TR-2013-02b 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• planninqCc�cupertino.org
October 10, 2014
KCA Associates
Attn: Kevin Chiang
44896 Osgood Rd
Fremont, Ca. 94539
SUBJECT: ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING MEETTNG ACTION LETTER — ASA-2013-01, TR-2013-
02
This letter confirms the decision of the Administrative Hearing Officer, given at the meeting of
October 9, 2014; approving an Architectural and Site Permit to allow for minor building fa�ade and
rooftop modifications and site improvements at the Home of Christ Church; and a Tree Removal
Permit to allow the removal and replacement of three trees: 2 American Sweet Gums and 1 White
Birch tree that are part of an approved landscape plan for an existing office building proposed to
be converted to a church, located at 10420 Bubb Road, according to Resolution Nos.34 and 35.
Please be aware that if this permit is not used within one year, it shall expire on October 9,2015.
Also, please note that an appeal of this decision can be made within 14 calendar days from the date
of the mailing of the notification this decision. If this happens, you will be notified of a public
hearing, which will be scheduled before the Planning Commission.
Sincerely,
pi'/� �
1 �^�
Colin Jung
Associate Planner
City of Cupertino
Enclosures:
Resolution No. 34 and 35
CC:Home of Christ Church,10340 Bubb Rd,Cupertino CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 35
OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING MEETING OF THE CITY OF CUPERT'INO TO ALLOW
THE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF THREE TREES: 2 AMERICAN SWEET GUMS
AND 1 WHITE BIRCH THAT ARE PART OF AN APPROVED LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR
AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING PROPOSED TO BE CONVERTED TO A CHURCH
AT 10420 BUBB ROAD
SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: TR-2013-02
Applicant: Kevin Chiang (Home of Christ Church)
Location: 10420 Bubb Road (APN 357-20-038)
SECTION II: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the Administrative Hearing Officer of the City of Cupertino received an application for a
Tree Removal Permit as described in Section I. of this ResoluHon; and
WHEREAS, the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA);
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Procedural Ordinance of the
City of Cupertino, and the Administrative Hearing Officer held a public hearing on October 9, 2014 in
regard to the application; and
WHEREAS, the Administrative Hearing Officer finds:
1. T hat 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).
NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of the maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in
this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on PAGE 2
thereof, the application for Tree Removal, Application no. TR-2013-02, is hereby approved, and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based
and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application no.(s) TR-2013-02 as set forth in the
Minutes of Administrative Hearing Meeting of October 9, 2014, and are incorporated by reference as
though fully set forth herein.
Resolution No.35 TR-2013-02 October 9,2014
Page 2
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on the undated and untitled plan set, consisting of thirteen (13) sheets labeled
Pl through P13 drawn by Kevin Chiang, AIA and an arborist report prepared by Michael L.
Bench dated May 6, 2014, except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution.
2. ACCURACY OF PROJECT 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. ANNOTATION OF THE CONDIT'IONS OF APPROVAL
The conditions of approval set forth shall be incorporated into and annotated on the first page of
� the building plans.
4. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS
The conditions of approval contained in file no. ASA-2013-01 shall be applicable to this approval.
5. TREE REPLACEMENT
The applicant shall provide adequate tree replacements for trees proposed to be removed in
conjunction with the proposed project. The number, location and type of trees are incorporated into
the approved landscape plan, which is amended to increase the planting tree size to 24-inch box
specimens for all five replacement trees.
6. FINAL LANDSCAPE DETAILS
The applicant shall submit detailed landscape and irrigation plans to be reviewed and approved by
Community Development Director prior to issuance of building permits. The landscape plan shall
include water conservation and pesticide reduction measures in conformance with Chapter 14.15,
Xeriscape Landscaping, and the pesticide control measures referenced in Chapter 9.18, Stormwater
Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection,of the Cupertino Municipal Code.
7. LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION REPORT
The project is subject to all provisions delineated in the Landscape Ordinance (CMC, Chapter 14.15).
A landscape installation audit shall be conducted by a certified landscape professional after the
landscaping and irrigation system have been installed. The findings of th e assessment shall be
consolidated into a landscape installation report.
The landscape installation report shall include, but is not limited to: inspection to confum that the
landscaping and irrigation system are installed as specified in the landscape and irrigation design
plan, system tune-up, system test with distribution uniformity, reporting overspray or run-off that
causes overland flow, and preparation of an irrigation schedule.
The landscape installation report shall include the following statement: "The landscape and
irrigation system have been installed as specified in the landscape and irrigation design plan and
Resolution No.35 TR-2013-02 October 9,2014
Page 3
complies with the criteria of the ordinance and the permit."
8. LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE
Per the Landscape Ordinance (CMC, Chapter 14.15), a maintenance schedule shall be established and
submitted to the Director of Community Development or his/her designee, either with the landscape
application package, with the landscape installation report, or any time before the landscape
installation report is submitted.
a. Schedules should take into account water requirements for the plant establishment period and
water requirements for established landscapes.
b. Maintenance shall include,but not be limited to the following: routine inspection;pressure
testing, adjustment and repair of the irrigation system; aerating and de-thatching turf areas;
replenishing mulch;fertilizing;pruning;replanting of failed plants;weeding;pest control; and
removing obstructions to emission devices.
c. Failed plants shall be replaced with the same or functionally equivalent plants that may be size-
adjusted as appropriate for the stage of growth of the overall installation. Failing plants shall
either be replaced or be revived through appropriate adjustments in water,nutrients, pest control
or other factors as recommended by a landscaping professional.
9. 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.
10. INDEMNIFICATION
To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its
City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the "indemnified parties") from and against any
claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the
applicant to attack, set aside, or void this or any permit or approval authorized hereby for the
project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys' fees and costs
incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such
action with attorneys of its choice.
11. 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, reservaHons, 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 Gove�ent 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.
Resolution No.35 TR-2013-02 October 9,2014
Page 4
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9� day of October 2014 at a Regular Meeting of the Administrative
Hearing Meeting of the City of Cupertino,State of California,by the following roll call vote:
AYES: HEARING OFFICER: Chao
NOES: HEARING OFFICER:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
/s/Colin Jun� /s/Gary Chao
Colin Jung Gary Chao
Associate Planner Assist. Dir. of Community Development
_��."'.,�.
���r Michael L.Bench '�_�p�3_��
� / Consulting Arborist V L-n,V/�fI�Ln} �1
C � �031� J74—JIJ1 r ,i �a� ��ar. , .� i 1 Z/ �• � ���_����....�.�
�,� E- t:;' I t : ,�i,^f
\�.y� 7327 Langley Canyon Road ��� �(�•°q������ ��
Prunedale,California 93907 �� ----�
'�."`��•`,' v i a��+$�.i P't3 ��r� .....�. �,.._.....,_....
An Brief Evaluation Trees
Near Proposed Construction
10420 Bubb Road
Cupertino, California
Assignment
I was asked by Mr. Stephen Rose, Planner, to inspect the trees near proposed construction
at 10420 Bubb Road, Cupertino, California.
Observations
I inspected the site on May 6, 2014.
It appears that the plans are not fully developed. As such, the total impact may not be
fully assessed at this time. It is possible that additional trees may be impacted, which are
not included in this report. Nevertheless, this report inventories those trees within the
construction area, as presented at this time.
I have included 23 trees in this report. Some of these would be impacted by construction.
Some are included because they are in extremely poor condition. The landscape at this
site has been neglected for a long time. The turf is dead in some planter beds for lack of
irrigation. It appears that the shrub beds have not received irrigation in a several years.
The degree to which some of the trees have declined suggests a long period. They do not
decline this severe is a short time. For example, the Coast redwood Trees # 2211, 2213,
2214 and 2215 are near dead. These photos show Trees #2211 and 2213 respectively.
� ..
There are no
af " `� green leaves on
�, ,��
»'�� ,.�
� � �,:
these trees.
�{s:.
,;,�,
�
� ,�,
_ ,�-q
.q .
d ° � � ♦ p t♦
.�-iM^�1(�'�'�. �-. ,��'
��y.. �... w:w '�-. � . .
ixa�t • , _ _ _ ' '�' �'y��e�"'u:
4� � '�;'�'Y� ' ., . _� Y.,. 1'�"r�i �
.. t� ',� '7, Mi _ . °�.zCZ�..
� xr-
?�:�,�i �X � - t ;� � M' �"�. �� ;_
� � '+�,� ;.
���, i -� r�~,;, ' � e Ye` � •' •.�i
1 t�� �{; t h, �x v
x,`k� ���,,}F +lYd��.._ � 'b.'�t"� f r: s r�'f,#��-�c Lt K. . ,��R .A
���q-,...y.ti. 'f' *�-t,� �r�.�`•',�� 1�(k'.�A z'a.�' :�..3. p.�,,�„� r:
�
. �' �♦p� �'�' " � '�'��e. � �, .3�,.-r�
g ,,��r � - ��� � .�� .
.
i � �
y y
ti F•
r lr:
wt � • _ _
,''` � � . . " . ' "� ' ..� .
pi M �
..A.. • -�� jftF. .:� . �A��
y:�j __
. .� �.... � $:.�. ..JI . ��.i.: "_..
Prepared by Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist May 6, 2014 1
10420 Bubb Road
Cupertino, California
�� , ,,���, �
Trees #2214 has a few partially green leaves,but Tree#
t n � a« . . �h � . . .
, „� ,; ,�,.,a,�e.
� � � � � � ��� � 2215 is colnpletely brown (Photo to the left).
. , .
��
�
� ��'> �:.
:�� ,�
.. �. �.
. �' 4�.
.` � k���� , �t�
� � � � �
t'� ... �r �"`� �'��1,I�4�
t �..j� t+:•� � Ye ."
"'?' ��� ��. :..
��JC��4��*1'roF�'����",v'ST}'.����� ' � , • .. ,
'�i' �i�r»� �` ° }nx � ���, a� j'j!'. .
y 4W:.� �p+•�� c.��
�#�tr„°�!C'��. !iy n•s... , ryV'S�..: �
��� ���,i:�i. a � ,� y1V ��'¢ ��A i,,,,y,y 4.
� :(� t _ � � � Y{x,��..e"} .
"� " �����F�• . ? � ._'y �.�.•�, <
�[� .
•t \ 7�C�' q�f�;r�
i• r�_!, J " tti�{, : � ��.'� .pij�
t�,. . �`��„1!*`�,.�r.ai *���1+r��-C.' .}
��va � �r+. .+£ '.r
Y �t w ,
�{� x.#� �i �,r� «2. i��'
x 74� +�"r
d f
Vg�g �.l��"' . '�' .
.fR. rt� �.. /� �{ � .
The photo to the right shows Tree#2206, a ����� ���, �,�-� �: �� ��..� '���
Montezuma pine. Normally this species is "� ':�.. �•'" �� n :`' ' `;„�4, �''
drought tolerant, but it was apparently adapted to ���.�� ;
regular irrigation, before it was shut off. Currently
.�
it is near dead. � ��` � '"�'�
` -�*�, ,,
The Coast live oak Tree # 2239 is also near dead � �' ��. �����"����� :�.��
, �, � _. � .;
(no photo included of it). The Coast live oak ' �" �
species normally survive without irrigation, but ` _ ' � ���.., ��,.
this one was apparently adapted for the irrigation prior.
The existing trees in such poor condition that they could not be expected to recover are:
Trees 2206, 2211, 2213, 2214, 2215, and 2239. I recommend that these trees be removed
and replaced.
Impact of Proposed Construction
Trees # 2234 and 2235 are directly in conflict with the entry upgrades.
In addition, several trees would likely suffer significant root damage as a result of the
grading for the new sidewalks and pathways. These are Trees # 2236, 2237, 2204 and
2205. The mounding in the areas of these trees is a significant factor. Grading would
have to be done in an area considerably greater than the sidewalk itself. These trees
would not be expected to survive. Replacements are recommended.
If the new sidewalk adjacent to Trees # 2207, 2209, and 2210 could be constructed on-
grade or at a maximum depth of 2-3 inches, these trees would likely survive.
Prepared by Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist May 6, 2014 2
10420 Bubb Road
� Cupertino, California
Tree#2238 is a Bottlebrush shrub. It is too small to be considered a tree. It will likely be
removed for pathway construction. Because it is a shrub, no replacements are
recommended for it.
The plan indicates 11 locations to plant new trees. Several of these locations are currently
in paving. The soil beneath the paving is likely highly compacted. It will not be effective
to excavate small holes for the planting of new trees if they would be expected to survive.
In order to make these planting areas viable, a 15 foot square area must be excavated at
each location, it will be essential to perform percolation tests to assure good drainage in
each planting pit. I suspect the soil in these areas may have to be replaced. In short, the
preparation required to plant new trees in these areas will be extensive.
All new planted trees will require imgation both to establish them arid to maintain them
for the long term.
Replacement Species
I recommended the species Chinese pistache(Pistacia chinensis) be planted as
replacement trees.
Respectfully submitted,
��_____
Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist
International Society of Arboriculture Certification#WE 1897A
American Society of Consulting Arborists Member
Prepared by Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist May 6, 2014 3
10420 Bubb Road List of Trees Cupertino,California
.� � .�l 1 �� y� iF ��� � �9 fdr+ .yx 'F �'4 '� A:.1 4� P xj� t �� k .�
� � � % �
�A� fg d � I � �� ...�
( � i � a � � :. � � �,�'�hMM: ,. a � ''�r� # ,�a y .:�
t � � � � �j
� { �
i`�
���� �� ���� �"N� � rl��Ul�.�����`.� � i ��• .
Wt1�ldlt B�At+i8t1. _ � t±i�htl��btt '
_ _,..--------_ ._,__.�___._.___.------___.._._.. _ ...__�___ . __ _.__
2201 American Sweet Gum 19 50 25 1 4 Fair Topped
(Liquidambar styraciflua)
2202 White Birch 7/7 30 15 3 4 Fair Topped
(Betula pendula)
2203 White Birch 12/11 30 20 2 4 Fair Topped
2204 American Sweet Gum 18 40 25 1 4 Fair Topped
2205 American Sweet Gum 5 20 10 1 4 Fair
2206 Montezuma Pine 17 30 30 5 3 Extremely Poor Near Dead
(Pinus montezumae)
2207 Coast Live Oak 18 20 25 2 2 Good
(Quercus agrifolia)
2208 Coast Live Oak 16 25 25 3 2 Fair
2209 Coast Live Oak 14 30 25 3 2 Fair
2210 Chinese Elm 9/9 20 35 3 4 Fair
(Ulmus parvifolia)
2211 Coast Redwood 23 60 25 5 2 Poor
(Sequoia sempervirens)
2213 Coast Redwood 18 50 20 5 2 Poor
2214 Coast Redwood 18/10 35 25 5 2 Poor
2215 Coast Redwood 9 30 15 5 2 Poor
2234 American Sweet Gum 12 35 25 2 2 Fair
2235 White Birch 13 30 25 3 4 Fair Topped
2236 American Sweet Gum 13 35 35 2 4 Fair Topped
2237 American Sweet Gum 10 30 25 2 4 Fair Topped
2238 Bottlebrush Shrub 5/5 10 10 1 1 Excellent
(Callistemon citrinus)
2239 Coast Live Oak 16 20 20 4 2 Poor Severe Drought Stress
2000 Deodar Cedar 10 25 20 1 1 Excellent
(Cedrus deodara)
2001 Coast Live Oak 10 15 20 1 1 Excellent Sycamore bark moth attack-
not serious
2002 Crape Myrtle 4 10 10 2 1 Good
(Lagerstromia indica)
Prepared by Michael Bench Consulting Arborist May 6,2014
� �,�__. ._ _ �,,
, - aN)Ft�`t3iie PtIlYGRUwM�lffi tR:� .�, .� ,
_ a a _ � �� � , � . .
_ - {NjCASTIR4N+�E!V�� �
{�y Cot�rca��.E P�a -- - _ � _ _ �E�t���E����E�a�►�H
�
81KF PARK,Ai{5 j N)SFCiRTG{3URT '� '`
. � � � ����
.z, .,,� ..r. ... � � '
��� <i s' . ._av� `}.. , �£ .. a ... .. .
� �•=�� � fe �
€., ` " . .F+�niir� w n.m.�-,...y � + �
\ *
f �
� . . ....»„ ; :�.„�.,,,n.y,�°, k . �..d x'�,f
�
� . <
�a t .� � �. .m
a , a _ _ �. _� � � � _ _ ._ � ,.�.
°° '� � � � tNiSNRUB
�rs� ,, �� .....�._.�,�
_..,.
e(�NCR�*f SIUfW,�IK . # , ' I , � " °'•.+NjS�t1€FiiAt��tAM�
�1+...� -�
I t}:1x
.. « � ! • ° � .. � t
�. .
: � s � 3. �
��� _
, w�r �...�..., - ,_ � � .#
` ` �., (�L� .a �
(�� , : T_ E �
�-__ _�-�-__� � �-� .� < :� _
� ,,,,� � � '� � �� �e
•.�'�"`��.��� �� . ��`" � � � ,�,�; � ;�)�t�r��s
� �,,
� � ��� � ����_
� # -� � � ��
_ � =- - .
� F .
} > � � x
. . �, � :
. � � �
� � � � 1zo,� �� � .�
� ,.
. � :
, �
�
. r
� �� .�zc�� � � � �.�. _ -=-���
. � �
,a
} , y g
� ; �_ ,�
� ��� �� � ���t� .�aush ��� �� � �" �� � �
, ��. ��--�.�,��
_ �: _ a.r �
,�G.� ���U�� � � � �
i# -,`�� � �• � j � �� �
s�
� ` `� ���� '� 3.�.3� 'x?.�Q �
. , s+r.!»..
� .
� , �
.m` =.g ' ���-...... , n..� i �. _ . m : .. ..
� Z2ID ����� � � � a, �� ����' 24�
'�� �
'y�'� ry��`' �
F �, �;
` .�, ,< �.y�
��� r �� �/� �,JG,7,i •• �
��� Trcc �ft�
} " �t�? � ��; �� ,`,�M� �. � r.:- <1 i�lark-i � tif the Sitca Pts�n
� �
�� � ,�` ,�.��}}�� � ��, ��� �Z��� �..��'� Site: 1tF�21) I;ubb Itc�ad
+�r ,
- ,�'{ �= C`uprrtin+�,C�lif��rnia
a
�' � ,ZDt� ,Z.�U i {)bscr►�atic�ns: �►-C�-1�
-� � 1lirht��l [,. Be��eh
_.
. � .. ' �` f'cfn�►ultin� ,'1rbc�rist
• •
or a � � ona
.
n orma ion
.
ee � e
_ _