Reconsideration Form - Eric & Cindy Fang 2020@ E C E F,V e-g?
in it!:AY -.' 2020
cupcmtryo CIIYCLERKICUPERTINO
City of Cupettino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3223
RECONSIDERATION PETITON
NOTICE: Reconsideratioyi petitions are only accepted for adjudicatory matters that are
quasi-judicial decisioyis by the City Covmcil. The recoiisideratioyx petition is subject to
the requirements of and must comply with section 2.08.096 of the Cupertino Municipal
Code, available in the City Clerk's office or ortline at
http:/hnww,amlegal.com/cupertinoca/. Please review this fom careful7y arid provide
a detailed explanation for each item. Faifttre to meet the requiremeiits of section
2.08.096 may result iyx rejection of the reconsideration petition.
1.Project for which you are requesting reconsideration:
3.Contact information for party requesting reconsideration:
Name:
Address:
Phone:
Email:
z'l87'%5""'Sa(4"L":cl! @39
4.Date of Council meeting considering the project for which you are requesting
reconsideration: 'k-17 j /2,0 >B
Reco;nsideration petitions must be fi7ed within ten (10) calendar days of the date of the
Clerk's notice.
5.Details of grounds for reconsideration (Cupertino Municipal Code Section
2.08.096). A petition for reconsideration must specify, in detail, each and every
ground for reconsideration. Failure to specify the particular ground(s) for
reconsideration will preclude any omitted ground(s) from being raised or
litigated in a subsequent judicial proceeding
In addition, the grounds for reconsideration are limited to the criteria listed
below. Failure to meet these grounds may result in rejection of the petition for
reconsideration. Check all groiu'ids that apply and provide detailed explanations
l
rting each ground for reconsideration (provide supporting
on and attach additional sheets if necessary):
relevant evidence which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence,
could not have been produced at any earlier city hearing.
Explanation of new evidence and why it could not have been produced earlier:
?lese 2 (,-t-ttAtd Imu,
PI An offer of relevant evidence which was improperly excluded at any prior city
hearing.
Exp7ain relevant evidertce and how, whert it was excluded at a prior hearing:
'r'lpat, s-e aaut+d ut++ex-,
€ Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council proceeded without, or in
excess of its, jurisdiction.
Explain facts a;nd how those facts show that the Council operated outside its jurisdiction:
I!Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council failed to provide a fair
hearing.
Explain facts and how those facts demonstrate failure to provide a fair hearing:
2
f)i-eav 5tt aJ le++ev,
UQ/ Proof of facts whidi demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion by:
o (a) Not preceding iri a maniter required by law; and/or
o (b) Rendering a decision whidi was not supported by findings of fact;
and/or
o (c) Rendering a decision in whidi the findings of fact were not supported
by the evidence.
Explain facts and how those facts demonstrate abuse of discretion redated to items (a)-(c)
6. Signature(s)>- ff Gh-c- e C9h 7'z7
Please complete form, include reconsideration fee of $319.40 pursuant to Resolution No.
19-038 payable to City of Cupertino and retum to the attention of the City Clerk, 10300
Torre Avenue, Cupertino, (408) 777-3223.
Acceptance of a petition by the City Clerk is for time7iness purposes only and does ;not constitute
a determination that the petition meets the requireme;nts for reconsideration under section
2.08.096 of the Municipal Code. The City reserves the right to review petitions after submission
and reject those that do not meet the criteria set forth in Cupertino Municipal Code Section
2.08.096.
3
An'offerroj mw rffilevant evjde-6c-ffi ihi6h-,'in 4tlffi-,exerqise of reasonable diligence, could not
Thank you city council, planning commissioners and city staff. We really enjoy living in this peaceful, friendly
city. We have been Monta Vista Village residents for over 30 years. We support redevelopments in our
community. However we want these changes to enhance our community. This project was signed by over 60
neighbors in opposition. Approving this project will change the character of Monta Vista Village. It will affect
the Monta Vista Special Area in the next 60 or 70 years or even more. We urge the City Council to reconsider.
This section is divided into 2 parts: the original plan with email from the proposed project owner and the
Cupertino General Plan. We thought the original plan would be included in the staff summaryr report; however,
it was excluded.
Initial Plan from Mr. Tsai: submitted with the reconsideration petition. attached in the email on 9/2017
Project house is located on the same street just a few houses away from Blackberry Farm
And 3 blocks from Monta Vista High and Lincoln elementary school.
Four
1.
2.
3.
4.
letters submitted to Cupertino City:
Initial Email to : update on meeting with Owner
Letter submitted to City for Comment Period:
Letter submitted to City for Planninq Commission Public Hearing
Letter submitted to City for City Council Public Hearing. To build like everyone's new construction:
* build in the front part of lot to align with the neighbors' houses & to be harmonious, compatible, and
identical with general neighborhood in scale and character,
* balcony not be in the backyard looking at neighbors' yard and house
@ neighbors opposing signatures from 1l to 35 now 64
We have provided much evidence, information, facts, google maps, and testimonies.
Please read every letter that we submitted to the City. Please also watch our previous youtube video with the
planning commissioners to know this case better. Included are 3 testimonies from Monta Vista Village sharing
their thoughts in public hearing. Now is the 21st century. Monta Vista Village Special Area is facing
development and redevelopment. Many houses are 70-90 years old and ready to be rebuilt. Monta Vista
Village Special Area lot size is very irregular as we mentioned in the meeting. We can't build any style and just
comply with the setback. There are many other things that need to be considered. Any decision we make today
will affect tomorrow's Monta Vista Village. Be a good design example of redevelopment to your neighbors. Help
Monta Vista Village to achieve its vision and goals. Let's work towards doing this!
CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN (excerpts)
ORGANIZATION OF THE PLAN: "California state law requires that each city and county adopt a General Plan
for the "physical development of the county or city", ....The role of the General Plan is to act as a community's
'constitution',...each topical chapter, or 'Element,' of Community Vision 2040 include topical goals, policies and
strategies that function in three unique ways":
* Goal:
@ Polici
a broad statement of values or aspirations needed to achieve the vision.
Policy: a more precise statement that guides the actions of City staff, developers and policy makers
1
necessary to achieve the goal.
* Strategy: a specific task that the City will undertake to implement the policy and work toward achieving the
goals.
NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION: "Cupertino is a city with diverse and neighborhoods that vary in
characterand composition. As Cupertino matures, the city must continue to look at preserving and enhancing
its built environment...The City will welcome citizens as partners in making sure that their neighborhoods are
the kind in which they want to live in the future."
MONTA VISTA VILLAGE - A SPECIAL AREA
CONTEXT "The Monta Vista Village Special Area is an older neighborhood which served as an attractive
farming and second home community since the late 1800s. It includes several important points of historic
interest.....The area was incrementally annexed by the City starting in the 1 960s, ending with complete
annexation in 2004, from the unincorporated Santa Clara County.....Monta Vista Village has a small town
character and ...serve as a travel route for school children to the tri-school area in Monta Vista (Lincoln
Elementary, Kennedy Middle and Monta Vista High Schools)."
VISION "Monta Vista Village's small town character as a pedestrian-oriented, small scaled, mixed-use
residential, neighborhood commercial and industrial area will be retained and enhanced with new development
and redevelopment...."
GOAL LU-25 Retain and enhance Monta Vista Village's small town character as a pedestrian-oriented, small
scale, mixed-use residential, neighborhood commercial and industrial area
An offer of relevant evidence which was improperly excluded at any prior city hearing.
Exp%ain mevant evidence and how, when it was pxcl,u<fed. at 'a prior hearing:
We spent years finding evidence. Our multiple evidence and facts presented on the PPT slides during the
public hearing were not addressed:
Monta Vista neighborhood research of compatibility. There are approximately 38 houses with the same lot
size (as Mr. Tsai and ours) built from the 1900s-present in the Monta Vista Village. None have an identical
balcony in the rear half of their lot. No one has an identical structured carport in the rear end of the yard.
Human Rights. Can anyone peacefully enjoy this kind of design next to your house?
Cupertino city website balcony picture samples. Pictures from the city website for house designs show a
small balcony at the front of the house facing the street. How come Mr. Tsai is allowed to build a huge balcony
in the back of his house? This decision is not in alignment with Cupertino's proposed balcony placement and
design. And does not ensure that the new addition is compatible with MONTA VISTA VILLAGE SPECIAL
AREA neighborhood character. There is a reason that balconies are not built well into the lot. They can be
detrimental to public safety, health, and welfare.
Leff side elevation plan, Google maps
Neighbors' concerns and over 60 residents' opposition evidenced through signing. The number of
signatures grew from 1l to 35 to 57. We visited over 100 neighbors, showing the building plans, hearing their
2
thoughts, etc. When so many neighbors come together displaying alarm and concerns towards the project,
does this not carry weight and require further examination? Neighborhood and community voices were not
heard and acknowledged in a serious manner. We had a map showing each house that signed. It
emcompasses the MONTA VISTA VILLAGE SPECIAL AREA neighborhood, not just the adjacent neighbors.
Pi;65f of factswhich demonstrate thai te City Council failed to proyide a fai,r hearing.
Explain facts and ?10W those fac tsdermnstrate failure to provide a fair hearing:
The following is a summary of the project events leading up to the City Council appeal:
October 11, 2017: Francis Kun (Tsai residence) applies for a: Residential Design Review Permit (R-2017-33)
to consider allowing the construction of a 520 square-foot first-floor addition and an 820 square-foot new
second story and Minor Residential Permit (RM-2017-39) to consider allowing an approximately 280
square-foot second-story balcony located at 21865 San Fernando Avenue.
@ 9/14/1 7 Received email from owner to sign a privacy waiver
* 528 s.f. Original First floor
@ 742s.f. OriginalSecondstory
* 5'l9s.f. Originalbalconysize&exteriorstairsnearneighbor'sfence
* 284 s.f. Revised Balcony size, it is not 280 s.f.
* October 11, 201 7 is still in the early stage of this project, staff wrote to consider allowing size.
@ false information, misleading
February 21, 2018: The applicant revises the project to address concerns identified by adjacent property
owners as follows: A proposed three-car (653 sq. ft.) garage reduced to a two-car (498.5 sq. ff.) garage with
the third car space converted to a carport;
@ Structure carport was in the original plan along with 3 car garage (so 3rd garage was not actually converted
to a carport).
* Square footage was not reduced, rather increased. Bq. ft from the garage incorporated into living space.
@ Revised, but did not address our concerns
* False information and Misleading
The first-floor rear-yard setback increased from 41 '-7" to 48'; The proposed second story relocated
approximately 12' closer to the street; thereby increasing the second-story rear-yard setback From 68' to 80'-9"
and the balcony rear-yard setback from 44'-4" to 60'-3"; The balcony reduced by approximately 235 sq. ft.,
resulting in an increase in the balcony side-yard setback from I O' to 1 8'-9";
@ OriginalBalconysize519sq.ft.notincludedpurposely.
* Writing style worded in a way to describe the project in the best light for the city planners and home owner.
@ Not full story, misled
June 24, 2019 The applicant revises the project again in response to comments received during the public
comment period. The following revisions were incorporated to the carport design: The width of the proposed
carport posts were reduced; and A flat roof line was incorporated into the design by reducing the rooT pitch of
the carport, resulting in a decrease in height by approximately 4'.
3
@ We asked not to build a carport. He made revisions to the carport.
* Revised twice but does not address our top concerns (still built in the latter half of the lot. Still has a balcony
and carport in the backyard).
* Wide lot or corner lot is ok for this design
Staff response:
Setback of over 60' where 20' is required; a side-yard balcony setback of 48'-9" on the west side and 1 T-5" on
the east side, where only 45' is required. Therefore, the proposed second-story balcony exceeds the
established setback requirements.
* Written in a way to make neighbors look bad. Strong personal stance rather than being neutral and
objective towards this project.
* As a result Mr. Tsai used the same wording towards us: exceed, far exceed requirement, not content
Our response.
The whole picture was not fully discjosed in the staff report in verbal or written form. Yet the city council was
asked to read this drafl resolution. This may mislead the council members in knowing/understanding the whole
story thus impacting their decisions.
In the "Guidelines for CITY COUNCIL CANDIDATES': page 19 states, "When the Council is not prepared to
take definite action or when further study or information is needed, the Council may refer the matter by motion
to an individual or group for study. The Council may request that a report be made at a future Council meeting.
(Election of November 6, 2018 https'//wvtw.cripertino or/home/showdncriment9id=fi8lQ)
City council Meeting: April 21, 2020
Does anyone know the balcony size? No one answered, the exact balcony size is 20'5"xl3'll". Staff replied
to various council members that the width was 13' instead of 14' (when rounding). One staff said 13' is less
than 450 sq. ff. The council members accepted this and changed the depth to 12' instead of the proposed 10'.
Additionally we hoped the city could look at Google Maps to see where 10' or 12' feet falls in the
neighborhood. How does 10' or 12' impact our neighbors? Harmonious in scale with the surrounding
neighborhood, visual impacts on adjoining neighbors, etc. ?. Your decision may change Monta Vista Village
Special Area's future development and residents' life.
Court feeling. During the public hearing we felt more like being at court but worse than in the court. We are
facing many defenders (city lawyer, planning department staff and director) and the judges were unclear about
many things. Instead, they need to ask the defender side for answers. Because the planning department has
approved this project, applicants (Mr. Tsai) have very strong support fmm the city. We, Cupertino residents,
came to seek help from mayor and council members.
Compare (identical, compatible, harmonious) with the newer houses in MONTA VISTA VILLAGE.
Please do not compare new construction with a neighbor's 1 940 house before its annexation to Cupertjno.
Rather please compare with newer houses with the same lot size, same dimensions, balcony and structure
carport extending into the rear yard. Many old houses will face remodeling soon, however applicant's new
additions will stay untij the next rebuild, nearly to the next century. A bad example will definitejy hinder
Cupertino's growth towards a bright future. This kind of plan does not help the city or anyone except the
applicant himself.
We spent days looking at the city web page under property and on Redfin checking every neighbors' lot size,
4
year built, and if there is any balcony, any carport in MV Village special area. Our purpose is to find houses
with the same lot size and how they are/were built or redeveloped as evidence. We spent this much time and
energy because we wanted to give the correct, complete evidence. We have lived in Cupertino for many years
and could not find a design like this one.
Can the City speak without evidence like party chances are low and handle things in an unclear manner?
Please answer with evidence to support your decision:
* HowdoesthiskindofhousedesignfitintheCupertinoGeneralPIan?
* How is this kind of house and balcony harmonious in scale to the general neighborhood?
* How does this house design meet the requirements of the guidelines?
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 decisiop which was not supporter by findings of fact;
and/or
(c) Rendering a decision in,whtchthefipdir;gsof jact mre not supported
by the evidence.
Explain facts and howthpse facts demonstrate abuse of discrejiqn related to items (a)-(c):
City council decision process. In the hearing, we learned that the city council was not sure they had the
discretion to make any changes to the plan which has been approved by the planning department. Majority of
the time was spent researching and clarifying the guidelines/codes and the councirs discretionary authority.
Therefore, not much time was left for evaluating the impact of this project to the general neighborhood and
whether it is aligned to the long term vision of Monta Vista Village development. A plan detrimental to the
neighborhood was approved. City council, please protect this neighborhood and its residents allowing
developments that enhance the community. In this general neighborhood over 60 families do not think this
project is moving our community in a positive future. Council members could have called a break for further
investigation and research. We hope more time can be spent on understanding and analyzing the impact of
this expansion to the general neighborhood as well as seeking the evidence to support that the design does or
does not meet all guidelines/codes.
<* Threat of future air bnb from later owners. With a big balcony it becomes an easy gathering place
for a crowd which heightens the noise, smoking, safety, chance of parties, and risk of strangers viewing
everyone's yard. This is detrimental to public welfare, safety, and health. It's not a low intense setting.
We urge for preventative measures by not having a balcony in the rear yard. Place it in the front
towards the street. Can this be evidence (from Erika staff report)? /t is not finalized:"While
speculative, the City currently has regulations in place regarding Short Term Rental activity.
Furthermore, the City is in the process of considering adoption of Short Term Rental regulations, which
would limit the number of overnight guests and prohibit commercial activity - including parties and
weddings - among other Municipal Code regulations that could be used to restrict such future
activities."
// Personal opinion involved. Erika states in the resolution that the city is considering adoption of STR
regujations. Again they are speaking of something not confirmed. The planning department attempts to
predict the future saying the chance of having a party is Low because the balcony is off the bedroom.
This is about our community's safety. We were asked to have evidence to prove our stance; however,
the city staff simply said the party chance is low and this bypassed the neighbors' concerns. Mr. Tsai's
2nd floor stairs are located in the existing garage at the end of the house. One does not need to go
through the main original house. By closing an entryway from the existing garage, it can be a separate
STR unit. We cannot speak for the present owner, future buyer or city (not finalized regulation)
5
regarding the possibility of parties or STR. But we definitely can prevent the tragedy now.
Questions not addressed to appellants or owners, Questions and clarification primarily addressed towards
the planning committee and city attorney. Appellants were unable to provide further explanation, defend, or
clarify misinformation. Example: When our house was built, privacy plantings were not required in conjunction
to window size and height. Older houses around us met all codes of the time. Also the planning department
said the balcony is approx 13', but actually is 13'11". They said it is harmonious scale with the neighborhood,
not just next door neighbors. We would like to see the facts and evidence. How is it harmonious with
surrounding 2 story houses or those with balconies? How does the planning department define these terms
(compatible, harmonious, low intensity, identity of neighborhood) ?
As Appeal Reconsideration of the April 21, 2020 public hearing:
/## For 21865 San Fernando Ave
6
ih'ij
' j! i 4j I
IJ)
z 3 mm
SAN FERN ANDO
AVENUE
:a ]8 %i i, "
N:i!'
J3 ;!i i!4
PLANNING AND
BUILDING PERMIT
SuBMITTAL
LANDSCAPE PLAN
TSAI RESIDENCE
21 865 SAN FERN ANDO AVE.,
CuPERTINO, CA 95014
AFLA LANDSCAPE ARCHlTECTtJRE
Snnnyvale. Cnlllomla
(408) 242 - 3054
emall abnni>pt'mthlleclugmall wm
www aflsndtwps mm
j. 7 ==u
K '!
!t
ffi,
:, g=
L
HE 'ai i,-l
--- On Thu, 9/14/17, David Tsai <dtsai612@yahoo.com> wrote:
II Mo" <moyehyung@yahoo.com>):liWen,juar,i mC
Ill)#malii
ho
IJW i &>y"3i
[ay._.Se.of te.ml be-r_..ar4_]-),t:':J,;i-
-
-M
5/4/2020 Yahoo Mail - update of the meeting with 21865 San Fernando Ave owner David Tsai
update of the meeting with 21865 San Fernando Ave owner David Tsai
From: Jay Huang (jayhuang20@yahoo.com)
To: erikap@cupertino.org
Cc: ericdfang2016@gmail.com; wangt@sbcglobal.net; sgustafsn@gmail.com; claramo@gmail.com;
jayhuang20@yahoo.com
Date: Monday, November 20, 2017, 11 :29 PM PST
This email is to update you about our meeting with Mr. David Tsai of 21865 San Fernando Ave:
We (Cindy and Eric Fang or 21875 San Fernando Ave, Tai-Tsong Wang of 21909 San Fernando Ave, Jay Huang of
21861 San Fernando Ave) met with the owner, Mr. David Tsai, of 21865 San Fernando Ave on Friday, November 17,
2017 at 3:00 p.m.
We conveyed the following points:
(1
. It destroys the harmony of the neighborhood.
(2) The second story addition and a issues and it blocks all the views or the neighbors.
(3) Whether he could ;=ind stay in line
with second story house lines of all the neighboring houses (as shown in map of San Fernando Ave).
We invited Mr. Tsai to both his adjacent properties (21861 and 21875 San Fernando Ave.) to take a look at the impact it
makes on his neighbors affer he expands his house.
Before the end of the meeting, Mr. Tsai mentioned that he has many factors to consider as he proceeds with his
expansion project. He heard and understood our concerns and he will put our suggestions into consideration. The
conversation ended in a friendly note.
Thank you very much for your time and help, and we hope you have a happy Thanksgiving holiday.
Sincerely,
Eric & Cindy Fang, Tai-Tsong Wang, and Jay Huang
i/1
2)865 San Fernando
R-2017-33; RM-a)017-39
Page 6 of 9
addition to the written comments, staff has liad multiple meetings during tlie comment
period witli at least five of the properbv ovvi'iers to better understand tlieir concems and
to answer their questions.
A summary of the comments is below with Staff responses in italics.
1. Tree Removal: Ail adjacent property owner is requesting that the existing liquid
amber tree located in the frcint soutl-iwest corner c'+f the properry be removed as it
is causing damage to the pipeline and foundation of the adjacent properb,r.
A Liquid And-ier tree is riot considered a Protected Tree per the Cit3fs Mu.nicipal Code arxd
therefore, a tree removal permit is not reqtiired. The properh) ozoner hns agreed to remove
the liqriid amber tree. However, this is a privcrte arrriytgemeyrt ay'td outside the scc'ipe of the
cr.trrent permits desired.
2. Privacy: The proposed second-story additio'ii aiid deck will create privacy and
security issues.
The Sirtgle-Family Residential Ordincmce requires privacy play'xtirtgs for all second-stor3l
balcorxies and second-story zoirrdows with a sill height below 5 feet that have views into
neighboring prolierties. Tlxe prolierty ozoner is required to iyxstrdl privacy screeriing
Idrmtity.gs nlovxg the zoesterrt, eastern, and northern pmperty lines to comply with this
requiremevrL. As z'i conditiort tea approval for the project, the privacy pltmtings zoi71 171!
protected by a covenant recorded with th.e Santa Ciara County. T"he coiwerryed neighbors
are atoare t;f this requirei'rxent.
3. . 'l'he pitdied-roof of the proposed carport produces a significant
inttusion of the backyardviews ofneighbors. Ad.ditionally, the carportis designed
in a manner than can easily be closed off without the neighbors' and city's notice,
and become interior space.
On June 24, 2019, the property o;xoner and applicrtnt submitted plans for n revised carport
to address these conments. The revised cmport incorporates a fhnt roofline and reduces the
zoidt)i of the crtiport posts. Additionally, the applicrmt has reduced tlic ronf pitch o.f tlie
carport by approximately 4 feet.
Code. If such n future pn>pcsrd meets the city's standards, it may be permitted. Should rtrry
unpemitted constructiorr tr;ike place, the City's Buildir'tg Division can be notified, whic'i'.
zoill take appropriate action to resolve the issue.
yl lnahting perinit and/or Lannin entitlement is required fina all construction projectsgjffJ
J TT'i 11r ,
111l(7 fliB.yd fll(;,(ila(i)wrt3r nlrrmna't(pshiyq tti rr'rr nsr r - -
g;53;34y,'tl33li>PH)t>ruiam,<r...H'zryy)7j.rrr4,lyrrrittlqricit3,raq(uyqiqtqtrmanra'= rmariuira'i;g
4. Neighborliood Harmony & Propertv VaIues: The proposed expansion will
negatively stand out in the rieigl'iborliood due to the existing sliort front-yard
setback, the l"ieight of the existing first floor, the proposed building length, and tlie
proposed location ofthe second-story and balcony. Additionally, tlie architectural
design of the proposed expansion does not fit in with the n'iodem design of other