11-18-14 Searchable packetCITY OF CUPERTINO
AGENDA
Tuesday, November 18, 2014
10350 Torre Avenue, Council Chamber
CITY COUNCIL
6:45 PM
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
CEREMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATIONS
1.Subject: Present proclamation to Assemblymember Paul Fong for outstanding
service
Recommended Action: Present proclamation
2.Subject: Proclamation to Andy Huang recognizing his many hours of volunteer
service to the community
Recommended Action: Present proclamation
3.Subject: Update from Cupertino Chamber of Commerce President Darcy Paul
Recommended Action: Receive update
4.Subject: Update from West Valley Community Services Executive Director
Naomi Nakano-Matsumoto
Recommended Action: Receive update
POSTPONEMENTS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any
matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases, State
law will prohibit the council from making any decisions with respect to a matter not listed
on the agenda.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Unless there are separate discussions and/or actions requested by council, staff or a
member of the public, it is requested that items under the Consent Calendar be acted on
simultaneously.
Page 1 CITY OF CUPERTINO
1
November 18, 2014City Council AGENDA
5.Subject: Waive the advisory body attendance requirement provision and reinstate
Rose Grymes to the Library Commission and Jessi Kaur to the Fine Arts
Commission
Recommended Action: Waive the advisory body attendance requirement provision
and reinstate Rose Grymes to the Library Commission and Jessi Kaur to the Fine
Arts Commission
Staff Report
A - Approved Resolution No.10-048
B - Rose Grymes warning letter
C - Rose Grymes termination letter
D - Rose Grymes letter to Council
E - Rose Gryme support letter
F - Jessi Kaur warning letter
G - Jessi Kaur termination letter
H- Jessi Kaur email to Council
6.Subject: Application for Alcoholic Beverage License for All That BBQ, 10493
South De Anza Boulevard
Recommended Action: Recommend approval for Alcoholic Beverage License for
All That BBQ, 10493 South De Anza Boulevard
Staff Report
A - Application
7.Subject: Application for Alcoholic Beverage License for Kula Revolving Sushi
Bar, 19600 Vallco Parkway
Recommended Action: Recommend approval of Alcoholic Beverage License for
Kula Revolving Sushi Bar, 19600 Vallco Parkway
Staff Report
A - Application
8.Subject: Summary Vacation of a Portion of the Public Utility Easement located at
10097 S. Blaney Avenue.
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 14-214, summarily vacating a portion
of the Public Utility Easement within a private property located at 10097 S. Blaney
Avenue.
Staff Report
A - Draft Resolution
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Page 2 CITY OF CUPERTINO
2
November 18, 2014City Council AGENDA
9.Subject: Municipal Code Amendment to the Tree Ordinance
Recommended Action: 1. Adopt a Negative Declaration (EA-2013-01) per the
California Environmental Quality Act; and
2.Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 14-2126 “An Ordinance Of The City
Council Of The City Of Cupertino Amending Chapter 14.18 Of The Cupertino
Municipal Code, relating to permit thresholds City Wide, streamlining the tree
removal permit process for R1/A1/A/RHS/R2 Zones, and modifications for
readability"(MCA-2013-01)
Description:
Application: MCA-2013-01, EA-2013-02
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Property Location: citywide
Consider adoption of amendments to Chapter 14.18, Protected Trees, of the
Cupertino Municipal Code to streamline and update the tree removal review and
approval process, and to improve readability/consistency
Staff Report
A - Draft Ordinance No. 14-2126
B - Proposed Changes to Chapter 14.18, Protected Trees
C - July 2, 1014 City Council Staff Report
D - Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Page 3 CITY OF CUPERTINO
3
November 18, 2014City Council AGENDA
10.Subject: Petition for Reconsideration of the City Council’s approval of the Hyatt
House Hotel development project.
Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council:
1.Consider the Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) and adopt Resolution No. 14-
215 (Attachment A) denying the petition for failure to meet the requirements of
Municipal Code Section 2.08.09 or, in the alternative;
2.If the Council determines the Petition meets the criteria, conduct a hearing on the
merits of the petition and uphold the Council’s decision to approve/adopt the
following for the project:
i.Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA-2014-06)
ii.Development Permit (DP-2014-04, Resolution 14-202)
iii.Use Permit (U-2014-04, Resolution 14-203)
iv.Architectural and Site Approval (ASA-2014-06, Resolution 14-204)
v.Parking Exception (EXC-2014-07, Resolution 14-205)
vi.Tree Removal Permit (TR-2014-28, Resolution 14-206)
vii.Tree Removal Permit (TR-2014-40, Resolution 14-207)
Description:
Application Summary
Applications: DP-2014-04, U-2014-04, ASA-2014-06, EXC-2014-07, TR-2014-28,
TR-2014-40, EA-2014-06
Petitioner: Darrel Lum, Concerned Citizens of Cupertino
Applicant: Edward Chan
Property Owner:Cupertino Property Development II, LLC
Location: 10380 Perimeter Road (Southeast quadrant of Wolfe Road and I-280, APN
316-20-094) and 10150 North Wolfe Road (JC Penney site, APN 316-20-094)
Staff Report
A – Draft Resolution
B – August 26, 2014 Planning Commission staff report and meeting minutes
C – October 21, 2014 City Council staff report and meeting minutes
D – Petition for Reconsideration from Darrel Lum dated October 30, 2014
E – Applicant’s response letter
ORDINANCES AND ACTION ITEMS
Page 4 CITY OF CUPERTINO
4
November 18, 2014City Council AGENDA
11.Subject: McClellan Ranch Preserve to Stevens Creek Blvd. Signage Program
Report
Recommended Action: 1) Review the McClellan Ranch Preserve to Stevens Creek
Blvd. Signage program report; and
2)Select a preferred monument sign design from two alternatives forwarded by the
Park and Recreation Commission; and
3)Accept Report
Staff Report
B - SCC Monument Sign Two Alts 11.12.14
REPORTS BY COUNCIL AND STAFF
ADJOURNMENT
The City of Cupertino has adopted the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §1094.6; litigation
challenging a final decision of the City Council must be brought within 90 days after a decision is
announced unless a shorter time is required by State or Federal law.
Prior to seeking judicial review of any adjudicatory (quasi-judicial) decision, interested persons must
file a petition for reconsideration within ten calendar days of the date the City Clerk mails notice of the
City’s decision. Reconsideration petitions must comply with the requirements of Cupertino Municipal
Code §2.08.096. Contact the City Clerk’s office for more information or go to
http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=125 for a reconsideration petition form.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the City of Cupertino will make
reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with qualified disabilities. If you require special
assistance, please contact the city clerk’s office at 408-777-3223 at least 48 hours in advance of the
meeting.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Cupertino City Council after publication of the
packet will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall,
10300 Torre Avenue, during normal business hours and in Council packet archives linked from the
agenda/minutes page on the Cupertino web site.
Members of the public are entitled to address the City Council concerning any item that is described in
the notice or agenda for this meeting, before or during consideration of that item. If you wish to
address the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located
in front of the Council, and deliver it to the Clerk prior to discussion of the item. When you are called,
proceed to the podium and the Mayor will recognize you. If you wish to address the City Council on
any other item not on the agenda, you may do so by during the public comment portion of the meeting
following the same procedure described above. Please limit your comments to three (3) minutes or less.
Page 5 CITY OF CUPERTINO
5
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:114-0486 Name:
Status:Type:Ceremonial Matters &
Presentations
Agenda Ready
File created:In control:10/14/2014 City Council
On agenda:Final action:11/18/2014
Title:Subject: Present proclamation to Assemblymember Paul Fong for outstanding service
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council11/18/20141
Subject: Present proclamation to Assemblymember Paul Fong for outstanding service
Present proclamation
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 11/12/2014Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™6
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:114-0430 Name:
Status:Type:Ceremonial Matters &
Presentations
Agenda Ready
File created:In control:9/12/2014 City Council
On agenda:Final action:11/18/2014
Title:Subject: Proclamation to Andy Huang recognizing his many hours of volunteer service to the
community
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council11/18/20141
Subject :ProclamationtoAndyHuangrecognizinghismanyhoursofvolunteerservicetothe
community
Present proclamation
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 11/12/2014Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™7
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:114-0173 Name:
Status:Type:Ceremonial Matters &
Presentations
Agenda Ready
File created:In control:5/19/2014 City Council
On agenda:Final action:11/18/2014
Title:Subject: Update from Cupertino Chamber of Commerce President Darcy Paul
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council11/18/20141
Subject: Update from Cupertino Chamber of Commerce President Darcy Paul
Receive update
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 11/12/2014Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™8
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:114-0458 Name:
Status:Type:Ceremonial Matters &
Presentations
Agenda Ready
File created:In control:9/29/2014 City Council
On agenda:Final action:11/18/2014
Title:Subject: Update from West Valley Community Services Executive Director Naomi Nakano-
Matsumoto
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council11/18/20141
Subject :UpdatefromWestValleyCommunityServicesExecutiveDirectorNaomiNakano-
Matsumoto
Receive update
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 11/12/2014Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™9
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:114-0515 Name:
Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready
File created:In control:10/28/2014 City Council
On agenda:Final action:11/18/2014
Title:Subject: Waive the advisory body attendance requirement provision and reinstate Rose Grymes to
the Library Commission and Jessi Kaur to the Fine Arts Commission
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff Report
A - Approved Resolution No.10-048
B - Rose Grymes warning letter
C - Rose Grymes termination letter
D - Rose Grymes letter to Council
E - Rose Gryme support letter
F - Jessi Kaur warning letter
G - Jessi Kaur termination letter
H- Jessi Kaur email to Council
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council11/18/20141
Subject :WaivetheadvisorybodyattendancerequirementprovisionandreinstateRose
Grymes to the Library Commission and Jessi Kaur to the Fine Arts Commission
WaivetheadvisorybodyattendancerequirementprovisionandreinstateRoseGrymestothe
Library Commission and Jessi Kaur to the Fine Arts Commission
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 11/12/2014Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™10
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3223 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: November 18, 2014
Subject
Waive the advisory body attendance requirement provision and reinstate Rose Grymes
to the Library Commission and Jessi Kaur to the Fine Arts Commission.
Recommended Action
Waive the advisory body attendance requirement provision and reinstate Rose Grymes
to the Library Commission and Jessi Kaur to the Fine Arts Commission.
Discussion
Cupertino Resolution No. 10-048 which regulates advisory bodies indicates that an
incumbent who misses more than 3 consecutive meetings or more than 25% of the
commission’s meetings is automatically removed from the commission. The resolution
also states that a member who has been removed from an advisory body for inadequate
attendance may request a waiver of this provision by submitting a letter to the City
Council setting forth the reason for the absences and confirming future availability.
On August 18, the Clerk’s office sent Rose Grymes a warning letter stating that she had
missed 3 of the 12 scheduled Library Commission meetings (April, May, August),
which is equivalent to 25% of the scheduled meetings and would automatically be
removed from the Commission if she missed another meeting this year. Ms. Grymes
missed the November meeting and was sent a termination letter on November 6. She
sent a letter to City Council asking for reinstatement.
On August 5, the Clerk’s office sent Jessi Kaur a warning letter stating that she had
missed 1 of the 6 scheduled Fine Arts Commission meetings (March), which is
equivalent to 17% of the scheduled meetings and would automatically be removed from
the Commission if she missed another meeting this year. Ms. Kaur missed the
September meeting and was sent a termination letter on September 23. She sent an
email to City Council asking for reinstatement.
If reinstated, Ms. Grymes would have the opportunity to attend the December and
January Library Commission meetings before finishing her first term and having to
11
reapply for a second term. Ms. Kaur would not have the opportunity to attend another
Fine Arts Commission meeting before being termed out at the end of January. She
would be able to reapply for another commission.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Grace Schmidt, City Clerk
Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager
Attachments:
A – Adopted Resolution No. 10-048
B – Rose Grymes warning letter
C – Rose Grymes termination letter
D – Rose Grymes letter requesting waiver
E – Support letter for Rose Grymes from Adrian Kolb
F – Jessi Kaur warning letter
G – Jessi Kaur termination letter
H – Jessi Kaur email requesting waiver
12
RESOLUTION NO. 10-048
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 07-129 AND AMENDING THE RESOLUTION
ESTABLISHING RULES GOVERNING RECRUITMENT, ATTENDANCE,
APPOINTMENTS, AND VACANCIES ON CITY ADVISORY BODIES TO CHANGE
THE MANDATORY WAITING PERIOD TO TWO YEARS BEFORE
COMMISSIONERS CAN APPLY FOR THE SAME COMMISSION OR
COMMITTEE
WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino wishes to establish uniform terms and conditions
of office for advisory commissions; and
WHEREAS, there are within the City of Cupertino many citizens with talent,
expertise and experience who wish to serve the community; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes it is important to provide these citizens the
opportunity to contribute to their community;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Cupertino rescinds Resolution No.02-064 and establishes the following rules governing
recruitment, appointment and reappointment to City of Cupertino Advisory bodies.
A. RECRUITMENT
1. Two months before regular terms expire, or immediately following receipt of
a resignation, the City Clerk distributes the vacancy notice as follows:
The Cupertino Scene
The Cupertino Courier
The World Journal
The Cupertino City Channel
City Hall bulletin board
The City Clerk’s Office
The Cupertino Library
The Cupertino Chamber of Commerce
Cupertino City Web site
Other organizations as appropriate with respect to the openings
All persons with applications on file for that particular commission
2. Two months before regular terms expire, the City Clerk’s Office also mails
the vacancy notice to the following individuals:
Students and graduates of Cupertino Emergency Response Training
Students or graduates of Leadership Cupertino
Neighborhood Block Leaders
13
Resolution No. 10-048 Page 2
Individuals who have signed up for notification at the Cupertino Town
Hall meetings.
3. All vacancy notices and posting shall be done in accordance with the
provisions of the Maddy Act, California Government Code 54970.
Specifically, vacancy notices shall be posted for a minimum of 10 days.
4. Applications will be retained for a maximum of one year after Council review.
After that time, applicants shall submit a new application if they wish to
remain on the list for consideration.
5. Those persons with applications on file within one year of Council review are
advised of the vacancy by the City Clerk and may activate that application.
Upon receipt of the vacancy notice, the applicant must contact the City
Clerk’s Office and ask that the application be reactivated.
6. An applicant may file for a maximum of two commissions at any one
application period.
7. A member of an advisory body, having completed two consecutive terms,
must wait two years after the term would have normally ended before being
eligible to apply for the same commission or committee.
8. Application forms will be available in the City Clerk’s Office and will be
mailed upon request with information about the opening(s). Application forms
will also be available on the City’s Web site.
9. No application shall be accepted after the deadline.
10. When the final deadline has passed, the City Clerk’s Office will mail
applicants the date, time and location of the interviews along with sample
questions to consider.
11. The City Clerk’s Office will copy the applicants’ written material for Council
members. The written material will also be available for public review in the
City Clerk’s Office.
12. An applicant who is unable to attend the interview may submit a five-minute
video presentation in advance of the interview meeting. The tape will be
reviewed at the meeting. The video will be made by City staff at the
applicant’s request upon the approval of the City Clerk. The City will fund
these costs.
14
Resolution No. 10-048 Page 3
B. INTERVIEWS AND APPOINTMENTS
1. When Council meets to conduct interviews, it is a public meeting subject to
the Brown Act and therefore open to the public. The candidates will be asked
by the City Clerk (either in person or by written instructions left in the waiting
area) to remain seated in the waiting area until they are called in for the
interview. Candidates will also be asked to return to the waiting area until the
announcement of the vote, or to go home and contact the City Clerk’s Office
the next day regarding the results. However, all applicants and members of the
public have the option of remaining in the room for any or all of the meeting.
2. The order in which interviews are scheduled to take place will be determined
by a drawing of names. The City Clerk will do this in advance.
3. Interviews are informal and usually last 5-8 minutes. Council members are
looking for:
Familiarity with the subject
Decision-making ability
Commitment to the position for which they have applied
4. Appointments will be made following a vote in public. Ballots will be
distributed, and Council members will vote and sign the ballots. The City
Clerk will announce the votes.
5. All appointees will be provided with a Certificate of Appointment.
C. UNSCHEDULED VACANCIES AND ATTENDANCE
1. If a vacancy occurs for an unexpired term and interviews for appointment to
that advisory body have been conducted within the previous ninety days, the
unexpired term may be filled from those applications following the required
posting of the vacancy.
2. The notice of unscheduled vacancy shall be posted no earlier than 20 days
before nor later than 20 days after the vacancy occurs, and at least 10 working
days before appointment. The notice of unscheduled vacancy must be posted
in the Office of the City Clerk, at the City Hall bulletin board, at the Cupertino
Library, and in other places designated by the City Clerk.
3. A member shall be considered removed from an advisory body under the
following conditions.
A member misses more than three consecutive meetings
A member misses more than 25% of the advisory body’s meetings in a
calendar year
15
Resolution No. 10-048 Page 4
4. It is the responsibility of the advisory body’s staff liaison to notify the City
Clerk of a member’s attendance record to allow sufficient time to send a
warning notice if the member has missed three consecutive meetings or 25%
of the meetings, and to send a termination notice if the member has missed
more three consecutive meetings or more than 25% of the meetings in a
calendar year.
5. A member who has been removed from an advisory body for inadequate
attendance may request a waiver of this provision by submitting a letter to the
City Council setting forth the reason for the absences and confirming future
availability.
D. GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. Term limit restrictions listed in this resolution do not apply to temporary
appointments for unexpired terms.
2. All provisions of this resolution shall apply unless otherwise decided by the
City Council on a case-by-case basis.
3. In the event that any provision of this resolution conflicts with the provisions
of any other ordinance or resolution governing a particular advisory body, the
provisions governing that advisory body shall prevail.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino
this 16th day of March, 2010, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES: Wang, Wong, Chang, Mahoney, Santoro
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST: APPROVED:
/s/ Kimberly Smith /s/ Kris Wang
_____________________ ______________________
City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino
16
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3223 • FAX: (408) 777-3366
August 18, 2014
Rose Grymes
22111 Lindy Lane
Cupertino, CA 95014
Dear Rose,
I am writing to remind you of the attendance requirements for the City’s advisory
commissions. These requirements are fairly rigid in order to increase the likelihood of a
quorum for all meetings.
My records indicate that you have missed 3 of the 12 scheduled Library Commission
meetings, which is equivalent to 25% of the scheduled meetings. The meetings that you
missed were April, May, August.
Cupertino Resolution 10-048 (attached) indicates that an incumbent who misses more
than 3 consecutive meetings or more than 25% of the commission’s meetings is
automatically removed from the commission. If you miss another meeting this year you
will automatically be removed from the Commission and the only way to reverse that
action is to request a waiver from the Cupertino City Council.
If you have any questions about these requirements, please contact me at 408-777-3224.
Sincerely,
Grace Schmidt
City Clerk
cc: Nidhi Mathur
17
The following is an excerpt from Resolution No. 10-048
C. UNSCHEDULED VACANCIES AND ATTENDANCE
3. A member shall be considered removed from an advisory body under the
following conditions.
A member misses more than three consecutive meetings
A member misses more than 25% of the advisory body’s meetings in a
calendar year
4. It is the responsibility of the advisory body’s staff liaison to notify the City
Clerk of a member’s attendance record to allow sufficient time to send a
warning notice if the member has missed three consecutive meetings or 25%
of the meetings, and to send a termination notice if the member has missed
more three consecutive meetings or more than 25% of the meetings in a
calendar year.
5. A member who has been removed from an advisory body for inadequate
attendance may request a waiver of this provision by submitting a letter to
the City Council setting forth the reason for the absences and confirming
future availability.
18
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3223 • FAX: (408) 777-3366
November 6, 2014
Rose Grymes
22111 Lindy Lane
Cupertino, CA 95014
Dear Rose:
I am writing to inform you that your appointment to the Library Commission was
terminated in November.
Cupertino Resolution No. 10-048 (on reverse side) indicates that an incumbent who
misses more than 3 consecutive meetings or more than 25% of the commission’s
meetings is automatically removed from the commission. Staff records indicate that you
missed four meetings (April, May, August and November).
You may request a waiver of this provision by writing a letter to the City Council. The
letter should be sent to the City Clerk’s office, and I will present it to the Council for
their consideration at the next regular meeting.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 408-777-3224.
Sincerely,
Grace Schmidt
City Clerk
cc: Nidhi Mathur
19
The following is an excerpt from Resolution No. 10-048
C. UNSCHEDULED VACANCIES AND ATTENDANCE
3. A member shall be considered removed from an advisory body under the
following conditions.
A member misses more than three consecutive meetings
A member misses more than 25% of the advisory body’s meetings in a
calendar year
4. It is the responsibility of the advisory body’s staff liaison to notify the City
Clerk of a member’s attendance record to allow sufficient time to send a
warning notice if the member has missed three consecutive meetings or 25%
of the meetings, and to send a termination notice if the member has missed
more three consecutive meetings or more than 25% of the meetings in a
calendar year.
5. A member who has been removed from an advisory body for inadequate
attendance may request a waiver of this provision by submitting a letter to
the City Council setting forth the reason for the absences and confirming
future availability.
20
Rose Grymes
On board Crystal Symphony
En route to Auckland, New Zealand
ragrymes@gmail.com
November 3, 2014
Cupertino City Council
Cupertino Civic Center
Cupertino, CA 95014
To the City Council:
The City Clerk and the Library Commission Liaison have asked me to provide a formal
letter detailing the reasons for my three absences from regular Library Commission
meetings. To the best of my recollection:
1.The first absence was in the Spring, possibly April or May, when I was ill.
2.The second was a month or so ago, and due to a veterinary emergency. Our dog
could not be left alone on that evening owing to an acute condition which emerged on
that day. Both my husband and I voluntarily provide our time on behalf of City issues
by serving on City Commissions. Our commissions happen to meet on the same
evening each month. This year he is Chair of the TICC, and his commission had
significant business on that occasion. As a result, I stayed home to care for our dog.
3.The upcoming absence is occasioned by a planned vacation. My fellow commissioners
on the Library Commission have been extremely accommodating, but rescheduling
around my availability in November and the Thanksgiving vacation has proved
impossible.
I have enjoyed contributing to the community through my service on the Library
Commission, and would like to continue to do so, at your discretion.
Sincerely yours,
Rose Grymes
21
Dear City Council members,
I support the re-appointment of Rose Grymes as library
commissioner. As her fellow commissioner for the past few
years, I have seen firsthand how much Rose has made a
difference to our library, and in our community. Rose is a great
“idea generator” and brings intelligence, commitment and
energy to the commission.
Thank you.
Adrian Kolb
Library Commissioner
22
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3223 • FAX: (408) 777-3366
August 5, 2014
Jessi Kaur
19040 Loree Ave.
Cupertino, CA 95014
Dear Jessi:
I am writing to remind you of the attendance requirements for the City’s advisory
commissions. These requirements are fairly rigid in order to increase the likelihood of a
quorum for all meetings.
My records indicate that you have missed 1 of the 6 scheduled Fine Arts Commission
meetings, which is equivalent to 17% of the scheduled meetings. The meeting that you
missed was March.
Cupertino Resolution 10-048 (attached) indicates that an incumbent who misses more
than 3 consecutive meetings or more than 25% of the commission’s meetings is
automatically removed from the commission. If you miss another meeting this year
you will automatically be removed from the Commission and the only way to reverse
that action is to request a waiver from the Cupertino City Council.
If you have any questions about these requirements, please contact me at 408-777-3224.
Sincerely,
Grace Schmidt
City Clerk
23
The following is an excerpt from Resolution No. 10-048
C. UNSCHEDULED VACANCIES AND ATTENDANCE
3. A member shall be considered removed from an advisory body under the
following conditions.
A member misses more than three consecutive meetings
A member misses more than 25% of the advisory body’s meetings in a
calendar year
4. It is the responsibility of the advisory body’s staff liaison to notify the City
Clerk of a member’s attendance record to allow sufficient time to send a
warning notice if the member has missed three consecutive meetings or 25%
of the meetings, and to send a termination notice if the member has missed
more three consecutive meetings or more than 25% of the meetings in a
calendar year.
5. A member who has been removed from an advisory body for inadequate
attendance may request a waiver of this provision by submitting a letter to
the City Council setting forth the reason for the absences and confirming
future availability.
24
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3223 • FAX: (408) 777-3366
September 23, 2014
Jessi Kaur
19040 Loree Ave.
Cupertino, CA 95014
Dear Jessi:
I am writing to inform you that your appointment to the Fine Arts Commission was
terminated in September.
Cupertino Resolution No. 10-048 (on reverse side) indicates that an incumbent who
misses more than 3 consecutive meetings or more than 25% of the commission’s
meetings is automatically removed from the commission. Staff records indicate that you
missed two meetings (March and September).
You may request a waiver of this provision by writing a letter to the City Council. The
letter should be sent to the City Clerk’s office, and I will present it to the Council for
their consideration at the next regular meeting.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 408-777-3224.
Sincerely,
Grace Schmidt
City Clerk
cc: Piu Ghosh
25
The following is an excerpt from Resolution No. 10-048
C. UNSCHEDULED VACANCIES AND ATTENDANCE
3. A member shall be considered removed from an advisory body under the
following conditions.
A member misses more than three consecutive meetings
A member misses more than 25% of the advisory body’s meetings in a
calendar year
4. It is the responsibility of the advisory body’s staff liaison to notify the City
Clerk of a member’s attendance record to allow sufficient time to send a
warning notice if the member has missed three consecutive meetings or 25%
of the meetings, and to send a termination notice if the member has missed
more three consecutive meetings or more than 25% of the meetings in a
calendar year.
5. A member who has been removed from an advisory body for inadequate
attendance may request a waiver of this provision by submitting a letter to
the City Council setting forth the reason for the absences and confirming
future availability.
26
From:Grace Schmidt
To:Grace Schmidt
Subject:FW: A request for reinstatement as Fine Arts Commissioner
Date:Thursday, October 30, 2014 5:38:49 PM
> On Oct 24, 2014, at 1:57 PM, Jessi Kaur <jessikaur1@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Mayor Gilbert,
> I trust all is well with you.
> This is to request a reinstatement as the Fine Arts Commissioner for the City of Cupertino.
> I have been serving the Fine Arts Commission for the last 8 plus years and am nearing the end of my
second term. I have thoroughly enjoyed being a part of the FAC. We brought out a handbook of
guidelines for builders, and more recently we worked on collating the Public Art in the City in a colorful
handbook. I have been an active and engaged member during my two terms.
>
> We have only 6 scheduled meetings in a year. Out of these I have missed two; one on March 24th
and the second on September 22nd. We also had 3-4 unscheduled meetings all of which I attended.
> Let me explain why I missed two meetings.
>
> In mid-March I had a hiking accident while on a visit to Maui. A piece of the cartilage around my
knee broke and got embedded in a bone. It was very painful. I had to undergo surgery. I was unable to
attend the meeting as I was in excruciating pain with the knee joint randomly locking up.
>
> The surgery was very successful and I went back to work. Last month, early September the knee
flared up again. I had another MRI. There were two little pieces of the cartilage that were still floating
around and rubbing against the bone. The muscles had grown weak. Another surgery was not the
answer but I had to go back to Physical Therapy. On September 22nd when I came home from work I
was struggling with pain and also felt queasy in the tummy - perhaps the two were unrelated. At any
rate I decided to rest on the couch for a bit. I put on the alarm to wake me up in time for the meeting.
But I slept through it and woke up at night long after the meeting was over. I guess my body was
exhausted from battling the pain and the added queasiness. I believe I did write a note of apology to
Piu Ghosh.
>
> I am still going through Physical Therapy and by God's grace I am getting stronger and better every
week.
>
> I hope the Council will understand my situation. I have one more FAC meeting to attend in
November and would like to finish my two terms .
>
> Thank you so much for your kind consideration.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Jessi Kaur
>
>
27
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:114-0466 Name:
Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready
File created:In control:10/2/2014 City Council
On agenda:Final action:11/18/2014
Title:Subject: Application for Alcoholic Beverage License for All That BBQ, 10493 South De Anza
Boulevard
Sponsors:Julia Kinst
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff Report
A - Application
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council11/18/20141
Subject :ApplicationforAlcoholicBeverageLicenseforAllThatBBQ,10493SouthDeAnza
Boulevard
RecommendapprovalforAlcoholicBeverageLicenseforAllThatBBQ,10493SouthDe
Anza Boulevard
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 11/12/2014Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™28
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: October 21st, 2014
Subject
Alcoholic Beverage License, All That BBQ, 10493 S de Anza Boulevard
Recommended Action
Recommend approval of the application for On-Sale Beer and Wine
Description
Name of Business: All That BBQ
Location: 10493 S de Anza Boulevard, cross street McClellan Road
Type of Business: Restaurant
Type of License: 41 – On-Sale Beer and Wine – Eating Place (Restaurant)
Reason for Application: Annual Fee, Original Fee
Discussion
There are no zoning or use permit restrictions which would prohibit the sale of alcohol
as proposed and staff has no objection to the issuance of this license. License Type 41
authorizes the sale of beer and wine for consumption on or off the premise where sold.
This is the former location of Cupertino Bike Shop at the McClellan Square Shopping
Center.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Julia Kinst, Planning Department
Reviewed by: Gary Chao, Assistant Director of Community Development; Aarti
Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager - Community Development and Strategic Planning
Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager
Attachment: A - Application
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org
29
30
31
32
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:114-0534 Name:
Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready
File created:In control:11/12/2014 City Council
On agenda:Final action:11/18/2014
Title:Subject: Application for Alcoholic Beverage License for Kula Revolving Sushi Bar, 19600 Vallco
Parkway
Sponsors:Julia Kinst
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff Report
A - Application
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council11/18/20141
Subject :ApplicationforAlcoholicBeverageLicenseforKulaRevolvingSushiBar,19600
Vallco Parkway
RecommendapprovalofAlcoholicBeverageLicenseforKulaRevolvingSushiBar,19600
Vallco Parkway
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 11/12/2014Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™33
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: November 18, 2014
Subject
Alcoholic Beverage License, Kula Revolving Sushi Bar
Recommended Action
Recommend approval of the application for On-Sale Beer and Wine
Description
Name of Business: Kula Revolving Sushi Bar
Location: 19600 Vallco Parkway
Type of Business: Restaurant
Type of License: 41 – On-Sale Beer and Wine – Eating Place (Restaurant)
Reason for Application: Annual Fee, Original Fee
Discussion
There are no zoning or use permit restrictions which would prohibit the sale of alcohol
as proposed and staff has no objection to the issuance of this license. License Type 41
authorizes the sale of beer and wine for consumption on or off the premise where sold.
The location is in Nineteen800 development (formerly the Rosebowl).
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Julia Kinst, Planning Department
Reviewed by: Gary Chao, Assistant Director of Community Development; Aarti
Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager - Community Development and Strategic Planning
Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager
Attachment: A - Application
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org
34
35
36
37
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:214-0475 Name:
Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready
File created:In control:10/8/2014 City Council
On agenda:Final action:11/18/2014
Title:Subject: Summary Vacation of a Portion of the Public Utility Easement located at 10097 S. Blaney
Avenue.
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff Report
A - Draft Resolution
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council11/18/20142
Subject :SummaryVacationofaPortionofthePublicUtilityEasementlocatedat10097S.
Blaney Avenue.
AdoptResolutionNo.14-214,summarilyvacatingaportionofthePublicUtilityEasement
within a private property located at 10097 S. Blaney Avenue.
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 11/12/2014Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™38
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: November 18, 2014
Subject
Summary Vacation of a Portion of the Public Utility Easement located at 10097 S. Blaney
Avenue.
Recommended Action
Adopt Resolution No. 14-____, summarily vacating a portion of the Public Utility
Easement within a private property located at 10097 S. Blaney Avenue.
Background
Prometheus Real Estate Group, submitted an application on behalf of the property
owner, Lake Biltmore Apartments, LP, a California limited partnership, to vacate a
portion of a twenty-foot-wide Public Utility Easement (PUE) within a private property
located at 10097 S. Blaney Avenue. The PUE was created with a certain Parcel Map,
filed for record on April 20, 1971, in Book 282 of Maps at Page 12, Santa Clara County
Records.
On September 18, 2014, the City Council approved a Development Permit, DP-2011-05,
to allow for the construction of an apartment building on the Lake Biltmore Apartments
property located at 10097 S. Blaney Avenue. The PUE vacation is necessary to
accommodate the building’s placement, which is located over the easement.
Staff has determined the PUE is not needed for public purposes. All concerned utility
companies have been contacted in writing and have no objection to the proposed
vacation. Cal Water is the only utility company with existing facilities within the
easement. These facilities have already been abandoned in-place and new facilities
have been constructed on a new easement located on the adjacent Biltmore Adjacency
property and granted by the property owner, Preg Biltmore, LP. The PUE may be
summarily vacated per the Streets and Highway Code, Section 8333(a).
Adoption of this resolution will allow the City to summarily vacate a portion of the
existing PUE on the subject property. Upon recordation of this vacation, the portion of
the subject easement will be removed from the property and no further action by the
City will be required.
39
Fiscal Impact
The City does not currently use this PUE, nor is it likely to do so in the future.
Therefore, there will be no fiscal impact incurred by approving this summary vacation.
___________________________________
Prepared by: Erwin Ching, Associate Civil Engineer
Reviewed by: Timm Borden, Director of Public Works
Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager
Attachments:
A- Draft Resolution
40
ATTACHMENT A
1
RESOLUTION NO. 14 –
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CUPERTINO SUMMARILY VACATING A PORTION OF A 20’
PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT WITHIN A PRIVATE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 10097 S. BLANEY AVENUE,
APN 369-03-008
WHEREAS, subdivision (a) of Section 8333 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State
of California authorizes the City Council to summarily vacate a portion of a public utility
easement if the easement has been superseded by relocation, or determined to be excess
by the easement holder, and there are no other public facilities located within the
easement; and
WHEREAS, the City Council intends to summarily vacate a portion of a 20’ Public Utility
Easement (hereinafter the “Easement”) constituting all that real property situated in the
City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, more particularly described
in the legal description and plat map attached hereto and made part hereof as Exhibits
“A” and “B”; and
WHEREAS, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the staff report, dated
November 18, 2014, that the Director of the Department of Public Works submitted to the
City Council setting forth the reasons justifying the summary vacation of the Easement
(hereinafter “Report”).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino:
SECTION 1. The City Council hereby adopts the Report and, based upon the Report
and all other evidence submitted, makes the following findings:
1. The easement has been superseded by relocation; and
2. The easement has been determined to be in excess by the City; and
3. There are no other public facilities located within the easement.
41
ATTACHMENT A
2
SECTION 2. Based upon the findings made in Section 1 of this Resolution and the
provisions of Section 8333 of the Streets and Highways Code, the City Council does
hereby order that the Easement shall be and hereby summarily vacated.
SECTION 3. The City Clerk is hereby directed to record at Santa Clara County Records
this Resolution, including Exhibits “A”, “B”, and “C” hereto.
SECTION 4. The portion of the Easement will no longer constitute a Public Utility
Easement from and after the date of recordation of the documents identified in Section 3
of this Resolution.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 18th day of November, 2014, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
________________________ ________________________
Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Gilbert Wong, Mayor
42
43
44
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: November 18, 2014
Subject
Summary Vacation of a Portion of the Public Utility Easement located at 10097 S. Blaney
Avenue.
Recommended Action
Adopt Resolution No. 14-____, summarily vacating a portion of the Public Utility
Easement within a private property located at 10097 S. Blaney Avenue.
Background
Prometheus Real Estate Group, submitted an application on behalf of the property
owner, Lake Biltmore Apartments, LP, a California limited partnership, to vacate a
portion of a twenty-foot-wide Public Utility Easement (PUE) within a private property
located at 10097 S. Blaney Avenue. The PUE was created with a certain Parcel Map,
filed for record on April 20, 1971, in Book 282 of Maps at Page 12, Santa Clara County
Records.
On September 18, 2014, the City Council approved a Development Permit, DP-2011-05,
to allow for the construction of an apartment building on the Lake Biltmore Apartments
property located at 10097 S. Blaney Avenue. The PUE vacation is necessary to
accommodate the building’s placement, which is located over the easement.
Staff has determined the PUE is not needed for public purposes. All concerned utility
companies have been contacted in writing and have no objection to the proposed
vacation. Cal Water is the only utility company with existing facilities within the
easement. These facilities have already been abandoned in-place and new facilities
have been constructed on a new easement located on the adjacent Biltmore Adjacency
property and granted by the property owner, Preg Biltmore, LP. The PUE may be
summarily vacated per the Streets and Highway Code, Section 8333(a).
Adoption of this resolution will allow the City to summarily vacate a portion of the
existing PUE on the subject property. Upon recordation of this vacation, the portion of
the subject easement will be removed from the property and no further action by the
City will be required.
45
Fiscal Impact
The City does not currently use this PUE, nor is it likely to do so in the future.
Therefore, there will be no fiscal impact incurred by approving this summary vacation.
___________________________________
Prepared by: Erwin Ching, Associate Civil Engineer
Reviewed by: Timm Borden, Director of Public Works
Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager
Attachments:
A- Draft Resolution
46
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:114-0282 Name:
Status:Type:Public Hearings Agenda Ready
File created:In control:6/24/2014 City Council
On agenda:Final action:11/18/2014
Title:Subject: Municipal Code Amendment to the Tree Ordinance
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff Report
A - Draft Ordinance No. 14-2126
B - Proposed Changes to Chapter 14.18, Protected Trees
C - July 2, 1014 City Council Staff Report
D - Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council11/18/20141
Subject: Municipal Code Amendment to the Tree Ordinance
1.AdoptaNegativeDeclaration(EA-2013-01)pertheCaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct;
and
2.ConductthefirstreadingofOrdinanceNo.14-2126“AnOrdinanceOfTheCityCouncilOf
TheCityOfCupertinoAmendingChapter14.18OfTheCupertinoMunicipalCode,relatingto
permitthresholdsCityWide,streamliningthetreeremovalpermitprocessfor
R1/A1/A/RHS/R2 Zones, and modifications for readability"(MCA-2013-01)
Description:
Application: MCA-2013-01, EA-2013-02
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Property Location: citywide
Consider adoption of amendments to Chapter 14.18, Protected Trees, of the Cupertino
Municipal Code to streamline and update the tree removal review and approval process, and to
improve readability/consistency
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 11/12/2014Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™47
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: November 18, 2014
Subject
Municipal Code Amendment regarding the Protected Tree Ordinance
Recommended Actions
1. Adopt a Negative Declaration (EA-2013-01) per the California Environmental Quality Act;
and
2. Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 14-2126 “An Ordinance Of The City Council Of
The City Of Cupertino Amending Chapter 14.18 Of The Cupertino Municipal Code
Relating To Permit Thresholds City Wide, Streamlining The Tree Removal Permit Process
For R1/A1/A/RHS/R2 Zones, And Modifications For Readability,”MCA-2013-01
(Attachment A)
Description
Application: MCA-2013-01, EA-2013-02
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Property Location: City-wide
Application Summary: Consider adoption of amendments to Chapter 14.18, Protected Trees, of
the Cupertino Municipal Code to streamline and update the tree removal review and approval
process, and to improve readability/consistency.
Background
In November 2012, the City Council conducted a study session to consider the scope and
process of possible amendments to the Protected Tree Ordinance. Council’s direction consisted
of amendments in two phases:
Phase I - address issues pertaining to public trees and lower the penalties of unlawful
tree removal from a misdemeanor to an infraction;
Phase II - initiate the public process and present a draft ordinance with requirements for
associated environmental review.
The phase I ordinance amendment was completed in March 2013. As part of the phase II
process, a citywide community workshop and a Planning Commission study session were held
on October 30, 2013 and December 10, 2013, to solicit community input on the Protected Tree
Ordinance.
48
On April 15, 2014, the City Council considered input from the Planning Commission and the
public and provided general ordinance parameters for staff to evaluate and study. On July 7,
2014, the Council reviewed a set of refined ordinance amendment options (see Attachment B)
and authorized staff to proceed with the ordinance amendment process and environmental
impact analysis with the following key ordinance features:
Two-tier system (specimen trees between 12” to 24” in diameter – Tier One process;
specimen trees over 24” in diameter – Tier Two process)
Exempt specimen trees under 12” in diameter from the process
A streamlined tier one process
A standard review process for the tier two process
A more flexible tree replacement process
Discussion
Proposed Ordinance Amendment
Currently in R1/A1/A/RHS/R2 zones, the Ordinance exempts all specimen trees that are less
than 10 inches in diameter. In addition, the removal of specimen tree that are 10 inches and
greater would require arborist report, noticing, replacement planting, recordation of a covenant.
Please see Table 1 below for a summary of the current tree removal requirements:
Table 1. EXISTING ORDINANCE
Tree Removal
Permit
Required
Arborist
Report Noticing Recordation In-Lieu Fee
Non-specimen trees in
R1/A1/A/RHS/R2 (trees not
on the specimen species list)1
N/A N/A N/A N/A
Specimen trees in
R1/A1/A/RHS/R2 Zones -
Single Trunk ≥10” DBH
Multi-Trunk 26” DBH
In-lieu
available
only when
replacement
planting
infeasible
Privacy Protection Trees/
Development
Trees2/Heritage Trees
1Except trees planted as part of an approved development permit landscaping plan
2Trees planted as part of an approved development permit landscaping plan (subdivision, multi-family, non-commercial).
Based on Council directions, the proposed ordinance amendment will include the specific
changes summarized in the following section of the staff report. Please refer to Attachment B
for actual amended ordinance text.
Two-Tier Tree Removal Permits
49
All specimen trees that are less than 12 inches in diameter are exempted from the process.
Tier One (Ordinance Section 14.18.110)
A more streamlined process for specimen trees 12 to 24 inches in diameter (no arborist
report, no noticing, no covenant).
Optional in-lieu fee at the discretion of the property owner.
Capping the maximum number of trees eligible to be removed within a period of 36
months.
Tier Two (Ordinance Section 14.18.110)
Standard process for specimen trees larger than 24 inches in diameter (arborist report,
noticing).
The key requirements of the proposed amendments to specimen trees are summarized in Table
2 below:
Table 2. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
Tree
Removal
Permit
Required
Arborist
Report Noticing Recordation Optional In-
Lieu Fee
Maximum
Removal
Cap
R1/A1/A/RHS/R2 Zones – Tier 1
Protected Specimen Trees Single
Trunk between 12” DBH/ Multi-
Trunk 26” DBH and Single Trunk
24”DBH/Multi-Trunk 48”DBH
1 2
R1/A1/A/RHS/R2 Zones – Tier 2
Protected Specimen Trees Single
Trunk 24” DBH/ Multi-Trunk 48”
DBH
1 N/A
1In-lieu fee option available at the discretion of the applicant/property owner.
2Maximum Removal Cap - If an applicant/ property owner would like to remove more than six trees or five percent of trees on the property
within a 36-month period in R1/A1/A/RHS/R2 zones, the permit will fall under the second tier process that requires an arborist report and
notification.
Tree Replacement Process
Currently, the Ordinance requires all removed specimen trees to be replaced with
replacement tree(s) based on the value and size of the removed trees. Only in cases
where the physical planting of replacement trees are deemed to be infeasible by a
professional arborist, the applicant has the option of paying an in-lieu fee is made
available.
The Ordinance has been amended per the Council’s direction to allow the
applicant/property owner the option of planting the replacement tree(s) or paying an
in-lieu fee at 1.5 times the cost of planting the replacement tree (material, labor and
maintenance). See Section 14.18.190 of the revised ordinance text.
50
Staff recommendation:
The Council should provide input on whether the increased in-lieu fee should be
applied to all circumstances. Staff recommends that the proposed Ordinance is
structured to allow payment of a standard in-lieu fee (the cost of planting the
replacement tree) in circumstances when planting replacement trees are not feasible due
to site constraints and/or overcrowding of existing trees and the alternate in-lieu fee (1.5
times the cost of planting the replacement tree) should be applied to applications in
which the site can physically accommodate replacement trees but the applicant wishes
not to plant the replacement.
Other Changes
Maximum Removal Cap
At the July 2014 City Council Study Session, the Council suggested that a maximum
tree removal cap be required to help moderate the rate of tree removals on residential
properties. The Ordinance text has been amended to reflect a tree removal cap of six (6)
trees or 5% of the total trees on the project site within time period of 36 months.
Specimen Tree List
Currently there are seven (7) designated specimen tree species in the Tree Ordinance.
The City arborist is recommending that the Umbellularia Californica (Bay Laurel or
California Bay) be eliminated from the list because it is known to carry Anthracnose
Fungus, a disease that can kill nearby Oak trees. The City arborist recommends that the
Platanus Acerifolia London Plane be added to the specimen list, because it is virtually
identical to the Western Sycamore (also a specimen species) in physical form and water
usage properties. London Planes are also well suited for typically confined residential
applications.
Retroactive Tree Removal Fees/Pending Code Cases
The Council had previously considered applying the public works street tree penalties
towards private retroactive tree removal applications. However given that on average
the public works street tree penalties are higher than the current retroactive tree
removal fees for protected trees on private properties, staff recommends keeping the
current retroactive tree removal permit fee.
Once the Council approves the revised tree ordinance, all of the unpermitted tree
removal code enforcement cases that have been previously on hold will be reinitiated
and the appropriate mitigation measures will be required.
51
Readability and Consistency
Minor and non-substantive refinements or clarifications, have been made to the
Ordinance text to enhance readability, clarity, and consistency. These enhancements
include, clarifying definitions of mature vs. non-mature trees, rearranging the ordinance
for clarity, and clarifying the scope of tree management programs.
Public Outreach
The following is a brief summary of the noticing completed for this meeting:
Environmental Review
An environmental impact assessment was performed in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and an Initial Study was prepared and circulated.
In summary, no significant environmental impacts have been identified. The
Environmental Review Commission reviewed the Initial Study on October 23, 2014 and
recommends a Negative Declaration for the project (See Attachment D).
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Council approve the proposed Tree Ordinance Amendments
based on the revised ordinance text (Attachment A). The Council should decide
whether the increased in-lieu fee should apply to cases where planting replacement
trees would be physically infeasible.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Tiffany Brown, Associate Planner
Notice of Public Hearing, Site Notice &
Legal Ad
Agenda
Legal ad placed in newspaper
(at least 10 days prior to the hearing)
Courtesy citywide notice, with
information on Community Meeting,
Planning Commission and City Council
Meeting date (postcard included reference to
website for latest updates on changed meeting
dates)
Community meeting held on October 30,
2013
Interested parties notified of meeting date
Posted on the City's official notice
bulletin board (at least one week
prior to the hearing)
Posted on the City of Cupertino’s
Web site (at least one week prior to the
hearing)
52
Reviewed by: Gary Chao, Assistant Director of Community Development; Aarti
Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager
Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager
Attachments:
A. Ordinance No. 14-2126
B. Proposed Changes to Chapter 14.18, Protected Trees
C. July 7, 2014 City Council Staff Report
D. Initial Study and Negative Declaration
53
ORDINANCE NO. 14.-2126
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING
CHAPTER 14.18 OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PERMIT
THRESHOLDS CITY WIDE, STREAMLINING THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT PROCESS
FOR R1/A1/A/RHS/R2 ZONES, AND MODIFICATIONS FOR READABILITY
WHEREAS, City Council directed Staff at the November 5, 2012 meeting to consider the scope
and process of possible amendments to the Protected Tree Ordinance. Council direction
consisted of amendments in two phases. Phase I directed staff to present an Ordinance
amendment to lower penalties of unlawful tree removal from a misdemeanor to an infraction;
and
WHEREAS, on March 19, 2013, the City Council, upon proper notices according to the
Procedural Ordinances of the City of Cupertino’s Municipal Code, adopted an Ordinance
amending the Chapter 14.18 Protected Trees of the Municipal Code to remove public trees from
the chapter, and reduce the penalties of unlawful tree removal form a misdemeanor to an
infraction.
WHEREAS, at the March 19, 2013 meeting, the Council continued with a study session
discussing Phase II amendments. Phase II included direction to initiate the public process and
associated environmental review for potential amendments to tree removal permit thresholds
city wide, review of the protected trees species list, and streamlining the tree removal permit
process within the single-family and duplex (R1/A1/A/RHS/R2) zones; and
WHEREAS, in 2013, a City wide postcard was mailed to inform all Cupertino residence of
potential amendments to Chapter 14.18 Protected Trees within the Municipal Code and
upcoming community meetings; and
WHEREAS, a Community meeting was held on October 30, 2013, providing information and
collecting public input on proposed amendments; and
WHEREAS, a publicly noticed Study Session was held on December 10, 2013 with the Planning
Commission to discuss possible amendments and collect public input; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held two publicly noticed study sessions on April 15, 2014 and
July 7, 2014 reviewing the final scope of amendments and preparation of environmental
impacts; and
WHEREAS, an initial study and Negative Declaration, {name}{date} has been prepared by
David J. Powers …… the City’s Environmental Consultant in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act;
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on
October 23, 2014, and based on the entire Administrative record, recommended that the City
54
Council adopt a Negative Declaration in accordance with Article 6, Section 15074 of the CEQA
Guidelines;
WHEREAS, on November 18, 2014, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the
subject application and considered evidence presented by City staff and other interested parties;
and
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES HEREBY
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The City Council considered the full record before it, which may include but is not
limited to such things as the City staff report, testimony by staff and the public, and other
materials and evidence submitted or provided to the City Council.
Section 2: Statement of Purpose
This ordinance amendment improves readability and consistency with other City ordinances
and clarifies a streamlined tree removal permit process in R1/A1/A/RHS/R2 zoning districts.
Section 3: Code Amendment
The Cupertino Municipal Code is amended to read as shown in Attachment 1.
Section 4: The City Council conducted an environmental assessment of the project in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Adopts a Negative
Declaration under Section 15074 of the CEQA Guidelines in that the project is self-mitigating
and therefore will have a less than significant impact on the environment.
Section 5: The amendment is consistent with the General Plan because it allows the
continuation of Policy 2-65: Heritage Trees, and Policy 5-5: Air Pollution Effect of Existing
Development, Strategies 3. Tree Planting in that the Ordinance will continue to protect Heritage
Trees within the City and encourage planting new trees in place of trees being removed.
Section 6: Severability
Should any provision of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, be
determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unlawful, unenforceable or otherwise
void, that determination shall have no effect on any other provision of this Ordinance or the
application of this Ordinance to any other person or circumstance and, to that end, the
provisions hereof are servable. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this
ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof irrespective
of the fact that any one or more sections, subsection, sentence clause, phrase, or portions be
declared valid or unconstitutional.
Section 7: Effective Date
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days form and after adoption as
provided by Government Code Section 3C937.
55
Section 8: Certification
The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall give notice
of its adoption as required by law. Pursuant to Government Code Section 36933, a summary of
this Ordinance may be published and posted in lieu of publication and posting of the entire
text.
Section 9. Continuity
To the extent the provisions of this Ordinance are substantially the same as previous provisions
of the Cupertino Municipal Code, these provisions shall be construed as continuations of those
provisions and not as amendments of the earlier provisions.
INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council the 18th day of
November, 2014 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council this 16th day
of December, 2014 by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Gilbert Wong, Mayor, City of Cupertino
56
CHAPTER 14.18: PROTECTED TREES
Section
14.18.010 Purpose.
14.18.020 Definitions.
14.18.030 Actions Prohibited.
14.18.040 Retention Promoted.
14.18.050 Protected Trees.
14.18.060 Plan of Protection.
14.18.070 Heritage Tree Designation.
14.18.80 Heritage Tree List.
14.18.90 Heritage Tree Identification Tag.
14.18.100 Recordation.
14.18.110 Application,Approval Authority for Tree Removal Permit.
14.18.120 Action by Director
14.18.130 Notice and Posting.
14.18.140 Review,Determination and Findings.
14.18.150 Notice of Action on Permit–Appeal.
14.18.160 Tree Management Plan.
14.18.170 Exemptions.
14.18.180 Retroactive Tree Removal Permit.
14.18.190 Tree Replacement.
14.18.200 Protection During Construction.
14.18.210 Protection Plan Before Demolition, Grading or Building Permit Granted.
14.18.220 Penalty.
ATTACHMENT 1
57
14.18.010 Purpose.
In enacting this chapter, the City of Cupertino recognizes the substantial economic,
environmental and aesthetic importance of its tree population. Protected trees are considered a
valuable asset to the community. The protection of such trees in all zoning districts is intended
to preserve this valuable asset. The City finds that the preservation of Protected trees, and the
protection of all trees during construction, is necessary for the best interests of the City and of
the citizens and public thereof, in order to:
A. Protect property values;
B. Assure the continuance of quality development;
C. Protect aesthetic and scenic beauty;
D. Assist in the absorption of rain waters, thereby preventing erosion of top soil, protecting
against flood hazards and the risk of landslides;
E. Counteract air pollutants by protecting the known capacity of trees to produce pure
oxygen from carbon dioxide;
F. Maintain the climatic balance (e.g., provide shade);
G. Help decrease potential damage from wind velocities;
For the above reasons, the City finds it is in the public interest, convenience and necessity to
enact regulations controlling the care and removal of Protected trees within the City in order to
retain as many trees as possible, consistent with the individual rights to develop, maintain and
enjoy their property to the fullest possible extent.
(Ord. 2085, § 2 (part), 2011; Ord. 2003, 2007; Ord. 1573, § 2, 1991; Ord. 1543, § 2, 1991)
14.18.020 Definitions.
Unless otherwise stated, the following definitions pertain to this chapter.
“Approved development tree(s)” means any class of tree required to be planted or retained as
part of an approved development application, building permit, tree removal permit or code
enforcement action in all zoning districts.
“Arborist” is an individual certified by the International Society of Arboriculture.
"City" means the City of Cupertino situated in the County of Santa Clara, California.
"Dead Tree” means a tree that is not living whatsoever as objectively verifiable, or a tree that
has declined to such an extent that its demise is imminent with no opportunity for recovery or
repair to a reasonably viable level as determined by the Director of Community Development.
"Developed residential" means any legal lot of record, zoned single-family, duplex, agricultural
residential and residential hillside, with any structure (principal or accessory) constructed
thereon.
"Development application" means an application for land alteration or development, including
58
but not limited to subdivision of property, rezoning, architectural and site approval, two-story
residential permit, minor residential permit, planned development permit, variance, and use
permit.
"Diameter at breast height (DBH)" means the diameter of a single tree trunk measured four and
one-half feet from natural grade. For multiple tree trunks, the diameter shall be inclusive of all
trunks/stems. Where the natural grade is at a slope, the measurement shall be taken at the
median grade. Median grade is the average grade in between the ground at the highest point
and the ground at the lowest point of the tree trunk.
"Heritage tree" means any tree or grove of trees which, because of factors including, but not
limited to, its historic value, unique quality, girth, height or species, has been found by the
Planning Commission to have a special significance to the community.
"Owner" shall include the legal owner of real property within the City, and any leasee of such
owner.
"Person" shall include an individual, a firm, an association, a corporation, a co-partnership, and
the leasees, trustees, receivers, agents, servants and employees of any such person.
"Private property" shall include all property not owned by the City or any other public agency.
“Privacy planting” means any privacy protection planting, including trees and/or shrubs,
required pursuant to Chapter 19.28.
"Public property" includes all property owned by the City or any other public agency.
"Protected tree" means any class of tree specified in Section 14.18.050.
“Retroactive tree removal permit” means a permit required upon identification of an
unpermitted removal of a Protected tree.
"Specimen tree" means any class of tree specified in Section 14.18.050.
"Specimen tree, Mature" means any specimen tree with a minimum single-trunk of
twelve inches measured at DBH (thirty-eight-inch circumference) or multi-trunk DBH of
twenty-four inches (seventy-five-inch circumference) or greater.
"Specimen tree, Non-mature" means any specimen tree with a single -trunk less than twelve
inches measured at DBH (thirty-eight-inch circumference) or multi-trunk DBH of twenty-four
inches (seventy-five-inch circumference) or less. "Tree removal" means any of the following:
1. Complete removal, such as cutting to the ground or extraction, of a Protected tree; or
2. Severe pruning, which means the removal of more than one-fourth of the functioning
leaf and stem area of a Protected tree in any twelve-month period as determined by the
59
Community Development Director.
"Tree removal permit" means a permit for tree removal of any Protected trees pursuant to
Section 14.18.050. (Ord. 2085, § 2 (part), 2011; Ord. 2056, (part), 2010; Ord. 2003, 2007; Ord. 1886,
(part), 2001; Ord. 1835, (part), 1999; Ord. 1810, (part), 1999; Ord. 1715, (part), 1996; Ord. 1573, §
3, 1991; Ord. 1543, § 3, 1991, 2014)
14.18.030 Actions Prohibited.
A. It is unlawful to deliberately act in a manner that shall cause any Protected tree to be
irreversibly damaged or to die; and
B. It is unlawful to remove any Protected tree in any zoning district without first obtaining
a tree removal permit as required by Section 14.18.110, unless a permit is not required per
Section 14.18.170.
(Ord. 2085, § 2 (part), 2011; Ord. 2003, 2007)
14.18.040 Retention Promoted.
Protected trees are considered an asset to the community and the pride of ownership and
retention of these trees shall be promoted. The Director of Community Development may
conduct an annual review of the status of Heritage trees and report the findings to the Planning
Commission.
14.18.050 Protected Trees.
Except as otherwise provided in Section 14.18.170, the following trees shall not be removed
without first obtaining a tree removal permit:
A. Heritage trees in all zoning districts.
B. All Mature Specimen trees of the following species on private property (See Appendix
A):
1. Quercus (native oak tree species), including:
a. Quercus Agrifolia (Coast Live Oak);
b. Quercus Lobata (Valley Oak);
c. Quercus Kelloggii (Black Oak);
d. Quercus Douglasii (Blue Oak);
e. Quercus Wislizeni (Interior Live Oak);
2. Aesculus Californica (California Buckeye);
3. Acer Macrophyllum (Big Leaf Maple);
4. Cedrus Deodara (Deodar Cedar);
5. Cedrus Atlantica 'Glauca' (Blue Atlas Cedar);
6. Platanus Acerifolia (London Plane); and
7. Platanus Racemosa (Western Sycamore).
60
C. Approved Development Tree(s).
D. Approved Privacy Planting in R-1 zoning districts.
14.18.060 Plan of Protection.
As part of a development application:
A. The approval authority shall adopt a maintenance plan for Protected trees. It shall be
the property owner(s)' responsibility to protect the trees.
B. Privacy Planting in R-1 zoning districts shall be maintained. Landscape planting
maintenance includes irrigation, fertilization and pruning as necessary to yield a growth rate
expected for a particular species. Where Privacy Planting dies, it must be replaced within thirty
days with the location, size and species described in Ordinance No. 1799 (privacy protection)
and its appendix. The affected property owner, with privacy protection planting on his or her
lot, is required to maintain the required planting and shall be required to comply with Section
14.18.100.
14.18.070 Heritage Tree Designation.
A. Initiated by:
Application for designation of a Heritage tree may only be initiated by the owner of property on
which the tree is located, unless the tree is located on public or quasi-public property. Any
person may apply for designation of a Heritage tree if the tree(s) are located on public or quasi-
public property.
B. Application:
In addition to requirements of Section 14.18.110, an application for a Heritage tree designation
shall include:
1. Assessor's parcel number of the site;
2. Description detailing the proposed Heritage tree's special aesthetic, cultural, or historical
value of significance to the community; and
3. Photographs of the tree(s).
C. Approval Authority:
Application for designation of a Heritage tree shall be referred to the Planning Commission for
review and determination in accordance with Chapter 19.12 of the Cupertino Municipal Code.
The Planning Commission, may, by resolution, designate a tree or grove of trees as a Heritage
tree(s).
14.18.080 Heritage Tree List.
A Heritage tree list shall be created and amended by resolution (See Attachment I to this
Ordinance). The list shall include the reason for designation, tree circumference, species name,
common name, location and Heritage tree number.
(Ord. 2085, § 2 (part), 2011; Ord. 2003, 2007; Ord. 1543, § 4.3, 1991)
61
14.18.090 Heritage Tree Identification Tag.
Heritage trees shall have on them an identification tag, purchased and placed by the City,
inscribed with the following information:
CITY OF CUPERTINO HERITAGE TREE NO. _______ is protected by the Protected Trees
Ordinance. Do not prune or cut before contacting the Department of Community Development
at (408) 777-3308.
14.18.100 Recordation.
Heritage trees, Privacy Planting, and approved Development trees are required to be retained
as part of an application under Section 14.18.050 and shall have retention information placed on
the property deed via a conservation easement in favor of the City, private covenant, or other
method as deemed appropriate by the Director. The recordation shall be completed by the
property owner prior to final map or building permit issuance, or at a time as designated by the
Director of Community Development when not associated with a final map or building permit
issuance.
14.18.110 Application, Approval Authority for Tree Removal Permit.
No person shall directly or indirectly remove or cause to be removed any Protected tree without
first obtaining a tree removal permit, unless such tree removal is exempt per Section 14.18.170.
An application for a tree removal permit shall be filed with the Department of Community
Development and shall contain the following information based on the size and type of the
Protected tree:
A. Application Requirements:
An application request to remove a Mature Specimen tree with single-trunk DBH of twelve
inches to twenty-four inches (multi-trunk twenty-four to forty-eight inches DBH), shall provide
the following:
1. A written explanation of why the tree(s) should be removed;
2. Photograph(s) of the tree(s);
3. Signature of the property owner and/or homeowner's association (when applicable) with
proof of a vote of the homeowner's association;
4. Tree site plan indicating the number, location(s), variety and size (measured four and a
half feet above grade) of tree(s) to be removed;
5. Permit fee, where applicable;
6. Replanting/Tree replacement plan per Section 14.18.190; and
7. Other information deemed necessary by the Director of Community Development to
evaluate the tree removal request.
An application request to remove a Heritage Tree, Privacy Protection Tree, Development Tree,
or Mature Specimen tree with single-trunk DBH greater than twenty-four-inches, multi-trunk
DBH forty-eight inches, require the following in addition to Application Requirements 1.
62
through 7. listed above:
8. An arborist report from an arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture
9. Notice and Posting to residence, Section 14.18.130.
B. Maximum Tree Removal Cap:
In the R1, A1, A, RH, S, and R2 zones, an applicant may remove up to five or six percent of
Mature Specimen trees on the property, whichever is greater, with a single-trunk between
twelve and twenty-four inches (multi-trunk between twenty-four and forty-eight inches) within
a thirty-six month period. The thirty-six month period will start from date of approved permit.
Applications requesting to remove more than five or six percent of Mature Specimen trees
within a thirty-six month period will require and arborist report and notification per Section
14.18.130.
C. Approval Authority:
1. Applications for Protected tree removal shall be referred to the Director of Community
Development for final review and determination in accordance with Section 14.18.120, except
for Heritage tree removals and tree removals in conjunction with development applications.
The Director of Community Development may refer the application to another approval
authority for a report and recommendation.
2. Application for tree removals in conjunction with a development application shall be
considered by the approval authority concerning the same property as the affected tree removal
permit application, and the determination on the tree removal permit shall be made
concurrently by the approval authority.
3. Application for removal of a Heritage tree shall be referred to the Planning Commission
for final review and determination in accordance with Chapter 19.12.
14.18.120 Action by Director.
Upon receipt of a completed tree removal permit application, the Director of Community
Development or his or her authorized representative will:
A. Review the application pursuant to Section 14.18.140;
B. At the Director’s desecration, conduct a site visit, within fourteen days, to inspect the
tree(s) for which removal is requested. Priority of inspection shall be given to those requests
based on hazard or disease; and
C. Send notices or schedule a hearing in accordance with requirements in Section 14.18.130
and Chapter 19.12.
14.18.130 Notice and Posting.
A. Notice shall be provided for tree removal permits as indicated in Section 19.12.030 for
Mature Specimen trees over twenty-four-inches DBH, Heritage trees, Privacy Planting trees,
approved Development trees, and permits requesting to remove more than five or six percent of
63
Mature Specimen trees between twelve and twenty-four inches DBH or multi-trunk of twenty-
four to forty-eight inches DBH within the R1, A1, A, RHS, and R2 zones within a thirty-six
month period. Tree removals listed under Exemptions in Section 14.18.170 do not require
Notification
B. A notice shall be posted in accord with the requirements of Section 19.12.110(F).
C. Where approval of a tree removal permit is granted by the City, the property owner
shall post the tree removal permit on site until the tree is removed or shall present proof of the
tree removal permit upon request.
14.18.140 Review, Determination and Findings.
A. The approval authority may refer the application to another department or commission
for a report, its review, recommendation and/or decision.
B. The approval authority shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application.
C. The approval authority may require tree replacement(s) or accept a tree replacement in-
lieu fee per Section 14.18.190 in conjunction with a tree removal permit.
D. Findings: The approval authority shall approve a tree removal permit only after making
at least one of the following findings:
1. Finding for removal of Mature Specimen trees with a single-trunk between twelve and
twenty-four inches DBH (multi-trunk between twenty-four and forty-eight inches DBH):
a. That there will be either an adequate amount of replacement trees planted, or an in-lieu
fee paid to plant trees elsewhere in the City.
2. Findings for removal of Mature Specimen trees with a single-trunk twenty-four-inches
DBH (multi-trunk of forty-eight inches) or greater, Protected trees, and Heritage trees:
a. That the tree or trees are irreversibly diseased or dead, are in danger of falling, can cause
potential damage to existing or proposed essential structures, or interferes with private on-site
utility services and cannot be controlled or remedied to less-significant levels through
reasonable tree care measures, relocation, or modification of the structure or utility services;
b. That the location of the trees restricts the economic enjoyment of the property by
severely limiting the use of property in a manner not typically experienced by owners of
similarly zoned and situated property, and the applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of
the approval authority that there are no reasonable alternatives to preserve the tree(s).
c. That the Protected tree(s) are a detriment to the subject property and cannot be
adequately supported according to good urban forestry practices due to the overplanting or
overcrowding of trees on the subject property.
14.18.150 Notice of Action on Permit and Appeal.
A. Notice of the decision on an application for a Protected tree removal permit by the
approval authority shall be mailed to the applicant.
64
B. Any decision made by the approval authority on the tree removal application may be
appealed in accordance with Chapter 19.12.
14.18.160 Tree Management Plan.
A tree management plan may be approved for a property that includes criteria for the removal
of certain trees in the future by anticipating the eventual growth of trees on the property and
specifying a time frame in which the trees may require removal to prevent overcrowding of
trees. Additional criteria may be considered for the phased removal of trees, including, but not
limited to: site maintenance, accessibility improvements, natural tree lifespan, and
landscape/site improvements that are determined to be appropriate by the Community
Development Director.
A. Application:
An application for a Tree Management Plan shall contain the following:
1. A tree plan indicating all existing trees to be retained and all new trees to be planted that
are part of the approved landscape plan;
2. Labeling of the species, size in DBH at planting time or at time of tree management plan
approval, location and eventual growth size of each tree on the plan;
3. A written explanation of the specific tree(s) to be removed, including the eventual
growth size in DBH at which time the tree is to be removed, and a time frame in which the
tree(s) will reach the eventual growth size;
4. Tree survey plan indicating the number, location(s), variety and size (measured four and
a half feet above grade) of tree(s) to be removed;
5. A strategic replacement planting plan to manage growth during tree growth phases.
6. An arborist report from an arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture
for all Mature Specimen trees; and
7. Notice and Posting to residence, Section 14.18.130.
B. Approval Authority: The Director of Community Development shall review and
approve the tree management plan where no development application is required.
An application for a tree management plan in conjunction with a development application shall
be considered by the approval authority concerning the same property as the affected tree
management plan application, and the determination on the tree management plan shall be
made concurrently by the approval authority.
C. Recordation:
The property owner shall have retention information placed on the property in accordance with
Section 14.18.100, referring the approved tree management plan, upon approval.
D. Permits:
Trees that are listed to be removed in the tree management plan may be removed within the
65
specified time frame per the tree management plan without a tree removal permit, except for
trees designated as Heritage trees.
14.18.170 Exemptions.
A. A tree removal permit is not required in the following situations:
1. Non-Mature Specimen trees(s) with single-trunk less than twelve inches DBH or multi-
trunk less than twenty-four inches DBH.
2. Thinning out/removing of trees in accordance with a recorded tree management plan
that has been approved in accordance with Section 14.18.130. No tree removal permit is
required.
3. Public utility actions, under the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission of the
State of California; as may be necessary to comply with their safety regulations, or to maintain
the safe operation of their facilities.
B. The following circumstances warrant the removal of trees prior to securing a permit
from the City; however a tree removal permit application, with no application fees or noticing
required, must be filed within five working days as described in Sections 14.18.110. Tree
replacements may be required in conjunction with approval of this tree removal permit (Section
14.18.190):
1. Removal of a protected tree in case of emergency caused by the hazardous or dangerous
condition of a tree, requiring immediate action for the safety of life or property (e.g., a tree
about to topple onto a principle dwelling due to heavy wind velocities, a tree deemed unsafe, or
a tree having the potential to damage existing or proposed essential structures), upon order of
the Director of Community Development, or any member of the sheriff or fire department.
However, a subsequent application for tree removal must be filed within five working days as
described in Sections 14.18.140 through 14.18.160. The Director of Community Development
will approve the retroactive tree removal permit application and may require tree replacements
in conjunction with the approval. No application fee or other approval process shall be required
in this situation.
2. Dead trees, in the opinion of the Director of Community Development. However, a
subsequent application for a tree removal must be filed within five working days as described
in Section 14.18.140 through 14.18.160. The Director of Community Development will approve
the retroactive tree removal permit application and may require tree replacements in
conjunction with the approval. No application fee or other approval process shall be required
in this situation.
14.18.180 Retroactive Tree Removal Permit.
An application for a retroactive tree removal shall be required for any Protected tree removed
prior to approval of a tree removal permit pursuant to Section 14.18.110. The application shall
be filed with the Department of Community Development on forms prescribed by the Director
of Community Development and shall be subject to the requirements of a tree removal permit;
66
the applicant may be required to provide an arborist report in conjunction with the retroactive
tree removal permit. The applicant shall pay a retroactive tree removal permit fee per the City’s
adopted fee schedule.
14.18.190 Tree Replacement.
A. Tree Replacement:
1. The approval authority may impose the following replacement standards for approval
of each tree to be removed in conjunction with an approved tree removal permit, unless
deemed otherwise by the approval authority. Table 14.18.190(A) may be used as a basis for this
requirement.
Table14.18.190 A - Replacement Tree Guidelines
2. Retroactive Tree Replacement: The determination of the number/value of replacement
trees for Retroactive Tree Removals shall factor in the removed tree’s equivalent quality in
terms of cost, aesthetic and environmental quality, age, size, species, height, location,
appearance and characteristics. The replacement value of the removed tree may be established
by using the most recent edition of the ISA Guide for Plant Appraisal published by the Council
of Tree and Landscape Appraisers.
3. The approval authority shall work with the applicant/property owner of the tree
removal permit to determine the location of the replacement tree(s).
B. In Lieu Fees:
1. If a replacement tree cannot reasonably be planted on the subject property, an in-lieu fee
shall be paid by the person requesting the tree removal permit. Fees shall be paid to the City's
tree fund to:
a. Add or replace trees on public property in the vicinity of the subject property; or
b. Add trees or landscaping on other City property.
2. The in-lieu tree replacement fee for a Mature Specimen tree with trunk size equal to or
less than thirty-six inches, shall be based upon the purchase, installation, and maintenance cost
Diameter of Trunk Size of
Removed Tree (Measured
4½ feet above grade)
Replacement Trees
UP to 12 inches One 24" box tree
Over 12 inches and up to 18
inches
Two 24" box trees
Over 18 inches and up to 36
inches
Two 24" box trees or One 36"
box tree
Over 36 inches One 36" box tree
Heritage tree One 48" box tree
67
of the replacement tree as determined by the Director of Community Development.
3. The in-lieu tree replacement fee for a Heritage tree or tree with a trunk size greater than
thirty-six inches, shall be based upon the valuation of the removed tree by using the most recent
edition of the ISA Guide for Plant Appraisal published by the Council of Tree and Landscape
Appraisers
4. Retroactive Tree Removals: In the event that replacement trees cannot reasonably be
planted on the property as described in an arborist report prepared by an ISA Certified
Arborist, in-lieu fees shall be paid, to the satisfaction of the Director of Community
Development subject to the factors described above. The Director of Community Development
may also determine the in-lieu fee upon the valuation of the removed tree(s) by using the most
recent edition of the ISA Guide for Plant Appraisal published by the Council of Tree and
Landscape Appraisers.
5. If the subject property is within the R1/A1/A/RHS/R2 zones, the person requesting the
tree removal permit has the option to pay the fee in-lieu of planting a replacement tree. In such
cases, the in-lieu fee payment shall be equivalent to one and one-half the calculated in-lieu tree
replacement fee.
14.18.200 Protection During Construction.
Protected trees and other trees/plantings required to be retained by virtue of a development
application, building permit, or tree removal permit shall be protected during demolition,
grading and construction operations. The applicant shall guarantee the protection of the
existing tree(s) on the site through a financial instrument acceptable to the Director of
Community Development.
(Ord. 2085, § 2 (part), 2011; Ord. 2003, 2007; Ord. 1543, § 10.1, 1991)
14.18.210 Protection Plan Before Demolition, Grading or Building Permit Granted.
A. A plan to protect trees described in Section 14.18.210 shall be submitted to the Director
of Public Works and to the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of a
demolition, grading or building permit. The plan shall be prepared and signed by a licensed
landscape architect or arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture and shall
be approved by the Director of Community Development. The Director of Community
Development shall evaluate the tree protection plan based upon the tree protection standards
contained in Appendix A at the end of this chapter.
B. The Director of Community Development may waive the requirement for a tree
protection plan both where the construction activity is determined to be minor in nature (minor
building or site modification in any zone) and where the proposed activity will not significantly
modify the ground area within the drip line or the area immediately surrounding the drip line
of the tree. The Director of Community Development shall determine whether the construction
activity is minor in nature and whether the activity will significantly modify the ground area
around the tree drip line.
68
14.18.220 Penalty.
Violation of this chapter is deemed an infraction unless otherwise specified. Any person or
property owners, or his or her agent or representative who engages in tree cutting or removal
without a valid tree removal permit is guilty of an infraction as outlined in Chapter 1.12 of this
code and/or may be required to comply with Sections 14.18.110 and 14.18.180.
69
APPENDIX A
STANDARDS FOR THE PROTECTION OF TREES DURING GRADING AND
CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS
APPENDIX A
The purpose of this appendix is to outline standards pertaining to the protection of trees
described in Section 14.18.220 and 14.18.230 of Chapter 14.18. The standards are broad. A
licensed landscape architect or International Society of Arboriculture certified arborist shall be
retained to certify the applicability of the standards and develop additional standards as
necessary to ensure the property care, maintenance, and survival of trees designated for
protection.
Standards
1. A site plan shall be prepared describing the relationship of proposed grading and utility
trenching to the trees designated for preservation. Construction and grading should not
significantly raise or lower the ground level beneath tree drip lines. If the ground level is
proposed for modification beneath the drip line, the architect/arborist shall address and
mitigate the impact to the tree(s).
2. All trees to be preserved on the property and all trees adjacent to the property shall be
protected against damage during construction operations by constructing a six-foot-high fence
around the drip line, and armor as needed. The extent of fencing and armoring shall be
determined by the landscape architect or arborist. The tree protection shall be placed before any
excavation or grading is begun and shall be maintained in repair for the duration of the
construction work.
3. No construction operations shall be carried on within the drip line area of any tree
designated to be saved except as is authorized by the Director of Community Development.
4. If trenching is required to penetrate the protection barrier for the tree, the section of
trench in the drip line shall be hand dug so as to preclude the cutting of roots. Prior to initiating
any trenching within the barrier approval by staff with consultation of an arborist shall be
completed.
5. Trees which require any degree of fill around the natural grade shall be guarded by
recognized standards of tree protection and design of tree wells.
6. The area under the drip line of the tree shall be kept clean. No construction materials nor
chemical solvents shall be stored or dumped under a tree.
7. Fires for any reason shall not be made within fifty feet of any tree selected to remain and
shall be limited in size and kept under constant surveillance.
8. The general contractor shall use a tree service licensee, as defined by California Business
70
and Professional Code, to prune and cut off the branches that must be removed during the
grading or construction. No branches or roots shall be cut unless at first reviewed by the
landscape architect/arborist with approval of staff.
9. Any damage to existing tree crowns or root systems shall be repaired immediately by an
approved tree surgeon.
10. No storage of construction materials or parking shall be permitted within the drip line
area of any tree designated to be saved.
11. Tree protection regulations shall be posted on protective fencing around trees to be
protected.
71
APPENDIX B
REFERENCE PHOTOS OF SPECIMEN TREES PROTECTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
SECTION 14.18.060
EXAMPLES OF SOME OAK TREE VARIETIES
VALLEY OAK
(Quercus lobata)
COAST LIVE OAK
(Quercus agrifolia)
72
BLUE OAK
(Quercus douglasii)
BLACK OAK
(Quercus kelloggii)
INTERIOR LIVE OAK
(Quercus wislizeni)
73
CALIFORNIA BUCKEYE
(Aesculus californica)
BIG LEAF MAPLE
(Acer macrophyllum)
74
DEODAR CEDAR
(Cedrus deodara)
BLUE ATLAS CEDAR
(Cedrus atlantica ‘Glauca’)
75
PLATANUS ACERIFOLIA
(London Plane)
WESTERN SYCAMORE
(Platanus racemosa)
76
ATTACHMENT 1
AT
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
1
77
AT
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
2
78
CHAPTER 14.18: PROTECTED TREES
Section
14.18.010 Purpose.
14.18.020 Definitions.
14.18.030 Actions Prohibited.
14.18.040 Retention Promoted.
14.18.050 Protected Trees.
14.18.060 Plan of Protection.
14.18.070 Heritage Tree Designation.
14.18.80 Heritage Tree List.
14.18.90 Heritage Tree Identification Tag.
14.18.100 Recordation.
14.18.110 Application,Approval Authority for Tree Removal Permit.
14.18.120 Action by Director
14.18.130 Notice and Posting.
14.18.140 Review,Determination and Findings.
14.18.150 Notice of Action on Permit–Appeal.
14.18.160 Tree Management Plan.
14.18.170 Exemptions.
14.18.180 Retroactive Tree Removal Permit.
14.18.190 Tree Replacement.
Re
n
u
m
b
e
r
e
d
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
79
14.18.200 Protection During Construction.
14.18.210 Protection Plan Before Demolition, Grading or Building Permit Granted.
14.18.220 Penalty.
14.18.010 Purpose.
In enacting this chapter, the City of Cupertino recognizes the substantial economic,
environmental and aesthetic importance of its tree population. Protected trees are considered a
valuable asset to the community. The protection of such trees in all zoning districts is intended
to preserve this valuable asset. The City finds that the preservation of Protected trees, and the
protection of all trees during construction, is necessary for the best interests of the City and of
the citizens and public thereof, in order to:
A. Protect property values;
B. Assure the continuance of quality development;
C. Protect aesthetic and scenic beauty;
D. Assist in the absorption of rain waters, thereby preventing erosion of top soil, protecting
against flood hazards and the risk of landslides;
E. Counteract air pollutants by protecting the known capacity of trees to produce pure
oxygen from carbon dioxide;
80
F. Maintain the climatic balance (e.g., provide shade);
G. Help decrease potential damage from wind velocities;
For the above reasons, the City finds it is in the public interest, convenience and necessity to
enact regulations controlling the care and removal of Protected trees within the City in order to
retain as many trees as possible, consistent with the individual rights to develop, maintain and
enjoy their property to the fullest possible extent.
(Ord. 2085, § 2 (part), 2011; Ord. 2003, 2007; Ord. 1573, § 2, 1991; Ord. 1543, § 2, 1991)
14.18.020 Definitions.
Unless otherwise stated, the following definitions pertain to this chapter.
“Approved development tree(s)” means any class of tree requiredto be planted or retained as
part of an approved development application, building permit, tree removal permit or code
enforcement action in all zoning districts.
“Arborist” is an individual certified by the International Society of Arboriculture.
"City" means the City of Cupertino situated in the County of Santa Clara, California.
"Dead Tree” means a tree that is not living whatsoever as objectively verifiable, or a tree that
has declined to such an extent that its demise is imminent with no opportunity for recovery or
repair to a reasonably viable level as determined by the Director of Community Development.
"Developed residential" means any legal lot of record, zoned single-family, duplex, agricultural
residential and residential hillside, with any structure (principal or accessory) constructed
thereon.
"Development application" means an application for land alteration or development, including
but not limited to subdivision of property, rezoning, architectural and site approval, two-story
residential permit, minor residential permit, planned development permit, variance, and use
permit.
"Diameter at breast height (DBH)" means the diameter of a single tree trunk measured four and
one-half feet from natural grade. For multiple tree trunks, the diameter shall be inclusive of all
trunks/stems. Where the natural grade is at a slope, the measurement shall be taken at the
median grade. Median grade is the average grade in between the ground at the highest point
and the ground at the lowest point of the tree trunk.. "Heritage tree" means any tree or
grove of trees which, because of factors including, but not limited to, its historic value, unique
quality, girth, height or species, has been found by the Planning Commission to have a special
significance to the community.
"Owner" shall include the legal owner of real property within the City, and any leasee of such
owner.
"Person" shall include an individual, a firm, an association, a corporation, a co-partnership, and
the leasees, trustees, receivers, agents, servants and employees of any such person.
Cl
a
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Cl
a
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
81
"Private property" shall include all property not owned by the City or any other public agency.
“Privacy planting” means any privacy protection planting, including trees and/or shrubs,
required pursuant to Chapter 19.28.
"Public property" includes all property owned by the City or any other public agency.
"Protected tree" means any class of tree specified in Section 14.18.050.
“Retroactive tree removal permit” means a permit required upon identification of an
unpermitted removal of a Protected tree.
"Specimen tree" means any class of tree specified in Section 14.18.050.
"Specimen tree, Mature" means any specimen tree with a minimum single-trunk of
twelve inches measured at DBH (thirty-eight-inch circumference) or multi-trunk DBH of
twenty-four inches (seventy-five-inch circumference) or greater.
"Specimen tree, Non-mature" means any specimen tree with a single-trunk less than twelve
inches measured at DBH (thirty-eight-inch circumference) or multi-trunk DBH of twenty-four
inches (seventy-five-inch circumference) or less. "Tree removal" means any of the following:
1. Complete removal, such as cutting to the ground or extraction, of a Protected tree; or
2. Severe pruning, which means the removal of more than one-fourth of the functioning
leaf and stem area of a Protected tree in any twelve-month period as determined by the
Community Development Director.
"Tree removal permit" means a permit for tree removal of any Protected trees pursuant to
Section 14.18.050. (Ord. 2085, § 2 (part), 2011; Ord. 2056, (part), 2010; Ord. 2003, 2007; Ord. 1886,
(part), 2001; Ord. 1835, (part), 1999; Ord. 1810, (part), 1999; Ord. 1715, (part), 1996; Ord. 1573, §
3, 1991; Ord. 1543, § 3, 1991, 2014)
14.18.030 Actions Prohibited.
A. It is unlawful to deliberately act in a manner that shall cause any Protected tree to be
irreversibly damaged or to die; and
B. It is unlawful to remove any Protected tree in any zoning district without first obtaining
a tree removal permit as required by Section 14.18.110, unless a permit is not required per
Section 14.18.170.
(Ord. 2085, § 2 (part), 2011; Ord. 2003, 2007)
14.18.040 Retention Promoted.
Protected trees are considered an asset to the community and the pride of ownership and
retention of these trees shall be promoted. The Director of Community Development may
conduct an annual review of the status of Heritage trees and report the findings to the Planning
Commission.
14.18.050 Protected Trees.
Except as otherwise provided in Section 14.18.170, the following trees shall not be removed
Re
d
u
n
d
a
n
c
y
Cl
a
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Cl
a
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
82
without first obtaining a tree removal permit:
A. Heritage trees in all zoning districts.
B. All Mature Specimen trees of the following species on private property (See Appendix
A) :
1. Quercus (native oak tree species), including:
a. Quercus Agrifolia (Coast Live Oak);
b. Quercus Lobata (Valley Oak);
c. Quercus Kelloggii (Black Oak);
d. Quercus Douglasii (Blue Oak);
e. Quercus Wislizeni (Interior Live Oak);
2. Aesculus Californica (California Buckeye);
3. Acer Macrophyllum (Big Leaf Maple);
4. Cedrus Deodara (Deodar Cedar);
5. Cedrus Atlantica 'Glauca' (Blue Atlas Cedar);
6. Platanus Acerifolia (London Plane); and
7. Platanus Racemosa (Western Sycamore).
C. Approved Development Tree(s).
D. Approved Privacy Planting in R-1 zoning districts.
14.18.060 Plan of Protection.
As part of a development application:
A. The approval authority shall adopt a maintenance plan for Protected trees. It shall be
the property owner(s)' responsibility to protect the trees.
B. Privacy Planting in R-1 zoning districts shall be maintained. Landscape planting
maintenance includes irrigation, fertilization and pruning as necessary to yield a growth rate
expected for a particular species. Where Privacy Planting dies, it must be replaced within thirty
days with the location, size and species described in Ordinance No. 1799 (privacy protection)
and its appendix. The affected property owner, with privacy protection planting on his or her
lot, is required to maintain the required planting and shall be required to comply with Section
14.18.100.
14.18.070 Heritage Tree Designation.
A. Initiated by:
Application for designation of a Heritage tree may only be initiated by the owner of property on
which the tree is located, unless the tree is located on public or quasi-public property. Any
person may apply for designation of a Heritage tree if the tree(s) are located on public or quasi-
public property.
Co
u
n
c
i
l
D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
Re
a
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
v
e
d
f
r
o
m
1
4
.
1
8
.
0
8
0
Re
d
u
n
d
a
n
c
y
83
B. Application:
In addition to requirements of Section 14.18.110, an application for a Heritage tree designation
shall include:
1. Assessor's parcel number of the site;
2. Description detailing the proposed Heritage tree's special aesthetic, cultural, or historical
value of significance to the community; and
3. Photographs of the tree(s).
C. Approval Authority:
Application for designation of a Heritage tree shall be referred to the Planning Commission for
review and determination in accordance with Chapter 19.12 of the Cupertino Municipal Code.
The Planning Commission, may, by resolution, designate a tree or grove of trees as a Heritage
tree(s).
14.18.080 Heritage Tree List.
A Heritage tree list shall be created and amended by resolution (See Attachment I to this
Ordinance). The list shall include the reason for designation, tree circumference, species name,
common name, location and Heritage tree number.
(Ord. 2085, § 2 (part), 2011; Ord. 2003, 2007; Ord. 1543, § 4.3, 1991)
14.18.090 Heritage Tree Identification Tag.
Heritage trees shall have on them an identification tag, purchased and placed by the City,
inscribed with the following information:
CITY OF CUPERTINO HERITAGE TREE NO. _______ is protected by the Protected Trees
Ordinance. Do not prune or cut before contacting the Department of Community Development
at (408) 777-3308.
14.18.100 Recordation.
Heritage trees, Privacy Planting, and approved Development trees are required to be retained
as part of a application under Section 14.18.050 and shall have retention information placed on
the property deed via a conservation easement in favor of the City, private covenant, or other
method as deemed appropriate by the Director. The recordation shall be completed by the
property owner prior to final map or building permit issuance, or at a time as designated by the
Co
u
n
c
i
l
D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
84
Director of Community Development when not associated with a final map or building permit
issuance.
14.18.110 Application, Approval Authority for Tree Removal Permit.
No person shall directly or indirectly remove or cause to be removed any Protected tree without
first obtaining a tree removal permit, unless such tree removal is exempt per Section 14.18.170.
An application for a tree removal permit shall be filed with the Department of Community
Development and shall contain the following information based on the size and type of the
Protected tree:
A. Application Requirements:
An application request to remove a Mature Specimen tree with single-trunk DBH of twelve
inches to twenty-four inches (multi-trunk twenty-four to forty-eight inches DBH), shall provide
the following:
1. A written explanation of why the tree(s) should be removed;
2. Photograph(s) of the tree(s);
3. Signature of the property owner and/or homeowner's association (when applicable) with
proof of a vote of the homeowner's association;
4. Tree site plan indicating the number, location(s), variety and size (measured four and a
half feet above grade) of tree(s) to be removed;
5. Permit fee, where applicable;
6. Replanting/Tree replacement plan per Section 14.18.190; and
7. Other information deemed necessary by the Director of Community Development to
evaluate the tree removal request.
Cl
a
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Re
d
u
n
d
a
n
c
y
Mo
v
e
d
t
o
14
.
1
8
.
1
6
0
Co
u
n
c
i
l
D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
85
An application request to remove a Heritage Tree, Privacy Protection Tree, Development Tree,
or Mature Specimen tree with single-trunk DBH greater than twenty-four-inches, multi-trunk
DBH forty-eight inches, require the following in addition to Application Requirements 1.
through 7. listed above:
8. An arborist report from an arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture
9. Notice and Posting to residence, Section 14.18.130.
B. Maximum Tree Removal Cap:
In the R1, A1, A, RH, S, and R2 zones, an applicant may remove up to five or six percent of
Mature Specimen trees on the property, whichever is greater, with a single-trunk between
twelve and twenty-four inches (multi-trunk between twenty-four and forty-eight inches) within
a thirty-six month period. The thirty-six month period will start from date of approved permit.
Applications requesting to remove more than five or six percent of Mature Specimen trees
within a thirty-six month period will require an arborist report and notification per Section
14.18.130.
C. Approval Authority:
1. Applications for Protected tree removal shall be referred to the Director of Community
Development for final review and determination in accordance with Section 14.18.120, except
for Heritage tree removals and tree removals in conjunction with development applications.
The Director of Community Development may refer the application to another approval
authority for a report and recommendation.
2. Application for tree removals in conjunction with a development application shall be
considered by the approval authority concerning the same property as the affected tree removal
permit application, and the determination on the tree removal permit shall be made
concurrently by the approval authority.
3. Application for removal of a Heritage tree shall be referred to the Planning Commission
for final review and determination in accordance with Chapter 19.12.
14.18.120 Action by Director.
Upon receipt of a completed tree removal permit application, the Director of Community
Development or his or her authorized representative will:
A. Review the application pursuant to Section 14.18.140;
B. At the Director’s desecration, conduct a site visit, within fourteen days, to inspect the
tree(s) for which removal is requested. Priority of inspection shall be given to those requests
based on hazard or disease; and
C. Send notices or schedule a hearing in accordance with requirements in Section 14.18.130
and Chapter 19.12.
Cl
a
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Cl
a
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mo
v
e
d
t
o
1
4
.
1
8
.
1
1
0
Co
u
n
c
i
l
D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
86
14.18.130 Notice and Posting.
A. Notice shall be provided for tree removal permits as indicated in Section 19.12.030 for
Mature Specimen trees over twenty-four-inches DBH, Heritage trees, Privacy Planting trees,
approved Development trees, and permits requesting to remove more than five or six percent of
Mature Specimen trees between twelve and twenty-four inches DBH or multi-trunk of twenty-
four to forty-eight inches DBH within the R1, A1, A, RHS, and R2 zones within a thirty-six
month period. Tree removals listed under Exemptions in Section 14.18.170 do not require
Notification
B. A notice shall be posted in accord with the requirements of Section 19.12.110(F).
C. Where approval of a tree removal permit is granted by the City, the property owner
shall post the tree removal permit on site until the tree is removed or shall present proof of the
tree removal permit upon request.
14.18.140 Review, Determination and Findings.
A. The approval authority may refer the application to another department or commission for a
report, its review, recommendation and/or decision.
B. The approval authority shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application.
C. The approval authority may require tree replacement(s) or accept a tree replacement in-lieu
fee per Section 14.18.190 in conjunction with a tree removal permit.
D. Findings: The approval authority shall approve a tree removal permit only after making
at least one of the following findings:
1. Finding for removal of Mature Specimen trees with a single-trunk between twelve and
twenty-four inches DBH (multi-trunk between twenty-four and forty-eight inches DBH):
a. That there will be either an adequate amount of replacement trees planted, or an in-lieu
fee paid to plant trees elsewhere in the City.
2. Findings for removal of Mature Specimen trees with a single-trunk twenty-four-inches
DBH (multi-trunk of forty-eight inches) or greater, Protected trees, and Heritage trees:
a. That the tree or trees are irreversibly diseased or dead, are in danger of falling, can cause
potential damage to existing or proposed essential structures, or interferes with private on-site
utility services and cannot be controlled or remedied to less-significant levels through
Mo
v
e
d
f
r
o
m
1
4
.
1
8
.
1
8
0
Re
a
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Cl
a
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Co
u
n
c
i
l
D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
Mo
v
e
d
t
o
1
4
.
1
8
.
1
1
0
Re
a
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
87
reasonable tree care measures, relocation, or modification of the structure or utility services;
b. That the location of the trees restricts the economic enjoyment of the property by
severely limiting the use of property in a manner not typically experienced by owners of
similarly zoned and situated property, and the applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of
the approval authority that there are no reasonable alternatives to preserve the tree(s).
c.. That the Protected tree(s) are a detriment to the subject property and cannot be
adequately supported according to good urban forestry practices due to the overplanting or
overcrowding of trees on the subject property.14.18.150 Notice of Action on Permit and
Appeal.
A. Notice of the decision on an application for a Protected tree removal permit by the
approval authority shall be mailed to the applicant.
B. Any decision made by the approval authority on the tree removal application may be
appealed in accordance with Chapter 19.12.
14.18.160 Tree Management Plan.
A tree management plan may be approved for a property that includes criteria for the removal
of certain trees in the future by anticipating the eventual growth of trees on the property and
specifying a time frame in which the trees may require removal to prevent overcrowding of
trees. Additional criteria may be considered for the phased removal of trees, including, but not
limited to: site maintenance, accessibility improvements, natural tree lifespan, and
landscape/site improvements that are determined to be appropriate by the Community
Development Director.
A. Application:
An application for a Tree Management Plan shall contain the following:
1. A tree plan indicating all existing trees to be retained and all new trees to be planted that are
part of the approved landscape plan;
2. Labeling of the species, size in DBH at planting time or at time of tree management plan
approval, location and eventual growth size of each tree on the plan;
3. A written explanation of the specific tree(s) to be removed, including the eventual growth
size in DBH at which time the tree is to be removed, and a time frame in which the tree(s) will
reach the eventual growth size;
4. Tree survey plan indicating the number, location(s), variety and size (measured four and a
half feet above grade) of tree(s) to be removed;
5. A strategic replacement planting plan to manage growth during tree growth phases.
6. An arborist report from an arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture
for all Mature Specimen trees; and
7. Notice and Posting to residence, Section 14.18.130.
Re
a
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Cl
a
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mo
v
e
d
f
r
o
m
1
4
.
1
8
.
1
3
0
Re
d
u
n
d
a
n
c
y
88
B. Approval Authority: The Director of Community Development shall review and approve the
tree management plan where no development application is required.
An application for a tree management plan in conjunction with a development application shall
be considered by the approval authority concerning the same property as the affected tree
management plan application, and the determination on the tree management plan shall be
made concurrently by the approval authority.
C. Recordation:
The property owner shall have retention information placed on the property in accordance with
Section 14.18.100, referring the approved tree management plan, upon approval.
D. Permits:
Trees that are listed to be removed in the tree management plan may be removed within the
specified time frame per the tree management plan without a tree removal permit, except for
trees designated as Heritage trees.
14.18.170 Exemptions.
A. A tree removal permit is not required in the following situations:
1. Non-Mature Specimen trees(s) with single-trunk less than twelve inches DBH or multi-
trunk less than twenty-four inches DBH.
C.2. Thinning out/removing of trees in accordance with a recorded tree management plan
that has been approved in accordance with Section 14.18.130. No tree removal permit is
required.
D.3. Public utility actions, under the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission of the
State of California; as may be necessary to comply with their safety regulations, or to maintain
the safe operation of their facilities.
B. The following circumstances warrant the removal of trees prior to securing a permit
from the City; however a tree removal permit application, with no application fees or noticing
required, must be filed within five working days as described in Sections 14.18.110. Tree
replacements may be required in conjunction with approval of this tree removal permit (Section
14.18.190):
1. Removal of a protected tree in case of emergency caused by the hazardous or dangerous
condition of a tree, requiring immediate action for the safety of life or property (e.g., a tree
about to topple onto a principle dwelling due to heavy wind velocities, a tree deemed unsafe, or
a tree having the potential to damage existing or proposed essential structures), upon order of
the Director of Community Development, or any member of the sheriff or fire department.
However, a subsequent application for tree removal must be filed within five working days as
described in Sections 14.18.140 through 14.18.160. The Director of Community Development
will approve the retroactive tree removal permit application and may require tree replacements
in conjunction with the approval. No application fee or other approval process shall be required
in this situation.
Cl
a
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Re
a
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Re
a
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Re
a
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Cl
a
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Co
u
n
c
i
l
D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
89
2. Dead trees, in the opinion of the Director of Community Development. However, a
subsequent application for a tree removal must be filed within five working days as described
in Section 14.18.140 through 14.18.160. The Director of Community Development will approve
the retroactive tree removal permit application and may require tree replacements in
conjunction with the approval. No application fee or other approval process shall be required
in this situation.
14.18.180 Retroactive Tree Removal Permit.
An application for a retroactive tree removal shall be required for any Protected tree removed
prior to approval of a tree removal permit pursuant to Section 14.18.110. The application shall
be filed with the Department of Community Development on forms prescribed by the Director
of Community Development and shall be subject to the requirements of a tree removal permit;
the applicant may be required to provide an arborist report in conjunction with the retroactive
tree removal permit. The applicant shall pay a retroactive tree removal permit fee per the City’s
adopted fee schedule.
14.18.190 Tree Replacement.A. Tree Replacement:
1. The approval authority may impose the following replacement standards for approval
of each tree to be removed in conjunction with an approved tree removal permit, unless
deemed otherwise by the approval authority. Table 14.18.190(A) may be used as a basis for this
requirement.
Table14.18.190 A - Replacement Tree Guidelines
2. Retroactive Tree Replacement: The determination of the number/value of replacement
trees for Retroactive Tree Removals shall factor in the removed tree’s equivalent quality in
terms of cost, aesthetic and environmental quality, age, size, species, height, location,
appearance and characteristics. The replacement value of the removed tree may be established
by using the most recent edition of the ISA Guide for Plant Appraisal published by the Council
of Tree and Landscape Appraisers.
3. The approval authority shall work with the applicant/property owner of the tree
Diameter of Trunk Size of
Removed Tree (Measured
4½ feet above grade)
Replacement Trees
UP to 12 inches One 24" box tree
Over 12 inches and up to 18
inches
Two 24" box trees
Over 18 inches and up to 36
inches
Two 24" box trees or One 36"
box tree
Over 36 inches One 36" box tree
Heritage tree One 48" box tree
Mo
v
e
d
f
r
o
m
1
4
.
1
8
.
2
0
0
Re
a
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Co
u
n
c
i
l
D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
Re
a
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Cl
a
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
90
removal permit to determine the location of the replacement tree(s).
B. In Lieu Fees:
1. If a replacement tree cannot reasonably be planted on the subject property, an in0lieu fee
shall be paid by the person requesting the tree removal permit. Fees shall be paid to the City's
tree fund to:
a. Add or replace trees on public property in the vicinity of the subject property; or
b. Add trees or landscaping on other City property.
2. The in-lieu fee for a Mature Specimen tree with trunk size equal to or less than thirty-
six inches, shall based upon the purchase, installation, and maintenance cost of the replacement
tree as determined by the Director of Community Development.
3. The in-lieu tree replacement fee for a Heritage tree or tree with a trunk size greater than
thirty-six inches, shall be based upon the valuation of the removed tree by using the most recent
edition of the ISA Guide for Plant Appraisal published by the Council of Tree and Landscape
Appraisers.
4. Retroactive Tree Removals: In the event that replacement trees cannot reasonably be
planted on the property as described in an arborist report prepared by an ISA Certified
Arborist, in-lieu fees shall be paid, to the satisfaction of the Director of Community
Development subject to the factors described above. The Director of Community Development
may also determine the in-lieu fee upon the valuation of the removed tree(s) by using the most
recent edition of the ISA Guide for Plant Appraisal published by the Council of Tree and
Landscape Appraisers.
5. If the subject property is within the R1/A1/A/RHS/R2 zones, the person requesting the
tree removal permit has the option to pay the fee in-lieu of planting a replacement tree. In such
cases, the in-lieu fee payment shall be equivalent to one and one-half the calculated in-lieu tree
replacement fee.
Table A - Replacement Tree Guidelines
Diameter of Trunk Size of
Removed Tree (Measured
4½ feet above grade)
Replacement Trees
12 inches One 24" box tree
Over 12 inches and up to 18
inches
Two 24" box trees
Cl
a
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Re
a
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Co
u
n
c
i
l
D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
91
14.18.200 Protection During Construction.
Protected trees and other trees/plantings required to be retained by virtue of a development
application, building permit, or tree removal permit shall be protected during demolition,
grading and construction operations. The applicant shall guarantee the protection of the
existing tree(s) on the site through a financial instrument acceptable to the Director of
Community Development.
(Ord. 2085, § 2 (part), 2011; Ord. 2003, 2007; Ord. 1543, § 10.1, 1991)
14.18.210 Protection Plan Before Demolition, Grading or Building Permit Granted.
A. A plan to protect trees described in Section 14.18.210 shall be submitted to the Director
of Public Works and to the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of a
demolition, grading or building permit. The plan shall be prepared and signed by a licensed
landscape architect or arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture and shall
be approved by the Director of Community Development. The Director of Community
Development shall evaluate the tree protection plan based upon the tree protection standards
contained in Appendix A at the end of this chapter.
B. The Director of Community Development may waive the requirement for a tree
protection plan both where the construction activity is determined to be minor in nature (minor
building or site modification in any zone) and where the proposed activity will not significantly
modify the ground area within the drip line or the area immediately surrounding the drip line
of the tree. The Director of Community Development shall determine whether the construction
activity is minor in nature and whether the activity will significantly modify the ground area
around the tree drip line.
14.18.220 Penalty.
Violation of this chapter is deemed an infraction unless otherwise specified. Any person or
property owners, or his or her agent or representative who engages in tree cutting or removal
without a valid tree removal permit is guilty of an infraction as outlined in Chapter 1.12 of this
code and/or may be required to comply with Sections 14.18.110 and 14.18.180.
Over 18 inches and up to 36
inches
Two 24" box trees or One 36"
box tree
Over 36 inches One 36" box tree
Heritage tree One 48" box tree
Mo
v
e
d
t
o
1
4
.
1
8
.
1
8
0
Re
a
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
92
Mo
v
e
d
t
o
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A.
93
APPENDIX A
STANDARDS FOR THE PROTECTION OF TREES DURING GRADING AND
CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS
Mo
v
e
d
t
o
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B.
94
The purpose of this appendix is to outline standards pertaining to the protection of trees
described in Section 14.18.220 and 14.18.230 of Chapter 14.18. The standards are broad. A
licensed landscape architect or International Society of Arboriculture certified arborist shall be
retained to certify the applicability of the standards and develop additional standards as
necessary to ensure the property care, maintenance, and survival of trees designated for
protection.
Standards
1. A site plan shall be prepared describing the relationship of proposed grading and utility
trenching to the trees designated for preservation. Construction and grading should not
significantly raise or lower the ground level beneath tree drip lines. If the ground level is
proposed for modification beneath the drip line, the architect/arborist shall address and
mitigate the impact to the tree(s).
2. All trees to be preserved on the property and all trees adjacent to the property shall be
protected against damage during construction operations by constructing a six-foot-high fence
around the drip line, and armor as needed. The extent of fencing and armoring shall be
determined by the landscape architect or arborist. The tree protection shall be placed before any
excavation or grading is begun and shall be maintained in repair for the duration of the
construction work.
3. No construction operations shall be carried on within the drip line area of any tree
designated to be saved except as is authorized by the Director of Community Development.
4. If trenching is required to penetrate the protection barrier for the tree, the section of
trench in the drip line shall be hand dug so as to preclude the cutting of roots. Prior to initiating
any trenching within the barrier approval by staff with consultation of an arborist shall be
completed.
5. Trees which require any degree of fill around the natural grade shall be guarded by
recognized standards of tree protection and design of tree wells.
6. The area under the drip line of the tree shall be kept clean. No construction materials nor
chemical solvents shall be stored or dumped under a tree.
7. Fires for any reason shall not be made within fifty feet of any tree selected to remain and
shall be limited in size and kept under constant surveillance.
8. The general contractor shall use a tree service licensee, as defined by California Business
and Professional Code, to prune and cut off the branches that must be removed during the
grading or construction. No branches or roots shall be cut unless at first reviewed by the
landscape architect/arborist with approval of staff.
9. Any damage to existing tree crowns or root systems shall be repaired immediately by an
approved tree surgeon.
95
10. No storage of construction materials or parking shall be permitted within the drip line
area of any tree designated to be saved.
11. Tree protection regulations shall be posted on protective fencing around trees to be
protected.
96
APPENDIX B
REFERENCE PHOTOS OF SPECIMEN TREES PROTECTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
SECTION 14.18.060
EXAMPLES OF SOME OAK TREE VARIETIES
VALLEY OAK
(Quercus lobata)
COAST LIVE OAK
(Quercus agrifolia)
97
BLUE OAK
(Quercus douglasii)
BLACK OAK
(Quercus kelloggii)
INTERIOR LIVE OAK
(Quercus wislizeni)
98
CALIFORNIA BUCKEYE
(Aesculus californica)
BIG LEAF MAPLE
(Acer macrophyllum)
99
DEODAR CEDAR
(Cedrus deodara)
BLUE ATLAS CEDAR
(Cedrus atlantica ‘Glauca’)
100
WESTERN SYCAMORE
(Platanus racemosa)
Co
u
n
c
i
l
D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
101
PLATANUS ACERIFOLIA
(London Plane)
102
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: July 7, 2014
SUBJECT
Study Session for amendments to Protected Trees Ordinance (MCA-2013-01)
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Review the final scope of amendments to Chapter 14.18, Protected Trees Ordinance.
DESCRIPTION
Application: MCA-2013-01
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Property Location: City-wide
Application Summary: Study Session to consider potential Amendments to Chapter 14.18,
Protected Trees, of the Cupertino Municipal Code
BACKGROUND
On November 5, 2012, the City Council conducted a study session to consider the scope and
process of possible amendments to the Protected Tree Ordinance. The Council's direction
consisted of amendments in two phases. In Phase one staff was directed to present an
Ordinance amendment to address issues pertaining to public trees and to lower the penalties of
unlawful tree removal from a misdemeanor to an infraction. This phase was completed on
March 19, 2013. Phase two was to initiate the public process and present a draft ordinance and
associated environmental review for potential amendments to streamline the tree removal
process in the R1/A1/A/RHS/R2 zones. For the scope of the amendment “protected trees” are
defined as “Specimen trees” in R1/A1/A/RHS/R2 zones. A list of Specimen trees is provided
later in this report. Protected trees in planned development zones would continue to use the
current tree removal permit process.
At a second study session on April 15, 2014, the City Council reviewed the options presented by
staff and provided the following direction:
Proceed with a two-tier tree removal permit system that allows removal of smaller size
protected trees without noticing or an arborist report. Removal of larger protected trees
would require noticing and an arborist report.
103
Consider creating a more lenient tree removal threshold allowable within a Mitigated
Negative Declaration.
Provide more information regarding the tree replacement costs, minimum number of tree
replacement for tree removals, photos of different sized tree replacements, water
requirements of specimen trees.
Review the Specimen tree list for water use and drought tolerance and provide additional
options for trees to replace those suggested for removal from the list.
Regarding fees for retroactive tree removal, the City Council wished to see a sample of fees
based on the Public Works Department tree replacement formula.
DISCUSSION
Tree Removal Thresholds
The City’s environmental consultant has reviewed the two-tier proposal concept and confirmed
that it could be facilitated within the threshold of a Mitigated Negative Declaration provided
that the following parameters are met. Increases beyond these parameters will require an
Environmental Impact Report.
Exemption from Tree Removal Permits – Trees that are under 12” in diameter (37.7”
circumference - when measured 4.5’ from natural grade) can be exempt from the tree
removal permit process. This threshold is based on the consultant arborist’s information
that on average, at about 8”-10” in diameter (25.13” - 31.42” in circumference), a tree starts
to transform from its shrub-like form to a tree-like form. At about 10” – 12” in diameter
(25.13” – 37.70” in circumference), the tree sheds its understory/lower branch area and its
top canopy starts to secure itself, making it an established mature tree. Their
recommendation is that a “mature” specimen tree should be defined as one that has a
diameter between 10” to 12” (measured at 4.5’ from natural grade). Currently, protected
trees that measure 10” or greater in diameter (when measured 4.5’ from natural grade)
require tree removal permits.
Tier 1 process (no arborist report, no noticing, with replacements) - A more lenient tiered
process could be applied to a tree sizes between 12” to 18” in diameter (37.70” to 56.55” in
circumference).
The earlier recommendation was for tier 1 to apply to trees between 10” to 24” (25.13” –
75.40” in circumference). However, due to the environmental significance and value of trees
in the 18” to 24” range, the numbers of trees to be removed had to be limited (to no more
than 3 or 10% on the parcel, whichever was greater). Additionally, the process would have
104
required a survey of the existing trees on the site, making the process cumbersome for the
applicant as well as staff.
Based on the City Council’s direction to review the most lenient thresholds for trees to be
exempt from the tree removal process and the Tier 1 category, staff is recommending the
following changes to Tier 1:
Increasing the bottom threshold from 10” to 12” in diameter
Decreasing the upper threshold from 24” to 18” in diameter
Eliminating the limit on the number of trees removed
Eliminating the arborist survey requirement
These adjustments make the process simpler to administer and more user friendly to the
property owners.
Tier 2 process (arborist report, noticing, with replacements) – Based on discussions with the
City’s consulting arborist and environmental consultant, trees that are larger than 18” in
diameter are of significant size and environmental value. Removal of such trees will cause
environmental impacts and should be conducted only if the City’s current findings are met.
Replacement location - All protected trees over 12” when removed, must be replaced with
new trees onsite as opposed to providing money towards street tree or other funding. This
is because the replacements are mitigations and should be planted immediately after
removal and in the general location of the removal in order to reduce environmental
impacts.
Process Recommendation: Staff recommends the following two-tier system:
Proposed Two-Tier System for Removal of Specimen Trees
(R1/A1/A/RHS/R2 Zones)
No Permits
Trees that are less than
12” in diameter
Tier 1
(Trees that are greater than
12” and less than 18” in
diameter)
Tier 2
(Trees that are 18” or greater in
diameter)
Not applicable Over the Counter
Permit required
No notification
required
No arborist required
Mitigation required
(replacement &
covenant)
Permit required
Notification required
Arborist and Survey Report
required to Confirm Criteria
and Findings.
Mitigation required
(replacement & covenant)
105
Specimen Tree List
The City’s consultant arborist had recommended removal of the Bay Laurel (Umbellularia
californica) from the Specimen tree list because of its invasive properties. The original
recommendation was to replace it with the Douglas Fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii). Another option
is the London Plane (Platanus acerifolia), which not only has desired water usage and drought
tolerance but is also a better alternative since it is compatible with urban landscape settings
adjacent to paving and buildings. Water usage for each of the trees on the Specimen tree list is
provided below:
Specimen Tree Add/Remove Water Usage Drought
Tolerance
Quercus (Oak) species No change Low High
Aesculus californica (California Buckeye); No change Moderate Moderate
Acer macrophyllum (Big Leaf Maple); No change Moderate Moderate
Cedrus deodara (Deodar Cedar); No change Low High
Cedrus atlantica 'Glauca' (Blue Atlas
Cedar);
No change Low High
Platanus racemosa (Western Sycamore) No change Moderate Moderate
Umbellularia californica (Bay Laurel or
California Bay);
REMOVE Moderate Moderate
Platanus acerifolia (London Plane) ADD
(PREFERRED)
Moderate Moderate
Pseudotsuga menziesii (Douglas Fir)
ADD
(ALT.
OPTION)
Moderate Moderate
Established 12” Diameter Tree Established 18” Diameter Tree
106
Specimen Tree Recommendation: Staff recommends removal of the Bay Laurel from the Specimen tree
list and addition of the London Plane.
Other Key Issues
Issues that were discussed at the last study session include the following:
Process for tree removals in other zones, heritage trees, and privacy trees would not be
changed.
Voluntary Tree Planting Program would not be added to the proposed process since it was
determined to be costly for applicants and difficult to administer.
Staff believes that the proposed revised two-tier system is significantly more user friendly and
expedient than the current Ordinance, which satisfies the Council’s key objectives.
Tree Replacement Cost
According to the City’s consulting arborist the cost of planting a replacement tree (material +
labor) can vary between types of tree, contractor’s installation efficiency, fluctuation in the cost
of materials, site limitations/access. The following table outlines the average tree replacement
costs based on tree size:
London Plane
107
Tree Size Cost
15 Gallon $350
24 Inch Box $750
36 Inch Box $1650
48 Inch Box $4,000
Pictures of replacement trees at various planting sizes are provided below.
Retroactive Tree Removal Fees
The Council had requested examples of retroactive tree removal fees, as it applies to the
property owner, if the fee schedule for removal of street trees was to be followed for protected
trees on private property. Taking the example of Valley Oak tree of varying sizes and health,
the tree fee table provided below shows retroactive tree removal fees if the schedule for street
trees was followed. The “first time offender” public street trees fee should not be used to
compare to the private tree retroactive fee cost because it is only intended to apply to cases
where property owners accidentally removed or over pruned a tree that they thought was on
their property but really belongs to the City. The table shows that on average, the assessment
would be higher than the current retroactive tree removal fee for protected trees on private
property.
It should be noted that most retroactive tree removal processes are initiated after removal of the
tree and that while the size and tree type can usually be gauged based on the remaining tree
stump, it would be difficult to accurately assess the health of the tree. Also, basing the fees on
the health of the tree would require the services of an arborist to even assess the fee for such
permits. Additionally, the City’s environmental consultant recommends replacing trees in the
location of the tree removals or on the same site instead of taking in money as an alternative for
replacements and/or deferring such replacements.
15-gallon Black Oak 24” box London Plane 36” box Black Oak 48” box Black Oak
108
Retroactive Tree Removal Recommendation: Given the reasons described above, staff
recommends keeping the current Retroactive Tree Removal permit fees.
Street Tree Penalty/Replacement Formula Current Retroactive Private Tree Cost Analysis
Tree Size
(Diameter)
Based
Tree
Value
($)
Species
Rating
(%)
Health
Rating
(%)
Total
Fee*
($)
“First Time
Offender”
Fee* (10% or
$600,
whichever is
more)
Current
Retroactive
Tree Removal
Application
Fees ($)
Rough
Replacement
Tree Cost ($)
Total Cost ($)
12” (poor health) $5,147 1.0 .5 $2,574 $600
$3,128
(1) 24” Box
$750
$3,878 12” (fair health) $5,147 1.0 .75 $3,860 $600
12” (good health) $5,147 1.0 1.0 $5,147 $600
24” (poor health) $21,225 1.0 .5 $10,613 $1,061
$3,128
(2) 24” Box
$1,500
$4,628 24” (fair health) $21,225 1.0 .75 $15,919 $1,592
24” (good health) $21,225 1.0 1.0 $21,225 $2,1223
36” (poor health) $48,653 1.0 .5 $24,327 $2,433
$3,128
(2) 24” Box or
(1) 36” Box
$1,500
$4,628
36” (fair health) $48,653 1.0 .75 $36,490 $3,649
36”(good health) $48,653 1.0 1.0 $48,653 $4,865
48” (poor health) $60,318 1.0 .5 $30,159 $3,016
$3,128
(1) 36” Box
$1,650
$4,778 48” (fair health) $60,318 1.0 .75 $45,239 $4,524
48” (good health) $60,318 1.0 1.0 $60,318 $6,032
*No additional costs, such as stump removal, trimming or replanting will apply.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
The City’s environmental consultant has confirmed that the revised two-tier system could be
accomplished within the process and threshold of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Once the
Council provides final direction on the ordinance scope, staff will consult with the
environmental consultant to complete the necessary environmental document and analysis.
BUDGET AND FISCAL IMPACT
The City Council authorized a budget of $65,000 to study the environmental effects of the
potential amendments to the Protected Trees Ordinance in March 2013. In addition, City
Council also authorized a budget for staff to work closely with consulting arborist, David L.
Babby, to obtain advice and guidance on technical questions related to trees. However, with the
revised two-tier system recommended, an additional $7,500 would be required.
109
PERMIT STREAMLINING ACT
This project is legislative in nature and not subject to the Permit Streamlining Act (Government
Code Section 65920 – 65964).
PUBLIC NOTICING & OUTREACH
The municipal code does not require public noticing for study sessions, since it does not involve
action or decision by the City Council. However, a courtesy citywide notice was sent informing
residents of the previous Community Workshops, the Planning Commission, and the City
Council meetings. The courtesy notice also included reference to a project website with the
most up to date information directing those that are interested to follow up on any additional
meetings. The following is a brief summary of the noticing completed for the project:
NEXT STEPS
Upon further direction from City Council, staff will work with the consultants to complete
proposed ordinance and environmental review. Given the current workload and staffing, it is
anticipated that a draft ordinance and Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared for
Planning Commission and City Council review around Fall/Winter 2014.
Prepared by: Gary Chao, Assistant Director of Community Development
Reviewed by: Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager
Approved by: David Brandt, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
1 – April 15, 2014 CC Staff Report
2 – April 15, 2014 CC Minutes/Action Summary
3 – PW Tree Replacement Cost Schedule
Notice of Public Hearing, Site Notice & Legal
Ad
Agenda
Legal ad placed in newspaper
(at least 10 days prior to the hearing)
Courtesy citywide notice, with information
on Community Meeting, Planning
Commission and City Council Meeting date
(postcard included reference to website for latest
updates on changed meeting dates)
Community meeting held on October 30, 2013
Interested parties notified of meeting date
Posted on the City's official notice
bulletin board (at least one week prior to
the hearing)
Posted on the City of Cupertino’s Web
site (at least one week prior to the hearing)
110
Initial Study
Protected Trees Ordinance Update
Prepared by:In Consultation with:
October 2014
(File No. MCA-2013-01)
111
112
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE .......................................................................... 1
SECTION 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ....................................................................................... 2
2.1 PROJECT TITLE ................................................................................................................. 2
2.2 PROJECT LOCATION ........................................................................................................ 2
2.3 LEAD AGENCY CONTACT .............................................................................................. 2
2.4 PROJECT-RELATED APPROVALS, AGREEMENTS AND PERMITS ......................... 2
SECTION 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................... 5
3.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND ................................................................................................. 5
3.2 PROJECT COMPONENTS .................................................................................................. 7
SECTION 4.0 SETTING, ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND IMPACTS ........................... 12
4.1 AESTHETICS ..................................................................................................................... 21
4.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES ............................................................. 28
4.3 AIR QUALITY .................................................................................................................... 30
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................. 34
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................ 43
4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS .................................................................................................... 45
4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS .................................................................................... 47
4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ............................................................... 53
4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ........................................................................ 56
4.10 LAND USE .......................................................................................................................... 60
4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................... 63
4.12 NOISE ................................................................................................................................. 64
4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING........................................................................................ 66
4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES ........................................................................................................... 67
4.15 RECREATION .................................................................................................................... 69
4.16 TRANSPORTATION.......................................................................................................... 70
4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ............................................................................ 72
4.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ............................................................. 74
SECTION 5.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 77
SECTION 6.0 AUTHORS AND CONSULTANTS ........................................................................ 79
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino i October 2014 113
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FIGURES
Figure 1: Regional Map ...................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 2: Types of Protected Trees ..................................................................................................... 6
Figure 3: Cupertino Zoning Map ...................................................................................................... 15
TABLES
Table 1: Proposed Definitions and Regulations for Specimen Trees ................................................ 8
Table 2: Specimen Tree Tiers.......................................................................................................... 10
Table 3: Proposed Tree Replacement Guidelines Compared to Existing Ordinance ...................... 11
Table 4: Summary of Protected Tree Removal Permits 2008-2014 ................................................ 18
PHOTOGRAPHS
Photo 1: View of native Coast Live Oaks in front yard in R1 Single Family District. ................... 22
Photo 2: View of cedars in front yard in R1 Single Family District. .............................................. 22
Photo 3: View of native Valley Oak in front yard of R1 Single Family District. ........................... 23
Photo 4: View of native Coast Live Oak in front yard of R1 Single Family District...................... 23
Photo 5: View of R1 Single-Family street with RHS Residential Hillside in background. ............ 24
Photo 6: View of landscape trees in Planned Development District from public right of way. ...... 24
Photo 7: Black Oak .......................................................................................................................... 35
Photo 8: Valley Oak ........................................................................................................................ 35
APPENDICES
Appendix A Draft Ordinance Amendments will be available on November 13, 2014.
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino ii October 2014 114
SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
This Initial Study of environmental impacts is being prepared to conform to the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of
Regulations Section 15000 et. seq.) and the regulations and policies of the City of Cupertino.
This Initial Study evaluates the potential environmental impacts that might reasonably be anticipated
to result from implementation of revisions to the City’s Protected Trees Ordinance.
The City of Cupertino’s Tree Protection Ordinance (Chapter 14.18 in the Cupertino Municipal Code)
contains regulations for the removal of protected trees on private and public land. The overall intent
of the modified ordinance is to maintain the City’s native tree canopy and provide balance between
individual property rights and tree retention within the City. Public trees (i.e., street trees and trees in
public parks as defined in Section 14.12.020 of the Municipal Code) are not covered by the proposed
modifications to Chapter 14.18 of the City’s Municipal Code except Heritage Trees on public
property.
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 1 October 2014 115
116
SECTION 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 PROJECT TITLE
Protected Trees Ordinance Update
2.2 PROJECT LOCATION
The ordinance would apply to private and public property within the City of Cupertino (refer to
Figure 1).
2.3 LEAD AGENCY CONTACT
Tiffany Brown
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3202
(408) 777-1356
TiffanyB@cupertino.org
2.4 PROJECT-RELATED APPROVALS, AGREEMENTS AND PERMITS
• Municipal Code Amendment (MCA-2013-01)
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 2 October 2014 117
118
REGIONAL MAP FIGURE 1
3
Santa ClaraMountain
View
San Jose
Campbell
Saratoga
Los Gatos
Palo Alto
East
Palo Alto
Los Altos
Redwood City Newark
Fremont
Mountain
View Santa Clara
San Jose
Campbell
Saratoga
Los Gatos
Palo Alto
East
Palo Alto
Los Altos
Redwood City Newark
Fremont
101
280
880
880
680
680
85
17
9
3584
84
237
236
87
San Francisco Bay
Pacific Ocean
CupertinoCupertino
0510
Miles
119
120
SECTION 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND
The City of Cupertino’s Protected Trees Ordinance (Chapter 14.18
in the Cupertino Municipal Code) contains regulations controlling
the care, removal, and replacements of protected trees within the
City.
The City of Cupertino currently requires issuance of tree removal
permits for four types of protected trees from private properties with
the City. Issuance of tree removal permits is based on submittal of
an arborists report and review by City Community Development
staff. Protected trees currently include:
1. Identified Heritage trees;
2. “Specimen” trees of native and landscape tree species with a trunk diameter of 10 inches
DBH (diameter at breast height) or more;
3. Trees required to be planted or retained as part of an approved development application
or specific permits; and
4. Approved privacy protection plantings in Single-Family (R-1), Agricultural Residential
(A1), Agricultural (A), Residential Hillside (RHS), and Residential Duplex (R2) zoning
districts.
Specimen tree species covered by the ordinance include native oaks (such as Coast Live Oak, Valley
Oak, and Blue Oak), California Buckeye, Big Leaf Maple, California Bay, Western Sycamore,
Deodar Cedar, and Blue Atlas Cedar.
The City of Cupertino is considering revisions to the City’s Protected Trees Ordinance that would
modify the permitting process and tree replacement in residential and agricultural zones
(R1/A1/A/RHS/R2 Zones). Changes are anticipated to include: 1) adding definitions of “mature”
and “non-mature” Specimen trees and exempting trees less than 12 inches DBH from the permitting
process; 2) streamlining the process for the removal and replacement of Specimen trees between 12
inches DBH (38 inch circumference) and 24 inches DBH(75 inch circumference) for single trunk
trees and 24 inches DBH (75 inch circumference) and 48 inch DBH (151” circumference) for multi-
trunk trees (i.e., no arborist report and noticing would be required); and 3) removal of California Bay
(Umbellularia californica) from the list of protected specimen tree species and replacement with
London plane. Modification to the in-lieu fee, when on site planting may not be preferred by the
applicant is also proposed to encourage planting of replacement trees on site.
The Protected Trees Ordinance (Chapter 14.18) covers trees on private land that are not within a
street right-of-way or City parks and Heritage Trees. “Public” street tree and park tree pruning and
Public street tree and park tree
pruning and removal is
regulated in Chapter 14.12 of
the City’s Municipal Code.
Street trees will not be
regulated by the proposed
modifications to the Protected
Trees Ordinance.
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 5 October 2014 121
removal is regulated separately in Chapter 14.12 of the City’s Municipal Code. The types or classes
of “Protected Trees” are shown in Figure 2.
As indicated in Figure 2, the proposed changes to the Protected Trees Ordinance are within the
Specimen tree category of protected trees. A two-tier system for the removal of mature Specimen
trees (12 inches in diameter or greater) is proposed. The removal of “mature” trees over 24 inches in
diameter) would continue to require the preparation of an arborists report and noticing, prior to
issuance of a tree removal permit and tree replacement. The removal of mature trees 12 to 24 inches
in diameter would require a permit and replanting, but no arborists report or noticing. The permitting
process for the other protected trees (e.g., Heritage trees, trees in planned developments, and privacy
protection plantings) would not be changed.
Types of
PROTECTED TREES
Heritage Trees
Public Property & All Zoning
Districts
Specimen Trees
R1/R2/A/A1 and RHS
Non-Mature Trees
(Less than 12 inches DBH)
Mature Trees
(greater than 12 inches DBH)
Approved Development
Trees All Zoning Districts
Privacy Trees
(R1 Zone)
Red text indicates proposed
revisions to the Protected
Trees Ordinance.
Figure 2: Types of Protected Trees
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 6 October 2014 122
3.2 PROJECT COMPONENTS
As noted above, proposed revisions to the City’s Protected Trees Ordinance would focus on the
definitions in the Specimen tree class of protected trees and modifications to the permitting process,
based in part on tree size. A copy of the draft ordinance is provided in Appendix A.
3.2.1 Proposed Modifications to Specimen Tree Definitions
Proposed modifications to the definitions in the ordinance related to Specimen trees are summarized
in Table 1 and described below.
3.2.1.1 Covered Specimen Tree Species
The definition of Specimen trees would continue to include native oaks and several other trees native
to the City of Cupertino plus two non-native cedar species, Blue Atlas Cedar (Cedrus atlantica
‘Glauca’) and Deodar Cedar (Cedrus deodara), which are adaptive to the Bay Area climate and
fairly prevalent in Cupertino. California Bay, a locally native species, is proposed to be removed
from the list of protected specimen tree species and replaced with London Plane (non-native tree).
London Plane is recommended since the City’s consulting arborist has concluded that this tree would
be a preferred alternative because: (1) it looks virtually identical to Western Sycamore; (2) it is
resistant to the Anthracnose fungus disease, whereas the Western Sycamore is highly susceptible;
and (3) London Plane is commonly sold in the nursery trade.
Species specifically listed in the ordinance will include:
• Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia)
• Valley Oak (Quercus lobata)
• Black Oak (Quercus kelloggii)
• Blue Oak (Quercus douglassii)
• Interior Live Oak (Quercus wislizeni)
• California Buckeye (Aesculus californica)
• Big Leaf Maple (Acer macrophyllum)
• Western Sycamore (Platanus racemosa)
• Blue Atlas Cedar (Cedrus atlantica ‘Glauca’)
• Deodar Cedar (Cedrus deodara)
• London Plane (Platanus acerifolia)
3.2.1.2 Definitions of DBH and Mature Specimen Trees
For the purposes of the ordinance, tree diameters are measured at a standard distance above natural
grade. This measurement, which is referred to throughout this document as diameter at breast height,
or DBH, is the diameter of a single tree trunk measured at four and one-half feet (54 inches) from
natural grade. For trees with multiple tree trunks, the diameter is inclusive of all trunks/stems (e.g.,
the diameters of all trunks at four and one-half feet above natural grade are added together).
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 7 October 2014 123
The definition of a Mature Specimen tree is included in the proposed ordinance amendments. A
mature Specimen tree is a Specimen tree with a minimum single-trunk DBH of 12-inches or a multi-
trunk DBH (additive) of 24-inches or greater (refer to Table 1). A non-mature Specimen tree means
any Specimen species tree that has not reached the minimum size of a mature Specimen tree (e.g.,
has not reached 12 inches DBH for a single trunk tree or 24 inches DBH for a multi-trunk tree).
Table 1: Proposed Definitions and Regulations for Specimen Trees
Compared to Existing Ordinance
Definitions for
Protected Specimen Trees
Under Existing Ordinance Under Proposed Ordinance
Zoning Districts Covered Private Property All Zoning
Districts
Private Property All Zoning
Districts
Tree Sizes Regulated Single trunk: 10 inches diameter
at 54 inches above grade
(diameter at breast height,
abbreviated as DBH)
Multi-trunk: 20 inches DBH
Tier 1
Single trunk: 12 - 24 inches DBH
Multi-trunk: 24 - 48 inches DBH
Permit Required for Removal.
No arborist report or noticing.
Replacements/in-lieu fee
required.
Tier 2
Single trunk: Greater than 24
inches DBH
Multi-trunk: Greater than 48
inches DBH
Permit Required for Removal.
Arborist report, noticing and
replacements/in-lieu fee
required.
Tree Sizes Not Regulated A Specimen tree less than 10
inches DBH (single trunk) or less
than 20 inches (multi-trunk)
No Permit Required for Removal
A Specimen tree less than 12
inches DBH (single trunk) or less
than 24 inches (multi-trunk)
No Permit Required for Removal
Species
Native Oaks
X
X
California Buckeye X X
Big Leaf Maple X X
California Bay X
Western Sycamore X X
Deodar Cedar X X
Blue Atlas Cedar X X
London Plane X
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 8 October 2014 124
3.2.1.3 Additional Criteria for Tree Management Plans
The existing tree protection ordinance includes provisions for approval of a tree management plan
that includes criterial for the removal of certain trees in the future by anticipating the eventual growth
on the property and possible removal to prevent overcrowding of trees. Additional specific criteria
for establishing a tree management plan to be used for the phased removal of trees is proposed. This
criteria includes information on site maintenance, operations, and functions, accessibility
improvements, natural tree lifespan, and aesthetic improvements, as determined appropriate by the
Director of Community Development.
3.2.2 Implementation
3.2.2.1 Permits
A tree removal permit is required for the removal of all protected trees. This includes the removal of
Heritage trees, development approved trees, privacy trees, and removal of mature Specimen trees.
For Specimen trees, two changes are proposed. The first change would be to increase the size at
which a Specimen tree is considered mature from 10” to 12” DBH and the second change would
allow two tiers of permit requirements, based upon tree size. Permit and noticing requirements for
Specimen Trees are summarized in Table 2.
The permit process for removal of Tier 1 Specimen trees would be subject to the review and approval
by the Director of Community Development. The permit could be issued without an arborist report
and notification to neighbors provided that adequate tree replacements are planted or an in-lieu fee is
paid. Tree removal permits for Tier 2 Specimen trees would remain discretionary and require
preparation of an arborist report and notification. Tier 2 tree removal applications may be approved,
conditionally approved or denied by decision makers.
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 9 October 2014 125
Table 2: Specimen Tree Tiers
Tier 1
12-24 inches DBH Single Trunk
(24-48 inches DBH for Multiple
Trunks)
Tier 2
>24 inches DBH Single Trunk (>
48 inches DBH for Multiple
Trunks)
Tree removal permit required Tree removal permit required
Replacement tree planting or in-
lieu fee required
Replacement tree planting or in-
lieu fee required
No arborist report required Arborist report required
No noticing of neighboring
properties required
No recordation on the property
Noticing of neighboring
properties required*
No recordation on the property
Cap for maximum tree removal:
− Two (2) or 2 percent,
whichever is more within a 12-
month period*
*Cupertino Municipal Code (Section
19.12.030)
*Applications for removal of more
than two trees would be same process
as Tier 2.
Zoning Districts Covered by
Maximum Specimen Tree Removal Cap
The proposed amendments include a cap for removal of single-trunk Specimen trees between 12
inches and 24 inches DBH (Multi-trunk: 24 - 48 inches DBH) within a twelve month period year
under the permit process (e.g., for Tier 1 trees). The number of Tier 1 Specimen trees that could be
removed from a parcel under a permit is proposed to be limited to no more than two or two percent
of the trees on property, whichever is greater, within a twelve month period (refer to Table 3 above).
This applies to private property zoned R1 (Single Family Residential), R2 (Residential Duplex), RHS
(Residential Hillside), A1 (Agricultural Residential) and A (Agricultural).
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 10 October 2014 126
3.2.2.2 Exemptions for Hazardous or Dead Trees
Under the current ordinance, removal of a hazardous or dangerous tree (e.g., a tree about to topple
onto a dwelling due to heavy wind velocities, a tree deemed unsafe, or a tree having the immediate
potential to damage existing or proposed essential structures) is allowed upon order of the Director of
Community Development, or any member of the sheriff or fire departments. Dead trees that are
objectively verifiable (in the opinion of the Director of Community Development) may also be
removed prior to application for a permit and do not require community noticing. The amendment to
this section includes a tree removal permit application (with no fees or noticing required) must be
filed for these removals within five working days. Tree replacements may be required in conjunction
of approval of a tree removal permit.
3.2.2.3 Revisions to Tree Replacement Guidelines
Tree replacement guidelines under the proposed ordinance revisions would be modified to reflect the
revised definition of tree size for mature specimen trees and the two tiers of mature Specimen trees
(Tier 1: 12-24 inches DBH and Tier 2: Over 24 inches DBH). Options for use of 36-inch box trees
and an increase in the recommended replacement plantings for trees over 24 inches DBH are also
proposed. Proposed changes are listed in Table 3.
In the event replacement trees cannot reasonably be planted on a property (as described in an arborist
report prepared by an International Society of Arborists (ISA) Certified Arborist), a standard in-lieu
fee (covering the cost of replacement tree and labor) may be paid. If the planting of replacement
trees is feasible but not preferred by the applicant/property owner, then an increase in-lieu fee shall
be paid.
Replacements for retroactive tree removals shall refer to the ISA Guide for Plant Appraisal and
consider the quality factors listed above.
Table 3: Proposed Tree Replacement Guidelines
Compared to Existing Ordinance
Tree Size
Replacement Tree Guidelines
Existing Ordinance Proposed Ordinance
Protected Trees1 Protected Trees
12 inches up to 24
inches DBH
Two 24-inch box trees Two 24-inch box trees, or one 36-
inch box tree
Over 18 inches to 24
inches DBH
Two 24-inch box trees or one 36-
inch box tree
No change
Over 24 inches Two 24-inch box trees or one 36-
inch box tree
Three 24-inch box trees or one 36-
inch box tree
Over 36 inches DBH One 36-inch box tree Four 24-inch box trees or two 36-
inch box trees
Heritage Tree One 48 inch box tree No change
Notes: Changes underlined
1Protected Specimen trees under the existing ordinance include specific species of trees 10-inches in diameter and
above. Under the proposed ordinance revisions, protected specimen trees would be 12-inches in diameter and
above.
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 11 October 2014 127
128
SECTION 4.0 SETTING, ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND
IMPACTS
This section describes the existing environmental conditions on and near the project area, as well as
environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. The environmental checklist, as
recommended in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, identifies
environmental impacts that could occur if the proposed project is implemented.
The right-hand column in the checklist lists the source(s) for the answer to each question. The
sources cited are identified at the end of this section.
METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH
FOR IMPACT ANALYSIS
Most CEQA documents are prepared for development or planning projects, a condition in which a
project proponent or agency is proposing to build something that does not currently exist. For
example, on a vacant project site a new proposed project would create a land use (such as an
apartment or office building) and physical set of improvements that did not exist before. If the site is
already developed, then the new project would replace one set of land uses and physical
improvements with a new and different set. In both cases, the physical impact to the environment,
including impacts to urban forest resources, is clear and distinct when compared to the existing
environment.
The proposed project is the adoption and implementation of amendments to a tree protection
ordinance. The project would modify, but not eliminate, regulations for the removal and replacement
of native and non-native trees within the City of Cupertino.
All CEQA analyses require some degree of forecasting and assumptions, and that is true of the
analysis in this Initial Study. The project is the adoption and implementation of amendments to an
ordinance and the following discussion of environmental impacts forecasts how those changes might
affect the physical environment. CEQA does not require that the environmental analysis engage in
speculation, but that a good faith effect be made to identify and disclose the likely, direct, and
reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical changes to the existing environment resulting from the
project being approved.
Baseline Conditions in
Residential Zoning Districts
Residential uses in Cupertino include a range of
development intensities and associated tree plantings in
the City’s urban forest. The majority of the city is
composed of R1, or Single Family Residential
development. Single family residential zones are
characterized by residential buildings surrounded by a
mosaic of shade trees, lawns, shrubs and planted
gardens. Although lot sizes vary within the R1 zoning districts (e.g., R1-7.5, R1-6), building
Residential zones include:
R1 Single Family Residential
R1C Single Family Residential Cluster
R2 Residential Duplex
R3 Multiple Family Residential
RHS Residential Hillside
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 13 October 2014 129
coverage is limited to a maximum of 45 percent, which allows for landscaping and private open
space for trees in a portion of the remaining space. In addition, under the Landscaping Ordinance,
Chapter 14.15, landscaping plans are required for all new homes. The purpose of the landscaping is
to conserve water usage in landscaping. However, the Single Family (R1) Ordinance requires
landscaping to beautify the property and to achieve partial screening of building forms from the street
and adjacent properties (especially two story structures). Generally, the landscaping may include
shrubbery, hedges, trees, or lattice with vines on fences.
In the “Heart of the City” area along Stevens Creek Boulevard, residential uses are often in a mixed
use setting, where open space and landscaping are limited. Most zoning districts in the Heart of the
City are planned development zones. Other residential development at urban intensities (R2
Residential Duplex and R3 Multiple Family Residential) are found on both sides of Interstate 280,
along Foothill Boulevard, and at the eastern edge of the city (see Figure 3, Zoning Map). There are a
few properties in the City zoned Agricultural (A) and Agricultural- Residential (A1), where
residential uses are allowed in addition to agricultural uses.
In the western and southwestern portions of the city in or adjacent to the foothills, mature vegetation
may include proportionately greater numbers of native tree species, especially in RHS, Hillside
Residential, zones where the size of the lots are larger and the grading/development activity is
limited to smaller areas of the site. Residential lots in RHS zones may include relatively undisturbed
stands of oaks and other native trees.
The City is responsible for the planting, management and care of public trees along street right-of-
ways and in City parks. Under Chapter 14.12 of the City’s Municipal Code, payment of fees for
street tree planting or planting of street trees may be required for new construction where street trees
do not exist. The proposed ordinance would not affect the planting, maintenance or removal of street
trees within the City’s right-of-way or public parks.
Mature versus Non-Mature Specimen Trees
As part of the development of the proposed modifications to the City’s tree ordinance, the City’s
consulting arborist provided information on the size and structure of established trees. When a tree
grows to about eight (8) to ten (10) inches in diameter, it transforms from a shrub-like to a tree-like
form of an elongated trunk supporting a canopy of leaves or branches. The understory, which is the
lower branch area, begins to die off and the plant begins to resemble a tree with the top canopy
starting to mature. Each tree and tree species has a different growing pattern; though an average of
10-12 inches may be established as a typical size for a mature tree.1
1 City of Cupertino. 2014. City Council Staff Report, Meeting: April 1, 2014 (Subject; Study Session for
amendments to Protected Tree Ordinance (MCA-2013-01).
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 14 October 2014
130
Z
O
N
I
N
G
M
A
P
FIGURE 3 15!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
S TAT
E
R
O
U
T
E
8
5
STA TE RO UTE 85
INTERSTATE 280
IN
TE
R
S
T
A
T
E
2
80
FO R D
GA
R
D
ENS
I
DE
CI
R
GAR
D
E
NS
I
D
E
PALOS
BERLEY LN
CR
HATCH CIR
BOLLINGER RD
BO
LL
IN
G
ER
R
D
M
INST
E
R
C
T
ADDINGTONCT
MT CREST RD
CT
MARI
A
VIL
L
A
CRE
P(
R
e
s
)
WA
L
L
I
N
C
T
BERRY CT
BYERLY
WY OAK ENGLISH
WY
OA
K
MA
J
E
S
T
I
C
WY OAK CALIFORNIA
AMISTADCT
ST
E
V
E
N
S
C
R
E
E
K
B
L
V
D
SOUTH DE ANZA BLVD
GREENLEAF CT
UP
L
A
N
D
C
T
C
A
M
LAMPLIGHTER SQ
PO
P
L
A
R
G
R
O
V
E
S
Q
POTTERS
RIDGEWA
Y DR
S
U
R
R
E
Y
MOSSY OAK CT
DOVE OAK CT
CI
R
LAWRENCE EXPWY
FL
OWE
R
C
T
WIL
D
F
L
O
W
E
R
WILDFLOWER CT
SO U THS H OR E CT
CT CT
NORTH TANTAU AVE
NORMANDY CT
SPRING
SPRING CT
SP
R
IN
G
PKW Y
SPRIN GSWESTSHORE
CT
PINE
B
R
O
O
K
LN
PINEBROO
K CT
SE VE N
TRIN ITY S PR ING C
T
SI
E
R
RA
WO ODH
I
LL CT
SHASTA
PLACER
OLIVEWOOD DE PALMA LN LA ONDAS CT
BRITTANY CT
SOMERSET CT SHADYGROVEPHIL PL HOWARD
LN
A S H B OU R N EBRIDGE CTBARRINGTON
GARDEN TERRACE
CTPLA
CE
ORANGEWOOD STROSEWOOD RD MAPLEWOOD RD PHIL CT
GA
R
D
E
N
C
R
E
S
T
D
R
CT
GA
RDEN
GA
R
D
E
N M
ANO
R
C
T
CYPRESS BLACKWOOD DR
GARDENSIDE
PL
ANT
HON
Y
WES
T
CT
BERKSHIRE
CT
HILLCRERST
LU
NA
R
C
T
PL
OBSIDIAN
CL
A
SS
IC
C
T
ME
Y
ER
H
O
LZ CT
GRAPNEL PL
AMULET PL
PEBBLE PL
MONTEREY CT
VERDES CT
REDONDO CT
LA
P
L
AY
A
C
T
CON
R
ADIA C
T
OROGRA
NDE
CT
O
A
S
I
S
C
T
RANCHOPL
ALMADEN
LN
SWAN OAK LN
LIBERTY OAK
WEEPING OAK CT
AMADOR OAK CT
RO
Y
A
L
O
A
K
W
Y
LA
Z
Y
O
A
K
C
T
SPANISH OAK CT
QU
EEN
S
O
A
K
CTLONG OAK LN
VIA
N DE ANZA BLVD
APRICOT CT
I
N
T
E
R
S
T
A
T
E
2
8
0
SEVILLECORTE DE CORTE DE MADRID
SHARONMANORCT
W YTONCTDRAKE
CH
A
N
T
E
L
C
T
RDPERIMETER PERIMETERRD RD PERIMETERPERIMETERRD CTCOTTONWOOD CANDLEWOOD
WY
SQUARE
FORDE NORTH
SQUARE
CO
L
UM
B
U
S
AV
E
AN
N
C
T
GR
E
E
N
D
R
AC
C
E
S
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
GR
E
EN
D
R
AC
C
E
S
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
CT
WY
FORGE
LA
C
O
N
N
E
R
D
R
SQUARE
WY HEIGHTS
SCENIC
HO
RA NC
CIR
VI
L
LA
PA
R
K
VILLACIR
CIR
VI
L
LA
DR
D
G
E
B
R
I
ST
ON
E
WINSTON WY
AVE
DR
DR
DRRAINTREE DR RAINTREE CT BENTOAKLNDR WUNDERLICHBIGOAK CTDRBIGOAKDRGREENOAKDRWHITEOAKDR OAKTREEDRHUNTINGTONSTKIMBERLYWYPROUTYAVEJOHNSONCTHARLANOLMO CT NARCISO CT DRCASTANO AMAPOLA DRTOMPKINSDRHARLANAVEHYDEAVEHYDEMURIEL LN CT JOHANSEN MINETTTETILSONLOREEARATAWYAVEAVEAVE DR DANBURYDRCORVETTELN ALDERBROOKDRDRLANCER
CLA
RE
N
D
O
N
CTCHARLENE BLANEYAVEWYMASONWY
W RIVER
S
I
DE
ST
ST
LN
WINDSOR
AVONDALE
JAQUELINE
CYNTHIA
AV
E
PE
R
M
A
N
E
N
T
E
STO
NE
PL
RE Y
C RI STO
LN
FRIARS
CT
WY
K
R
I
N
G
R EY
CR
I
S
T
O
PL
CE
D
A
R
MO
L
TZ
E
N
D
R
PL
KINGS
B
UR
Y
WY CANDLELIGHT
CRESTLINE DR
PL
HO
L
L
A
N
D
E
R
R
Y
CT
LOC
KFOR
D
TUSCANY PL
CT
HILL S L N
COLONY
LN
CHASE
STEE
P
L
E
FL
IN
TS
H
I
RE
S
T
CO
L
UM
B
U
S
LA PALOMA DR
LINDA
BEL AIRE CT
WILKINSON TE
RR
A
C
E
D
R
PALOS
CLARKSTON
DE ANZA
DREA RD
N SCIR
AN
ZA
DE
MT
S
T
PL
REGNA
R
T
C
T
L
I
N
D
Y
LI
ND
Y
P
L
DR
R
E
G
N
A
R
T
DRCRAIGAVEMILLERDREDSELWYIMPERIALWYDE VILLEWYCAPRILNBELVEDEREAVEBLANEYS
ST
MELV
IN
ARLINGTON
ST WINDSOR
ST AVONDALE
LN
AV
E
PH
Y
L
LIS
WEYBURN
DR
LN
CHIALA
DR
GO
LDE
N
GA
TE
VIA
V
I
CO
HI
L
L
NEWSOMAVECARVERDRHUNTERCTCULBERSTONTANTAUAVEMORENGOTUGGLE PL JOHNSON
SQUARE
SQUARESQUARESQUARE
SQUARE
WY
ASP
EN
WY
SE
Q
U
O
I
A
SEQ
UOIA
T
AV
E
PASADENA
IMPERIAL
AV
E
AVE
AVE
GA
RD
E
NVI
E
W
LN
MO
NT
E CT
CO
RT
E
M
AD
ER
A
L
N
MAN N
CT
WO
O
DBU
RY
D
R
OA
K
D
E
L
L
P
L
NO
LL
OAK
CRE
E
KS
I
DE
ME
A
D
O
W
SI
L
V
E
R
O
A
K
C
T
CT
MELISSA CT
DEGASCT
EL PRADOWY
A LI CIA C
T
SAN FELIPE RD
LO
NG
D
O
WN
LOCKWOOD DR
SA LEM
AV
E
BIXBY DRMELLO
BL
UE
LN
BA
R
K
DR
COR
O
N
AD
O
DR
GA
L
L
I
GA
L
L
I
C
T
DR
RA
I
N
B
OW
RD
WE
S
T
M
O
O
R
W
Y
CR
ZA
S
C ALABA
C
T
WY LONGFELLOW
WY BUCKTHORNE
WY KINTYRE WY
WIN
D
S
O
R
BLANEY
E DDIN
G
TO N PL
DA
RT
M
O
O
R
McGREGOR WYWY
DE
VON
LOCH LOMOND
PR
OSP
E
C
T
CT TRIUMPH
DR
SH
A
R
ON
DU
C
K
E
TT
T
W
Y
DR
BROOKVALE
DR
CT
OR
C
H
AR
D
CT
SE
V
E
N
C
T
CANY ON
C
A
N
Y
O
N
RD
PA
L
O
M
A
RD
BA
L
BO
A
EL
R
D
CE
R
R
IT
O
RD
JUAN
SA
N
RD
LA
PO
R
T
O
RD
JACINTO
S
A
N
F E RNANDO
DR
RD
NORANDA DR
CT
LARRY
LU
C
IL
LE
D
R
CTWICKPREST PLSHETLANDCTKILLDEERLINNETLARKPLSELKIRKLNPLKINGLETPARNELL PL FINCHAVESALLELAMAGELLAN AVEAVESOTODECODY CTRANDOLPH AVECTFULTONAVE HILLSDALEDRMONTCLAIRWYDANIELDRHERRAN LADRLOWELLCTGRINNELLDRDAWSONDRMACKENZIEDRBALDWIN DRHANCOCKDRHOWARDDRSULLIVANCTHILLSDALEDRHUDSONAVECARLYSLEAVEMEADOWDRGIANNINIAVEHUBBARDDRSHASTALNMELODY
CT
LO
M
O
N
D
LO
C
H
WY
CARMONACT
LO
M
I
T
A
A
V
E
VIST
A
DR
LA
P
ALO
MA
D
R
TO
M
K
I
C
T
RI
V
E
RC
R
E
ST CT
CL
O
VE
RL
Y
CT
KI
N
S
T
EA
T
O
N
PL
D
R
SP
RI
N
SEVEN
SPRING CT
SPRING CT
SPRING CT
SUNRISE
FIRWOOD DR
VO
SS
DR
CRIC
K
E
T
RD
HI LL
BR
ID
GE
DR
JUAN
LOCKWOOD MED
INA
LO
C
K
S
U
N
A
R
T
BLVD DE ANZA
CHARLO QUEEN
BELLEVILLE
LEAF FALLEN
EL
MA
R
S
H
A
L
L
C
T
ST
E
V
E
N
S
P
L
SERENO AVE
EXPWY LAWRENCEDRSWALLOWQUAIL AVE AVE PEACOCKWYLORNEWYLORNENIGHTINGALE AVE MEADOWLARK LN RD WOLFEDRLONDONDERRYHERON AVE HERON AVEDRLONDONDERRYLAMBETH CT WYLANGPORT DR
CANARY DR
BLUE JAY DR
KO
D
I
A
K
C
T
RD
HO
M
E
S
T
E
A
D
LA
G
R
A
N
D
E
D
R
ONTARIO DR
HOLLENBECK AVE
NEW BRUNSWICK AVE
CT
LO
W
E
L
L
DR
LO
U
I
S
E
ST SAMEDRA
AVE HOLLENBECK
AVE MARY S.
KA MS ACK
C T
DR
KA
M
S
A
C
K
RD
HO
M
E
S
T
E
A
D
RD
HO
M
E
S
T
E
A
D
AV
E
S
A
L
L
E
LA
MA
C
K
E
N
Z
I
E
D
R
DR
KARAMEOS
DR
OL
Y
M
P
U
S
C
T
WY LAURENTIAN
A
V
E
TE
LL
O
POC
A
KIMBERLY
LAMONT CT
KARAMEOS CT
AVE WRIGHT
CT CHETAMON
AV
E
PE
N
D
L
E
T
O
N
CT CHITAMOOK
BANFF DR
CALGARY DR
AV
E
PE
Y
E
T
T
E
DR
WAL
LA CE
MAXINE
SYC
DR
HO
N
EYS
UC
K
LE
C
T
DE
O
D
A
R
A
DR
DR
L
N
WISTA RIA
C
T
WI
S
T
A
R
I
A
RE
D
W
O
O
D
VIN
E
Y
A
RD
VI NE YA RD CT
CT
SYC
A
M
O
R
E
D
R
DE OD AR A
EXP WY
VIA ESCALERA
CHULETA CT
MAD
E
R
O
S
VIA
DR
CT
AN
C
O
R
A
CT
CA
MP
A
NAS
LA
SVENTURA
DR
UER
TA
DR
LOCKHAVEN
TION CITA
CT
STONEHAVEN
AVE
VO
S
S
LN
KI
R
WIN
PL
CT
CT
O
R
E
VERDE
PL
B
E
LL
A
SPRING CT
GS
CT
SP
R
I
N
G
S
CT
IN
G
LN
FFE
R
WO
OD
CT
RD
RD
SARATOGA SUNNYVALE RD
L
N
O
A
K
VIA RONCOLE
JAMESTOWN
C
T
NA
RI
TA
N
CT
AD
A
GRAN
ME
A
D
OW
O
AK
W
Y
WY
MA
UR
E
EN
PR
OSP
EC
T
GALWAY DR
P
L
DR
DO
N
E
GA
L
POPPY
DR JAMESTOWN
PRIMROSE
BA
R
N
H
A
R
T
LNCT
AV
E
L
E
E
D
S
DR
WA
TE
RF
ORD
CT
DR
WY
DR
ROSEGARDENLN
PL
U
M
BL
OS
SOM
WY
SARATOGA VILLA PL
LN
JU
LI
E
D
R
ARROYO
CR
EE
K
AS TE RNE
W
C
AS
TL
E
NOR
MA
ND
Y
PEA
CH
B
L
OS
SOM
DR
ST
AU
SE
E
B
E
R
C
T
ASTER
SWALLOW DRFORGE AVEPRUNERIDGEHOMESTEADRD
NILE DR DR
DR DR
SU
I
SU
NDR
SO
M
E
R
S
E
T
CT SPRING
SPRING
SPRING CT
CT
SPRING
SP
R
SPR
DRSPRINGS
IN
G
CT
PARK
SPRING CT
SPRING CT
SPRING CT
LN
BIRCH
CEDAR
OAK
B RIDGE
VI
N
E
YAR
D
TIMBER
OLIVE
PALM
WALNUT RIDGE CREEK
CT
DOR
O
T
HY ANN
WY
MAR
I
A
LN
HILLS
LN
BL
U
E
RAINBOW
UP
LA
ND
WY
RD
HILLS
RO LLIN G
REG
N
A
R
T
PR
OS
PE
C
T R
D
RD
REGNART
B
O
W
H
I
L
L
C
T
S TE LLI NG RD
BU
R
NE
TT D
R
RD
RANCHRD
CT
PARKER
R
A
N
C
H
CA
M
A
R
D
A
CAROL LEE DR
CHA
V
OYA DR
LN RANDY
DR
VIS
T
A
C
T
WILL CT
MINER
PARLETT
DR
BANDLEY
WY SAICH
CIR
PARK
BEARDON
EL
E
N
DA
D
R
N PORTALN BLANEY DRWHEATONMYER PLCTTONI BILICH PL RIEDEL PL
CA
L
I
A
V
E
TULA LN TU
L
A
C
T
ST
SO
L
A
DR WESTERN
LN
BONNY DR
BONNY DR
DR WESTACRES
WY TONITA
PARADISE DR
TERRY WY
DR
CH
E
R
Y
L
NA
N
C
Y
C
T
CT
CR
A
I
G
DR
SH
E
L
L
Y
AV
E
DR
SU
N
R
I
S
E
DR
SC
O
F
I
E
L
D
MCLAREN PL COLBYDENISONNORWICHAVETWILIGHT CTAMHERST AVERDWOLFEAVEAVEAVECTCTDRMERRITTDRAUBURNDEODARA DR CT BAYWOOD PLUMTREE LN FIGTREEPEARTREEPEAR TREEDRBAYWOODCYPRESS DR AVE
VISTA DR
PRUNETREE LN
CHERRYTREE LN
PEACH TREE LNDR
AP
P
LE
T
REECTORANGETREECEDAR TREE LN DRMERRITT
LN
WY
RANDY
INFINITE LOOP
PL
PL
PL
DR
AC
A
D
I
A
C
T
DR
GR
E
E
N
VA
LL
E
Y
AV
E
MA
R
IA
N
I
DR
BANDLEY
GR
E
E
N
L
EA
F
DR
DRDR
DRDRDR
GAR
DEN
G
AT
E
HA
NFO
RD
FA
RGO
DU
N
B
A
R
GR
E
E
N
L
E
A
F
GREEN
VI
A
V
O
L
A
N
T
E
NORTHFIELD NORTHVIEW
NORTHRIDGE
NORTHOAK
NO
R
T
H
C
O
V
E
NO
R
T
H
G
L
E
N
NORTHCRESTNORTHWINDNORTHSHORE
NORTHSKY
NORTHSEAL
NO
R
T
H
B
R
O
O
K
NO
R
T
H
W
E
S
T
HO
M
E
S
T
E
A
D
DRDRAKEBEEKMAN (PVT)DR
ON
D
A
S
LA
S
D
A
N
U
B
E
D
R
RDRD LNCTCTBECKER LN AVE CTRODADRCTAVE LNJOHNDR DRWYLASONDASWYEDRFINCH
JOLLYMAN DR
WOLFE CT STILSONAVECREEKSIDE PARKFOUNTAIN BLUE APTS
McCLELLAN PL
RIDGEVIEW CT AVE MILLER
SWAN
COM
P
LE
X
CU
P
E
R
T
I
N
O
CI
T
Y
C
E
N
T
E
R
CIR
PARK
AVE
LA
Z
A
N
E
O
D
R
MA
RI
A
N
I
BLUE JAY DR NORTHHURST DR
GR
E
E
N
D
R
AC
C
E
S
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
LOMBARDO
PAVISO
CALLE DE BARCELONA PHILPARKVIEW
VIA SORRENTO
PA
V
I
S
O
D
R
MILLER AVE
VIA
S
A
N
M
A
R
I
N
O
VIA P
A
L
A
M
O
S
VIA
P
OR
TO
F
I
N
O
VIA
N
A
P
O
L
I
BRENDA CT LINDA C TDR CHELMSFORDDRCHELMSFARMINGHAMDREDMINCHELMSFORD DRGUESDRDRDRPLTUGGLEAVEAVECYNTHIADR W UNDERLICH HANNADR NEWSOMAVEDRGASCOIGNESQUARE
SQ
U
A
R
E
SQ
U
A
R
E
SQ
U
A
R
E
SQ
U
A
R
E
CE
L
E
S
T
E
C
I
R
WY
WY
DR
OR
A
N
GE
B
LOS
SOM
COZETTE LN LOREEAVE RALYA CT RUNO CT PRING CRABTREEAVE JOHNSONAVEDRCALVERT WUNDERLICHMENHARTDRMORETTIDRSTERNBRETLNAVEBLVDLOREEAVEJUDYTWIGLNTILSONBARNHARTDRPENDERGASTAVEAVEBARNHARTSTERLINGSTARRETT CTMEDICUS CT AVE
CT
CIR
HO
M
E
S
T
E
A
D
NO
R
T
H
W
O
O
D
D
R
RD
VA
LL
EY
HOMESTEAD
DUMAS DR
KEN
TWO
O
D
AVEANZAVILLA DEAVEBLANEY
CE
L
E
S
T
E
C
I
R
DR
DR
VIRGINIA
LAZ
AN
EO
PARISH PL
PKWY
PI
N
TAG
E
PHILLN EST ATES
CT
CTYOSHINOWYSAKURAPLCIR
ANTOINETTE DR MICHAEL
PINOLE CT
DR
JO
HN
LAAVEBLANEYDRRODALA LA RODA
FARALLONE
FARALLONE
LY
NT
ON
CT
PA
T
R
IC
C
T
WY MARTINWOOD
WY
GILLIC
K
WY
CLIFDEN
WY WHITNEY
ST
CL
A
Y
AV
E
SI
L
V
E
RA
D
O
DRCT GREENWOODLEOLA CTGREENWOODROSEMARIEPLCT DRMARLAPORTALAVEDRIRODRVICKSBURGDRAUBURN(PVT)VICKSBURGDRE ESTATESDRRICHWOODAVECOLD HARBORAVOCADO PL PRICE
FRANCO CT
CT CEDAR TREE LNMEIGGS SUTTON PARK PLAVEAVEHYDELNWILLOWGROVEDRFERNGROVELNBROOKGROVEDISNEY LNSTENDHALCTDRSHADYGROVELNLN WYCTDRCANDLEWOODAVEMILLERLA MAR ATES ESTATHERWOOD AVE MYRTLEWOOD DRLNDRCOTTONWOODBLAZINGWOODALDERBROOKDR BROOKWELLDR E ESTATES W ESTATESWILLOWBROOK WYLINDENBROOKBRENTCTAVEBETLINBETTEAVEDRCLIFFORDRAMPART AVEAVEDAVISONAVEPINEVILLEAVEILLEOAKVMALVERNAVELINDSAYAVELANDSDALE AVEGLENVIEW
JOHN
LN
BO
L
L
I
N
GE
R
DR
HEA
T
H
E
R
WO
O
D
DR
DE
L
A
F
O
RGE
DR WESTLYNN
DR
DU
M
A
S
DR
DE
F
OE
VERNIE
ST KIM
LN
KIR
W
I
N
WY
ERIN
BL
OS
SOM
LN
WY FELTON
WY
LONNA
ST KIM
AV
E
CLEO
RUPPELL PL
DR
RA
I
N
BO
W
LN
DR
S COT
L
AND
AVE
ROLLINGDELL CT
ANNETTE WY
ROL
LI
N
GD
EL
L
PL
ST
A
N
F
OR
D
LN
TI
P
T
OE
LN
FA
L
L
E
N
L
E
AF
ORLINE CTBIANCHI WYDRGLENCOEGLENCOEDR
GR
A
N
A
D
A
RI
F
R
E
D
I
C
T
SPRINGS LN
SPRING CT
CT
SPRI
NG
ROCK SPRING
SPRINGWELL
CT
FOL
KE
S
T
O
N
E
STAFFORD
SU
N
D
E
R
L
AN
D
RAINB
OW
CT
PUMPK
IN
LN
SAN
SAN FERNANDO AVE
PL
SCENIC
PA R T HR EE D R
VA
L
EN
C
I
A
BARRANCA
SEGOVIA
DO
R
A
D
O
MA
LA
GA
GR
A
NA
DA
CO
RDO
B
A
AV
I
L
A
VILL A R EA L
ST
LU
BEC
DR
PA
RK
WO
OD
DR
PA
R
K
PL
GL
EN
RAMONA CT
PL
WY
HO
O
H OO
CARMEN RD
DR
DR
AVE
C L EARCR
E
E
K
CT
PHARLAPDR
OA
KL
EA
F
CT
OAKLEAFRD
ADRIANA
ASPEN
DR
RD
DR
CT
MI
M
O
S
A
ARBORETUM
LN
FIR
LN
BEECHWOOD
DR
CT OAKCREST
CRE EK
HENEY
PL
PO
P
P
Y
D
R
SA
L
E
M
DR
DR
B
A
R
R
A
N
C
A
PEN
IN SULA
R
A VE
P
E
R
M
A
N
E
N
T
E
HA
MM
ON
D
W
Y
HAM
M
OND WY
CR
IS
T
O
R
EY
D
R
S
E
R
R
A
S
T
CA NYON
O AK WY
PER
A
L
T
A
C
T
MADRO
N
E
M ADR
O
NE C
T
MANZANITA CT
MA NZ ANITA
J
U
N
I
P
E
R
C
T
OAK V ALLE
Y
R D
Mc
C
L
E
LL
AN
GR
E
E
N
LE
AF
DE MPE S TER
D
O
S
P
A
L
O
S
B
E
A
V
E
N D
R
CHISHOLM AVE
BREWER AVE
MARY
LIND A VIS TA
M
c
C
L
E
L
L
A
N
CL
E
A
RW
OOD
R AE
LN
SCENIC
MIRAVISTA
CT
SC
E
N
IC
CIR
RIVIERA
R
D
JA
NI
C
E
A
V
E
BE
L
L
E
V
U
E A
V
E
AVE
B
L
V
D
ADELHEID
CT
CT
D
E
A
N
C
T
CTLM
EIR
STO
CK
QUINTERN O
RD
CT
C
R
ES
AINSWORTH
RD
S
T
STONYDALE DR
AMELIA CT
CEN
T
C
R
E
S
C
E
N
T
CT
CT
VA
R
I
A
N
W
Y
HY
A
N
N
IS
PO
R
T
PL
HY
A
N
N
IS
PO
R
T
SH
A
TT
U
CK
DR
DR
CRISTO REY DR
SY CA MO REBLACK OAK
BE
LK
N
A
P
BELKNAP CT
DR
DR
YORKSHIRE
DR
D
R
WY
ROBI NDE LLWY
MI LKY
STELLING
PL HUNTERSTON
DR DERBYSHIRE
LN
OR
I
ON
C
R
PU
M
P
K
I
N
DR
AV
E
K
R
Z
IC
HVA
I
A
VE
WO
O
DL
A
R
K
WY
PENNINGTON LN
DR
N
O
V
E
M
B
E
R
CREEKLINE
SHA
D
O
W
H
I
L
L
BE
RL
A
ND
C
T
S
HOLLYHEAD LN
WE
ST H
I
LL
L
N
HILL CT
WE ST
C
TDR
EL MS FO RD
DRCT
MA
NI
T
A
CT
SQ
U
I
RE
HI
L
L
LN
WEYMOUTH DR
DR
LI
L
Y A
VEANTON
WY
FEN
W
AY CT
LA
U
R
E
T
T
A
HA
Z
E
L
B
R
O
O
K
CT
GR
E
N
O
L
A
D
R
AVE
DR
HALE PL
GARDENA CT
GA
R
D
E
N
A
D
R
DR
CTLEON
G
D
R
CT
JE
A
NN
E
TT
E
AM OR E CT
BA
L
B
OA
STJO
OR
C
H
A
R
D
C
T
A
L
P
I
N
E
C
O
R
D
O
V
A
AN
D
RE
W
S
ST
FIR
EC
H
O
H
I
L
L
C
T
TRE
S
SLER
CT
LAKE SPRING CT
WYDR
RESULTS W
Y
PARK
PA
R
K
RD
RD
RD
C
T
HOO SHANG
SANTA CL ARA
UN
I
VE
R
S
IT
Y W
Y
STO KE S AV E
FI
T
Z
GE
RA
L
D
D
R
HE
R
M
O
S
A
A
V
E
OA
KVI
E
W
LN
AL
M
A
D
E
N
A
V
E
AVE
MINAKERCT
OL
I
V
E
A
V
E
AVE
C
T
V
I
EW
L
N
AVE
DR
PE NINS U LA AVE
N OE L A VE
AVE
ALHAMBRA
BUBB
G
R
A
N
D
AV
E
RUM
FO
RD
MARY
AVE
A
V
EAVE
EM P IRE
ANSON
DEX
TE
R
D
R
DR
MA DE RA
CA
R
O
LI
N
E D
R
DR
ST
I NO
CA M
VIA
CT
CT
AL
DER
NE
Y
B
E
R
K
EL
E
Y
C
T
DR
CR ES TON
BI
T
T
E
R
O
A
K
S
T
SWEET OAK ST
C
T
HIBISC
U
S
D
R
CTBEN
N
ET
T
I
ST
O
K
E
S
FL O
DR
RENCE
DR
WILSONCT
AVE
DR
AVE
MIL
L
ARD
LN
MET
EOR
NATHANSON AVE
AVE
MI
L
FO
RD
PL METEOR
DR
DR
ESQUIRE PL
CASTINE
A
M
U
L
E
T
DR
AVE
ANN ARBOR LI
L
Y
ROSE BLOSSOM DR
DR
FE ST IV AL
KENM
C
T
DR
LI
L
A
C
C
T
CT
LILY
AV
E
LIL
A
C
CATALINA CT
LA JOLLA CT
TERRA BELLA DR
S
A
N
T
A
REG
N
A
R
T
RD
MON R OV IA
ST
BUBBRD
LN
RD
RD
RI
CAR
DO
MIRA M ONT E
KESTER DR
CANYON
RD
CANY
O
N
VI
E
W
CIR
AV
E
LEAVESLEY
VISTA
DRYDEN AVE
RO
S
A
R
IO
BA
X
L
E
Y
C
T
EV
U
LI
C
H C
T
WY
CAS
TL
ET
O
N
AV
E
RU
C
K
E
R
D
R
SANTA
CO
LU
MB
U
S
ED
W
AR
D
RONALD WY
TERESA
MARIA ROSA WY
C
R
A
N
B
E
R
R
Y
DR
PL
R
D
STEVE
N
S
DR CHACE
CT
HAR
T
MA
N D
R
BLVD
ST
A
R
L
I
N
G
LIN
DA A
NN
K
E
N
D
L
E
VIS TA K N OLL B LV D
ALPI
NE
B
A
H
L
S
T
DR
CT
VI
CER
O
Y
DR
CU
P
E
R
T
I
N
O
R
D
CASS
JANICE AVE
ST
VEN
TU
RA
OA
K
W
Y
DR
LO
M
I
T
A
E LDE
RWO
OD
SILVER
SUNSET
SEVEN
FO
R
E
S
T
RA INTREE
COPPER
FALL CREEK
EVENING
MORNING
CT
LN
OA
K
M
EA
D
O
W
PHAR LAP
B LOS S OM
RO SE
RD
LUCKY OAK ST
DR
GROVELAND
CR
E
S
T
O
N
AIN
S
W
O
R
T
H
DR
DA VISTA LINPL
MADRID
DR
DR
AVE
FT BAKER DR
OLD TOWN
NEW HAVENCT
PR
E
S
ID
IO
CT
DO
LO
RE
S
A
V
E
ALC
AZA
R
A
V
E
McC
LE
LLA
N
FE
RN
A
N
D
O
A
V
E
RD
BYRNE
SA
N
CT
IMPERIAL
NO
O
N
A
N
CT
ORANGE
AVE
S EPTEM B ER
SH
AN
N
O
N
C
T
HOL
LY
O
A
K
D
R
CT
LIBERTY
PROVIDENCECT
DR
DR
CT
EL
M
CT
BUBB
FES
TIV
AL
NOVE MBE R
CR ANBERRY
CT
FI
E
S
T
A
SEPTEMBER DR
A
U
G
U
S
T
L
N
OC
T
OB
ER
FA
LL
CT
CIR
CLIF
F
DR
VISTA D
R
C
Y
N
V
IST
ADR
ST
CHADWICK PL
CO
LL
IN
GS
W
O
R
TH
S
TSUTHERLAND
DR
L
N
LIN DY
CO
U
N
T
R
Y
VI
A
E
S
P
L
E
N
D
O
R
N. STELLING
SPRING CT
SPRING CT
SQU
IR
EWO
O
D
W
Y
JO
LL
Y
MA
N L
N
O AK VAL
L
E
Y
CT
HOMESTEAD
CT
AVE
TA
MA
R
I
N
D
VISTACT
LA
V
IN
A CT
TU
L
I
T
A
DR
MARCYCT
DR FIR
RE
D
RD
NO
B
L
E
F
I
R
RDCT
CO
R
Y
FIR
WHI
TE
WY
CT CA
R
R
IA
G
E
CL
H
U
N
T
RI
D
GE
L
N
FLORA
PE
P
P
E
R
T
REE
FA
IR
WO
O
DS
SA
G
E
LN
SAN
RD
COR
DO
V
A
ME
RC
ED
ES
LN
N
I
D
A
CT
KRIST
A
CT
OAK
ST
A
ND
I
N
G
FOOTHILL
DU
BO
N
A
V
E
PRADO VISTA DR
CAMINO VISTA
WO
O
DR
ID
GE
C
T
RA
NC
HO
PALOVISTA
WALNUT CR
AV
E
AV
E
PA
U
LA
SA
N
TA
SAN LEANDRO AVE
CLU
B
H
O
U
S
E
L
N
RD
DR
CLIFF
DR
DEEP
McCLELLAN RD
McCLELLAN RD
MCKLINTOCK LN
MERRIMAN RD
MEADOW PL
AVE
RD
RD
CANYON
ALC
AL
DE
LEBANON
LN
LE
B
A
N
ON
A
V
E
ME
D
IN
A
SA
N
STEVENS
SA NTA L UCIA RD
RIV
E
R
S
I
D
E
MERRIMAN AVE
NO
R
TH
SO
U
TH
PA
L
M
Mc
C
LE
LL
A
N
BAL
U
ST
RO
L
C
T
CAR
N
O
U
S
T
I
E
C
T
C
A
R
T
A
B
L
A
N
C
A
SIL
V
E
R
O
A
K
L
N
VIA
BARBARA LN
RD
Mc
C
L
E
L
L
A
N
RO
DR
I
GUE
S
RO
DR
I
GUE
S
FOREST PARKSIDE LN HALL CT
AV
E
SORENSON AVEANNE LN SOUTH TANTAU AVEPKWYVALLCODR
ANN ARBOR CT
CH
RI
STE
NS
EN
DR
WY SENATE
WY
AL
V
E
S
DR
PA
T
R
I
O
T
SOUTHSTELLINGRD
AL
V
E
S
DR
NORTH STELLINGRD
AVE TORRE
PA
C
I
F
IC
A
PARISH PL
AVEDEEPROSEPLAVE WINTERGREEN DRCRAFTRICHWOOD CTDR AVE
SOUTH DE ANZA BLVD
TOW
N
LN
CE
NT
E
R
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
LANE
MA
C
A
D
A
M
AL
L
E
Y
CONGRESS PL
PL UNITED
FRE
EDO
M
HO
G
U
E
CT
VISTA
CA
RT
W
R
IG
HTWY
JO
S
E
P
H
CR
CHARSAN
SILVER
R1
-
7
.
5
P(R1)
PR
R3
R1
-
7
.
5
R1
-
1
0
BAP(
R
e
s
,
C
G
)
P(
R
2
)
P(
C
G
)
RH
S
R1
-
2
0
R1
C
-
2
.
9
Pr
e
R
1
-
1
0
P(
R
e
s
1
0
-
2
0
)
R1
-
1
0
R1
-
1
0
R1
-
1
0
R1
-
7
.
5
P(
R
1
C
)
R1
C
P(
R
e
s
1
0
-
2
0
M
i
n
i
-
S
t
o
r
)
P(
C
G
,
M
L
,
R
e
s
3
5
)
R1
-
a
P(
R
1
C
)
P(
R
e
s
)
R2
R2
P(
C
G
)
R1-7.5
P(
C
G
)
BQ
Pre-PR PR BQR1-6R1-6eBQPRBQP(R1C)R1-10P(R1C)R1-10R1CR1-10R1-10 P(R1C)P(Res 5-10)R2-4.25 P(R1)R1-10 R1-6 PRR1-7.5
R1
C
R1
-
1
0
R1
-
1
0
ML
P(
C
G
)
R1
-
2
0
A1
-
4
3
R1
-
2
0
RH
S
-
1
5
RH
S
-
4
0
RH
S
-
9
0
RH
S
-
4
0
0
RH
S
-
1
2
0
RH
S
-
1
8
0
RH
S
-
7
0
RH
S
-
8
0
RH
S
-
4
0
RH
S
-
2
1
RH
S
-
4
0
RH
S
RH
S
-
1
0
0
RH
S
-
1
2
RH
S
-
4
0
R1
-
8
A1
-
4
3
RH
S
-
1
2
0
R1
-
1
0
RH
S
-
1
2
0
PR
Pr
e
-
R
H
S
RH
S
-
3
0
RH
S
-
3
0
P(
R
e
s
)
R2
-
4
.
2
5
R1
-
7
.
5
P(
R
1
C
)
P(
R
3
)
R1
-
6
BQ
R1-6
BA
BA
R1
-
7
.
5
P(
R
1
-
7
.
5
)
R1
-
7
.
5
R1
-
8
P(
R
1
)
R1
-
7
.
5
PR
R1
-
7
.
5
P(
R
1
)
R1
C
-
7
.
5
R1
-
8
OA
R1
-
1
0
BA
R2
-
4
.
2
5
R1
-
7
.
5
BQ
R2
-
4
.
2
5
R1-10 (25' Front Setback)
R3
BQ
PR
PR
P(
R
e
s
)
RH
S
-
8
0
RH
S
-
1
7
5
RH
S
-
1
2
0
A-
2
1
5
RH
S
-
1
0
0
RH
S
-
4
0
P(
R
1
C
)
R1
-
1
0
RH
S
-
2
1
8
RH
S
-
2
1
R3
P(
C
G
)
P(
R
e
s
)
R2
-
4
.
2
5
P(
R
1
)
R2
-
4
.
2
5
R2
-
4
.
2
5
R2
-
4
.
2
5
i
R2
-
4
.
2
5
PR
R2
-
4
.
2
5
R2
-
4
.
2
5
i
R2
-
4
.
2
5
i
R1
-
7
.
5
R2
-
4
.
2
5
R1
C
R2
-
4
.
2
5
R2
-
4
.
2
5
i
R1
-
7 R1
-
7
.
5
RH
S
-
2
1
RH
S
-
3
0
RH
S
-
2
1
RH
S
-
4
0
0
BQ
RH
S
-
2
6
0
R1
-
7
.
5
R2
-
4
.
2
5
P(
R
1
)
R1
-
7
.
5
FP
-
o
R1
C
-
7
.
5
R1
-
3
2
.
5
R1
-
7
.
5
R1
-
1
0
A1
-
4
0
BA
BA
BQ
R1
-
6
R1
-
7
.
5
R1
C
-
7
.
5
P(
R
1
)
BQ
R1
-
6
R1
-
7
.
5
P(
C
G
)
R3
R1
C
BQP(Hotel)BQ Pre-T R1-7.5 BABAR1-10
P(
R
1
)
R1
-
6
i
P(
R
3
)
P(
R
e
s
)
P(
R
3
)
P(
R
e
s
)
PR
RH
S
-
7
0
RH
S
-
7
0
RH
S
RH
S
-
1
5
0
RH
S
-
1
7
0
RH
S
-
8
0
RH
S
-
4
4
0
RH
S
RH
S
-
4
0
RH
S
-
1
2
0
RH
S
-
8
RH
S
RH
S
-
8
0
PR
RH
S
-
1
0
0
RH
S
-
7
0
PR
RH
S
-
1
9
0
RH
S
-
6
0
RH
S
-
1
7
0
RH
S
-
2
1
OS
RH
S
-
8
0
RH
S
-
3
0
RH
S
-
2
1
8
RH
S
-
1
0
0
R1
-
1
0
P(
R
e
s
)
P(
R
e
s
4
-
8
)
P(
R
e
s
)
R1
C
BQ
PR
P(
R
e
s
)
P(
R
e
s
)
PR
P(
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
a
l
)
PR
P(
R
e
s
)
PR
Pr
e
-
B
Q
A
A
R1
-
1
0
R1
-
2
0
R1
-
7
.
5
R1
-
1
0
R2
-
4
.
2
5
R2
-
4
.
2
5
R2
-
4
.
2
5
R3
P(
R
1
0
-
2
)
R1
-
1
0
BA
R1
-
1
0
R1
C
-
3
.
2
R1
C
P(
C
G
)
P(
B
Q
,
M
i
n
i
-
S
t
o
r
)
BA
R1
-
7
.
5
BA
P(
C
G
)
P(
R
e
c
,
E
n
t
e
r
)
P(
R
e
c
,
E
n
t
e
r
)
P(
C
G
)
R3
BA
P(
C
G
)
P(
R
e
s
1
0
-
2
0
)
P(
R
1
C
)
P(CG)ML-fa P(R2, Mini-Stor)R3 BQR1CP(R1C)P(Res)A1-43R1-7.5Pre-R1-7.5P(CG, Res)BQ BA
R1
-
1
0
P(
C
G
,
O
A
)
R1
-
1
0
R2
-
4
.
2
5
R1
-
7
.
5
i
P(
R
3
)
R1
-
1
0
i
RH
S
R1
-
7
.
5
RH
S
-
4
0
R1
-
1
0
OS
RH
S
-
2
4
0
RH
S
-
3
0
BQ
R2
-
4
.
2
5
R2
-
4
.
2
5
R1
-
1
0
RH
S
-
2
1
RH
S
-
2
1
8
RH
S
-
1
2
0
RH
S
-
1
0
0
RH
S
-
4
0
RH
S
-
6
0
RH
S
-
4
0
RH
S
-
4
0
RH
S
-
1
0
RH
S
-
2
0
RH
S
-
1
2
R1
-
2
0
RH
S
-
8
A1
-
4
3
R1
-
2
2
R1
-
1
0
R1
-
7
.
5
PR
R1
-
2
0
P(
C
G
,
O
A
)
P(
R
1
C
)
P(
R
3
)
ML
-
r
c
P(
M
L
)
P(
R
e
s
)
P(
R
e
s
)
P(
R
e
s
4
.
4
-
7
.
7
)
R1
C
P(
R
1
)
P(
R
e
s
4
.
4
-
1
2
)
P(
C
N
,
M
L
,
R
e
s
4
-
1
2
)
P(
R
1
)
R1
-
7
.
5
P(
R
e
s
)
P(
C
N
)
P(
R
2
)
P(
R
e
s
)
R1
-
1
0
R2
-
4
.
2
5
i
BQ
P(
R
e
s
1
0
-
2
0
)
A1
-
4
3
P(
C
G
)
BQ
P(
C
G
)
R3
R3
BA
P(
C
G
,
M
L
,
R
e
s
)
R3
R1
-
1
0
BQ
R2
-
4
.
2
5
P(
C
G
,
M
L
,
B
Q
,
R
e
s
)
BQ
R3
BQ
BQ
P(
R
1
C
)
P
BQ
BQ
R1
-
6
i
BA
BQ
R1
-
6
P(
R
e
s
)
BA
P(
C
G
,
R
e
s
5
-
1
5
)
P(
R
e
s
1
0
-
2
0
)
P(CG)
R3
R1
-
7
.
5
P(
R
e
s
5
-
1
0
)
P(R
e
s
)
P(Res)R1-6P(Res5-10)R1-10
P(
C
G
,
M
L
,
R
e
s
4
-
1
0
)
P(
R
1
-
7
.
5
)
P(
R
1
C
)
R2
-
4
.
2
5
R1
C
P(
C
G
,
M
L
,
O
A
)
R1-10 R1-10R3
BA
A1-43
CG
-
r
g
P(Res)-70 PR R3 R2-4.25iR2-4.25P(Res)BA R3 R1-6 BAP(Res)P(R2)BQBQPre-PRR1-5 R1-7.5
R1
-
7
RH
S
-
7
0
BQ
P(
C
G
)
P(
O
A
)
P(
R
1
)
P(
R
e
s
)
P(
R
e
s
)
P(
R
e
s
)
P(
R
e
s
)
R1
-
1
0
RH
S
-
2
0
0
RH
S
-
2
1
RH
S
-
3
0
RH
S
-
4
0
P(
R
e
s
4
.
4
-
7
.
7
)
P(
R
e
s
)
A
R1
C
P(
R
e
s
)
P(
R
1
C
)
R1
-
1
0
R1
-
7
.
5
R1
-
1
0
P(MP)
P(C
G
,
R
e
s
)
R3
-
2
.
2
R2
-
4
.
2
5
ME
R
R
I
MA
N RD
S.
D
e
An
z
a
B
l
v
d
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
Pl
a
n
A
r
e
a
N.
D
e
A
n
z
a
B
l
v
d
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
Pl
a
n
A
r
e
a
HE
A
R
T
O
F
T
H
E
C
I
T
Y
SP
E
C
I
A
L
C
E
N
T
E
R
Se
e
H
e
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
Pl
a
n
f
o
r
D
e
t
a
i
l
s
SS58
[\^082 Numbers following zoning designations denote minimum lot sizes divided by one thousand.The "Pre" designation denotes a prezoned unincorporated area and is colored white.°0.1500.150.30.075MilesZoning MapCity of Cupertino A1 BA BQ CG ML MP P OA/OP OS/PR R1 R1C R2 R3 RHS T- City Boundary - Heart of the City Specific Plan Area - Open Space / Public Park / Recreational Zone - Residential Duplex - Multiple Family Residential - Residential Hillside- Office / Planned Office- Mixed Use Planned Development- Planned Industrial Zone- Light Industrial- General Commercial- Quasi- Public Building- Public Building- Agricultural Residential - Single Family Residential - Single Family Residential Cluster - Transportation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
13
1
13
2
Project Effects
Permits are currently required for the removal of Specimen Trees over 10 inches DBH in all
residential zoning districts. Under the permit process, protected trees on private property must be
evaluated by an arborist and replacement plantings must be proposed unless the arborist concludes
that adequate planting area does not exist, in which case an in-lieu fee may be paid. As noted
previously, street trees are not covered by the proposed amendments and areas affected would be
front, side and rear yards, outside of the public right-of-way.
Under the proposed amendments to the ordinance, native trees and two non-native cedar tree species
between 10 inches and 12 inches in diameter and removal of a California Bay tree would no longer
require a permit or tree replacement. Removal of Specimen trees 12-24 inches DBH in size would
require a permit and replacement, with no arborist report, noticing, or recordation on property. The
possible effects of modifying protected tree permit requirements conceivably could include:
• removal of Specimen trees 10-12 inches DBH without replacement; and/or
• removal of California Bay trees greater than 10 inches DBH without replacement; and/or
• increased number of tree removals because the time and expense of obtaining an arborists
report and noticing tree removals would be removed and justifying the removal of tree
between 12-24 inches DBH would not be required.
Tree removal permits issued by the City of Cupertino during the period of January 2008-July 2014
were reviewed to assess the magnitude of tree removal requests throughout the City. The permits
included those for protected trees under both the Specimen tree and Approved Development tree
categories. As shown in Table 4, annual permitted tree removals Citywide ranged from 229 in 2009
to 646 trees in 2011. During this period, a total 31 cedar trees (an average of about 5-6 per year) over
10 inches DBH were removed from residential zones, including one in a RC1 zone. A single
California Bay was removed from a residence in a Planned Development [P(RES)] zone. During that
same period, one permit for the removal of a native Specimen tree was issued for properties in the
RC1 zone in 2014. Native tree removals from residential zones were predominantly Coast Live Oaks
or unspecified oaks. One Western Sycamore was removed from a residential property in 2010. A
comparison of the number of Specimen trees removed from residential zones (other than in Planned
Developments) to total trees removed with tree removals permits is shown in Table 4.
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 17 October 2014 133
Pr
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
T
r
e
e
s
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
In
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
Ci
t
y
o
f
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
18
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
2
0
1
4
Table 4: Summary of Protected Tree Removal Permits
Citywide and in Residential Zones
Year
Citywide Specimen Trees in Residential Zones -Excluding Planned Development
Native Trees1 Non-Native Cedar Trees
Number of
Permits
Issued
Number of
Applications
Trees
Removed 10
-
1
1
”
DB
H
12
-
2
4
”
DB
H
>2
4
”
DB
H
Si
z
e
N
o
t
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
10
-
1
1
"
DB
H
2
12
-
2
4
”
DB
H
>2
4
”
DB
H
Si
z
e
N
o
t
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
2008 15 16 525 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 4 4
2009 21 21 229 0 2 1 9 12 0 2 0 0 2
2010 47 53 247 0 5 4 5 14 0 0 1 4 5
2011 73 78 646 1 2 4 7 14 0 5 7 1 13
2012 46 50 281 1 13 5 0 19 1 0 0 2 3
2013 44
50
379
1 3 1 1 6 0 2 2 0 4
20143 32 41 223 0 8 2 3 13 0 0 0 0 0
Total 278 309 2,530 3 33 17 28 81 1 9 10 11 31
1During the survey period of 2008-July 2014, a total of 42 of the 82 protected native trees removed from R1 and similar zones did not appear to be associated with
residential construction.
2One of the 82 native tree removals (in 2014) was in a R1C zone and one of the 31 cedar tree removals (in 2012) was in a R1C zone.
3Through July 2014.
134
To the extent development in RC1 and some R3 zones is more recent than much of the housing in R1
zones, landscape plans may have been required at the time of development. Tree removal from
properties with a landscape plan would continue to require a tree permit under the Approved
Development Tree category (refer to Figure 2).
Other tree removals that would no longer require a tree removal permit and replacement were also
tabulated for this period. The total number of tree removals of native trees (e.g., native oaks)
between 10 and 12 inches in diameter was two (2), although an additional 12 trees were not classified
as to their size.
An additional non-native tree, London plane, is proposed to be added to the list of protected
Specimen trees. This deciduous tree is widely planted as a landscape tree in the Santa Clara Valley
and is likely much more common in urban and suburban areas of the City than the California Bay
tree it is proposed to replace. Based upon general observations of the tree resources in the City and
the tabulation of previous tree removal permits (for California Bay), as a substitution, its placement
on the Specimen tree list could result in the requirement for additional tree replacement where
London plane trees are removed.
Tree removal may be considered by property owners for a number of reasons. Because trees
need space to grow both above and below ground, tree placement or growth can result in
conflicts with the built environment. Damage to sidewalks, roofs, or growth within power lines
are examples of conflicts that can occur. Trees also can become diseased or pose a safety hazard
to people on the ground if prone to breakage or due to poor structure. Some property owners
also may desire to remove a particular tree or tree species due to size, leaf, fruit drop, or
blockage of views or light.
Tree species composition in urban habitats varies with planting design and location (e.g.,
plantings suitable for climate and soil conditions). In addition, trees native to a site may be
retained as a part of overall site design. Trees are planted and maintained for a number of
purposes. In residential settings, the primary purposes of tree plantings are aesthetic (e.g., to
enhance the built environment), for screening between neighboring properties or roadways, for
shade, and for wildlife habitat (primarily urban-adapted birds). Once planted, trees are generally
retained on sites because of the value they provide in terms of visual quality, energy
conservation, screening, shading and cooling of urban and suburban areas.
Conclusions:
1. Areas Affected – Street trees are not regulated by the ordinance. On private property areas
affected would be front, side and rear yards, outside of the public right-of-way. Changes in
permit requirements would apply to tree removal in residential zones in the City, primarily
properties with established, older houses in R-1 and RHS zoning districts where landscape
plans or other approved development plans are not in effect or on file.
2. Reduction of Trees in the Urban Forest – The City’s tree protection ordinance is not the
primary factor in the retention of most trees within the City. Landowners maintain and plant
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 19 October 2014 135
trees on their properties for their aesthetic, energy conservation, shade, and wildlife habitat
value. Currently, landowners in residential zones may remove non-native trees, other than
two cedar species, from their properties without a permit.
London plane is a relatively commonly planted landscape tree in the Santa Clara Valley. In
general, the addition of a common landscape species, London Plane, to the list of Specimen
trees could incrementally increase the replacement rate of removed, non-native trees in the
City’s urban forest.
3. Effect of Tree Ordinance Amendments – A Tier 1 Permit could be obtained for single
trunk Specimen trees between 12 inches and 24 inches DBH (and multi-trunk Specimen trees
between 24 and 28 inches DBH) without an arborist report or noticing, however,
replacements or in-lieu fee would continue to be required. Limits on the number of trees that
could be removed over a twelve month period from an individual property would reduce the
potential for a substantial change in visual character or composition of trees within a
residential area. Though California Bay would be removed from the list of protected
Specimen tree species, the number of trees that would be removed from residential lots in
Cupertino without replacement is anticipated to be low based on historic rates of removal and
the relatively low number of California Bay trees (compared to native oaks and Western
Sycamore) in valley floor, riparian and foothill areas of the City. Changes to the application
requirements for mature versus non-mature trees, based upon historic rates of removal of
trees in the 10-12 inch size class and on replacement requirements in the ordinance, would
not result in a substantial decrease in Specimen trees in neighborhoods or the City in either
the near-term or long-term.
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 20 October 2014 136
4.1 AESTHETICS
4.1.1 Setting
4.1.1.1 Visual Character Overview
The visual character of the project area varies across the City of Cupertino and includes both densely
developed office, commercial and residential areas, and more open, suburban landscapes at the City’s
edge. The nearly flat, developed valley floor is transected by major roads (e.g., Stevens Creek
Boulevard, De Anza Boulevard/Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road) and framed by mountains to the west and
south and urban development to the north and east. Notable topographic and scenic features include
the Montabello Foothills and Santa Cruz Mountains and riparian vegetation along major creeks,
including Stevens Creek. Parks, schools, a Community College, and community centers provide
open, landscaped or natural areas within the developed area of the City. Community resources that
provide scenic open space and form a backdrop to the City’s urban and suburban development
include Memorial Park, Blackberry Farm, McClellan Ranch, and regional open space parks, such as
Fremont Older, Rancho San Antonio and Picchetti Ranch.
Views of trees in residential zones from public streets are shown in Photos 1-6.
4.1.1.2 City Gateways and Scenic Highways
The City’s General Plan recognizes the importance of gateways in creating a memorable impression
of a city. Elements such as buildings, arches, fountains, banners, signage, special lighting,
landscaping and public art all can play a part in the visual impression at these locations. Gateways to
the City include Stevens Creek Boulevard and highway off-ramps from I-280 and State Route 85.
Under the California Scenic Highway Program, a highway may be designated scenic depending upon
how much of the natural landscape can be seen by travelers, the scenic quality of the landscape, and
the extent to which development intrudes upon the traveler's enjoyment of the view. None of the
highways that cross the City of Cupertino are listed by the State of California as Scenic Highways,
although Interstate 280 is considered eligible, though not officially designated.2 For a highway to be
declared scenic, the government with jurisdiction over abutting land must adopt a "scenic corridor
protection program" that limits development, outdoor advertising, and earthmoving, and the
California Department of Transportation must agree that it meets the criteria.
4.1.1.2 Regulatory Setting
Cupertino General Plan
Strategies and policies in the City of Cupertino General Plan have been adopted for the purpose of
avoiding environmental effects resulting from planned development within the City. In particular,
the General Plan recognizes the importance of hillside areas in providing an aesthetic backdrop to
views from the valley floor and the retention of significant Specimen trees during site development,
2 State of California. “California State Scenic Mapping System”. Accessed October 24, 2013.
<http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm>
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 21 October 2014
137
138
Photo 1: View of native Coast Live Oaks in front yard in R1 Single Family District.
Photo 2: View of cedars in front yard in R1 Single Family District.
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 22 October 2014 139
140
Photo 3: View of native Valley Oak in front yard of R1 Single Family District.
Photo 4: View of native Coast Live Oak in front yard of R1 Single Family District.
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 23 October 2014 141
142
Photo 5: View of R1 Single-Family street with RHS Residential Hillside in background.
Photo 6: View of landscape trees in Planned Development District from public right of way.
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 24 October 2014 143
144
especially when growing in groves or clusters. The importance of ornamental plants in the urban
landscape and maintain tree plantings along Interstate 280 are also noted in the Land Use Chapter of
the General Plan related to Community Design. New development in Cupertino is reviewed for
consistency with the policies in the General Plan.
City Design Guidelines and Design Review Process
All new development is subject to a design review process that includes a review of site planning,
including the existing and proposed landscape. Design review is based upon guidelines prepared by
the Community Development Department and requirements in the City’s Municipal Code.
4.1.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
1. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
1
2. Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
1,2
3. Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
1
4. Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which will adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
1
4.1.2.1 Overview of Aesthetic Impacts
Street trees, which are highly visible from public streets, are not regulated by the proposed ordinance,
and areas affected would be front, side and rear yards, outside of the public right-of-way. Changes in
permit requirements would apply to tree removal in residential zones in the City, primarily properties
with established, older houses in R1 and RHS zoning districts where landscape plans or other
approved development plans are not in effect or on file.
The City’s tree protection ordinance includes provisions for replacement plantings in the form of tree
replacement guidelines and options for providing in-lieu fees. It also includes requirements for
protection of trees during construction, which would assist with the retention of mature trees in
hillside and valley areas.
As discussed under methodology and approach for impact analysis on pages 13-20 of this Initial
Study, changes to the application requirements for mature versus non-mature trees and for Tier 1
Specimen trees, based upon historic rates of removal of trees in the 10-12 inch size class and on
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 25 October 2014 145
replacement requirements in the ordinance, would not result in a substantial decrease in Specimen
trees in neighborhoods or the City in either the near-term or long-term.
4.1.2.2 Impacts to Scenic Vistas
Implementation of the proposed amendments, including caps on the number of Tier 1 Specimen trees
that could be removed under the permit process, would not result in a substantial increase in removal
of trees in hillside areas that provide scenic views from the valley floor. Tree removal of large trees
could result in a temporal loss of tree cover on hillsides, however, the areas affected would be limited
by allowed densities in the RHS zone and application of community development standards in the
General Plan and zoning ordinance during design and Tier 2 tree permit review. (Less Than
Significant Impact)
4.1.2.3 Views from Scenic Highways
As noted previously, none of the highways that cross the City of Cupertino are listed by the State of
California as Scenic Highways. (No Impact)
4.1.2.2 Impacts to Visual Character
At an individual location, removal of a large mature tree could change views from local streets or
other public spaces. Overall, proposed modifications to the Protected Trees Ordinance is not
anticipated to result in a substantial increase in the removal of mature, Tier 2 Specimen trees from
the community or individual neighborhoods as findings (related to the purpose of the tree removal)
would still need to be made prior to removal of protected trees. The number of Tier 1 Specimen trees
(and tree cover) that could be removed from an individual property under a permit would also be
capped at two percent or two trees per twelve month period, whichever is greater. Trees would
continue to be planted and maintained for aesthetic purposes (e.g., to enhance the built
environment), for screening between neighboring properties or roadways, for shade, and for
wildlife habitat (primarily urban-adapted birds). For these reasons, the proposed project is not
anticipated to adversely affect the visual character of the City, including in residential areas.
(Less Than Significant Impact)
4.1.2.3 New Light or Glare
Since there would be no land use development associated with the project, the project would not
result in new sources of light or glare. (No Impact)
4.1.3 Conclusions
The proposed amendments to the Protected Trees Ordinance would not result in substantial adverse
effects to a scenic vista or degrade the existing visual character or quality of Cupertino. (Less Than
Significant Impact)
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 26 October 2014 146
Implementation of the ordinance would not involve construction or modification of the physical
environment that would create a new source of light or glare or effect views from a scenic highway.
(No Impact)
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 27 October 2014 147
4.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES
4.2.1 Setting
Cupertino includes primarily urban and suburban land uses. The majority of the land within the
incorporated limits is designated Urban and Built-Up Land.3 Some of the Residential Hillside area
west of Foothill Boulevard is mapped as Other Land which includes low density residential, brush,
timber, wetland, and riparian areas that are generally considered non-agricultural.
As defined in Public Resources Code 12220, “forest land” is land than can support 10-percent native
tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for
management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife,
biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits.
The zoning ordinance defines several agricultural zoning districts with Cupertino. Agricultural (A)
zones are intended to preserve agriculture or forestry activities in areas suited to that purpose, and to
include incidental residential development of a rural character. Minimum lot sizes in the A and A1
zones range from 43,000 square feet to 400,000 square feet (about one to nine acres). Agricultural
zones are present in the western portion of the City. Several properties in the A zones include
orchard trees or open fields and others with primarily residential or infrastructure uses (substations,
covered reservoir).
4.2.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
1. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
1,2,4
2. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
1,2,3
3. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?
1,3
4. Result in a loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
1
3 California Department of Conservation. Santa Clara County Important Farmland 2010. June 2011.
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 28 October 2014
148
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
5. Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
1
4.2.2.1 Impacts to Agricultural Resources
The proposed ordinance would not affect any designated important farmland. Since there would be
no land use development associated with the project, the project would not conflict with a
Williamson Act contract. The proposed project would not impact agricultural resources.
4.2.2.2 Impacts to Forest Resources
There is no land zoned as forest land within the City and as there is no land use development
associated with the proposed ordinance, the project would not result in the loss of forest land as
defined under the State of California Government Code.
Wooded hillsides in the eastern foothills do provide an aesthetic backdrop for views from the valley
floor in developed areas of Cupertino. Refer to Section 4.1 Aesthetics for a discussion of these
resources.
4.2.3 Conclusion
The proposed ordinance would regulate the removal of protected trees within the City of Cupertino,
which would not impact farmland of any type or conflict with Williamson Act contracts. There is no
land zoned or managed as forest resources in the City of Cupertino and implementation of the
proposed amendments to the ordinance would not contribute to the conversion of forest land to non-
forest resources. (No Impact)
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 29 October 2014 149
4.3 AIR QUALITY
4.3.1 Setting
4.3.1.1 Background
Air quality and the concentration of a given pollutant in the atmosphere are determined by the
amount of pollutant released and the atmosphere’s ability to transport and dilute the pollutant. The
major determinants of transport and dilution are wind, atmospheric stability, terrain and for
photochemical pollutants, sunshine. The project area (i.e., the City of Cupertino) is within the
southern portion of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Bay Area Air Quality Management
District (BAAQMD) is the regional government agency that monitors and regulates air pollution
within the air basin.
4.3.1.2 Topography and Climate
The South Bay has significant terrain features that affect air quality. The Santa Cruz Mountains and
Diablo Range on either side of the South Bay restrict horizontal dilution, and this alignment of the
terrain also channels winds from the north to south, carrying pollution from the northern San
Francisco Bay Peninsula toward San José and the rest of Santa Clara County.
The proximity of Santa Clara County to both the Pacific Ocean and San Francisco Bay has a
moderating influence on the climate. Meteorological factors make air pollution potential in the Santa
Clara Valley quite high. Northwest winds and northerly winds are most common in the project area,
reflecting the orientation of the Bay and the San Francisco Peninsula.
4.3.1.3 Regional and Local Criteria Pollutants
Major criteria pollutants, listed in “criteria” documents by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) include ozone, carbon monoxide,
nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and suspended particulate matter (PM). These pollutants can have
health effects such as respiratory impairment and heart/lung disease symptoms. Ozone also damages
leaf tissue in trees and other plants.
Violations of ambient air quality standards are based on air pollutant monitoring data and are judged
for each air pollutant. The Bay Area as a whole does not meet State or Federal ambient air quality
standards for ground level ozone or State standards for PM10 and PM2.5. The area is considered
attainment or unclassified for all other pollutants.
4.3.1.4 Local Community Risks/Toxic Air Contaminants and Fine Particulate Matter
Besides criteria air pollutants, there is another group of substances found in ambient air referred to as
Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs). These contaminants tend to be localized and are found in relatively
low concentrations in ambient air; however, they can result in adverse chronic health effects if
exposure to low concentrations occurs for long periods.
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 30 October 2014 150
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) is a complex mixture of substances that includes elements such as
carbon and metals; compounds such as nitrates, organics, and sulfates; and complex mixtures such as
diesel exhaust and wood smoke. Long-term and short-term exposure to PM2.5 can cause a wide range
of health effects. In addition to anthropogenic sources, there are also natural or “biogenic” sources of
some pollutants. For example, some species of trees and vegetation emit volatile organic compounds
(VOC) that contribute to formation of ozone in the atmosphere.4
Common stationary source types of TACs and PM2.5 include gasoline stations, dry cleaners, and
diesel backup generators which are subject to permit requirements. The other, often more significant,
common source is motor vehicles on freeways and roads.
4.3.1.5 Sensitive Receptors
BAAQMD defines sensitive receptors as facilities where sensitive receptor population groups
(children, the elderly, the acutely ill and the chronically ill) are likely to be located. These land uses
include residences, schools, playgrounds, child-care centers, retirement homes, convalescent homes,
hospitals and medicinal clinics.
4.3.1.6 Regulatory Setting and Programs
Federal, state, and regional agencies regulate air quality in the Bay Area Air Basin. At the federal
level, the USEPA is responsible for overseeing implementation of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA).
The CARB is the state agency that regulates mobile sources throughout the state and oversees
implementation of the state air quality laws and regulations, including the California Clean Air Act.
The primary agency that regulates air quality in the project area is the BAAQMD. The BAAQMD
has permit authority over stationary sources, acts as the primary reviewing agency for environmental
documents, and develops regulations that must be consistent with or more stringent than, federal and
state air quality laws and regulations.
The BAAQMD prepared and adopted the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (CAP). This CAP updates
the most recent ozone plan, the 2005 Ozone Strategy. Unlike previous Bay Area CAPs, the 2010
CAP is a multi-pollutant air quality plan addressing four categories of air pollutants:
• Ground-level ozone and the key ozone precursor pollutants (reactive organic gases and
nitrogen oxide), as required by State law;
• Particulate matter, primarily PM2.5, as well as the precursors to secondary PM2.5;
• Toxic air contaminants (TAC); and
• Greenhouse gases.
One of the energy and climate measures listed in the CAP (ECM 4) is tree planting, including
promoting planting of low‐VOC‐emitting shade trees to reduce urban heat island effects, save
energy, and absorb CO2 and other air pollutants.
4 BAAQMD. 2010. Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. p. 1-9.
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 31 October 2014
151
Tree Planting Program
The basic mission of the City of Cupertino’s Tree4Free program is to expand the city’s urban canopy
to offer community-wide air quality, energy savings and carbon sequestration benefits. Residents
and businesses that participate in the program may receive a free tree for planting on their property.
Residents must complete a Green@Home House Call form and businesses/organizations complete a
checklist through the Bay Area Green Business Program. The City works with Acterra (an
environmental organization) and the County of Santa Clara to administer the residential and business
Tree4Free program(s).
4.3.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
1. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan?
1,5
2. Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
1,5,6
3. Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is classified as non-attainment
under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors?
1,5
4. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
1
5. Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
1,6
4.3.2.1 Potential Effects to Air Quality
Air quality impacts related to implementation of amendments to the Protected Trees Ordinance
would be minimal. Since there would be no land use development associated with the project, there
would be no direct effects on air quality related to ground disturbance or operation of construction
equipment. While there would be a local, temporal loss in tree cover and leaf area when trees are
removed, implementation of the ordinance is not anticipated to substantially a ffect the number of
trees or citywide tree canopy in the urban forest of Cupertino as tree removal of protected trees
(including Tier 1 and Tier 2 Specimen trees) would require planting or in-lieu fee for replacement
trees at a ratio of one to one or greater. In addition, the ordinance specifies container sizes for
replacement plantings and would not conflict with the CAP measures that call for planting low VOC-
emitting trees. The proposed project would, therefore, not conflict with implementation of the CAP
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 32 October 2014 152
or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation for criteria pollutants.
(Less Than Significant Impact)
4.3.3 Conclusion
The proposed amendments to the Protected Trees Ordinance would have less than significant air
quality impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact)
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 33 October 2014 153
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4.1 Setting
4.4.1.1 Habitats in Cupertino
As described in the City’s General Plan, natural communities and habitats in Cupertino are
concentrated in the western foothills and along creeks. Identified basic vegetation types include
riparian, grassland, chaparral, woodland and forest. Native trees are present in all of these habitats at
various densities.
Riparian vegetation along creeks (such as Stevens Creek, Permanente Creek, Regnart Creek, Heney
Creek and Calabazas Creek) includes tall shrubs and trees where woody vegetation is present. Trees
found in these habitats include Coast Live Oak, Valley Oak, Western Sycamore, California Bay,
California Buckeye, various willows and cottonwood. Tall shrubs such as Blue Elderberry are also
found along wooded reaches of creeks. Riparian habitats are considered sensitive habitats due to
their habitat value and limited extent.
Grassland and chaparral/scrub habitats found on the lower slopes of foothills are dominated by non-
native grasses or dense wood scrub. Scattered trees, primarily oaks, are found in these habitats,
including at interfaces with woodland and forest habitats.
Woodland and Forest habitats form a mosaic on the hillsides in the Montebello Foothills. Tree
species include oaks (Coast Live Oak, Valley Oak, Black Oak, Interior Live Oak, Blue Oak),
California Bay, and California Buckeye. Oak woodlands are considered sensitive habitats in
California due to their value providing cover, food, and nesting sites for wildlife.
On the valley floor, urbanization and historic agricultural activities have removed native vegetation,
including native trees, and habitats are urban in character. Urban habitats are characterized by
buildings and infrastructure bordered by landscape plantings. At some locations, native trees have
been retained within urban and suburban lots.
4.4.1.2 Urban Forest Resources in Cupertino
The City has a tagging and inventory program for street trees. A survey of other urban trees in the
community as to number, species, or land coverage, has not been undertaken. Urban forest resources
are described below based upon available information and limited windshield surveys of
neighborhoods where tree removal permits were previously issued.
Native Trees
Trees native to the City of Cupertino are commonly found along stream courses, and foothill areas
and are less commonly found on the valley floor. They include both naturally occurring and planted
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 34 October 2014 154
trees. The names and general characteristics of trees native to Cupertino are described below.5 None
of these species are listed as threatened or endangered under the California Native Plant Protection
Act or Federal Endangered Species Act.
Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia). An evergreen tree, 30 to 75 feet high, with spreading branches
that form a broad round crown. Leaves are dark green, stiff, leathery and oval or broadly elliptical
and 1 to 3 inches long. Fruit is a pointed acorn, 1 to 1 ½ inches long. It is native to the coastal
ranges and inland foothills and may hybridize with other oaks. Sudden Oak Death (Phytophthora
ramorum), a viral infection, has had a devastating effect on populations of this species in some areas.
It is a native oak commonly used in landscape plantings.
Blue Oak (Quercus douglasii). A deciduous tree, the Blue Oak is native to foothill areas and
California’s Central Valley. It has a slow growth rate to 30-50 feet tall with a 40-70 foot spread. It
has a low-branching, rounded canopy and often appears to be leaning or slightly bent. Leaves are
bluish green, lobed, and somewhat variable in shape. In natural communities, it may grow adjacent
to the Valley Oak, which has larger leaves that are not as blue as the Blue Oak. It is tolerant of heat
and seasonal drought. Naturally occurring trees are not tolerant of irrigation.
California Black Oak. (Quercus kelloggii). A deciduous tree
native to mountain and foothills roughly 2,000 to 3,000 feet in
elevation. The lobed leaves are bright, shiny green. In the fall,
leaves are yellow to orange in color prior to dropping. Mature
trees are 30 to 80 feet tall and wide with a rounded, oval canopy.
Dry summer heat in valley areas stunts the growth of this species.
Interior Live Oak (Quercus wislizeni). An evergreen tree, 25 to
75 feet high, with spreading branches that form a round-topped
crown. Like the Coast Live Oak, leaves are stiff and leathery. It
is found on lower mountain slopes and foothills of the inner coast range.
Valley Oak (Quercus lobata). This stately, deciduous tree is
native to open valleys and foothills of the Sierra Nevada and
Coast Ranges. It has a slow growth rate to 70 feet tall or
more with a broad spread. It is a large native oak that
tolerates valley and foothill heat, alkaline soils, and seasonal
drought. Naturally occurring trees should not be irrigated.
The deeply lobed leaves are green above and paler on the
underside.
California Buckeye (Aesculus californica). A small, summer-deciduous tree, 15 to 40 feet in height,
with distinctive palmately-compound leaves and cylindrical clusters of white flowers in the spring.
5 Sources of tree descriptions include Hatch, Charles R. 2007. Trees of the California Landscape. University of
California Press and McMinn, Howard E. and Evelyn Maino. 1963. An Illustrated Manual of Pacific Coast Trees.
University of California Press.
Photo 7: Black Oak
Photo 8: Valley Oak
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 35 October 2014
155
Commonly found on north-facing slopes and along riparian corridors. Can be desirable as an accent
tree due to its’ striking flower display and bare, winter silhouette. Seeds are poisonous in a raw state
and pollen is toxic to honeybees. Drought tolerant and suitable for riparian plantings and native
garden settings.
Big Leaf Maple (Acer macrophyllum). A deciduous tree native to moist canyons and streambanks in
foothill areas. It has a fast growth rate, reaching 30-75 feet in height. Leaves are palmately-lobed
and show deep yellow color in the fall. Commonly found as an understory tree, it is not well-suited
for all urban settings. It is occasionally used in foothill or mountain garden settings and in riparian
plantings.
California Bay (Umbellularia californica). An evergreen tree, 20 to 75 feet high, is native to
southern Oregon, the California Coast Ranges, and lower elevations of the Sierra Nevada. It has a
slow growth rate and develops a dense, oval, upright and billowy form and many be multi-trunked.
Thick, leathery, lanceolate to elliptical leaves are shiny and dark to light yellowish green. California
Bay trees are commonly found in riparian zones and canyons in foothill areas. It performs well in
fertile soil with ample water and also tolerates heat and drought conditions. California Bays are
reported to contribute to the spread of Sudden Oak Death to oaks as they can act as hosts for the
disease. The Sudden Oak Death virus affects different species in different ways and causes only
minor leaf disease in California Bay trees.
Box Elder (Acer negundo). A deciduous, usually multi-trunked tree that is initially fast growing and
usually 20 to 50 feet in height. Compound leaves have three leaflets and are yellowish green in
color. While it is an important habitat tree along streams, it is not well suited for urban use due to its
self-seeding, suckers at the base and breakage of the weak wood.
Western Sycamore (Platanus racemosa). A large deciduous tree, native to foothill riparian streams,
including in the Coast Ranges. Fast growth to 30-80 feet tall and 20-50 feet wide, with an irregular
(not straight) upright trunk and crown and twisted branches. The whitish bark peels into irregular tan
patches. Leaves light green with three to five lobes with pointed ends. Similar in appearance to the
non-native London plane tree that is widely planted in urban settings as a parkway or shade tree.
Susceptible to some pests, such as mites, leaf miner and anthracnose.
Willows and cottonwood (Salix laevigata, Salix lasiandra var. lasiandra and Populus trichocarpa).
Native willows and cottonwood are found along perennial creeks, including at McClellan Ranch.6
Non-Native Landscape Trees
Urban and suburban tree plantings serve a number of purposes. They are planted along streets and in
parks to soften the urban and suburban environment. From a biological point of view, they may be
planted to provide habitat for urban and suburban adapted wildlife. Trees also provide shade and
moderate microclimates around buildings. Tree plantings within Cupertino have occurred over a
number of years, with shifts in tree species used based upon experience with the shortcomings of
6 Natural Resources DataBase. Checklist of Flora in McClellan Ranch Preserve. Accessed October 24, 2013.
<http://nrdb.org/>
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 36 October 2014
156
various species (e.g., trees prone to damage sidewalks or utilities, susceptible to disease or limb
breakage), availability of new varieties or species, and other factors.
Non-native trees planted in Cupertino range from fruit trees and palm trees to tall conifers, such as
Canary Island Pine and Monterey Pine. Flowering trees, such as Crape Myrtle and flowering pear,
are also popular medium sized trees. Other common tree genera include ash, redwood, eucalyptus,
elm, pine, plane, cypress, alder, birch, acacia, maple, and liquidambar (sweet gum).
Landscape trees in the cedar genus are considered highly ornamental, with a striking, or impressive,
appearance associated with a pyramidal shape, drooping foliage, branch form, and large upright
cones. Two species of cedar are listed as “Protected Trees” in the City’s Municipal Code. These
species are described below.
Blue Atlas Cedar (Cedrus atlantica ‘Glauca’). This evergreen tree species from the Atlas
Mountains of northern Africa is used as an accent tree or park tree. It has distinctive bluish green
needles and grows to 60 feet tall and 30 feet wide in a pyramidal form, with the branches angled
slightly upward. Young trees appear sparse and older trees develop enormous trunks. Deep rooted
and drought tolerant when established.
Deodar Cedar (Cedrus deodara). Deodar Cedar is a gray-green, evergreen tree native to the
Himalayas in Asia. It has a relatively fast growth rate and is up to 80 feet tall with a loose pyramidal
spread to 40 feet wide. It is considered a useful evergreen conifer for parks and parkways. It needs
ample room for branches and roots.
4.4.1.2 Regulatory Setting and Programs
Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act prohibits the killing, possessing, or trading or migratory birds.
The Act protects active nests from destruction and would cover all native bird species in the City of
Cupertino.
California Fish and Game Code
The California Fish and Game Code includes regulations governing the use of, or impacts to, many
of the State’s fish, wildlife and sensitive habitats. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW) has jurisdiction over the bed and banks of rivers, lakes, and streams (Sections 1601-1603 of
the Fish and Game Code). A Streambed Alteration Agreement is required for the fill or removal of
material within the bed and banks of a watercourse or waterbed and for the removal of riparian
vegetation. Provisions of these sections may apply to modifications of sensitive riparian habitats
within the city.
Other regulations in the Fish and Game Code provide protection for native birds, including their
nests and eggs (Sections 3503, 2513, and 3800).
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 37 October 2014 157
California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is a state law that requires state and local
agencies, such as the City of Cupertino, to document and consider the environmental implications of
their actions. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15065, a project’s effects on biological resources are
deemed significant where the project would affect any of the following:
• substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species;
• cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels;
• threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; or
• reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare, endangered or threatened plant or animal.
City of Cupertino Municipal Code
Street Trees (Municipal Code Chapter 14.12)
The Public Works Department, Trees Division, is responsible for the planting and maintenance of
approximately 13,000 street trees. Street trees are trees located on property in the public right-of-
way throughout Cupertino. This includes along street frontages, medians and other landscaped areas.
The City of Cupertino, Municipal Code Chapter 14.12 – Trees, details the responsibilities of the City
and property owners regarding the planting and care of street trees.
Property owners with street trees adjacent to their property have a responsibility to notify the City of
any tree maintenance need by visiting the Access Cupertino and selecting “Trees” topic.
The City of Cupertino currently has thirteen tree species available for planting, including one locally
native tree, Coast Live Oak.7
Protected Trees (Municipal Code Chapter 14.18)
The City of Cupertino’s Protected Trees Ordinance (Chapter 14.18 in the Cupertino Municipal Code)
contains regulations for the removal of protected trees within the City. Protected trees include: 1)
identified Heritage trees; 2) “Specimen” trees of native and landscape tree species with a trunk
diameter of 10 inches or more; 3) trees required to be planted or retained as part of an approved
development application or specific permits; 4) and approved privacy protection plantings in R-1
(single-family) zoning districts. The ordinance applies to trees on private land.
7 City of Cupertino. “Street Trees / Right of Way”. Accessed October 6, 2014.
<http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=1134>
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 38 October 2014
158
Regional Tree Planting Programs
Tree4Free Program
The basic mission of the City of Cupertino’s Tree4Free program is to expand the city’s urban canopy
to offer community-wide air quality, energy savings and carbon sequestration benefits. Residents
and businesses that participate in the program may receive a free tree for planting on their property.
Residents must complete a Green@Home House Call form and businesses/organizations complete a
checklist through the Bay Area Green Business Program. The City works with Acterra (an
environmental organization) and the County of Santa Clara to administer the residential and business
Tree4Free program(s).
4.4.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
1. Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
1,2
2. Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or
US Fish and Wildlife Service?
1
3. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
1,2
4. Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
1
5. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
1
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 39 October 2014 159
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
6. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
1
4.4.2.1 Overview of Ordinance Changes and Possible Environmental Effects
Currently, removal of protected Specimen trees greater than 10 inches in diameter requires a permit,
a commitment for replacement, and that specific findings be made prior to removal. Under the
proposed project, removal of protected trees on private land would continue to require a permit and
replacement plantings, although the minimum size for Specimen trees that would require a permit
and replacement requirements would increase from 10 inches DBH to 12 inches DBH.
As discussed in Section 4.0 (Project Impacts), from historic records of tree removal, the numbers of
Specimen trees 10-12 inches in diameter and the number of California Bay trees removed from
residential parcels (not part of a development application) is relatively small, less than 10 per year on
average. Implementation of the proposed revisions are, therefore, not anticipated to result in a
substantial increase in the number of trees removed without replacement.
California Bay, a locally native species, is proposed to be removed from the list of protected
specimen tree species and replaced with London plane (non-native tree). The characteristics of the
London Plane species being considered for addition to the list of Specimen trees is described below.
London Plane (Platanus acerifolia). A deciduous tree which is hybrid between American
Sycamore (Platanus orientalis) and Oriental Plane (P. occidentalis), two species that are native
to the eastern/central United States and Eurasia, respectively. The growth rate of London Plane
is fast to 40 to 80 feet tall. It has a broad, symmetrical, conical to oval form when mature. The
palmate leaves, multiple, light green round flower heads in a string, and cream-colored bark that
peels in irregular thin patches are distinguishing features. London Plane is a widely planted
shade tree that is tolerant of heat, dust and smog, and needs ample space. Anthracnose, an
airborne disease, can cause temporary leaf drop.
4.4.2.2 Sensitive Habitats and Special Status Species
Oak Woodland
Sensitive oak woodland habitats are present in some areas zoned RHS (Residential Hillside).
Replacement plantings would be required under the ordinance for removal of individual Specimen
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 40 October 2014 160
trees or as part of approved development.8 In addition, a cap on the number of Tier 1 Specimen trees
that could be removed annually would limit to potential for substantial direct effects on oak
woodland areas within the City. Implementation of the ordinance, in combination other regulations
(e.g., CEQA) is not anticipated to adversely impact native stands of oak woodland habitat in
Cupertino.
Sudden Oak Death and Replacement Plantings
One of the native trees currently protected under the ordinance, California Bay, can act as a host of
the pathogen known as Sudden Oak Death. In some cases, where a California Bay is removed, it
may not be prudent to plant a replacement California Bay near stands of native oaks. The proposed
ordinance removes the requirement for a permit or replacement of California Bay trees over 10
inches DBH.
Research into control measures and best management practices for Sudden Oak Death is on-going 9
and adoption of the ordinance would not preclude incorporation of the best available information in
tree removal or replanting requirements of individual tree removal permits. In addition, for tree
replacements of Tier 2 Specimen trees over 24 inches, an arborists report would be required and
notification. Recommendations in the arborists report for replanting near stands of Coast Live Oak
likely would consider best available information on control of this pathogen.10 Therefore, the
implementation of the proposed amendments would not have a substantial adverse effect on sensitive
oak woodland habitat.
Riparian Habitats
Sensitive riparian habitats (such as along Stevens Creek or Regnart Creek) may extend into
residential backyards or other adjacent land uses. Tree removal along creeks within the riparian
corridor would be regulated by both the City’s Protected Trees Ordinance and under the California
Fish and Game Code. For these reasons, the proposed ordinance would not have a substantial
adverse effect on sensitive riparian habitat. (Less Than Significant Impact)
4.4.2.2 Impacts to Nesting Birds
Tree removal during nesting season has the potential to directly impact active nests and/or eggs of
native birds.
For development projects in Cupertino, especially large projects with a number of tree removals,
measures to avoid direct effects to nesting birds, such as tree removal outside the nesting season or
surveys to confirm that no nesting birds are present, are often included as conditions of approval. For
8 Development applications considered discretionary actions (such as subdivisions or zoning changes) would require
environmental review under CEQA. As appropriate site specific mitigation that would consider habitat values of
any sensitive woodland habitats may be required in addition to replacement ratios in the proposed ordinance.
9 UC Berkeley Forest Pathology and Mycology Laboratory. “SOD Blitz”. Accessed November 8, 2013.
<http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/garbelotto/english/sodblitz.php>
10 University of California Statewide Integrated Pest Management Program. 2010. Sudden Oak Death: Integrated
Pest Management in the Landscape. Agriculture and Natural Resources Publication Number 74151, Available at:
<http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/Items/74151.aspx>
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 41 October 2014
161
individual tree removals, the City has not required preconstruction surveys or other avoidance
measures as the environmental effects on local bird populations of removing one to several trees on a
property are limited and the City is not an enforcement agency for either the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act or provisions of the California Fish and Game Code. 11
Tree removal is one of a number of activities in urban environments that can effect nesting success
and bird populations. Other factors include, but are not limited to, nest predation, availability of
suitable nesting sites, and fragmentation of habitats.12 The focus of the following discussion is tree
removal, as that is the activity that the proposed ordinance amendments regulate.
As shown in Table 4, and discussed in Section 4.0 (Project Effects), the majority of permitted tree
removals in Cupertino are associated with development projects. As part of the City’s
environmental review process, tree removals for these projects generally are conditioned to avoid
tree removal during the nesting season or to conduct preconstruction surveys to ensure that trees will
not be removed when active nests are occupied and impacts to nesting birds could occur. For tree
removal permits not associated with a development approval, the effect of tree ordinance
amendments is that there would be a limit on the number of Tier 1 trees (single trunk: 12- 24 inches
DBH and multi-trunk 24-48 inches DBH) that could be removed from an individual property over a
twelve month period. Tree removals (for reasons other than development) are not anticipated to be
locally extensive. This would limit the effects of individual tree removals on bird populations in
neighborhoods. For these reasons, the proposed amendments to the ordinance would not have a
substantial adverse effect on nesting bird populations, including special-status birds and their
habitats, in the City. (Less Than Significant Impact)
4.4.2.3 Conflict with Local Policies or Ordinances
The proposed amendments to the City’s Protected Trees Ordinance would modify some of the
procedures for applying for a tree removal permit and definitions in the Specimen tree category.
Permits for Specimen tree removal would continue to be required on private property. The proposed
amendments would not change the general intent of the Protected Trees Ordinance or otherwise
conflict with ordinance’s purpose of protecting trees as a valuable asset to the community.
4.4.3 Conclusion
The proposed ordinance revisions would regulate the removal of protected trees within the City of
Cupertino. Implementation of the proposed amendments to the ordinance would not contribute to the
loss of sensitive habitats, such as oak woodland or riparian habitat, special status species, or conflict
with the intent of City regulations designed to protect tree resources within the City. (Less Than
Significant Impact)
11 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife are responsible for
enforcement of these federal and State of California laws and regulations. Enforcement by these agencies is
generally in response to reports by the public or other agencies.
12 Reale, Joseph A. and Robert B. Blair. 2005. Nesting Success and Life-History Attributes of Bird
Communities Along an Urbanization Gradient. Urban Habitats, 3(1). <http://www.urbanhabitats.org>.
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 42 October 2014
162
4.5 CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.5.1 Setting
Cultural resources are evidence of past human occupation and activity and include both historical and
archaeological resources. These resources may be located above ground, underground or underwater
and have significance in history, prehistory 13, architecture or culture of the nation, State of California
or local or tribal communities. Cultural resources are found throughout the project area and are
generally identified in historic or cultural resources inventories maintained by the County of Santa
Clara and local cities and towns and on California Register of Historical Resources (California
Register) and the National Register of Historic Places (National Register).
Heritage trees are considered cultural resources in the City of Cupertino and are recognized as a
cultural resource in the General Plan. As defined in the Protected Trees Ordinance (Section
14.18.020), a Heritage tree is any tree or grove of trees which, because of factors including, but not
limited to, its historic value, unique quality, girth, height or species, has been found by the Planning
Commission to have a special significance to the community.
Paleontological resources are fossils, the remains or traces of prehistoric life preserved in the
geological record. They range from the well know and well publicized fossils (such as mammoth
and dinosaur bones) to scientifically important fossils (such as paleobotanical remains, trace fossils,
and microfossils). Potentially sensitive areas with fossil bearing sediments near the ground surface in
areas of Santa Clara County are generally in or adjacent to foothill areas rather than the younger
Holocene age deposits on the valley floor.14
4.5.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
1. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an historical resource as
defined in §15064.5?
1
2. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource as
defined in §15064.5?
1
3. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site, or unique
geologic feature?
1
4. Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
1
13 Events of the past prior to written records are considered prehistory.
14 City of San José. 2011. Final Program EIR for the Envision San José 2040 General Plan. Technical Report.
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 43 October 2014
163
4.5.2.1 Impacts to Heritage Trees
The proposed amendments to the Protected Trees Ordinance modify existing regulations related to
protected trees. The definition and protection of Heritage trees, which can be considered a cultural
resource, would not change.
The City’s list of Heritage trees is currently included in the Protected Trees Ordinance as Appendix
A. The proposed revisions would take the Heritage trees list and map out of the text of the
ordinance. The list and map would be maintained separately and amended by the Planning
Commission by resolution, as required, to update the list. This change in procedure would not
change the qualifications for the list, the area of the City to which the regulations apply, or otherwise
result in direct or indirect impacts to Heritage trees. (No Impact)
4.5.2.2 Impacts to Other Cultural or Paleontological Resources
Implementation of the ordinance would not involve ground disturbance of native soils or other
modifications of the physical environment that would affect buried archaeological, historic or
paleontological resources, either directly or indirectly. (No Impact)
4.5.3 Conclusion
The proposed amendments to the Protected Trees Ordinance would have no impact on cultural
resources, including Heritage trees within the City of Cupertino. (No Impact)
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 44 October 2014 164
4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
4.6.1 Setting
4.6.1.1 Regional Geology
The City of Cupertino is located in the western portion of the Santa Clara Valley and lower portion
of the foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains. The Santa Clara Valley is located within the Coast
Ranges geomorphic province of California; an area characterized by northwest-trending ridges and
valleys, underlain by strongly deformed sedimentary and metamorphic rocks of the Franciscan
Complex. Overlying these rocks are sediments deposited during recent geologic times. The Santa
Clara Valley consists of a large structural basin containing alluvial deposits derived from the Diablo
Range to the east and the Santa Cruz Mountains to the west. Valley sediments were deposited as a
series of coalescing alluvial fans by streams that drain the adjacent mountains. These alluvial
sediments make up the groundwater aquifers of the area. Soil types in the project area include clay in
low-lying areas, loam and gravelly loam in the upper portions of the valley, and eroded rocky clay
loam in the foothills.
Landslides and erosion are geologic hazards in foothill areas and expansive with high shrink-swell
behavior are found on both the valley floor and in hillside areas.
4.6.1.2 Regional Seismicity and Seismic Hazards
The San Francisco Bay Area is recognized by geologists and seismologists as one of the most
seismically-active regions in the United States. Significant earthquakes occurring in the Bay Area
are generally associated with crustal movement along well-defined active fault zones of the San
Andreas Fault system, which spans the Coast Ranges from the Pacific Ocean to the San Joaquin
Valley. Two other major active faults in the area the Hayward Fault and the Calaveras Fault, located
in the hills to the north and east of the Santa Clara Valley. Hazards associated with seismic activity
along regional and local faults include fault rupture, ground shaking, liquefaction, differential seismic
settlement, and earthquake-induced landslides and waves in bodies of water.
4.6.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
1. Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving:
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 45 October 2014 165
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
a. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
described on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42.)
1,2
b. Strong seismic ground shaking? 1,2
c. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
1
d. Landslides? 1,2
2. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
1
3. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that will become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
1
4. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Section 1802.3.2 of the California Building
Code (2007), creating substantial risks to life
or property?
1
5. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers are
not available for the disposal of wastewater?
1
4.6.1.1 Geology, Soils and Seismicity Impacts
The amendments to the ordinance do not involve construction of any kind. One of the identified
purposes of the ordinance is the preservation of protected trees and the protection of all trees during
construction in order to assist in the absorption of rain waters, thereby preventing erosion of top soil
and protecting against the risk of landslides. The amendments to the ordinance would maintain tree
removal permit and tree protection requirements in the RHS Residential Hillside zone and tree
canopies in hillside areas are not anticipated to substantially change compared to current levels with
implementation of the proposed changes. In addition, replacement plantings would be required in the
areas covered by the Protected Trees Ordinance. For these reasons, implementation of the revised
ordinance would not result in substantial erosion or increased landsliding. (No Impact)
4.6.3 Conclusion
The proposed amendments to the Protected Trees Ordinance would not expose people or structures to
geologic, soils, or seismic impacts. (No Impact)
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 46 October 2014 166
4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.7.1 Setting
Unlike emissions of criteria and toxic air pollutants, which have local or regional impacts, emissions
of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) have a broader, global impact. Global warming associated with the
“greenhouse effect” is a process whereby GHGs accumulating in the atmosphere contribute to an
increase in the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere. The principal GHGs contributing to global
warming and associated climate change are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide
(N2O), and fluorinated compounds. Emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change are
attributable in large part to human activities associated with the transportation, industrial/
manufacturing, utility, residential, commercial, and agricultural sectors. In California and the
Cupertino area, the greatest GHG emissions are associated with transportation and electricity and
commercial/residential energy.
4.7.1.1 Applicable Plans, Policies, and Regulations
Agencies at the International, National, State, and local levels are considering strategies to control
emissions of GHG that contribute to global warming. Several key plans and policies are described
below.
California Assembly Bill 32
With the passage of AB 32 (Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006), the State of California made a
commitment to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, which represents
about a 30 percent decrease over current levels. CARB’s Discrete Early Actions include maximizing
energy efficient building and appliance standards, pursuing additional efficiency efforts, including
new technologies and new policy and implementation mechanisms, and pursuing comparable
investment in energy efficiency by all retail providers of electricity in California (including both
investor-owned and publicly-owned utilities). In December 2008, the ARB approved the Climate
Change Scoping Plan, which proposes a comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce California’s
dependence on oil, diversify energy sources, save energy, and enhance public health, among other
goals. Per AB 32, the Scoping Plan must be updated every five years to evaluate the mix of AB 32
policies to ensure that California is on track to achieve the 2020 GHG reduction goal. The First
Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan Update was adopted on May 15, 2014.15 The Update
defines CARB’s climate change priorities for the next five years and lays the groundwork to start the
transition to the post-2020 goals set forth in Executive Orders S-3-05 and B-16-2012 (see below).
The Update highlights California’s progress toward meeting the “near-term” 2020 GHG emission
reduction goals defined in the 2008 Scoping Plan and evaluate how to align the State's longer-term
GHG reduction strategies with other State policy priorities, such as for water, waste, natural
resources, agriculture, clean energy, and transportation and land use.
15 California Air Resources Board. AB 32 Scoping Plan. Available at:
<http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm>.
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 47 October 2014
167
In addition to AB 32, Executive Order S-3-05 (EO S-3-05) established a reduction target of 80
percent below 1990 levels by 2050 and Executive Order B-16-2012 established benchmarks for
increased use of zero emission vehicles and zero emission vehicle infrastructure by 2020 and 2025.16
Forest and Urban Forest Resources and Greenhouse Gases
Nationwide, urbanized areas account for three percent of the total land area and trees in U.S. cities
sequester about 14 percent of the carbon (C) sequestered 17 by U.S. forests. For California, it has
been estimated that between 2 and 12 percent of total C stored and sequestered annually by trees in
California is in urban forests. 18 Therefore, urban forests store considerable amounts of carbon.
The AB 32 Scoping Plan acknowledges the important role of terrestrial carbon sequestration in our
forests, rangelands, wetlands, and other land resources.19 The Forest sector evaluated in the Scoping
Plan is considered unique in that forests both emit greenhouse gases and uptake carbon dioxide
(CO2). Forests in California are now a carbon sink.
Research conducted on street trees in Berkeley shows that the average annual net CO2 removal
(including release from tree care activities, and reduced emissions from energy savings) ranges from
140 to 190 pounds per year.20 CAL FIRE, in conjunction with the U.S. Forest Service and
researchers at UC Davis, is also developing GHG inventory data for urban forests and is continuing
to refine and update data over time.21
One of the earliest mitigation protocols adopted for the mitigation of offset of CO2e emissions is the
Urban Forest Project Reporting Protocol, adopted by the California Climate Action Registry in 2008.
The introduction to the Protocol describes that urban forests can reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide
(CO2) directly and indirectly.22 As long as trees are growing, they remove CO2 from the air in a
process called carbon sequestration, transforming CO2 into carbon and making use of it to build
living matter - leaves, stems, trunk, roots. The direct effect of the net storage of CO2 through tree
plantings can be reported and registered with the California Registry using this Protocol. Urban
forests have two additional, indirect effects on atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases (e.g.
methane, nitrous oxide). First, trees around buildings can reduce heating and air conditioning use,
thereby reducing emissions of GHGs associated with the consumption of electricity, natural gas, or
other fuels.23 Second, normally when trees die, the stored carbon is released into the atmosphere
16 Office of Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. “Executive Order B-16-2012”. Accessed November 7, 2013.
<http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=17472>
17 Carbon sequestration is the process of capture and long-term storage of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO 2). In the
case of forests and trees this is primarily through the absorption of carbon dioxide and incorporation into plant
tissues.
18 McPherson, Gregory, Oingfu Xiao, Elena Aquaron. 2013. A new approach to quantify and map carbon stored,
sequestered and emissions avoided by urban forests. Landscape and Urban Planning 120 (2013) 70– 84.
19 California Air Resources Board. AB 32 Scoping Plan. Available at:
<http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm>
20 Greg McPherson, Ph.D., USFS Center for Urban Forest Research, email to Kristy Le, August 19, 2009.
21 California Air Resources Board. First Update to Climate Change Scoping Plan. Available at:
<http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm>
22 California Climate Action Registry. 2008. Urban Forest Project Reporting Protocol Version 1.0.
23 McPherson, et al. (2013) concluded that if avoided emissions are included, urban forests are responsible for 20
percent of total reductions in GHG emissions and they act as an important sink for approximately 1–2 percent of
statewide GHG emissions.
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 48 October 2014
168
through decomposition. If the biomass from removed trees is used as feedstock for power plants,
however, GHG emissions that would have occurred with other fuel sources are displaced.
The means of disposal of tree materials can also effect greenhouse gas emissions. Materials that are
composted or burned (e.g., in a co-generation power plant) primarily release the carbon stored in
plant tissues as CO2. Tree materials that are landfilled in anaerobic conditions release substantial
amounts of their carbon as methane (CH4), a GHG with global warming potential 21 times that of
CO2.
California Senate Bill 375 and Plan Bay Area
Senate Bill 375 (SB 375), known as the Sustainability Communities Strategy and Climate Protection
Act, was signed into law in September 2008. It builds on AB 32 by requiring CARB to develop
regional GHG reduction targets to be achieved from the automobile and light truck sectors for 2020
and 2035 when compared to emissions in 2005. The per capita reduction targets for passenger
vehicles in the San Francisco Bay Area include a seven percent reduction by 2020 and a 15 percent
reduction by 2035.24
Consistent with the requirements of SB 375, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)
has partnered with the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), BAAQMD, and the Bay
Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) to prepare the region’s SCS as part of the RTP
process.25 The SCS is referred to as Plan Bay Area.
MTC and ABAG adopted Plan Bay Area in July 2013. The strategies in the plan are intended to
promote compact, mixed-use development close to public transit, jobs, schools, shopping, parks,
recreation, and other amenities, particularly within Priority Development Areas (PDAs) identified by
local jurisdictions.
2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan
The Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (CAP) addresses air emissions in the San Francisco Bay Area Air
Basin. One of the key objectives in the CAP is climate protection. The 2010 CAP includes emission
control measures and performance objectives, consistent with the State’s climate protection goals
under AB 32 and SB 375, designed to reduce emissions of GHGs to 1990 levels by 2020 and 40
percent below 1990 levels by 2035. One control measure related to trees (ECM 4) calls for
promotion of planting of low‐ volatile organic compound (VOC) ‐ emitting shade trees to reduce
urban heat island effects, save energy, and absorb CO2 and other air pollutants.
BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines
BAAQMD identifies thresholds of significance for operational GHG emissions from stationary
sources (e.g., engine-generators, boilers) and land-use development projects in its 2011 CEQA Air
24 The emission reduction targets are for those associated with land use and transportation strategies, only. Emission
reductions due to the California Low Carbon Fuel Standards or Pavley emission control standards are not included
in the targets.
25 ABAG, BAAQMD, BCDC, and MTC. “One Bay Area Frequently Asked Questions” Accessed October 26, 2013.
<http://onebayarea.org/about/faq.html#.UQceKR2_DAk>
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 49 October 2014
169
Quality Guidelines. These guidelines also include assessment methodologies and mitigation
strategies for GHG emissions. Planting shade trees on the south or west sides of properties is
identified as an energy efficiency mitigation measure that can reduce energy use (and associated
GHG emissions) by up to 30 percent.
In jurisdictions where a qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy has been reviewed under
CEQA and adopted by decision-makers, compliance with the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy
would reduce a project’s contribution to cumulative GHG emission impacts to a less than significant
level.26 The City of Cupertino is planning to prepare a Climate Action Plan in 2013-2014 that would
serve as a qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy.
4.7.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
1. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
1,8,9,10
2. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
1,2,5,8
4.7.2.1 Overview of Greenhouse Gas Emission Impacts
The proposed project does not include land use development (project-level operational impacts) or
adoption of a regional plan for which specific quantitative thresholds have been identified.
According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4, a lead agency shall have discretion to determine, in
the context of a particular project, whether to: (1) Use a model or methodology to quantify GHG
emissions resulting from a project, and which model or methodology to use. The lead agency has
discretion to select the model or methodology it considers most appropriate provided it supports its
decision with substantial evidence. The lead agency should explain the limitations of the particular
model or methodology selected for use; and/or (2) rely on a qualitative analysis or performance based
standards.
While there are models that estimate net GHG emissions associated with trees and urban forests,
including the protocol adopted by the California Climate Action Registry, there is no citywide survey
or estimates of the City’s urban forest resources. Given the limited quantitative information available
for use with a model, the number of assumptions regarding tree species, tree age, and number of trees
in Cupertino’s urban forest that would need to be made would be highly speculative. This could
result in inaccurate or misleading results. Therefore, for the purposes of this Initial Study, a
primarily qualitative analysis will be used and is considered appropriate.
26 The required components of a “qualified” Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy or Plan are described in both
Section 15183.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (amended 2012).
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 50 October 2014
170
4.7.2.2 Greenhouse Gas Impacts
Given the overall scope of global climate change, it is not anticipated that a single project, such as
adoption of an ordinance, would have an individually discernable effect on global climate change. It
is more appropriate to conclude that the GHG emissions generated by the proposed project could
combine with emissions across the State, nation, and globe to cumulatively contribute to global
climate change. The challenge under CEQA is for a Lead Agency to translate the issue down to the
level of an individual CEQA document for a specific project in a way that is meaningful to the
decision making process. Under CEQA, the essential questions are whether a project creates or
contributes to an environmental impact or is subject to impacts from the environment in which it
would occur, and what mitigation measures are available to avoid or reduce impacts.
As discussed in Section 4.7.1.1, trees in the urban forest both emit greenhouse gases and take up
carbon dioxide (CO2). Overall, urban forests serve as a carbon sink (e.g., they sequester CO2
absorbed from the atmosphere in the roots, trunk and other tissues of trees).
The amount of carbon dioxide that is stored on an annual basis, either in an individual tree or within
a community’s urban forest, is a function of the age and size of trees, how tree trimmings are
disposed of, and the GHG emitting characteristics of individual species. The AB 32 Scoping Plan
notes that planted trees maximize their sequestration capacity in 20 to 50 years.
To certain extent, replacement tree planting would be required with or without the ordinance as trees
within the urban forest become diseased or reach their natural life span. The Protected Trees
Ordinance provides for the replacement of trees that are removed under the City’s tree removal
permit process. Depending on the size of the tree removed, replacement would consist of one or
more trees (refer to Table 3). As noted above, trees maximize their carbon sequestration capacity in
roughly 20 to 50 years. Therefore, there would be a temporal loss in sequestration as replacement
trees grow and mature.
As discussed on pages 15-20 of this Initial Study, changes in permit requirements would apply to tree
removal in residential zones in the City, primarily properties with established, older houses in R-1
and RHS zoning districts where landscape plans or other approved development plans are not in
effect or on file. While permit requirements for the Specimen tree category would no longer cover
California Bay trees or Specimen trees in 10 inch to less than 12 inch DBH size, the number of native
trees or non-native cedars that would be removed without replacement is anticipated to be relatively
low overall. In addition, the City’s tree protection ordinance is not the primary factor in the retention
of most trees within the City. Landowners maintain and plant trees on their properties for their
aesthetic, energy conservation, shade, and wildlife habitat value and only a small fraction of the trees
in Cupertino’s urban forest would be removed and replaced with younger trees. While the removal
of individual trees would release stored carbon once removed, overall greenhouse emissions into the
environment could be reduced if woody materials are composted or used for energy rather than
landfilled. Several of the landfills that serve the City of Cupertino (e.g., Newby Island, Zanker Road,
Guadalupe) have composting or recycling operations for wood materials. Overall, it is anticipated
that Cupertino’s urban forest would remain a carbon sink for carbon dioxide. For these reasons,
implementation of the proposed amendments to the Protected Trees Ordinance would not generate
GHG emissions that would have a substantial effect on the environment. (Less Than Significant
Impact)
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 51 October 2014 171
4.7.2.3 Consistency with Statewide GHG Reduction Plans and the Bay Area CAP
The AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan and First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan
provide a comprehensive strategy to reduce statewide GHG emissions in the year 2020 consistent
with the reduction targets established by AB 32. The update of the Scoping Plan also includes longer
term targets through 2050. Included in the plan strategies are actions related to both forests and
recycling and waste, though the contribution of urban forests to carbon sequestration is not currently
quantified in the Scoping Plan.
The proposed amendments include replacement tree plantings for trees that are removed, which
would roughly off-set the loss of carbon sequestration for individual trees over time. Trees removed
from sites in Cupertino generally would be disposed of at local landfills with capabilities for waste
diversion and compositing that are consistent with Scoping Plan Recommended Action 15 for
Recycling and Waste.
The proposed project includes tree replacement guidelines that could allow for replacement tree
planting that would provide shade and increase energy efficiency. The City is also participating in a
separate tree planting program (Trees4Free) that is designed to provide for additional tree planting in
communities in conformance with energy efficiency measures in the Bay Area CAP.
Implementation of the proposed amendments to the Protected Trees Ordinance would, therefore, not
conflict with statewide or regional plans adopted to reduce GHG emissions. (Less Than Significant
Impact)
4.7.3 Conclusion
The proposed amendments to the Protected Trees Ordinance would not directly or indirectly result in
substantial GHG emissions that would have a significant impact on the environment, nor would the
proposed project conflict with statewide or regional plans adopted to reduce GHG emissions. (Less
Than Significant Impact)
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 52 October 2014 172
4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.8.1 Setting
Hazardous materials include materials such as compressed gases, flammable liquids, oxidizers,
corrosives and toxics. Hazardous materials are used and stored in most urban, suburban, and rural
communities, including those within the project area. Examples of hazardous materials include
gasoline and other fuels, chlorine compounds, acids, and biocides. They include substances used at a
wide range of industries and businesses including manufacturing, automotive, medical and
electronics. Many products containing hazardous chemicals also are routinely used and stored in
homes; generally in small quantities. Hazardous materials are also shipped daily on highways,
railroads, and in pipelines.
Each year, Californians generate two million tons of hazardous waste.27 Properly handling these
wastes avoids threats to public health and degradation of the environment. In addition, existing
contamination from reported hazardous materials release sites (such as leaking fuel tanks) can
adversely affect the environment or human health and is tracked in State of California databases,
such as the GeoTracker database maintained by the State Water Resources Control Board.
Landfill and solid waste facilities include landfills, transfer stations, material recovery facilities,
compositing sites, and closed disposal sites. The two environmental concerns related to landfills are
the generation and control of landfill gas and water moving through landfilled materials (leachate).
Transfer stations do not routinely handle materials classified as hazardous materials, although they
do encounter them in waste materials during sorting and have procedures for separating and properly
disposing of such materials when encountered. There are no active landfills in the City of Cupertino.
Other hazards identified in the project vicinity include safety zones for airports and very high
severity hazards for wildfires in foothill areas. Safety zones and airport influence areas for airports
are identified in Comprehensive Land Use Plans (CLUPs) for the public airports in Santa Clara
County and do not extend to the City of Cupertino.28 An area of very severe hazards for wildfires is
identified in southern Cupertino. 29
27 Department of Toxic Substances Control. “DTSC: Who We Are and What We Do”. Accessed November 8,
2013. <http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/InformationResources/DTSC_Overview.cfm>
28 County of Santa Clara, Planning Office. “Airport Land-Use Commission”. Accessed November 8, 2013.
<http://www.sccgov.org/sites/planning/PlansPrograms/ALUC/Pages/ALUC.aspx>.
29 CalFire. “Santa Clara County FHSZ Maps” Accessed November 11, 2013.
<http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps_santaclara.php>
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 53 October 2014
173
4.8.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
1. Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
1
2. 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?
1
3. Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school?
1
4. 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, will it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
1
5. 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, will the project result in
a safety hazard for people residing or working
in the project area?
1,2
6. For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, will the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
1,2
7. Impair implementation of, or physically
interfere with, an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
1
8. 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
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 54 October 2014 174
4.8.2.1 Hazardous Materials Impacts
The proposed ordinance does not propose or require land use development or new operational use or
storage of hazardous materials. The project would, therefore, not expose people to substantial
adverse hazards related to existing soil or groundwater contamination or impair implementation of
emergency response or evacuation plans.
There would be limited hazardous materials use related to the permitted removal and planting of trees
associated with fuels for vehicles and equipment. This use is regulated under a number of regulatory
programs in place and the proposed amendments to the Protected Trees Ordinance would not create a
hazard to the public from reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions. (No Impact)
4.8.2.2 Other Hazards
A portion of the City is within an area at the wildland-urban interface subject to very high wildfire
hazards. Outdoor work using power equipment by licensed professionals is anticipated to include
use of equipment with spark arrestors. It is also assumed that appropriate fire control equipment
would be on-hand. Tree removal is one of many activities that homeowners and their contractors
may conduct in outdoor areas at the wildland-urban interface and it is not anticipated that the limited
tree removal and replanting anticipated with implementation of the amendments to the ordinance
would result in a substantial new hazard. (Less Than Significant Impact)
4.8.3 Conclusion
The proposed amendments to the Protected Trees Ordinance would not create a hazard to the public
or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. (No
Impact)
Tree removal and replanting anticipated at the urban-wildland interface within the Very Severe
Wildland Fire zone under the proposed ordinance is not anticipated to result in a substantial new
hazard. (Less Than Significant Impact)
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 55 October 2014 175
4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9.1 Setting
4.9.1.1 Climate
The City of Cupertino is situated on an alluvial plain within the Santa Clara Valley, which extends
southward from San Francisco Bay to Hollister, south of Gilroy. The mountain ranges bordering the
alluvial plains ringing San Francisco Bay reach over 4,000 feet in elevation. Slopes vary from
essentially flat (zero to two percent) on the valley floor with steeper slopes over 15 percent in foothill
areas.
The climate is a semi-arid, Mediterranean-type climate with warm, dry weather from late spring to
early fall and cool, moist winters. Yearly precipitation varies, based largely on topography. The
wettest month of the year is usually January.
Evapotranspiration is defined as the combination of evaporation and transpiration of water from the
land’s surface to the atmosphere. Average annual evapotranspiration in nearby San José is
approximately 50 inches per year with potential water loss through evapotranspiration substantially
higher than the mean annual precipitation.
4.9.1.2 Surface Water Drainage
Watersheds within Cupertino
A watershed is a land area from which water drains into a major body of water such as a stream, lake,
wetland, bay or estuary, the ocean, or percolates into groundwater. The two watersheds that drain to
San Francisco Bay in Cupertino are the Lower Peninsula Watershed and the West Valley Watershed
Each watershed is made up of one or more main creeks, as well as many smaller tributaries, each
with its own sub-watershed. Watershed elements include not only these tributaries but groundwater
recharge basins.
Creeks within the Cupertino portion of the Lower Peninsula Watershed include Stevens Creek and
Heney Creek.30 Creeks in the West Valley Watershed include portions of the Sunnyvale East
Channel and Calabazas Creek, and Regnart Creek. Saratoga Creek flows adjacent to Lawrence
Expressway at the eastern boundary of the city.
Stormwater and Urban Runoff
Stormwater is rainwater that flows across surfaces without being absorbed into soil. Urban runoff is
stormwater that combines with irrigation runoff, and water from other sources in an urban setting.
Hardscape (impervious) areas prevent water from being absorbed into the ground and causes
stormwater to flow more quickly and in larger qualities into the storm drain system. As stormwater
combines with runoff already in the system, it gathers additional volume, speed, force, and
30 Santa Clara Valley Water District. “Watershed Information.” Accessed November 8, 2013.
<http://www.valleywater.org/Services/WatershedInformation.aspx>.
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 56 October 2014
176
contaminants. As a result, when the urban runoff is eventually released into a creek, river or bay it
can cause erosion, flooding and damage to wildlife habitat.
Stormwater runoff within the urbanized areas of Cupertino is discharged into local storm drains,
which, in turn, flow into local creeks and San Francisco Bay.
Flooding and Flood Management
The Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) is responsible for providing flood protection to
residences and businesses in the County from floods equal to or less than the “one percent flood.”
The one percent flood, also referred to as the “100-year flood” or the “base flood,” is the flow of
water that has a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. This level of
risk, however, should not be confused with a flood that would occur once every 100 years, but one
that might occur once every 100 years or so, on average, over a very long period of time.
Areas subject to the one percent flood are designated as Zone AE, A, AH, or AO on the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood maps. A designated flood zone is present in the
vicinity of Regnart Creek.
4.9.1.3 Groundwater Conditions
Groundwater is an important source of water to urban and rural land uses in Santa Clara County and
nearly one-half of the water used in the County is pumped from groundwater. Cupertino is located
within the Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin and includes the McClellan groundwater recharge
facility.
4.9.1.4 Water Quality
The water quality of streams, creeks, ponds, and other surface water bodies can be greatly affected by
pollution carried in contaminated surface runoff. Pollutants from unidentified sources, known as
“non-point” source pollutants, are washed from streets, construction sites, parking lots, and other
exposed surfaces into storm drains. Surface runoff from roads in the project area is collected by
storm drains and discharged into creeks and ultimately conveyed to San Francisco Bay or Monterey
Bay. The runoff often contains contaminants such as oil and grease, plant and animal debris (e.g.,
leaves, dust, and animal feces), pesticides, litter, and heavy metals. In sufficient concentration, these
pollutants have been found to adversely affect the aquatic habitats to which they drain.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lists 26 Bay area waterways as “trash-impaired”
under Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act. Within the project area these include two
waterways in Cupertino (Stevens Creek and Saratoga Creek) and the San Francisco Bay shoreline.
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 57 October 2014 177
4.9.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
1. Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
1
2. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there will 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 will drop to a
level which will not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have
been granted)?
1
3. Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, in a manner which will result in
substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site?
1
4. Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which
will result in flooding on-or off-site?
1
5. Create or contribute runoff water which will
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
1
6. Otherwise substantially degrade water
quality?
1
7. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map?
1
8. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which will impede or redirect flood
flows?
1
9. Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam?
1
10. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 1
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 58 October 2014 178
4.9.2.1 Impacts to Drainage and Flooding
Unlike areas covered by buildings or pavement, areas where trees are planted are pervious to storm
water and allow for absorption of storm water into soils, which reduces flood hazards and
downstream erosion.
The Protected Trees Ordinance (Chapter 14.18 of the City’s Municipal Code) regulates the removal
of protected trees and protection during construction within the City. The basic purposes of
preserving protected trees and the protection of all trees during construction, including assisting in
the absorption of rain water, would not change under the amendments to the ordinance. Since the
amendments to the ordinance do not include land development that could increase impervious
surfaces or change drainage patterns, the project would have no impact on drainage and flooding.
(No Impact)
4.9.2.2 Impacts to Water Quality
The proposed ordinance does not propose or require land use development that could result in
temporary or long-term impacts to water quality. Tree removal from individual sites could generate
sediment and tree materials that are transported to storm drains if good housekeeping practices of
sweeping and disposal are not employed, however. It is anticipated that most contractors and land
owners would follow basic best management practices for sediment control. As shown in Table 3,
most tree removals in the City have historically been associated with approved development and
these would have stormwater and/or erosion control requirements in place as conditions. Annually,
the number of tree removals at single family or duplex residences outside an approved development
have been about 10-13 per year and these tree removals would not cover a substantial area (refer to
Table 3 for a summary of past tree removal permits). Therefore, impacts to local water quality would
not be substantial. (Less Than Significant Impact)
4.9.3 Conclusion
Implementation of the proposed amendments to the Protected Trees Ordinance would have no impact
on drainage and flooding in Cupertino. (No Impact)
Short-term impacts to water quality associated with tree removal and replacement would be limited
in approved developments and limited by good housekeeping practices and effected areas in single
family residential zones. (Less Than Significant Impact)
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 59 October 2014 179
4.10 LAND USE
4.10.1 Setting
The City of Cupertino covers an area of approximately 11.3 square miles. Cupertino’s land use
pattern consists of predominantly single-family residential subdivisions with commercial and
employment centers on arterial streets, separated from surrounding residential areas. The western
foothills are predominantly semi-rural in character, with larger lots, steep terrain and a noticeable
mix of native and non-native landscape. On the valley floor, land use patterns are more suburban
with smaller lots and a mosaic of schools, small retail and office uses. Employment centers are
located in the Heart of the City and at the northern edge, where industrial office/research &
development uses are concentrated. Multi-family and clustered single family developments are more
prevalent near more heavily traveled road ways. Local and regional parks and larger school sites
provide recreational and visual open space throughout the community and along creeks.
4.10.1.1 General Plan and Zoning
About 78 percent of the City is planned for residential uses, with the majority of the City planned for
single family development. Large areas of the city (over 40 percent in area) are designated for
hillside residential uses that are very low in density. In recent years, while the total area designated
for commercial and industrial uses has not changed, the intensity of those uses on individual
properties has increased. The City’s General Plan calls for more intense development in identified
urban centers, with transitions between neighboring uses, including suburban and semi-rural
development.
Development throughout the City is subject to review for conformance with the strategies and
policies in the General Plan as well as the development standards in the City’s zoning ordinance.
4.10.1.2 Relevant Regulations in the City of Cupertino Municipal Code
City of Cupertino Municipal Code
Protected Trees Ordinance
The Protected Trees Ordinance (Chapter 14.18 of the City’s Municipal Code) regulates the removal
of protected trees and protection during construction within the City. The preservation of protected
trees and the protection of all trees during construction is identified in the best interest of the City in
order to:
A. Protect property values;
B. Assure the continuance of quality development;
C. Protect aesthetic and scenic beauty;
D. Assist in the absorption of rain waters, thereby preventing erosion of top soil, protecting
against flood hazards and the risk of landslides;
E. Counteract air pollutants by protecting the know capacity of trees to produce pure oxygen
from carbon dioxide;
F. Maintain the climatic balance (e.g., provide shade);
G. Help decrease potential damage from wind velocities.
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 60 October 2014 180
Protected trees and tree protection and tree replacement guidelines are identified in the Protected
Trees regulation. The Director of Community Development is responsible for enforcement of this
chapter of the Municipal Code that is designed, in part, with the purpose of avoiding or mitigating
environmental effects to trees.
4.10.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
1. Physically divide an established community? 1
2. Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
1,2,3
3. Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
1
4.10.2.2 Overview of Land Use Impacts
The proposed amendments to the Protected Trees Ordinance does not include land development that
could physically divide an established community and there are no habitat conservation plans that
would be applicable to the proposed project. (No Impact)
4.10.2.2 Conflict with Local Policies or Ordinances
The proposed amendments to the City’s Protected Trees Ordinance would modify some of the
procedures for applying for a tree removal permit and definitions in the Specimen tree category. It
also would modify the minimum protected sizes of Specimen trees (from 10 inches DBH to 12
inches DBH) and remove California Bay from the list of protected Specimen trees. As discussed in
Section 4.0 (Project Effects), the number of native trees and cedar trees removed without replanting
is not anticipated to change substantially either citywide or within individual residential zones.
Permits for Specimen tree removal would be required on private property, as defined in the
ordinance. Tree removal citywide would remain regulated for approved developments, which are
anticipated to cover most of the tree removal in clustered single-family (R1C), multi-family (R3),
commercial and industrial zones. The proposed amendments would not change the general intent of
the Protected Trees Ordinance or otherwise conflict with ordinance’s purpose of protecting trees as a
valuable asset to the community. (Less Than Significant Impact)
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 61 October 2014 181
4.10.3 Conclusion
Implementation of the proposed amendments to the Protected Trees Ordinance would have less than
significant land use impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact)
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 62 October 2014 182
4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES
4.11.1 Setting
Mineral resources found and extracted in Santa Clara County include construction aggregate deposits
such as sand, gravel, and crushed stone. There are several quarries in hillside areas of unincorporated
Santa Clara County in the foothills west and south of the City. There are several areas in the City of
Cupertino that are designated by the State Mining and Geology Board under the Surface Mining and
Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) as containing mineral deposits which are of regional
significance; however, the City’s General Plan indicates that these areas are either depleted or
unavailable due to existing development.
4.11.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
1. Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that will be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
1,2
2. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
1,2
4.11.2.1 Impacts to Mineral Resources
The project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource in that the project
does not involve development or reservation of a particular site containing mineral resources. The
proposed amendments to the Protected Trees Ordinance, therefore, would not result in significant
adverse impacts to mineral resources. (No Impact)
4.11.3 Conclusion
Implementation of the proposed amendments to the Protected Trees Ordinance would not result in
the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. (No Impact)
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 63 October 2014 183
4.12 NOISE
4.12.1 Setting
Several factors influence sound as it is perceived by the human ear, including the actual level of
sound, the period of exposure to the sound, the frequencies involved, and fluctuation in the noise
level during exposure. Noise is measured on a “decibel” (dB) scale which serves as an index of
loudness. Because the human ear cannot hear all pitches or frequencies, sound levels are frequently
adjusted or weighted to correspond to human hearing. This adjusted unit is known as the “A-
weighted” decibel or dBA. Further, sound is averaged over time and penalties are added to the
average for noise that is generated during times that may be more disturbing to sensitive uses such as
early morning, or late evening.
Since excessive noise levels can adversely affect human activities (such as conversation and
sleeping) and human health, federal, state, and local governmental agencies have set forth criteria or
planning goals to minimize or avoid these effects. The noise guidelines are almost always expressed
using one of several noise averaging methods such as Leq, DNL, or CNEL.31
4.12.1.2 Regulatory Setting
Cupertino Municipal Code
Noise emissions from construction and landscaping are regulated under Chapter 10.48, Community
Noise Control, of the City’s Municipal Code. The use of motorized equipment for landscape
maintenance activities on private property is limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on
weekdays, and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays. In addition, reasonable efforts are
made by the user to minimize the disturbances to nearby residents by, for example, installation of
appropriate mufflers or noise baffles, running equipment only the minimal period necessary, and
locating equipment so as to generate minimum noise levels on adjoining properties (Section
10.48.051).
4.12.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project result in:
1. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in
the local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
1,2
31 Leq stands for the Noise Equivalent Level and is a measurement of the average energy level intensity of noise over
a given period of time such as the noisiest hour. DNL stands for Day-Night Level and is a 24-hour average of noise
levels, with 10 dB penalties applied to noise occurring between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. CNEL stands for
Community Noise Equivalent Level; it is similar to the DNL except that there is an additional five (5) dB penalty
applied to noise which occurs between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. Generally, where traffic noise predominates, the
CNEL and DNL are typically within two (2) dBA of the peak-hour Leq.
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 64 October 2014
184
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project result in:
2. Exposure of persons to, or generation of,
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
1
3. A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
1
4. A substantial temporary or periodic increase
in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
1
5. 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, will the project expose
people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
1,2
6. For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, will the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
1,2
4.12.2.1 Noise Effects
The proposed amendments to the City’s Protected Trees Ordinance does not include physical
development of any kind. Noise in Cupertino related to tree removal on private property is limited to
truck and equipment noise from tree removal and replanting. The time of day landscape maintenance
activities can occur is regulated under the City’s Community Noise Control chapter in the Municipal
Code which limits work to day time hours. Noise from tree removal and replacement on individual
properties would be temporary and of short duration and would not expose persons to excessive noise
or groundborne vibration levels associated with new land uses. (Less Than Significant Impact)
4.12.3 Conclusion
Noise from landscape maintenance activities is regulated under the Community Noise Control
chapter in the City’s Municipal Code. Implementation of the amendments to the Protected Trees
Ordinance would not result in significant noise impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact)
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 65 October 2014 185
4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING
4.13.1 Setting
According to the U.S. Census, the population of Cupertino was 58,302 residents and there were about
20,181 households in 2010.
4.13.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
1. Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
1
2. Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
1
3. Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
1
4.13.2.1 Impacts to Population and Housing
The proposed project, implementation of amendments to the Protected Trees Ordinance, would not
displace housing or induce population growth. Since there would be no land use development
associated with the project, there would be no impact on population and housing in Cupertino. (No
Impact)
4.13.3 Conclusion
The proposed project, implementation of amendments to the Protected Trees Ordinance, would not
displace housing or induce population growth. (No Impact)
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 66 October 2014 186
4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES
4.14.1 Setting
Public services such as police and fire protection, schools, parks, and public facilities, are operated
and maintained by either the County of Santa Clara, local school districts or City of Cupertino.
Fire safety and protection is provided by Santa Clara County Fire Department. There are three fire
stations located in the City of Cupertino.
Public safety services are provided by the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office. The Santa Clara
County Sheriff’s Office services the communities of Cupertino, Los Altos Hills, Saratoga, and
unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County.
School services are provided by Cupertino Union Elementary School District and the Fremont Union
High School District.
The City of Cupertino’s neighborhood parks system service the active and passive recreational needs
of residents with 10 neighborhood parks and four special purpose parks (Memorial Park, McClellan
Ranch Park, Blackberry Farm and Creekside Park).
4.14.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
1. Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the
public services:
Fire Protection?
Police Protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other Public Facilities?
1
1
1
1
1
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 67 October 2014 187
4.14.2 Impacts to Public Services
The proposed amendments to the Protected Trees Ordinance would regulate tree removal, tree
protection measures, and tree replacement on private property. The proposed project would not
increase the demand for police and fire services nor would it require the construction or expansion of
any other public facilities. (No Impact)
4.14.3 Conclusion
The proposed ordinance would have no adverse physical impacts on police and fire facilities,
schools, parks, or other public facilities. It would not require the construction or expansion of any
new or existing public facilities. (No Impact)
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 68 October 2014 188
4.15 RECREATION
4.15.1 Setting
The City of Cupertino’s neighborhood parks system service the active and passive recreational needs
of residents with 10 neighborhood parks and four special purpose parks (Memorial Park, McClellan
Ranch Park, Blackberry Farm and Creekside Park).
4.15.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
1. Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility will
occur or be accelerated?
1
2. Does the project include recreational facilities
or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
1
4.15.2.1 Impacts to Recreational Facilities
The proposed amendments to the Protected Trees Ordinance would regulate tree removal within the
City of Cupertino on private land and for trees other than street trees or in parks.
The proposed project would not increase the use of the existing neighborhood and regional parks or
cause adverse physical impacts to recreational facilities. (No Impact)
4.15.3 Conclusion
The proposed project would not increase the use of parks or recreational facilities or require the
construction of new recreational facilities. (No Impact)
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 69 October 2014 189
4.16 TRANSPORTATION
4.16.1 Setting
4.16.1.1 Existing Transportation System
The existing transportation system within Cupertino includes the roadway network (e.g., freeways,
expressways, arterials, and neighborhood streets), transit systems (buses, heavy rail), bicycle routes,
and trails and pathways for pedestrians and bicycles. The transportation system is owned and
maintained by the City of Cupertino, Santa Clara County (county expressway), and the State of
California (highways and freeways and some railroad tracks).
For CEQA analyses done in Cupertino, traffic conditions at study intersections affected by project
traffic are evaluated using level of service (LOS). Level of Service is a qualitative description of
operating conditions ranging from LOS A, or free-flowing conditions with little or no delay, to LOS
F, or oversaturated conditions with excessive delays. The City of Cupertino identifies LOS D or
better as the acceptable standard for most local street operations. The Santa Clara County
Congestion Management Plan (CMP) level of service standard for signalized intersections, which
applies only to regional intersections designated in the CMP, is LOS E or better. The CMP
methodology requires an impact analysis be done for any intersection to which a proposed project
would add 10 or more vehicles per lane per hour. For freeways, the LOS standard is LOS E or better.
The City also has policies and programs that encourage and/or plan for increased use of multi-modal
transportation facilities such as transit, pedestrian sidewalks and trails, and bicycle facilities.
4.16.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
1. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or
policy establishing measures of effectiveness
for the performance of the circulation system,
taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and non-
motorized travel and relevant components of
the circulation system, including but not
limited to intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and
mass transit?
1
2. Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including, but not
limited to level of service standards and travel
demand measures, or other standards
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?
1
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 70 October 2014 190
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
3. Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels or
a change in location that results in substantial
safety risks?
1
4. Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible land uses (e.g.,
farm equipment)?
1
5. Result in inadequate emergency access? 1
6. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or
pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the
performance or safety of such facilities?
1
4.16.2.1 Transportation Impacts
The proposed project is adoption of amendments to the Protected Trees Ordinance that regulates tree
removal from areas other than street rights-of-way and parks.
The ordinance does not propose modifications to the transportation network or construction of new
development that would generate new vehicle, bicycle or pedestrian trips. (No Impact)
4.16.3 Conclusion
The ordinance does not propose modifications to the transportation network or construction of new
development that would generate new vehicle, bicycle or pedestrian trips or result in transportation
hazards or inadequate emergency access. (No Impact)
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 71 October 2014 191
4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.17.1 Setting
Water service within Cupertino is provided by the California Water Service Company. Sanitary
sewer service (collection) for much of the City is provided by the Cupertino Sanitary District with
treatment at the San José-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility. The City of Sunnyvale provides
sanitary sewer collection in the Rancho Rinconada area within the City with treatment at the
Sunnyvale Water Pollution Control Plant.
Solid waste collected from the City is delivered to Newby Island Sanitary Landfill. Many types of
recyclable materials are also delivered to the Sunnyvale Materials Recovery Station (SMART
Station) for recycling. The City has a contract with Newby Island Landfill until the year 2023, or
until the cumulative tonnage delivered equals 2.05 million tons. Individual commercial contractors
may also dispose of debris at other landfills, such as Guadalupe Mines Landfill and Zanker landfills
in San José.
4.17.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
1. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
1
2. Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
1
3. Require or result in the construction of new
stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
1
4. Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
1
5. Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to
serve the project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
1
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 72 October 2014 192
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
6. Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project’s solid waste disposal needs?
1
7. Comply with federal, state and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
1
4.17.2.1 Impacts to Utilities and Service Systems
The proposed project is adoption of amendments to the Protected Trees Ordinance that regulates tree
removal from areas other than street rights-of-way and parks. Since there would be no land use
development associated with the project, there would be no direct impact on wastewater generation
or stormwater generation. (No Impact)
Replacement of Specimen trees not associated with new construction could incrementally increase
water use in the short term on an individual property as new plantings become established. As tree
mitigation requirements for Specimen trees on private property without an approved landscape plan
are similar to existing requirements and only a fraction of total tree removals and replacements in the
City (refer to Table 4), short-term changes in water demand in a neighborhood resulting from the
proposed amendments are anticipated to be very limited. (Less Than Significant Impact)
The project area is served by a landfill with adequate capacity. (No Impact)
4.17.3 Conclusion
Implementation of the proposed amendments to the Protected Trees Ordinance would not result in
substantial impacts to utilities and service systems. (Less Than Significant Impact)
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 73 October 2014 193
4.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
1. Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
p. 13-75
2. Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
p. 13-75
3. Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term environmental goals to the
disadvantage of long-term environmental
goals?
p. 13-75
4. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
p. 13-75
4.18.1 Project Impacts
As described in the specific sections of this Initial Study (refer to Section 4.0 Environmental Setting,
Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts, Sections 4.1-4.17), on pages 13-73, the proposed project would
not result in significant environmental impacts. The project would have no impacts in the area of
agriculture and forest resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazardous materials,
hydrology, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, and transportation.
The project would have less than significant impacts in the areas of aesthetics, air quality, biological
resources, greenhouse gas emissions, wildland fire hazards, water quality, noise (temporary), and
utilities and service systems (water demand).
Compared to current conditions, implementation of the proposed amendments to the Protected Trees
Ordinance would not degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten a
plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the rare of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
(Less Than Significant Impacts)
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 74 October 2014 194
4.18.2 Short-term Environmental Goals vs. Long-term Environmental Goals
The proposed project would not frustrate or conflict with long-term environmental goals in that the
proposed amendments to the Protected Trees Ordinance provide for the protection of trees during
construction and the replacement of removed trees at a ratio of one to one or greater. Replacement
trees would support long-term environmental goals of maintaining tree resources in Cupertino to
maintain or improve aesthetics, air quality, absorption of stormwater, and climate goals.
4.18.3 Cumulative Impacts
Several of the environmental issues addressed in the previous sections of this Initial Study, such as
air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, are assessments of a project’s contribution to cumulative
effects on either a regional or global basis. These effects were found to be less than significant.
This project is somewhat unique under CEQA in that it does not include a specific development
project or land use plan. The project was identified as having less than significant aesthetic, air
quality, biological resources, GHG emissions, wildland fire hazards, water quality, land use, noise,
and water supply impacts. Several of projects have been recently approved or are reasonably
foreseeable in the City of Cupertino or neighboring cities of San José, Santa Clara and the City of
Sunnyvale. These include the development or redevelopment of residential, industrial, and
commercial uses. One, large recently approved project is the Apple Campus in the northern portion
of the city. While these individual projects may result in significant impacts in particular issue areas,
it is assumed that the projects would comply with existing regulations and statutes, and would
incorporate mitigation and avoidance measures to reduce potential impacts (such as impacts to water
quality) to a less than significant level, if necessary. For example, all projects are required to
incorporate best management practices and comply with local and regional regulations to reduce
impacts to water quality to the maximum extent feasible. (Less Than Significant Cumulative
Impacts)
4.18.4 Direct or Indirect Adverse Effects on Human Beings
As discussed previously in this Initial Study (Sections 4.3 Air Quality, 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous
Materials, 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality, and 4.12 Noise), implementation of the proposed
amendments to the Protected Trees Ordinance would not adversely affect humans by emitting air
pollutants, releasing toxic or hazardous materials, impairing drinking water supplies or water quality,
or generating substantial noise. Compared to current baseline conditions, the proposed project would
not directly or indirectly cause significant effects on human beings. (Less Than Significant
Impacts)
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 75 October 2014 195
Checklist Sources
1. CEQA Guidelines - Environmental Thresholds (Professional judgment and expertise and
review of project).
2. City of Cupertino. General Plan 2000-2020 General Plan.
3. City of Cupertino. Cupertino California Municipal Code. Available at:
<http://www.amlegal.com/cupertino_ca/>
4. California Department of Conservation. Santa Clara County Important Farmland 2010 Map.
June 2011.
5. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. Adopted
September 2010.
6. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Updated May
2011.
7. City of Cupertino. Heritage Tree List and Map (Protected Trees Ordinance Chapter 14.18).
8. California Air Resources Board. AB 32 Scoping Plan.
9. McPherson, Gregory, Oingfu Xiao, Elena Aquaron. 2013. A new approach to quantify and
map carbon stored, sequestered and emissions avoided by urban forests. Landscape and
Urban Planning 120 (2013) 70– 84.
10. California Climate Action Registry. 2008. Urban Forest Project Reporting Protocol Version
1.0.
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 76 October 2014 196
SECTION 5.0 REFERENCES
ABAG, BAAQMD, BCDC, and MTC. “One Bay Area Frequently Asked Questions”. Accessed
November 8, 2013. < http://onebayarea.org/about/faq.html#.UQceKR2_DAk>
CalFire. “Santa Clara County FHSZ Maps” Accessed November 11, 2013.
<http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps_santaclara.php>
California Air Resources Board. AB 32 Scoping Plan. Available at:
<http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm>
California Air Resources Board. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan. Available at:
<http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm>
California Climate Action Registry. 2008. Urban Forest Project Reporting Protocol Version 1.0.
California Department of Toxic Substances Control. “DTSC: Who We Are and What We Do”.
Accessed November 8, 2013.
<http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/InformationResources/DTSC_Overview.cfm>
California Department of Transportation. “California State Scenic Mapping System”. Accessed
October 24, 2013. <http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm>
California Oak Foundation. No Date. California Oak Foundation, Oaks, CEQA, Carbon Dioxide
and Climate Change. Available at: <http://www.californiaoaks.org/html/reference.html>
California Oak Foundation. 2008. An Inventory of Carbon and California Oaks. Available at:
<http://www.californiaoaks.org/html/2040.html>
California Oak Foundation. 2006. Oaks 2040. Available at:
<http://www.californiaoaks.org/html/2040.html>
California Oak Mortality Task Force. 2010. Sudden Oak Death Guidelines for Arborists. Available
at: <http://www.suddenoakdeath.org/diagnosis-and-management/best-management-
practices/>
City of Cupertino. 2014. City Council Staff Report, Meeting: April 1, 2014 (Subject; Study Session
for amendments to Protected Tree Ordinance (MCA-2013-01).
City of Cupertino. “Street Trees / Right of Way”. Accessed November 8, 2013.
<http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=1134>
City of San José. 2011. Final Program EIR for the Envision San José 2040 General Plan. Technical
Report (Paleontological Resources).
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 77 October 2014 197
County of Santa Clara, Department of Agriculture. 2009. Map of Santa Clara County Where Sudden
Oak Death is Known to Occur. Available at:
<http://www.sccgov.org/sites/ag/Pages/Sudden-Oak-Death.aspx>
County of Santa Clara, Planning Office. “Airport Land-Use Commission”. Accessed November 8
2013. <http://www.sccgov.org/sites/planning/PlansPrograms/ALUC/Pages/ALUC.aspx>
Hatch, Charles R. 2007. Trees of the California Landscape. University of California Press.
McMinn, Howard E. and Evelyn Maino. 1963. An Illustrated Manual of Pacific Coast Trees.
University of California Press.
McPherson, Gregory, Oingfu Xiao, Elena Aquaron. 2013. A new approach to quantify and map
carbon stored, sequestered and emissions avoided by urban forests. Landscape and Urban
Planning 120 (2013) 70– 84.
Natural Resources DataBase. Checklist of Flora in McClellan Ranch Preserve. Accessed October
24, 2013. <http://nrdb.org/>
Office of Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. “Executive Order B-16-2012”.
<http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=17472>.
Reale, Joseph A. and Robert B. Blair. 2005. Nesting Success and Life-History Attributes of Bird
Communities Along an Urbanization Gradient. Urban Habitats, 3(1).
Rossi, Dagit. 2006. Evaluating Your Oak’s Net Worth. Available at:
<http://www.californiaoaks.org/html/reference.html>
Santa Clara Valley Water District. “Watershed Information.” Accessed November 8, 2013.
<http://www.valleywater.org/Services/WatershedInformation.aspx>
University of California Statewide Integrated Pest Management Program. 2010. Sudden Oak Death:
Integrated Pest Management in the Landscape. Agriculture and Natural Resources
Publication Number 74151, Available at: <http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/Items/74151.aspx>
University of California. 2008. A Homeowner’s Guide to Sudden Oak Death. Available at:
<http://www.suddenoakdeath.org/diagnosis-and-management/best-management-practices/>
UC Berkeley Forest Pathology and Mycology Laboratory. “SOD Blitz”. Accessed November 8,
2013. <http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/garbelotto/english/sodblitz.php>
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 78 October 2014 198
SECTION 6.0 AUTHORS AND CONSULTANTS
Lead Agency Authors: City of Cupertino
Department of Community Development
Aarti Shrivastava, Director
Gary Chao, Assistant Director
Piu Ghosh, AICP, Senior Planner
Tiffany Brown, Associate Planner
Consultant:
David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.
Environmental Consultants and Planners
Nora Monette, Principal Project Manager
Julie Wright, Senior Project Manager
Ryan Shum, Researcher
Zach Dill, Graphic Artist
Protected Trees Ordinance Update Initial Study
City of Cupertino 79 October 2014 199
200
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:114-0522 Name:
Status:Type:Public Hearings Agenda Ready
File created:In control:10/30/2014 City Council
On agenda:Final action:11/18/2014
Title:Subject: Petition for Reconsideration of the City Council’s approval of the Hyatt House Hotel
development project.
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff Report
A – Draft Resolution
B – August 26, 2014 Planning Commission staff report and meeting minutes
C – October 21, 2014 City Council staff report and meeting minutes
D – Petition for Reconsideration from Darrel Lum dated October 30, 2014
E – Applicant’s response letter
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council11/18/20141
Subject:PetitionforReconsiderationoftheCityCouncil’sapprovaloftheHyattHouseHotel
development project.
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1.ConsiderthePetitionforReconsideration(Petition)andadoptResolutionNo.14-215
(AttachmentA)denyingthepetitionforfailuretomeettherequirementsofMunicipalCode
Section 2.08.09 or, in the alternative;
2.IftheCouncildeterminesthePetitionmeetsthecriteria,conductahearingonthemerits
ofthepetitionandupholdtheCouncil’sdecisiontoapprove/adoptthefollowingforthe
project:
i.Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA-2014-06)
ii.Development Permit (DP-2014-04, Resolution 14-202)
iii.Use Permit (U-2014-04, Resolution 14-203)
iv.Architectural and Site Approval (ASA-2014-06, Resolution 14-204)
v.Parking Exception (EXC-2014-07, Resolution 14-205)
vi.Tree Removal Permit (TR-2014-28, Resolution 14-206)
vii.Tree Removal Permit (TR-2014-40, Resolution 14-207)
Description:
Application Summary
Applications: DP-2014-04, U-2014-04, ASA-2014-06, EXC-2014-07, TR-2014-28, TR-2014-
40, EA-2014-06
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 11/12/2014Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™201
File #:14-0522,Version:1
Petitioner: Darrel Lum, Concerned Citizens of Cupertino
Applicant: Edward Chan
Property Owner:Cupertino Property Development II, LLC
Location: 10380 Perimeter Road (Southeast quadrant of Wolfe Road and I-280, APN 316-20-
094) and 10150 North Wolfe Road (JC Penney site, APN 316-20-094)
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 11/12/2014Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™202
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE ▪ CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: November 18, 2014
Subject
Petition for Reconsideration of the City Council’s approval of the Hyatt House Hotel
development project.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Consider the Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) and adopt a resolution
(Attachment A) denying the petition for failure to meet the requirements of
Municipal Code Section 2.08.09 or, in the alternative;
2. If the Council determines the Petition meets the criteria, conduct a hearing on the
merits of the petition and uphold the Council’s decision to approve/adopt the
following for the project:
i. Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA-2014-06)
ii. Development Permit (DP-2014-04, Resolution 14-202)
iii. Use Permit (U-2014-04, Resolution 14-203)
iv. Architectural and Site Approval (ASA-2014-06, Resolution 14-204)
v. Parking Exception (EXC-2014-07, Resolution 14-205)
vi. Tree Removal Permit (TR-2014-28, Resolution 14-206)
vii. Tree Removal Permit (TR-2014-40, Resolution 14-207); or
Description
Application Summary
Applications: DP-2014-04, U-2014-04, ASA-2014-06, EXC-2014-07, TR-2014-28, TR-
2014-40, EA-2014-06
Petitioner: Darrel Lum, Concerned Citizens of Cupertino
203
Applicant: Edward Chan
Property Owner: Cupertino Property Development II, LLC
Location: 10380 Perimeter Road (Southeast quadrant of Wolfe Road and I-280,
APN 316-20-094) and 10150 North Wolfe Road (JC Penney site, APN
316-20-094)
Background
The following is a summary of the project events leading up to the reconsideration
request:
August 21, 2014: The Environmental Review Committee recommends adoption of
the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) per the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
August 26, 2014: The Planning Commission recommended approval of the MND on
a 5-0 vote and the project on a 3-2 vote (see Attachment B for the
staff report and meeting minutes) with the added condition that the
hotel’s restaurant and bar remain open to the public.
October 21, 2014: The City Council adopted the MND on a 5-0 vote and approved the
project on a 4-1 vote (see Attachment C for the staff report and
meeting minutes) with the following additional conditions of
approval:
Staff and the applicant shall contact Caltrans to consider a direct
public bicycle and pedestrian access path from the existing Wolfe
Road sidewalk to the project site along the westerly boundary, in
order to allow direct access onto Wolfe Road and access over the
freeway overpass.
Require a tree condition report to be reviewed and approved by
the Director of Community Development one year after final
occupancy of the project.
October 30, 2014: Petitioner Darrel Lum files the Petition (Attachment D)
Basis for the Reconsideration
The City’s Municipal Code, Section 2.08.096, provides procedures for interested parties
to petition the City Council to reconsider its decisions. A petition for reconsideration
shall specify in detail each and every ground for reconsideration. Failure of a petition to
specify any particular ground or grounds for reconsideration precludes that particular
204
omitted ground or grounds from being raised or litigated in a subsequent judicial
proceeding. The grounds for reconsideration are limited to the following:
1. An offer of new relevant evidence which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence,
could not have been produced at any earlier City hearing.
2. An offer of relevant evidence which was improperly excluded at any prior city
hearing.
3. Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council proceeded without, or in
excess of its jurisdiction.
4. Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council failed to provide a fair
hearing.
5. Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion by:
a. Not preceding in a manner required by law; and/or
b. Rendering a decision which was not supported by findings of fact; and/or
c. Rendering a decision in which the findings of fact were not supported by the
evidence.
Reconsideration Petition
The Petition submitted by Darrel Lum (Attachment D) presents two grounds for
reconsideration: (1) that the City Council acted in excess of its jurisdiction; and (2) that
the Council abused its discretion because (a) the decision was not supported by facts
and/or (b) the findings of fact were not supported by the evidence. If the
reconsideration is granted, the Council may conduct a hearing and reconsider its
decision in light of the new evidence or grounds presented. Each of the grounds for the
reconsideration as submitted by the petitioner is summarized below, but both focus on
the additional height for the hotel project. The City’s findings of fact on each of the
claims and the criteria are delineated next to each of the petitioner’s reasons in the
Discussion section below.
Discussion
The Petition lists all project approvals for reconsideration.1 However, the Petition only
challenges the Council’s ability to allow the project to be constructed at 60 feet high,
1 This includes: the Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA-2014-06), Development Permit (DP-2014-04,
Resolution 14-202), Use Permit (U-2014-04, Resolution 14-203), Architectural and Site Approval (ASA-
2014-06, Resolution 14-204), Parking Exception (EXC-2014-07, Resolution 14-205), Tree Removal Permit
(TR-2014-28, Resolution 14-206) and Tree Removal Permit (TR-2014-40, Resolution 14-207).
205
instead of 45 feet. Only the Development Permit and Architectural and Site Approval
permits are impacted by the challenge and the Petition should be summarily denied as
to the remaining permits. As to the Development Permit and Architectural and Site
Approval, the Petition should be denied for the reasons stated below.
1. Ground for Reconsideration #1 [Section 2.08.096 (B)(3) of the Municipal Code] – Council
acted in excess of its jurisdiction
Petition Response
The General Plan allows buildings with a
retail component located in the South
Vallco area to be constructed up to 60 feet
tall. Otherwise, buildings may be
constructed up to 45 feet without a retail
component. The petitioner alleges the
hotel project has no retail component and
therefore should not be allowed to be
constructed at its approved height of 60
feet.
The petitioner presented this claim at the
August 26, 2014 Planning Commission
hearing and submitted similar written
comments for the October 21, 2014 Council
hearing. Both the Planning Commission
and the City Council thoroughly
considered and discussed this claim and
acted upon the project accordingly.
Restaurants are considered legitimate
retail uses and are allowed in the City’s
General Commercial Ordinance since they
provide direct contact with customers and
generate sales tax.
The intent of the General Plan’s 60-foot
building height policy in South Vallco is to
promote active ground floors. Based on
past approvals and Council practice,
restaurants have been deemed to be an
appropriate ground floor retail use that
supports the 60-foot height allowance.
Finding: It is within City Council’s jurisdiction to interpret the General Plan and make
decisions on its implementation. The petitioner has not provided any proof of facts that
demonstrate the Council proceeded without, or in excess of its jurisdiction.
206
2. Ground for Reconsideration #2 [Sections 2.08.096 (B)(5)(b) and (c) of the Municipal
Code] – Council’s decision was not supported by facts or the findings of fact were not
supported by the evidence.
Petition Response
The petitioner notes that Hyatt House is an
extended stay, business service hotel with
limited amenities to serve hotel guests,
such as complimentary breakfast and in-
room kitchen facilities. The petitioner
claims that there was no finding of fact in
the October 21, 2014 staff report and
meeting minutes that the hotel’s restaurant
and bar is considered retail.
The General Plan’s building height policy
was discussed in detail in the October 21,
2014 staff report and at the Council
hearing. The Council considered the
petitioner’s testimony as provided but
found that the hotel’s restaurant, bar, and
other active commercial ground floor uses
are considered retail, thereby allowing the
60-foot building height.
In addition to serving the hotel guests, the
hotel restaurant is required to be open to
the public and is considered a full service
restaurant similar to other restaurants in
the City.
Finding: The City Council considered, and rejected, the claim that the hotel’s restaurant
should not be considered retail. The petitioner has not provided any proof of facts that
demonstrate the Council abused its discretion by rendering a decision which was not
supported by findings of fact, or rendering a decision in which the findings of fact were
not supported by the evidence.
If Council determines that the Reconsideration Petition presents a valid basis for
reconsideration, Council should conduct a hearing based upon the grounds presented.
As stated in the findings above, Council considered, and rejected, the argument that the
restaurant and bar use is insufficient to approve the additional height. Staff
recommends that, consistent with its prior decision, Council should grant the approvals
as requested.
Noticing
The following table summarizes the noticing for the November 18, 2014 Council
meeting:
Notice of Public Hearing and Intent,
Site Notice & Legal Ad
Agenda
207
239 public hearing notices mailed to
property owners within 300 feet of
the Vallco Shopping District
(including project site) (10 days prior
to the hearing)
Site Signage
(14 days prior to the hearing)
Legal ad placed in newspaper
(at least 10 days prior to the hearing)
Posted on the City's official notice
bulletin board (one week prior to the
hearing)
Posted on the City of Cupertino’s Web
site (one week prior to the hearing)
Applicant’s Response
Please see Attachment E for the applicant’s response letter to the Petition.
____________________________________
Prepared by: George Schroeder, Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Gary Chao, Assistant Director of Community Development and Aarti
Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager
Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager
Attachments:
A – Draft City Council Resolution
B – August 26, 2014 Planning Commission staff report and meeting minutes
C – October 21, 2014 City Council staff report and meeting minutes
D – Petition for Reconsideration from Darrel Lum dated October 30, 2014
E – Applicant’s response letter
208
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 14-___
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DENYING THE PETITION OF DARREL LUM
SEEKING COUNCIL RECONSIDERATION OF ITS DECISION TO APPROVE A DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT (DP-2014-04), USE PERMIT (U-2014-04), ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL (ASA-
2014-06), PARKING EXCEPTION (EXC-2014-07), AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT (TR-2014-28) FOR A
FIVE-STORY, 148-ROOM HOTEL OF APPROXIMATELY 102,700 SQUARE FEET THAT INCLUDES A
RESTAURANT, BAR, LOUNGE, AND CONFERENCE ROOMS BUILT OVER A 35,800 SQUARE FOOT
UNDERGROUND PARKING GARAGE THAT CONTAINS TANDEM PARKING AT 10380
PERIMETER ROAD AND A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT (TR-2014-40) AT 10150 NORTH WOLFE ROAD
TO FACILITATE THE OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF
THE HOTEL PROJECT
WHEREAS, on October 21, 2014, the City Council of the City of Cupertino held a public hearing and at
the conclusion of the hearing approved on a 4-1 vote applications DP-2014-04, U-2014-04, ASA-2014-06,
EXC-2014-07, TR-2014-28, and TR-2014-40 for a hotel project located at 10380 Perimeter Road (Decision);
and
WHEREAS, the City Council’s Decision was within its discretion and made at a properly noticed public
hearing; and
WHEREAS, on October 30, 2014, Petitioner Darrel Lum (Petitioner) filed a Reconsideration Petition
(Reconsideration Petition) requesting that the City Council reconsider its October 21, 2014 decision
under the provisions of Section 2.08.096 of the City’s Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all relevant evidence presented by the parties at all
hearings, including evidence presented at the November 18, 2014 reconsideration hearing; and
WHEREAS, based on the evidence above, the City Council hereby makes the findings in Exhibit “A”,
and, based upon these findings,
;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The Reconsideration Petition is defective on its face in that it does not offer
proof of facts which, in the exercise of reasonably diligence, could not have been produced at an
earlier city hearing as required by Municipal Code Section 2.08.096(B)(1).
2. Petitioner failed to offer evidence which was improperly excluded at a prior city hearing as required
by Municipal Code Section 2.08.096(B)(2).
3. Petitioner failed to provide proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council proceeded without,
or in excess of its, jurisdiction [See Municipal Code Section 2.08.096 (B)(3)].
209
Resolution No. 14-___ DP-2014-04, U-2014-04, ASA-2014-06, EXC-2014-07, TR-2014-28, TR-2014-40 November 18, 2014
4. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion
by rendering a decision which was not supported by findings of fact; and/or rendering a decision in
which the findings of fact were not supported by the evidence. Specifically, the City Council
determines that the City Council's Decision of October 21, 2014 is supported by findings of fact and
the findings of fact related to the City Council's decision were supported by substantial evidence in
the record of proceedings [See Municipal Code Sections 2.08.096].
5. The Petition for Reconsideration of the City Council's Decision of October 21, 2014 on agenda item __
is DENIED, thereby affirming the original decision.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of November, 2014, Regular Meeting of the City Council of the
City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Grace Schmidt Gilbert Wong, Mayor
City Clerk City of Cupertino
G:\Planning\PDREPORT\CC Res\2014\Hyatt House Hotel CC reconsideration res.docx
210
EXHIBIT A
CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
1. Ground for Reconsideration #1 [Section 2.08.096 (B)(3) of the Municipal Code] – Council acted in excess of
its jurisdiction
Petition Finding
The General Plan allows buildings with a retail
component located in the South Vallco area to
be constructed up to 60 feet tall. Otherwise,
buildings may be constructed up to 45 feet
without a retail component. The petitioner
alleges the hotel project has no retail
component and therefore should not be
allowed to be constructed at its approved
height of 60 feet.
The petitioner presented this claim at the
August 26, 2014 Planning Commission hearing
and submitted similar written comments for
the October 21, 2014 Council hearing. Both the
Planning Commission and the City Council
thoroughly considered and discussed this
claim and acted upon the project accordingly.
Restaurants are considered legitimate retail
uses and are allowed in the City’s General
Commercial Ordinance since they provide
direct contact with customers and generate
sales tax.
The intent of the General Plan’s 60-foot
building height policy in South Vallco is to
promote active ground floors. Based on past
approvals and Council practice, restaurants
have been deemed to be an appropriate ground
floor retail use that supports the 60-foot height
allowance.
Finding and conclusion: It is within City Council’s jurisdiction to interpret the General Plan and make
decisions on its implementation. The petitioner has not provided any proof of facts that demonstrate the
Council proceeded without, or in excess of its jurisdiction.
2. Ground for Reconsideration #2 [Sections 2.08.096 (B)(5)(b) and (c) of the Municipal Code] – Council’s
decision was not supported by facts or the findings of fact were not supported by the evidence.
Petition Finding
The petitioner notes that Hyatt House is an
extended stay, business service hotel with
limited amenities to serve hotel guests, such as
complimentary breakfast and in-room kitchen
facilities. The petitioner claims that there was
no finding of fact in the October 21, 2014 staff
report and meeting minutes that the hotel’s
restaurant and bar is considered retail.
The General Plan’s building height policy was
discussed in detail in the October 21, 2014 staff
report and at the Council hearing. The Council
considered the petitioner’s testimony as
provided but found that the hotel’s restaurant,
bar, and other active commercial ground floor
uses are considered retail, thereby allowing the
60-foot building height.
In addition to serving the hotel guests, the
211
hotel restaurant is required to be open to the
public and is considered a full service
restaurant similar to other restaurants in the
City.
Finding and conclusion: The City Council considered, and rejected, the claim that the hotel’s restaurant
should not be considered retail. The petitioner has not provided any proof of facts that demonstrate the
Council abused its discretion by rendering a decision which was not supported by findings of fact, or
rendering a decision in which the findings of fact were not supported by the evidence.
212
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. Agenda Date: August 26, 2014
Applications: DP-2014-04, ASA-2014-06, U-2014-04, EXC-2014-07, TR-2014-28, TR-2014-40, EA-
2014-06
Applicant: Edward Chan (Cupertino Property Development II, LLC.)
Location: 10380 Perimeter Road (Southeast quadrant of Wolfe Road and I-280, APN 316-20-
092) and 10150 North Wolfe Road (JC Penney site, APN 316-20-094)
APPLICATION SUMMARY:
10380 Perimeter Road:
1. Development Permit (DP-2014-04) to demolish an existing parking lot and construct a five-story, 148-
room hotel of approximately 102,200 square feet that includes a restaurant, bar, lounge, and
conference rooms built over a 35,400 square foot, 83-car underground parking garage that contains
tandem parking;
2. Use Permit (U-2014-04) to allow a 24-hour hotel containing a restaurant with interior bar;
3. Parking Exception (EXC-2014-07) to allow eight tandem parking stalls and 148 regular parking stalls
for a total of 156 parking stalls when 184 stalls are required;
4. Tree Removal Permit (TR-2014-28) to allow the removal and replacement of 96 trees to facilitate the
construction of a new hotel;
10150 North Wolfe Road:
5. Tree Removal Permit (TR-2014-40) to allow the removal and replacement of 19 trees to facilitate the
off-site improvements associated with the construction of a new hotel; and
Both Sites:
6. Architectural and Site Approval (ASA-2014-06) of a new five-story, 148-room hotel and associated
site and off-site improvements; and
7. Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA-2014-06) for the project per the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval/adoption of
the following:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
(408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333
213
10380 Perimeter Rd/10150 N. Wolfe Rd Hyatt House Hotel August 26, 2014
1. Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA-2014-06) (Attachment 1)
2. Development Permit (DP-2014-04), in accordance with the draft resolution (Attachment 2)
3. Use Permit (U-2014-04), in accordance with the draft resolution (Attachment 3)
4. Architectural and Site Approval (ASA-2014-06), in accordance with the draft resolution (Attachment
4)
5. Parking Exception (EXC-2014-07), in accordance with the draft resolution (Attachment 5)
6. Tree Removal Permit (TR-2014-28), in accordance with the draft resolution (Attachment 6)
7. Tree Removal Permit (TR-2014-40), in accordance with the draft resolution (Attachment 7)
PROJECT DATA:
Project consistency with:
General Plan Commercial/Residential
Yes Zoning P (Regional Shopping)
Specific Plan Heart of the City
Master Plan South Vallco
Lot Size 92,434 s.f. (2.12 acres)
Existing Allowed or Required Proposed
Land Use Parking lot,
farmer’s market,
and wireless
communications
Regional shopping (per zoning) Hotel with restaurant, bar,
lounge, and conference
rooms. Wireless
communication facility to
remain onsite.
Hotel Rooms None General Plan allocation – 339 148
Building area N/A No maximum floor area ratio or
lot coverage - As determined by
the City
137,600 square feet (102,200
s.f. hotel with 2,500 s.f.
restaurant/bar and 2,480 s.f.
conference space and 35,400
s.f. underground garage)
Height (from
sidewalk grade)
N/A 45 feet or 60 feet with retail,
including restaurants
60 feet
Auto parking 223 stalls 184 stalls, based on Parking Ord.
120 stalls, based on 0.81 spaces
per room (parking study)
156 stalls (73 surface and 83
garage, including eight
tandem)
Bicycle parking N/A Nine Class II spaces (5% of auto) Ten Class II spaces
Common open
space
N/A 2.5 percent of the gross floor area
(2,555 s.f.)
17,000 s.f.
Setbacks to curb/property line:
Front (West) N/A No minimum required since not
along Stevens Creek Blvd – as
determined by the City
93 feet to Wolfe Rd curb
Side (South) One-half (1/2) the height of the
building (30 feet), or ten feet,
whichever is greater
30 feet to Perimeter Rd curb
Side (Northeast) 55 feet to property line
214
10380 Perimeter Rd/10150 N. Wolfe Rd Hyatt House Hotel August 26, 2014
BACKGROUND:
Existing Site and Surroundings
The project site is located at the
southeast quadrant of North Wolfe
Road and Interstate 280 (I-280), at the
northern end of the Vallco Shopping
Mall. To the west of the site and across
Wolfe Road is a surface parking lot for
the Vallco Shopping Mall; to the north
and east across I-280 is the Apple
Campus 2 site (under construction) and
Hampton Apartments; and to the south
is Alexander’s Steakhouse and a surface
parking lot serving the Vallco Shopping
Mall (JC Penney, Benihana, food court,
ice skating rink).
The site is currently developed with a surface parking lot that contains the “Vallco Fashion Park”
freeway-oriented pylon sign and a wireless communications facility within the pylon sign with an
associated equipment enclosure on the ground. There is also a weekly farmer’s market held onsite on
Fridays from 9:00 am to 1:00 pm. According to the applicant, the farmer’s market would likely be moved
elsewhere within the Vallco Shopping Mall subject to approval of a separate permit. The existing
wireless communications facility would remain within the pylon sign and the equipment enclosure
would be relocated beneath the sign under a separate permit.
DISCUSSION:
Proposed Project
The applicant, Edward Chan, of Cupertino Property Development II, LLC, is proposing to demolish the
existing parking lot and construct a five-story, 148-room upscale extended stay hotel and make
associated site and off-site improvements. Typical guestrooms would range from 290 to 688 square feet,
with an average size of 434 square feet. Kitchens would be included in most guestrooms. The hotel
would include 2,500 square feet of restaurant and bar area, 2,480 square feet of conference room space, a
swimming pool, a fitness room, an entry plaza, and two outdoor patios. The cumulative size of the hotel
would be 102,200 square feet. The project parking demand would be accommodated by 73 surface
parking stalls and a 35,400 square foot, one-level underground parking structure containing 83 parking
stalls (including eight tandem stalls). A total of 115 trees (94 trees are found to be in poor or dead
condition) are proposed for removal and replacement in order to facilitate the new hotel and associated
site improvements. See Attachment 8 for a letter from the project applicant for further details on the
project.
The project is consistent with all applicable aspects of the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance (aside from
the Parking Exception requested), Heart of the City Specific Plan, and South Vallco Master Plan. The
South Vallco Master Plan identifies the project site as a potential location for a hotel.
Aerial Vicinity
215
10380 Perimeter Rd/10150 N. Wolfe Rd Hyatt House Hotel August 26, 2014
A Use Permit is required for the project since the City’s General Commercial Ordinance classifies hotels
and restaurants with interior bars as conditional uses. The project proposes an allocation of 148 hotel
rooms from the South Vallco General Plan Development Allocation area, which would leave a balance of
191 hotel rooms citywide.
Architectural Review
The hotel building is designed in a contemporary theme similar to the hotel building approved in the
Main Street Cupertino development and the Aloft Hotel on De Anza Boulevard. The building is
proposed at five stories and 60 feet in height, within the height limit specified by the General Plan and
Heart of the City Specific Plan. The building height is comparable to the Nineteen 800 (formerly Rose
Bowl) mixed-use building and several approved buildings in the Main Street Cupertino project. The
building exteriors feature flat roof forms with architectural features along the rooflines; plaster exterior
walls with smooth stone accents and fiber cement and metal panel systems; aluminum storefront
windows and sliding pocket doors along the ground floor; and other visual relief measures such as
ground floor canopies, inset windows (varying from three and a half to five and a half inches), wall
projections (varying from one foot, five inches to four feet, nine inches) and varying horizontal and
vertical wall reveals. A glass tower element serves as the focal point from the main driveway. The
proposed project design is consistent with the objectives of the South Vallco Master Plan as it will
improve the identity and character of the area and is compatible with existing developments. See
Attachment 9 for the project’s color and material board.
The City’s Architectural Consultant has reviewed the architectural details and supports the design. The
applicant has worked with staff to incorporate the comments from the architectural consultant.
Site and Off-Site Improvements
The project includes a number of improvements to enhance pedestrian connections within the Vallco
Shopping District and surrounding areas. The project will reconstruct the sidewalks along the north side
of Perimeter Road with enhanced streetscape features including street furniture, tree wells, and
pedestrian-scale pole lighting. The proposed improvements will serve to improve circulation and
connections in the area consistent with the South Vallco Master Plan objectives. The project includes a
pathway near the Wolfe Road frontage that would serve as a connection to a potential future bicycle and
pedestrian trail along an existing Santa Clara Valley Water District culvert on the south side of I-280.
Onsite amenities include outdoor dining and patio areas, as well as a pool and plaza near the Perimeter
Road sidewalk. A large second level deck overlooks the pool area. The plaza continues the “civic” theme
by providing public seating and a large space for activity near the street. Staff recommends that as a
condition of the project, the applicant work with staff to further enhance the pedestrian amenities within
the plaza and street frontage. Decorative paving is provided at the main driveway (west) into the site,
and helps to define the pick-up and drop-off area.
The project’s trash enclosure is located behind the hotel building and has been designed in accordance
with the City’s Trash Enclosure Guidelines. Above ground utilities have preliminarily been placed in
discreet locations onsite and will be screened by landscaping or solid enclosures.
216
10380 Perimeter Rd/10150 N. Wolfe Rd Hyatt House Hotel August 26, 2014
The project site slopes downward in a south-to-north direction. Storm water runoff is addressed by a
large bioretention planter at the natural low point of the site. Several walls are proposed, including a
retaining wall with heights that range from one to five feet along the rear of the parking lot near I-280.
The frontage along Perimeter Road slopes significantly downward from east to west, and the new
sidewalk generally follows this pattern. The new sidewalk will be level with the pathway connecting to
the building entry, but given the grade differences, the sidewalk elevation between the two site
driveways will be higher than the hotel’s floor elevation.
Parking
In accordance with the City’s Parking Ordinance, the project has the option of either providing the
ordinance prescribed stand alone parking ratio for hotel, restaurant, conference uses (at 184 stalls total),
or demonstrate sufficient parking arrangement through an alternative parking study prepared by a
transportation consultant with a parking exception permit. The alternative parking study option allows
projects to determine a more accurate parking demand, especially for uses such as shopping centers or
hotels that may have complex overlapping uses and activities that are not able to be addressed by the
standalone ordinance ratios.
The following table outlines the parking assessment methods used by some of the previously approved
hotels in the City and their respective approved parking ratios.
Hotel Parking
Assessment
Method
Approved Parking Ratio Approval No.
Aloft (10165 N. De Anza
Blvd)
Parking Study 0.7 stalls per room M-2010-07
Cypress Hotel (10050 S. De
Anza Blvd)
Parking Study 0.65 stalls per room U-2000-05
Hilton Garden Inn (10741
N. Wolfe Rd)
Parking Study 1 stall per room U-1996-15
Courtyard Marriott (10605
N. Wolfe Rd)
Parking Study 0.95 stalls per room U-1986-33
Cupertino Inn (10889 N.
De Anza Blvd)
Ordinance
Ratio*
1 stall per room U-1985-15
Average Parking Ratio .86 stalls per room
Proposed Project Parking Study 1.05 stalls per room
*An older ordinance ratio requiring hotels to be parked at 1 parking stall per each room.
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. was retained by the City to conduct a parking study for the
project (see Attachment 10, Chapter 6). According to the Urban Land Institute (ULI) shared parking
manual, research shows that many guests in a business-service hotel would walk, car pool, take a
shuttle, or be dropped off at the hotel. Also, many of the restaurant and conference space users are
anticipated to be hotel guests.
In order to determine whether the proposed parking would be sufficient to serve the project, field
parking surveys were conducted at three similar hotels in Cupertino (Aloft, Cupertino Inn, and Hilton
217
10380 Perimeter Rd/10150 N. Wolfe Rd Hyatt House Hotel August 26, 2014
Garden Inn) during the period of peak parking demand. The results indicate that weekday parking rates
varied from 0.32 to 0.59 (occupied stalls/occupied room). Weekend parking rates ranged from 0.40 to 0.81
stalls per room. The Hilton Garden Inn had the highest parking demand of 0.81 stalls per room, and is
the most similar to the proposed project since it contains a full service restaurant and bar and conference
room space. Therefore, the study recommends a parking supply ratio of 0.81 stalls per room (or 120
stalls) for the project. This ratio is higher than the 0.71 stalls per room rate specified for hotels in the
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) parking generation manual. Since the project provides 1.05
stalls per room (or 156 stalls), the parking study concluded that the project parking supply is adequate.
Eight tandem parking stalls are proposed in the parking garage for employee use only, and signage
would be placed to this effect. The project site will continue to be owned by a single entity, and hotel
management will enforce the use of the tandem stalls. The Parking Ordinance allows tandem parking
arrangements to be considered with a Parking Exception. Excluding the tandem stalls, the project would
still provide a surplus of 28 stalls over the recommended ratio in the parking study. Therefore, staff
recommends approval of the Parking Exception.
The project provides the required bicycle Class II parking supply, with 10 stalls located near the building
entrance.
Traffic
A transportation impact analysis (TIA) was conducted by Hexagon (Attachment 10). The study analyzed
the traffic impacts of the project on nine signalized intersections and one un-signalized intersection in the
vicinity of the project site during the weekday AM and PM peak periods of traffic. Based on the ITE trip
generation manual, the project would generate a total of 1,209 daily trips, with 78 trips occurring during
the AM peak hour and 89 trips occurring during the PM peak hour. Since the project would generate less
than 100 peak hour vehicle trips, a congestion management program (CMP) analysis is not required per
the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) TIA guidelines.
The results of the level of service (LOS) analysis under all project conditions show that all study
intersections would operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS D or better) during both the AM and
PM peak hours of traffic. Additionally, all of the CMP intersections (such as the Wolfe Road and I-280
north- and southbound ramps) would operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS E or better) during
the AM and PM peak hours of traffic.
Tree Removals, Replacements, and Protection
The project proposes to remove 96 trees onsite plus 19 offsite trees out of the 150 total trees surveyed in
the project vicinity to facilitate the construction of the proposed hotel and associated site improvements.
The proposed tree removals consist of 64 Coast Redwoods, 21 Shamel Ash, nine Honey Locust, six
Evergreen Pear, six Monterey Pine, four Coast Live Oaks, three Cork Oaks, and two Pin Oaks. It should
be noted that only the four Coast Live Oak trees are considered specimen trees since they are on the
City’s protected species list. The City’s Consulting Arborist reviewed the project’s removal request and
concurs with the proposed removals (see Attachment 11).
General Plan Policy 2-30, Strategy 8 encourages the retention of the trees along the Wolfe Road and I-280
frontage as much as possible in new development within the Vallco Shopping District. However, the
majority (52 of 84) of the Coast Redwoods along the Wolfe Road and I-280 perimeter of the site are found
218
10380 Perimeter Rd/10150 N. Wolfe Rd Hyatt House Hotel August 26, 2014
to be in extremely poor to irrecoverable health condition due to lack of water or overcrowding. Nine
Coast Redwood trees along the I-280 perimeter were identified by the arborist as having a high suitability
for preservation since they appear reasonably healthy and have no significant issues or defects. Three of
these trees are proposed for removal due to the proposed trail pathway connection, while the other six
will be preserved. All of the 28 perimeter trees along Wolfe Road are proposed for removal since 22 of
these are in poor health and since it will facilitate the construction of the pathway.
In order to mitigate the trees being removed, the project proposes to plant 116 replacement trees ranging
from 24-inch to 36-inch box sizes (including London Plane, Coast Redwood, Water Gum, and Chinese
Pistache trees) in the parking lot, street frontage, and site perimeter consistent with the replacement
requirements of the Protected Tree Ordinance. In-lieu replacement fees will be required for the 56 trees
that cannot be physically planted onsite. New Coast Redwood trees will replace the ones that are
removed, where appropriate, along the perimeter of the site. The final location and species of the tree
replacements will be reviewed by staff and the City’s Consulting Arborist in conjunction with the
building permit review.
A condition of approval requires the applicant to retain the City’s Consulting Arborist to review the
construction permit drawings to ensure impacts to the trees to be retained are minimized. The applicant
is also required to retain the arborist to confirm the health of the trees and take corrective measures, if
necessary, following construction.
Proximity to Residential Area/Security
Even though the bar proposes to close at 11:00 PM, General Plan Policy 2-92 supports late night hours in
this area of the Vallco Shopping District, since the project site is located a considerable distance from
residential areas. The project site is located approximately 680 feet from the nearest existing single-family
neighborhood on Norwich Avenue and 580 feet from the existing Hampton Apartments at Wolfe Road
and Pruneridge Avenue.
The Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office has reviewed the project and does not foresee any security
concerns or negative impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods with operation of the proposed hotel and
restaurant/bar. The Aloft, Cypress, and Hilton Garden Inn hotels are similar hotels with interior bars and
have not had a history of enforcement concerns. Moreover, a future Sheriff’s substation will be located in
the project vicinity in the Main Street Cupertino project.
A condition of approval has been added to require the property owner to address security concerns in the
event that they arise and reimburse the City in the event of additional Sheriff’s enforcement time. As
such, the applicant is required to provide a security plan for the City and Sheriff’s Office review prior to
final occupancy.
South Vallco Connectivity Plan
During the initial hearing for the City’s current General Plan Amendment (GPA) process (file no. GPA-
2013-01) in 2012, the City Council heard oral testimony from the project applicant expressing interest in
developing the site with a hotel. The Council, in their motion on the GPA, concluded that development
within the Vallco Shopping District may proceed in parallel with the GPA process provided that projects
meet the current General Plan and zoning requirements and provide a Connectivity Plan that shows
219
10380 Perimeter Rd/10150 N. Wolfe Rd Hyatt House Hotel August 26, 2014
how the new development can improve connectivity to existing and approved development, and ensure
connectivity to future development within the greater South Vallco district.
In response to Council’s direction, the applicant funded the development of the South Vallco
Connectivity Plan that demonstrates how the hotel project will physically link to existing and approved
development in the South Vallco area and interface with conceptual goals, objectives, concepts, and
design guidelines for improved connectivity, safety, and aesthetics in the shopping district (Attachment
12).
The plan identifies two considerations for improved connectivity – one within the existing circulation
system, and the other assuming a potential redesign of the entire district, which is anticipated after the
completion of the new General Plan Amendment.
The proposed hotel project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the plan and will enhance
connectivity, safety, and aesthetics by:
Providing enhanced sidewalks, street trees, pedestrian-scale lighting, public art, bicycle parking, and
street furniture on Perimeter Road
Locating outdoor gathering areas near the new Perimeter Road sidewalk
Constructing a bicycle/pedestrian pathway with public access easements to a potential future trail
along I-280.
Providing an ADA-accessible path of travel to Wolfe Road
Enhancing crosswalk striping and the intersection by the main site entrance
Relocating an existing crosswalk to connect to a building entrance and ADA-accessible paths
The South Vallco Connectivity plan will help inform the development of the future Vallco Shopping
District Specific and/or Master Plan.
Vallco Reciprocal Easement Agreement (REA)
The applicant has provided a letter from their attorney (Attachment 13) confirming that the project will
not have an adverse impact on the Vallco Shopping District’s REA since the project provides its required
parking supply entirely onsite, and the REA would no longer apply to the project site if a hotel project
was developed.
KEY CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Public Art
Since the project is larger than 50,000 square feet, per the City’s Public Art Ordinance, public artwork is
required in the value of .25 percent of the total project budget (not to exceed $100,000). The Fine Arts
Commission will review the final details including the design and location at a later time.
Green Building
Since the project is larger than 50,000 square feet, per the City’s Green B uilding Ordinance, the project is
required to obtain a LEED Silver certification or an alternative reference per the ordinance specifications.
Contribution to Potential Trail and Public Access
220
10380 Perimeter Rd/10150 N. Wolfe Rd Hyatt House Hotel August 26, 2014
Similar to the recently approved projects adjoining this area (Apple Campus 2 and Main Street), the
proposed hotel project will be required to contribute approximately $66,000 towards a study and
construction of a potential future trail along an existing Santa Clara Valley Water District culvert on the
south side of I-280. The project will also be required to provide the necessary access easements in order
to facilitate future trail connections through the project.
Future Rooftop Wireless Facilities
The project site is an ideal location for wireless facilities given its height and strategic location near
Apple Campus 2. Staff recommends that the applicant consider design measures to support future
rooftop wireless facilities.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The City contracted with David J. Powers & Associates to prepare the initial study for the project
(Attachment 1) per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The initial study concluded that
the project will not have a significant effect on the environment based on the following mitigation
measures:
Air Quality: Measures to reduce construction emissions of particulate matter disturbed during
construction activities.
Biological Resources: Tree replacements required by the City’s Protected Tree Ordinance and
protection of existing trees to remain.
Cultural Resources: Construction work stoppage and additional investigation if archaeological
deposits are discovered.
Geology and Soils: Prepare and submit geotechnical reports prior to the issuance of building permits.
Noise: Provide acoustical study to demonstrate that all hotel rooms meet an interior noise level
consistent with City noise standards.
On August 20, 2014, the City issued a Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt an MND for the project. The public
comment period on the MND and initial study ends on September 18, 2014.
On August 21, 2014, the Environmental Review Committee recommended a Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) for the project based on the initial study. A committee member commented that the
proposed Redwood replacement trees may not be a good species given that they have high water needs
and are not native to the region. A member of the public was concerned with the proposed removal of
Redwood trees, and felt that any removals should be replaced with new Redwoods.
The initial study’s mitigation measures are included as conditions of approval for the project. The
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment 14) lists the specific mitigation measures,
the timeframe and method of compliance, and responsible departments/agencies for oversight of
implementation.
OTHER DEPARTMENT/AGENCY REVIEW
The City’s Public Works Department, Building Division, the Santa Clara County Fire Department, the
Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office, the Cupertino Sanitary District, Recology, PG&E, Cal Water,
221
10380 Perimeter Rd/10150 N. Wolfe Rd Hyatt House Hotel August 26, 2014
Caltrans, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, the City of Sunnyvale, and City of Santa Clara reviewed
the project and have no objections. Department and agencies’ pre-hearing comments have been
incorporated as conditions of approval in the draft resolutions.
PUBLIC NOTICING & OUTREACH
The following table is a brief summary of the noticing done for this project:
Notice of Public Hearing and Intent, Site Notice
& Legal Ad
Agenda
Neighborhood meeting held by the applicant
on August 15, 2014 with mailings sent to 239
property owners within 300 feet of the Vallco
Shopping District
239 public hearing notices mailed to property
owners within 300 feet of the Vallco Shopping
District (including project site) (10 days prior to
the hearing)
Notice of intent to adopt an MND posted
onsite and sent to interested individuals,
responsible agencies, and the County
Recorder (at least 30 days prior to final decision
on the project)
Site Signage
(14 days prior to the hearing)
Legal ad placed in newspaper
(at least 10 days prior to the hearing)
Posted on the City's official notice
bulletin board (one week prior to the
hearing)
Posted on the City of Cupertino’s Web
site (one week prior to the hearing)
Neighborhood Meeting
The applicant voluntarily held a neighborhood meeting on August 15, 2014, which was attended by 11
members of the public. The neighboring property owners were generally supportive of the project, but
had a few concerns. The following is a summary of comments received at the meeting. Staff comments
are provided in italics:
Not enough notification was provided – Applicant-sponsored neighborhood meetings are not required, nor
are there noticing standards. The applicant was provided with the list of addresses for property owners within
300 feet of the entire Vallco Shopping District (same as legal noticing for public hearings) and provided with a
list of interested parties to contact for the neighborhood meeting. The City sent legal notices for the Planning
Commission hearing to the same list of property owners within 300 feet of the entire Vallco Shopping District.
In addition, the City has established a website with information on the project at
www.cupertino.org/hyatthouse and interested parties can sign up for updates.
Concerns about converting the hotel into residential in the future – The project site is not zoned for
residential, and there are no plans to eventually convert the hotel to residential since the applicant has entered
into a minimum 20-year franchise agreement with the hotel operator. However, if this is requested in the
222
10380 Perimeter Rd/10150 N. Wolfe Rd Hyatt House Hotel August 26, 2014
future, a City review process with public hearings would be required. Additionally, the conditions of approval
limit hotel stays to 30 days, consistent with the City’s definition of hotels.
Concerns about not providing the ordinance-required parking, and potential spillover into adjacent
streets – Please see the Parking discussion above. The project parking supply is consistent with the alternative
parking considerations allowed by the ordinance, and a parking study has confirmed that the supply will be
adequate for the project demand. Hotels in Cupertino have not historically had parking spillover problems since
they are located away from residential neighborhoods and provide adequate parking onsite. However, if parking
issues arise in the future, the City has the ability to require additional measures as deemed necessary (e.g. valet
parking or other transportation demand measures including shuttle service).
Privacy concerns with new windows facing the residential neighborhood to the west of the Vallco
Shopping Mall - Privacy planting is not required in Planned Development zoning districts, however the
applicant proposes to plant new Coast Redwood trees along the west property line to replace the existing trees
to be removed. When mature, these trees will provide partial privacy screening. The project site is 680 feet away
and across a freeway interchange from the residential neighborhood, and view impacts are not expected to be
significant. Moreover, the orientation of the proposed building minimizes the number of windows facing the
residential neighborhood.
PERMIT STREAMLINING ACT
This project is subject to the Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code Section 65920 – 65964). The
City has complied with the deadlines found in the Permit Streamlining Act.
Project Received: May 28, 2014
Deemed Incomplete: June 26, 2014; July 22, 2014; August 8, 2014
Deemed Complete: August 21, 2014
The City has 60 days (until October 21, 2014) to make a decision on the project since a Mitigated
Negative Declaration under CEQA is recommended.
CONCLUSION/NEXT STEPS
The Planning Commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for final
consideration, tentatively scheduled for October 21, 2014.
Prepared by: George Schroeder, Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Reviewed by:
/s/ Rebecca Tolentino /s/ Gary Chao
Rebecca Tolentino Gary Chao
Senior Planner Assistant Director of Community Development
Approved by:
/s/ Aarti Shrivastava
Aarti Shrivastava
223
10380 Perimeter Rd/10150 N. Wolfe Rd Hyatt House Hotel August 26, 2014
Assistant City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
1 – Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA-2014-06) with Initial Study
2 – DP-2014-04 Draft Resolution
3 – ASA-2014-06 Draft Resolution
4 – U-2014-04 Draft Resolution
5 – EXC-2014-07 Draft Resolution
6 – TR-2014-28 Draft Resolution
7 – TR-2014-40 Draft Resolution
8 – Applicant’s project description letter
9 – Color and material board
10– Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA)
11 – City’s Consulting Arborist report
12 – South Vallco Connectivity Plan
13 – Applicant’s letter from their attorney regarding the REA
14 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
15 – Plan set
G:\Planning\PDREPORT\pc DP reports\2014 DP Reports\DP-2014-04, ASA-2014-06, U-2014-04, EXC-2014-07, TR-2014-28, TR-2014-40_PC.docx
224
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES
6:45 P.M. AUGUST 26, 2014 TUESDAY
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
The regular Planning Commission meeting of August 26, 2014 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the
Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA. by Chair Paul Brophy.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Chairperson: Paul Brophy
Vice Chairperson: Winnie Lee
Commissioner: Margaret Gong
Commissioner: Don Sun
Commissioner: Alan Takahashi
Staff present: Asst. Director of Community Development: Gary Chao
Assistant City Manager: Aarti Shrivastava
Associate Planner: George Schroeder
Senior Planner: Colin Jung
Asst. City Attorney: Colleen Winchester
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the July 8, 2014 Planning Commission meeting:
Page 14, Com. Brophy: Delete: “Noted for the record that the meeting was not a public hearing”
and replace with “Said that they did not have any public comments because there was no public
attending the hearing.”
MOTION: Motion by Com. Gong, second by Com. Sun, and unanimously carried
5-0-0, to approve the July 8, 2014 Planning Commission minutes as amended
Minutes of the July 2, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting:
MOTION: Motion By Vice Chair Lee, second by Com. Gong, and carried 4-0-1, Com. Takahashi
abstaining, as he was absent from the meeting; to approve the minutes as presented.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
225
Cupertino Planning Commission August 26, 2014
2
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
PUBLIC HEARING:
Chair Brophy announced that Items 3 ad 4 would be considered together as they are the same item, Item 3
is a proposal for Hyatt House Hotel and Item 4 exists as separately listed areas because it covers a sliver
of parcel owned by J. C. Penneys where some trees will be removed as part of the proposal.
3. and 4.
DP-2014-04, ASA-2014-06, Development Permit (DP-2014-04) to demolish an existing
U-2014-04, EXC-2014-07, parking lot and construct a 5-story, 148-room hotel of approx.
TR-2014-28, TR-2014-40, 102,200 sq. ft. that includes a restaurant, bar, lounge, and
EA-2014-06, Edward Chan conference rooms built over a 35,400 sq. ft., 83-car underground
(Cupertino Property Development parking garage that contains tandem parking; Use Permit
II, LLC), 10380 Perimeter Rd., (U-2014-04) to allow a 2-hour hotel containing a restaurant
10150 No. Wolfe Rd. with interior bar; Parking Exception (EXC-2014-07) to allow 8
Tandem Parking stalls and 148 regular parking stalls totaling 156
Parking stalls when 184 stalls are required; Tree Removal Permit (TR-2014-28) to low the
removal and replacement of 96 tree to facilitate the construction of a new hotel; Tree Removal
Permit (TR-2014-40) to allow the removal and replacement of 19 trees to facilitate the offsite
improvements associated with the construction of a new hotel; and (both sites:) Architectural and
site approval (ASA-2014-06) of a new 5-story, 148-room hotel and associated site and offsite
improvements, and Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA-2014-06) for the project per the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
George Schroeder, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
He reviewed the application summary for both sites as outlined in the staff report. He reviewed the
Power Point presentation,, including the application request, project data, proposed site plan,
frontage improvements, architectural review, alternative option, parking, comparison with other
hotels, traffic, tree removals, tree removal plan, tree replacements, proximity to residential/security,
South Valley Connectivity Plan, environmental assessment, outreach/public comments,
recommendations and new steps, floor plans, parking garage, ground floor and roof plan,
guestrooms, pool/plaza area, contribution to Wolfe Road Corridor Improvement District, existing
mobility conditions in So. Vallco, improved connectivity with the current mall and a Vallco Shopping
District redesign, and noticing vicinity.
Staff recommends approval of the project, which will be forwarded to City Council on October 21,
2014, and recommends approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and other project applications.
Staff answered questions about the application.
George Schroeder:
Relative to the Heart of the City (HOC) and General Plan (GP) it specifies 45 feet for the Vallco
Shopping District and also allow heights to go up to 60 feet if there is a retail component on the
ground floor; the city historically has considered restaurants as retail space. The height is measured
from the sidewalk grade as per the HOCSP to the top of the parapet. Also architectural features and
mechanical equipment are allowed to project above the height limit provided they are restraining
rooftop mechanical equipment and other mechanical features. He discussed the open space area. Staff
feels that the building size is appropriate for the site; because all parking requirements are met as well
as landscaping; it is within the GP allocation.
226
Cupertino Planning Commission August 26, 2014 3
Gary Chao:
Regarding parking, why is staff suggesting going with the parking study and not the parking
ordinance? It is referred to as alternative parking standard ordinance; staff did not
recommend going this route; it is something the applicant decided.
Staff answered questions on parking, restaurant location, noise standards. The project will have to
provide charging stations; no mention of solar panels yet.
Com. Gong:
LEED silver is required for alternate standards; the project is subject to the city’s new building
ordinance. Staff said that at this time there are no plans to update the perimeter road in front of the
property, perhaps restripe it for more than two way traffic. If the Vallco Shopping mall were to
redevelop that would be considered, but there are plans to divide or restripe the road.
City Attorney:
This particular provision of the municipal code relating to parking is an alternative method for
determining parking if certain findings are made; if we continue to have to use this alternative finding
for hotels perhaps there should be a change in the ordinance. She said she did not know if that is
currently on the horizon.
Gary Chao:
Said the Council marked it as a project for staff to consider in 2015. It could be an item for discussion
as part of the comprehensive parking ordinance amendment. One of the ultimate goals for the
parking ordinance amendment is to look at something such as the existing prescribed ratio, and
review them against performances of projects where we have learned what projects have been
approved or historically written. Said they have historically supported X number of exceptions; it
may be time to consider changing that rule so that the exception standards or averages become the
norm. That may be the point, but the City Council has not set the scope of the parking ordinance
amendment so we are estimating going back to them with your comments and input will be conveyed
to them in terms of thinking and scoping the parking lot ordinance amendment 2015. The
Commission could agree to provide input to the City Council that they consider updating the hotel
ratio in the upcoming parking ordinance amendment.
City Attorney:
In amendments to the zoning code/Title 19, generally speaking they come to the Planning
Commission first for making recommendations on changing the ordinance; the Planning Commission
would have the opportunity to weigh in on parking requirements or other requirements of the zoning
code and present it to the City Council.
George Schroeder:
Said there is a condition in the draft resolution addressing that if parking ever becomes a problem in
the future, the hotel could implement valet parking, increased shuttle service or other measures to
reduce parking on the site. Said it is part of the application if the project is approved.
Com. Sun:
Asked what the city would do in the future if the applicant applied to convert the hotel to residential?
Gary Chao:
In regards to parking requirements, residential takes on a different type of parking requirement
because they are going to have to address parking if all units were converted to residential
227
Cupertino Planning Commission August 26, 2014
4
apartments; it is a different process, applicant would have to go through a different public process
involving the Commission and Council again. They would need to get additional public testimony
and Planning Commission input as well as technical reports and environmental assessment would
have to be conducted again. They cannot use any part of the hotel for any other use or lease it out
other than use it for a hotel. Relative to the retention and removal of trees, he said that they would
rely on the city’s consultant arborist for recommendations, taking many factors in mind.
Com. Sun:
Requested more information on the issue of trails and pathways.
Gary Chao:
As part of the Apple project the notion of connecting and enhancing the ability of citizens to walk or
bike across from different neighborhoods is a very desirable one. It is a high objective called out in
the GP. There is opportunity to realize the trail along the south side of 280 along the drainage culvert
over a certain SCVWD land partnership partnering with them as well as contribution and help with
some of the adjacent property owners. The concept is to create a trail system that will go from Tantau
to DeAnza Blvd. through the south side of 280. The conversation has been initiated and it is
something the Council has wanted to encourage; a study is needed to further citywide conversation
including environmental assessment at a later date; more detail will be discussed at that time. In order
for them to allow them to concurrently move forward in advance of the GP being approved, they
would have to demonstrate that they would not hinder or impede any future possible connections.
That is why they are demonstrating on the west side of their property; they are showing that
pedestrian pathway that can connect from the south side to the north side. There will be more
citywide discussion on the future study of the trail.
Com. Takahashi:
Said he did not feel that parking was an issue, it is in the best interest of the hotel to manage their
parking; assume the hotel would implement valet parking if it comes to an over-crowded situation.
Was there mention of a wireless tower with the sign?
George Schroeder:
Said there is a current wireless facility within the large Vallco pylon sign on 280 and there is an
equipment enclosure on the ground level. As part of this project the equipment enclosure will be
relocated to accommodate some new parking spaces. Relative to safety reports with regard to
distance to the buildings, there will be a separate permit required for that piece of the project, during
that time they will require demonstrating that it will be a safe location to relocate the enclosure.
Com. Takahashi:
In the event that it is deemed marginal, is it up to the hotel developer to work with the wireless
provider to mitigate that?
George Schroeder:
Said the wireless provider will handle those details but also it would require the permission of the
property owner.
Com. Takahashi:
Relative to the trail, he said he was not clear if that is part of the development or allocation for future
element on that portion of the pedestrian bike trail. Since there is a mix of trees retained and new
trees being planted, is the plan to irrigate all the trees or just the new trees in place? Sounds like the
health of the trees has been driven by drought and lack of water.
228
Cupertino Planning Commission August 26, 2014
5
Gary Chao:
Primarily over-crowding; they are fighting for water. There is going to be a future water calculation
and irrigation plan developed; we have also a water efficiency ordinance, while we want to ensure
that the high water usage trees get watered like redwoods, it is designed that drought tolerant methods
and strategies are employed as well throughout the project, so there is a condition to address that.
George Schroeder:
Said it was up to the operator of the farmers’ market to find an alternate location for the farmers’
market and they would need to apply for another Use Permit. We heard they intend to find another
location in the mall area.
Com. Takahashi:
Said the stone looks bare, but is purely aesthetics; no major changes on traffic. The impact given the
size of the project is minimal. It is more of a general Apple II and Main Street and the combination
of all projects going on in that area; with the level of concern of the city with regard to general
congestion of that area in the future.
Gary Chao:
Said they want the area to take up activity as it seems like a ghost town now. When Apple got their
project approved there was comprehensive traffic analysis and the analysis accounts for that as well
so its cumulative. The Level of Service (LOS) for the intersections cumulatively Apple plus this and
all the other recently approved projects have been accounted for, so we do value our LOS. The traffic
engineer would be out there if there was a problem and there are other measures that they would be
able to employ now based on the traffic consultant and traffic engineers now since they are
comfortable that the project will not degrade the LOS out there around the area.
Chair Brophy:
Relative to the landscape plan, he said he was on the ERC and spoke against the redwoods; they are
not made for flat lands and while overcrowding was an issue, so was lack of water and they are now
requiring planting plants out of a water budget and it would seem that requiring them to put up new
redwoods would just lead to future poor performance as the current ones. The issue of the map of the
height limits in So. Vallco; the project includes the Vallco Mall, the Rosebowl site and some parcels;
the height limit is 45 feet, however if there is a retail component, it would be 60 feet. In the Rosebowl
project there is ground level retail and 4 levels of apartments above it. The question is the retail in
this project that supposedly would allow 60 foot height and not 45 foot height is a 2500 foot
restaurant and bar. Said his understanding from staying at such hotels is they expect very limited use
of the restaurant and bar by the people other than those staying at the hotel. Is that a fair statement
based on experience in hotels like that?
Gary Chao:
Said it depends on the food; certain types of restaurants would become destination for customers,
which they hope will be the case. The applicant can address that in terms of what their vision is about
how that will be set up.
Chair Brophy:
Noted for the record that all Commissioners have met with Mr. Chan separately during the past week
to listen to his view of the project.
Edward Chan, Applicant, representing Cupertino Property Development:
Provided a background of the company based in Cupertino; they believe the upscale extended stay
hotel will bring a lot of benefits to Cupertino; unique in that they bring suites with kitchen and living
229
Cupertino Planning Commission August 26, 2014
6
area for travelers looking for more apartment type hotel rooms. There is a full service restaurant and
bar; 2,500 sq. ft. of dining area not including the kitchen area; a good size restaurant; also 2,000 sq. ft.
of banquet space, cutting edge high tech board room, outdoor pool and lounges. The proposed
development will be upgrading the site’s interface with the existing mall as well as set up to
accommodate any future development in the mall area, and the pedestrian bike trail which will
connect to the future trail that will parallel out to 280.
Chris Talban, Vice President, Development Hyatt Hotels:
Said there was a high demand in the area for apartment style hotel rooms with a higher end food and
beverage concept. Said the way the restaurant and bar area was reoriented by Planning Commission
and staff is going to open up the bar and restaurant to outside which is very important to bring in
outside traffic.
Edward Chan:
Said they saw the alternative option they put together for the consulting architect, and feel strongly
that the updated full limestone front takes away from the tower element. Limestone is considered a
higher end material but at the same time it detracts from what they are trying to accomplish using a
lot of modern contemporary materials; and stone is an older style and will clash with what they are
trying to accomplish. Pointed out that the hotel does not have room service; it offers a destination
place for people to come, get drinks at the bar, Happy Hour, as well as dining.
In response to a question from Com. Sun about alternative parking for special events, he said if there
is an issue with parking they are open to having valet parking; also a shuttle will be available to take
people around town.
Com. Gong:
Two specimen trees Nos. 91 and 92 are marked for removal; is there any way to retain the trees as
they are specimen trees and don’t seem to be impacting the middle of the development. Any
retention alternatives?
Edward Chan:
Possibly, not sure where it sits in relation to the rest of the site trail. It looks like it might be hitting
the transformer or getting into the drive aisle. If it is outside the area, they can look into that.
Chair Brophy opened the public hearing.
Dr. Darrel Lun, representing Concerned Citizens of Cupertino:
Said they got a late start on the analysis of the project; during the EIR for the GPA for 2014 they
wrote an extensive review of the hotel in Cupertino and submitted it on June 25, 2014 with a second
analysis on July 31, 2014. With regard to the property, perhaps there could be some clarification of
the property lines on this diagram; will the project footprint interfere with any plans to upgrade the
southbound 280 onramp which has a LOS of F, and will the trail impact the project or vice versa
because it is in an area with parking, etc. so will that affect parking ratios?
With the recent fire at Vallco the project appears to have only one exit point which is from Wolfe Rd.
to a constricted area and goes around the project. Will a second access road be necessary? It would
seem that with a 10 ft. clearance, fire trucks would have difficulty getting through. Said they did not
realize that the hotel restaurant constitutes a retail element to qualify for the 60 ft. exception. To
bring some clarity to the matter, a loft hotel on DeAnza Blvd. initially was going to have a public
restaurant; they decided later that they were not going to have a public access restaurant, it would be
restricted to hotel guests only. Said he wondered if they could do the same thing, and if they are
extended suites not too many guests would likely eat at the restaurant. Does the approval of this
project constitute approval of the South Vallco connectivity plan? It seems like they are putting
230
Cupertino Planning Commission August 26, 2014
7
something ahead of the GPA and it is possible that they will refer back to this project and say that the
South Vallco connectivity plan was already approved along with the hotel project.
Said he felt more questions need to be answered and need a more detailed plan of both the project and
how the studies for the Mary Ave. project from Apple is going to affect the onramps to South 280
because now there is only one access road, and one lane which expands to two; if they are going to
eventually expand that area, would the project tend to curtail that?
David Jeffers, Cupertino resident:
Asked whether the brick or granite on the building will be a façade or something thicker which would
possibly have problems with an earthquake; how is it addressed?
Chair Brophy closed the public hearing.
Gene Fall Associates rep:
Said there are several methods of putting stone on a building; typically something light in weight for
the structural integrity, such as veneer on a composite panel, where it would still show the stone on
the outside. If a stone product, a stone panel, composite panel that is lightweight would be
appropriate. In most cases a structural engineer will do the calculation to make sure that all materials
adhere to the code and life and safety of the building.
George Schroeder:
Relative to the concern about the fairly low clearance on the underpass under Wolfe Road, he said the
fire department reviewed the plans several times; they were involved early on to ensure that access
was provided to the site and also within the site. They are looking for the most direct and quickest
route to the site and that is generally from Wolfe Road and up the access road to the site. Staff
worked with the fire department to meet their standards in terms of the aisle width on sites because
the access has to be large enough to accommodate the larger trucks, with aerial apparatus, ladders,
more of a taller building. They have reviewed it and the access meets their standards; there may need
to be a few more refinements to the east driveway in terms of the radius they require but it is not
expected to have to drastically modify the site plan. That condition is part of the draft resolution.
The last question raised about the possible impact of the 280/Wolfe Rd. interchange was to be rebuilt;
either as already agreed under the Apple II campus or as a result of, he said as part of the Apple II
study there was some contribution to be made to look at the further work beyond what was required
by Apple. Is there any risk of making that an impossible problem if this project goes ahead?
Gary Chao:
In terms of the property line question, the project will not interfere with the existing operation of the
onramp to Wolfe Road. In terms of the plan referred to by Dr. Lun, the Wolfe Road Corridor
Improvement Plan, is a project that will be dictated by the Council through the GPA process, and it is
being considered in a study in an EIR that some alternatives refer to that, so a lot of how and when
and in terms of the studies involved, to realize that it would be dictated and discussed by the Council
through a public process after they decide which GP alternatives and what intensity they would like to
approve. It started with the Apple project and Apple contributed monetarily toward the future study
of that, but Council has to approve and give the green light as part of the GPA process and that is
when it is going to be flushed out. The terms are vague because the scope is not known, so they will
contribute toward that effort if the Council decides there is going to be an effort and there is going to
be a project depending on the General Plan direction they end up with.
Chair Brophy;
Said he felt the concern was more; are any of the alternatives being looked at, would they require the
city to acquire some of this property? Gary Chao responded that it would not.
231
Cupertino Planning Commission August 26, 2014
8
Com. Sun:
In the future if the restaurant is failing and is converted to another purpose, the entire base of the hotel
will be non-existent; what kind of measurement would the city impose?
Gary Chao:
It is a good point in terms of specifically regarding the ability for the restaurant to be closed off to the
public; the Commission can discuss this topic and if they desire to enhance the condition by adding
language that the restaurant shall be made to be open to the public; that would be an appropriate
amendment to the condition regarding restaurants, so that if in the future for whatever reason
operationally or other reasons that prompts the conversation of potentially closing off the restaurant to
the public that they would have to come back to the city for review and approval. Moving forward
with this approval it should be made open to the public for anyone to be able to dine, and that is the
intent of the commercial or retail use.
Marriott rep:
Explained the difference between the Marriott Residence Inn and Hyatt Hotels relative to their
restaurant and bar models. Residence Inn offers a complementary evening reception; Hyatt Hotels
does not offer complementary reception, but has an H bar which is their signature bar, and they offer
hors d’ouvres in the $4 to $10 range; it is for hotel guests but they do not limit anyone from the
outside coming in. There will be people coming by after work between 5 and 7 p.m. It is open to
public also.
Chair Brophy:
If the argument for allowing an extra floor above the 45 foot limit, is that this is a concept that would
attract people either to the restaurant or the bar; there is a conference room for 100-120 people and
perhaps the parking study that compares the Hyatt to the Courtyard or Hilton Garden Inn isn’t valid,
and there may not be enough parking.
Hyatt rep:
Said the Hyatt’s concept is different than the Hilton Garden Inn and the Marriott Courtyard, but Hyatt
is providing more stalls today as part of their project than what the traffic study calls for; it is closer to
above one overall ratio in that sense, and if it were broken down more, they would still be fine on the
parking side.
Chair Brophy:
Said his argument is that perhaps the comps that the traffic consultant used, if they believe the
restaurant/bar concept and the conference room concept is unique to them, you, the observations that
the traffic consultant made would not be valid.
Hyatt rep:
Said it was difficult to say, but it may be time of use; the parking lot is going to be full of people
staying overnight vs. the meeting room unless it’s a banquet, meetings are usually taking place during
the day, so it’s a balance. If there is a parking problem, they will mitigate it because it is in their best
interest; they don’t want to have a hotel that has no parking and people can’t stay overnight.
Gary Chao:
Addressed more questions raised by Dr. Lun. What does this connectivity plan mean in the whole
scheme of the future Vallco Specific Plan which also will have a chapter on connectivity plan? Said
it is a conceptual connectivity plan geared towards demonstrating that the project will not be a
hindrance to future possible connection concepts. It primarily was geared to making sure that they
232
Cupertino Planning Commission August 26, 2014
9
could interface the existing situation by the improvements they are proposing, e.g. crosswalk, cross
perimeter road, frontage design, making sure to demonstrate that it fits into the existing network; and
also looking into the future conceptually and demonstrating what they are proposing is also going to
be fitting into that. That is why the pathway came about in terms of a longer westerly boundary to
prepare for that.
The Council will have a formal process that will consider some of the recommendations and concepts
being generated by this concept connectivity plan. They can consider whether to incorporate and
change or modify taking on the additional public input and more of a comprehensive look at the entire
region and then formulate putting that into the final connectivity plan as part of the Vallco Specific
Plan later on. It depends a great deal on whatever options they choose from the GPA process; if they
choose one of the less intense options they won’t need to change a lot. In terms of the overall access
to the site we agree with Dr. Lun that there definitely needs to be some improvements because it is
similar to a maze, people trying to find their way into Vallco; it is part of the reason why some of the
stores aren’t doing too well.
The property owner has no control over perimeter road or any of the peripheral roads or interfaces
owned by the greater mall or the larger property owners within the Vallco district. Even if they
wanted to they would not be able to dictate the outcome of it now, especially not knowing what the
Council’s decisions are in terms of future allocations, intensity and land use for the Vallco Mall. It
will be one of the primary topics moving forward in the GP and afterwards in the Specific Plan
following the GPA.
Gary Chao:
Said that the project will not impact the trail in the future; it connects a pathway on their side to
prepare for it. If the trail never happens, they will have a nice walking experience along the west side
of their hotel site which helps buffer them from the onramp going onto 280; it takes the first step in
enhancing that connection or prepares for it.
Com. Gong:
Said that Dr. Lun brought up a good point that the closure of the retail space to the public negates the
reason for having the height; she suggested a condition be added that the retail space remains open to
the public. Said she understood Chair Brophy’s parking concern; the hotel is unique compared to
other ones in the area since there is an abundance of parking spaces adjacent to the particular lot; if
the hotel owner can reach an agreement with the Vallco management, their cooperation could
mitigate the parking problems and it would be in the owner’s best interest to mitigate the problems.
Said she was not concerned about the parking. The limestone façade vs. the modern look is a
personal preference; it should be the developer’s choice, not dictated by the Planning Commission.
Com. Sun:
After the detailed discussion about the project, it appears the most concerning issue is still parking.
He said he felt they need to amend the hotel parking; City Council in the next round of discussions
can work with the applicant to do some alternative for the parking. The hotel is unique in that it is a
suite or apartment style.
Relative to the issue of the trees, they want to remove almost 90% of the trees on 280 and Wolfe, but
he wanted to see if there is an alternative to possibly keep some of the trees. If the answer is no, they
will have to redraw the entire layout map; but if they can keep some trees he said at least one-third of
the trees are in good condition. Said it was not a very serious concern, he felt the most serious
concern is the parking issue.
The third issue relates to timing. Said he did not know when they would get into the GPA period; the
hotel is one step ahead of GPA; when they have all the public hearings and the public audience
coming here, they make all sorts of suggestions whether they can wait a short period for more input
and put the hotel there; or the hotel can move forward. He said generally he supported the project.
233
Cupertino Planning Commission August 26, 2014
10
Com. Takahashi:
Said the design is well thought out, very contemporary and a good fit for the area; it will enhance the
area in that south Vallco has been an area of a lot of attention with regard to how to energize that area
and it is a step in the right direction.
With regard to Com. Sun’s GPA comment, the chicken/egg issue, that came up in one of the study
sessions, he said they cannot halt the development for the GPA, but from his perspective it looks
consistent with where the GP is going and is a good fit. The site is relatively isolated especially from
residents, so the fact that there really wasn’t a lot of public concern demonstrated from the standpoint
of privacy issues, noise issues, and traffic issues, is a testament of its location; it is well suited for this
specific application. There is a shortage of hotel space in Cupertino, and this will generate revenue
for the city from the standpoint of occupational taxes; and it is positive, as the Apple II campus opens,
the demand for hotels will increase and hotel rates will increase without expansion of supply, hotel
stays will be very expensive at least during the week days; it is needed.
From a parking perspective, parking is fine and the analysis looks to be sound; the study is adequate
and as stated by the applicant is somewhat a self-limiting element; it is in the interest of the property
owner to address the parking because it is going to impact their business. Much of the parking
sensitivity tends to be driven in the city by shopping centers that have a lot of restaurants which tends
to drive parking demands specifically in short durations, the lunch hour, the dinner time, and that is
where much of the frustration comes. The hotel has a different dynamic with regard to a single
restaurant, meeting rooms and guests, so I don’t see it as a source of frustration for residents because
the residents will be going there, not necessarily to stay there but to patronize the restaurant. Said he
supported the project and felt it would do well in the community; there is a demand for the hotel.
Vice Chair Lee:
Said she supported a hotel use for the space but had two main concerns. First concern is the parking
should meet the parking ordinance requirements. Her second concern was that the square footage of
the restaurant is small; there is only one restaurant in the hotel and it is not large enough square
footage in terms of the whole gross building area.
Com. Gong:
Said she supported the use of a hotel on the site and felt it was the most appropriate land use for the
site. The proximity to other uses planned residential and existing residential of 300 ft. is appropriate;
the connectivity with staff, the work that staff did to make it connect to existing uses physically
linking to approved and existing development was good. Relative to tree removal, many trees have to
be removed because they do want to maximize the buildup of the site and get every parking space.
The exterior design of the building is an urban type style; it fits in with the remainder of the area; said
she preferred higher quality building materials; she liked the limestone and different stone veneers to
add to the overall quality of the project; it creates a nice juxtaposition with respect to breaking up a lot
of the concrete and plaster. Said she supported the project and liked the Hyatt brand. The project is
asking for parking exception; it is difficult to totally support that part and the second part is the small
restaurant and meeting room spaces planned for with such a large gross building area.
Chair Brophy:
Concurred with many of the points made by Vice Chair Lee. Said the site was appropriate for a hotel
and for a variety of reasons pointed out. Said in his mind the restaurant and bar are not retail
components; the purpose of giving an extra 15 feet was for projects like Rosebowl where what was
proposed was a mixed use project with commercial on the bottom and residential on top. The patrons
coming by for Happy Hour will overwhelmingly be the guests from the hotel with no retail
connection to the rest of the city.
Said there were many good things about the project; however there are certain circumstances in the
234
Cupertino Planning Commission August 26, 2014
11
community that have made him decide that he would vote to deny the project.
According to the GPA currently studied and the EIR, there are already more jobs in Cupertino than
there are residential workers in the city; with the completion of the Apple II campus that disparity will
dramatically increase. Looking at some of the GPA proposals that various property owners have
included, they are faced with greater increases in office and hotel allocations which would cause the
disparity to grow even farther. There are proposals to increase heights on various sites, height
limitations and even beyond those it would be additional space for retail underneath and beyond that
there are proposals for adding space well above that under the rubric of “community benefits”.
Said under the circumstances the Planning Commission owes it to staff and fellow citizens not to
interpret the rules of allowing an extra 15 feet in the south Vallco area in the most lenient possible
manner. Said it was a single use and he could not vote for giving an extra 15 feet; he would be
pleased to see a 45 foot limit for the hotel but that is not what is before them this meeting; therefore
he was voting No.
Com. Sun:
Said he understood both Chair Brophy and Vice Chair Lee’s comments about the heights and parking
lot, and said he was concerned about the parking lot. Regarding whether the applicant is going to use
the first floor as a restaurant to reach the height of 60 ft. limit, it would be wise to impose a condition
to allow the restaurant to stay open to the public in the future.
Chair Brophy:
Clarified he was not arguing against the restaurant, but arguing against giving them an extra floor by
calling it some sort of supporting retail.
MOTION: Motion by Com. Gong, second by Com. Takahashi, and unanimously carried 5-0-0,
to approve Application EA-2014-06 (Mitigated Negative Declaration) per the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
MOTION: Motion by Com. Takahashi, second by Com. Gong, and carried 3-2-0, Coms.
Brophy and Lee voted No; to approve the Development Permit DP-2014-04, to
include a condition that the restaurant be open to the public.
MOTION: Motion by Com. Gong, second by Com. Takahashi, and carried 3-2-0, Coms.
Brophy and Lee voted No; to approve the Conditional Use Permit Application
U-2014-04, to include a condition that the restaurant be open to the public.
MOTION: Motion by Com. Sun, second by Com. Gong, and carried 3-2-0; Coms. Brophy and
Lee voted No, to approve Application ASA-2014-06, Architectural and Site
Approval; Application EXC-2014-07, Parking Exception, Application TR-2014-28,
Tree Removal Permit, and Application TR-2014-40 Tree Removal Permit
Chair Brophy declared a recess.
5. DIR-2014-27, EXC-2014-06 Wireless Communications Facility for Cupertino High
NSA Wireless/Verison Wireless School. Referral of a Director’s Minor Modification
(Fremont Union H.S. District to allow the construction of a personal wireless service
10100 Finch Avenue facility consisting of 6 panel antennas mounted on an Existing sports field light pole and a base equipment
Station located in a sports field building and an emergency generator located
In a fenced area on a concrete pad as a high school (Cupertino High School)
235
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: October 21, 2014
Subject
Hyatt House Hotel development project.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt/approve the following:
1. Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA-2014-06) (Attachment A)
2. Development Permit (DP-2014-04), in accordance with the draft resolution
(Attachment B)
3. Use Permit (U-2014-04), in accordance with the draft resolution (Attachment C)
4. Architectural and Site Approval (ASA-2014-06), in accordance with the draft
resolution (Attachment D)
5. Parking Exception (EXC-2014-07), in accordance with the draft resolution
(Attachment E)
6. Tree Removal Permit (TR-2014-28), in accordance with the draft resolution
(Attachment F)
7. Tree Removal Permit (TR-2014-40), in accordance with the draft resolution
(Attachment G)
Description
Application Summary
Applications: DP-2014-04, U-2014-04, ASA-2014-06, EXC-2014-07, TR-2014-28, TR-
2014-40, EA-2014-06
Applicant: Edward Chan
Property Owner: Cupertino Property Development II, LLC
Location: 10380 Perimeter Road (Southeast quadrant of Wolfe Road and I-280,
APN 316-20-094) and 10150 North Wolfe Road (JC Penney site, APN
316-20-094)
Project Description
236
10380 Perimeter Road (Hotel site):
1. Development Permit (DP-2014-04) to demolish an existing parking lot and construct a
five-story, 148-room hotel of approximately 102,700 square feet that includes a
restaurant, bar, lounge, and conference rooms built over a 35,800 square foot, 85-car
underground parking garage that contains tandem parking;
2. Use Permit (U-2014-04) to allow a 24-hour hotel containing a restaurant with interior
bar;
3. Parking Exception (EXC-2014-07) to allow eight tandem parking stalls;
4. Tree Removal Permit (TR-2014-28) to allow the removal and replacement of 96 trees
to facilitate the construction of a new hotel;
10150 North Wolfe Road (JC Penney site):
5. Tree Removal Permit (TR-2014-40) to allow the removal and replacement of 19 trees
to facilitate the off-site improvements associated with the construction of a new hotel;
and
Both Sites:
6. Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA-2014-06) for the project per the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
7. Architectural and Site Approval (ASA-2014-06) of a new five-story, 148-room hotel
and associated site and off-site improvements; and
237
Project Data
Project consistency with:
General Plan Commercial/Residential
Yes Zoning P (Regional Shopping)
Specific Plan Heart of the City
Master Plan South Vallco
Lot Size 92,434 s.f. (2.12 acres)
Existing Allowed or Required Proposed
Land Use Parking lot,
farmer’s market,
and wireless
communications
Regional shopping (per zoning) Hotel with restaurant, bar,
lounge, and conference
rooms. Wireless
communication facility to
remain onsite.
Hotel Rooms None General Plan allocation – 339 148
Building area N/A No maximum floor area ratio or
lot coverage - As determined by
the City
138,500 square feet (102,700
s.f. hotel inclusive of 3,073
s.f. restaurant/bar and 2,834
s.f. conference space; and
35,800 s.f. underground
garage)
Height (from
sidewalk grade)
N/A 45 feet or 60 feet with retail,
including restaurants
60 feet
Auto parking 223 stalls 187 stalls, based on Parking Ord.
120 stalls, based on 0.81 spaces
per room (parking study)
156 stalls (71 surface and 85
garage, including eight
tandem)
Bicycle parking N/A Nine Class II spaces (5% of auto) Ten Class II spaces
Common open
space
N/A 2.5 percent of the gross floor area
(2,568 s.f.)
17,000 s.f.
Setbacks to curb/property line:
Front (West) N/A No minimum required since not
along Stevens Creek Blvd – as
determined by the City
93 feet to Wolfe Rd curb
Side (South) One-half (1/2) the height of the
building (30 feet), or ten feet,
whichever is greater
30 feet to Perimeter Rd curb
Side (Northeast) 55 feet to property line
Background
This report provides a summary of the project and discussion from the August 26, 2014
Planning Commission hearing and is intended to be a companion document to the
Planning Commission staff report. Please review the Planning Commission staff report
and draft meeting minutes (Attachment H) for detailed analysis and discussion on the
proposed project.
238
Existing Site and Surroundings
The project site is located at the southeast quadrant of North Wolfe Road and Interstate
280 (I-280), at the northern end of the Vallco Shopping Mall. To the west of the site and
across Wolfe Road is a surface parking lot for the Vallco Shopping Mall; to the north and
east across I-280 is the Apple Campus 2 site (under construction) and Hampton
Apartments; and to the south is Alexander’s Steakhouse and a surface parking lot
serving the Vallco Shopping Mall (JC Penney, Benihana, food court, ice skating rink).
The site is currently developed with a surface parking lot that contains the “Vallco
Fashion Park” freeway-oriented pylon sign and a wireless communications facility
within the pylon sign with an associated equipment enclosure on the ground. There is
also a weekly farmer’s market held onsite on Fridays from 9:00 am to 1:00 pm. According
to the applicant, the farmer’s market would likely be moved elsewhere within the Vallco
Shopping Mall subject to approval of a separate permit. The existing wireless
communications facility would remain within the pylon sign and the equipment
enclosure would be relocated beneath the sign under a separate permit.
Proposed Project
The project consists of the demolition of the existing parking lot and construction of a
five-story, 148-room upscale extended stay hotel with associated site and off-site
improvements. The hotel includes a full service restaurant and bar, conferencing center, a
swimming pool, a fitness facility, and several outdoor plazas/patios. The above-ground
size of the hotel would be 102,700 square feet. The project parking demand would be
accommodated by 71 surface parking stalls and a 35,800 square foot, one-level
underground parking structure containing 85 parking stalls (including eight tandem
stalls). A total of 115 trees (one tree in good health, 32 trees in fair health, 79 trees in poor
health, and three are dead) are proposed for removal and replacement in order to
facilitate the new hotel and associated site improvements.
Planning Commission Recommendation
On August 26, 2014, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and formally
reviewed the project. The Commission recommended the adoption of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) on a 5-0 vote
and recommended approval of the project on a 3-2 vote. Please refer to Attachments I
through N for the Planning Commission resolutions. The majority of the Commission
was supportive of the project. Commissioner Brophy expressed concerns that the
proposed restaurant is considered an ancillary use to the hotel (primarily serves
occupants of the hotel) and should not be expected to function similar to a standalone
restaurant or a commercial store. Commissioner Lee suggested that the proposed
restaurant and bar space should be increased in order for the project to be constructed at
239
60 feet. The Planning Commission recommended that a condition be added to require
that the restaurant and bar remain open to the public to ensure that it functions like a
standalone restaurant.
Discussion
General Plan 60-foot Building Height Allowance
The General Plan allows buildings with a retail component located in the South Vallco
area to be constructed up to 60 feet tall. The intent of this General Plan policy is to
promote active ground floors created by commercial uses and/or other similar uses that
promote pedestrian activities/interest. Although the General Plan does not specifically
define “retail” under this policy, based on previous practice, the Council has approved
buildings at 60 feet tall with active commercial ground floor uses such as restaurants,
cafés, bars/lounges, fitness centers, banquet/conferencing facilities, and commercial stores
without specific size/square footage or revenue performance requirements.
The project proposes to activate the building frontage along Perimeter Road with
restaurant and bar area, outdoor dining and lounge areas, a board room, a fitness center,
and a pedestrian plaza. The project’s active frontage area consists of approximately 81
percent of the linear building frontage. In addition, the project’s interior active space
consists of 39 percent of the ground floor area. See table below for details:
The applicant has provided a letter (Attachment O) confirming that the proposed full
service restaurant and bar would be open daily to the public with breakfast, lunch, and
dinner offerings. In addition to the transient occupancy tax (TOT) generated by the hotel,
sales tax would be collected from restaurant and bar sales. Meeting space rentals also
generate sales tax dollars, as well as associated food and beverage sales.
Staff believes that the proposed project restaurant, bar, fitness and conferencing center
would benefit the public and hotel guests, as well as local businesses. Staff supports the
proposed 60-foot hotel building height given the project’s location, the active spaces
Interior active space Proposed project (s.f.)
Dining/Bar/Lounge (including kitchen) 3,073
Fitness Room 773
Prefunction space
-Reception/break area
1,308
Business/Conferencing
-Business Center
-Meeting Rooms
3,124
Totals 8,278
Percentage of ground floor area 39% (21,100 s.f. ground floor)
240
provided, and the commercial uses that would generate sales tax and provide direct sales
to customers.
Parking
In accordance with the City’s Parking Ordinance, the project has the option of either
providing the ordinance-prescribed standalone parking ratios for hotel, restaurant, and
conference uses (at 187 stalls total), or demonstrate sufficient parking arrangements
through an alternative parking study prepared by a transportation consultant. The
alternative parking study option allows projects in planned development zones to
determine a more accurate parking demand, especially for uses such as shopping centers
or hotels that may have complex overlapping uses and activities that are not able to be
addressed by the standalone ordinance ratios.
The following table outlines the parking assessment methods used by some of the
previously approved hotels in the City and their respective approved parking ratios:
Hotel Parking
Assessment
Method
Approved Parking Ratio Approval
No.
Aloft (10165 N. De
Anza Blvd)
Parking Study 0.7 stalls per room M-2010-07
Cypress Hotel (10050
S. De Anza Blvd)
Parking Study 0.65 stalls per room U-2000-05
Hilton Garden Inn
(10741 N. Wolfe Rd)
Parking Study 1 stall per room U-1996-15
Courtyard Marriott
(10605 N. Wolfe Rd)
Parking Study 0.95 stalls per room U-1986-33
Cupertino Inn (10889
N. De Anza Blvd)
Ordinance
Ratio*
1 stall per room U-1985-15
Average Parking Ratio 0.86 stalls per room
Proposed Project Parking Study 1.05 stalls per room
*An older ordinance ratio requiring hotels to be parked at 1 parking stall per each room.
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. was retained by the City to conduct a parking
study for the project (see Attachment P, Chapter 6). In order to determine whether the
proposed parking would be sufficient to serve the project, field parking surveys were
conducted at three similar hotels in Cupertino (Aloft, Cupertino Inn, and Hilton Garden
Inn) during the period of peak parking demand. The Hilton Garden Inn had the highest
parking demand of 0.81 stalls per room, and is the most similar to the proposed project
since it contains a full service restaurant and bar and conference room space. Therefore,
241
the study recommends a parking supply ratio of 0.81 stalls per room (or 120 stalls) for the
project. Since the project provides 1.05 stalls per room (or 156 stalls), the parking study
concluded that the project parking supply is adequate.
Two of the Planning Commissioners expressed concern that the project was not
providing the ordinance-prescribed stand alone parking ratios, while the majority of the
Commissioners felt the parking supply was adequate.
Eight tandem parking stalls are proposed in the parking garage for employee use only,
and signage would be placed to this effect. The project site will continue to be owned by
a single entity, and hotel management will enforce the use of the tandem stalls. The
Parking Ordinance allows tandem parking arrangements to be considered with a Parking
Exception. Excluding the tandem stalls, the project would still provide a surplus of 28
stalls over the recommended ratio in the parking study. Therefore, staff recommends
approval of the Parking Exception.
Tree Removals and Replacements
The project proposes to remove 96 trees onsite plus 19 offsite trees out of the 150 total
trees surveyed in the project vicinity to facilitate the construction of the proposed hotel
and associated site improvements, as well as regenerate the tree canopy to fit with the
current design. The City’s Consulting Arborist surveyed the site and recommends
removal of the trees within the project construction area and also removal of many of the
existing perimeter redwood trees due to extremely poor to irrecoverable health
conditions (see Attachment Q).
The project proposes 117 replacement trees (102- 24-inch box and 15- 36-inch box) in the
parking lot, street frontage, and site perimeter consistent with the replacement
requirements of the Protected Tree Ordinance. In-lieu replacement fees will be required
for the 57 trees that cannot be physically planted onsite. New Coast Redwood trees will
replace the ones that are removed, where appropriate, along the perimeter of the site.
The Planning Commission supports the proposed removals and encouraged that the
applicant retain as many trees as feasible. A commissioner commented that Redwood
replacement trees might not be a good species since they have high water needs and are
not native to the region.
Public Comments
The following is a summary of public comments at the Planning Commission hearing.
Where applicable, staff comments are provided in italics.
Will the project interfere with any plans to improve the Wolfe Road and I-280 freeway
intersection? The project is not encroaching into any existing Caltrans right-of-way and is
not expected to interfere with any future plans to improve the freeway/Wolfe Road. The extent
242
of the future right-of-way improvements will be specified in the Wolfe Road Corridor
Improvement Plan following action on the current General Plan Amendment project. The
applicant is required to contribute to the plan and improvements as determined by the City.
Will the pathway to the potential future trail impact the project and vice versa? The
project has been designed to accommodate a pedestrian pathway along the westerly property
line that will primarily benefit the hotel and restaurant customers and at the same time
connect to a potential future trail system adjacent to Highway 280. The pathway is a benefit to
the project and overall connectivity in the Vallco Shopping District, and serves as a critical
pedestrian connection from the east side of Wolfe Road to the west side of Wolfe Road.
Fire Department access is not desirable since there is only one access point shown on
the plans. The applicant has worked with the Santa Clara County Fire Department to provide
adequate site access. The Fire Department prefers access from a private driveway east of Wolfe
Road (by Alexander’s Steakhouse) to the project site since it is the most direct route from a
major arterial street. Secondary access can be from Vallco Parkway at Perimeter Road along
the JC Penney site.
The restaurant should be open to the public. The Planning Commission recommended this
as a condition of approval and the applicant confirmed that the proposed restaurant is going to
be open to the public.
Does approval of the project constitute approval of the South Vallco Connectivity
Plan? The proposed connectivity plan is conceptual in nature and may be subject to change
pending future development activity and City Council policies resulting from the General
Plan Amendment and the future approval of the Vallco Specific Plan.
The hotel’s restaurant and bar is not sufficient enough to allow the hotel to be built at
60 feet high. See previous discussion in General Plan 60-foot Building Height Allowance
section of the staff report.
It questionable whether if the Hotel restaurant will generate sufficient sales tax, as a
public benefit, to justify the proposed 60-foot building height allowance (see also
Attachment R for a letter from the Concerned Citizens of Cupertino). Based on
Council’s prior practice, full service restaurants as part of hotel operations has been deemed to
be appropriate commercial uses warranting the 60-foot building height allowance regardless of
the amount of sale tax anticipated. The hotel and restaurant is expected to perform at a high
level given the location near future Vallco Shopping District redevelopment and revitalization.
Will the smooth limestone cladding be earthquake resistant? The project is required to
meet all applicable building codes to ensure life safety and earthquake resistance to the
maximum extent possible.
Changes/clarifications since the Planning Commission Hearing
The applicant has submitted revised plans since the Planning Commission hearing to
further clarify the area of active uses, address recommendations by the City’s consulting
243
arborist, and make other changes to address City comments. The changes are listed
below:
Refinements to cumulative above ground square footage – 102,700 square feet instead
of 102,200 (to account for building code requirements for fire walls and expansion
joints)
Restaurant and bar area enlarged to include pool table, additional seating, and service
area for a total enclosed area of 3,073 square feet
Conference room space increased by 354 square feet to 2,834 square feet.
Updates to ordinance-prescribed standalone parking ratios based on increased
seating and conference room space
Widening the curvature of the east driveway to accommodate Fire Department
preference
Electrical transformer and generator relocated to the rear of the trash enclosure (to
reduce their visibility)
Relocation of two above-ground parking spaces to the underground parking garage
to accommodate relocated transformer
Relocation of surface ADA accessible stalls closer to the building entrance
Relocation of Stair #1 for building code requirements
Refinements to replacement tree spacing and planting locations per the City
Arborist’s recommendations
Adjustments to locations of utilities and lighting per the City Arborist’s
recommendations
South Vallco Connectivity Plan
During the initial hearing for the City’s current General Plan Amendment (GPA) process
(file no. GPA-2013-01) in 2012, the City Council heard oral testimony from the project
applicant expressing interest in developing the site with a hotel. The Council, in their
motion on the GPA, concluded that development within the Vallco Shopping District
may proceed in parallel with the GPA process provided that projects meet the current
General Plan and zoning requirements and provide a Connectivity Plan that can
effectively show how the new development can improve connectivity to existing and
approved development, and ensure connectivity to future development within the
greater South Vallco area.
In response to Council’s direction, the applicant funded the developme nt of the South
Vallco Connectivity Plan that demonstrates how the hotel project will physically link to
existing and approved development in the South Vallco area and interface with
244
conceptual goals, objectives, concepts, and design guidelines for improved connectivity,
safety, and aesthetics in the shopping district (Attachment S). The South Vallco
Connectivity plan will help inform the development of the future Vallco Shopping
District Specific and/or Master Plan.
The Planning Commission reviewed and supports the connectivity plan.
Environmental Considerations
On August 21, 2014, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) recommended
adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project based on the initial
study (Attachment A). The initial study’s mitigation measures are included as conditions
of approval for the project. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(Attachment T) lists the specific mitigation measures, the timeframe and method of
compliance, and responsible departments/agencies for oversight of implementation.
The Planning Commission did not have any comments on the initial study and
recommended adoption of the MND on a 5-0 vote.
The Response to Comments (RTC) memorandum in Attachment U summarizes the
comments received on the initial study during the public comment period. In addition to
comments received from members of the public, Caltrans commented on the project due
to its location near the Wolfe Road and I-280 intersection. Caltrans noted that Apple
Campus II’s environmental impact report (EIR) forecasts impacts to the freeway
intersection even with mitigation and commented that the project would further impact
the intersection with additional traffic. In order to mitigate these concerns, Caltrans
requested fair share contributions to freeway improvements and additional analysis in
the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) (Attachment P).
The TIA demonstrates that the project would generate less than 100 peak hour trips,
which represents less than one percent of the freeway capacity at segments along and
near the project frontage. According to the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
(VTA) guidelines, a project would create a significant impact to freeways that are already
operating at unacceptable levels of service if the project adds trips greater than one
percent of the freeway capacity. Therefore, the project is not expected to cause a
significant impact to the freeway. Additionally, Hexagon conducted a freeway queuing
analysis that demonstrated the project would not increase the 95th percentile queues in
the south-and-northbound directions. Subsequently, no additional mitigation measures
are proposed based on Caltrans’ comments. It should be noted that there is a condition of
approval to require the applicant to provide a financial contribution to the Wolfe Road
Corridor improvement project if and when established by the City after the approval of
the General Plan Amendment, which could include various potential future
improvements to the transportation corridor in the area.
245
Noticing
The following table summarizes the noticing for the October 21, 2014 Council meeting:
Notice of Public Hearing and Intent,
Site Notice & Legal Ad
Agenda
Neighborhood meeting held by the
applicant on August 15, 2014 with
mailings sent to 239 property owners
within 300 feet of the Vallco
Shopping District
239 public hearing notices mailed to
property owners within 300 feet of
the Vallco Shopping District
(including project site) (10 days prior
to the hearing)
Notice of intent to adopt an MND
posted onsite and sent to interested
individuals, responsible agencies,
and the County Recorder (at least 30
days prior to final decision on the
project)
Site Signage
(14 days prior to the hearing)
Legal ad placed in newspaper
(at least 10 days prior to the hearing)
Posted on the City's official notice
bulletin board (one week prior to the
hearing)
Posted on the City of Cupertino’s Web
site (one week prior to the hearing)
____________________________________
Prepared by: George Schroeder, Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Gary Chao, Assistant Director of Community Development; Aarti
Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager
Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager
Attachments:
A – Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA-2014-06) with Initial Study
B – Development Permit (DP-2014-04) Draft City Council Resolution
C – Use Permit (U-2014-04) Draft City Council Resolution
D – Architectural and Site Approval (ASA-2014-06) Draft City Council Resolution
E – Parking Exception (EXC-2014-07) Draft City Council Resolution
F – Tree Removal Permit (TR-2014-28) Draft City Council Resolution
G – Tree Removal Permit (TR-2014-40) Draft City Council Resolution
H – August 26, 2014 Planning Commission staff report and meeting minutes
I – Planning Commission Resolution No. 6752 (ASA-2014-06)
246
J – Planning Commission Resolution No. 6753 (DP-2014-04)
K – Planning Commission Resolution No. 6754 (EXC-2014-07)
L – Planning Commission Resolution No. 6755 (TR-2014-28)
M – Planning Commission Resolution No. 6756 (U-2014-04)
N – Planning Commission Resolution No. 6757 (TR-2014-40)
O – Applicant’s description of active spaces for the project
P – Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA)
Q – City’s Consulting Arborist report
R – Concerned Citizens of Cupertino (CCC) comment letter
S – South Vallco Connectivity Plan
T – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
U – Response to Comments (RTC) on the initial study
W – Plan set
247
City Council Minutes October 21, 2014
9. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending October 3, 2014
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 14 -200 accepting Accounts Payable for
the period ending October 3, 2014
10. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for period ending October 10, 2014
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 14-201 accepting Accounts Payable for
the period ending October 10, 2014
11. Subject: Second Amended Employment Contract for the City Manager.
Recommended Action: Approve the Second Amended Employment Contract for the
City Manager
12. Subject: City Project, 2013 Pavement Maintenance Phase 2, Project No. 2013-05
Recommended Action: Accept Project No. 2013-05
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES - None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
13. Subject: Hyatt House Hotel development project
Recommended Action:
1. Adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA-2014-06); and
2. Adopt Resolution No. 14-202 approving Development Permit (DP-2014-04); and
3. Adopt Resolution No. 14-203 approving Use Permit (U-2014-04); and
4. Adopt Resolution No. 14-204 approving Architectural and Site Approval (ASA-
2014-06); and
5. Adopt Resolution No. 14-205 approving Parking Exception (EXC-2014-07); and
6. Adopt Resolution No. 14-206 approving Tree Removal Permit (TR-2014-28); and
7. Adopt Resolution No. 14-207 approving Tree Removal Permit (TR-2014-40)
Description: Application No.(s): ASA-2014-06, DP-2014-04, EXC-2014-07, TR-2014-28,
U-2014-04, TR-2014-40 (EA-2014-06); Applicant: Edward Chan (Cupertino Property
Development II, LLC.); Location: Perimeter Rd @ Wolfe Rd; APN: 316-20-092;
Architectural Site Approval for a new 5-story, 148 room hotel and associated site and
off-site improvements; Development Permit to allow the demolition of an existing
parking lot and construct a 5 story, 148 room hotel of approximately 102,700 square
feet that includes a restaurant, bar, lounge and conference rooms built over a 35,800
square foot underground parking garage that contains tandem parking; Parking
Exception Permit to allow eight tandem parking stalls; Tree Removal Permit to allow
the removal and replacement of 96 trees to facilitate the construction of a new hotel;
Use Permit to allow a 24-hour hotel, including a restaurant with interior bar; Tree
248
City Council Minutes October 21, 2014
Removal Permit to allow the removal and replacement of 19 trees to facilitate the off-
site improvements associated with the construction of a new hotel
Written communications for this item included a letter from Kevin McClelland
representing the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce, a letter from Chris Dobbins
representing Hyatt Hotels Corporation, emails from Darrel Lum and Jennifer Griffin,
and a staff PowerPoint presentation.
Associate Planner George Schroeder reviewed the staff report via a PowerPoint
presentation.
Applicant Edward Chan further reviewed the project and gave an update on changes
to the project since the previous Planning Commission meeting. He addressed
concerns about the restaurant/bar and parking.
Mayor Wong opened the public hearing.
Robert McKibbin representing the Concerned Citizens of Cupertino (CCC) said that
this project doesn’t meet the current General Plan criteria for active ground floor
retail use with good access and visibility. He also noted that the sales tax benefit
would be minimal at best. He encouraged Council to reject the project and ask the
applicant to resubmit at 45 feet in height rather than 60.
Lisa Warren said that she agreed with Mr. McKibbin regarding the hotel height. She
noted that she also had issues with the design not being diverse enough. She said
that this project wouldn’t benefit Cupertino residents but rather visitors who aren’t
part of the community.
Steven Scharf said that Council hasn’t ever approved a 60-foot high hotel without
retail and claiming that the restaurant is actually retail isn’t right. He also commented
that he thought it was interesting that every time there was a developer who needed
to remove trees, the City Arborist finds a lot of sick trees in the area.
Tom Hugunin said he was concerned that that the applicant asking for reduced
parking must mean that they don’t expect the retail to be successful. He commented
that something needed to be done to make the bottom retail more viable especially at
the proposed 60-foot height He also requested a 30-day stay limit in order to retain
the TOT tax.
249
City Council Minutes October 21, 2014
Kevin McClelland speaking on behalf of the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce said
that the Chamber supports the hotel project and that it would be a good benefit for
Cupertino due to the TOT and meeting rooms.
Jennifer Griffin read comments that she had sent to Planning Commission and
Council regarding the project highlighting issues with redwood tree removal, asking
to make sure any redwoods removed are replaced with redwoods, and asked to have
the hotel be 4 stories instead of 5.
Mayor Wong closed the public hearing.
1. Mahoney moved and Chang seconded to adopt Mitigated Negative
Declaration (EA-2014-06). The motion carried unanimously.
2. Mahoney moved and Chang seconded to adopt Resolution No. 14-202
approving Development Permit (DP-2014-04) which includes approval of the
South Vallco Connectivity Plan. The motion carried with Sinks voting no.
3. Mahoney moved and Chang seconded to adopt Resolution No. 14-203
approving Use Permit (U-2014-04). The motion carried with Sinks voting no.
4. Mahoney moved and Chang seconded to adopt Resolution No. 14-204
approving Architectural and Site Approval (ASA-2014-06) with the additional
condition to have staff and applicant contact Caltrans to consider a direct
public bicycle and pedestrian access path from the existing Wolfe Road
sidewalk to the project site along the westerly boundary, in order to allow
direct access onto Wolfe Road and access over the freeway overpass. If
Caltrans approves of the access path, the property owner shall work with staff
to construct the path. The motion carried with Sinks voting no.
5. Mahoney moved and Chang seconded to adopt Resolution No. 14-205
approving Parking Exception (EXC-2014-07). The motion carried with Sinks
voting no.
6. Mahoney moved and Chang seconded to adopt Resolution No. 14-206
approving Tree Removal Permit (TR-2014-28) with the additional condition to
require a tree condition report to be reviewed and approved by the Director of
Community Development one year after final occupancy of the project. The
City’s consulting arborist shall inspect the new and existing trees to ensure
proper irrigation, maintenance, and compliance with the arborist’s
recommendations. All additional recommendations resulting from the one-
year review shall be implemented by the property owner. The motion carried
unanimously.
7. Mahoney moved and Chang seconded to adopt Resolution No. 14-207
approving Tree Removal Permit (TR-2014-40). The motion carried
unanimously.
250
251
252
253
Response to Reconsideration - Retail Component of Hyatt House hotel
We request the City Council deny the reconsideration petition and maintain the project approval per the
October 21 Council Meeting. The retail component was thoroughly discussed in the October 21 Council
Meeting and the Council made their decision accordingly. There is no new information provided by the
petitioner and the petitioner was not even present at the October 21 Council meeting. A summary of the
retail is below.
The ground floor of Hyatt House Cupertino has retail. That retail is composed of a restaurant/bar and
banquet/meeting space. The restaurant/bar and banquet/meeting space is open to the public. The public
can go to the restaurant and be served. The banquet/meeting space can be reserved by anyone.
This Cupertino Hyatt House restaurant/bar is no different from any other regular standalone restaurant in the
City – i.e. all customers (hotel guests or public patrons) will pay for food and drink. The only exception is we
will provide complimentary breakfast to hotel guests as a guest benefit. The public is able to go eat breakfast
at the hotel as a paying patron. The same holds for the banquet/meeting space. All customers must pay to
use the banquet/meeting space and they will likely order food and beverage from the restaurant/bar (which
they will have to pay for).
As demonstrated in the previous Council meeting, our retail component is sales tax generating. The
restaurant/bar and banquet/meeting space will generate sales tax. Also there is a public benefit from our
retail component. The public has a great venue to host parties and events, as well as another dining option in
the City.
254
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:114-0288 Name:
Status:Type:Ordinances and Action Items Agenda Ready
File created:In control:6/25/2014 City Council
On agenda:Final action:11/18/2014
Title:Subject: McClellan Ranch Preserve to Stevens Creek Blvd. Signage Program Report
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff Report
B - SCC Monument Sign Two Alts 11.12.14
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council11/18/20141
Subject: McClellan Ranch Preserve to Stevens Creek Blvd. Signage Program Report
1)Review the McClellan Ranch Preserve to Stevens Creek Blvd. Signage program report; and
2)SelectapreferredmonumentsigndesignfromtwoalternativesforwardedbytheParkand
Recreation Commission; and
3)Accept Report
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 11/12/2014Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™255
RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3110 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
Meeting: November 18, 2014
Subject
McClellan Ranch Preserve (MRP) to Stevens Creek Boulevard Signage Program Report
Recommended Action
1. Review the McClellan Ranch Preserve to Stevens Creek Boulevard Signage Program Report;
2. Select a preferred monument sign design from the two alternatives forwarded by the Park
and Recreation Commission, and;
3. Accept the report.
Background
In May 2012 Council approved the McClellan Ranch Master Plan 2012 Update, which was an
update to the May 1993 McClellan Ranch Park Master Plan. The 2012 Update focused on
identifying and prioritizing capital project needs, identifying several projects for potential
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) funding. In June 2012, Council approved the FY 2012-13
CIP budget, which included funding to develop a signage program and system guideline for
the McClellan Ranch Preserve with elements that are suitable for use elsewhere along the
Stevens Creek Corridor.
In December 2013, City staff issued a Request for Qualifications for professional design services
inviting proposals from firms experienced in developing signage systems. An evaluation team
selected Hunt Design of Pasadena, California to provide the services. Hunt Design (Hunt) has
designed the signage systems for Bay Area projects such as the Golden Gate National
Recreation Area, National Park Service-Alcatraz, and the San Francisco Bay Trail. Staff
negotiated and executed an agreement with Hunt in March 2014 for the McClellan Ranch
Preserve (MRP) Signage Program.
Discussion
The MRP signage program project goal is to provide a City planning document for signage
development, evaluation, control, and implementation which is applicable to other City
amenities along the Stevens Creek Corridor. The design process included meetings with City
staff as well as two public meetings with MRP stakeholders to present the project, invite
stakeholder input and use it to help develop the final planning document. Stakeholders
256
participated in two workshops on May 21, 2014 and June 26, 2014. Stakeholders attending one
or both meetings included representatives from the Friends of Stevens Creek Trail, Santa Clara
Valley Audubon Society, Cupertino Historical Society, Cupertino Rotary, Cupertino Parks and
Recreation Commission, neighbors, and other interested parties.
The outcome of the meetings resulted in a strong consensus to:
Develop a unified signage vocabulary,
Reduce sign clutter, and
Establish a signage evaluation and approval process whose goal is to implement the
plan at McClellan Ranch Preserve and other sites along the Stevens Creek Corridor.
Report Recommendations:
The attached report includes the following recommendations for signage at MRP and along the
Stevens Creek Corridor:
1. Use the illustrated signage vocabulary to guide design for different sign groups;
2. Use the signage approval process to provide City authorization of sign installation and
means to avoid signage clutter;
3. Use the overall signage program as the City’s planning document at MRP and along the
Stevens Creek Corridor.
The report was reviewed at the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting on October 2, 2014
and November 6, 2014 who recommended two monument sign designs from the alternatives
presented in the report. Staff requests that the Council review and approve the report and select
the monument design from the two options provided.
Submitted by: Bruce Biordi, Project Manager, Hunt Design
Reviewed by: Timm Borden, Director of Public Works; Carol Atwood, Director of Recreation
and Community Services
Attachments:
A- McClellan Ranch Preserve to Stevens Creek Corridor Signage Program- Hunt Design
B-Two Monument Signage Concepts-McClellan Ranch Preserve-Stevens Creek Corridor-Hunt
Design
257
Entrance Monument Cobblestone (Pedestrian-scaled entrance)Sonoma Fieldstone or Cobblestone Base Mount Mariah Sunset Ledge Base Chief Cliff Stone Base
Sandblasted Wood / Unique Rockwork for Match the Existing Environment of Each Site
Final Entrance Monument
PAGE
TITLE
DATE
25 North Mentor Ave, Pasadena, CA 91106 626.793.7847258
City of Cupertino
Internally initiated
signage project
Stakeholder or
External user initiated
signage project
Stocklmeir
Entrance Monument Cobblestone (Pedestrian-scaled entrance)Sonoma Fieldstone or Cobblestone Base Mount Mariah Sunset Ledge Base Chief Cliff Stone Base
Sandblasted Wood / Unique Rockwork for Match the Existing Environment of Each Site
Final Entrance Monument - Alternate Concept
McClellan Ranch
McClellan Ranch Blackberry Farm Blackberry Farm
Stocklmeir
PAGE
TITLE
DATE
25 North Mentor Ave, Pasadena, CA 91106 626.793.7847259