TR-2011-13b �,,
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
C U P E RT 1 N O (408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333 • planning�a cupertino.orq
May 18, 2011
Susan Chen
SC Design Group
20370 Town Center Ln Suite 139
Cupertino CA 95014
SUBJECT: RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW ACTION LETTER - Application R-2011-11, RM-2011-12, TR-2011-13
This letter confirms the decision of the Director of Community Development, given on May 15, 2011; approving a
Residential Design Review Permit for a new 3,683 square feet, two-story single family residence, a Minor
Residential Permit for a second story rear facing balcony on the new residence and a Tree Removal permit to allow
the removal and replacement of one 28" Doedar Cedar tree, located at 20910 Pepper Tree Lane, with the following
conditions:
1. APPROVED PROTECT
This approval is based on a plan set entitled, "Q & C Residence, 20910 Pepper Tree Ln, Cupertino, CA 95014"
consisting of six (6) sheets dated Apri128, 2011, and arborist report provided by Consulting Arborist, Michael
Bench (ISAC # 189� , dated Apri122, 2011, except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution.
2. ACCURACY OF THE PROTECT PLANS �
The applicant/property owner is responsible to verify all pertinent property data including but not limited to
property boundary locations, building setbacks, property size, building square footage, any relevant easements
and/or construction records. Any misrepresentation of any property data may invalidate this approval and
may require additional review.
3. LANDSCAPING PLAN
The final landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of
building permits. If the landscaping area (defined by section 14.15.030) is greater than 2,500 square feet, then a
full landscape project submittal per section 14.15.040 is required prior to issuance of building permits.
4. OAK TREE PROTECTION .
Prior to issuance of building permits, the Coast Live Oak tree on the property shall be shown to be protected
during construction accordin� to the recommendations in the arborist report. An ISA-certified arborist is
required to confirm in writing that the tree protection measures are in place prior to construction and report on
the health of the tree following construction.
5. PRIVACY PLANTING
The final privacy-planting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of
building permits. Prior to final occupancy, additional privacy screerung trees shall be planted in accordance
with the recommendations of City Arborist Michael Bench, as listed in the arborist report dated Apri122, 2011.
6. PRNACY PROTECTION COVENANT
The property owner shall record a covenant on this property to inform future property owners of the privacy
protection measures and tree protection requirements consistent with the R-1 Ordinance, for all windows with
views into neighboring yards and a sill height that is 5 feet or less from the second story finished floor. The
precise language will be subject to approval by the Director of Community Development. Proof of recordation
must be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to final occupancy of the residence.
7. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS
The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/ or agencies with regard to the proposed
project for additional conditions and requirements. Any misrepresentation of any submitted data may
invalidate an approval by the Community Development Department.
8. EXTERIOR BUIL.DING MATERIALS/TREATMENTS
Final building exterior treatment plan (including but not limited to details on exterior color, material,
architectural treatrnents and/ or embellishments) shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of
Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. The final building exterior plan shall closely
resemble the details shown on the original approved plans. Any exterior changes determined to be substantial
by the Director of Community Development shall require a minor modification approval with neighborhood
input.
9. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER E?CACTIONS
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 all the findings that are required for approval of a Two-story Residential Permit as required by the
of Cupertino's Municipal Code, Chapter 19.28.100 (D). Also, please note that an appeal of this decision can be
made within 14 calendar days from the date of this letter. If this happens, you will be notified of a public hearing,
which will be scheduled Uefore the Plannulg Commission.
Sincerely,
�
par Ankola
Plannulg Division
Community Development Departrnent
City of Cupertino
408-777-3319
aparnaaQcupertino.org '
�
Enclosures:
Approved Plan Set
Cc: Zuishuang Chen, 20910 Pepper Tree Lane, Cupertino CA 95014
AN EVALUATION OF TREES
AT THE QUI PROPERTY
20910 PERPER TREE LANE
CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED AT THE REQUEST OF
MS. APARNA ANKOLA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
10300 TORRE AVENUE
CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA 95014
PREPARED BY
MICHAEL L. BENCH
CONSULTING ARBORIST
APRIL 22, 2011
r /l��l/-�/ � �—�//—/3
��
: - , //
f ,F �� �
. _
�.a r .,,��
. - - _—_ _ __ . _w.... , _ � _.
�
;R;�� ����� � �,rn ���
,�, t � � . ;i _ ,�"�� .. .. _
rE� �,,�.. . �
,���I3+�:;i.:! .s
_�
, ;
Assignment
I was asked by Aparna Ankola, Planner, City of Cupertino, to evaluate the landscape at 20910
Pepper Tree Lane, Cupertino. The particular items requested to be addressed are: (1) the cedar
tree near the corner of the garage; (2) the privacy screening plants between this property and the
properties toward the east and toward the west; and (3) the justification, if any, for the removal
� of the cedar tree near the corner of the garage.
Ms. Ankola provided a Site Plan in an Email pdf file showing the features of this property.
Observations
I visited the site on Apri122, 2011. I met the homeowner, Ms Qui , who graciously gave me
access to the back yard.
There are two large trees in the front yard of the property. One is a deodar cedar (Cedrus
deodara) tree and the other tree is a coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia). The deodar cedar is
located on the east side of the property near the garage, and the coast live oak tree is located
near the sidewalk on the west side of the property.
Cedar Tree
The deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara) has a trunk measurement of 28.2 inches at 4.5 feet above
grade. Its canopy height is approximately 70 feet and its canopy spread is approximately 45 feet.
Its overall condition is very good. This tree is located approximately 8 feet from the corner of
the existing garage.
Deodar cedar is not commonly regarded as a species that routinely causes damage to buildings,
but it often does raise sidewalks or driveways. In my experience, deodar cedar often causes
little, if any damage, at locations where the soil rich and deep. However, at locations where the
rich soil is shallow or where there is a shallow "hard pan" ( a hard compacted layer of clay -
often sites, which were once used for farming or orchards), the roots of most trees, including
deodar cedar trees, will produce very shallow roots, which can cause significant infrastructure
damage. It appears that this is the case at 20910 Pepper Lane. The plants in the back yard are
observed to have surface roots, which tends to support my assumption about at sub-soil hard pan.
The deodar cedar tree at 20910 Pepper Lane has raised the NE corner of the residence, which is
the garage. Roots of this tree have also raised the concrete path for most of the distance of the
house on the east side of the residence, and has raised the driveway.
If roots were to be severed and removed to restore the infrastructure, this deodar cedar may die,
but a much more serious result would be that this tree would likely be rendered unstable and
hazardous.
If this tree were preserved, the infrastructure damage would likely increase at an accelerated
level as the tree grows.
Unfortunately I see no good alternative but to recommend removal and replacement of this
deodar cedar tree. If this were done, I recommend that the subsoil were to be
thoroughly fractured and a percentage (approximately 10%) of organic material added to the
soil, which would help prevent re-compaction. A replacement tree should be a species that is not
known to cause infrastructure damage, for example London plane (Platanus acerifolia
"Columbia" or "Yarwood'), Paper bark melaleuca (Melaleuca linarifolia), or coast live oak
(Quercus agrifolia).
It is likely that not all of the residences in this neighborhood have experienced this level of
infrastructure damage. If this is the case, there are several explanations for this, including the fact
that the original landascaper at those locations observed the hard sub-soil (suspected) and
took action to fracture it. Also, sub-soil can be very densely compacted in some areas and not
severely compacted in other areas.
Privacy Screening
Ms. Qui states that there are many plants in her yard. This is true. However, many of these are
performing poorly as a result of the suspected sub-soil hard pan and as a result of inadequate
irrigation. It appears that most of the plants in the back yard are inadequately irrigated.
As a result, some of the plants are performing so poorly that they provide little privacy screening.
For example, there is a Maytens tree (Maytenus boaria) and a Cherry tree (Prunus serrulata) on
the east side that a very sparse. Both of these provide little screening. I recommend that these
two be removed and replaced with an acceptable screening plant, such as Pittosporum
tenuifolium.
The Pittosporum tenuifolium plants located on the south side of the back yard are performing
fairly well. Bear in mind that these can survive with little irrigation once established. If new
Pittosporum tenuifoliums are planted, they will require regular irrigation to establish. The soil
where they would be planted must be fractured (broken up) thoroughly and at least 10% compost
should be added to the soil to improve the porosity. Also, it would be essential to break through
the suspected hard pan.
The neighbor on the east side has Heavenly bamboo (Nandina domestica) against the fence and a
Wisteria vine. These provide a percentage of screening.
On the west side, Ms. Qui suggests to move a large clump of standard bamboo, currently in a
large container, to a location where there is a gap in the privacy screening. This would be
acceptable, in my opinion. However, the bamboo is chlorotic, which means that it needs nitrogen
fertilizer with iron.
There are privacy screen plants, Australian brush cherry (Syzagium paniculatum) on the
neighboring property on the west side. These provide a fairly good screen, but the screening
could be improved by plantings in the gaps on this property.
There is a magnificent Japanese maple tree (Acer palmatum cultivar) on this property at the
southwest corner of the house. This tree is about 7 feet tall. It would be a shame to hide or cover
up this tree with a taller screening plant.
There is a moderate size Chinese elm (Ulmus parvifolia) tree in the southeast corner of the back
yard. This tree is healthy and provided very good privacy screening.
Coast Live Oak
This is the other large tree in the front yard. It is a Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), an
indigenous species. In my opinion, this tree is the prize specimen on this property. It has a trunk
diameter of 25.7 inches at 4'/2 feet above grade (the arboriculture standard). The canopy is
approximately 30 in height and has a spread of approximately 50 feet. Its overall condition is
excellent. It is located adjacent to a lawn, which could be deadly for this tree over time because
of the frequent irrigation. I recommend that the edge of the lawn be a minimum of 1 S feet from
the trunk of this oak tree and that the sprinklers for the lawn be directed so that the spray remains
a minimum of 15 feet from the trunk. If new lawn would be desired, the soil area inside the
dripline of this oak tree (25 feet from the trunk) must not be rotor-tilled, dug up, or significantly
disturbed, because of the likelihood of large quantities of absorbing roots from this oak tree just
under the surface of the soil. If new sod must be installed, it must be layed directly on top of the
existing turf without any soil preparation. Trenching for new irrigation must be a minimum of 25
feet from the trunk of this coast live oak tree unless the work would be supervised be a qualified
consulting arborist.
Respectfully submitted,
�-t__.__
Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist
International Society of Arboriculture Certification # 1897
American Society of Consulting Arborists Member
• •
•
•
� �
� �