TR-2011-01b OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
J ,.
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
. C U P� RT I N O (408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333 • elanninq�cupertino.org
November 16, 2010
Thomas Waugh
22293 N. De Anza Cir
Cupertino, CA 95014
SUBJECT: TREE REMOVAL PERMIT ACTION LETTER - Application TR-2011-01:
This letter confirms the decision of the Director of Community Development, given on February
16, 2011, approving a tree removal permit to remove one (1) 27.9" diameter Blue Atlas Cedar
tree located at 22293 N. De Anza Circle, with the following conditions:
1. APPROVED PROTECT
The approval is based on the ISA-certified arborist report prepared by David Babby
dated May 27, 2007 titled "A Tree Inventory and Review of the Proposed Addition at
222293 N. De Anza Circle, Cupertino 95014"and staff inspection, except as may be
amended by conditions in this resolution.
� 2. TREE REPLACEMENTS, COVENANT AND IN-LIEU FEE
The applicant shall be required to maintain and retain, as a protected tree, an existing
Coast Live Oak tree along the westerly property line and pay an in-lieu fee for a 24" box.
A covenant shall be recorded against the property designating the Coast Live Oak as a
protected tree and the in-lieu fee shall be paid within 30 days of the date of this approval
letter.
3. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication
requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government
Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of
the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other
exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you
may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to
Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-
day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally
barred from later challenging such exactions.
Staff has made the findings necessary to grant the tree removal permit in accordance with
Section 14.18.180 of the Protected Trees Ordinance.
Sincerely,
�' �,�..� t,- � -
_ � l�� _ � �
Piu Ghosh
Associate Planner
� � ` ,. ' ` - ARBUR RESOLIRCES
_ !'rufcs.��ivn�rl .-Inc�,rrrr.�lirrral Cun.ci.rl�ing h 7'rc�c C'urc:
A TREE INVENTORY AND REVIEW
OF THE PROP4SED ADDITION
AT 22293 N. DEANZA CIRCLE
CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Submitted to:
Gary Chao
Community Development Department
City of Cupertino
10300 Tone Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
�
Prepared by:
David L. Babby, RC�1
ASCA Registere�l Co�isulting Arhorist #399
ISA CertiJied Arborisl #WH'-400JA
�' �-; �; �-„-,d.,�.L I i2 l O I
tis € : �..., a. __r,._.._ _.. ��,.,..__..�,.
, a-i6-�G _
�r �. .
.y� � 3 _ .._
1��= _
c ; � � ,�✓��. -
Q W , , . : ��'�.J ' ' __.. . � � .. . _..
f/ ...a.. ..
.. .. ._ �
May 25, 2�07
I'.Q. Ti�x ?5'_9S, San �f��teo, t�alit�e�rnia 9� #f)? . Email: arh«rti�csc�ttrces-tr.'cotttcast.net
Phone: 6�0.6��.?? • Fax: 6�Q.?�10.0777 . L icensecl Contract��r �7967G_i
David L. Babby, Registc�red Consulting :4r•horist Mciy 25. 20�7 •
TABLE OF CUNTENTS
SECTION TITLE PAGE
1.0 iNTRODUCT�UN ........................................................... 1
2.0 REVIEW OF TREES AND CONDITIONS ............................ 1
4.0 REVIEW OF ANTIC�PATF.D IMPACTS .............................3
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................... 4
EXHIBIT
EXHIBIT TITLE
A SITE MAP
�,��"�"�'�'�.L �„L�..� �01( 0 !
�-lL-/1
� : , �,�:� � � _.
✓ , �--- �_ _
David /.. Brtbby, Ret;i,stered Cons:�lting A�•borLst Mrzy 2S, 2007
1.0 INTRODUCTION
I have been retained by the City of Cupertino Community Development Department to
review the potential tree impacts associated with the propnsed addition ta an existin�
single-family residence at 22293 N. DeAnza Circle, Cupertino. I visited the site on
S/23/07 and this report presents rny analysis and recommendations.
Trees inventoried f'or this report are situated on the subject site and defined as "specimen
trees" per Section 14.18.020(I} of the Orc�inance.
Plans reviewed for this repart include Sheets 2, 6, and 7 by Ratts Construction, dated
2/2/07. The trees' locations and assigned numbers are presented on a copy of Sheet 1(Site
Plan) in Exhibit A.
2.0 REVIEW OF TREES AND C�NDITIUNS
There are three "specimen trees" onsite and I have assigned them # 1 thru 3. They include
two deodar cedars (#1 and 2) and one blue atlas cedar (#3). Informatian regarding the size
and condition areach tree is presented in this secfiian.
Tree # � (Deodar Cedar)
'1'his tree is a lar�e and outstanding cedar that appears in av�rall good and vigorous
condition. Its trunk is situated in very close proximity to the home and surrounded by an
existing deck that spans above natural grade by approximately two feet.
The trunk has a diameter of 36.7 inches measured at fifty-four inches above the deck. The
canopy spreads about Ei5 feet across and overhangs a significant partion af the home.
Far purpuses af a tree preservatfon band, I have appraised tree #1's manetary value ta be
$16,900. This value as been calailated using the Gcride,for Plczrtt ApJ�raisal, 9'�' Eclition,
published by the ISA, 20Q0. ' _ ' ` ' � _ 'l'� —�2p / /� 0 /
22293 N. DeAn�n Circic�, Cupertinu p�7 / p ..� ��� �
City ��f C�upc�rii�ru Cum»�unih� Dc�velupn:ent Deperrtmeirt
�� ' �-�- - � _-,
�� ,
David L. Bubby, Registc red Cor�sullirrg Arborist May 2S, 2U(17
Tree #2 (Deodar Cedar)
This tree has a trunk diameter of 29.0 inches measured at fifty-four inches abave grade,
and a canopy that spreads approximately 40 feet acrass. It appears slightly stressed as
compared to tree #l, a situation I attribute to its location in a lawn setting where its root
zone and trunk are being irrigated on a frequent basis.
Deodar cedars are intolerant oi frequent irrigation, particulariy against their trunks. If
exposed tv many years of this, they become at risk of decline and possible demise. To
improve tree #2's opportunity for thriving into the distant future, I recammend the lawn is
modi�ed to whatever extent feasible so less water is supplied to the tree (I suggest a 10-
faot minimum setback in which na water strikes within this distance). As cover for the
exposed ground, I recommend a three-inch layer of coarse wood chips are spread (but not
piled against the trunk).
Tree #3 (Blue Adas Cedar)
This tree is situated alang the northernmost section of the hame and in very close
proximity to the raaf overhang. It has a trunk diameter af 27.9 inches measured at fifty-
four inches abave grade, and has a canopy that spreads about 40 feet across.
This tree appears in overall poor condition as its canopy is extremely sparse and void of an
estimated 50-percent of live foliage. There are aIso numerous dead branches and broken
stubs throughout the canc�py, a situation I attribute mostly to past limb failure. The section
of live canopy that does remain would seemingly, if continued to grow, create a misshapen
canopy.
The main trunk divides into two leaders of appraxirriate equal si•r.e at about 35 feet high.
They grow with a very close angle of' attachment and �redispose one ar bath of the leaders
to potential failure.
During my site visit, I spoke with the property owner, Mr. �I'om Waugh, and he inquired
about possibly removing this tree. Based on my observatiUns, I tind this course of acti�n
com lres with Section 14.18.18Q Review Standards) of the Mt� ��� y `�
p ' ( ' ��tp�l-�'��. .�.,.�.. , _ � . — � —Dl
??l93 N. lac,•inzcr CYrcle, C'irpertino ^ —___--__----�. �- Pa�{r Z� —/ �p �/ �
Ciry o Cupertirro C'nmrr�unin Dc�velupmcnt Depnrrmer,r �
�
�,� ` s --
, � ��� �
._ " - .� �- . _ . .
David L. Bcrbl�y, Registered Cnnsulting Arboris/ Mcr,>> 25, 201I7
To mitigate its loss, I recommend two trees of 24-inch box size are planted somewhere
onsite, and placed at least 20 f�et apart, 20 feet from the home, and 20 feet beyond
canopies of retained trees. I also recammend these new trees are eomprised af either coast
live oak, valley oak, deodar cedar and/or blue atlas cedar.
4.4 REVIEW 4F ANTICIPATED IMPACTS
Construction of the proposed addition will affect tree #1 during excavation for the
foundation. To heip mitigate the impacts to tolerable levels, an alternative foundation
is necessary and should conform to one of the following three options:
Oation A: "T" or "L" Footing
This foundation would be comprised of two new footings that form either a"T'" or
an "I,." One foating can be established alang the entire east side of the addition
(the side furthest from the trunk), and another perpendicular to the east side and in a
radial direction to the center of the tree's trunk. The ground beneath the floor of the
addition should not be compacted.
Option B: Pier and Beam
This option involves utilizing a pier and ahc�vc�-gracte beam foundation in which the
beams are established entirely on t�p or above existing soil grade (i.e. a no-dig
design except fnr the piers). The piers should be designed as far apart from the
trunk as passible, and those closest to the trunk should be minimized in diameter.
The ground between the piers should also not be compacted.
Option C: Cantilever
This fuundation consists of cantileverin�; the entire floor above existing soil grade.
However, if this method was employed, further discussion and review regarding
how tnuch excavation below and beyonc� the existin� footing would be necded. In
alt likelihaod, roots of signiticant sire will he encountere �let�;, a��, �ossibiy be
�,. : � ,� � : �o/ /-o /
ZZZ93 N. L�eA�rzc� Cir�cJe. Cupc:rtlno --____ Pa�,� o t> ���
Citv o rCl(�)(?i'//N(J CO))7Al1lYltIV DNVG:IO�II)1«t/ I�C:�J(17'lllTPli/
' `. . .. ... � � `'_ .�
�
Duvrd L. Babhy�. Rz�Kr.ctc:rEd Cvnst�lliiag Rrbnrist May l5, 2007
the exi5ting footing, especially in close proximity to the tree. The ground beneath
the cantilevered section shoutd not be campacted.
Tree #2 (and #3, if retained) is not expected to be affected by the proposed project,
provided recommendations presented in the next section are carefully fotlowed and
incorporated into the project plans.
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations presented within this section serve as guid�lines for achievin� adequate
protection of trees that will be retained. Please note that any or all recommendations are
subject to revision upon reviewin�; any revised plans.
1. 1'he foundation for the addition should conform to one of the three options presented in
Section 4.0 of this report.
2. Any excavation required for footings should be manually performed. Roots
encountered during the process shall be cleanly severed against the cut. In the event a
root of three inches and greater in diameter is exposed, an individual certified by the
[nternational Society of Arboriculture (ISA) should be retained to investigate and
advise on appropriate action.
3, I1' piers are dub, the tirst three feet below �nade should be manually dug using a post-
hole digger to permit expasure of any significant roots. [n the event a root o#� three
inches in diameter and larger is encauntereci, the hale should be resituated. A
mechanical auger could be used to excavate below the threc-foot depth.
4. Soil extracted from any pier hole or trench should be removed and spread somewhere
beyand the canopies of retained trees (and canopies of other trees).
5. Uvercut f'or any footings or piers must be minimized to tl��;�x�mu��extent possible. � �p/1.-,p�
2?� 43 N. D��.4 nza (' i!'CJC'. CIt�YYll iJ0 "� __� PQ�L' 4 of ��� ��, /
C'it�� ofG�per•tinc> Cvni»i:�rrrtv D«�elopn,c�,u I�c�rrrrn,��
!�' , �� � . __5
�°° •
David L. Bctbbv, Re,gistered Gonst�lting Arborist Mav ?S, 2(!�7
6. The Site Plan should contain a note referring to this report for tree protection
instructions.
7. I presume the section of existing deck beyond a few feet from the addition will remain
intact. In the event this is not the case, a five-inch deep layer af coarse wood chips ('/4-
to �/4-inch in diameter} shall be manually spread over the section af ground beneath the
canopy (but not piled against the trunk). These chips can be obtained from tree service
companies and/or by contacting www.reuserinc•.cnm.
8. Except for the area where the addition will be constructed, alt activities' shall be
restricted on exposed grounc� beneath the canopies of trees #1 and 2. Far tree #2, I
recommend orange plastic fencing is installed in a straight line about tive feet beyond
the existing deck; this fence shauld be established prior to construction.
9. All existing, unused lines or pipes beneath the canopies of retained trees should be
abandoned and cut off� at existing soil grade (versus bein� dug up and causing
subsequent root damage).
10. The permanent and temporary drainage design, inctuding downspouts, should not
require water being discharged beneath the trees' canopies.
1 l. All new utitities and services must be routed outside the designated fenced areas. In
the event this is not possible, I shnuid be consulted for alternative installation methods.
12. Supptemental irri�ation must be supp}ied to tree #l, beginning sametime next month
and continuin�; through October of this year. If construction can�mences next year, it
should begin it� May and cc�ntinue through Uctober. ln doing so, a substantial amount
of water, such as 200 gallons, should be applied every two weeks on the ground
beneath the canopy through hand watering and/or installing a series of soaker hases.
' Examples of activities include grading, stripping of topsoil, trenching, equi�►ment cleanm ,
stockpilin�;/dumping of materials, and equipmenVvehicle aperation and par(y�g� ,;��"��,�� � a.0 / l"D �
22�93 N. De,9n�u C'ircle. Ctiper•tino �- - Pnge 5 0,��� b_��
E�itv�fCupertixoCo�remunityL7eveln��nieretDepurtme�il ��-�--�����- �-� � � �
�`� �._; �> � ` �
�.�. �'_
Du��id L. Babhy, Re��isterc��l C'vrrsultin,� Arhurist May 25, 1007
The goa} is to uniformly wet the area tc� a 24- to 36-inch depth, and permitting the soil
to dry between app(ications.
l3. `I'he pruning and removal of trees shatl be perf�rmed per ISA standards and by a
licensed tree service company that has an ISA Certified Arborist in a supervisory role.
14. Great care must be taken by equipment operators to position their equipment to avoid
the trunks and branches of trees. Where a conflict exists, the project arborist should be
advised to provide a feasible solution.
15. The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prahibited
beneath canopies ar anywhere �n site that allows drainage beneath or near canopies.
Herbicides should nat be used beneath the trees' canopies; where used on site, they
should be tabeled for safe use near trees.
�
Prepared By: _ __ Date: May 25, 2007
David I�. Babby, R
;. = c s `'`
y ,�
�; ZC �.t,
,,�. ����:
�� �
+ - �'� � +
� r �,.;.� i��,�
�
��, � . .
`�;,, ' ----��� .,,�.�.
'�`, .
u .� ,.,, � �—�l l��l
�.
�ws t �
.
�- � ..
__ _ a-��-��
�-� �
;r �--� _}
,:
- _ �__
.32?)3 N. DeA�i�a Circic. Cupe�7ino PuKe ( of b
Crtt� of Cuperti�ia Camnuurit}� Dc��eloJ�ment Depurlmettt
Dcri�id L. Babht�, Re�istere�t C'nnsulting Arbori,s•t Mny l_S, ?OlJ7
�XHIBIT A:
SITE MAP
_.
.
. � -a-oi/-o .
a-��-��
,--� G'�� :� _-
��
22?93 N. De.9►►�n Circle, Cunerti►to �.
Cilv ql�Cupertino Cummunih� DcNelopment I�epartrne�rt
I
� 22293 N. DEANZA CIRCLE, CUPER�1`INQ
�
N. DeJv�za G'u'c1e � .z� 6 �o �
.g �
S �
5 � u � �
8" : .
30' Pmk Ct�estnut
,_.. _ _._ ._._._ _.. .,.-- —
d in 12 +
A �
7 �
� . .. 'A' ', j'� +
. �� d111 �2 ��. .� �� �
. N� �I Ifl 1Z N '
41R 12
`� �� .. . . . . . - . . . . . . ..
� i
� � .. . ... . . . ��. '. , . �
_ _ � �
a�nt2
,,;�<-. "_.
. e�• c��;,� ' �
A �Q t
� , 1 �:�: j v
�
N N
tD �W,, . . , . . . .. .
� . � i(1 1 J .. , . . .
e Q , �
A _ �
N !
. .... .. . . j
�
2 �111�2 ., �
�- /''� �
ti0' Gets.ir /� l 5(l' Ceda� i
/ 1
y. \■/ x
� �
�-_.—c�_ t
�
�
s +
� �
� �
� '
u
jl . �-° � a .../.,�{/�� ,n 1 °' {
A"`ai' e � e�..t� d�'�l. / /\'����^`�" � `
��..��.., . ......_�.., . ....... . ..... .. . .. �
. . .. ,. . ... . . � (
Ll i
(
a-���� 4�
.r .v o! �. __ _ � ;
� � `
L .99 '..
� .� g... . ... .1 ._ ��.^,�� �~ _.._' � i
/ r I
>// �_ ,s �
_�
a �
; �
�
�