree be
transplanted to lot 5, the precise location subject to the approval of the Director of
Community Development when building plans are presented.
Geotechnical Review
The applicant and staff agree that the Geotechnical report recommends a setback of 25
feet from top of the cliff on lots 4 and 5 for all primary and accessory structures. Such
structures may encroach into this setback subject to geotechnical review of the
mitigation measures incorporated into the design.
Staff recommends that a slope easement be recorded for lots 4 & 5, prohibiting principal
structures, accessory structures, including porches, including guesthouses, detached
garages and swimming pools within 25 feet from the top of the cliff, unless measures to
stabilize the cliff are incorporated into the design and construction. However, the
applicant is concerned about the negative connotation of the term "easement" and
wants the language incorporated into the CC&R's instead. Staff, however, prefers an
easement so that the property owner and anyone receiving development proposals can
readily determine this restriction. A slope easement has been used in several
subdivisions within the city.
Retaining Wall Height
The applicant initially proposed a four-foot retaining wall on the plans at the bend in
the street. However, staff felt that this was a safety hazard and would intrude in the 40-
foot vision triangle that is required to make a safe turn. Staff and the applicant have
determined that it is possible to engineer a retaining wall limited to three feet in height
from the curb level thereby leaving the 40-foot sight triangle clear of obstruction. This
has been indicated on the plans. Staff additionally recommends that since the retaining
wall is going to be three feet in height, which is the maximum height allowed in the
sight triangle, a requirement be recorded in the CC&R's indicating that no landscaping
other than a lawn is permitted within the 40-foot sight triangle.
Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, Assistant Planner ~~
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developmen~
Enclosures: Model Resolution
Plan Set
Exhibit A: Map showing the 20-foot right of way
Exhibit B: Arborist Report for tree #4, #5 and #26 dated June 23rd, 2006
Exhibit C: Arborist Memorandum dated July 26th, 2006
Staff Report dated August 8, 2006
G: \ Planning \ PD REPORT\ pcTMreports \ TM-2006-07b,doc
(2-lro
TM- 2006-07
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO.
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A TENT A TIVE SUBDIVISION MAP TO
SUBDIVIDE A 2.4-ACRE PARCEL INTO FIVE SINGLE F AMIL Y RESIDENTIAL
PARCELS WITH AN AVERAGE LOT SIZE OF 11,329 SQ. FT. IN A R1-10 ZONING
DISTRICT AND ONE 37,073 SQ. FT. PARCEL TO BE DEDICATED TO THE SANTA
CLARA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT LOCATED AT 10114 CRESCENT COURT
SECTION I: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application
for a Tentative Subdivision Map, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the
Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held
one or more public hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said
application; and has satisfied the following requirements:
1) That the proposed subdivision map is consistent with the City of Cupertino
General Plan.
2) That the design and improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent
with the General Plan.
3) That the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of development
contemplated under the approved subdivision.
4) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not
likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and
unavoidable injure fish and wildlife or their habitat.
5) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements associated
therewith is not likely to cause serious public health problems.
6) That the design of the subdivision and its associated improvements will not
conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or
use of property within the proposed subdivision.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the application for Tentative Subdivision Map is hereby
recommended for approvaL subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this
Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof; and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this
(L-11
Resolution
Page 2
TM-2006-07
August 8, 2006
resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application
No. TM-2006-07 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of
August 8,2006, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
TM-2006-07
Scott Kelly (Nancy Fedders and Charles Varian)
10114 Crescent Court .
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
The recommendation of approval is based on Exhibit titled: "Tentative Tract
Map, 10114 Crescent Court, Cupertino, CA," consisting of 1 pages stamped July
19, 2006, except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this
Resolution.
2. IRREVOCABLE OFFER OF DEDICATION
The applicant shall make an irrevocable offer of dedication to the Santa Clara
Valley Water District subject to the requirement that the City of Cupertino and
the Water District sign a Joint Use Agreement. If the City and the Water District
are unable to reach an agreement, the offer of dedication shall revert to the City
of Cupertino.
3. PRIV ATE ROADWAY PERCOLATION TRENCH
The private roadway shall have percolation trenches with catch basins to direct
the runoff into the trenches.
4. SWALES
Swales shall be provided on each of the lots to help with percolation of water in
to the ground.
5. NO PARKING ZONE
The portion of the roadway that is 22 feet wide shall have 'No Parking' signs
posted per City standards.
The portion of the roadway that is 28 feet wide shall have either 'No Parking'
signs or a red curb on the west side of the street.
6. NEWRETAININGWALLALONGROADWAY
The retaining wall along the roadway shall be no taller than 3 feet from the curb
and shall be faced with attractive materials such as stone veneer or natural stone.
7. PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT
Applicant shall record a public easement access over the private roadway. The
agreement shall be recorded in conjunction with recordation of the final map,
( l-{tf
Resolution
Page 3
TM-2006-07
August 8, 2006
and shall be subject to pnor approval as to form and content by the City
Attorney.
8. TREE REMOVAL
The applicant shall prepare a new tentative map showing the trees to be
protected on the map. The trees to be protected shall also be recorded as outlined
in condition #11 below. Fruit trees are not being protected as part of this
tentative map application.
In the event that any of the protected trees must be removed during the
construction process due to reasons deemed appropriate by the Director of
Community Development, then comparable diameter replacement tree(s) or field
grown tree(s) shall be planted at the same location or at locations visible to the
public at the discretion of the Director.
Two 60-inch box or field grown oak trees shall replace trees #4 and 5. The
applicant shall plant coast live oaks, in numbers deemed appropriate by the
Director of Community Development and in places visible to the public subject
to an arborist's report, for the trees that are being removed.
9. TREE RELOCATION
The applicant shall relocate tree #26 (oak tree) on lot 4 within front setback area
of lot 5.
10. TREE PROTECTION
As part of the demolition or grading permits, a tree protection plan shall be
prepared by a certified arborist for the trees to be retained and trees on
neighboring properties but identified by the arborist as being at risk during
construction. In addition, the following measures shall be added to the
protection plan:
a. For trees to be retained, chain link fencing and other root protection shall
be installed around the drip line of the tree prior to any project site work.
b. No parking or vehicle traffic shall be allowed under root zones, unless
using buffers approved by the Project Arborist.
c. No trenching within the critical root zone area is allowed. If trenching is
needed in the vicinity of trees to be retained, the City's consulting arborist
shall be consulted before any trenching or root cutting beneath the drip
line of the tree.
d. Tree protection conditions shall be posted on the tree protection barriers.
e. Retained tree shall be watered according to the requirements of the tree to
maintain them in good health.
The tree protection measures shall be inspected and approved by the certified
arborist prior to issuance of demolition or grading permits. The City's consulting
arborist shall inspect the trees to be retained and shall provide reviews prior to
issuance of demolition and grading permits.
l2--(1
Resolution
Page 4
TM-2006-07
August 8, 2006
11. TREE PROTECTION BOND
The applicant shall provide a tree protection bond in the amount of $60,000 to
ensure protection of 13 oak trees, 1 Colorado Spruce, 1 Redwood tree and 1
California Pepper Tree on the site prior to issuance of grading or demolition
permits. The bond shall be returned after completion of construction, subject to a
letter from the City Arborist indicating that the trees are in good condition.
12. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS & RESTRICTIONS (CC&R's)
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that address the following shall
be recorded:
a. Roadway Maintenance Agreement: A reciprocal maintenance agreement
shall be required for all parcels that share a common private drive or
private roadway with one or more other parcels within the tract.
b. Protected Trees: Trees to be retained are: #1,2,3, 7, 8, 13, 14, 16, 18, 20, 23,
26 (relocated to lot 5), 28, 29 and 30. New trees are to be planted, the
location of which shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of
Community Development and recorded in the CC&R's.
c. Slope Easement: A slope easement shall be recorded at the rear of lots 4
and 5 of the subdivision prohibiting principal dwellings, accessory
structures, including porches, including guesthouses, detached garages
and swimming pools within 25 feet from the top of the cliff, unless
measures to stabilize the cliff are incorporated into the design and
construction. The top of the cliff does not coincide with the property line.
d. Lot 5 Foundation: The residence on Lot 5 shall be supported on drilled
pIers.
e. Lot 1 Landscaping: No landscaping other than a lawn is permitted within
the 40-foot sight triangle for corner lots.
f. Geotechnical Plan Review: The applicant's Geotechnical consultant
should review and approve all Geotechnical aspects of the development
plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and
design parameters for foundation and retaining walls) to ensure that their
recommendations have been properly incorporated.
The results of the Geotechnical plan review should be submitted by the
Geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City for review
and approval by City Staff prior to approval of building permits.
g. Geotechnical Field Inspection: The Geotechnical consultant should
inspect, test (as needed), and approve all Geotechnical aspects of the
project construction. The inspections should included, but not necessarily
be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface
drainage improvements and excavations for foundation and retaining
walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete.
The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions should be
described by the Geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the
City Engineer for review prior to final project approval.
(2-- '20
Resolution
Page 5
TM-2006-07
August 8, 2006
h. Future Trail: A note shall be recorded that informs future homeowners
that the City of Cupertino owns land around the subdivision and there
might be future trails along Stevens Creek.
The CC&R's shall be recorded in conjunction with recordation of the final map,
and shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content by the City
Attorney.
13. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN
A construction management plan shall be prepared by the applicant and
approved by staff prior to any grading, development or construction. Staging of
construction equipment shall not occur within 20 feet of any residential property,
within the 20-foot right-of-way or within 25 feet of the top of cliff on lots 4 & 5.
14. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER
EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees,
dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020( d) (1), these Conditions constitute
written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the
dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified
that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications,
reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section
66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period
complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally
barred from later challenging such exactions.
SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT
15. STREET WIDENING
Street widening, improvements and dedications shall be provided in accordance
with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer.
16. ROAD SITE IMPROVEMENTS
Curbs and gutters, sidewalks, retaining walls and related structures shall be
installed in accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City
Engineer.
17. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION
Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer.
Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of
visual interference to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the
maximum height permitted by the- zone in which the site is located.
18. FIRE HYDRANT
Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City, Santa Clara County Fire
and San Jose Water Company, as needed.
f2--:l(
Resolution
Page 6
TM-2006-07
August 8, 2006
19. GRADING
Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance
with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404
permits maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/ or
Regional Water Quality Control Board as appropriate.
20. DRAINAGE
Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Development
in all other zoning districts shall be served by on site storm drainage facilities
connected to the City storm drainage system. If City storm drains are not
available, drainage facilities shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
* Pre- and Post Development Calculations are required to determine if
additional storm drain facilities shall be required.
21. FIRE PROTECTION
Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the
City and Santa Clara County Fire, as needed.
22. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities
Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of
Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of
underground utility devices. The developer shall submit detailed plans showing
utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of
the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer.
23. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of
Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking
and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for under
grounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of
construction permits.
Fees:
a. Checking & Inspection Fees:
$2,130.00 min.
b. Grading Permit:
$ 5% of Road Site Improvement Costs or
c. Development Maintenance Deposit:
d. Storm Drainage Fee:
e. Power Cost:
f. Map Checking Fees:
g. Park Fees:
h. Street Tree
$ 6% of Site Improvement Costs or
$2,000.00 min.
$ 3,000.00
$ 3,096.00
**
$ 6,750.00
$ 63,000.00
By Developer
( 1--}:1-
Resolution
Page 7
TM-2006-07
August 8,2006
** Based on the latest effective PG&E rate schedule approved by the Public
Utility Commission (P.U.C.)
Bonds:
a. Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Road Site improvements
b. Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Road Site improvements
c. Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements
-The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule
adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified
at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the
event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then
current fee schedule.
24. TRANSFORMERS
Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment
enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located
underground such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas.
25. DEDICATION OF WATERLINES
The developer shall dedicate to the City all waterlines and appurtenances
installed to City Standards and shall reach an agreement with San Jose Water for
water service to the subject development.
26. DEVELOPMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP)
REQUIREMENTS
The applicant must include the use and maintenance of site design, source
control and stormwater treatment BMP's, which must be designed per approved
numeric sizing criteria. The property owners with treatment BMPs will be
required to certify on-going operation and maintenance.
Also, the applicant and the City shall enter into a recorded agreement and
covenant running with the land for perpetual BMP maintenance by the property
owners(s). In addition, the owner(s) and the City shall enter into a recorded
easement agreement and covenant running with the land allowing City access at
the site for BMP inspection.
27. NPDES CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT
The applicant must obtain a notice of intent (NOI) from the State Water
Resources Control Board, which encompasses a preparation of a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), use of construction Best Management
Practices (BMP's) to control storm water runoff quality and BMP inspection and
maintenance.
28. EROSION CONTROL PLAN
The developer must provide an approved erosion control plan by a Registered
Civil Engineer. This plan should include all erosion control measures used to
retain materials on-site. Erosion Control notes shall be stated on the plans.
/2--l]
Resolution
Page 8
TM-2006-07
August 8, 2006
29. LETTERS OF APPROVAL
The developer must gain will serve letters from all utility companies prior to
issuance of final map.
In addition, the applicant must obtain written authorization from the Santa Clara
Valley Water District (SCVWD) and all other applicable agencies prior to
issuance of final map.
CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF
ENGINEERING/SURVEYING CONDITIONS
(Section 66474.18 of the California Government Code)
I hereby certify that the engineering and surveying conditions specified in Section
IV. Of this resolution conform to generally accepted engineering practices
Ralph Qualls, Director of Public Works
City Engineer CA License 22046
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of August 2006, at a Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll
call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
Marty Miller, Chair
Planning Commission
c:\ Planning \ PDREPORT\ RES \ 2006 \ TM-2006-07 res.doc
{ L- L ~
EXHIBIT A
_ -_i--''''--;....-'''.:,:.,F:'.-;'''';'.:''''
BARRIE D. COATE
and ASSOCIATES
Horticutural Consultants
23535 Summit Road
Los Galos. CA 95033
4081353-1052
EVALUATION OF TREES AT THE
KELLY GORDON DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
10114 CRESCENT COURT
CUPERTINO
,Prepared at the request of:
Piu Ghosh
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino CA 95014
Prepared by:
Michael L. Bench
Consulting Arborist
June 23rd, 2006
Job # 04-06-075A
Exhibit B
( 2.. - 2..)
EVALUATION OF TREES AT THE KELLY GORDON DEVELOPMENTPROJECT, 10114 CRESCENT COURT,
CUPERTINO
Assignment
I was asked by Piu Ghosh, to review the proposed plans for the Kelly Gordon
Development Project, 10114 Crescent Ct., Cupertino, and to discuss the feasibility of
preserving Trees # 4,5, and 26.
I prepared an Arborist's Report, dated on April 13, 2006, for this site.
Observations
As I stated in the Arborist's Report, Trees # 4 and 5 are stump sprout specimens. This
occurs when the original trunk is destroyed or removed and the tree has sufficient stored
carbohydrates to produce new sprouts at the stump. Bear in mind that these new sprouts
emerge from buds that are attached to the outer layer of wood just under the bark. This
means that these sprouts (called stump sprouts) will always be very weak and higWy
prone to breaking apart at the stump. This weakness does not improve as these trees
mature. In fact, the more dense the canopies become, the more weight must be supported,
and the more likely these watersprout stems will split apart.
In the event that Tree # 5 is preserved, approximately 40%-50% of its canopy would have
to be removed in order to construct the new residence on Lot 1. Very few trees are able to
survive this quantity of canopy loss, because it represents a major reduction in
photosynthesis production required for survival. The ISA (International Society of
Arboriculture) suggests that no more than 25% of the foliage be removed during a single
prunmg. .
It appears that Tree # 4 could lose approximately 30-40% of its canopy for the same
reason. This also would be classified as severe canopy loss.
In the event that either Tree # 4 or # 5 would survive the canopy loss, the new growth in
the surviving stump sprout stems would result in greater likelihood of their failure.
Stump sprout specimens are not considered worthwhile candidates for transplanting
because of the high risk of splitting apart during transplant.
Tree # 26 is located in conflict with the footing ofthe new residence on Lot 4. For Tree #
26 to survive, the building would have to be redesigned to accommodate the following:
1. The footing would have to be a minimum distance of 6 feet from the trunk.
2. The canopy loss must be limited to approximately 1O%-!5% of the canopy. This
quantity is recommended because some root loss would also be expected. The
expectation of survival must involve both root loss and canopy loss together,
because they are not independent, unrelated events.
As an alternative, Tree # 26 may be considered as a possible candidate for transplanting.
fL - 2~
Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist
June 23rd, 2006
EVALUATION OF TREES AT TIIE KELLY GORDON DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, 10114 CRESCENT COURT, 2
CUPERTINO
Recommendations
1. I recommended that Trees # 4 and 5 be removed and replaced with coast live oak
(Quercus agrifolia) specimens from quality nursery stock.
2. I recommend that Tree # 26 be considered for transplanting or be replaced with
coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) quality nursery stock.
Respectfully submitted,
-.........
Michae L. Benc , Asso t
~~~~
Barrie D. Coate, Principal
MLB / sh
Enclosures:
Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
{L -'J-I
Prepared by: Michael L Bench, Consulting Arborist
June 23rd, 2006
.,
BARRIE D. COATE
and ASSOCIATES
Horli cutural Consultants
23535 Summit Road
Los Galos, CA 95033
408135:>'1052
ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
1. Any legal description provided to the appraiser/consultant is assumed to be correct.
No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character nor is any opinion rendered as to
the quality of any title.
2. The appraiser/consultant can neither guarantee nor be responsible for accuracy of
information provided by others.
3. The appraiser/consultant shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason
of this appraisal unless subsequent written arrangements are made, including payment of an
additional fee for services.
4. Loss or removal of any part of this report invalidates the entire appraisal/evaluation.
5. Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any
purpose by any other than the person(s) to whom it is addressed without written consent of
this appraiser/consultant.
6. This report and the values expressed herein represent the opinion of the
appraiser/consultant, and the appraiser's/consultant's fee is in no way contingent upon the
reporting of a specified value nor upon any finding to be reported.
7. Sketches, diagrams, graphs, photos, etc., in this report, being intended as visual aids, are
not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering reports or surveys.
8. This report has been made in conformity with acceptable appraisal/evaluation/diagnostic
reporting techniques and procedures, as recommended by the I nternational Society of
Arboriculture:
9. When applying any pesticide, fungicide, or herbicide, always follow label instructions.
1 a.No tree described in this report was climbed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take
responsibility for any defects which could only have been discovered by climbing. A full root
collar inspection, consisting of excavating the soil around the tree to uncover the root collar
and major buttress roots, was not performed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take
responsibility for any root defects which could only have been discovered by such an
inspection.
CONSULTING ARBORIST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training, and experience to
examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to
reduce risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations
of the arborist, or to seek additional advice.
Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree.
Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often
hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or
safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments,
like medicine, cannot be guaranteed.
Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some
degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate all trees.
cJJahJUe ~ ~
Barrie D. Coate
ISA Certified Arborist
Horticultural Consultant
(2- - LK
JUL-31-2006 11:11A FROM:BARRIE COATE
/>-
, b;"~i\
/", ';/" .',
(~.;~.. ;';:':'~"J
".'. '//''- ",
::-.....~:r'/.,..;.J"'~J
i;k~~:>/r~~ < j
\"~~ /)( /
,.,~........, .
408 3531238
TO: 7773333
P.4
BARRIE D. COATE
and ASSOCIATES
Horticutural Consultants
23535 Summit Road
Los Gates. CA 95033
4081353-1052
MEMORANDUM
To:
Company:
Pi u Ghosh, Planner
City of Cupertino
Community Development Department
(408) 777-3333
piug@cupertino.org
July 26th, 2006
Kelley - Gordon Development Project
10114 Crescent Court
Cupertino
Fax #:
Email:
Date:
Subject:
~
~
This is in response to your request for an opinion regarding the risk of transplanting
Trees # 7, 8,9, 10, 11, 12, 14, and 26. All of these are coast live oak (Quercus agrifoJia),
a species that typically transplants very well if adequately irrigated and the root balls are
large enough.
Trees # 9, 10, 11, and 12 have been topped between 8-10 feet above grade. For this
reason, the structures of these trees are relatively poor and will not significantly improve.
Topping is a very destructive procedure that permanently makes a trees structure weak
and prone to breakage. Although all four of these would ordinarily make good
candidates for transplanting due to their small size and excellent health, I recommend that
these be replaced as a preferred alternative to transplanting.
Trees # 7,8 14 and 26 are in excellent health, a primary criteria for transplanting. Trees #
7, 14, and 26 are small specimens and would be excellent candidates for transplanting,
especially with a 90" tree spade. Tree # 8 has a trunk diameter of 10 inches, which is
usually borderline for transplanting with a tree spade. The final decision would have to be
made by an experienced tree mover.
One experienced tree mover who has a 90 inch diameter tree spade is John Amaz (408)
266-1717. I believe that A to Z Tree Movers, Mountain View, also has a tree spade.
If you have additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Respectfu
-....-
Mick Bench, Associate
~~~
Barrie D. Coate, Pnncipal
MLB/sh
Enclosures:
Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
[' 2-- 2 ~
Exhibit C
JUL-31-2006 11:11A FROM:BARRIE COATE
408 3531238
TO: 7773333
P.5
.,
BARRIE D. COATE
and ASSOCIATES
Horticuturel Consultants
23535 Summit Road
Los Gatos, CA 95033
408/35~ 1 052
ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
1. Any legal description provided to the appraiser/consultant is assumed to be correct.
No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character nor is any opinion rendered as to
the quality of any title.
2. The appraiser/consultant can neither guarantee nor be responsible for accuracy of
information provided by others.
3. The appraiser/consultant shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason
of this appraisal unless subsequent written arrangements are made, including payment of an
additional fee for services.
4. Loss or removal of any part of this report invalidates the entire appraisal/evaluation.
5. Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any
purpose b~ any other than the person(s) to whom it is addressed without written consent of
this appraiser/consultant.
6. This report and the values expressed herein represent the opinion of the
appraiser/consultant, and the appraiser's/consultant's fee is in no way contingent upon the
reporting of a specified value nor upon any finding to be reported.
7. Sketches, diagrams, graphs, photos, etc., in this report, being intended as visual aids, are
not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering reports or surveys.
8. This report has been made in conformity with acceptable appraisal/evaluation/diagnostic
reporting techniques and procedures, as recommended by the International Society of
Arboriculture.'
9. When applying any pesticide, fungicide, or herbicide, always follow label instructions.
1 a.No tree described in this report was climbed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take
responsibility for any defects which could only have been discovered by climbing. A full root
collar inspection, consisting of excavating the soil around the tree to uncover the root collar
and major buttress roots, was not performed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take
responsibility for any root defects which could only have been discovered by such an
inspection.
CONSULTING ARBOR.ST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training, and experience to
examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to
reduce risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations
of the arborist, or to seek additional advice.
Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree.
Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often
hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or
safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments,
like medicine, cannot be guaranteed.
Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some
degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate all trees.
oJahhie JJ. ~
Barrie D. Coate
ISA Certified Arborist
Horticultural Consultant
I L -]0
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application:
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Property Location:
TM-2006-07, EA-2006-08
Scott Kelly
Charles Varian Trust
10114 Crescent Court
Agenda Date: July 11, 2006
Application Summary:
Tentative Map to subdivide a 2.4 acre parcel into five parcels ranging from 10,254 sq. ft.
to 13,176 sq. ft. and a remainder parcel equaling 37,073 sq. ft. to be dedicated to the
Santa Clara Valley Water District. The parcel is located in a R1-10 zoning district
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the tentative map, file
number TM-2006-07 and EA-2006-08, in accordance with the model resolution.
Project Data:
General Plan Designation:
Zoning Designation:
Acreage (gross):
Density:
Residential Low 1-5 DUjGross Acre
R1-10
104,974 sq. ft.
3.21 duj gr. acre
Project Consistency with: General Plan:
Zoning:
Yes
Yes
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Environmental Assessment:
BACKGROUND:
The project is located on 10114 Crescent Court and is surrounded by single-family
residential uses to the west and south, by the 6.3 acre Varian Park to the north and by
Stevens Creek to the east. Currently the site is developed with one single-family
residence (see Exhibit A). The home is not considered historic nor is it listed on the
City's General Plan Historic Resources List. The home was constructed in 1951 based
on the County's database. The residence will be demolished as part of the final map
process.
DISCUSSION:
Site Analysis
The project is located in an R1-10 zoning district with a minimum lot size requirement
of 10,000 square feet. The proposed lots range from 10,254 to 13,176 square feet and
conform to the minimum lot widths (measured at the front setback line) of 60 feet. The
residential density at 3.21 d.u'; gross acre is also consistent with the general plan land
use designation (Low Density Residential, 1-5 DU j gr. Acre). At this time, the applicant
has not submitted architectural and site plans for the future homes proposed on the
lots. However, setback lines have been provided on the map to conceptually show
development envelopes in which the future homes could be constructed.
{1..-JI
TM-2006-07
Page 2
July 11, 2006
The applicant is also making an irrevocable offer of dedication of 37,073 square feet
along the creek to either the Santa Clara Valley Water District or the City of Cupertino.
The Water District occasionally uses an existing unfinished walkablej drivable path that
leads down to the creek for access to conduct maintenance. This dedication is
contingent upon the City of Cupertino and the Santa Clara Valley Water District
signing a joint use agreement for allowing the future option to use the land for
recreational purposes. In the event the two agencies cannot reach an agreement, the
dedication of land will revert to the City of Cupertino.
This dedication is in conformance with the City's General Plan's Environmental
ResourcesjSustainability Element's Goal of "Protection of Special Areas of Natural
Vegetation and Wildlife Habitation as Integral Parts of the Sustainable Environment."
Policy 5-9: Development Near Sensitive Areas
Encourage the clustering of new development away from sensitive areas such as
riparian corridors, wildlife habitat and corridors, public open space preserves
and ridgelines. New developments in these areas must have harmonious'
landscaping plans approved prior to development.
Policy 5-11: Natural Area Protection
Preserve and enhance the existing natural vegetation, landscape features and
open space when new development is proposed.
Policy 5-14: Recreation and Wildlife Trails
Provide open space linkages within and between properties for both recreational
'and wildlife activities, most specifically for the benefit of wildlife that is
threatened, endangered or designated as species of special concern.
Storm water runoff from the subdivision shall be collected in a new storm water system
and conveyed to the existing public storm drainage facilities. No additional drainage
shall occur toward the creek thus preserving the existing natural vegetation and
landscape features.
Private Road
Access to the project is by a 22-foot wide private roadway widening to a 28-foot wide
roadway (cul-de-sac) from a roadway easement off of Crescent Court. A 28-foot private
road provides sufficient room for two ll-foot travel lanes and a six-foot parking lane on
the side of the street. "No Parking" signs shall also be posted on the 22-foot wide
portions of the private roadway so that the fire lane is kept clear.
Staff recommends that the private road be paved with semi-pervious stone pavers or
similar interlocking pavers to enhance the storm water quality of the project and to also
help preserve the root systems of existing mature trees. This is consistent with other
subdivisions that have been approved in single-family neighborhoods. Examples are
TM-2004-05, the three lot subdivision on Greenleaf Drive on the CA Water Service
property, TM-2004-09, the five lot subdivision on South Stelling Road and more recently
a four lot subdivision on Alcazar Avenue, TM-2005-13.
12-J2.
TM-2006-07
Page 3
July 11, 2006
Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&R) and a private road maintenance
agreement shall be submitted to the City for review and approval ensuring that the
individual property owners will properly maintain the roadway and' the streetlights.
The CC&R will also record a public access easement on the private roadways.
Tree Removal
The City's Arborist prepared a tree report on the portions of the site that are to be
developed (Exhibit B). The report identified 31 trees on-site and 8 trees off-site
(identified as # 21, 22 and 34 on Exhibit B). A total of 19 trees are proposed for removal
as part of this project (Exhibit C). Out of these trees, ten are coast live oaks of which two
trees are considered specimen size (Tree # 4 & 5). Most of the trees removed are either
located in the roadway, in building pads, are in poor health, or removal is necessary to
keep other trees healthy.
The applicant is proposing the removal of the two specimen sized trees on Lot 1 since
there are several oak trees in the future rear yard overcrowding the more mature oaks.
Staff, with direction from the Environmental Review Committee, recommends that
either one or both of the two specimen sized trees be saved if it is possible to prune the
oaks without irreparable damage. Staff also recommends that trees #14 and #26, both
coast live oaks, be retained as protected trees since they do not interfere with roadways
or building pads and are in good health.
The City's Consultant Arborist has prepared a report to determine the replacement
strategy for the tree removal proposed (Exhibit C). He has provided the replacement
value of each of the trees and the average cost of planting different sizes of oak trees.
Staff recommends that 60-inch box oak trees be planted in high visibility areas to
replace the value of trees being removed. In addition, staff will determine the location
of the new oaks being planted prior to the recordation of final map.
Geotechnical Review
A Geotechnical Report has been prepared for the project by Murray Engineers Inc. The
City's Consultant Geologist has reviewed this report and concurs with the findings and
recommendations in the report (Exhibit D). The Geologists agree that the cliff is stable
and recommend that the buildings and associated improvements on lots 4 and 5 (the
two lots closest to the cliff) be set back 25 feet from the top of the cliff and that the
residence on lot 5 be supported on drilled piers.
Staff recommends that a slope easement be recorded for lots 4 & 5, prohibiting
accessory structures, including porches, including guesthouses, detached garages and
swimming pools within 25 feet from the top of the cliff, unless measures to stabilize the
cliff are incorporated into the design and construction.
The applicant is required to record the condition that the residence on lot 5 shall be
supported on drilled piers in the CC&R's for the subdivision. Additionally, two
conditions with regard to the Geotechnical requirements need to be recorded in the
CC&R's. The conditions require a Geotechnical Plan Review and a Geotechnical Field
[2--')3
TM-2006-07
Page 4
July 11, 2006
Inspection prior to the issuance of building permits as recommended by the City's
Geologist.
Construction Management
Since this site is located off a sub-standard right of way and near Stevens Creek, a
comprehensive construction operation plan must be submitted to the City for review
and approval prior to issuance of grading addressing the following:
. Staging area
. Tree protection
. Construction hours and limits
. Construction vehicle and truck routes
. Dust and erosion control
. Garbage and debris container location and pick up schedule
. Signage advising contractors of the restrictions
Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, Assistant Planner ,____,
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developm~--,-"-<
Enclosures: Model Resolution
Plan Set
Exhibit A: Location Map ,
Exhibit B: Arborist's report dated April 13, 2006
Exhibit C: Tree Replacement Strategy ,
Exhibit p: City's Geologist Report
ExhibitE: Recommendation of Enviro11IIlental Committee
G: \ Planning\PDREPORT\pcTMreports \ TM- 2006-07.doc
{ L~ 7 \-'(
~~~l>~~-~~\:~~:~;v.w,r:7;'~.::''i:W,rl''~":.>':-~-'"';'''~'''''
t'Il
><:
::r:
EO
:::J
>
BARRIE D. CO/-:
and ASSOCIATES
Horticutural (~onsultants
23535 Summit Road
Los Gales, ':A 95033
4081353-1052
JECEIVED MAY 9 2006
Exhibit B
EV ALVA TION OF TREES AT
KELLY GORDONDEVELOPMlliNT
10114 CRESCENT COURT
CUPERTINO
Prepared at the request of:
Ciddy Wordell
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino CA 95014
Prepared by:
Michael L. Bench
Consulting Arborist
April 13th, 2006-05-06
Job # 04-06-075
lL-])
EVALUATION OF 1REES AT L_.... Y GOROON DEVELOPMENT, 10114 CRESCENT Cu,-_.f,
CUPERTINO
Table of Contents
Assignment
Summary
Observations
Methods
Comments about Specific Trees
Protected Trees
Risks to Trees by Proposed Construction
Recommendations
Enclosures
Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arbonst
Page 2
Page 2
Page 2
Page 3
Page 3
Page 4
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
I
April 13th, 2006 (2.- "3 ~
EVALUATION OF lREES AT h.._~L Y GORDON DEVELOPMENT, 10114 CRESCENT Cl- _.S,
CUPERTINO
2
Assignment
I was asked by Mrs. Ciddy Wordell, City of Cupertino, to evaluate the existing trees located
at 10114 Crescent Court, Cupertino.
The plan provided for this evaluation is the Tentative Tract Map prepared by Nelsen
Engineering, Sheet I, dated March 2006.
Summary
A total of 39 trees are included in this inventory. Of these 39 trees, 31 are located on this
property, and 8 are located on adjacent properties.
All ofthe 38 trees are identified and given condition ratings. Some trees and/or
circumstances concerning them are briefly described here.
Of the total 39 trees, Trees # 1,3,4,5,8, 13, 18,20,24,29,30, and 34 are protected by city
regulation. Of these 12 protected trees, Trees # 4, 5, 8, 18, and 24 are proposed to be
removed by the current plan.
Procedures are recommended here to help preserve those "Specimen Trees" planned to be
retained in their present locations.
Observations
There are 39 trees included in this tree survey. Trees # 1-20 and # 23-33 are located on this
site. Tree # 21 (representing 3 specimens), Tree # 22 (representing 4 specimens), and Tree #
34 are located on neighboring properties. These neighboring trees are located near the
property boundary and may be exposed to damage by trenching, excavation, or soil
compaction. For this reason, these neighboring trees are included. The attached map shows
the locations of all 39 trees and their approximate canopy dimensions. Numbered metal
labels have been affixed to only the trees that are located on this property for field reference.
No labels were affixed to the trees on neighboring properties.
The 39 trees are classified as follows:
Trees # 1-5, 7-14, 18,20,24,26,28,29,30,34 - Coast live oak
(Quercus agrifolia)
Tree # 6 - Acacia (Acacia species)
Tree # 15 - Avocado (Persea Americana)
Trees # 16, 17 - Colorado blue spruce (Picea pungens glauca)
Tree # 19 - Silk tree (Albiziajulibrissin)
Tree # 21 - Juniper species (Juniperus species), representing 3 topiary trees
Tree # 22 - Italian cypress (Cupressus sempervirens), representing 4 essentially
identical specimens
Tree # 23 - Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens)
Tree # 25 - Carolina Laurel Cherry (Prunus caroliniana)
Tree # 27 - California pepper (Shinus mol/e)
Tree # 31 - Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus species)
Tree # 32 - Bailey's Acacia (Acacia baileyana)
Tree # 33 - Bronze loquat (Eriobotrya deflexa)
Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist
April 13th, 2006/2_ ] 7
EVALUATION OF TREES AT tu.:,LL Y GOROON DEVELOPMENT, 10114 CRESCENT CuvKT,
CUPERTINO
3
The particulars about these 39 trees (species, trunk diameter, height, spread, and structure)
are included in the attachments that follow this text.
In addition to these 39 trees. there are also approximately 25 fruit trees of low quality
primarily on the Lots # 1,2. and 3. There are also numerous trees located on the steep slope
toward the south side of Lots # 4 and 5. None of these trees are included in this survey.
The health and structure of each specimen is rated on a scale of 1-5 (Excellent - Extremely
poor) on the data sheets attached to this text. Based on these health and structure ratings
combined. I have given each tree an overall condition rating as follows:
Excellent Good Fair Poor Extremely Poor
Specimens Specimens Specimens Specimens Specimens
1,3, 7, 14. 2, 8, 13, 23, 4,5,6,9, 10, 24, 32, 15, 19
16;17,20, 26, 27, 30, 11, 12, 18,
21.22.28. 34 25,31
29,33
Methods
The trunk measurements of the existing trees are taken using a standard measuring tape at 4
~ feet above soil grade. This is referred to as DBH (Diameter at Breast Height). The height
and canopy spread of each tree is estimated using visual references only. The estimated shape
of the canopy relative to the other nearby trees has been added to the attached map.
Comments about Specific Trees
Trees # 4, 5, and 18, all coast live oaks (Q. agrifolia), are stump sprout specimens. This
means that the original leader had been damaged or removed. The new leaders, usually
several, growing from the stump are poorly attached and higWy prone to splitting out. This
poor structural condition does not significantly improve as the tree matures.
Trees # 9, 10, 11. and 12. all coast live oaks (Q. agrifolia), have been ''topped''. As a result,
they will always have weak: branching structures where the topping had occurred.
Tree # 19, a Silk tree (A/biziajulibrissin). is actively splitting in half. I suggest this tree be
removed regardless of construction.
Tree # 23, a coast redwood (S. sempervirens) has a wire tied around one leader to support the
existing wood fence. This wire is girdling the leader and should be removed. Another method
would have to be used to support the fence.
Tree # 24. a coast live oak: (0. agrifolia) has grown through an existing chain link fence. The
interlocking wire goes completely through the trunk at about 4 feet above grade. This often
results in a weak trunk structure.
Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist
April 13th, 2006/ L. - 36'
EVALUATION OF TREES AT K....~L Y GORDON DEVELOPMENT, 10114 CRESCENT CG~.,T.
CUPERTINO
4
Protected Trees
The City of Cupertino (Chapter 14.18) " finds that the preservation of specimen and heritage
trees on private and public property, and the protection of all trees during construction, is
necessary for the best interests of the City and of the citizens and the public thereof." The
City "finds it is in the public interest to enact regulations controlling the care and removal of
specimen and heritage trees..." A "Heritage Tree" means "any tree or grove of trees which,
because of factors, but not limited to, its historic value, unique quality, girth, height or
species, has been found by the Architectural and Site Approval Committee to have a special
significance to the community." A "Specimen tree" means any of the following:
Species Measurement from Single Trunk Multi-Trunk
Natural Grade Diameter/Circumference Diameter/Circumference
Oak trees; 4 12 feet 10 inches (31 inches C) 20 inches D (63 inches C)
California
Buckeye
Big Leaf 4 12 feet 12 inches (38 inches C ) 25 inches D (79 inches C)
Maple;
Deodar Cedar;
Blue Atlas Cedar
The "Specimen Trees" at this site are: Trees # 1,3,4,5,8, 13, 18,20,24,29,30, and 34.
Should construction occur as proposed, the following "Specimen Trees" would be removed:
Trees # 4, 5, 8, 18, and 24.
Risks to Trees by Proposed Construction
The management of materials and equipment, often as part of the staging area(s), commonly
poses a risk to existing trees. Protective fencing is the primary defense for existing trees.
Prevention is key to tree protection, because repair or remediation is usually ineffective.
The trees at this site would likely be at risk of damage by construction or construction
procedures that are common to most construction sites. These procedures may include the
dumping or the stockpiling of materials over root systems, may include the trenching across
the root zones for utilities or for landscape irrigation, or may include construction traffic
across the root system resulting in soil compaction and root die back.
If underground utilities are installed, it would be essential that the location of the trenches
must be planned prior to construction, and that the trenches be located at the exact locations
, . as shown on the proposed plans.
Currently chain link fencing is in place protecting coast live oak Tree # 34. Should this fence
or a portion of this fence be removed for construction of the new roadway, Tree # 34 may be
exposed to risk of damage on its west side.
Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist
April 13th, 2006
[2--31
EV ALVA nON OF 1REES A T L~L Y GOROON DEVELOPMENT, 10 114 CRESCENT CG_ _, r,
CUPERTINO
5
Also, there is an open space on the east side of the existing driveway across from Trees # 6
and 7. Should this be used as a staging area, Tree # 34 may also be as risk of materials and
equipment parked or piled inside its dripline, if the existing fence were removed.
Although Trees # 21(representing 3 topiary junipers) and # 22 (representing 4 Italian cypress
trees) are not protected by the city ordinance, it is likely that these trees are important to the
neighbor. If grading were to occur to the west side property boundary, these 7 trees may
suffer serious root damage. If grading were to be a minimum of 6 feet from the west side
property boundary, these 7 trees should not be damaged.
Recommendations
1. I recommend that protective fencing be provided during the construction period to
protect those trees that are to be preserved. This fencing must protect a sufficient
portion of the root zone to be effective. The recommended locations of protective
fencing are provided on the attached map. Occasionally it may be essential to have a
certified arborist make decisions about the location(s) of protective fencing at the
project site.
I recommend that protective fencing must:
. Consist of chain link fencing and having a minimum height of 6 feet.
. Be mounted on steel posts driven approxiIDately 2 feet into the soil.
. Fencing posts must be located no further than 10 feet apart.
. Protective fencing must be installed prior to the arrival of materials, vehicles, or
equipment.
. Protective fencing must not be moved, even temporarily, and must remain in
place until all construction is completed.
2. There must be no grading, trenching, or surface scraping inside the driplines of
protected trees, unless specifically described in another section ofthis report. I
recommend that there be no grading within 6 feet of the west side property boundary
in relation to Trees # 21 and 22.
3. Trenches for any utilities (gas, electricity, water, phone, TV cable, etc.) must be
located outside the driplines of protected trees, unless approved by a certified arborist.
4. If Trees # 16 and 23 are preserved, they must be irrigated throughout the entire
construction period during the dry months (any month receiving less than 1 inch of
rainfall). Irrigate a minimum of 10 gallons for each inch of trunk diameter every two
weeks. A soaker hose or a drip line is preferred for this purpose. .
5. Materials must not be stored, stockpiled, dumped, or buried inside the driplines of
protected trees.
6. Excavated soil must not be piled or dumped, even temporarily, inside the driplines of
protected trees.
7. Any pruning must be done by an arborist certified by the ISA (International Society
Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist
April 13th, 2006
11--l{O
EV ALUA nON OF TREES AT K....~L Y GORDON DEVELOPMENT, 10114 CRESCENT CO.....,f,
CUPERTINO
6
of Arboriculture) and according to ISA, Western Chapter Standards, 1998.
8. Any pathways or other hardscape inside the driplines of protected trees must be
constructed completely on top of the existing soil grade without excavation. Fill soil
may be added to the edge of finished hardscape for a maximum distimce of
approximately 2 feet from the edges to integrate the new hardscape to the natural
grade.
9. The sprinkler irrigation must not be designed to strike the trunks of trees.
10. Landscape irrigation trenches must be a minimum distance of 10 times the trunk
diameter from the trunks of protected trees.
11. Landscape materials (cobbles, decorative bark, stones, fencing, etc.) must not be
installed directly in contact with the bark of trees because of the risk of serious
disease infection.
12. The plants that are planted inside the driplines of oak trees must be of species that are
compatible with the environmental and cultural requirements of oaks trees. A
publication about plants compatible with California native oaks can be obtained from
the California Oak Foundation, 1212 Broadway, Suite 810, Oakland, 94612.
Respect
~
Michael L. Bench, Associate
Bar~~~h~i~
MLB/sh
Enclosures:
Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
Map
Tree Chart
Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist
/2--'i(
April 13th, 2006
O"NER:
1liE FEDDERS-VARIAN L1\<1NG TRUST
10114 CRESCENT COURT
CUPERTINO
CALIFORNIA 95014
~ 408-255-0980
l (----
'i~ f, "'It-
"
SCAlE: ,- '" 20'
-~-::=J-
s...
"
.k
"I!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
hXLOTl.M;
1l:IpEEUl.llNAIIII
I
I
I
I
L
- ----.....~--
lU!l.lO'
----------m.,.-
N41"'Z7'1lIl"W
FllJND 3/4"1RON PIPE,
BEARS S35'OO' 06".
0.54 fEET f'RC),I
PROPERTY CORNER
1s"1aL1l
....-
=r~J
IHST.a.L1.. CCINC. ClJR8.
QJTlIJl ~QlY
STANDARPS (SEE
OET~L)
J'"~~
Cl:M'.-.cltlllOl5X
SAC O'w'ER
6" CUSS 2 A.8.
CQ.IIPACTED 10 ~%
SECTION A-A
ROAD SECTION ROAD SECTION
TRENCH
STA I)+OC 11)1+2:2
1'\4 il1l .. ~+2!
,.,.tuX"l~
4A.. -11.02 Z
~CO~\
j}=~:CCE,ls '''''GURATION -
ROAD PROFILE
PROJECT INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Kill Y GORDON DEVELOPMENT CORP.
12241 SARATOGA-SIJNNYVALE RD.
SARATOGA
CALIFORNIA 95070
408-873-8774
lfNGlNlflf~
REVISIONS
MARIUS E. NELSEN, R.C.E. 20597, EXP. 9/07
NELSEN ENGINEERING
21801 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD
CUPERTINO, CAUFORNIA. 95014
TEL. (408) 257-6452 FAX: (408) 257-6821
PROPERTY AlJDRESS AND ./PH':
10114 CRESCENT CT.
CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
A.PN: 326-17-009 AND -030
PROPOSE]) NUMBER OF LOTS:
" " z
z z 0
i ~ i
~ ~ ~
:;
u
PROJECT ARE.I: 104,974 SO. FT. (2.4 AC)
UTILITIES:
ELECTRIC AND GAS, P.G. & E.
WATER, SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY
TELEPHONE, sac
SEWER, CUPERTINO SANITARY DISTIlICT
EXISTING LAND USE:SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
PROPOSED LAND USE:S1NGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
, SOURCE OF CONTOUR:
, TOPOGRAPHIC FIELD SURVE'i BY
'~ELSEN ENGINEERING
,
,
\
,
\
\
\
\
cg
IUn:
",III
....:=
IU;';
c~
IL
-.".,.-
,"'"
RR(;RTVED
JUL ? 5 2006
f-
0:::
=>
CLO
<(0
2:
f-
f-z
UW<(
<(uu
O:::(j)
f- W .
o
wO:::z
>u_
- f-
f-~o:::
~~w
Z~CL
wO=>
f-~U
BY:
Date .lJrE: 15. 200&
S<:oM: \"-20'
Dn..,: 00
@
Job: 115-81
Shoo'
VICINITY MAP
,,1
,
BARRIE D. COATE
and ASSOCIATES
(400) 353-1052
23535 Sumlllil Road
Los Galos, CA 95030
Plant Name
Measurements
!
I-
W
~ I- 0
~ ~ w
..- · U. I-
~,~ N ~
@:~ @ i=
0:: : (/) (/)
w :>- 0:: w
I- o(/) W I-
W" I- I
~ :i= w e>
<(:..J I I ~
_p (D (D <( W
o:~ 0 0 15 I
. ,
18 :../ 16 8 25 : 35 45
----~--~---~---- ---~---~---
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I ,
Tree #
1 Coast Live Oak
--------- ---------------------------------
Quercus agrifolia
2 Coast Live Oak
3 Coast Live Oak
4 Coast Live Oak
5 Coast Live Oak
9 !../! 5 i :12!25:20
----y--~---_r----~---_r---~---
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I J . I I
I I I I I I
19 : ../: 16 : : 24: 30: 45
____~__~____L____~____L___L___
1 I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
Condition
o
W
I-
<(
~
i=
(/)
W
o
<(
W
0::
a..
(/)
,
, ,
1 ,
1 ,
I .
1 1
, ,
:0:
, ..- ,
I I 1.....-...
:~: ~
:<.9:~
...........:z:-
U:>:i=:e>
"-'<(:Z
-: rv'. 1--
"-".w,L1-
U:>:o:::z'<(
0\::>:0 0::
I:I-li= 0
I-:U'o- 0::
..J'::>: <(
<(:o:::Z N
w:I-:O <(
I:(/):U I
, I
1 : 1 :
----~---~---- ---
, , ,
, , ,
I ! ~
I ; i
1 : 3: :
----~---,----~---
I , ,
I , I
, , 0
1 : 1: i
____L___~____L___
, I 1
, , 1
I ! !
11 ! ../! 11 ! 8/7 i ! 30! 30 1! 4! :
----y---r----r----~---_r---~--- ----~---~----~---
I I I I I I I' I
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
11 : ../: 8 : 5: : 20: 25 1: 4: :
----t---r----r----i----r---~--- ----~---i----t---
I I I I I I I I I
I ! I I I I I!!
6 Acacia
--------- ---------------------------------
Acacia species
7 Coast Live Oak
I I I I I I I I I
13: : : : : 35: 20 3: 2: :
----.--~---~----1---~---~--- ----~---~----.---
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
-, I I I I I I I
-~--i-~~-?-~----~-~~1~~J-~ --~-~-2-~----i---
I I I I I I I I I
I ~ I I I I I ~ ~
8 Coast Live Oak
9 Coast Live Oak
10 Coast Live Oak
~
I
-f:..
~
10! ! ! : i 20 i 15
----.--~---~----1---~---~---
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
6: : : : : 12: 15
----t---r----r----i----r---~---
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
6: : : : : 12: 15
----+--~---~----~---~---~---
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
, , 1
1 : 2: :
----~---~----.---
, I 1
, I 1
, , 1
, , I
1 : 4: :
----~---i----t---
, , ,
, , ,
I , 1
1 , 1
1 : 4: :
----~---~----+---
1 , 1
, , 1
, , 1
Job Name: Kelly Gordon Development, 10114 Crescent Court, Cupertino
Job #: 04-06-075
Date: April 13th, 2006
Pruning/Cabling Needs
, , I
, ,
, ,
I ,
I I
I I
, ,
:: ~
I Z, I
: 0: I- ..-
I _' I -
, 1-' '" >-
e>: <(I '-' 'It
ZI~I~:e> [:!:i 0 t:
z'z:O:Z :S W Q
<( z:l-l(/) 0 0 rv
W _,(/)\_ Z W u..
..J I'W,<( W a..
U I-:~:O:: W Z C)
~ ~l~!~ ~ ~!Z
o 0:0:0 ~ ~!~
0:: 0::'0::'0:: W <('0::
U:U!U!U 0:: uia..
I 1 1 1 I
1 .1 I I I
I I I I I
___A____~___~____L___~___~___
I I I I I 1
I I I I I I
! ! I I ! I
I I I I I .
I I I 1 I .
I I I I I I
---~----~---'----r---~---T---
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I . I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
___~____L___~____L___~____~___
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I i I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
---~----~---,----~---~---y---
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
---t----~---i----~---i----t---
I I I I I I
! ! : : : !
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
---1----~---~----~---~---.---
I I I I I I
1 I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I 1 I I
1 I I 1 I I
I 1 I I I I
---i----~---i----~---i----t---
I I I I I I
! : : : : !
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
---.----~---~----~---~----.---
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
---i----~---i----~---i----t---
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
---.----~---~----~---~----+---
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
Pest/Disease Problems
,
,
-'
101
I 1
..- 1
_I
1
1
1
1
1
1
,
I
,
I
,
,
,
,
---,
10 '
, ,
..- '
-'
>-
<(
u
W
o
~
Z
::>
0::
I-
,
I
,
,
~I
Ll) 1
, ,
:::.'
-,
10,
, ,
..- ,
-,
(/):
1-1
U'
W:
(/):
Z:
-,
W
(/)
<(
W
(/)
i5
~ 0
o 0
5 ~
W 0
W <(
o:::w
1-:0
o
W
0::
W
>
o
U
0::
~
-I
0:
U'
,
1-'
0:
0:
0:::
-,
10,
I ,
..- ,
-,
1 , ,
1 , ,
1 , I
_____J____~___~___ ______~____
I I I I I
I I I I .
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
-----'----r---~---~------r----
. I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I . I I
_____~____L___~___~______L____
I I I I I
I I I I I
! I !! I
, , I I I
I I I I .
I I I I I
-----'----r---~---1------~----
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I . I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
-----i----t---1r---i------t----
I I . I .
~ ! I ~ I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
-----~----~---~---~------~----
, I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
-----i----t----r---t------t----
f I I I I
~ I !! I
I , I f I
I I I I I
I I I I I
-----~----~---~---~------~----
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I f I
f I , I I
-----~----t---~---t------t----
I , I I I
I I I I I
f I , I I
f I I f I
f I I f I
I I I I I
-----~----.---~---.------~----
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I 'I I
Recommend
: !
I
,
I
,
,
,
: ..J
w ! ~
(J) : 0
l1i ---' 0:: ~
(j) U:>!w w
o 0' ~ 0::
0:: ..J C
0:: W i= z
~ I- 0:: w
5 ~ ~ ~
U (/) (/) ~
I- 0 0 0
o W W 0
~ ~ ~ ~
(i)
I
.....
.......
--- ---~---~---
, I ,
I , ,
, I ,
i i i
, , ,
, , ,
---T----r---,---
, , ,
I , ,
I , ,
1 , I
1 , I
, , 1
___~___-L___~___
, , ,
, , ,
! ! !
i I I
, , I
, , ,
---~---~---1---
I , I
1 , 1
, , 1
, , 1
I , ,
I , ,
---t----r---i----
I , ,
! ! !
Status
M
I
....
-
~
[2
o
[2
0..
..J
c:(
>
o
~
w
0::
('0.
W
W
~
I-
W
e>
~
0::
W
I
('0.
W
W
~
I-
o
W
I-
U
W
I-
o
0::
a..
I , I
I , I
1 , I
---..----...---1--- ---- .......
, , 1
1 , ,
1 , ,
. , ,
, I I
I I ,
---t----I----i--- ---- .......
, , ,
! ! !
, 1 I
, 1 1
, 1 1
---..---~---~---
, I I
, , I
, 1 1
, 1 1
, , ,
, , I
---t----I----~---
, 1 ,
, I 1
1 I
, , ,
, , ,
, , ,
---.---~---~----
, , ,
, , ,
, , ,
1 = Best, 5 = Worst
Page 1 of 4
Measurements Condition Pruning/Cabling Needs Pest/Disease Problems Recommend Status
-- -----.-- ------_.._----~-+--~- ! ! : 1 ! ! ! ! : : :
, I , 1 1 1
, I , 1 1 , 1 1 1 1
I I 1 ........' I , 1 I , I
, 1 10: I , I 1 I 1
, I , ~I I I ,
si ' I I , LO , Li? I ,
...- 1 I , , , , I M
10 -, , , .- I , ...I:
- I- ...- 1 W I 1 ~I .- , I
BARRIE D.'COATE UJ I I N Z l- I I , 0: ~ I <C ....
N' 0 ...- C/) I 1 I > -
UJ _, I , 1 W' W ,
0 1 ...- - <t: I , ~: en I 0 j:
u.. I- 0 (9: , i= (9 >- , 1 ,
and ASSOCIATES UJ UJ ::!. (9 :;t w , ........, w' ~ _, 0:: ~ ('0.
~ UJ I- z: (9 <t: !:: C/) ........' 10 1 >: 10' ~ UJ
W ........, Z ~ 0 10: ' I , ' UJ
I- <t: 101 -, (9 Z 0:: (9 0:: 0 ..-- 1 0 en ...-: w ('0- UJ
...- LL <t: I I 1-1 0 UJ ' , _, Ci N D:: 0 UJ
(400) 353-1052 ...3-1~ ~I~ ...- I <t:: Z Z Z Z , 0 ..-- I >- 0 if :::::i w 0::
N _, <t: I- 0 0 ........, ~ _I 0 ~ I-
@'UJ , 0::' i= <t:
23535 Summit Road :1- @ i= I- ........, UJI I UJ Z C/) C/) Z UJ 0:: 10, 0 ~ ~ UJ i= 0::
C/) 10, Z: <t: <( , I 0 :) :) Z 0- I- 0
0:: 1C/) I C/) , , 0:: ...I I UJ UJ UJ a.. ...- I 0 I- 0:: W
Los Galos, CA 95030 0:: UJ ..-- 1 0: 0:: 0 I- 0:: 0:: Z -I 0 ~ w ~ ...I W UJ
UJ:>- UJ -I => UJ (9 C/): 0:: 0 ...J ...J UJ :E :; I-
UJ 0 Il I- -, 0 0 0 LL C)
I-:C!,> I- 1-' ~ ~ ~ ~ > C/) Z 1-: 0 :E 0
I- <t: 1-: 0 _I 0:: UJ ~ 0 0 <t:
UJ,- I 0: 0 0' C/) C/) 0 UJ
~'I- UJ Q UJ -I' => ~ -I Z UJ: w 0 Z l- I- 0 0 0 !:: I-
'-1 I I ~ 0:: <t:: 0:: Z' 0 0 0 0 ~ ro => UJ <t: => 0 0 0 :E
<t::=> ro ro <t: UJ a.. UJI I- 0: 0:: 0:: 0:: 0:: UJ <t: 0:: C/): 0:: UJ a::: 0 0 UJ UJ W w a::: 0
Tree # Plant Name o:~ 0 0 0 I C/) I' C/) 0: I 0 0 0 0, 0:: 0 a.. Z: I- 0 I- ~ ~ ~ ~: D:: D:: UJ a:::
I I -, I a..
11 Coast Live Oak I I ! : 4! : ! ! I ! I ! I ! ! :
7 I I ,15 15 1 I I I I 1 I I I I
--------- --------------------------------- ----+--~---~----+---~---~--- ----~---~----+--- ---+----~---~----~---~----+--- -----~----+---~---+------~---- ---+----~---+--- ---- .......
I I I I I I I , I I I I I I , I I I I I I I I
I I I , I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I , I I I I I I I I
, I , I I I I 1 I I I , I I , , I I I I I 1 1
Coast Live Oak 1 , 1 I , I I I I I I , I , I I I I I I I I I
12 7 I 1 I I : 12: 15 1 I 4 I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I , I I I I
I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I , I I I I
--------- --------------------------------- ----+--~---~----~---~---~--- ----~---~----+--- ---.----~---~----~---~---+--- -----~----.---~---.------~---- ---.---~---~--- ---- .......
, I I I I I , , I I , I I I 1 I 1 I I 1 I , I
, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I , I
1 I I I I I I , I I I I I , I 'I I I , 1 I I I
! ! ! ! ! ; ; : I 1 1 I 1 I I : : I I : : :
13 Coast Live Oak 13: : : : 125: 20 1 I 3 I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I , I . I I
--------- --------------------------------- ----+--~---~----~---~---~--- ----~---~----+--- ---+----~---~----~---~----+--- -----~----+---~---~------+---- ---+---~---~--- ---- .......
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I I
I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I I
I I I I I I I , I I I I 1 , I I 1 , , I I I I
Coast Live Oak I I I 1 I I I , I I I I I I , I . I , I I I I
14 6 , I , I : 15: 15 1 I 1 I I I I I I , 1 I I I , I I I I
, I I I 1 I I I I I I , I I I I 1 I I I I
--------- --------------------------------- ____4__~___~____~___~___~___ ----~---~----.--- ---~----~---~----~---~---.--- -----~----~---~---~------~---- ___4___~___~____ ---- .......
. I , I I I I , I , , I I , , I 1 I , 1 , I ,
1 1 , I I , I I , , I , I , I I I 1 I I I I I
I I 1 I , I 1 I I , , , I , I I I I I I I I I
~ ; ; : ; I I 1 I , 1 I , 1 I I ; 1 : I I I :
15 Avocado 21 i : : : : 10:15 3 I 5 I I , I 1 I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I
--------- --------------------------------- I I I , 1 , , 1 I I I I , I , , I ---- .......
----T--~---_r----~---~---r--- ----r---~----T--- ---T----r---'----r---~---T--- -----'----T---~---T------r---- ---T----r---'---
Persea americana I I I I I , I I , I I .1 , I , I I I I I , 1 1
I I I I I 1 I I I I I I , I I 1 I I , I I 1 I
I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 1 I I , I I I I
Q<?~<?~~~<?_!.3J!:l_~_~P!..':!~~________ I I , 1 I I I I I I I I 1 , 1 I I I , I I I 1
16 14 : I I I :25: 15 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I , I 1 I 1
I I I I , I I I I 1 I 1 1 I I , I I I ,
--------- ----~--~---~----~---~---~--- ----~---~ ---~--- ___4____~___~____~___~____.___ _____~ ___~___~___4______~____ ___4___~___~___ ---- .......
I I I I
Picea pungens g/auca I I , I
I I I : I
~ ! I l 20:20 ! ! l ! l l
17 Colorado Blue Spruce 11 I 1 1
I
! ! I I
, .
I
18 Coast Live Oak ..J 1
12 12 11/ 30:;30 1 4 : : :
I
8 I I I
1 : : : :
..J 20:30 l ! ! !
19 Silk Tree 9 8 13 1 5 I
A/bizia julibrissin , I
1 I
I ,
..J 1 ,
20 Coast Live Oak 11 9 12 15:25 1 1 ,
,
1 I
I ,
I ; ,
~
,
-C
VJ
Job Name: Kelly Gordon Development, 10114 Crescent Court, Cupertino
Job #: 04-06-075
Date: April 13th, 2006
1 = Best, 5 = Worst
Page 2 of 4
-
BARRIE D. COATE
and ASSOCIATES
(400) 353-1052
23535 Summil Road
Los Gal05, CA 95030
Tree #
Plant Name
21
Juniper
Juniperus species
Italian Cypress
Cupressus sempervirens
Coast Redwood
Sequoia sempervirens
Coast Live Oak
22
23
24
g.~!.!?!~~.~..~~~!.~!.g.~~!:ry,................
Prunus carofiniana
26 Coast Live Oak
25
--_?~___ ~~~!~!DJ?_!:~J?Je~!______________
Shinus mofle
28 Coast Live Oak
29 Coast Live Oak
30 Coast Live Oak
~
,...-
~
-!:.
I-
W
W
lJ..
~
~,~
~\'w
~..: I-
o:::(/)
w:>-
I-,(f)
wl..!.
~'1-
<{:...J I
_p CD
Ol~ 0
.
4 :
---l
6
20 ~ ..J l 16! 16
10
Measurements
!
I- 0 0
w w w
W l- I-
u.. <{ <{
"I ~ ~
@ i= i=
(/)
0:: C/) w
w
W I- 0
l- I <{
W (9 W
I ~ 0::
CD <{ W a..
0 0 I C/)
I
,
! 10, 5
: ,
I I
I ,
, ,
'40: 6
80:35
15 15
: : .
8, 15 15
................f........r.................r......r......
I . I . I I
I I I J I I
I I I I I I
Condition
, I ,
, I I
, , ,
, I ,
I I ,
, I ..--.'
, , 0:
, I
, I T"" ,
, I I'
, I "I'
, I -'
I I
, , (9
, I
I I Z
, ..--.,
, LO. ~
, I ,
, T"" ,
, -'
..--.' w 0::
LO'
I : 0:: z
:S' :J 0
I I- i=
I- 0 15
...J :J
<{ 0:: Z
W I- 0
I C/) U
1 1
I ! :
1
1
:
1
:
:
Pruning/Cabling Needs
! I I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I LO
I
N z' l- I
0: T""
T"" -' I -
I 1-' (9 ~
~ (9 (9 <{' '"'
(9 z Z 0:: (9 ~ 0 0::
Z Z Z 0 Z W 0
I 0
~ <{ Z I- C/) 0'
W C/) Z W 0::
0:: ...J I w :;{ w w a..
U I- 0:: 0:: Z (9
0 w C/):
~ ~:~ ~ > Z
0:: 0 w: z
~ ...J ,
0 0:0,0 ~ CD: :J
0:: 0:::0:::0:: w <{' 0::
I U o:u:u 0:: u: a..
,
:
,
I 3 trees ,
I ,
,
I I
I ,
I ,
4 trees
,
: :
1 3
: :
Pest/Disease Problems Recommend Status
, , : : : :
, I , ,
iO: I , ,
. , I
, ......, ,
I I I ll) , Iii ,
T"" , I , , , M
-, I ~, I ...J
w' I ~ , ,
I 0 , c::( .....
C/) , ,
I W W , > -
<( I 0:: en , 0 ~
1 ,
W -I W l1i -' 0:: ~ ('0.
C/) -, LO I > LO' iE w
, 1 I ' W W ('0.
. 15 LO, ..... 1 0 ~ , W
I . , -' :S' N 0::: 0 w
. T"" , () 0 a::
..--.' ~ _I ~ 0:: ::i iE w I-
LO' 0 0:: 0:: W i= c 0::
I : U :s :s I- z Il. I- 0
T"" , 0 a::
- 0 w ~ W ..J W
C/) a:: ~ 0 ...J ...J W ~ c:( W I-
0 0 u.. (9 0
I- 0 ~ () () ~ > <{
0 w 0 z C/) C/) 0 0 t: w
W I-- I-- 0 0 I-
C/) W <{ ::> 0 0 w w 0 ~ 0:: 0
Z a:: w a:: 0 0 w ~ w w w a::
- I- 0 I- 0:: 0:: Z 0::: 0::: I a.
, ! , ~ :
!
!
!
: :
20: ! : ! :25:35
----T--~---II----,---II---r---
I I I I f I
I I I I I I
I I I I I .
1
5
I . :
2 , 3
.......T................,.......
, , 1
1 I ,
, , I
:
: : i
,
,
.........................., ......r...............-r ......
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
:
:
:
9 :..J! 7! : 12:20:25
____~__~___-L____~___-L___L___
. . I . I I
. . . . I .
~ . I I I .
i i I I I .
16: : : : : 25: 25
----T--~---~----,---~---~---
I . I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I . I I I .
13: : : : : 20: 20
____~__~___-L____~___-L___L___
I I , I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I ;
1 : 2 I :
----~---~----T---
, , 1
, I I
, I I
, , 1
1 : 1: :
___L___~____L___
, , ,
, , ,
, 1 I
. I i
1 : 1: :
----~---'----r---
I 1 ,
I , ,
I I I
, I I
1 : 2: :
____L___~____L___
I I I
, I I
, 1 I
Job Name: Kelly Gordon Development, 10114 Crescent Court, Cupertino
Job #: 04-06-075
Date: April 13th, 2006
,
,
. I I I
... ........, ......... ...n.., ... ....,........ ....y.n..... ....n.y.........................
I I I I I I I I
I . . I I . I .
I . . I I . I I
...!....l..i.l...~..l.........l...~..b~b? ...~...L~..!........l....... .......1........1.......1.......1.......1.......1....... ...........1.......1.......1.......1. ..........1........ .......1.......1.......!.......
I I I I . t I I I I I I I I I I I I I . If'
I I I . I I . I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I
. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . I I
Iii i I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
---'----r---'----r---,----T---
. I I I I t
I I I I I I
I I I I 1 I
I I I I I I
I I I I , I
t r r I I r
___~____~___~____L___~___L___
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I ~ ~ I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I ,
---T----r---'----r---,----T---
I I I 1 I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I , I I I I
___~____L___j____L___~____~___
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I ~ I I
; I I : I
I I I I I
I I I I I
-----'----r---i1---T------r----
I t I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
_____~____L___~___~______L____
I I I I I
I I r I I
I I I I I
, I ,
, I I
, I ,
---T----r---,---
, , 1
, , ,
, , ,
, , ,
1 , ,
, I 1
___.l.___-L.___~___
, , ,
1 I 1
, , 1
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
-----'----r---~---~------r----
I I I I I
I f I I I
I f I I I
I I I I I
r I f I I
I I I I r
-----~----~---~---~------~----
I t I I I
r I I I I
! I I I I
I , I
1 , I
. , I
---T---~---,---- ........ .......
I I I
I , I
, , I
I I ,
I I ,
I I 1
___~___-L___~____
. , I
I I I
, I I
1 = Best, 5 = Worst
Page 3 of 4
III ~33tU 031:::>310~d I I I I I I I I I I Vi '=t
::J L.. '+-
- 0 0
CG I , , , I , I , 1 , S
- ~33~1 38\f 11~3H I , , , I , I , , I '=t
en I , , , , , I I , ,
I , I , , I , I I , II aJ
(t-~) A.L1~OI~d 1"^OW3~ : : I , ; , I I.{) OJ
"C , , I , , I , CO
I , I , , , , , , , (L
c: , I , , , I , , , , uf
ell -------------------------------------- --"T"--- ---,.--- ---~--- ---"'--- ---,.--- ---,--- ---,.--- ---,--- ---...--- ---..,---
1"^OW3~ aN3WWO:>3~ , I , , I , I I I , aJ
E I , , , I , I I 1 ,
I , , , , , , , , I en
E -------------------------------------- __-1.___ ---t--- ---l---- ---~--- ___L___ ---t--- ---~--- ---~--- ---~--- ___,n_
, I , II
0 ~3ZIl11~3:l S033N I , I , , , , , I I
, , I I , , I I I 1 .-
(.) I , I , , I , I I ,
ell -------------------------------------- --~--- ---of--- --....--- -_....--- ---...--- ---ot--- ---...--- ----t--- ---..--- ---...---
(9-~)~31'T/M S033N , , I I I I , 1 I I
a::: , , I I , I , I , I
, , I I , / , , , 1
(s-~) 3SV3SIO ~'v'llOO 100~ , 1 I , / 1 , , , ,
III , I I I I , , , 1 ,
I , , , I , 1 , 1 ,
E , , I , , , I I , ,
-------------------------------------- --"""""--- _...-~--- __-a..___ ---~--- ---1---- ---.--- ---1---- ---...--- ---1---- ---~---
~ (s-~) 03~3^OO ~'v'llOO 100~ , , , I , , I , 1 ,
I , , , , I , , I ,
.0 I I , I I I , , I ,
I I I , 1 I , , , ,
0 1 , , I 1 , , , I ,
... , I , I 1 I , , I I
0. -------------------------------------- --;---- ---of--- ---,..--- ---"t--- ---....--- ---1--- ---t---- ---...--- ---,..--- ---~---
(g- ~)^ 'T/:::>30 )INn~l , . , I I I , , 1 ,
ell , I I I , I I , , ,
, I I , , I , , I ,
III -------------------------------------- --+--- ---t--- ---1---- ---i--- --+--- ---i--- --+--- ---i-u ---1---- ---1---
CG (g-~) .aOOM O'T/30 I , , 1 I 1 , , I 1
ell I , , 1 , 1 I I , ,
, , , , I I I I , ,
III -------------------------------------- --~--- ---~--- --.....--- ___of___ ---1---- ___of___ ---~--- ___-f___ ---~--- ---~---
0 (g-~) 3S'T/3SIO NMO~:::> 33~1 , , , , . , I I , ,
, , , , 1 I I I , I
';:l 1 I , , . , I I , ,
-------------------------------------- I , , I I I I , 1 I
III --T--- n-T--- ---,---- ---T--- ---r--- ---,--- ---r--- ---,--- ---r--- ---.,---
ell (g-~) Sl:::>3SNI , 1 / , , , 1 I I ,
, , / I , , 1 , I I
0. , I / I , I , , 1 ,
I 1 I I , I I , , 1
I , , I , I , I I ,
III
"C
ell
CI.l
Z
Cl
.E
:c
CG
u
-
Cl
c:
c:
::J
...
0.
(g-~) AlI~OI~d 8NINn~d
# 03033N S3l8'T/:::>
--------------------------------------
1H813M-ON3 3^OVll3~
--------------------------------------
8NISI\f~ NMO~:::>
--------------------------------------
NOI1\f~OlS3~ NMO~:::>
---------------------------------------
8NINNIHl NMO~:::>
--------------------------------------
8NIN\f3l:::> NMO~:::>
(c::~-v) 8NI1'T/~ O~'tZ'T/H
c: ______________________________________
~ (O~-l) 8NI1'T/~ NOI1IONO:::>
"C --------------------------------------
c: (g-~) 3~nl:::>n~lS
o
u --------------------------------------
(g-~) Hll'T/3H
031VVIII1S3 O'T/3~dS
---------------------------------------
031'T/V1111S31H813H
133:ll @ ~313V\1\fIO
--------------------------------------
H80
III
-
c:
ell
E
ell
...
:s _______________________________________
III
ca
ell
:2:
H80
____________________~~_~~~_~:L~=uJ_~_
133=1 V~-V @ ~313V11'T/IO
~ V')
I- ~
<: I-
0 <: N 18
u Ci t@ ..""
.,.
c 0 .... 'E is
'" ! '8"
V') 0-.
~ V') B ffi~
Q2 -< ~ ~.!
eo::: -0
-< C
CIQ ~
.
II) I
,
.Q) co I
<3 co ~ I
c:: ~ ,
Q) ro, ..... ,
I ~ ~ ro ro I
, .u: ~ I
, :J O. I
, II) ~: Q) 01 , I
Ill' :::: Q)' ,
:JI ::J <(: ro o. ~ >: I ,
...../ ~ .Q -J' ,
p.: Ill: , ._, I
.!!;! aJ' "- -J,
>,j -~ N: 0 .....1
-, ~ U .Q en/
~: c:. ro:
:=1 ~ 0' .0 I
:J' &l ro' L..' &i 0' ,
UJ: III: ~ en: u: I
I
, , I I I
, I I , ,
, I 1 I ,
.-' N' C"). '=t' I .,
C"): C"): C"): C"): .,
I I
, , I , I ,
I , I , , I
1 , I , I I
I
,
I
--~---
,
,
,
I
nT---
/
1
.
-_...&-_--
I
,
,
,
---,.---
,
,
,
---1..---
I
,
,
I
--.......---
I
,
,
,
,
I
--~---
1
,
,
,
--.,..---
C"):
,
__-1..___
I
C"):
I
R! ~!
__-""___ ___01.___
~! ~!
---l---- ---t---
, I
1 1
I ,
.....~--- ---'f'---
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
---l---- ---t---
. I
1 /
, I
---l---- ---t-n
, ,
, ,
--~--- ---..---
, ,
'=t I C") I
('\ll T"'"' I
aJ
E
ro
z
.....
c:
ro
0:
:u:
aJ
aJ
L..
I-
,
,
,
---+---
,
1
---~---
,
I
I
---~---
,
I
1
I
---T---
1
I
,
___.1___
,
,
I
I
---'f'---
I
,
!
, I I I I , , I
, I / I I 1 , I
, 1 I I , I , I
---..--- ---of--- ---~--- ---of--- ---...--- ---...--- ---..--- ---...---
, , , 1 , 1 , I
1 I , I I , , I
, I , I , 1 I I
1 ---~--- , ---~--- I ---~--- ---~--- ----1---
--T--- ---r--- ---r-n
, , , I I I , I
, 1 I , , I , I
I 1 I 1 , I , ,
---...--- ---~--- ___L.___ ---..--- ___L.___ ----1--- ___L.___ ----1---
I I I , , , I I
, I I , , 1 , ,
I , / , , . I ,
I I , , I 1 , ,
---r--- ---,,--- ---r--- ---,--- ---,..--- ---,--- ---r--- ---,---
I I I' , , , I ,
I I , , 1 1 I 1
I , , , , , , ,
___L___ ___.1.___ ___L___ --_.&_-- ___L___ ___.J___ ___L___ ___.J___
I I I , I I , I
, , I 1 I I , ,
I , , I , I I ,
I , I , I I , ,
---r--- ---..--- ---1---- ---...--- ---,...--- ---...--- ---,..--- ---~---
I I , I 1 , . ,
, I , I I 1 , I
, I , ! I 1 I I
, 1 , I I I I I
, , I , I I I ,
, 1 I I I I I I
--......--- ___of___ ---~--- ___of___ ---...--- ___of___ __...to___ ---....---
, , I , I I 1 ,
I , / , , I 1 ,
I , , , I , , ,
, , , , I I , ,
---r--- ---T--- ---r--- ---,--- ---r--- ---,--- ---r--- ---.,---
, N: , I , 1 , I
.-, , I , I , I
, I , , , I , I
__...L.___ --_.&_-- ___L.___ ___.J___ ___L.___ ___.1___ ___L.___ ___..1___
, , , / , I , ,
.-' or- I , I , I , ,
, I I , I I , I
, , I , I I I ,
I.{) , I.{) , I , I I I ,
N: '=tl , , I , I ,
, 1 , , , ,
__...L.___ --_.&_-- ___L.___ --_..&_-- ___L.___ ---..1--- ___L.___ ___..1___
al I.{) , 1 I 1 , I 1
N: , I I 1 , 1
.-1 , I I 1 , I
---1---- ---ton --+--- n_~--- __+n_ ---i--- ---~--- ---,---
I.{) , I , , , I , ,
.-' , , , I , I ,
, I I I , I I I
---t---- ---'1--- ---t"--- ---..--- ---,...--- ---1--- ---~--- ---.,---
, , I I , , , I
, 1 I I I I , ,
, , I I , 1 I ,
, I 1 I I I I ,
---1---- ---t--- --+--- ---~--- --+--- ---~--- _n~--- ---1---
0>1 , , I I 1 I .
I I 1 , 1 , I
, I I , , , , ,
---1---- ---i--- --+--- ---~--- --+--- n_~--- --+--- -n1---
"? , 1 I , I 1 , ,
, 1 I , 1 1 , ,
--......--- ---of--- ---~--- ---of--- ---~--- ---...--- ---..--- ---~---
a: 1
a.
or- I C")'
;
,
,
,
---~---
I
I
I
I
---T---
'=tl
,
---.1---
,
N:
I
0
c:
t
aJ
Q..
:J
0
t
:J
0
0
C
aJ
()
(/)
aJ
L..
0
'<;t
.-
.-
0
-E
aJ
E
Q..
0
a:;
>
aJ
0
C
0
"0 co
L.. 0
0
<.9 0
>,1.{) N
=t; .c
aJ , (ry
~co .-
aJ 0 'C
,
E'=t Q..
coO <(
z:i:t aJ
.0 .0 ro
0 0
" 0
[2- -Ltr
-
BARRIE D. COATE
and ASSOCIATES
Honi cutural Consultants
23535 Summit Road
Los Gatos, CA 95033
408l35~ 1 052
ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
1. Any legal description provided to the appraiser/consultant is assumed to be correct.
No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character nor is any opinion rendered as to
the quality of any title.
2. The appraiser/consultant can neither guarantee nor be responsible for accuracy of
information provided by others.
3. The appraiser/consultant shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason
of this appraisal unless subsequent written arrangements are made, including payment of an
additional fee for services.
4. Loss or removal of any part of this report invalidates the entire appraisal/evaluation.
5. Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any
purpose by any other than the person(s) to whom it is addressed without written consent of
this appraiser/consultant.
6. This report and the values expressed herein represent the opinion of the
appraiser/consultant, and the appraiser's/consultant's fee is in no way contingent upon the
reporting of a specified value nor upon any finding to be reported.
7. Sketches, diagrams, graphs, photos, etc., in this report, being intended as visual aids, are
not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering reports or surveys.
8. This report has been made in conformity with acceptable appraisal/evaluation/diagnostic
reporting techniques and procedures, as recommended by the International Society of
Arboriculture.
9. When applying any pesticide, fungicide, or herbicide, always follow label instructions.
1 a.No tree described in this report was climbed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take
responsibility for any defects which could only have been discovered by climbing. A full root
collar inspection, consisting of excavating the soil around the tree to uncover the root collar
and major buttress roots, was not performed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take
responsibility for any root defects which could only have been discovered by such an
inspection.
CONSULTING ARBORIST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training, and experience to
examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to
reduce risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations
of the arborist, or to seek additional advice.
Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree.
Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often
hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or
safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments,
like medicine, cannot be guaranteed.
Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some
degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate all trees.
c5~~~
Barrie D. Coate
ISA Certified Arborist
Horticultural Consultant
f L -Lf ~
EXHIBIT C
Assignment
I have been asked by Piu Gosh, Planner, City of Cupertino, to provide a replacement
strategy for the trees that would be removed at the Kelley-Gordon Development Project,
10114 Crescent Court, Cupertino.
The trees planned to be removed, for which a replacement strategy is requested, are Trees
# 4,5,6,7,9,10,11,12,14,15,17,19,24,25,26,27,31,32, and 33.
Replacement Strategy
It has been our practice to recommend replacements based on the appraised value of the
trees planned to be removed. The values ofthe trees for this project are addressed
according to ISA (International Society of Arboriculture) standards, 9th Edition, Trunk
formula method.
The trunk formula method is based on an individual tree's trunk diameter (or diameters in
the case of multi-stem specimens), but includes adjustments for the following elements:
. Species performance in this climate area
. The species rate of growth (this is related to growth rates of nursery stock and the
cost to produce them; the cost per square inch of trunk diameter addresses the fact
that slower growing plants are more costly to produce)
. The tree's overall current condition
. The tree's location (this factors in an impression of the genenll condition of the
area, the contribution that this tree has provided to the site, and the importance of
that contribution relative to other specimens on site)
Using the trunk formula method as designed by the ISA, I have applied it to the
Microsoft Excel spreadsheet program in order to complete the calculations. By this
process, the appraised values are as follows:
Tree # 4 - Coast live oak -
Tree # 5 - Coast live oak -
Tree # 6 - Acacia species -
Tree # 7 - Coast live oak -
Tree # 9 - Coast live oak -
Tree # 10- Coast live oak -
Tree # 11 - Coast live oak -
Tree # 12 - Coast live oak-
Tree # 14 - Coast live oak -
Tree # 15 - Persea Americana -
Tree # 17 - Picea pungens 'Glauca' -
Tree # 19 - AIbizia julibrissin -
Tree # 24 - Coast live oak -
Tree # 25 - Prunus caroliniana -
$ 2530.00
$ 1770.00
$ 360.00
$ 1850.00
$ 540.00
$ 540.00
$ 730.00
$ 730.00
$ 900.00
$ 170.00
$ 1570.00
$ 90.00
$ 720.00
$ 680.00
(2-'17
Tree # 26 - Coast live oak -
Tree # 27 - Schinus molle -
Tree # 31 - Eucalyptus species -
Tree # 32 - Acacia baileyana -
Tree # 33 - Eriobotryia deflexa-
$ 840.00
$ 2600.00
$ 200.00
$ 40.00
$ 4250.00
Total Appraised Value
$ 21,110.00
A copy of the Excel spreadsheet calculations, including factored percentages impact on
value, can be provided upon request.
In terms of replacements trees, I recommend that native species nursery stock specimens
be used, such as coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia). I suggest any combination of the
following sizes approximately equal to the above total value:
boxed specimen - average cost planted
24 inch box - $ 375
36 inch box - $ 1000
48 inch box - $ 2125
54 inch box - $ 2650
60 inch box - $ 3500
72 inch box - # 10, 000
Respectfully submitted,
MLB/BDC
12-'1~
~ COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
... CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
...f.ECEIVED JUN 2 3 2006
June 21, 2006
C0036A
TO:
Ciddy Wordell
Cupertino City Planner
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
EXHIBIT D
SUBJECT:
RE:
Supplemental Geologic and Geotechnical Peer Review
Kelly, Proposed Subdivision
10114 Crescent Court
At your request, we have completed a supplemental geologic and. geotechnical peer
review of the subject application for a proposed subdivision using the following
documents:
. Geotechnical Investigation (report) prepared by Murray Engineers, Inc., dated
June 13, 2006.
In addition to our review of the above referenced documents, we have reviewed
pertinent technical data from our office files and have had discussions with the Project
Geotechnical Engineer.
DISCUSSION
The applicant proposes to subdivide the existing property into 6 parcels. We
understand that one parcel will be donated to the Santa Clara Valley Water Dish-ict and the
remaining 5 are proposed for future residential development. A new extension from the
east end of Crescent Court would be constructed for access to the parcels. An existing
residence will be demolished to accommodate the subdivision. An existing unimproved
access road to Stevens Creek would become part of Water District property. Portions of the
property are within State defined Earthquake Induced Landslide and Liquefaction Zones.
It is our understanding that sanitary sewer effluent of future proposed residences would be
piped to the sanitary sewer pipeline in Crescent Court.
In our previous review report, dated April 12, 2006, we recommended that an
engineering geologic investigation be performed to address the long-term stability of the
terrace embankment on Lots 4 and 5, characterize the site seismic setting, and provide
appropriate geologic recommendations for residential development. In addition, we
recommended that supplemental geotechnical engineering recommendations be provided.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION
Based upon our review of the referenced document, it 'appears that Murray
Engineers, Inc. (MEI) has assumed the role of Project Geologist and Project Geotechnical
Northern California Office
330 Village Lane
Los Gatos, CA 95030-7218
(408) 354-5542 . Fax (408) 354-1852
e-mail: losgatos@cottonshires.com
www.cottonshires.com
Central California Office
6417 Dogtown Road
San Andreas, CA 95249-9640
(209) 736-4252 . Fax (209) 736-1212
e-mail: cottonshires@starband.net
{2.. -41
Ciddy Wordell
Page 2
June 21, 2006
C0036A
Engineer. MEI has performed a geologic and geotechnical investigation of the site,
including the excavation of two additional exploratory boreholes, and has performed
analyses of the potential for geologic hazards to adversely impact the proposed lots. They
conclude that the steep embankment of Stevens Creek has the potential to constrain
development on portions of Lots 4 and 5, but if appropriate setbacks are incorporated, and
pier-supported foundations are utilized where recommended, then the site is suitable for
the proposed subdivision. Based upon our review of the slope stability analysis performed
on the steep embankment adjacent to Lot 4, it appears that MEI has utilized regional shear
strength data tabulated for the Cupertino Quadrangle by the California Geologic Survey. It
is our opinion that site specific data is generally more appropriate than the regional data,
which is intended as more of a guideline than for site specific use. By correlating the on-site
blow count data to shear strength parameters (friction angles), we have evaluated the slope
stability analysis performed by ME! where regional shear strength parameters have been
used, and conclude that their analysis may overestimate the factor of safety by 10 to 15
percent. Since ME!' s seismic slope stability screening analysis resulted in a factor of safety
of 1.16, the 10% to 15% difference could still result in a factor of safety of greater than 1.0.
Consequently, it is our opinion that ME!' s recommended 25-foot setback appears justified.
If it is desired to extend portions of the development into the 25-foot setback zone, then
recommendations for deep, reinforced concrete piers should be provided. .
Consequently, we recommend approval of the Tentative Tract Map from a geologic
and geotechnical standpoint. The following should be performed prior to building permit
approval:
1. Geotechnical Plan Review - The applicant's geotechnical consultant should
review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the development plans (i.e., site
preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for
foundations and retaining walls) to ensure that their recommendations have
been properly incorporated.
The results of the geotechnical plan review should be summarized by the
geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City for review and
approval by the City Staff prior to approval of building permits.
2. Geotechnical Field Inspection - The geotechnical consultant should inspect, test
(as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction.
The inspections should include, but not necessarily be limited to: site
preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements
and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of
steel and concrete.
The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project should
be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City
Engineer for review prior to final project approval.
("L-)()
COTTON, SHIRES'& ASSOCIATES, INC.
Ciddy Wordell
Page 3
June 21, 2006
C0036A
LIMIT ATIONS
This peer review has been performed to provide technical advice to assist the City
with discretionary permit decisions. Our services have been limited to review of the
documents previously identified, and a visual review of the property. Our opinions and
conclusions are made in accordance with generally accepted principles and practices of the
geotechnical profession. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, either expressed or
implied.
Respectfully submitted,
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
CITY GEOTEC~SULTANT
~~ce .
Associate Engin~ering Geologist
CEG 1923
~~
Patrick 0, Shires
Principal Geotechnical Engineer
GE 770
JMW:POS:st
!2-)/
COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
EXHIBIT E
CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
June 28, 2006
As provided by the Environmental Assessment Procedure, adopted by the City Council
of the City of Cupertino on May 27, 1983, as amended, the following described project
was reviewed by the Envi~onmental Review Committee of the City of Cupertino on
June 28, 2006.
PROTECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
TM-2006-07 (EA-2006-08)
Scott Kelly (Kelly Gordon Developement)
10114 Crescent Court
DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST
Tentative Map to subdivide a 2.4 acre property into five parcels, with parcel sizes
greater than 10,000 square feet and an approximately 35,000 square foot parcel for creek
dedication
FINDINGS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration finding that the project is consistent with the General Plan and
has no sigIfificant grnzironmental impacts.
\/
\' "~\
\ / //'-.., ---./
\ "
-\~ /f'..44 -
Steve Piaseckt
Director of Community Development
g/ercjREC EA-2006-08
(2-):1.
.~ c~~~~::~:~~~ii~~:
CITY OF (408) 777-3308
CUPERIINO FAX (408) 777-3333
, . Community Development Department
INITIAL STUDY. ENVIRONMENTAL E.VALUATION CHECKL.IST, '
Staff Use Only
EA File NO.EA-2006-08
Case File No. TM-2006-07
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Project Title: Scott Kelly (Kelly Gordon Development)
Project Location: 10114 Crescent Court
Project Description: The proiect is a request to subdivide two parcels that are 2.4 acres
in size into five parcels, ranqinq from 10,254 square feet to 13,176 square feet and a
37,073 square foot parcel dedicated to the Santa Clara Valley Water District.
Environmental Setting:
The proposed proiect is on a developed site accessed by an unimproved driveway from
the existinq riqht of way to the lot with one sinqle family home. The parcel is bounded by
Varian Park to the North, Stevens Creek to the East, and other existinq sinqle family
homes to the South and the West. To the east of the property is a steep cliff that leads
down to the creek. There is an unimproved walkable path to the North of the property
leadinq down to the creek.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Site Area (ac.) - 104,974 s.f. Building Coverage - N/A% Exist. Building - N/A s.f.
Proposed Bldg. - N/A s.f. Zone - R1-1 0 G.P. Designation - Residential Low 1-5 DU/Gr. Ac.
Assessor's Parcel No. - 326-17-009 and 326-17-030
If Residential, Units/Gross Acre - 3.21
Unit Type #3
Total# Rental/Own Bdrms Total sJ. Price
NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA
Unit Type #1
Unit Type #2
Applicable Special Area Plans: (Check)
o Manta Vista Design Guidelines
o
S. De Anza Conceptual
o
N. De Anza Conceptual
o
S. Sara-Sunny Conceptual
o
Heart of the City Specific Plan
o
Stevens Creek Blvd. SW & Landscape
If Non-Residential, Building Area - ,N/A s.t. FAR - N/A %
Employees/Shift - N/A Parking Required - N/A Parking Provided - N/A
Project Site is Within Cupertino Urban Service Area -
YES X
NO
o
(2- )]
INITIAL STUDY SOURCE LIST
A. CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN SOURCES
1. Land Use Element
2. Public Safety Element
3. Housing Element
4. Transportation Element
5. Environmental Resources
6. Appendix A- Hillside Development
7. Land Use Map
8. Noise Element Amendment
9. City Ridgeline Policy
10. Constraint Maps
B. CUPERTINO SOURCE DOCUMENTS
11. Tree Preservation ordinance 778
12. City Aerial Photography Maps
13. "Cupertino Chronicle" (California History
Center, 1976)
14. Geological Report (site specific)
15. Parking OrdinanQe 1277
16. Zoning Map
17. Zoning Code/Specific Plan Documents
18. City Noise Ordinance
18b City of Cupertino Urban Runoff Pollution
Prevention Plan
C. CITY AGENCIES Site
19. Community Development Dept. List
20. Public Works Dept.
21. Parks & Recreation Department
22. Cupertino Water ~tility
D. OUTSIDE AGENCIES
23. County Planning Department
24. Adjacent Cities' Planning Departments
25. County Departmental of Environmental
Health
D. OUTSIDE AGENCIES (Continued)
26. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
27. County Parks and Recreation Department
28. Cupertino Sanitary District
29. Fremont Union High School District
30. Cupertino Union School District
31. Pacific Gas and Electric
32. Santa Clara County Fire Department
33. County Sheriff
34. CAL TRANS
35. County Transportation Agency
36. Santa Clara Valley Water District
36b Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution
Prevention Program
36c San Jose Water Company
E. OUTSIDE AGENCY DOCUMENTS
37. BAAQMD Survey of Contaminant
Excesses
38. FEMA Flood Maps/SCVWD Flood Maps
39. USDA, "Soils of Santa Clara County"
40. County Hazardous Waste Management
Plan
41. County Heritage Resources Inventory
42. Santa Clara Valley Water District Fuel
Leak Site
43. CalEPA Hazardous Waste and.
Substances Site
43b National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Municipal Stormwater
Discharge Permit Issued to the City of
Cupertino by the San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board
43c Hydromodification Plan
F. OTHER SOURCES
44. Project Plan SeUApplication Materials
45. Field Reconnaissance
46. Experience w/project of similar
sco pe/ch a racteri sti cs
47. ABAG Projection Series
~;,,,.., '_'c :'>-.'.-
...Ir-Js,"IRUCTIONS,:
,< ;'i;.~ .!
A. Complete.ill! information requested on the Initial Study Cover page. LEAVE BLANK SPACES
ONLY WHEN A SPECIFIC ITEM IS NOT APPLICABLE.
B. Consult the Initial Study Source List; use the materials listed therein to complete, the checklist
information in Categories A through O.
C. You are encouraged to cite other relevant sources; if such sources are used, job in their title(s)
in the "Source" column next to the question to which they relate.
D. If you check any of the "YES" response to any questions, you must attach a sheet explaining the
potential impact and suggest mitigation if needed.
E. When explaining any yes response, label your answer clearly (Example "N - 3 Historical") Please
try to respond concisely, and place as many explanatory responses as possible on each paqe.
F. Upon completing the checklist, sign and date the Preparer's Affidavit.
G. Please attach the following materials before submitting the Initial Study to the City.
/Project Plan Set of Legislative Document
/Location map with site clearly marked
(when applicable)
BE SURE YOUR INITIAL STUDY SUBMITTAL
IS COMPLETE - INCOMPLETE MATERIALS
MAY CAUSE PROCESSING DELAY
/2- JL(
i b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
i including, but not limited to, trees, rock
! outcroppings, and historic buildings within a _. I _____1:
: state scenic highway? [5,9,11,24,34,41,44] _
! c) Substantially degrad-e th~-~xisting Vi;~~- or D !2SJ I D I
i character or quality of the site and its
~urrOlJndill(JS? [1,17,19,44] I -----,---+- '
: d) Create a new source of substantial light or I D 1 DID I !2SJ
'~:~~~i;~i~;:~~~~v::;:?[r~~~1r:r._L__ _~.___L_~l___
'j
i Items a and b - No Impact i
! There are no scenic vistas or scenic resources on the project site; therefore, the proposed project will have no I
I adverse effects on scenic vistas or scenic resources. The proposed project is also not anticipated to degrade'
i the existing visual character of the site.
lItem c and d - Less than Siqnificant ' i
I The subject property currently has one single family home on it. Construction of five new single-family homes i
I on site will alter the existing visual character of the site somewhat. However, since numerous trees on the i
U~rop-~~e beLI].g....?av~~!!:J_~JEnpact will be less. than. significa~ ___.______ !
i II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In
i determining whether impacts to agricultural
! resources are significant environmental
! effects, lead agencies may refer to the
I California Agricultural Land Evaluation and
! Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by
i the California Dept. of Conservation as an
i option~1 model to use in assessing impacts I !
I on ~gnculture and farmland. Would the " ! I '
: project: ! I
I aJ ~;;;'vert pri~Fa';;'l;nd, U~que~I-;;~ li<I I
i Farmland, or Farmland of StateWIde I! I I
: Importance (Farm!and), as shown on the! II ! !
I I
maps .prepared pu.rsu.ant to the Farmland I I I
Mapping and Monltonng Program of the ill
California Resources Agency, to non- Iii
agricultural use? [5,7,39] I I I
--T-......... ........1"...... .... ........ -..... ........+
D! 0 !
!
I
I
,_n,L __
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
. ----l-----.
I ~t:
-~+-'
.~ 0 0
! +-';;::: ~
I S:::._
Q) s::: E
o.~-
a.CJ)
: ISSUES:
! [and Supporting Information Sources]
II. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:
!-.---......----.....--...----....-.----..--.---...--..-.......-.-.-..-......
I a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
! scenic vista? [5,9,24,41,44]
D
D
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract? [5,7,23]
s:::
s::: +-' 0
~ s::: S:::._
~ 0 +-'
,=o..c::;:;~
;;:::~~o
~'c :: .~ e-
O,) C> :!:: 0
...JCi) 20
s:::,
-.-~=--==-...._I~ -==t-..~=-._...~'.
D D !2SJ I
,
---------------'---.- ------i
s:::-
s:::
~~-
..c: 0 0
I- .- ~
(J) ~ c.
(J) s::: E
Q) ,~-
...JCJ)
+-'
o
o ~
zc.
E
D
D
!2SJ
D
I
I
i
..._.._..1 ....__,
I !2SJ
I
..i..
{2.-:; .>
ISSUES:
[and Supporting Information Sources]
. ......----.........------.--]-----..-...--. --
>. .... C ....
-c ...c
-cu.... "'ra
.~ 0 0 .c 0
~ lO: ra I- lO:
- .- III .-
alCE lIlC
-0) 0)
~Ci5- jCi5
~ -.- - - __. - . ---. ".- -- "____ __. _.__.._ __.__..._ _m_...____
C
C .2
0....
.c....~
....rao
.- 0)
:;:._ 0-
.... '-
.- 0
2 0
C
C....
ra~....
.coo
1-,- ra
III ~ 0-
III C E
al 0)_
-lU)
-
o
o ra
ZO-
E
: c) Involve other changes in the existing
I environment which, due to their location or
: nature, could result in conversion of
i Farmland, to non-agricultural use? [5,7,39]
D
D
D
00
i
L__._________________._._____.__._____._.______.______
i Items a throuqh c - No Impact
! The project site is located within an urbanized area and has no agricultural land
I proposedproject will not impact ag~cultu~~ land or resources.
____.1__________1______
or resources; therefore, the
1111. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the
I significance criteria established by the
I applicable air quality management or air
I pollution control district may be relied upon
! to make the following determinations. Would
1 the project:
I a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of D
I the applicable air quality plan? [5,37,42,44]
r-----.---.-------------------.-------T
! b) Violate any air quality standard or I D
i contribute substantially to an existing or
! projected air quality violation? [5,37,42,44]
D
D
--~---r 00..-1
.. : . !
. . !
i
i
D -. [Rl ...;
;
I c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net D
! increase of any criteria pollutant for which
I the project region is non-attainment under an.
I applicable federal or state ambient air quality
! standard (including releasing emissions
i which exceed quantitative thresholds for
i ozone precursors)? [4,37,44]
D
r-'-'--~---'----
I d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
I pollutant concentrations? [4,37,44]
~~;t~~~~~~~~a:r,;:~i~~~~;i,~~t 1- D ~.~--~---o~J~ 01
;_____._____._..___...._._.__..______________.____________L..__._-"--_.____ ___ .___J
I Items a throuqh e - No Impact .
I The proposed project is not likely to produce any adverse air quality issues. i
i. I~:-~IO~~~~~~~-;ESO~-~-~~~--= i~~i;--rl ----~II .----.----------T-----------r-------I..
I the proJect: I I I I
~-...--...--.----..---...---....-...--..---- ---.-...--..-------.-.---..-....--------------.----+-----..-..-----,------ .------- . ---------1-------------.-....-..-1------- ------~
i "\11 L.' r -' ~. 'L-. In! 11 Ill! rvl i
: a) nave a suustantial auverS8 el18ct, 81tl18r I LJ LJ I LJ L<'-l
! directly or through habitat modifications, on I !
i any species identified as a candidate, I i
i sensitive, or special status species in local or I Ii
.. regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by I
: the California Department of Fish and Game I I
: or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? I i I
i_ [~,_1 O-'?! ~4~L .._______..__..._ ......_..... _.___ ______ _L_________l__.. . _.._ _______J__
I! i
. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any . : 0 _l_ D .1
D
D
D
00
D
i
.........-........--1
i
00
I L- r-&
......--...--- ... ...- ... ..--- .-. --...-...---.----.- .'!-- .-~~........--!----~--~-....---. c--.~r---: c
iUro~ ro 0.... roro....
','. ISSUES'. .- 0 0 .t: 0 .t: +:: ~ .t: 0 0
.....- ro t-.-.... ro 0 t-.- ro
[and Supporting Information Sources] ~ ~ EI ~ ~ .~ ~ e- ~ ~ E
, 0 .2> - I Q,).2> .- 0 Q,) .2>-
i I a.. C/) I ...J C/) ~ g I ...J C/) !
t-rTpalian-iiab-itator other--s-e-nsitive natu-raT--1-------r------------ --------r----------
i community identified in local or regional I .
i plans, policies, regulations or by the I
! California Department of Fish and Game or I
i US Fish and Wildlife Service? [5,10,27,44]
i c) Hav~a su~stantial adverse effect on I
i federally protected wetlands as defined by
; Section 404 of the Clean Water Act I
: (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal ~
: pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
: filling, hydrological interruption, or other I, !
, means? [20,36,44] i
,---------------------- ---.- --- - - ------------- ______1---__ ----------- ---- _ -----------1--------------1
: d) Interfere substantially with the movement DID D 00:
! of any native resident or migratory fish or I I
! wildlife species or with established native I i
i ~esident or migratory ~i1dlif~ c.orridors, or I I
II~pe~e the use of native wildlife nursery I ! I
~~;~~n~~~: ~:t~'~~~~~C8} poT~CTes-or----'---~-r' ------~ ~- ---~-J
I ordinances protecting bl?loglca.1 resources, I I !
! such as a tree preservation policy or I I 1.. I
i ordinance? [11,12,41] _ I ------J
i f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
[ Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
I Community Conservation Plan, or other
! approved local, regional, or state habitat
I conservation plan? [5,10,26,27]
....
o
o ro
zc.
E
_.--1
D
D
D
00
D D D
__J._____~__L_
00
i
I.
I
! Items a throuqh d - No Impact !
j I
: The proposed project is not likely to have any adverse effect on any riparian habitat, federally protected wetlands or with the i
I movement of sensitive wildlife species or fish. This is because the project site is already developed and the undeveloped !
I portion is to be dedicated to the Santa Clara Valley Water District with no improvements made to it. .
i Item e- Less than Siqnificant with Mitiqation Incorporation I
; :
i The project involves the removal of some specimen trees and some non-specimen trees from the site. However, this can be I
: mitigated through the replacement of these trees with specimen size trees. I
IV. ~U~~URAL RESOURCES -- Would the II '-----T- i
! project. I I I : !
r--.--.-------. .----------j------ -------.~.----.---.--+__-__:
! a) Cause a substantial adverse change in I D DID I 00 !
I the significance of a historical resource as I I I !
, defined in ~15064.5? [5.13,4'1] I I ! I !
r----..-.-.--.......-"..-----.---.---.-.-----.----.--......-...-.----..-.-'"-..----.--.------.r-~...--.------r..-.-----.-.-.-.-.---------.(--.-...-----------....--..-4..-.-..-...---------.--1
I b) Cause a substantial adverse change in I DID I D I 00 I
! the significance of an archaeological . I I I
i resource pursuant to ~ 15064.5? [5.13,41] i [ , i i
r-.-.-....--....--........-..-.----.--.-..---.--.---..--..-.-..--.....-..--.---------.-..----..----..-.----.-r-..-------------.-j - ----.----..---..--.------1-..-----.-.. -.- ..--.---j-----.------...-;
! c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ! DID D i 00 '
! paleontological resource or site or unique ! I I
I geologic feature? [5,'iJ,41] I i I
-.-.....-...-..-...-..- --.. ---..-..--.......-........--.....--.-..----..--------...-.-... .- -..-----.------..-.-.---..--..... .. -.....-.---..--.---. .... - ---. ---.-!..-- --- -.-----...-----..---....-------r..--.. - -.. - f . ..-- -- -----..------.
. d) Disturb any human remains, including D.......... . i...... D .1 D
-i
00 ,
-rz~' S-)
! ISSUES:
i [and Supporting Information Sources]
t:
~ ~ 5 1: t: .2 5 '5 _
- ra - "" ra 0 - "" 'w -
.!:S! 0 0 ~ 0 ..c: :j:j ~ ..c: 0 0 0
I ~!Era 1I)!E~~o ';!E[ ~[
2 t: E II) t: :S::j:j e- II) t: E E '
I o.~ - Q).~ .- 0 Q) .~ - .
: ' ll.. (J) ..J (J) :2E g ..J (J) I :
;those-int8rred-oufside of formal cemeierTe-s?-j--i~---~ --~l' -------1
: [1,5] I i
1--------------------------.------------- ____-L '
: Items a throuqh d - No Impact --------- ---.---- -------
! '
I The site is not within a known sensitive archaeological area of the City and has no historical resources on site. I
[:~~~::~~:~No~::~~~~~:~al~ ----=l-J--,
: substantial adverse effects, including the risk :
i ;:~~;;~~~~t;~:;~~~~~;I~~~S~~~~~IO--,-- 0 j;;~ -~-l~J
, Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the :
; State Geologist for the area or based on :
I other subs.t~n~ial evid~nce of a known fault? I I
! Refe~ to Dlvl~lo~ of Mines and Geology I' I . . I
, Special Publication 42. [2,14,44] I I . . i
i-----------..------.------------.---------....-------+--------1------....-.----.1.-----.-----1-------j
Iii) St, rong seismic ground shaking? II D DID loo n "I!
: [2,5,10,44] I I
..-----J-- - . ----i
I iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including. ' 1 D [2J D 0
i liquefaction? [2,5,10,39,44]
-_.~
I
i iv) Landslides? [2,5,10,39,44]
o
[2J
D
o
-----f
i b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the D D
! loss of topsoil? [2,5,1 0,44] ~ ~
I c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is ---;- -- [2J D
! unstable, or that would become unstable as
i a result of the project, and potentially result
I in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, I
i su~side~~e, liquefaction or collapse? Ii' i
I [2,0,10,...,9] I ~ I ,
I d)~~~~-~~;~d o~-ex~~n~~~-~oil~;;:~efined ---tl--~---l----~--------- I-----~----I-----~-- !
! in Table 18-1.-B of the Un.ifor~ Buildi.ng Code! i I ! I
i (1997), creating substantial risks to life or I I I '1 i
: property? [2,5,10] i I Ii:
!--.-----.----..-----....-.-...-..--..------------.--------------------.--.----....,.-..--..--t----..---------r------~----------~
i e) Have soils incapable of adequately I DID : D I 00 :
: supporting the use of septic tanks or I I
i alternative waste water disposal systems i
! where sewers are not available for the I
i disposal of waste water? [6,9,36,39] i
...._ _ ...___._.____.__.____ .'_ i L....._...._....
D
00
D
1_
{'2-S-&
ISSUES:
[and Supporting Information Sources]
>>-
- C
-cu-
.~ (.) (.)
_ .- cu
C ~ C
Q) C E
o.~-
Q..en
C
5 1: C .2 C 1:
"'cu 0- CUcu- ......'
~ (.) ~ .. ~ ~I-'~ g ~!
t;:: :!:: cu 0 ..... 0 '"
III .- :> C'l 0- 1Il'- 0- Z 0-
IIlc;>...... IIlcE E.
Q).~ .- 0 Q) .~ - -;
...J en 2 g ...J en I i
_____.._-=___.____~___.__J
i
Items a - Less Than Siqnificant with Mitiqation Incorporation
According to the Geologic and Seismic Hazards Map of the Cupertino General Plan, the project site I
is located in a Slope Instability zone and a portion of it lies in a Liquefaction-Inundation zone. The!
geologist's report has indicated that the slope is stable and can sustain this kind of development:
subject to a 25-foot setback from the top of the cliff. A building easement shall be recorded for Lots 4 I
and 5. The geologist has made recommendations on the type of foundation that should be poured I
for lot 5. !
i
Items b, d and e - No Impact I
The project will be hooked up to the sanitary sewer system and will not use septic systems. I
-- ---
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS - Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials? [32,40,42,43,44]
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment? [32,40,42,43,44]
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school?
[2,29,30,40,44]
d) Be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment? [2,42,40,43]
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area? [ ]
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area? [ ]
D
D
D
i
!
------1
00 !
,
!
i
I
__________j-____J__._ i
DID I 00 i
I I I
I I i
. ---------- -----------i~--------------i
o D I 00 :
,
I '
I
I
-- ----...--.--..-------- --------t--- !
D DID oo!
i
!
Ii
i
D
D
D
D
-- - -- ---------- -- ----....
g) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
I ? ['-) r,_, 'j') tA]
pan. ,.c., "/.''--'<)'''''"1--
D
1__________________.__ -------J
D
D
00 I
D
D
00
D
00
D
)1
ISSUES:
[and Supporting Information Sources]
>>-
- c:
-ro-
.~ (J (J
- .- i:iro
C:~
Q) c: E
o.~-
a.. en
--- - --- -------.-----(------..-..--..-..-.....' --1
c: c: I
c: ~ .2 0 c: ~ I
ro ... -.- ...
L:rororo ' roro-I
t-(J0'Is... L:(J(J,
;;:: .. 0 t-;;:: ro
l/l .- .- c.. l/l.- c..
l/lC::!Es... l/lC:E
Q) C) 0 Q) 0'1_
...J .- L: (J .-
en::c: ...Jen
3:-
.....
(J
o ro
zc..
E
h) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?[1,2,44]
D
D
D
00
.-- '-------
Items a throuqh h - No Impact
The proposed project site is being used as a single family residence. The proposed subdivision is not
anticipated to generate hazardous waste, increase the risk of accidental explosion, release hazardous
substances, interfere with emergency services, increase exposure of people to hazardous waster or increase
fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass or trees.
The project site is not within a two-mile radius of the nearest airport (Moffett Airfield/San Jose Airport) and is not
listed as a contaminated site in the State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List.
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER ()11l\1
-- Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or D D 00
waste discharge requirements? [20,36,37]
b) Substantially deplete groundwater D D D 00
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a
lowering of the local groundwater table level
(e.g., the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses
or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)? [20,36,42]
c) Create or contribute runoff water which 0 0 00
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff? [20,36,42]
d) Otherwise substantially degrade water 0 D D 00
quality? [20,36,37]
e) Place housing within a 1 OO-year flood 0 D D 00
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
[2 ?f']
-J '-- ()
H.__...___._.___._._...H...._...___.._..._.......__..__.........._____ ..._.... __ .. - ___n__.____.___n.
f) Place within a 1 OO-year flood hazard area D D D 00
,
structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows? [2,38] ,
--.- .-- .- ~-.-'_..~.- ---.- '-,,-,,--,-, - ......-..-....,.--.............---..
12--&tJ
.._____._____._ _.. _..._. _ _ .______] ___....__..____ ___ _...___m._
I >,- 1 C- :5
I.. -C i COC C._
- CO -, CO 0-
I .~ 0 0 ..c 0 ..c :;:; ~
I -.- CO .-..- _ CO 0
i ........... , .... .-
....-......, lIl'- ~ C> c.
2cE lIlC>:;:;L..
O C> - Q) C> .- 0
c.. Ci5 ...J Ci5 :E 0
C
--,
i
c- I
co~_..
..cOO
.-. .- CO
1Il :t: c.
1Il C E
Q) .~-
...Jcn
-
o
o CO
zc.
E
i ISSUES:
! [and Supporting Information Sources]
i-.--..------------..-----..----.-.----------------j-..--.-.----------------.---.,--..-.
I g) Expose people or structures to a I D D D 00
j significant risk of loss, injury or death i
I involving flood~ng, including flooding as a II
i result of the failure of a levee or dam? i
I [2,36,38] M!
i~~~~~atio~-~-~- se-i~he, tsuna~i, or II. ~~ 0 [8] I,,'
LmUdfl~W? [2,36,38] ~~~____
i Items a thOUQh h - No Impact I
i The proposed project is not anticipated to violate any water quality standards or water discharge requirements, !
I substantially deplete groundwater supplies, degrade water quality, place housing in a 1 DO-year flood zone, or i
i expose people or structures to risks involving flooding, or tsunamis. A portion of the property is within an A flood I
I zone per the Flood Insurance Rate Map. However, this portion will be left undeveloped and dedicated to the I
i Santa Clara Valley Water District. i
i Standard conditions of approval will be applied to the project requiring construction to provide additional storm !
i w~er cont~~~~~=-ure~~ reduce_~un-off in accordance ~ith !!ATSMA guidelines. '
I IX. LAN.D USE AND PLANNING - Would I
i the project: ~ I ~
I ~~~~~~~~~~i~~~~~ta~iS~~ I-~- 0 -1-- 0 m
'~i~f~~;:~~~: :~~~~':~~~~~-';~I~T-~- --~--rD-l--[8] ~
i jurisdiction over the project (including, but
! not limited to the general plan, specific plan, ,
i local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) I
i adopted for the purpose of avoiding or I I
~~:~22;~~~~:;'~,7::~~j~I'--~---D-l-[8] !.
i conservation plan or natural community I
! conservation plan? [1,5,6,9,26] I
'-..__.._________..__..__________.___....__________..________.._____..____.____..___..______.._..______...______J__________________.._..___--'-_______._________.L.....___.._____i
i Item a throUQh c - No Impact .
i The proposed development will not physically divide an established community and will not conflict with any i
! applicable land use plan. There are no habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plans i
i affecting the project site. '
(-...-'----.-.------ -....-------..---------....---......-------.--..............--....--------....---..--..-..----.....-."---.."....-.-'....-----..-.---r..-----..--.--..--m-..-........-....-------r---- --.-..-......---.....-..1----------...---:
, XI. NOISE -- Would the project result in: I I L I !
,-----....---------------------------j------------i------------- i ------t----------l
, a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, I DID i D I 00 i
: noise levels in excess of standards .., I i
i established in the local general plan or noise II'
, ordinance, or applicable standards of other I
i agencies? [8, '18,44] j I I
r.----.-m..-....-------..........------...-.-..---.....--.----...---......-..---.--....------~._...----.-l'.-"'n.._...nn' --....--.-.---.11..- - --..---.---.-.-----..--.-T--.--.-.-.---...--.-..,n..--..---.....---..<
. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of ! D. DID I 00
, excessive ground borne vibration or I I
groundborne noise levels? [8, "18,44] ..1 ul t__!
{L-~(
- ----------- - - ------------- r----------- ----r------... -~ --~--I------------- ... - ,--
II ;~ '01 ~ ~ ~ ~
i ISSUES: :0::; .~ cu I-.~.~ (;
! [and Supporting Information Sources] _~ ~ OJE ~ ~ ~ e-
; om- ~m 0
! c.. u; ...J u; :E g I
! ~-
r----------.------------.-----------T-.---------.-;-.
I c) A substantial permanent increase in D DID
! ambient noise levels in the project vicinity I I'
I above levels existing without the project?
i [8,18] I
1--___________._.___________.______________....________________ ----------.- ------.-.---- I
! d) A substantial temporary or periodic D D'
I increase in ambient noise levels in the
i project vicinity above levels existing Witho~t
I the project? [8,18,44] _
I e) For a project located within an airport land D
i use plan or, where such a plan has not been
I adopted, within two miles of a public airport
1 or public use airport, would the project
I expose people residing or working in the
I project area to excessive noise levels? ;
I [8,18,44] ___'1 ] I
~;e,r~~~\:t~~~~~~~e o;:~~afe- ---o-I-~---r-;--I-~0-
I residin~ or w?rking in the project area to I 1 I i
i excessive nOise levels? [8,18] J' ! . I
,-.-------.--..-------.---..---..----.. . -------_._----- -----'----..--------'
i Items a, b,c, e and f - No Impact. i
i The proposed project will not expose people to groundborne vibration, groundborne noise, or noise levels in i
! excess of standards of the general plan and noise ordinance. The project is not located within an airport land I
! use plan area or private airstrip. I
i Item d - Less Than Siqnificant .
i An increase of temporary ambient noise levels will occur with construction of the project. However, this I
i temporary ambient noise is considered less than significant. The project will be required to comply with the I
i ~;'Sp:~~::~;~' :~~ce:~~~~:~c::;:l O'd;nanCT------r- i
1 the project: ___ _ -----1-- I
la)lndu~e su~staniTalpopulation growth in an ~-- ------~---- I -~-- --~l
! area, either directly (for example, by .
! proposing new homes and businesses) or I
I indirectly (for e~ample, through extension of I I I I I
I roads or other Infrastructure)? [3,16,47,44] I I I i
1--.-..-----;-------....--'.-------;---..---..----'-------....--..----;----;-...----.---I--.--..-....----..-----r----..--..---...-..-..---...-....--..1---..---..--.....-------1..-....-..-..-.----------j
! b) DI~place subs.ta~tlal numbers of ~xlstlng i DID D!OO I
I hOUSing, necesslt~tlng the construction of I I I,
replacement hOUSing elsewhere? [3,16,44] I I I I i
-----.-..-- .--..---..-.-.-----------.-------------..-.---..----------------.-.!--....---..----..--.-T'.-----..-..-.------..--..------t.---...-----.--....-...(--.-----....--......--"")
c) Displace substantiai numbers of peopie, i D' 0 I D I iKi
necessitating the construction of 1 [I
replaceme~th_o~~i_~g_~I~~:_v~~~~7 [3,1 G.4:L_nL_ ____u__ _______J_____;
c:-
c:
cucu_
..s:::::oo
I- .- cu
CI) :!:: a.
CI) c: E
~ .~-
...J(f)
-
o .
o cu !
zc..
E
---__-..i
f
00
00
i
i
-----I
i
:
D
I
i
-i
D
D
00
/ 2~& L
i ISSUES:
i [and Supporting Information Sources]
>......
- s::
-Ill.....
.~ 0 0
..... .- III
s::::t:
Q.l s:: E
o.~-
D..CI)
..s::
..... s::
s:: .-
III 3: s:: .2
.....0.....
..s::1- s:: :;:; e
III III 0
~~~e-
~'i:: ~ 8
tn s::
CI) -
------------ --r---~-----
s::.....
Ill~.....
..s::oo
I- .- III
lI) ::t: 0.
lI) s:: E
Q.l tn_
.JCI)
.....
o
o III
zo.
E
-.-
i
;
.----_ ____J
i XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
-.J
[-ayWou Icfthe-proJectresu It -in-subsfa ntia'------------------ ------------- ----------------- -------
i adverse physical impacts associated with the
i provision of new or physically altered
i governmental facilities, need for new or
i physically altered governmental facilities, the
i construction of which could cause significant
. environmental impacts, in order to maintain
i acceptable service ratios, response times or
i other performance objectives for any of the
i publi~~~rvices:________________
. Fire protection? [19,32,44] D D D
-- - - -- --- 1---
~_____ Police pro!~ction? p3,4~_________ D J D D ____00 ,
1______Schools? [29,30,44] -.J DL-~---t--~--I ~
L____~arks? [5,17,~9,2_~~?~,27,~4]________1___~J- DD I 00 I
I Other public f~cilities~l~~~,4~L~___D ___L~_==r=__9~-=c---oo--.-1
; Item a - No Impact .
i The project site is currently located within an urbanized area that is served by municipal services, including fire, i
I police, and public facilities. Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to create additional impacts onto i
r :~:'~;:~~::;I::~: ---==r - [I
r-.-------....---.-----.------------......----.-.-......------. .--.--------....------- -.----------.--. --...--.----~
I a) Would the project increase the use of D D D 00
. existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
! substantial physical deterioration of the
1 facility would occur or be accelerated?
i [5,17,19,21,26,27,44]
00
i
-i
~
i b) Does the project include recreational D D D I 00 I
! facilities or require the construction or I' !".:
i expansion of recreational facilities which I
! mig~t have an adverse physical effect on the I' !
[ environment? [5,44] . 1 i
L______..___.__~_________._~_~.____~._____._____...__.___....______.____1__..._.......__.__._._.___ ____m_______.__ ___."_. . ___.1._......_____ .. )
j Items a and b - No Impact --- ----
j The proposed project will not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities within the area. j
!~~~- T.~AN-~-POR~~~~~~;~R~-;F;~--~~--------------l'.-------------r-------------r----------T-----------l
, Would the project: I I I I i
.----..-..--.......-----....-...----.-....--..-...--..--....-----..-..-----.-----.--.---------..-1".----..-..----....--..--1----..----....-....--....---...-(.. - '---.--,--
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is I D! DID 00
substantial in relation to the existing traffic I II! I
load and capacity of the street system (i.e., I I
result in a substantial increase in either the! i I
numb~r of ~ehicle trips, the volum~ to I I I
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at ' I[
. t t' )'1 [Ll ~ 0 3 r ,.1.:1]
In ersec Ions. ,-,t!_., J,'. . _ ..J
.. tL=-~ '3
~~~~;~~porting lnformat~nso=s]- ... if~, ii~i 1, ~IIT~ l
o 0> - Q) 0> .- 0 I Q).~ _ E,
: I a..u; ..Ju; ~ 0 ..JCI) I
! I -= I !
rb) E~ ei~~iVid~al;;CUmUla~Ve;;r;; ~~~~
i a level of service standard established by the I I
! county congestion management agency for I I
i designated roads or highways? [4,20,44] I
I c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
I including either an increase in traffic levels or
I a change in location that results in
I substantial safety risks? [4,?]
D
-~J_-J
o
D
00
I d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
i design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
!.. dangerous intersecti.ons) or ~ncompatible I I I
, uses (e.g., farm equipment). [20,35,44] , '
I-~)~es~~-~~-~~~~-~~-~at;~~~~~~ncy-~-;~~~-~;-T---~-----------~------I---------~-----I----~---I
i [2,19,32,33,44] i ; I i
r----....--..---.---------.-..-----------------------------.------.....-.-..-------1- ..-..--....----.- ---------.-..-..---.------1-----------------r..---...------l
i, f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ! D D! D ~ 00 i
! [17,44] I I !
,.---.-----....--.---...-..---..--------.----..-----..----..-.-------..----,-...---------- --.-----------.---...------[.----------.... --------1
i g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or .\ D D1D,OO I
i programs supporting alternative 'I I I
! transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
! racks)? [4,34] _l___~__ I
I Items a throuqh q - No Impact .
i The proposed project is not anticipated to create substantial increased traffic, result in a change in air traffic
I patterns, substantially increase hazards due to design features, result in inadequate emergency access and/or
i parking capacity, or conflict with adopted policies/plans on alternative transportation. The applicant is providing
! the required number of parking spaces as required by the City of Cupertino's Parking Ordinance, Chapter
: 19.100 of the CLpertino Municipal C~____ __ i
: XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - T I [-------------;
L'!'!o~~_~_~~__~_~~j_~_~!:__________ __________ - -1- __ ___ -1--------- - _______ ______-;
i a) Exceed wastewater treatment i D D D 00,
i requirements of the applicable Regional I I
f- Wa~~~ Quality _~_?ntr~ B~~d~_ [5~_22,2~36:_~~~----------L---------+_--------~~
I b) Require or result in the construction ?f. I DiD i D I 00 i
i new wate~ or wast~~ater tr~~~ment faCIlities ! I I ! i
, or expan~lon of eX.lstlng faCIlities, th: .. I I I .
! construction of which could cause Significant I i I !
, environmental effects? [36,22,28,36] I Ii!
;. .--.... .. ---..- .. .._.....__m._.____,_.__._~_____"_~___.,__._____._________.. ... ........ .............-."l .. ......--...--...--,1- ...-......-.--.0..............------... -.--..-....---..--...-i".....- !
,
D
D
D
!
.--1
00 i
----------
;
! c) Require or result in the construction of D
! new storm water drainage facilities or
i expansion of existing facilities, the
i construction of which could cause significant
: environmental effects? [5,22,28,36.44]
D D 00
i
I
I
I
;
j
12--(;Lf
ISSUES:
[and Supporting Information Sources]
r- ~. ~ ~-~~-~r~---~-~~-" C~ :~-'~~~-~-----r-~~
I - ra -I ra 0 ..... ra ra .....
" ~.~;O t=..~:5 ~ eo t=..~ g
.... - - .- - 0..
, ....- lIl'- ::. 0> 0..'1 lIl'-
I 2cE lIlc:>:;:;1-. lIlcE
, 0 0> - Q) 0> '- 0 Q) 0>_
I D.. en , ...I en 2 E L ...I en
I I ' -----,
I
..... '
o !
o ra
zo..
E
;
i
l-------------------.-------
! e) Result in a determination by the
! wastewater treatment provider which serves
i or may serve the project that it has adequate
i capacity to serve the project's projected
i demand in addition to the provider's existing
L :,O~2;:tsb:[:':::;;:~t:4~ufficie~~-~~r~---~----~~-~ ci-~---------- ~--l
: permitted capacity to accommodate the I
I
: project's solid waste disposal needs? [?] I
l~=r;E:~s~~,~~I~~ ~~~~_~~_r~~-1
! Items a throuqh q - No Impact
i The project site is served by 'sanitary sewer service. The applicant, like other users of the system, will be i
i required to pay District fees and obtain a permit for construction of the project. A condition of approval will be i
I incorporated that will require necessary improvements, if any, to be completed prior to building occupancy. The i
I project will be required to comply with all federal, state and local statutes and regulations pertaining related i
I sanitary sewer and solid waste. !
_.._n..n___.__ .............._.._.....__..........m__ _00- ___._._____~___________..________....__..... ~________..._..____.__.....__.__._....._._.. _....__......__....__.....__..______._..._.._.__...__........___..__ _n. _n ______..___n_n.._.._ ..__.n........... n. .un n' _.__......_........._...i
D
D
D
00
ll-~ r
I
I XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
i
I (To be completed by City Staff)
ISSUES~ -..------...-11 ,i~;I-~i E ~1 i ~ g rl-o~-l
.- Q.J VI.- 3: 0) a. VI ~ a. Z a.
i [and Supporting Information Sources] ~ .~ E ~ .~ :t:: 0 ~ .~ E ' E
I D. en ...J en :E g ...J en
i-;;~~;~~-~-p~~j-~C~-~~~~-the potent~~-;~-----l--~---- -----~------~-
I degrade the quality of the environment,
I substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
i wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
i population to drop below self-sustaining
I levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
I community, reduce the number or restrict the
I range of a rare or endangered plant or
! animal or eliminate important examples of I
i ~:~~~:~~~riOdS of californ:histOry -=-_+--- -__---..L--.-~ !
I ?) ~?es the pr?ject have impac~s that are II D D D I 00 i
[Individually limited, but cumulatively '1'
i considerable? ("Cumulatively
! considerable" means that the incremental I
i effects of a project are considerable when
I viewed in connection with the effects of past I
I projects, the effects of other current projects, II'
i and the effects of probable future projects)?
In
,_______________________ ________________ ________ ____________ __ ______ __ i ____
: c) Does the project have environmental D D D roo I
I effects which will cause substantial adverse '
, effects on human beings, either directly or Jl :
indirectly? n ,
____ _______ ___________ __ _ __ ____ _ ____ ______ _ _____ _ _ ________ ____J_ ____ __ _______________~______________ ____________
00
PREPARER'S AFFIDAVIT
I hereby certify that the information provided in this Initial Study is true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief; I certify that I have used proper diligence in responding
accurately to all questions herein, and have consulted appropriate source references
when necessary to ensure full and complete disclosure of relevant environmental data. I
hereby acknowledge than any substantial errors dated within this Initial Study may cause
delay or discontinuance of related project review procedures, and hereby agree to hold
harmless the City of Cupertino, its staff and authorized agents, from the consequences of
such delay or discontinuance.
Preparer's Si9nat~~1~
. {
Print Preparer's Name PI U L..7H 0 ,":;, ~
f 2. -it ~
Exhibit 8
.Iuh-5,2006
Project :\0, 4t)()-l Ll
Kelly GCHClOl1
Development Corporation
:\un: Scott Kdh-
12241 Sara toga-Sunn)""a Ie R_oad
Saratoga, Calif()[nia 95070
RE: SUPPLE!\'1ENTAl.lhiFORMATION,
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIO'N,
CRESCENT COURT SUBDIVISION,
10114 CRESCENT COURT,
CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Dear \fr. KellY:
:\t the recluest of the City of Cupertino, \\T arc prm-iding supplemental information relating
[0 the sllhdi\-ision ane! dcn:lopmelH of the propert-y located at 10114 CresccIH Court in
Cupcrtino \\'c' h,l\,(" prc\.joll:-dy conc!uclcd ,1 geolechnicallt1\'esLigafi!'ll ff)r thc pwjeCl and
prcscllu:c1lhc re"ults in om repoJ"l clatcd.lunc 13, 21l06. [n our report, we recnmmcndul
that the pr< ~poscd rcsldences and_ass! ,ciated itnprt 1\"t'Jl)CIll:; Oil Luts "I. and::; be scth:1Ck a
minimum of 2_') feel from the top of the cliff that extends through these parcels Please not(
that \\'e cliffen:ntiate betwcen the lOp (,f the cliff, \\,hich ex[cncls through [hese parcels, and
Ihe [op of Ihe slope, \\'hich extends Ihr' ,ugh I,ot:1. In nur opinioll.,l,!5' ~'IJ)'1.C~i~..lStl~.!i~'~'.!-L__
_ll~~_12_~_l_e r~)p o(~l~e ~~q~_~S2:.~!~at ~~~(:n~\_~_~111:(~_Llgh_~.!~. prcl\'ic!eo that the prop! )$ro
residence is supported on drilled piers.
In our opinion, accessory structures, including porches, guest houses, detached garages, and
swimming pools should 110t be consu'ucted within this setback zone, unless measures to
stabilize the cliff or mitigate [he impact of cliff retreat are incorporated into the design and
construction. In our opinion, acceptable imprO\"ements within the setback zone include
lawn areas ancllanelscaping, fences, wooel-framed gazebos, and hardscapc such as patios and
walkways.
I f ~-ou ha\"c any othcr questions, please call.
~~b'~
fohn A, SL-illman, G.L., C.E.G.
Principal Geotechnical E:ngincer
Sincerely,
rvfURRAY ENGINEERS, INC.'
\L\rk F. Baum,1l1n, c:.E::.G. I "8~
Principal Engineering C;co\ogist
Copies: _ \cldressee (3)
Cil\' of Cupertino (I-email)
:\ttJ1: 1\[s. Pill Ghosh
...6)
2 <) 51 EI C, 111 ino Rea I. Pa 10 1\1 to. Ca lif urnia <),;306
Phon('. 650,326 lJ.i.~O Fn:-:: 650.3J6.0S,'iO
(2-&/
FROM ARBORGUARD
FAX NO.
40897'317%
Exhibit C
J\rlJO?well
!,(: ,1....,...11.1 I", Ii f r "t' 1'''11111(,); .I':',~' ,;
August 3rd, 2006
Scott Kelley
Kelly Gordon Development Corp.
12241 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd
Saratoga. CA 95070
(
RE: 10114 Cresan! Court. Cupertino
Dear Scott:
Thank you for giving ArborweJl this opportunity to act as your arborioultural consultant during the development
staglifG of this project. You asKed us to inspect, evaluate and provid1l! recomm~md~tions for future management for
Oak trees 7, 8 and 26. We inspected the site on August 1"1. All three trees are located in an old abindoned
orchard that would have been irrigated at some tlmo. However the three trees inspected are on the peripherals of
this area and appear to be volunteers in unirrigated areas.
The first tree inspected was number 7 a Coast Live oak Quercus agrifolia, diameter at 4.5 feet is 8 inches,
This tree lacks symmetry, it has e large amount of dead wood, typical for a tree left unattended, health and vigor
of the tree appear to be fair.
However ttw tree has an unbalanced crown and appears to have grown in the shadow of other plants. There is a
4 inch wound 011 the main scaffold limb end the tree is co-dominant with included bark. The structure is
conMlquently poor and I would recommend removal and replacement of this tree.
The second tree inspected was number 8 B Coast Live oak QuerGu~; agrifo6a, d!2meter at 4,5 feet is 10 inches,
This tree is typical for the species, It has a large amount of deed wo.,d, typical for a tree left unattended. Health
and vigor of the tree appear to be fair.
The tree has a nice form, the canopy has been raised for driveway access.
The tree would benefit from deadwood removal and structural pruning, Structural pruning would enable the
reduction of end weight and prevent the development of co-domlnar1:t limbs with included bari< and may also
benefrt from having a cable instiilJled to reduce the chance of splittinO in the future. The tr~ could be moved with
a large tree sp8de.
The third tree inspected was number 26 a Coast live oaK Quercus Ol'grifolia, diameter at 4.5 feet is 9 inches.
The tree was previously topped at two feet taking away most of its value. The resultant epicormic growth will
probably fail at a future date. This tree is totally unsuitable for movinu .lOd should be rElmoved and replaced,
y our~ sincerely
Neil Woolner
ISA Certified Arborist WC-2329
~~e38 Redwood Road GolWo V",lIey. CA 94546
"17~ 1 LsslI~ Street S~n Mateo. CA >l~402
11?57 COIOrTl.. RO:ld Sl.Ilte 87 Gc;>/d River. e/I0(5070
P~lone: 1.888.969 87.33
Fox: 510.1\81 5208
Web: www.arborw~ll.com
(2 -& J
Exhibit 0
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 6409 (MINUTE ORDER)
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING THAT THE COUNCIL AUTHORIZE REMOVAL OF THE FENCE
DIVIDING VARIAN PARK
PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
TM-2006-07 (EA-2006-08)
Scott Kelly (Kelly Gordon Development)
10114 Crescent Court
The Planning Commission discussed the Tentative Map application for the project at
10114 Crescent Court on August 8th, 2006. In the course of hearing the item, the
Planning Commission expressed concern over the chain link fence that divides Varian
Park preventing access from Crescent Court into the tot lot and the developed portion
of the park. Therefore, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council
authorize the removal of the fence to allow the residents of the new development and
the neighborhood access to the park.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of August, 2006 at a Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll
call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABST AIN:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Miller, Saadati, Wong.
COMMISSIONERS: none
COMMISSIONERS: none
COMMISSIONERS: Vice-Chair Giefer, Chien
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
Marty Miller, Chairperson
Planning Commission
/ 2-- ~ J
~
SCALE: 1" = 2D'
-r
EXIST. GRADE
FOUNClJ/4"IRON PIPE
PR
w
~~ I
,,": I
~ ~ L_____
"
2
:?:
d
. J{6f-s- T
10,'9' SQ. F .
" I
, I
I
I
I
I EX. LOT LlN~
TO rE. ~":~lr.;i',iELJ
~
\:;
"
"
Z
~
~
INSTALL CO;-~~C'C~~R8,
GUTTER p~
STANDARDS (SEE
DEiAll) .:.SS 2 A.a
8 16v~~ PROPERl'l'
COMPACTED SUBGRADE
-~ - :'2~
. '!!.r
o ;:'lkoN 21. -21
FaUN... 3 , OS..W
,22 ~.Et:~t:~~5~OROOM '
PROPERTY CORNER
CONSULTANTS
HORTICUL TURALG. ARBORISTS
CONSUL TIN
_ BARRIE D. COATE
, and ASSOCIATES
{4(0)353-J052
23535 Swnmil Road
LosG:d.~CA 9503(/
~~~:KU~T~DWOD
. t the Kelly Gordon De"Jelopment Project
Evaluation of trees a
1 0114 Crescent Court, Cupertino.
d by: Ciddy Wordell, Ci~' of Cupertino
Requeste . .
h C\lwulting Arboflst
d by: Michael L. Bene, .,
Prepare .
Job # 04-06.075
rI113'", 2006
Kelly Gordon
Development
Corp.
EXHIBI::r
eLl q -I q -Q(P .it I ~
12241 SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE RD., SARATOGA, CA 95070 . (408) 873-8774 · FAX: (408) 873-8819
September 19,2006
Honorable Council Members,
Prior to our meeting tonight I thought it might be beneficial to try and clarify a couple of
items regarding the remaining tree issues.
Planning staff has prepared their summary which we feel is not totally accurate.
The staff report implies that we hired an outside arborist because we were not happy with
the City Arborist report. This was not the case. Arborwell was brought in after the City
Arborist failed to make a site visit prior to the July 18 Planning Commission Meeting.
We were attempting to give the Commission the further evaluation they requested.
Let me give you a chronology of what took place with the trees.
1. July I I, Planning Commission meeting. Some members asked that the City
Arborist make another site visit to further evaluate trees 4, 5, 8 and 26. (7, which
is not a Heritage Tree, was not included at this time because it had already been
slated for replacement by the planning department). Planning staff then said that
it was unlikely that the City Arborist could make a site visit prior to the July 18
Planning Commission meeting. We then offered to hire an outside arborist in the
interim, but planning staff declined that offer.
2. July 17. Planning staffwns able to get the City Arborist to agree to attend a
meeting onsite with members of staff and Kelly Gordon Development. Due to a
back injury the arborist was a no show and never returned to the site again.
3. July 18, Planning Commission meeting. Canceled due to lack of quorum.
4. July 26, City Arborist creates a memo for planning staff detailing the feasibility of
transplanting trees # 7,8,9, 10, 11, 12, 14, and 26. Again, the arborist never
made an additional site visit and this memo was generated from referencing his
original report dated April 13, 2006.
5. August 1, Kelly Gordon Development, in an attempt to give the Commission the
further evaluation, meets with Arborwell at the site to look at trees #7,8, and 26.
Arborwell was asked to evaluate the trees overall health as well as the feasibility
of relocating the trees. It is important to keep in mind that we didn't just go out
and hire just any arborist that might give us a favorable report. On the contrary,
Mr. Neil Woolner of Arborwell was the head arborist for the entire Oak Valley
proj ect.
I would like to demonstrate that discrepancies between the two arborists on the health of
trees 7 and 26 shows that perhaps the City Arborist missed a few things. In his defense,
he was inspecting 39 trees on his one visit and these mistakes are likely just oversights.
Tree 7 ( 8 inch Oak)
City Arborist - says the tree is in excellent specimen. Ratings of 1 and 2 for health and
structure respectively.
Arborwell - says the overall health and vigor is fair. Arborwell also points out that there is
a 4 inch wound on the main scaffold limb and the tree is co-dominant with bark. Consequently,
Arborwell rates the structure as poor and recommends removal and replacement. This wound
wasn't even mentioned by the City Arborist. I have attached photos and I will provide hard copies
at the meeting that clearly show the wound. You should already have a copy of the letter from
Arborwell dated August 3, 2006.
Tree 26 ( 7 inch Oak)
City Arborist - says the tree is a good specimen. Ratings of 1 and 3 for health and structure
respectively.
Arborwell - says the tree was previously topped at two feet taking away most of its value. The
resultant epicormic growth will probably fail at a future date. The tree is totally unsuitable for
moving and should be removed and replaced. Again, not seeing that this tree had been previously
topped must have been an oversight by the City Arborist, but the attached pictures clearly show
that this tree has been topped. Please keep in mind that the City Arborist has indicated in his original
report and his memo dated July 26, that topped trees should be removed and replaced.
Tree 8. (10 inch Oak)
Both Arborists - stated that this tree could be relocated.
Again, I will provide photos of the trees in question this evening. I hope that you agree that these
pictures are worth a thousand words and they demonstrate that perhaps that it was the report by the
City Arborist that caused the discrepancies regarding the health of trees 7, and 26.
In closing, we feel what we are seeking from the Council is not unreasonable. We would like
pennission to relocate tree # 8 and replace trees 7 and 26 with more healthy specimens.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration regarding this matter.
Sincerely, / ~
8::~~ l
cc- i C; - / 1 -(j ~ ::I:i / d-
TM-2006-07
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
XHIB;c~r
RESOLUTION NO. 6406
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING APPROV AL OF A TENT A TIVE SUBDIVISION MAP TO
SUBDIVIDE A 2.4-ACRE PARCEL INTO FIVE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
PARCELS WITH AN AVERAGE LOT SIZE OF 11,329 SQ. FT. IN A R1-10 ZONING
DISTRICT AND ONE 37,073 SQ. FT. PARCEL TO BE DEDICATED TO THE SANTA
CLARA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT LOCATED AT 10114 CRESCENT COURT
SECTION I: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application
for a Tentative Subdivision Map, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the
Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held
one or more public hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said
application; and has satisfied the following requirements:
1) That the proposed subdivision map is consistent with the City of Cupertino
General Plan.
2) That the design and improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent
with the General Plan.
3) That the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of development
contemplated under the approved subdivision.
4) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not
likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and
unavoidable injure fish and wildlife or their habitat.
5) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements associated
therewith is not likely to cause serious public health problems.
6) That the design of the subdivision and its associated improvements will not
conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or
use of property within the proposed subdivision.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the application for Tentative Subdivision Map is hereby
recommended for approval, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this
Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof; and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this
Resolution No. 6406
Page 2
TM-2006-07
August 8, 2006
resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application
No. TM-2006-07 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of
August 8,2006, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
TM-2006-07
Scott Kelly (Nancy Fedders and Charles Varian)
10114 Crescent Court
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
The recommendation of approval is based on Exhibit titled: "Tentative Tract
Map, 10114 Crescent Court, Cupertino, CA," consisting of 1 pages stamped July
19, 2006, except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this
Resolution.
2. IRREVOCABLE OFFER OF DEDICATION
The applicant shall make an irrevocable offer of dedication to the Santa Clara
Valley Water District subject to the requirement that the City of Cupertino and
the Water District sign a Joint Use Agreement. If the City and the Water District
are unable to reach an agreement, the offer of dedication shall revert to the City
of Cupertino.
3. PRIVATE ROADWAY PERCOLATION TRENCH
The private roadway shall have percolation trenches with catch basins to direct
the runoff into the trenches.
4. SWALES
Swales shall be provided on each of the lots to help with percolation of water in
to the ground.
5. NO PARKING ZONE
The portion of the roadway that is 22 feet wide shall have 'No Parking' signs
posted per City standards.
The portion of the roadway that is 28 feet wide shall have either 'No Parking'
signs or a red curb on the west side of the street.
6. NEW RET AINING WALL ALONG ROADWAY
The retaining wall along the roadway shall be no taller than 3 feet from the curb
and shall be faced with attractive materials such as stone veneer or natural stone.
7. PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT
Applicant shall record a public easement access over the private roadway. The
agreement shall be recorded in conjunction with recordation of the final map,
and shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content by the City
Attorney.
Resolution No. 6406
Page 3
TM-2006-07
August 8, 2006
8. TREE REMOVAL
The applicant shall prepare a new tentative map showing the trees to be
protected on the map. The trees to be protected shall also be recorded as outlined
in condition #11 below. Fruit trees are not being protected as part of this
tentative map application.
In the event that any of the protected trees must be removed during the
construction process due to reasons deemed appropriate by the Director of
Community Development, then comparable diameter replacement tree(s) or field
grown tree(s) shall be planted at the same location or at locations visible to the
public at the discretion of the Director.
Two 60-inch box or field grown oak trees shall replace trees #4 and 5. The
applicant shall plant coast live oaks, in numbers deemed appropriate by the
Director of Community Development and in places visible to the public subject
to an arborist's report, for the trees that are being removed.
9. TREE PROTECTION
As part of the demolition or grading permits, a tree protection plan shall be
prepared by a certified arborist for the trees to be retained and trees on
neighboring properties but identified by the arborist as being at risk during
construction. In addition, the following measures shall be added to the
protection plan:
a. For trees to be retained, chain link fencing and other root protection shall
be installed around the drip line of the tree prior to any project site work.
b. No parking or vehicle traffic shall be allowed under root zones, unless
using buffers approved by the Project Arborist.
c. No trenching within the critical root zone area is allowed. If trenching is
needed in the vicinity of trees to be retained, the City's consulting arborist
shall be consulted before any trenching or root cutting beneath the drip
line of the tree.
d. Tree protection conditions shall be posted on the tree protection barriers.
e. Retained tree shall be watered according to the requirements of the tree to
maintain them in good health.
The tree protection measures shall be inspected and approved by the certified
arborist prior to issuance of demolition or grading permits. The City's consulting
arborist shall inspect the trees to be retained and shall provide reviews prior to
issuance of demolition and grading permits.
10. TREE PROTECTION BOND
The applicant shall provide a tree protection bond in the amount of $60,000 to
ensure protection of 12 oak trees, 1 Colorado Spruce and 1 Redwood tree on the
site prior to issuance of grading or demolition permits. The bond shall be
returned after completion of construction, subject to a letter from the City
Arborist indicating that the trees are in good condition.
Resolution No. 6406
Page 4
TM -2006-07
August 8, 2006
11. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS & RESTRICTIONS (CC&R's)
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that address the following shall
be recorded:
a. Roadway Maintenance Agreement: A reciprocal maintenance agreement
shall be required for all parcels that share a common private drive or
private roadway with one or more other parcels within the tract.
b. Protected Trees: Trees to be retained are: #1, 2, 3, 7,8, 13, 14, 16, 18, 20, 23,
28, 29 and 30. New trees are to be planted, the location of which shall be
reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development and
recorded in the CC&R's.
c. Lot 5 Foundation: The residence on Lot 5 shall be supported on drilled
pIers.
d. Lot 1 Landscaping: No landscaping other than a lawn is permitted within
the 40-foot sight triangle for corner lots.
e. Geotechnical Plan Review: The applicant's Geotechnical consultant
should review and approve all Geotechnical aspects of the development
plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and
design parameters for foundation and retaining walls) to ensure that their
recommendations have been properly incorporated.
The results of the Geotechnical plan review should be submitted by the
Geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City for review
and approval by City Staff prior to approval of building permits.
f. Geotechnical Field Inspection: The Geotechnical consultant should
inspect, test (as needed), and approve all Geotechnical aspects of the
project construction. The inspections should included, but not necessarily
be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface
drainage improvements and excavations for foundation and retaining
walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete.
The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions should be
described by the Geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the
City Engineer for review prior to final project approval.
g. Future Trail: A note shall be recorded that informs future homeowners
that the City of Cupertino owns land around the subdivision and there
might be future trails along Stevens Creek.
The CC&R's shall be recorded in conjunction with recordation of the final map,
and shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content by the City
Attorney.
12. SLOPE EASEMENT
A slope easement shall be recorded at the rear of lots 4 and 5 of the subdivision
prohibiting principal dwellings, accessory structures, including porches,
including guesthouses, detached garages and swimming pools within 25 feet
from the top of the cliff, unless measures to stabilize the cliff or mitigate the
Resolution No. 6406
Page 5
TM-2006-07
August 8, 2006
impact of cliff retreat are incorporated into the design and construction. Note:
The top of the cliff does not coincide with the property line.
13. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN
A construction management plan shall be prepared by the applicant and
approved by staff prior to any grading, development or construction. Staging of
construction equipment shall not occur within 20 feet of any residential property,
within the 20-foot right-of-way or within 25 feet of the top of cliff on lots 4 & 5.
14. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER
EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees,
dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute
written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the
dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified
that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications,
reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section
66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period
complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally
barred from later challenging such exactions.
SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT
15. STREET WIDENING
Street widening, improvements and dedications shall be provided in accordance
with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer.
16. ROAD SITE IMPROVEMENTS
Curbs and gutters, sidewalks, retaining walls and related structures shall be
installed in accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City
Engineer.
17. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION
Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer.
Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of
visual interference to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the
maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located.
18. FIRE HYDRANT
Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City, Santa Clara County Fire
and San Jose Water Company, as needed.
19. GRADING
Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance
with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404
permits maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/or
Resolution No. 6406
Page 6
TM-2006-07
August 8, 2006
Regional Water Quality Control Board as appropriate.
20. DRAINAGE
Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Development
in all other zoning districts shall be served by on site storm drainage facilities
connected to the City storm drainage system. If City storm drains are not
available, drainage facilities shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
* Pre- and Post Development Calculations are required to determine if
additional storm drain facilities shall be required.
21. FIRE PROTECTION
Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the
City and Santa Clara County Fire, as needed.
22. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities
Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of
Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of
underground utility devices. The developer shall submit detailed plans showing
utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of
the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer.
23. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of
Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking
and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for under
grounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of
construction permits.
Fees:
a. Checking & Inspection Fees:
$2,130.00 min.
b. Grading Permit:
$ 5 % of Road Site Improvement Costs or
$ 6% of Site Improvement Costs or
$2,000.00 min.
c. Development Maintenance Deposit: $ 3,000.00
d. Storm Drainage Fee: $ 3,096.00
e. Power Cost: **
f. Map Checking Fees: $ 6,750.00
g. Park Fees: $ 63,000.00
h. Street Tree By Developer
** Based on the latest effective PG&E rate schedule approved by the Public
Utility Commission (P.U.C.)
Bonds:
a. Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Road Site improvements
Resolution No. 6406
Page 7
TM-2006-07
August 8, 2006
b. Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Road Site improvements
c. Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements
-The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule
adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified
at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the
event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then
current fee schedule.
24. TRANSFORMERS
Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment
enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located
underground such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas.
25. DEDICATION OF WATERLINES
The developer shall dedicate to the City all waterlines and appurtenances
installed to City Standards and shall reach an agreement with San Jose Water for
water service to the subject development.
26. DEVELOPMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP)
REQUIREMENTS
The applicant must include the use and maintenance of site design, source
control and stormwater treatment BMP's, which must be designed per approved
numeric sizing criteria. The property owners with treatment BMPs will be
required to certify on-going operation and maintenance.
Also, the applicant and the City shall enter into a recorded agreement and
covenant running with the land for perpetual BMP maintenance by the property
owners(s). In addition, the owner(s) and the City shall enter into a recorded
easement agreement and covenant running with the land allowing City access at
the site for BMP inspection.
27. NPDES CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT
The applicant must obtain a notice of intent (NOI) from the State Water
Resources Control Board, which encompasses a preparation of a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), use of construction Best Management
Practices (BMP' s) to control storm water runoff quality and BMP inspection and
maintenance.
28. EROSION CONTROL PLAN
The developer must provide an approved erosion control plan by a Registered
Civil Engineer. This plan should include all erosion control measures used to
retain materials on-site. Erosion Control notes shall be stated on the plans.
29. LETTERS OF APPROVAL
The developer must gain will serve letters from all utility companies prior to
issuance of final map.
In addition, the applicant must obtain written authorization from the Santa Clara
Resolution No. 6406
Page 8
TM-2006-07
August 8, 2006
Valley Water District (SCVWD) and all other applicable agencIes pnor to
issuance of final map.
CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF
ENGINEERING/SURVEYING CONDITIONS
(Section 66474.18 of the California Government Code)
I hereby certify that the engineering and surveying conditions specified in Section
IV. Of this resolution conform to generally accepted engineering practices
/s/Ralph QuaIls
Ralph QuaIls, Director of Public Works
City Engineer CA License 22046
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of August 2006, at a Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll
call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Miller, Saadati, Wong
COMMISSIONERS: none
COMMISSIONERS: none
COMMISSIONERS: Vice Chair Giefer, Chien
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
/s/Ciddy Wordell
Ciddy Wordell
City Planner
/ s / Marty Miller
Marty Miller, Chair
Planning Commission
G: \ Planning \ PDREPORT\ RES \ 2006 \ TM-2006-07 res.doc