22.Cliff Cowles appeal
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
FAX (408) 777-3333
CITY F
CUPEIQ"INO
Community Development Department
SUMMARY
AGENDA NO. ).;t
AGENDA DATE Februarv 6.2007
Property Owner:
Property Location:
Appeal ofR-2006-08 & RM-2006-13
Jessica Rose & John Tracy
Elena Herrera & Subir Sengupta
Mehrdad & Homa Mojgani
21180 Grenola Avenue
Application:
Appellants: .
SUBJECT:
Consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve Application Nos.
R-2006-08 and RM-2006-13, regarding a Residential Design Review and Minor
Residential Permit to construct a new, two-story 4,219 square foot residence with two
second-story rear yard decks.
RECOMMENDATION:
The City Council may take one of the following actions:
1. Uphold the appeals and deny the Planning Commission's approval of R-2006-08
and RM-2006-13; or
2. Uphold the appeals and modify the Planning Commission's approval of R-2006-
08 and RM-2006-13; or
3. Deny the appeals and uphold the Planning Commission's approval of R-2006-08
and RM-2006-13
BACKGROUND:
On November 30, 2006, the City received two appeals of the Planning Commission's
approval of the residential design review and minor residential permit to construct a
two-story, 4,219 square foot single-family residence with two second-story rear yard
decks at 21180 Grenola Avenue. One appeal was filed by Jessica Rose and John Tracy
(See Exhibit A), who are the adjacent property owners to the west of the subject
property and reside at 10410 Ann Arbor Avenue. The other appeal (See Exhibit B) was
filed by Elena Herrera and Subir Sengupta, who reside two houses to the east of the
subject property at 21150 Grenola Avenue. On January 30, 2007, Elena Herrera and
Subir Sengupta also submitted an addendum to their appeal (See Exhibit C) to further
explain their concerns.
lL-l
Printed on Recycled Paper
Appeals ofR-2006-08 & RM-2006-13
Page 2
February 6, 2007
-----------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
The appeals were scheduled to be heard at the January 16, 2007 City Council meeting;
however, the property owner requested a continuance to the February 6th meeting due
to a family emergency.
On November 14, 2006, the Planning Commission, on a 3-2 vote (Vice Chair Giefer and
Commissioner Chien voted no), denied the appeals submitted on September 6, 2006 by
Jessica Rose, John Tracy, Elena Herrera and Subir Sengupta, and upheld the approval
by the Director of Community Development to construct the proposed two-story
residence with second story rear yard decks as proposed by the property owner, with
the additional condition that the property owners submit a complete landscape privacy
protection landscape plan. The condition required that the landscape plan be reviewed
and approved by the Planning Commission and include a site plan of the project, the
30-degree cones of vision from each second story window jamb and balconies, and the
location, species and canopy diameter of existing and proposed trees and shrubs to
satisfy the privacy protection landscape measures.
The residential design review (R-2008-06) and minor residential permit (RM-2006-13)
were originally approved by the Director of Community Development on August 21,
2006. The Director's approval included conditions of approval that limited the size of
the master bedroom balcony to a maximum six-foot depth and 60 square feet, retention
of the existing 31-inch diameter Coast Live Oak tree in the rear yard in accordance with.
the City Arborist's report, and privacy protection landscaping along the western side
and rear property lines.
DISCUSSION:
Appellant Issues
The appeals were filed by the same appellants as the ones filed at the Planning
Commission level. The appeal filed by Jessica Rose and John Tracy (See Exhibit A)
include concerns related to: .
Planning Commission's approval of the second story rear yard decks
Landscape requirements for mitigation of privacy impacts
Jessica Rose and John Tracy are requesting that the City Council consider requiring a
1/ faux balcony" that would allow for a sliding glass door and railing, but would prohibit
a patio projecting out from the second story wall, and a privacy protection landscape
plan that addresses their concerns.
The appeal filed by Elena Herrera and Subir Sengupta (See Exhibit B) and the
addendum to the appeal filed on January 30th (See Exhibit C) include the following
concerns:
Architectural design, neighborhood fit and massing of the proposed residence
Privacy impacts of the second story rear yard decks
J2 ~ J-
Appeals ofR-2006-08 & RM-2006-13
Page 3
February 6,2007
--------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
Potential of the proposed building colors to affect temperature and glare in the
neighborhood
Landscape requirements for mitigation of privacy impacts
Preservation of the oak tree in the rear yard
Lack of compatibility of existing homes in the Garden Gate neighborhood built
when the neighborhood was in the Santa Clara County jurisdiction
Architectural ramifications of an added privacy barrier to the balconies
Their appeal requests the City Council to reverse the decision of the Planning
Commission, recommend a Design Review process with a decision that is agreeable to
all parties, re-notification of the neighborhood, and that the impact of a 14-foot high
entry feature along the front elevation be illustrated to show how the entry feature
height is measured.
Planning Commission Issues
During the Commission's discussion of this project at its October 10th meeting, the
Commission provided direction to the applicant to address the following comments:
Reducej eliminate the master bedroom balcony
Lower the entry feature on the front elevation
Removejrefine the second story bay window on the front elevation
Provide increased height and density of plantings along the west side of the
property for privacy protection
Restore the privacy protection landscaping along the east side of the property
Provide front yard landscaping andj or brickj rock features on the front elevation
Provide a complete privacy protection landscape plan
· Identify more subdued colors for the residence
Staff also recommended that the applicant reduce the depth of the second story balcony
and add a screening wall around a portion of the balcony to minimize the views into
the adjacent property.
At its November 14th meeting, the Commission reviewed revised plans from the
property owners that incorporated lowering of the entry feature and removal of the
second story bay window on the front elevation, but did not reduce or eliminate the
master bedroom balcony or provide an accurate plot plan showing privacy protection
within the 30 degree cone of vision from the second story windows and sufficient
labeling of tree and shrub types and installation sizes. Additionally, no landscaping
was provided for the front yard and no changes were made to the color scheme of the
residence.
The property owners explained that they wanted to retain the master bedroom deck as
proposed, but would be willing to enhance the privacy protection landscaping and
provide lattice screening around a portion of the balcony to mitigate the privacy
lL~J
Appeals ofR-2006-08 & RM-2006-13
Page 4
February 6,2007
-----------------------------------------------------------~------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
impacts. The owners also indicated that they could enhance the front yard landscaping
to soften the front elevation of the residence.
As a result, the Planning Commission denied the appeals and upheld the original
approval by the Director of Community Development with the additional condition to
bring a complete landscape privacy protection plan to the Planning Commission for
approval.
Mediation Process
The City offered the appellants and the property owners, Homa and Mehrdad Mojgani,
the opportunity to participate in a mediation process to encourage the property owners
and the appellants to reach agreement on the project themselves and to preclude the
need for a City Council meeting. The City contracted with Project Sentinel, an
independent mediation consultant, in mid-December, at which time all of the parties
involved were notified that mediation would be offered to them, and would take place
if all parties agreed to participate. It was also made clear that the mediation process
was a service being offered by the City through Project Sentinel as an independent
party, without any obligation to participate.
Project Sentinel did receive favorable responses from the appellants that they were
willing to participate. However, Project Sentinel also reported to the staff that the
property owners were not willing to participate. Therefore, the mediation process was
not possible.
Revised Privacy Protection Landscape Plan
On January 24, 2007, the property owners submitted a revised landscape plan (See
Exhibit D) for review. The landscape plan provides landscaping along the rear and
west side property lines; however, no landscaping is provided along the east property
line. Staff finds that the landscape plan is not sufficient, given that it does not
adequately show the 30-degree cones of vision from each second story window with
sills less than five feet in height along the side and rear elevations, it does not indicate
the exact variety (species) and size at installation of shrubs and trees to be planted, and
does not include privacy protection landscaping along the east property line. Without
information regarding the exact species of shrubs and trees to be planted, staff cannot
determine the ability of these plantings to serve as privacy protection landscaping.
There are no flowering pear trees on the City's approved privacy protection
landscaping list. If the City Council denies the appeals and upholds the Planning
Commission's decision, the landscape plan will be scheduled for a Planning
Commission hearing.
Enclosures:
Exhibit A: Appeal submitted by Jessica Rose and John Tracy
Exhibit B: Appeal submitted by Elena Herrera and Subir Sengupta
Exhibit C: Addendum to the appeal submitted by Elena Herrera and Subir Sengupta
22--<-(
Appeals ofR-2006-08 & RM-2006-13
Page 5
February 6,2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit D: Privacy Protection Landscape Plan submitted on January 24, 2007
Exhibit E: Privacy Protection Landscape Plan submitted on November 14, 2006
Exhibit F: Petition signed by neighbors in support of proposed residence
Exhibit G: Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 6429 & 6430
Exhibit H: Planning Commission minutes of November 14, 2006
Exhibit I: Planning Commission Staff Report dated November 14, 2006 w / attachments
Prepared by: Aki Honda Snelling, Senior Planner
Submitted by:
Approved by:
,-~;~ e~?cA'~w)
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
~
David W. Knapp
City Manager
G:planningj pdreportj appealsjR-2006-08, CC Appeal
1-2<-5
Exhibit A
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3223
f5) [E (G [E ~ W [E rn1
lr\1 NOV 3 0 2006 I~
CITY OF
CUPEIQ"INO
CUPERTINO CITY CLERK
Email
APPEAL
KfV'j ~LOOb~ 08 ~ klY\ 2-00Co,~13
~jomCA i Me,h('cloc~ /NCllrI;- ~Cowl(S
I
~ess ICCI,,-, Rose- ~\ -Sahnlcocvo
, () ~ll 0 A (l f\ rC1 <;; bo\:'" PI \J-c:,(l \J ~,
d5S-Sl~.~
r 0 So e.-1-ct,,\ c --( .3 f2 s b G ~ La ):::Jc,\ \ n-L -t
1.
Application No.
2.
Applicant(s) Name:
3.
Appellant(s) Name:
Address
Phone Number
4. Please check one:
.Appeal a decision of Director of Community Development
~~ppeal a decision of Planning CoffiIIiISSl~
5. Date of determination of Director or mailing of notice of City decision:
6. Basis of appeal: S-'U...- (~t1c;\c}~1- :J- <pCA~V..J p~
i) Se. GOn CI\. S .J-o,~ ~-e...(A. c b::A..1 u5'fl \--eQ. C~ \ (I V 0, s Iv--<- +--0 o0'r
p<c> (pU~ '
i-) l(l\nJSGc::A.,p')n~ L-ct^0no+ SUC-C-eS5~\\d yY11 h'~o, k
P-(fU-C-\j \:S5v'€,5,
Sign.ture(s) '~ -, ~f'S2 . .
( . .-c.QC)~\, \ //1 ~'-/
.J J
Please complete form, include appeal fee of $149.00, and return to the attention of the
City Clerk, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, (408) 777-3223.
1- '2 ~~
John R. Tracy
Jessica T. Rose
10410 Ann Arbor Avenue
Cupertino, CA95014
408-255-5126
rosetracy3@sbcglobal.net
To: City Council of Cupertino
November 30, 2006
This letter and submitted fee are to Appeal the approval of the Minor Residential Permit for the
residence at 21180 Grenola Drive, Cupertino. We reside on the western adjoining property.
Our Appeal is based on two counts:
1) The second story rear balconies are invasive to our property and violate our right to
privacy. The layout of these two properties does not allow adequate spacing to protect
our house from the adverse visual impact of a rear balcony.
2) Landscaping cannot successfully mitigate privacy concerns pertaining to this situation.
The most current landscaping plan (approx. revision #6) is substandard and has yet to
meet minimum ordinance requirements.
Second StOry Rear Balconies:
The purpose of the Minor Residential Permit in the R-1 Ordinance is to allow the appeal process
to judge disputed balconies. We are appealing the approval of the Minor Residential Permit for
this balcony to the City Council because the existence of this balcony on this lot size and
location will violate our right to privacy and cannot be mitigated by privacy landscaping. The
purpose of the Minor Residential Permit requirement for all 2nd story balconies is to protect the
privacy of adjoining properties and provide affected neighbors with the opportunity to comment
on how new development will impact their property. City planners created this separate permit
for balconies to address the reality that an ordinance cannot approve or deny all balconies
without exception. The R-1 ordinance was designed to allow rear yard decks expecting that if a
a balcony was perceived as invasive, the appeal process is available for protest. Our planners
recognized that Cupertino real estate offers a large variation in lot size and terrain for
development. A balcony which might offer a lovely enhancement to a foothill property with
reasonable acreage might be intrusive and intrusive in a neighborhood set on flat land with
smaller lot size.
In our neighborhood, the proposed balconies will violate our right to privacy in our house and
yard, and will affect our quality of life and the value of our property. Any person using the
master balcony will be looking down directly into our main living room, patio, master bedroom
window and entire back yard areas. And any person in our house or yard can look directly up at
the balcony's occupant.
Privacy Protection Plan! Landscaoinq
The R-1 ordinance states that the intent of landscaping requirement is to provide substantial
visual screening "from the privacy impacts and visual mass and bulk of a two story home..."
within three years of planting. A balcony has a significantly more invasive presence than a 2nd
story window. A solid landscaping plan should be a critical element of any proposed second
story house in Cupertino, especially one with balconies. Since July 11, 2006 we have received
3 plan approval notification letters from the City Planning department on this property.
1
:2.2--7
Each letter stated approval of Minor Residential Permit for the rear balcony, and yet the
enclosed landscaping plan in each mailing failed to meet even the minimum ordinance
requirements. We question how the planning department can determine if a balcony is
justifiable without requiring a landscaping plan that meets ordinance requirements. In our
appeal to the Planning Commission, the many deficiencies in the landscaping plan were cited
by every member of the Planning Commission and drew unanimous concern about its
incomplete status.
The "Faux balcony" solution supported by several planning commissioners makes good sense.
A faux design could include the large sliding glass doors for fresh air, natural light, and direct
views into the backyard while limiting views into neighboring yards. The railing would be
cosmetic and offer the look and feel of a balcony as an architectural feature, without providing a
60 square foot patio perched above neighboring yards and houses. There is just not enough
sRace between the two houses to mitigate the privacy violation from a balcony as required by
the R-1 ordinance.
We led a core group of residents that annexed our Garden Gate neighborhood six years ago.
The City must remember that the primary argument in support of annexation was to have
protection from the excessively large two-story homes that were thoughtless planned due to
weak County ordinances. We saw our annexation into the City as protection that our property
value and quality of life would no longer be compromised when a new home is built. We wanted
a change from the "just because the ordinance reads... then you may have" mentality
experienced under County jurisdiction. We need a City government to guide our neighborhood
growth in a fair and reasonable manner.
For the first time, we are testing the process we worked so hard to have available to us. We
want the City to recognize that an existing homeowner has the right to expect a maintained level
of privacy during development of a neighboring home, just as a new property owner has the
right to build a new home. Your attention to this matter is especially important to our many
Garden Gate neighbors who are concerned about maintaining our privacy and quality of life as
the inevitable new growth occurs around us.
We invite any interested party to arrange for a site visit and come onto our property. Stand in
our kitchen to view up at the orange story poles outlining the proposed balcony and walk around
our back yard to see if you can find a spot in which your presence would not be viewed by a
balcony occupant. It is important that those making such powerful decisions see first hand how
severely this proposed balcony affects both our quality of life and the property value of our
newly remodeled house.
r
2
2 L ~6-
tlTy-aF
CUPEIQ"INO
1.
Application No.
2.
Applicartt(s) Name:
3.
Appellant(s) Name:
Address
Phone Number
Email
Exhibit B
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3223
rr [S r i;'{i ~ r;:,\ I
\::!J b J Y!J !C 1 ~ "\ \ I
,i! i i i
': I I! t
ii I I! I
" 3 0 :,:: 1[0 i
CUPERTINO CiTY CLERK
II rB} lE
IUllI
l
APPEAL
R fY1-~{)00-Df f Rn1 ;)-{JO~-/ 3
Ifo M4 J ,M. y h IrO ,j ClA;::-r:- ({) tV2i?5
grAM-- ,LkJU!X"(4- ~ (C; ut) e S fJLJ6urTJI-
.2-1/ su GF-t!7Jo&-A- ~
~}! ~);2- C1:;7Y-/
eJ'er7~~ herr~nt ~ Z; CChO-o. 6ZJ //}./{
4. Please check one:
Appeal a decision of Director of Community Development
~ppeal a decision of Planning Commission
5. Date of determination of Director or mailing of notice of City decision:
libv'I lv, ?~tJ&
6.
Basis of appeal:
Pro-#C--T /~
--r7-It ?J-
r;-7A. --' ~ GU I DtLf,ufS}. 072-
rt/U_/sd)'t- ) f7 c:;.
Dt2D1 ;JA-tU e--G. ';fE~ ~tfeu
Signature(s)
tY~J~~
Please complete form, include appeal fee of$149,00, and return to the attention of the
City Clerk, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupert~no, (408) 777-3223.
22--1
ELENA HERRERA
SUBIR SENGUPTA
21150 GRENOLA DRIVE
CUPERTINO, CA 95014
408.252.0504
To the City Council of Cupertino
With this letter, I am requesting that the City Council of Cupertino reevaluate the denial of my
appeal of the Project Planning Commission, Appeal of application # RM-2006-08 and # RM-
2006-13.
My original appeal of the Planning Commissions approval ofthis project, consisted of several
points:
Item 1: Project is not consistent with existing neighborhood look and feel
Item 2: Balconies
Item 3: Temperature(Heat) and Glare
Item 4: Privacy Screening
Item 5: Heritage Oak
Item 1 -
. Section 19.28.010 states that the R1 ordinance is intended to create, preserve, and
enhance areas suitable for detached dwellings in order to:
A. Enhance the identity of residential neighborhoods
B. Ensure provision oflight, air, and a reasonable level of privacy to individual
residential parcels
C. Ensure a reasonable level of compatibility in scale of structures within residential
neighborhoods
D. Reinforce the predominately low intensity setting in the community
With regard to A: Please refer to photos 1, 2, & 3 attached.
Photos 1 & 2 represent the two most recently completed homes that are comparable to the
. project under review.
The project's color rendering (attached) clearly illustrates the reality of what will be
placed into the neighborhood, and shows that the massive, blockish look, while meeting
the setback requirements, does not emulate a style that will not be highly intrusive into
the neighborhood it will reside in.
Photo 3 is also a fairly recent addition to the neighborhood, but it represents a home that,
while only 3 homes away from the project, cannot possibly be construed as comparable
for 3 reasons:
1) This home at 21140 Grenola itself was out of compliance of the ordinance and
had to go through the Design Review process;
2) The home sits on a more than 13,000 square foot lot; one could successfully
argue that although within the required maximum coverage area of the lot, the
5300 sq ft home remains outside of the boundaries of what could be seen as
compatible with the scale, look, and feel of the neighborhood;
3) One could successfully demonstrate that the house is not a single family
residence at all, but a 2 full-family residence. With only the interior placement of
one door, there would be a kitchen, family room, full bath and bedroom, and a 2-
car garage separate from the remaining 4 bedroom, 2 car garage home attached,
and with space available for laundry facilities and a spa.
THURSDAY, NOVEl\offiER 30, 2006
PAGE lOF 5
)1 '(0
ELENA HERRERA
SUBIR SENGUPTA
21150 GRENOLA DRIVE
CUPERTINO, CA 95014
408.252.0504
. . Section 19.28.060 - C-a states that the mass and bulk of the design shall be reasonably
compatible with the predominant neighborhood pattern. New construction shall not be
disproportionately larger than, or out of scale with, the neighborhood pattern in terms of
building forms, roof pitches, eave heights, ridge heights, and entry feature heights.
To the points of roof pitches, eave heights, ridge heights, and entry feature heights,
this home is in no way compatible within a 3 block radIus with the exception of the
homes built under County guidelines, and is certainly out of scale with its immediate
neighbors.
With regard to Photos 7 & 8, one can see that 3 blocks away, across Stelling, and
arguably outside of our neighborhood but within the greater "Garden Gate" district,
these same-day comparison photos illustrate that Greenleaf Drive has completely
been modified from one style to another. I maintain that our neighborhood
immediately adjacent to Garden Gate school still retains a look and feel that is still
wooded, spacious, and inviting in comparison. We are in danger of losing all of that
if we don't carefully work with builders now to present ideas that are consistent with
the look and feel of our highly valued and treasured neighborhood, and to diligently
work to avoid the cookie-cutter approach to home development.
Item 2 - Balconies
I submit that the Minor Residential Permit for 2 rear balconies is simply that: A permit -
a request for an evaluation - and is therefore subject to approval or denial. If not, what
purpose does the permit have? If they will always be approved, why have the permit
process? Indeed, the formulation of the permit was developed so that neighbors could
appeal if they felt it was outside of the reasonable scope of development.
While I agree that we should be able to build balconies if we wish, and to enjoy that
feature, I hold that it is incumbent upon the planning commission to:
. ensure that the balconies are appropriate to the neighborhood such as the larger lots
on the hills above Regnart Road,
. that placement ofthe balconies is not intrusive into a neighboring property,
. and in addition that landscaping and neighbor concurrence is required.
With regard to placement, these 2 balconies, while appropriate to the current floor plan,
would have been far less intrusive to adjacent properties had they been brought in from
the comers or sides of the house.
Although one can argue that standing in front of a window gives one the same view as
that from a balcony, the implication to a balcony environment is that one deliberately
steps out upon it to enjoy the ambiance and views of the adjacent areas, while the
window, while it can also be used for gazing, is more frequently used for light rather than
"living upon" - in other words, a window is a part of the daily living space, is frequently
covered by shades and draperies, and is walked past more often that it is deliberately used
THuRSDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2006
PAGE20F5
1-2. - ( l
ELENA HERRERA
SUBIR SENGUPTA
21150 GRENOLA DRIVE
CUPERTINO, CA 95014
408.252.0504
for the outside living experience that a balcony invites. A visit to the site and the
adjacent sites is invited and would prove useful, fm sure.
Item 3 - Temperature (Heat) and Glare
Having lived now for more than a year across the street from a similar home to the
project in terms of scale and design components, and having walked innumerable times in
the neighborhood across Stelling I referred to earlier, I know that with further
documented studies I will be able to illustrate the negative impact to the community and
environment of the predominately concrete homes that have been built. I feel the
planning commission, if not able to specifically state that the ordinance requires a mix of
textures, materials, color schemes to mitigate a predominate theme from changing a
neighborhood, then the commission has at least the responsibility of enforcing a
landscape plan that will temper the impact of such a large structure.
Item 4 - Privacy Screening
To date I have not seen a landscaping plan that minimally meets the ordinance with
regard to privacy screening. In particular, while the immediate neighbor to the east of the
property signed a waiver of interest due to his not having any windows on that side of his
house, the ordinance was developed for the perspective of the field of vision from the
proposed house.
If the City Council were to review the meeting minutes, and took the time to review the
commissions deliberations, I believe the council would find that the commission was
unanimous on the point that the landscaping plan was and remains deficient.
Item 5 - Heritage Oak
To this date, I have not seen any documentation that illustrates the plans to preserve the
oak. In the commissions deliberations there was discussion of procedures that are
customary to ensure that the building process ensured things such ground cover and
boundaries set to keep traffic and equipment away from the tree and its root system, but
the original project evaluation called for a minimum distance of the foundation to the tree
of 15 ft - - I submit that that determination was truly minimal giving the age of the tree
and it's current size and spread. That the perimeter of the house is now at 14 ft 2 inches
which was somehow determined as "should be okay" is highly questionable and that a
second independent arborist opinion should be obtained.
With regard to my original appeal, several things were very easy to see as reasonable requests,
and some changes were made by the applicant:
. The bay window in the upper story was deemed asymmetrical and out of
character with the style and architecture of the home, so it was removed.
. The round turret noted above the entry is still in place, and was determined to be
in keeping with the style of the house. While I agree that it is within the style of
the house, the overall design of the house cannot be construed as within the
predominant look and feel of the neighborhood.
. Landscaping has been modified, but neither to the planning commissions
satisfaction nor to the requirements of the ordinance.
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2006
PAGE30F5
2 2--( ~
ELENA HERRERA
SUBIR SENGUPTA
21150 GRENOLA DRIVE
CUPERTINO, CA 95014
408.252.0504
. The entry feature was deemed to be too high. While the technical specifications
of the maximum 14 ft entry height were met, the record (video) of the meeting
shows that the obscure critical point of the "face plate" , what it is, and the
whether the measurement is at the top, middle, or the bottom of the plate, is stilI
not clear to either the general public.
Summary
The homes that are of a similar look and feel to the proposed project in the neighborhood were-
without exception - built within the tenure of the county guidelines and are one of the main
reasons that the neighborhood voted to be annexed into the City' of Cupertino.
The planning commission recommendations were consistent with our appeal at the meeting of
October 10. The reason for the denial on November 14 is unclear.
We request the City Council
. reverse the decision of the planning commission,
. recommend a Design Review process that is structured and with and outcome that is
agreeable to all parties,
. that, due to documented failures in the notification process, the neighborhood be re-
notified so that misconceptions regarding the size and scope of the house and project can
be clarified, i.e., the house is not a 3,500 square foot home, but rather a 4,200 square foot
structure, as erroneously represented to several neighbors,
. and that the impact of a 14 ft entry feature can fully be illustrated.
So many at the meeting - and in the neighborhood - are unfamiliar with face plates, and
indeed thought that the full feature was what was being considered. Theoretically, a very
high structure could be built above the face plate measurement, negating the value of the
specification.
We very much appreciate your attention.
z~~~
Elena Herrera and Subir Sengupta
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2006
PAGE 4 OF 5
l 1-'-{ 3
~.~:~..~:~-_. .~-:.
g~l,,-;;O(t>.~ ..... ...... -vaoBU1lyj~)
-V~ ~1ji1J, ~mlBU5!s
r;; (J- E -' i,~!;i;~;~;,rK!;'~: 'alee lB^oJddV
~I ~ cJl-ur;- ;~~;\~~~;;~:;':',:U61'BOildd\..ll^lU
{J~~Cl';",~:,.."...l:-.' ," _., .-~+,~ v f10
90 .' 00 ._i' .. '.U.O!lB~lIdd\f 8
22---{L[
,., ....--.
5' or::,
Two recent projects, one on Hazelbrook (above) one on Greenleaf (west
of Stelling) that are more compatible with the current neighborhood look,
feel, and size.
:..---
:k.'.~ .
-:.".
:.:4;.,
s: ~:'~~~'_.
..........
.-'- --
.~, .
VMn.1-
ph~.~
/
-._.~...._..__,.:..,..-.'"...:c,._'......,:-..:..:.....,.:,~..'..-.:,'.~~~..='...-.~.'.-..:-"c'~~~....-.:,'~.'..:.'.'.,.' .:.....__...._,~~:.~:........~J:::~~:~'r-.~,.;.~...--.;....:.-..,~..-~...'........-.....,-..'..~:-,..,........,..~,.,:.'...~.-:.. .:~ .,- ' .
-;.:.,-C;..7: ..-,~:::-,;._.~~ ,,:,,:;~~~/~:;,;;.j~~~~~r.
Re 21180 Grenola
21-- ( )"
Two projects referenced with balconies, both in immediate neighborhood
to 21180 Grenola.
21150 Grenolo
'L'.-J>~//
/'''''~/'
..;1'<
JL..
Current Hazelbrook project (21135 Hazelbrook)
; > .;". ~._,.;-;.~'
.'.-,':' ,.;;.
. "-~. ..,-,.
: ~. :'< i;.;,:t:~
< :; ..,.'. :.4-:'::-:""~:, ;,'::~
Re 21180 Grenola
?~t-o.)
r~~~4
22-lk
~
1\v>1v-
Views from neighbor on Ann Arbor, under the mistaken impression that he
would not be affected by the project. He was notified per the mailing,
however the reference map was misleading and indicated that the
project was 2 blocks away and so he did not comment.
fhok~
Re 21180 Grenola
1:2-,-11
Fits with current look and feel?
(Pictures taken on same day)
Before:
, rko\-D 1
After:
,\7\w1n ~
Re 21180 Grenola
1 L -( J
Exhibit C
21150 GRENOLA DRIVE
CUPERTINO, CA 95014
408.252.0504
JAN 3 0 2007
ELENA HERRERA
SUBIR SENGUPTA
[E~[E~W[E
CUPERTINO CITY CLERK
anuary 30, 2007
To the City Council of Cupertino
Re - Council Meeting February 2, 2007
Appeal: R-2006-08, and RM~2006-13
I've been advised that appellants will have 3 minutes to speak, unfortunately, it will take
you longer than that to read this. I appreciate the process that allows me to submit this
for you consideration. With regard to the above noted appeal, we have several issues we
wish to expound on. Our concerns derive from the fact that we are not trying to be
subversive or in any way difficult. We simply feel we have the right to speak out, and
rely on your judgement to be able to hear all points. Many thanks in advance.
Size and Scale
Cupertino has been cited by the Mercury News in a West Valley Section Page 1 article
title "Growing Pains in Fremont." In fact, the design guidelines noted below are the focal
point of the article.
Section 19.28.060
B ~ Floor Area Ratio
...F AR shall be used in conjunction with the residential development standards and
guidelines in this ordinance in determining whether the mass and scale of the project
is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
C - Design Guidelines
1 a - The mass and bulk of the design shall be reasonably compatible with the
predominant neighborhood pattern. New construction shall not be
disproportionately large than, or out of scale with, the neighborhood pattern in terms
of building forms, roof pitches, eave heights, ridge heights, and entry feature heights.
While I agree that a person can point to large homes in the neighborhood, it must be
noted that the majority are homes built during the jurisdiction of the county of Santa
Clara, and not since the Garden Gate neighborhood was annexed into the city. These
older homes MUST be discounted when using them as a basis for current building
guidelines, as this was one of many protections that the neighborhood looked forward to
when becoming part of Cupertino.
The three newer homes under development in the neighborhood are in line with the
project addressed by this appeal, and I maintain that this represents a change in the
neighborhood look and feel, not a preservation of it, nor even of a graceful transition.
Instead, the houses are out of scale, and the style is more in line with the almost complete
transition of the part of Garden Gate on the east side of Stelling Road.
2-2- ~I q
~.
ELENA HERRERA
SUBIR SENGUPTA
21150 GRENOLA DRIVE
CUPERTINO, CA 95014
408.252.0504
This small pocket of Garden Gate is precious, and deserves to have it's heritage
preserved. I understand completely that the ratio's and measurements have been met, but
that the guidelines are not being observeq with respect to the scale of forms, pitches, and
eave, ridge, and entry heights. I
Size with regard to neighborhood agreement
A petition was passed by the homeowner asking for support. A wise move.
Unfortunately, I have heard thrice, once from Ms. Mojgani herself, that the home is 3500
square feet. Two other residents involved have hear the same figure. The proposed
home is 4200 sq. feet, but without the garage, the figure is closer to 3500 sq. ft. I am
dismayed by the misrepresentation. Yes, it meets the measurement restrictions in one
aspect, but not the spirit of the Rl ordinance, nor the content quoted above.
Landscaping
To date, I have not been assured that the oak tree in the rear yard is protected. The
original landscaping plan represented this as a sycamore, even though the disclosure
documents presented during the sale of the property clearly stated it was a protected tree.
Though subsequent plans have changed it to an oak, the first arborist report (and the only
one I've seen) states that the minimum protected envelope be 15' out - for some reason
this has been reduced to 14'2". I am not confident that this oak tree won't be impacted by
the massive equipment and trenching that will exist within this 14-15' range. I
understood the 15' to be the minimum area to be protected - what has changed that this
has become a smaller envelope?
Balconies
Of major concern to me, is the proposed design of the balconies. These balconies are
being sought as part of the Minor Residential Permit for "two rear yard decks." The
placement of these two balconies places them in direct line of site to the neighbor's
backyard, kitchen and living room, and more. Again, while I don't oppose balconies in
general, I believe the design of these balconies warrants denial of the permit.
Of special concern is the tendency to say by one planning commission member "if a
resident wants a balcony they should have one." I maintain that the application of the
permit is just that: a REQUEST for permission to build - not a guarantee. The permit
may be approved or denied. If it is the will of the city to always approve all requests of
this nature, then WHY have the permit process? I still maintain that balconies are
inappropriate for this neighborhood, and more relevant to hillside vistas and acreage.
Commissioner Steve Piasecki noted (as is recorded by the video) in the October 1 Oth
meeting, the permit for the balcony was specifically drafted with the intention of allowing
neighbors to comment on for the purpose of determining the appropriateness of it. You
know have neighbors in front of you saying it's not the balcony, it's where the balcony is
'LL- 2--0
l
, ~
ELENA HERRERA
SUBIR SENGUPTA
21150 GRENOLA DRIVE
CUPERTINO, CA 95014
408.252.0504
The request to deny the Minor Residential Permit is based on
1. My right to help in the transition of this old neighborhood, and to ensure that the
integrity of the existing property's and the neighborhood look and feel are
maintained.
2. My right to appeal the permit is valid and I have the expectation that the concept
noted by Mr. Piasecki is true.
3. Our current home has 3 balconies facing our property - - it will take many years
for the privacy screening to take effect. Weare in year two of the plantings, and
there is absolutely no expectation of privacy. We are grateful for two things: a)
our first neighbors are gracious and kind, and thankfully do not use their balconies
as living areas.
Our "second" neighbor with a balcony
. placed the structure within the center of their footprint,
. recessed it into the roofline, and
. kept it very small.
While it looks directly into our neighbor's home with the two balconi~s, it is
minimally intrusive into our yard. We got lucky, and that's all. Note: Since
we share a property line with both properties, we are still quite disturbed by
the fact that we were not noticed with regard to project planning on this
"second" project.
Color Scheme
I do not take issue with the color scheme, it is not intrusive, I only wish that more people
would understand the greater implications of so much light-colored masonry in such
large, massive amounts, and the affect on the neighborhood. I cannot win on this issue,
but I emphasize that I am filing this appeal and noting this point in an effort to keep our
neighborhood from the complete turn-over that has occurred on the other side of Stelling.
I walk the neighborhood regularly: The minimal landscaping and the massive reflective
surfaces create a palpable difference in temperature.
MOlgani Petition
I feel the need to make it clear that we have met with the Mojgani's on more than one
occasion. Documentation exists that states that we won't come to the door. I personally
have met with the Mojgani's when they have come by unannounced, I was straight out of
the shower without shoes and with wet hair, and enjoyed a very good dialogue with them
for well-over 40 minutes. Another time, I welcomed them in and we sat at my table for
some time. I understand their hopes and their dismay at the long process, but we have
not delayed them for 5 months. We have rightfully filed one appeal (not cOnstant
appeals) and unluckily for all of us the holidays came into the picture.
The comprises noted by the Mojgani's petition must be clarified:
.'
:2-2-1-( ,
ELENA HERRERA
SUBIR SENGUPTA
21150 GRENOLA DRIVE
CUPERTINO, CA 95014
408.252.0504
1. The height of the entryway was indeed modified, but I maintain first that it is now
more in line with the ordinance - is it really my responsibility to measure each
project? Second, if the ordinance clarified to the general public what and where
"plates" were, it would be a much easier process on everyone to ensure that what
they bring to the planning department is within the parameters established.
2. Replaced a window
Indeed, a bay window was "flattened" or removed. Similarly to the above
situation, the bay window was not at all sympathetic to the general architecture
and design of the home; again, I maintain that this change fell within the
jurisprudence of the planning department, and I am dismayed that I have been put
in the position of now hearing that they have "acceded to our wishes."
3. The balcony was reviewed extensively by the commission, and many commission
members had suggestions and comments, the overall recommendation in the
October meeting was to reduce or eliminate the balcony. I truly believe our
appeal was denied in November based on improper "measurements" - that is, the
Mojgani's purported that we were difficult to work with, when in fact we wished
we had had a chance to work with them in the DRC or in arbitration, but they are
resistant to both forums.
4. Privacy Landscaping
The project is still deficient in this area. None of the commissioners felt the
eastern landscaping should done away with, regardless of the immediate neighbor
waiving interest in the issue. It is not strictly and adjoining property issue - this
eastern wall, due to the nature of the street, will be highly visible to houses 2, 3, 4
house away.
5. Added privacy barrier
Please consider the ramifications of the design of such a barrier. Would it truly be
in line with the architecture? Would it truly be seen as a gracious amenity, or
would it be an admission that the privacy is a real and immediate issue? Would it
not imply that this is even more of a living space, and then why not call it living
space and add it to the square footage. Oh, because there is no roof? If you allow
building a permanent structure that by extends the "wall" by the additional
footage, you have created a de-facto extension to the home.
J2--- 22--
6
ELENA HERRERA
SUBIR SENGUPTA
21150 GRENOLA DRIVE
CUPERTINO, CA 95014
408.252.0504
and the fact that it more than just an arcpitectural feature. The homeowners have
maintained that they view it as a living area, and intend to use it fully.
The homeowner maintains that the view fi'om a balcony is the same as from a window,
and on this poml I agree. However, I maintain that a window - unless it has a bench-type
window seat tn it, is not usually gazed out and stayed in front of. It is usually passed by
from the inside when moving to and frq1ll the closet, the doorways, the bed, etcetera.
I believe it is important to view each prpject individually, and judge this one on it's own
werits. I sincerely hope that each of YQU had the opportunity and the inclination to view
the project from within the Tracy's hoWe. I have. While sitting at the kitchen counter
and while in the family room, the view from the Tracy's pitched windows high in their
east-facing wall looks directly at the bAlcony on the rear west side. While the Tracy's.
were smart and conscientious about tRpir remodeling efforts, and wisely placed and sized
those windows, it is burdensome <:llld hnrealistic to suppose that every neighbor facing a
new project next door could or would be so diligent in pro actively designing their homes
or in preserving their privacy.
Thank you for your efforts to fairly hear this appeal.
Elena Herrera
and Subir Sengupta
2L~ 1-3
LOCAL NEWS IN YOUR
IN BOX ... EVERY WEEI{DAY
Checking your e-mail? Why not check the
news t90? Sign up for our e-mail newsletter.
MERCURYNEWS.COM
.t-.
.. .. SUING fOR ACCESS. . . ... . ..
. .:.'Dale WaJt(;n,'ieff/~ij((qt~e{~ff~'r6~~ddters have~le~";:j
. .suitto open'LlPparts6f a canyon;'PAGE4B:"'.<'i;::i'i'l
, .'. ~.:t~.j,:~?~~"i-",~t;-;':'t;~,i~':~:;~'..-::. :.'~H ~,,'- '. ~.'.,'~~-:' ~ "'-~i ,...,~,~,.-:;~J;"..\.,_.
www.mercurynews.com/news
"e,
VS,
DRIVERIN.FATA[ CRASH SOUGHT.
.' :-;..: .,,~, .... ~- ..",,' -;..". . . - --:. ; " - ' , ..,
Police are searchfng'.for the driver of a stolen .car that..,.,:
slammed into a van Friday, killing his passenger.PAGE3B +
, '_,",l"r ."'
;fisher
opinion
'Sermng
(SUre close
he heart
'Ol1sider Bill and Jean
l of contributions to open-
ation, their campaign to
leasly houses from being
'ortola Valley neighbor-
(II like small potatoes.
is is the philanthropic
,nated $1 million to the
!n Space Trust last year
uc coastal land. They've
)f awards for their efforts
ifornia's natural trea-
lsemite to the Pacific
~ bringing their conserva-
1 to their own back yard
the former publisher of
Me and served as ambas-
II and Australia. Since the
his wife have lived on a l()"
the Westridge area of
'. They have a sprawling
\lith commanding views of
eas Fault and Windy Hill,
.uest hO~d a stable,
is place, hardly opulent
mclards
Ie propeIt)\covers three
, the Lan~ere con-
,fie day it would be sold to
"ho wo~el their one-
md repiace11:. with three gi-
ek, they asked the town
ont ~ ('rmsprv::lt.ion f>:B.Sf>:-
Growing pains in Fremont
HOMEOWNERS ARGUE OVER BUILDING RULES - OR LACK OF THEM
FREMONT
By Usa Fernandez
MercuryNews
Folks who live in Fremont are
grappling with a vexing issue - how
big can your dream home be?
On Tuesday, a group of residents,
many of whom live in low-lying
ranch homes, will address the city
council to complain about the lack of
rules regarding slapping up expan-
sive homes.
part of Fremont. And a fourth is
planned. Typically, existing homes
there are less than 2,000. sql,UU"e feet
_ about half the size of the new
homes being built. There is no defini- .
tion for what constitutes what critks
call a "monster" home.
The issue is coming to a forefront
now, some sunnise, because the
Many tony towns on the Peninsula
and in the South Bay have already
dealt with the issue by tightening
regulations.
At least three such large homes
have been built sporadically in a Bra-
dy Bunch-type neighborhood, called
Mission Ranch, in the southeastern
See HOMES, Page 2B
{ ~: ",
WISH BOOI{":;!{':/;.)~006
(~:j;~.jt~\
0/ -,
Center eases
senior isolation
Hugs, like the one Grace Soza, left, gives Jessie Navarro,
are common at MACSAAdult Day Health Care.
. "',i'
'MONSTEllW5. DREAM
What's happening: At 6:30 p.m.
Tuesday, the Fremont City Council will
discuss new ordinances regarding
two-story homes; the meeting is at
3300 Capitol Ave. in Fremont
At issue: Those who want to preserve
the homey character of their
neighborhood are up against those who
see mini-mansions as a sign of
modernity and progress.
Katrina
evacuees
toast life in
South Bay
By Dana Hull
Mercury News
Denise Johnson can still see the
water rising, as she sat in the sec-
ond-story bedroom of her New Or-
leans house and prayed that rescu-
ers would find her and her family.
Luckily, they managed to survive
the ravages of Hurricane Katrina.
But that was just the beginning of a
long journey that is far from over.
Johnson remembers standing in
line from 3:30 p.m. until 5 a.rn. to
get into New Orleans' packed air-
port, desperate for any flight out to
safety. After living in a convention
~_".. ~.. :~. ^"....+-;'" r^,~ " f',.."" Hrnnlrc
NewsLibrary Document Delivery
Page 1 of2
':- .-. 'rt ,... v 1 ' '.': J
"."J .., /\ - 1 J; '.'\"'''''f''';'./'''''' /. '\J...y(".,/-;
(~J~.!4 (~; d:~:sIJ.J ,~X\~l, r~,u.u.~~)J )1, 2~~.J.~<J I. )lj~::
1/ [,.....,
Q..:l-:'~"~'.'I~..!r..j}'.~'.i'l:' ,,,",,"" --'
~'vu.~ ...~,;...u 1'!J'Ul,.I~J'.I(;J~.,f,...Ji ~
News I Business I Sports Entertainment I Lifestyles I Opinion I Classifieds I Jobs I Cars
Archives
Note: Searching is always free, There is a $2,95 fee to view the full-text of any article,
Check out our Pricing Options,
San Jose Mercury News (CA)
December 18, 2006
Section: Local
Edition: MercuryNews.com
Page: WEB
'MONSTER' GROWING PAINS IN FREMONT
HOMEOWNERS ARGUE OVER BUILDING RULES -- OR LACK OF THEM
LISA FERNANDEZ, Mercury News
Folks who live in Fremont are grappling with a vexing issue -- how big can your dream
home be?
On Tuesday, a group of residents, many of whom live in low-lying ranch homes, will
address the city council to complain about the lack of rules regarding slapping up
expansive homes.
Many tony towns on the Peninsula and in the South Bay have already dealt with the issue by
tightening regulations.
At least three such large homes have been built sporadically in a Brady Bunch-type
neighborhood, called Mission Ranch, in the southeastern part of Fremont. And a fourth is
planned. Typically, existing homes there are less than 2,000 square feet -- about half the size of
the new homes being built. There is no definition for what constitutes what critics call a "monster"
home,
The issue is coming to a forefront now, some surmise, because the 1950s bedroom community
of Fremont is beginning to run out of space, leaving those who want to upgrade and modernize
their homes little choice but to raze and start from scratch. The battle pits those who want to
preserve the homey character of the neighborhood against those who see mini-mansions as a
sign of modernity and progress, City planners say tear-downs are increasing, estimating that
about 10 to 15 homes have been demolished and rebuilt during the past two years,
Largely driving the matter is a grass-roots group led by Nishit Vasavada, who can't stand the
large homes dwarfing his views of the East Bay hills and seem out of place in his middle-class,
tree-lined neighborhood.
"People live here for open skies," he said. "And these homes are just too big. They don't fit in
here. Plus, you have to live with the construction for a year and a half or more." Vasavada has
researched the ordinances of cities such as Los Altos, Los Gatos, Sunnyvale, Palo Alto and
Menlo Park; collected signatures of 100 neighbors upset with new houses towering over their
low-lying homes; and launched a Web site (www.mission-ranch
.com).
~2--2)
http://n1.newsbank,com/nl-searchlwe/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=11624lllED3983... 1/30/2007
NewsLibrary Document Delivery
Page 2 of2
But homeowner Wen-wei Lee, who is Vasavada's next-door neighbor on Bedford Street and
hopes to soon demolish his one-story green ranch and build a two-story home, disagrees, He
sees his new dream home as a sign of the changing times.
"I look forward for the next 50 years, but Nishit looks backward for the past 50 years. That is our
difference," Lee said in an e-mail, declining a personal interview. "I consider this progress."
Lee said his home is old and in bad condition. A structural engineer said it would be extremely
expensive to add onto his home -- just as costly as starting from scratch. He has taken out the
building permits for a new 4,200-square-foot home next to Vasavada's 1 ,670-square-foot one.
City Councilwoman Anu Natarajan, who is an architect and urban land-use designer, said she
wants Fremont to embrace more home-building guidelines to preserve neighborhood integrity.
But she also doesn't want the rules to be so authoritarian as to stifle personal expression and
creativity.
At present, there is little oversight in Fremont to individuals building new homes, other than
saying the structures can't be higher thi:m 30 feet or set back from the street about five feet.
There is also no notification process to alert neighbors that an old home is being demolished and
a new one is being built in its place.
Fremont, the Bay Area's fourth largest city, has long existed as a spacious suburb so is only
now feeling the growing pains of being nearly built out, Natarajan said.
Certainly, there are large homes -- hovering in the range of 20,000-square feet -- in Fremont.
But these villas are mostly built on the hillsides and are surrounded by spacious lots of land. The
issue in Mission Ranch and some other neighborhoods is that the two-story homes are sprouting
next to existing ranch-style houses with a few feet separating homes.
Natarajan said she would like the city to hire planning staff trained in design, something Mountain
View has, to review homeowners' plans before they build.
At Tuesday's meeting, Planning Director Jeff Schwob will lay out options for the city council
spanning from doing nothing about Fremont's scant regulations to creating stricter ones.
Some new guidelines could include: a Los Altos-style "neighborhood compatibility" approach Y
where new homes must architecturally complement one another to gain approval; a Palo Alto- / 7f ~
inspired guideline designed to keep the integrity of single-story neighborhoods; or a version of~
what Cupertino does -- new construction can't be disproportionately larger than the rest of the '\
neighborhood.
The city could better regulate privacy between neighbors a number of ways, too, Schwob said.
The council will hear the issue for the first time Tuesday but will study it further for a later vote.
Any home-building change would be too late for the Gustafsons on Austin Street. Their next-door
neighbors recently built a 3,700-square-foot two-story home with a multicolored stone porch and
high ceilings. It has a security camera that peers from above into the Gustafson's kitchen and
garden, leaving the Gustafsons feeling like they're constantly being watched. So they planted
bamboo in an attempt for more privacy. In winter, the house blocks their morning sun.
"We've learned to live with it," John Gustafson said. "But it's really kind of sad."
Copyright (c) 2006 San Jose Mercury News
21l- Ib
http://n1.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=ll624ll1ED3983...l/30/2007
Exhibit 0
Spacing @' !j
Pittrospomm
lO'I{ 20' H
-"
~.~"
.II'''
ls
lj~~
HttlOsporum
10' W
Hedge 20' H
'~
-'.
/'".
':\~~"''''\-:~l~~
- "'-"'~.",.,
"':.~"""'~1t.,
;
~'
I -.
~ ,..,.,,,,,, I
1_-..
I
I
I
I
'---"-""-'.--r
j.'
~~.~~~I~l~t~l
!,;r.L7~
PJ:.:.jed
Gr-.en'Ota Dri'tle, Cupertino
~-~, ',<:---~~'=~~~-~;-~- ~,[ ~~'l
il'rlm~litJ...
tloma Mojgani
v..,
!!j9/Ot,
~~E:r
Joe Andchn...l
S~t
0'
I
S~ll1!:'i~~/:;"b:d I
D::T:4!ri='1) I
i
I
i
De..ig1t... Bui.Ld.... Con",lr14C[4C,n
Custom Larrdil:<JDI;! Design i!rtd CO!l:SSnJCnOil
'~;:':;~Il,~r:~:,~;~:~~~;t~~~~~:~~~ ~~':~i~~
365
fnc;j.':'lo;..,;~
RECEIVED
'JAN 2 4 2007
0' to 8' new plaots height at start
"oe- 925 - OleO
""-"""'I.jpmlarrdi u11)1 r\g.OJ.l1
t,~l~rr.ber G(J\- UCHIS[D IJONllEDw Ir~sur::-;:D. L'<.cll:',: iJ'7rl:_397
BY
2:l-~ 7
Exhibit E
./
--, /l~"~
f
J
J
I
l
-;..
Dn.wmr;; Titl.
Homa Mojgani
Pnj~ct
Grenola Drive, Cupertino
Da"
11 {./o.
Drawn By
Joe Andolina
Shl!et
or
3.5
Design Build Con~trUl:tjon
Custom Land!Oc&p@ Oe!5:19" and Construction
ntell'XJ:lngP_"S . flil~p ~ stillllpConaem. S'tOtle3lQe
1Vmlhlf.. ~nin!lw.lb~ Man. Ou\:J;loorUghting. 9lttr.
f_lI!ul,"i1Lo!i
Scale 1\8 Noted
1 10
Drawinr;
6' to 0' new plants height at 51art
408 - 925 -0180
www.jpmlandscaping.com
M~mb~r UCA -LICENSED - BONDED -lN5URED-lict:~ 17"3097
Shbrnt!ktL af NllY. /~ Fe mr.:e11-11:J
bt; pn-pcr~ O-v{~s
'---._--_.~------_/'-----
2~-16
;--,.
, ~-'~ ~
!" '.- '--
/,'~~":
Dear Neighbor,
Exhibit F
\Ve are the uwners of 21180 Grenola Dr. and are currently in the process of
rebuilding our house. However, two of our neighbors are appealing our plan
because of the "feel and look" (Mediterranean style), the exterior coloring
and the existence of a balcony. Although these elements are within confines
of city codes, their constant appeals have stopped our project for almost 5
months. They believe the new house will have a negative impact on the
value of the houses, and the style is not consistent with the other houses in
the neighborhood. They also want our home to have a dark color exterior
and roof because of "temperature and glare".
Contrary to their beliefs, we think the addition of our house to the
neighborhood should help the appreciation of other homes in the
neighborhood.
So far, we have compromised a great deal:
1. Reduced the height of our entryway by one foot (originally in code
and approved by the City)
2. replaced one of our windows with their suggestions
3. reduced the size of our balcony significantly (originally in code and
approved by the City).
4. Provided professional privacy landscape
5. Added privacy barrier for part of our balcony facing our neighbor.
We would appreciate your name and signature below if you support our
home plan.
Thank you in advance.
Homa & Mehrdad Mojgani
Name Address
,. / . ); Q I{{ () 1039.5 Flo/(( Vis'/4 Ave
;\ I(i os""' U
;-)4-. Iv"^ LI tA_ 10 (j )u J-I..-a If Ol W')f-"C Ave.--
L... / /,.\/v I
/"\J t(l^l !~c/'-- / Dc/-6 6 'r-~Cu>-c'O- '1 . ~-
-.J~ Vgr~ \ ,
I-+> i c, -('1 J :)101) {q. ((! /1614 T) (\
z-l VVl!\
J;a-2CJ
~
Address
Name
. v ] 11\ t YN1\11\ 9A
\ 'f
i
VA I! K ko IV\ ~ aLA
-:;l{' ~, ~ o<ijr-tV<1
'-1'2 ( aLh~I/~j~tL4r!--j/l_A--v',\
/ /1
I U
:; e--t /Vh-"" !\J iL~JtC,t,c,
)4- ( }t,,; c-. ,j /1-/1/[.("
~R- fG CVfJL~
-'V\. i' Jj?\ 2i\...I)..'\..--"\/
o
~; LA y/ e :6 h !.-< (~\. ct'\ \-1 ccl~
L 0 J-{D( I{ ~ G:vvt ~ f iJv(c"
S q IjOJ $' QV0 h f\-tj
I\!O 0 'vIE' C T,.jiv ,:
X~C\V\pi''\J G0
N~\l~
\, ) \ L \c v\.
in )~'"~~cb~,-{L~
____ I
rJ lOG 0 (Aj( tNo LA :DR 'Vb
i'<7 4- ~ b fIoxO--\JIC,.h'-. fN
./. ,/j // / <~(.P-.O
lOT 19;. ~t 1~7L cl ..Lc Cn4 i .,' \----
___ I
i b L'I cl ) lLhk, {.(,)! ')1:{
)o~O! ~I~ l/lSfet~-
/04-9 'i-r(D "-n Vl ~ +u
{[jv--P _
1..../
Ai,
2.10 .=t-! ~y.(t V\u \~vr,
, . , -
~to"t,~, cf~ 9 I-a (v.
2 I \ D 3 G,~9)~ {>'-'D -y .
( L-(\J(2. --ch l'\D) C A q SO i Lt
fL, (( 5 ( ~ Je ~ D t~ ~ '
<< o. Cw ft' I .J-,.,u/, (A 5 r"' ( V-
l 1) q,"f 1\ tYt ~ u/\ I .
~
211 2.1 [-/'C(,Zel GhJ-. Dr-
3 \\'7;-[ \~~ rQ ~~ro;\ L
.-2 I t~\ i-I:;... 2. 2 \ ~Jv\:l-:;\~ -
({ ! (<q5 (1 RJ?rJ a L;J1 -t:J (2 V J
2-~-- 36
\ Name \
.' :;lf5J ~-\v-&h'J
~~
Address
02 I (:t? 6f-{J1'lc,-QcL (Jr', ~
'2,\ I ~ b Lf(-i4"-O ~ Or
21--- 3 I
Exhibit G
R-2006-08
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 6429
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
DENYING AN APPEAL OF A RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL TO
CONSTRUCT A NEW, TWO STORY 4,219 SQUARE FOOT RESIDENCE WITH TWO
SECOND-STORY REAR YARD DECKS LOCATED AT 21180 GRENOLA DRIVE
SECTION I: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received two appeals of a
Residential Design Review approval (R-2006-08), as described in Section II of this Resolution;
and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural
Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more
public hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the appellants have not met the burden of proof required to support said
appeals; and have not demonstrated that the Residential Design Review approval meets the
following' findings for denial:
1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity, and will be detrimental to the public health, safety, general
welfare, or convenience;
2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner that is not in accord with the
Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of this title.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the application for R-2006-08 is hereby approved, subject to the
conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof; 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. R-2006-08
as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of November 14, 2006 and
are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
Lj,-J:.l
Resolution No. 6429
Page 2
R-2006-08
November 14,2006
SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
R-2006-08
Cliff Cowles (Mojgani Residence)
21180 Grenola Drive
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPT.
1. APPROVED PROTECT
This approval is based on a plan set entitled, 11 A New Two-Story Residence for Homa
& Mehrdad Mojganj/' consisting of seven sheets dated March 20,2006, including a site
plan, first and second floor plans, elevations, roof plan and section, and a privacy
protection landscape plan and revised master bedroom balcony plan with reduced
balcony, except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution.
2. REVISED BALCONY
Prior to issuance of building permit(s), the applicant shall reduce the size of the master
bedroom balcony to a maximum six-foot depth and 60 square feet as shown in the
revised master bedroom balcony plan.
3. TREE PROTECTION
The applicant shall be required to maintain the existing 31-inch diameter Coast Live
Oak tree on the subject property in a healthy manner in accordance with the tree
protection recommendations outlined in the tree evaluation prepared for this property
on April 27, 2006 by Michael L. Bench of Barrie D. Coate and Associates.
4, PRIV ACY 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 and second story balconies with views into
neighboring yards and with 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.
.5. PRIV ACY PROTECTION PLAN
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a complete privacy.
protection landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission
that shall include a site plan of the project, the 3D-degree cones of vision from each
second story window jamb and balconies, and the location, species and canopy
diameter of existing and proposed trees and shrubs to satisfy the privacy protection
landscaping measures for the project.
)..2- - J 'J
Resolution No. 6429 R-2006-08 November 14,2006
Page 3
The City Arborist has confirmed that the existing Coast Live Oak tree is appropriate
for screening purposes in terms of species, size and health. The Coast Live Oak tree
shall be recorded on the property as a protected tree along with the new privacy trees
and shrubs to be planted on the property.
6. FRONT YARD TREE
A new 24-inch box tree shall be planted in the front yard to meet landscaping
requirements. The type and size of tree shall be reviewed and approved by the Public
Works and Community Development Departments.
7. CONSULT A TION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS
The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments andj 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. 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.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of November 2006, at a Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Miller, Saadati, Wong
COMMISSIONERS: Vice Chair Giefer, Chien
COMMISSIONERS: none
COMMISSIONERS: none
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
/ s/Steve Piasecki
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
/ s/Marty Miller
Marty Miller, Chair
Planning Commission
g: / planning/ pdreport/ res / R-2006-08
1- 'L- 71
RM-2006-13
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 6430
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
DENYING AN APPEAL OF A MINOR RESIDENTIAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT TWO
SECOND STORY REAR YARD DECKS ON A NEW, TWO STORY 4,219 SQUARE FOOT
RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 21180 GRENOLA DRIVE
SECTION I: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received two appeals of a
Minor Residential Permit approval (RM-2006-13), as described in Section II of this Resolution;
and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural
Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more
public hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the appellants have not met the burden of proof required to support said
appeals; and have not demonstrated that the Minor Residential Permit approval meets the
following findings for denial:
1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity, and will be detrimental to the public health, safety, general
w'elfare, or convenience;
2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner that is not in accord with the
Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of this title.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the application for RM-2006-13 is hereby approved, subject to the
conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof; 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. RM-2006-13
as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of November 14, 2006 and
are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
1.. '1- - JS
Resolution No. 6430
Page 2
RM-2006-13
November 14,2006
SECTION II: Fl<'UIECr LJb~CKlt' HuN
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
RM-2006-13
Cliff Cowles (Mojgani Residence)
21180 Grenola Drive
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPT.
1. APPROVED PROTECT
This approval is based on a plan set entitled, 11 A New Two-Story Residence for Homa
& Mehrdad MojganV' consisting of seven sheets dated March 20, 2006, including a site
plan, first and second floor plans, elevations, roof plan and section, and a privacy
protection landscape plan and revised master bedroom balcony plan with reduced
balcony, except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution.
2. REVISED BALCONY
Prior to issuance of building permit(s), the applicant shall reduce the size of the master
bedroom balcony to a maximum six-foot depth and 60 square feet as shown in the
revised master bedroom balcony plan.
3. TREE PROTECTION
The applicant shall be required to maintain the existing 31-inch diameter Coast Live
Oak tree on the subject property in a healthy manner in accordance with the tree
protection recommendations outlined in the tree evaluation prepared for this property
on April 27, 2006 by Michael L. Bench of Barrie D. Coate and Associates.
4. PRIVACY 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 and second story balconies with views into
neighboring yards and with 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.
5. PRIVACY PROTECTION PLAN
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a complete privacy
protection landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission
that shall include a site plan of the project, the 30-degree cones of vision from each
second story window jamb and balconies, and the location, species and canopy
diameter of existing and proposed trees and shrubs to satisfy the privacy protection
landscaping measures for the project.
2-2- -310
Resolution No. 6430 RM-2006-13 November 14,2006
Page 3
The City Arborist has confirmed that the existing Coast Live Oak tree is appropriate
for screening purposes in terms ot species, size and health. 1 he Loast Live Uak tree
shall be recorded on the property as a protected tree along with the new privacy trees
and shrubs to be planted on the property.
6. FRONT YARD TREE
A new 24-inch box tree shall be planted in the front yard to meet landscaping
requirements. The type and size of tree shall be reviewed and approved by the Public
Works and Community Development Departments.
7. CONSULT A TION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS
The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments andj 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. 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.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of November 2006, at a Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABST AIN:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Miller, Saadati, Wong
COMMISSIONERS: Vice Chair Giefer, Chien
COMMISSIONERS: none
COMMISSIONERS: none
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
/ s/Steve Piasecki
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
/ s/Marty Miller
Marty Miller, Chair
Planning Commission
g: / planning/ pdreport/ res / RM - 2006-13
:22-'- J7
Exhibit H
Cupertino Planning Commission
2
November 14, 2006
posed serious threats to future generations, particularly relating to the Stevens Creek
Corridor Project. She said while East Palo Alto plants 1,000 trees and Berkeley intends to
ban construction within 30 feet of creeks, the city plans to destroy nearly 200 habitat
providing trees and compromise the wetlands by building too close to the Stevens Creek.
The majority of these trees make way for new development; an 8 foot wide paved bike road
and a reconstruction of the 90% non residence money losing business at Blackberry Farm.
While the city is careful to protect lawns at Memorial Park by cutting down on events, the
misuse and overuse of Blackberry Farm and the delicate riparian habitat now is causing trees
to fall so much so that the city has fenced off the property.
· By rebuilding the event compound, it will retain nearly all the existing event impact and add
over 89,000 users, resulting in more environmental casualties. It was thought that the
business would make more money to fund more library hours but the opposite is true; we are
spending over 2 million dollars to built it and about $300,000 a year to subsidize it. The
non-residents benefit; and what suffers is the environment, congestion on neighborhood
streets and every restriction of resident access to the property that we are paying a 2.4%
utility tax to own. This also violates our General Plan; the overall project will cost over $16
million.
· She expressed concern about where the money was being spent and said that the city was
being irresponsible by not addressing its $50 million debt.
· She requested that the Stevens Creek Corridor project be brought back for review, which she
said the Planning Commission expressed interest in at the May 23 meeting. She urged the
Planning Commission to think globally and act locally and focus on fiscal responsibility.
Chair Miller:
· Asked staff to comment on bringing the Stevens Creek Corridor project back for review.
Ms. Wordell:
· Said she was not aware of the options for accomplishing that; the Planning Department is not
involved in that ex.cept for the environmental reviews. She said staff would bring a report
back to the Planning Commission.
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
PUBLIC HEARING:
1.
ASA-2006-08; RM-2006-13
Cliff Cowles (Mojgani
Residence)
21180 Grenola Drive
10123 No. Wolfe Road
Consider an appeal of a Residential Design Review to
construct a new, two-story 4,219 square foot
residence. Consider an appeal of a Minor Residential
Permit for two-second story rear-yard decks on a
new 4,219 square foot residence. Planning Commission
decision final unless appealed. Continued from the
October 10, 2006 Planning Commission meeting.
Aki Honda, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
· Reviewed the application which was a continuance from the October 10, 2006 meeting when
the Planning Commission considered appeals of a residential design review and minor
residential permit approval for a new two story residence with two second story rear yard
decks.
· She reviewed the comments from the Planning Commission directing the property owner to
make some revisions, and the property owner's responses, which are outlined in the staff
report.
2 'L - 30
Cupertino Planning Commission
3
November 14, 2006
. Staff recommends additional language to ensure privacy protection for the adjacent neighbor
to the west. Staff also recommends that conditions be added that state prior to issuance of
building permits, the property owner reduce the balcony to a maximum 4 foot depth and
provide a functional and attractive 5 foot high screen to be perpetually maintained and
recorded on the property to prevent privacy impacts onto the adjacent western property.
· In accordance with the Planning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that an
additional condition on landscaping be added that landscaping be revised to provide
immediate privacy protection and at installation of the master bedroom balcony, if it is
approved, and to provide the size and distances of all plantings on the landscape plan.
· Noted that any decision of the Planning Commission tonight is final unless appealed to the
City Council.
Staff answered Commissioners' questions relative to the application.
Cliff Cowles, project designer:
. Said the color chips and colors were specified with the drawings when they were first
submitted; and that the proposed colors fit well in the neighborhood.
. If you reduce the balcony to four feet, the door cannot be opened, resulting it is not serving
as a real balcony. You are either going to allow the balcony, or you are not going to allow
the balcony, and therefore are making the decision that whenever a neighbor says that they
have an issue with someone seeing off that balcony, you are making the decision with this
house, and it has not been made before in Cupertino. The real issue is to provide very
adequate privacy landscaping.
. Said they have reduced the height, even though in that neighborhood there are at least a
dozen homes with a high entry. They are not arguing for that now; one foot is a good
compromise.
Mehrdad. Mojgani, applicant, reviewed the responses to the Planning Commissioners'
comments from the October 10th Planning Commission meeting:
. Relative to pullback of the second story balcony in the master suite so that it is non-intrusive
to their neighbors on the west side, she said they have already reduced the size of the balcony
to almost half the original size; the balcony is aligned with the edge of the house and it is no
longer sticking out.
. In addition to the professional privacy landscaping that you are going to provide, we will
provide screening on the portion of the balcony facing our neighbors so that the west side of
the neighborhood is going to be covered and you won't be able to see anything directly into
the backyard.
. The entry feature height should be lowered to be more in alignment and symmetrical with the
front elevation turrets.
Homa Mojgani, co-applicant:
. Presented photos of homes in the neighborhood and commented on the privacy landscaping
and comparison of older parts of the neighborhood to the newer construction. She said she
preferred not to put in extra plants if they were not required, She repOI,ted that she spoke
with other neighbors about the proposal's compatibility with the neighborhood.
Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney:
. Said that it was public information after presented to the Planning Commission.
.J
12- - 3/
Cupertino Planning Commission
4
November 14, 2006
Jessica Rose, Appellant, Ann Arbor Avenue:
. She said they were encouraged at the October loth meeting since the Commission's
comments validated a concern that they and the Garden Gate pocket had for a long time of
how to transition the neighborhood between the old and the new. The issue is not if new
homes will be built in Garden Gate, but how to guide the development. We must be
considerate of existing homes and also allow new residents to design and build a home that is
current in style and functionality. She said the comments demonstrated how they can begin
to bridge the gap between those two factors.
. After the meeting she said they felt the system that they would have never had under country
jurisdiction, worked. Their comments targeted landscaping and architectural enhancement
features as the two key areas that would need modifying to allow this large house to be
harmonious with the existing area. It seemed like a win/win; the suggestions were cosmetic.
The size and layout of the 4200 square foot house remains untouched and yet its presence
would be softened. None of the Commission's comments reflected the interior size of the
house; the dream house remains; the kitchen is untouched, the master suite, the multiple
bedrooms bones of the house that are usually at the core of creating one's dream house, are
still original to the property owners liking. The recommendations demonstrate that by
exercising some care and consideration when planning exterior features and landscaping,
existing privacy and the visual impact of a large home among smaller homes can be
lessened.
. She expressed disappointment at the minimal response of the property owner to the Planning
Commission's recommendation, which provided clear direction on the project. At the
previous meeting the Planning Commission withdrew the motion to uphold the appeal with
the 9 modifications at the request ofthe property owner, who instead opted for a continuance
of just one month to address all of these issues on their own, while working with the
Planning Department. She said that they were frustrated and confused because the time lines
for submitting comments were not met by the applicant.
. She said they were requesting the Planning Commission to uphold the appeal of the project
and include the following conditions for approval:
./ Uphold the appeal;
./ Require that the master bedroom balcony be a faux or false balcony; it was suggested
last month and it was supported that the balcony was intrusive to their privacy. A faux
balcony will allow the exterior to have the look of a balcony, the interior room will enjoy
the balcony window light and fresh air and it will not provide a landing area for
neighbors to view over the entire backyard and house. It was established and agreed at
the last meeting that this was an area of concern.
./ It needs a true landscaping plan that protects privacy; it needs to be accurate and include
the size of the plants, spacing, location, and show the cones division from the homes
./ Landscaping the front yard: Add the brick and rock features on the front elevation as
recommended by the Commission last month. It will soften the imposing nature of the
design.
. Relative to the house color, she said that most homes are now abandoning the stucco and tile
roof look, popular in the 80s and 90s. Perhaps the property owner might want to consider a
more contemporary color scheme for the house and roof.
. Lastly, regarding the 5 foot trellis idea that was introduced late last week, we have not seen it
yet as it was proposed after the November 7th deadline for comments, but it sounds awful and
pointless. The need for a 5 foot trellis on a railing validates that this balcony is an
unreasonable imposition on our privacy. It also negates the purpose of a balcony which isn't
to view into your yard and beyond; again, we have made this point already and you have
spoken in agreement with us. We asked you to not change direction at t his point.
/-.2-LfD
Cupertino Planning Commission
5
November 14, 2006
Elena Herrera, Granola Drive:
. Said she was not opposed to balconies, but would work on the placement to ensure that it is
not intlllsive, perhaps recessed into an inner courtyard, and not directly over the adjoining
properties.
. She agreed that the view from a window is just as severe as a view from a balcony, and said
she felt that balconies deserve to be in areas where the acreage and hillsides support the use
of a balcony. The proposed home is a very tightly drawn home that is five feet on one side,
ten feet on the other and the balcony is not appropriate.
. She said the 4200 square foot home was not within the scope of the neighborhood, and there
was no indication that the color was going to be anything less bright than presented. She
said that the color scheme should help with the softening of the mass.
. Said she was not recommending the Los Gatos model of dictating what type, size and style
of gingerbread to put on the Victorians; nor the Cannel practice of dictating the shape and
color of the rooflines. Cupertino is a city that does care about rebuilding the community and
it is going through a huge rebuilding era right now and it is incumbent upon the community
members and commissioners to think about building smartly, enhancing the value of the
neighborhood and the community as a whole, but maintaining the quality of life.
Chair Miller opened the public hearing.
Sharon Adams, Grenola Drive:
. Said her home was affected similar to the residents of Ann Arbor who have no sunshine
because of the home next door. When the sun comes up there is no sunshine until another
couple of hours because the sun must go around the big house next door; the sun goes down
in the summertime at 4 p.m. because of the house on the other side. She said there was a 60+
year old tree in the back yard.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
. Said she empathized with the Garden Gate district, because they were attempting to annex
into Cupertino from the county at the same time that Monta Vista and Rancho Rinconada
were. There were a number of problems the residents of that neighborhood tried to deal
with; there were some large homes being constructed in Garden Gate prior to 1999.
. She said it was a volatile topic in the neighborhood; and hoped that the home that is
constructed would be something that the neighbors and the owners would be proud of.
Hopefully the homes built there now are reflective of the current Rl ordinance in Cupertino
which everyone has fought to try to have homes that are sensitive to the neighborhood.
. Said she was pleased that there are second story setbacks on the homes now, and that the city
has done a good job in coming up with larger homes with a stepped outline.
. She said it was a good idea to pull back the balcony as much as possible because Garden
Gate has larger lots; but even then there are neighbors who are used to a lot of privacy in
their back yard because they are all one story.
Les Bowers, Grenola Drive:
. Said the single story homes are not going to go away in the immediate future in Garden Gate,
and some considerations should apply.
. He said relative to the privacy planting proposal, the issue in question is the oak tree; the
branches of that tree now reach the backyard fences of the new owners and his backyard
fence. Does the privacy planting subject the neighbors to trees that will extend considerably
over the existing neighboring properties?
. He said that if all the trees projected along the back fence grow to maturity, it will be very
private, with 80 feet height. He said they did not mind because their bedroom looks
2- 2..- - L( I
Cupertino Planning Commission
6
November 14,2006
immediately up to the new house balcony and they do need privacy.
Bahar Mojgani, Grenola Drive:
. Daughter ofMr. and Mrs. Mojgani, spoke on behalf of her parents' desire to be receptive to
the neighbors' concerns about the design of their proposed home, and said they wanted the
home to fit in with the neighborhood.
. She said she and her mother attempted to meet with neighbors regarding their concerns but
were not well received when they went to talk with some of the neighbors about their
concerns.
Chair Miller:
. Asked staff to address the issues raised regarding the lack of sunlight and sunshine on other
homes and privacy planting extending into neighboring yards.
Ms. Wordell:
. Relative to the tree issue, she said she did not think they had a criterion of not having trees
extending over into other peoples' yards. A neighbor may comment on the neighbor's
proposal, and if there is a preference for a smaller canopy tree, staff would put it into the mix
and see if the property owner is agreeable. She said it was probably still on the table,
although he said for privacy reasons he would prefer the larger trees. It is something that
could be negotiated.
. She said she did not recall any wording in the General Plan or ordinance about sunlight.
Chair Miller:
. Relative to the sunlight issue; it is not in the General Plan, but we have looked in the past at
daylight planes, and I thought that our ordinance was consistent with our setbacks on the
second story consistent with the concept of the daylight plane and allowing the neighbors to
have sufficient sunlight.
Ms. Wordell:
. Said the regulations are geared toward decreasing the size of the second story, increasing the
size of the setbacks. In that sense it does get at the idea of allowing a greater space between
the second stories of houses.
Chair Miller closed the public comment portion.
Com. Chien:
. Said the ordinance recognizes the right to improve and build on property, and it has gone
through several revisions. He said he lobbied for more rights, and it still finds a very fine
balance between the right to a neighbor's privacy and the right to improve.
. He said the total space was not negotiable, because the property was purchased knowing how
much they could get and they should have every right to get that amount of space. The
balcony was negotiable, and you reduced that and I appreciate you doing that. I appreciate
you going out to the neighbors to try to make that happen.
. Said he was disappointed in the landscaping plan; previously it was deficient and appeared to
have been done at the last minute and didn't provide any cones of vision. He said what was
submitted in the packet was beginning to resemble a privacy plan, however was still not
sufficient because it did not show the house and the cones of vision. Although someone was
hired to work on it, he questioned if the hired people had read the ordinance and worked in
the city before and knew how to do a privacy planting landscape plan properly.
. He said he was concerned that it was brought to the Planning Commission; the process for
'}.)__-L-(L
Cupertino Planning Commission
7
November 14,2006
approval of a house is outlined in the ordinance. The story poles go up and people can see it
and have a chance to comment on the proposal.
. It is difficult for people to comment when they cannot see the plan; some of the neighbors
may still not have seen the landscape plan, which is a concern that has not been addressed.
Asked for others comments before moving forward.
Com. Saadati:
. Said Com. Chien addressed some of the key issues and he concurred with most of them.
. Pointed out that the property owners also have the right to develop their property, and if they
comply with the ordinance, they should have the right to build it.
. He said previously they discussed many issues regarding architecture; however, their role is
not to design buildings, but to make sure it complies with the ordinance. Some suggestions
were made which the applicant can consider or not consider, and based on the changes made,
it appears that an attempt has been made to address those. He expressed concern about the
front which is visible from the street, and even though the entry feature met the intent of the
ordinance and there are some other projects that are already approved with the same
dimensions, the requirements are being changed.
. The color scheme has been softened; relative to the backyard, he said he was not so
concerned about the back yard architectural feature. He said that privacy needs to be
addressed.
. The balcony size has been reduced and the Director of Community Development approved
the project with the reduced sized balcony. It appears the applicant is willing to put the
screening on the balcony; however, the proposed landscaping plan for privacy has not been
studied. He suggested that it be the issue discussed and have the Director of Community
Development review that and if it complies with the ordinance, then they have the right to
have it approved on that basis.
. He concurred with Item 1 recommendation including the amendment that the landscape plan
is done in such a way that the privacy ofthe neighbors is addressed.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. Said she felt the applicant has made some effort to satisfy the conditions that the Planning
Commission was concerned about.
. She said she appreciated the effort to lower that, but it was still quite large. She noted that
the applicant satisfied the request made regarding the removal of the bay window since it did
not fit architecturally with the front of the building, which shows effort on the applicant's
part.
. Relative to the color scheme, she said she was satisfied with the sample paint chip, which is a
good choice of a non-reflective color; the roofing material is less bright than what was
understood they were going to use. She said it would be a very large yellow building
without some plant materials in the front to satisfy the concern.
. Said she was disappointed that there is no change in the balcony size; and she had hoped that
they would look at aligning both balconies by either pulling the master closet forward, giving
square footage in the master bedroom, which would mean running the roof differently.
. Expressed disappointment that the Planning Commission received a hand drawn and
somewhat incomplete landscaping plan, and said she was also concerned that there is going
to be a deodar cedar in front of Mr. Bowers' 50 year old redwood tree, it, potentially robbing
it of its daylight.
. She said the landscaping plan needs more massaging for the type of materials with
consideration for what is around it because there is no view in that comer. She suggested
that the redwood tree be given some room.
J.-L-l(J
Cupertino Planning Commission
8
November 14,2006
· The placement of the other plants and the viewing cone are good efforts; however, it still
needs more work, either at the staff level or by sending it to DRC.
· Said her position on the balcony hasn't changed; it is invasive for the adjacent neighbors on
the next street whose lot runs along the length of the applicant's. She said she preferred the
faux balcony, and did not support the balcony as proposed, even with a lattice since it would
require maintenance and one can see through the lattice. She said she supported removal of
the balcony and make it a faux balcony because they are viewing the same balcony presented
a month ago which no one liked. She said she did not support the proposal.
Aid Honda responded to Com. Wong's questions:
· Explained that balconies require minor residential permits, hence, it would go through the
planning permit process. There are no meeting notices sent out with the plan showing the
proposal for the balcony. The balconies do need to have a minimum 15 foot setback from
the side property line, which the property owner has provided.
· It also has to meet the finding that they need to provide some privacy protection as well and
try to create as little privacy impact on the adjacent neighbors. It would be up to the
Commission to decide how much it could be mitigated through landscaping or removing the
balcony.
. She said it does not address additional setbacks for the residents if a balcony is proposed.
The balcony itself needs to have the minimum 15 foot setback.
· She said that the applicant should provide the landscaping plan for staff review; however
staff has not had adequate time to review the present plan. The process would be with the
application with the minor residential permit application, with the two story residential
permit, and that it be submitted together.
Com. Wong:
· Questioned why the application was brought forward to the Commission since it was not
complete. He expressed concern about not having the full landscaping plan 48 hours in
advance to allow staff and the Planning Commission to review it, and suggested that the
issue should be addressed in the future.
Ms. Wordell:
· Said it is not absolute black and white that every single thing has to be in or the applicants
won't be heard; staff has attempted to be flexible enough to allow an application to go
forward if enough information was present to make it significantly worthwhile to have a
meeting. Staff tried to work with the applicant and asked for the information early, but
proceeded although it was not available.
Aid Honda:
. Stated that they had given the applicant a deadline, and the landscape plan was the one
received from the applicant. Staff asked the property owners if they needed additional time
to work on the landscape plan and they responded that they wanted to proceed with tonight's
meeting.
Com. Wong:
· He pointed out that the area of Garden Gate has had extensive remodeling and rebuilding,
but the residents had good communication about the proposed plans. He said he did not feel
that good communication occurred in the present instance.
· He said that whatever is decided, improved communication is needed, so that the Planning
Commission is not put in the middle, and it would be ideal if two parties could communicate
and try to resolve it between themselves rather than have the Planning Commission make the
22-- L( Cf
Cupertino Planning Commission
9
November 14,2006
difficult decisions relative to color and whether or not there should be a balcony.
. The applicant has made some compromises and the colors have been muted, and they are
moving toward a positive direction. He noted that wood siding, brick or rocks is not in line
with a Mediterranean style. If there is no agreement, the Planning Commission will have to
make the decision.
. He said he was also disappointed with the landscaping plan. He said that if there had been a
more complete landscape plan, shared with staff since the two appellants were not available,
it would have allowed more questions to be answered.
. Said he was concerned about putting deodar cedars and magnolia in the back area; they are
large trees, but are they compatible with the redwood tree? Regarding the landscaping plan,
instead of going back to the Director of Community Development, it should go back to the
DRC for review.
. He said the neighborhood is in transition; three Commissioners had the opportunity to review
the Rl ordinance, and he felt the privacy protection plan and the notification was put in there
so that neighbors could talk to each other.
. The goal of the discussion is to ensure that the landscaping privacy plan is intact; he said he
felt they had a better plan in the front yard that will soften the front. He said he was very
conflicted about the decision regarding the balcony.
. The applicant did reduce the size of the balcony and are remaining firm on the 6 foot
opening. He said with a six foot balcony, he would prefer having it be a solid material rather
than open, since it would take time for the privacy protection plants to grow. The architect
suggested that if the balcony was reduced to four feet, it should be a faux balcony. The Rl
ordinance does provide that you can have the balcony, the only concern is that the privacy
protection plan is in place to protect the neighbor's property rights and privacy protection.
The other thing is to give the flexibility that the balcony is allowed in the ordinance.
. He said aside from that, he would uphold the appeal with the following modifications.
Chair Miller:
. Said his comments were similar to other commissioners'
. Relative to communications, he said in his opinion the primary reason for the continuance
was to give the neighbors and the applicant an opportunity to work together and reach a
compromise solution, and it is disappointing that it did not occur. He said if the
commissioners are asked to impose a solution, they will do so, but the solution may not be
the one that either the neighbors or the applicant would have desired; therefore it is better if
the neighbors and the applicant try to work together to achieve a level of consensus.
. Said there are a number of issues with respect to the look and feel, the balcony, and what the
applicant has made some serious efforts to address the concerns of the Commission. He said
the balcony was still an issue because he felt because of the distances between the houses,
the balconies were not the best idea. However, they are in the ordinance and the applicant
has a right to request them. The real issue is privacy and the balcony is appropriate as long
as there is a privacy plan to ensure that it is not intrusive to the neighbors.
. He said they were back to the same question partly because the applicant was not able to
show his privacy planting scheme before tonight, and it is not certain whether the issue has
been addressed or not. He said if it was addressed, he was not opposed to the balcony
because the ordinance does allow it. If it is not addressed, he said he concurred with two
other Commissioners that the balcony needs to go.
. He said he was satisfied with the colors; they are muted and it is not the neighbors to decide
what the house color should be.
. The applicant was also asked to soften the front elevation and it is not apparent that it was
done. He said it amounts to what the final landscaping plan will look like and whether that
12--'1 r
Cupertino Planning Commission
10
November 14,2006
addresses the remaining issues that have been brought up.
. A decision is needed whether to approve it at this point with staff review or with DRC
review, or with the third possibility of bringing it back for the Planning Commission to look
at it, which he felt was the best choice, because if there is some dissatisfaction at one of the
other levels, it will come back again and people will go through this two more times instead
of just one time.
. He suggested that because the landscaping plan has not been seen and evaluated completely,
it be brought back once more with respect to the landscaping and the balcony issue, and
whether that is addressed by the landscaping, and pass on the remaining issues.
Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Vice Chair Giefer, to uphold the appeal and
modify the Community Development Director's decision regarding Application
R-2006-08 and RM-2006-13, including the following modifications: The entire
landscaping plan must be complete before it returns to the appropriate body;
Ensure that the deodora cedar and magnolia trees do not affect Mr. Bowers'
backyard relative to the redwood tree; Ensure that the privacy planting is
complete regarding the cone of vision; Staff to confirm that the east and west
elevations are correct; Support the 6 foot balcony but ensure that the privacy
planting is sufficient; Applicant to work with staff on a material other than lattice
for the balcony.
Amendment by Vice Chair Giefer, second by Com. Wong: Because new information was
introduced tonight and it was not available for public comment in advance, the
Planning Commission looked at it, but the public did not have time to review it; it
be stipulated that all the information has to be to staff so that it can be publicly
available and mailed to the neighbors well in advance of the hearing. Clarified
that if this passes and it comes back, if the neighbors are unable to work out
privacy with regards to the balcony, at that time they will still have the latitude to
remove that if necessary. Said she did not want to be locked into a 6 foot balcony
at this point if those other issues a.re not satisfied.
Com. Wong:
. Expressed concern that agreement is needed to either support the balcony or not. If the
balcony is agreed to, the applicant knows they have to talk to the neighbors, and determine a
way to do the privacy protection plan complete to have the balcony.
. Clarified that his proposal for the balcony was that it be an enclosed balcony, with a 5 foot
high solid wall the radius of the balcony.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. Said she would prefer to eliminate the balcony and put in a faux French window or redesign
that portion ofthe house and pull it forward to make it less invasive.
. She said before agreeing to a 6 foot balcony, she needed to know what it would be like. If it
is going to be a completely enclosed stucco wall, it is just another small room, and why
would it not be included in the square footage of the house?
Com. Saadati:
. Reiterated that the issue was privacy; he suggested that it be brought back and if it is not
addressed, the staff doesn't have to bring it back, but postpone it. He said they did not have
to design the balcony, but focus on the issue of privacy.
:21-'-(~
Cupertino Planning Commission
11
November 14, 2006
Com. Chien:
. Said they should not be designing the balcony and get locked into anything for the balcony.
Relative to the process, Com. Wong said that his motion was to uphold the appeal.
Aki Honda:
. Said that the Commission could uphold the appeal and modify the Director's decision; at that
point the property owner would have to meet those conditions in order for them to move
forward.
Ms. Wordell:
. Clarified that ifthe Director's approval is granted with modifications, that is the decision; but
if the privacy plan is brought back, that is what would be considered either at the DRC level
or Planning Commission, whoever hears it. It would be approved with that one outstanding
item to review.
Chair Miller:
. Relative to the issue of the balcony, he questioned why the balcony couldn't be approved
subject to the applicant showing a satisfactory screening and privacy for the neighbors, and
allow the applicant to design the balcony or remove it. The Planning Commission would
review it as part of the overall plan.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. She said it would only be the privacy screening that comes back to the Planning
Commission, and she had a problem separating it because she felt the balcony is one of the
most intrusive parts of the privacy. It is at the heart ofthe privacy issue.
Chair Miller:
. It is, so you say the balcony is approved subject to a satisfactory privacy screening plan; then
if they don't show us a satisfactory privacy screening plan, the balcony is no longer
approved.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. Asked if it would be more than just the plantings that are part of that screening plan; or just
talking about them bringing back a landscape plan.
Chair Miller:
. Said he was referring to a privacy screening plan which is more than just a landscaping plan.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. Said that is the reason she was looking for clarification on it.
Chair Miller:
. Said he was willing to leave it open so that they have the flexibility to design whatever they
want to design if they can come up with a creative idea.
Ms. Wordell:
. Said it appeared the only difference between the points of view is that Vice Chair Giefer
wants to be explicit that the balcony can go if the privacy protection, whether it is a wall or
its landscaping is sufficient or not. The difference is that the motion was that the balcony is
approved, subject to an adequate privacy protection plan, so you would have to be satisfied
21--4'1
Cupertino Planning Commission
12
November 14, 2006
with that plan, or you wouldn't approve it.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. She said normally privacy protection is addressed through landscaping, and she was looking
for it to be more explicit and be more than landscaping in this case, perhaps by encasement
of the balcony with solid material.
Vice Chair Giefer withdrew her second of the motion; and Com. Wong withdrew his
motion.
Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney:
. Clarified that the item could be continued to come back with a privacy plan and allow the
applicants to make a decision about the balcony.
Applicant:
. Said he would rather not continue the application; he would like to see the balcony issue
done so that the neighbors can get together on the privacy issue.
Appellants:
. Stated they were taken aback because they left the last meeting with the direction for the
balcony to be significantly reduced or eliminated, and now it is the same size before it was at
the first meeting.
. Said they expected the Planning Commission to do what they indicated they would do the
first time, to significantly reduce or eliminate the balcony, not to keep it the same.
. One appellant said he was prepared to go to the City Council. If a continuance is taken, he
said the balcony should not be closed. All aspects of the project should be continued as
well, in fairness to everyone involved.
. If the balcony ever gets approved, there is going to be an appeal to the City Council, and
delaying that is not helpful at this point. The process should move forward.
Chair Miller:
. Clarified that the issue for the Planning Commission is privacy.
Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Saadati, to deny the appeal; with the
stipulation that the landscaping privacy plan must be very complete.
Com. Wong:
. Said that the most important issue was communication, and he felt they were moving toward
progress; but the bottom line is do they want the balcony or not. He said he was not
comfortable deciding to give them the balcony, and the neighbors feel it is an invasion of
their privacy.
. There is a privacy protection plan that can help mitigate the concerns, but likely won't please
the applicant. He suggested that the applicant consider reducing the balcony, make it solid,
or remove the balcony.
. He said the City Council will be put in the same position and he suggested that instead of
putting staff in the middle, they try to improve the communication.
. Said he would prefer the landscaping privacy plan to be reviewed at the Planning
Commission level.
::2-1- -L1 J'
Cupertino Planning Commission
13
November 14, 2006
Com. Saadati, the second of the motion, concurred. (Vote: 3-2-0; Vice Chair Giefer No;
Com. Chien No.) Com. Chien explained he voted no because the appeal specifically states a
privacy concern, and he felt the privacy plan was insufficient.
Chair Miller declared a recess.
2.
TR-2006-16
Yuh Jiuan Lin
10740 Brookwell Drive
Tree Removal and replacement for a deodar cedar.
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed.
Aid Honda presented the staff report:
. Reviewed the application for tree removal and replacement of a deodar cedar as outlined in
the attached staff report. The property owner was not aware that the deodar cedar was a
protected tree. A stop work order was put on the tree removal when the city's Code
Enforcement Division received a complaint that the tree was being removed. The City
arborist determined that the tree was in good health; however, because of the severe pruning
of the tree and removal of the branches and foliage, it was determined that the tree was a
total loss and recommended its removal.
. Staff recommends that the tree be replaced with one 84-inch box deodar cedar tree, or two
72-inch box deodar cedar trees, or three 48-inch box oak trees, or one field grown oak tree.
. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the tree removal to allow the
remaining portion of the tree to be removed and also require replacement trees equivalent to
the cost of the removed deodar cedar that could include one aforementioned trees.
Yuh Jiuan Lin, applicant:
. Said that he was concerned about safety on his rental property with the large tree.
. Said that they did not know the name of the company who cut the tree down.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. Asked the applicants, other than talking to someone in property management, if they
considered contacting the city prior to having the tree destroyed.
Yuh Jiuan Lin:
. Said he was not aware of the rules, and did not know the species of the trees in his backyard.
Chair Miller opened the public hearing.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
. Recommended that persons considering removing trees contact the city, and if needed
contact a licensed tree service. She said the loss of a tree that size is staggering to the city's
canopy.
. She reported that recently a street tree which was 10 inches across was cut down by the
property owner without a permit.
. She said that Cupertino has a responsibility to maintain the integrity of their trees and the
city. She commended the city for their outreach in informing residents about the protected
trees.
. She said she hoped that there would be a successful resolution and that a protected tree
would be planted. She suggested a covenant be placed on the property that there is a tree
there. She said she assumed the replacement tree would be protected particularly if it is a
deodar or an oak, and suggested that a rider be put on the property to that effect.
22--'-{Q
Exhibit I
CITY OF CUPERTINO
1ft1!10 rr~~~..... ~,':Tp""'''~~, ("'.........."car....;...,....... r?~~f0,.!"';~ qt:;01Ll
_ _ J_ _ ..:- ___ _ _ _ ~ _.:....."-._....., '"- c..:1.c --- '.:.-.:....~- -; -.---- --_:.....;.."'- - - >".; -~- .....
DEP ARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application: Appeal of R-2006-08 Agenda Date: November 14, 2006
and RM-2006-13
Appellant: John Tracy & Jessica Rose
Elena Herrera & Subir Sengupta
Property Location: 21180 Grenola Drive
Application Summary:
Appeal of a Residential Design Review and Minor Residential Permit to construct a
new, two-story 4,219 square foot residence with two second-story rear yard decks.
Recommendation:
The Planning Commission has the option of making the following determinations:
1. Deny the appeal(s) and uphold the Director of Community Development's
decision, or
2. Uphold the appeal(s) and deny the Director of Community Development's.
decision, or
3. Uphold the appeal(s) and modify the Director of Community Development's
decision
Background:
On October 10, 2006, the Planning Commission heard appeals by John Tracy, Jessica
Rose, Elena Herrera and Subir Sengupta opposing the Residential Design Review and
Minor Residential Permit to construct the proposed 4,219 square foot, two-story
residence at 21180 Grenola Drive. The appellants indicated their concerns regarding
privacy impacts of the proposed balconies} protection of the existing oak tree, privacy
protection landscaping, and the proposed architectural design of the residence.
Upon hearing the appeals and discussing the issues involved, the Commission
continued (5-0) this item to the November 14, 2006 meeting and provided direction to
the property owners, Homa and Mehrdad Mojgani, to address their comments and
revise the plans accordingly. The Planning Commission recommended that
modifications be made to the plans addressing the master bedroom balcony, the privacy
protection landscape plan, front yard landscaping, architectural enhancements along
the front elevation, and the color scheme of the residence.
2. 2.. - )0
Appeal ofR-2006-08 & RM-20l 13
November 14. 2006
D:s ~::~5ic.~:
Page 2
On November 2, 2006, the property owners submitted revised elevations, a landscape
plan and a response sheet to the Planning Commission's comments. The following is a
table listing the Planning Commission's comments from the October 10th meeting and
staff's review of the property owners' responses.
Plannin. Commission Comments,
Eliminate the master bedroom balcony
and provide a faux balcony, or pull back
(reduce) the balcony so that it is non-
intrusive to the adjacent neighbors to the
west.
Lower the entry feature so that it is more
symmetrical and in alignment with the
turret on the front elevation.
Remove or refine the second story bay
window on the front elevation.
Provide privacy planting on the west side
of the property that is increased in height
and density to provide full landscape
screening from the master bedroom
balcony at the time of installation.
Review of Pro er Qwners'Res onses;i};~
The balcony has not been removed or
reduced per the Commission's
recommendations.
Staff met with the property owners on
November 7th at which time they proposed
to install a 5- foot high screening around a
portion of the balcony that will preclude
them from viewing into the neighbor's
ro ert to the west.
The property owner has complied with the
Planning Commission's comment and has
reduced the entry feature from 14 feet to
13 feet from finish rade to to of late.
The property owner has complied with the
Planning Commission's comment and has
removed the bay window on the front
elevation. The bay window has been
replaced with three windows that are flush
with the exterior wall.
A revised landscape plan has been
submitted and appears to include
significant landscaping within the rear
yard; however, the plan does not provide
an accurate plot plan showing privacy
protection landscaping within the 30
degree angle cone of vision from the
second floor window jambs and balconies.
Additionally, the plan neither indicates the
size of trees and shrubs to be planted at
installation, nor provides the planting
distances for the trees and shrubs.
2-- 7.-- )" l
Appeal ofR-2006-08 & RM-20'c 13
November 14,2006
Pia, ll. nin Commission COlnm,. .en .tS.ci:'." .-
. . . . . .c_ .
, - .. - --. "
Restore the privacy protection landscape
requirements along the east side of the
property and move the proposed deodar
cedar tree forward to provide privacy
protection screening of the balcony for
Bedroom 2.
Provide front yard landscaping andj or
brickj rock features on the front elevation.
Work with staff on a final landscape plan.
Identify a less bright color scheme for the
residence.
Page 3
Review of Pro er Owner Resonses
The revised landscape plan includes
landscaping along the east side of the
property; however, the proposed deodar
cedar tree has not been moved to provide
privacy protection screening of the
balcony for Bedroom 2. Additionally,
because the plan does not show the 30
degree angle cone of vision from the
second story windows and balconies, it
cannot be determined if the proposed
landscaping will fulfill the privacy
rotection re uirements.
The property owner has not submitted
landscaping plans for the front yard;
however, they indicate that they will work
with their landscaper to provide
landscaping plans to soften the front of the
residence. The property owners do not
plan to provide any brick or rock base
features on the front elevation.
Staff met with the property owners on
November 7th to describe an adequate
landscape plan for privacy protection.
Staff also asked that the property owners
show the landscape plan to the appellants
and find out if they support the landscape
Ian.
No color chips have been submitted by the
property owners for the exterior color and
roofing of the proposed residence. The
property owners indicate that they have
changed their proposed color scheme to a
beigej off-white exterior color. However,
the have not et selected a roof color.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the following conditions of approval be added to the project,
should the Planning Commission consider upholding the appeal and modifying the
approval of the Residential Design Review and Minor Residential Permit:
12-fJ-
Appeal ofR-2006-0S & RM-20l ,3
November 14, 2006
Page 4
I. Prio:", tn ;"''''''::>..,,('P nf l:n1ilrlina npl"mitc:; thp rrnlwrt;T nwnpr.c:;c:;n;::lll rpvisp thp ~1;:ms
by reducing the balcony size to have a maximum depth of 4 feet and providing a
minimum 5-foot high screen around the railing of the balcony to prevent any
privacy impacts onto the adjacent property to the west.
2. The landscape plans shall be revised to provide immediate privacy protection at
installation along the western property line. The landscape plan shall also
provide the size of trees and shrubs to be planted at installation and the distance
between trees and shrubs to be planted at installation. The landscape plan shall
be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development to
determine the adequacy of privacy protection on the property.
Appellants' Responses
The appellants have reviewed the revised elevations, landscape plan and response sheet
that the property owners submitted on November 2, 2006 and have submitted their
responses (See Exhibit D) to the revised plans. The appellants stated that they do not
feel the Planning Commission's comments have been adequately addressed.
Submitted by: Aki Honda, Senior Planner ~ I
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme~
Enclosures:
Exhibit A: Property owner comments and revised plans submitted on November 2, 2006
Exhibit B: Planning Commission meeting minutes of October 10, 2006
Exhibit C: Planning Commission staff report of October 10,2006
Exhibit D: Appellants' responses to property owners' revised plans
g:jplanning/pdreportjAppealsjR-2006-0S, Continued to 11-14-06.doc
?-2.-)3
Exhibit It
C~ltt, Homa and Menraaa,
Here are the list of comments from the Planning Commission:
1. Eliminate the balcony and create a faux balcony, or significantly
reduce/pull back the balcony so that it does not create privacy
impacts onto adjacent properties.
The side views of the balcony after the reduction are drawn. In this
design, the balcony is aligned with the edge of the house and it is no
longer sticking out. The balcony size and look is in code.
2. Lower the entry feature so that it is more symmetrical with the
turret and the house.
The entry feature has been lowered by 1 foot, even though it was
already in code for 14'. This request has already been wdived by the
neighbor, Elena Herrera who had raised it as an issue. According to
opinions of some of the City commissioners, lowering the height of the
porch has made the look of the house out of proportion.
3. Remove or refine the second story bay window on the front
elevation.
The ~econd story bay window has been eliminated and replaced with
regular window.
4. Provide privacy planting along the west side property line to
provide full privacy protection screening at installation of a balcony,
if a balcony is still proposed.
We are proposing completely a new privacy landscape design done by a
licensed architect (JPM landscaping). The design should create full
privacy protection screening.
5. Reinstate requirement to install privacy protection landscaping
along the east property line.
We are proposing a completely new privacy landscape design done by a
licensed landscape architect (JPM landscaping). The design includes
privacy protection screening along the east property line.
6. Move the proposed Deodar cedar forward about 8-10 feet from the
corner of the story poles so that it is approximately 8 feet from the
common property line of the fence to provide more sufficient privacy
protection screening along the eastern property line.
We are proposing completely new privacy landscape design done by a
licensed landscape architect. The design includes privacy protection
screening along the east property line.
7. Work with staff to provide an acceptable privacy protection
landscaping plan.
Will be reviewed wilh staff.
')1- - S-l-(
8. Tone down the color of the residence and roofing; provide a less
bright color scheme.
Considering that the exterior color of the appellant's house is also
light, we will use beige/off-white exterior color similar to Herrera's
instead of peach. We also make sure to select a roof color which is not
odd to the neighborhood. However, we can not guarantee that every
single neighbor would love the color, since people have different
tastes and majority are counted. We should not forget that we are not
living in a Communist country.
9. Include front yard landscaping and/or brick/rock work on the
frontage of the residence to soften the frontage of the home and
provide additional architectural enhancements.
There will be a front landscaping to soften the frontage of the home
and has been approved by our neighbor.
10. Applicant shall talk to their neighbors.
We did talk to the appellants neighbors(Tracys & Herrera). Tracys
proposed a privacy landscape design for our back yard that we agreed
to. However, we decided to hire a professional landscaper architect to
design a new privacy landscape. The new design should exceed the
expectations.
We met with Herreras. They have changed their minds. They no longer
wants the height of our porch to be reduced. They also agreed to use
front landscaping to soften the look of the home. Since the exterior
color of their house is light, they agreed with light color for the
exterior of our house!
We have also talked to many other neighbors, they all like what is
proposed for our house and they are very much happy for this
replacement.
:2-1- -.)"5'
120.5' Pla.t
'1
!!
.J
Tl'ell'--
kceftt
WEST (RIGHT)
ELEVATION
Scale 1/4" ~ 1'- 0"
DD DD
10o.O'E
f"'J.O..ish Schedule:
Exterior: 3-Caat Stucco. "Pa.1amino" (Lt. YeUow/Tan)
Ruof:. Concrde So Tilelite. "ea-sa. Grande Blend"
Trim ill Fascial. Painted \'\food Trim Surroun.ds. ''Nude'' (White)
Windows 8l Doors: Eagle Vinyl Clad Ult:ra. Windows . ''Wh.ite~
Garage lJl Front Door. Painted Wood. "Antique"
Deck Ra.ilinl!: Palnte.d Articulated Wrouilht Iron. "Whitell
Balcony: Slate Tile
N
j0
,
'-"1
~.
EAST (LEFT)
ELEVATION
Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0"
m
sE:::,.
..
4.o'Pta.te
rellis
Accent
I ' .
_ ~ m 'O"'l
il 8! ~ ~
~ ~ it m
. <( .. ~
.'l ~ ~ ~
o Ql ~
0: ~ IZ
~
fIl
t>I
ii
,?,~:... 0 ~
1<'.Uo.
;;&1 !E]
-0.
u
~
-'l
~
<<I
o
!8
-'~
~'f
JLl!la4
/
"...../"
....
d al
~ f,:!
:sg ~
00;0.,
~ sO!
.c:; :g i
;;- <r'
.E -'wi Ult:l
" III oQ
~'"O~~
~ ~ ~~
~.... '5.~
l:li~ a,;
>-..c:; ,z
S .l:~
'"':->>';;;<
II} <iQ _ >-
o 0..
~ ~ 5"
~ a o~
" 0 Q-
~:r.: ~~
f/'J
Z
o
w-
ef-c
(/)~
~
d
B
/
./
,//
'"
Q ~ CI:I ;
i g ij ;q
IN h ~ IR
d~:!i
~ : III ~
e ~
0: .~
~
120.5' PI t
. ~,
~ .- urn
.n." Dm-
Tre.lll. ?-t ~ ~ DO DD
Accent , D
if II
~ '=
1A I I
.....
OJ
!!In
/. ~ '€
,<;';"';, \ 8-
::'~1"" 01
!=--~7~-; ::: ~
dO;
~
,t>
~
~
l!i
<0"
s<g
~:!!
~&
---""E.J'.Ja<.
~
12
.~
'"
"I
:i m
HI ~
n.. If)
II :!:~
..~l?J~
...O'.I~
~", ~ Ii
" II O'Q
~ ::1 .11i
i!l ,,' t J,
'~,l: Be;!
" () g.~
Cl:..lt)C
i~; i~
II) cl .!!! >-
o c...
? 'I ~ 6
;t L: ~ e
~ I) al!l
<=':ii~
Finish Schedule:
Exterior. 3-Coat Stucco ~ "PaJamino" (Ll. Yellow/Tan)
Root. Concrete s.. Tilelite- "Can. Grande Blend"
TriJn III FasciAl Painted Wood Trim Surrounds.. "Nude" (White)
Windows lJ/. Doors: Ea..&lle Vinyl C1a.d Ultra Windows. "White"
Garage 8J. Front Door. Painted Wood. IIAntique"
Deck Railinl!: Pa..inted Articula.tal Wrou&ht Iron . "White"
Balcony: Slate Tile
WEST (RIGHT)
ELEVATION
Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0"
~
U3.o'P\Qte
F.
(/)
Z
o
III E=
El<
UI>
w
d
rellil
~e..r
EAST (LEFT)
ELEVATION
l'--J
f'-'
\
'\
~
Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0"
~~
~
~
\
~
//'
~6SRid
~p
/f/
'yr"
//-
..ru-O'P t..
is-O.
T I _~......~_
A<mt
~
~
~
~
NORTH (FRONT)
ELEVATION
Fini!lh Schedule:
Exte.rion S-Coa.t Stucco. ''Pa,1a.m1no'' (Lt. Yellow/Tan)
Roof: Concrete So- TiJ~lite. ''Casa. Gra.o.de 8lend"
Trim. 8/. Fucia: Painted Wood Trim SurroUAds - ''Nude.'l (White)
Windows 81. Doors: Eagle Vinyl Clad Ultra. Windows. "Wh..ite."
Gal'a.fl;e 8l. f'"ront Door. Painted Wood - "Antique"
Deck Ra.iling: Pa.inted Articulated Wrought Iron - '''''kite"
J5.alcony; Slate Tile.
Scale 1/4" ; 1'- 0"
~
12
sr:::".
12
. t.
JOO.O'LG.
SOUTH (REAR)
ELEVATION
Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0"
~.. 0> Iii
il ~ i ~
~ ~ id
~ ~ ~ ~
,8 .dl ~
d E ~
0; a "'
III
~1J
~ .~
~~' 0 CIl
!f&5.1~ ]
Co.
r.:.
""
~
~
~
tCI
o
:gg
~:~
","
~c:
.,11I1
.
I:j ~
I t-
~:~ :6
r) ~~
:'~ ~!
. '"
hl~";
:; ',S d
~ ",1 ._~
.g ri" t.c
'! ~~~ !~
i:l: d = .
... u 0
e-.> .Z
0.' Cl ~
..., <
") Q,l ~ >.
o 0..
t ,S 56
:: k= ~ ~
~ ,:) i~
< :!: R ~
rJ)
Cfj Z
f-<~S
Z~~
00:>
e: ~
...:l
~
~j
". ...l.,::;....., "'. Crap ytte ""..~.~.. ...:..~ ...:.. .'_ Drush cherry . -~rape mrytte ." ~ ,_..
. ,"..""f.'. >,., \ Mil. ... .it 0<" . "edg.. ~ ,.' .<.~>""l ,..
",." . . .."~~."'.....,~ .~_~~no a",}'-)~'oo~Y~--.S ?i~~-y. n~ '~ _ -,/",:'~;7-':.....-. '.:'/.'.:
"1',' ~~~::i"J '..' ~~ ,.. hf ~. -,oV """,,?f!. ....' ..;R7 .....~
.~": . :to i?.:N;VJ.'.' #,..\~",.?'iC'.'I'Cl'l'\,: It\.1.. ..:ll ..1.0.' \:': _ ,t'rl t!,\ i:. ,_ .~\ ....~...... _~::."!r"
-':is '-\~~:,,~. ~"" ~i.~,';;S',~#Jlm~...l;" :,S1 \ .. ~\:,c..' l-.!.Y;;~''-\' "..}t'. '''i~~'
.~';:::: . ~ '?;'- -:::i"'-~~;:-~l~-' ,~~::y~~ ('r.:, .' crF - ".~:::-<- -- i-~.;
lr~ .ftf -:_~~';){'\;'0-'~\:;'>~":-'~ ~ ~;;J'
~ ,-{ t' "f.'\'- ~
L7~ ~t~;~ki?)
~"-~\ {< ::; U -0- >
tl {~>----0-.. \j V //z.r...:...-,
-. >-.:.. ''-'') I ~ r J'"
EKlstlnq oak. vr ;;t--- -) ~L!k
'r-J' JIl -- '--<J 0
~'--z{ C~~\f'\--"~
~~, //,.. ~\ ,~
\',r r--r;:-::.~/ a \_,
-ct / >--.., ~''oo 0
.:,./ d'-'",\
'~'-I ,\" I ~,.
.." \ 'I\J
.-., ~\ .,>
~
flowaripg pc.r
Cherry laun"
podoca Uliii
Hedge
'...,.
i~~~
....;..:.
i~1!.-
~!.
Dnwing'Ii&
Hama. Moj;mi
r~'
~.,~::..,
...i.:'
I'F
f.......:...
....-:..f_
I'." '\
~-..!
~'..
61
RESID-F.NCE
;.,,:
~.:.:~
~.:.
,....'.'.
Q'~
\.,...
!~'!. .
....:.
.'1.~I"'.
~.,
PnJ-
GreDoladriTt3r Cuperl~
Do...
911:312006
DnwnDT
100 Andolin>
5Lo4t
1 all
Sc"i~~1od
I>nwht;
108-:-
:~~:
._..\:.
:i~~:
Deodara Cedar
1.--:
't,,\ ,,<tj~,"
."o",.../.J I
.' '.{
~. .~~::.: -~'-}Y~:~i' Strawberry bush
lr.:. Y (~.i
,......, ~..,...C
.' 3. "'~ ' lit; )f'I;>~, .
'.'-11 r. "':;:C;.v..-
?);~,~~~~~: _-;;t.
"- i---{.. ..~', I '- ~ ., .J. ~
, "i!,2~:~,"~;:;".".
;-~i:'" Piltosporum
~:. ..~: (Black stem)
'\..~q,
"r'~-"
1 :-..:..., I
\_~:I'
.(t~H:;
"'\..i-:=~
. ~;rif?
\:......
. '-:;; -:;,-
(~:;::
\...~-.;t:
.'- .. . :"']'.-' ....,....~.--..-...
. . -,~', . "y
;,~;*-
Design. Build. Construction
Cusmm landscape Design and Construction
k1tet'tOdftna PIvth .. Ragmm. . ~mp Coftawte .. 5Icne.llIa
'Wa::QerfrIIlb. ReN:1n1n;l\v.tb.. Atboai ... ChRdoarUgbtlng .. B:eQ"s
~Uthn=rta
408-925-0180
wvorNJpmlandscaplng.rom
MemberCLCA - UCENSEO . BONDED -INSURED. Ucen'ef7'13l197
;L2- -)1
Exhibit B
Cupertino Planning Co. ,1lSSlOn
10
October 10, 2006
('rn,,!,~.;C'C:~.0~ rlo~!.C'jn~ .f"i,J?r"!! ?.1:""!(J('"': ,n.n,n'?r!!od.
Gary Chao, Associate Planner, presented the staff report:
. Rev\ewed the application for a Use Permit to construct a new two-story 2,131 sq. ft.
resid~ce with 5 foot side yard setbacks in a Planned Residential zoning district, as outlined
in the s ff report.
. He revi ed the side yard setback exception. Staff feels that the project site fits the
parameter of the Rl-5 zoning district and the proposed use permit is consistent with the
intent of the 1 ordinance.
. Staff recomm\nds that the Planning Commission approve the project according to the model
resolutions. \
Richard Kimville, repr.esenting Richard Haro Inc.:
. Reviewed briefly th~lans prepared. He noted that there was a full basement, with a deck in
the front of the hous which is adequately screened. He said it presented as an overall
smaller appearing house, with the second floor set back.
. He said they have worked iligent1y with staff and followed their recommendations,
Com. Chien:
. He a~ked what the homeowner' considerations were when they chose to go below the 750
square feet allowable for second .~ry.
Richard Kimville:
. Said they were trying to keep the over 1 project not too large, and it has been worked several
times over. There was not a specific issu€ brought up about that; just working with the totals.
. Said he could not say that it would be fea .ble if you look at the way the designs layout; it is .
a nice house and you are starting over totall when you do something like that at this stage.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
. Commended the architect for designing an appro iate sized home on the small lot and
taking advantage of the basement. She said the house ould complement the neighborhood.
Chair Miller opened the public hearing.
Chair Miller closed the public hearing.
Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Chien to approve Application
U-2006-10, ASA-2006-18. (Vote: 5-0-0)
Chair Miller declared a recess until 9 p.m.
4. R-2006-08 and RM-2006-13
Appellant John Tracy/Jessica
Rose; Elena Herrera/Subir
Sengupta; 21180 Grenola Dr.
Appeal of a Residential Design and Minor
Residential Permit to construct a new, two-story
4,219 sq. ft. residence with two second-
story rear yard decks.
Aki Honda, Senior Planner, presented the staff report
. Reviewed the appeal of the Residential Design and Minor Residential Permit to construct a
new, two-story 4,219 sq. ft. residence with two second- story rear yard decks on 21180
Grenola Drive.
22-~loD
Cupertino Planning Co. .11SSlOn
11
October 10,2006
~l-i.: :-::;:d~::~i::~ ;:::::::~ :.:::i ::::::~~ :-:-~i~~~~i:'.! r~~i~ "t,"'/~?:"~ ?r~~~H~rI. 8~ .A,~,lZl.~C't ? 1) ?0()~ ?_nd
two appeals were filed by neighbors on September 6, 2006. The appellants' concerns were
outlined in the staff report, Page 4-3, and include protection plan for the Oak tree; concerns
about the impacts of the second story master bedroom balcony; the home not fitting in or
complementing the neighborhood; proposed change of color of the home to prevent
reflectivity into the neighborhood and privacy screening be reinstated.
Staff feels the proposed residence meets and exceeds the development standards for a two-
story residence with two-story decks; the Mediterranean style home is consistent with other
Mediterranean styles in the Garden Gate area; the balconies are limited in size and there are
others that have been approved in the neighborhood. Staff also feels the landscaping plan
addresses the privacy protection landscaping requirements.
The city arborist determined that the Oak tree can be retained on the property based upon
their review of the plans shown. If the applicant follows the protection measures required
per his report, staff has narrowed criteria to request the changes based on the temperature and
glare effects that the Herraras and Senguptas requested and more changes were requested on
the design of the house or colors based upon that.
She illustrated of the color renderings and photos of the site from various elevations and
other neighboring homes.
She clarified that the Planning Commission would be the final decision maker on single
family homes, unless appealed by the City Council.
.
.
.
.
Jessica Rose, Appellant:
. Expressed concern about the impact of the proposed home, specifically the rear balcony
which would invade their existing privacy and affect the quality of life and property value.
. She explained that they had recently remodeled their home, taking into consideration the
potential changes to the neighborhood and the impact on their home, She said they did not
consider that the home behind them might build a second floor balcony. She said that the
proposed balcony was not in scale with the design and general neighborhood and would have
a negative impact on their privacy.,
. She discussed the examples used in the staff report of homes with second story balconies and
summarized the concerns outlined in their written appeal related to privacy impacts,
incompatibility with the neighborhood, and landscaping screens for protection of the impacts
from the balconies.
Horna Mojgani, applicant:
. Discussed the concerns of the neighbors relative to the oak tree; privacy; look and feel and
compatibility with the neighborhood; impact on quality of life; and the value of the
neighboring houses.
. She said the home design meets all the development regulations for two-story homes with
balconies; it is compliant with RI ordinance for second story deck. Relative to the oak tree,
in the initial plan, the oak tree was mislabeled as a sycamore tree and following an arborist's
determination, the oak tree will be preserved and remain on the property.
. Relative to privacy impacts from the balcony; we went to our neighbor's house to talk about
their concerns; we agreed that they can see our house and whoever is standing in our balcony
and from our balcony if somebody wants to see their backyard, he or she can; of course if
there is no privacy landscape. What we did not agree and discuss was, what details can be
seen from our house?
. Maintaining privacy landscape should be mutual; people can use curtains for more privacy;
with many new two story houses, some big balconies and also looking at the trend of the new
developments and understanding the city ordinance should help the people who renovate
their older houses to set their expectations realistically. One should anticipate a possibility of
22--lo(
Cupertino Planning Co. .1lSSlOn
12
October 10,2006
t',,"'\T2 :~~r:/ ~~~_~~~~ tC' l'~ ~~.l~lt Tlpvt to t~~r!\ !"prl'?.c:-;!1~ n10pr h()n1.p~.
. She illustrated photos showing the views from the bedrooms and master bedroom.
. She said that in order to address the neighbor's concerns regarding privacy screening, they
have planned a maximum privacy protection landscape which meets the city's privacy
protection landscape requirements, and have chosen plants from the city's privacy protection
planting list.
. Regarding story poles per the neighbor's request, she said they paid an extra $600 to put up
the story poles to show the exact location of the balconies. Balcony setbacks are exceeding
the minimum setbacks for east, west and rear sides. Regarding balcony size, it was initially
designed to be 113 square feet. Although it met the two-story balcony requirement, to satisfy
the neighbor, they reluctantly reduced the size significantly to almost half of the initial size
, down to 60 square feet.
. They considered the neighbor's windows and attempted to put almost all the second floor
windows on the side of the adjacent neighbor with no window on the side. Regarding
compatibility and feel and look, this is a mixed neighborhood, many two story newer homes
are built next to 50 years old, single story homes, throughout Cupertino and specifically in
this neighborhood. Existing newer homes under construction are Mediterranean style and
some have rear balconies.
Elena Herrera, Appellant:
. Said she understood that there was a certain mode of operation to adhere to; the ordinance
says (a), (b) and (c); within that we all agree that you have a certain responsibility to address
the style, size, the look and feel within your purview as individuals. We as residents look to
you to exercise your judgment and that is what we are doing tonight.
. One of the precedents that is being discussed is balconies. She said she discounted the
homes built during the County tenure of that neighborhood, specifically because the
neighborhood campaigned for annexation into the city for the types of protection sought
tonight. She illustrated two examples of projects approved recently; one with a balcony
overlooking her property and one which overlooks her back yard.
. She illustrated photos of Greenleaf which showed examples of large homes which did not fit
into the neighborhood.
. Showed a drawing to illustrate the importance of landscaping on the east side of the home
being reinstated.
. Referring to the color renderings of the project, she said there were features of the home that
did not fit in with the look and feel of the home. The bay window over the garage and the
turret feature do not exist in the new buildings that are being constructed in the
neighborhood.
. She referred to the entry feature which exceeds 14 feet; the turret which is not in keeping
with the home designs in the neighborhood and the bay window. She recommended that the
fayade be softened;
. She expressed concern that there were flaws in the noticing procedure, Relative to the
subject property, she said that she did not receive noticing although she shares a property line
with the new project behind her home on Hazelbrook. She said that the landscaping report
contains many unanswered questions relating to protecting the oak tree.
Com. Chien:
. There was a disagreement about the species of the tree, which was later identified as an Oak
tree. He asked if there was a need for the arborist to come out at that point.
;;LL-lo d--
Cupertino Planning Co... .1lSSlOn
13
October 10,2006
/..1:: II:::::=:::
. Said there was a need because it had to be determined how far away the oak tree would be
from the main residence and to have the arborist look at that plot plan to see if it was
sufficient distance away from the proposed home. In that timeframe, the applicant's designer
had the property surveyed and they determined at that point that the oak tree would be 14
feet, 2 inches away. Their initial plan showed 12 foot setback but they later changed it and
the arborist reviewed it and said it would be appropriate.
. Relative to entry height, she said that the initial review with the applicant was that the entry
height was too high, at that time over 14 feet. The entry height is from the plate height, not
from the peak of that roof, but from the plate height to the floor.
. Said that the applicant wanted the balconies to be functional, not just ornamental.
. Said there was a diagram in the ordinance that shows how the entry feature height IS
measured, and it shows it to the plate height and not including the roofing over it.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. Said she was concerned about the ridge above the plate height; the gap between the plate.
height and the bottom just under the keystone.
. Asked the applicant if in their discussions with the Tracys, they had considered offering to
plant privacy trees or shrubs on their side of the property line as a courtesy to screen them
from the new construction. Part of the alternatives brought up is that the applicant can pay
for the plants and installation on their property; and the neighbor would maintain it to
maintain their privacy.
Applicant:
. Said she would plant other privacy plants if the appellant felt others were more appropriate.
Aki Honda:
. The reduced balcony plan was added as part of the approval plans as an addendum. They
have been working with the designer to redesign the whole plan, during the application stage
instead of revising all of the entire plans again. They submitted a revised portion for that
balcony which was added as an addendum and included as part of the approved plan. The
elevations do not reflect the reduced balcony as of yet, but the reduced balcony and floor
plan does.
. The applicant has not given a revised elevation. It will be set in more and won't project as
much as shown on the elevations.
Steve Piasecki:
. Said that a possible option would be to ask the applicant to install a 6 foot high barrier that
would direct views away from their neighbors instead of into their neighbor's back yard.
. We have approved turret features; we try to get them to be less dominant, this one because it
is set back is not as obvious as some are. One of the things we look for in house designs and
we try to encourage applicants is symmetry and balance. There are some features here, some
people have talked about this window here that seems to be out of symmetry. The entry
feature could be reduced in height. You could ask the applicant if they are willing to take a
continuance; they could come back and look at putting some kind of brick or rock feature
into the design of the home as well as lower this feature, and simplify another feature
somehow. You could do a number of things that would lower and soften this; in addition you
could look at providing a screen to the balcony and/or minimizing it further by adding
landscaping, so maybe they could come back with a package that" would address a number of
the neighbors' concerns and scale the house more compatible with the neighborhood. Being
compatible with the neighborhood is always a problem when you have neighborhoods that
22---~3
Cupertino Planning COl .11SSlOn
14
October 10,2006
:.:-~ :::. ::-2_~~it~~~~ t~i: ']~~ ~.?: ? ~2~t Af hryrneC t~o:lt u.'~rp !l~'.~,r~~, ~l_~ilt 1!1 th~ 7()~ ~n0 ,uF.'rp
largely stucco homes and weren't as big as this home, but they were of stucco features and
the homes in Garden Gate are very small in some cases, and because they are flat roofed,
they do not have the appearance of this, and there is clearly a transition going on. How do
you balance that; and this is a classic neighborhood with a lot of variety.
Chair Miller:
. Relative to the balcony, two issues in terms of intrusion are the visual intrusion and noise
intrusion. He asked if staff considered that intrusion in evaluating the balcony?
Aki Honda:
. Said staff did not take into consideration the sound intrusion.
Steve Piasecki:
. Said there was no provision in the ordinance to do that. He clarified that a balcony is an
appurtenance on a home; it can be well designed, it can be sensitively designed relative to the
neighbors. We don't look on it as being a neighborhood character feature one way or the
other; it is just another amenity that someone chooses of may chose to have in their home.
Chair Miller:
. Said they have focused on the visual impact of the balcony on the neighbor to the west; and
asked about the impact of the balcony on the neighbor to the east.
Steve Piasecki:
. Said there was much greater setback; there is an oak tree in the back yard that will provide
some of that screening; I think that the views are more limited; this is also the neighbor
immediately to the east; the privacy screening is not needed. If you had a continuance, you
could ask that neighbor to weigh in on the issue and ask for more sections and details to help
with that.
Chair Miller opened the public hearing.
Les Bowers, resident:
. Said the proposed balcony looked directly into their 6 foot garden window into the master
bedroom, as well as the windows up above.
. The original planting was large magnolia trees and it was felt because they would take a
longer time to grow, pitosporum was recommended because of its faster growth.
. Said Garden Gate was built on slab foundations and the privacy issue is much greater
because there is as much privacy invasion on a house on a slab foundation than there is with
another kind.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
. Said that the issues that drove Garden Gate to annex into Cupertino from the County are still
alive. House size is important in Garden Gate as is privacy.
. People do have the right to build what they want on their property. Relative to the balconies,
there is precedent in the city to look at the invasion of privacy with these types of balconies.
In many areas of the city, particularly Rancho Rinconada with the small lots, balconies are
not encouraged. In Garden Gate, there is a history of overly large homes, the city has done a
good job in bringing the homes into line with the property.
;lL - (/-(
Cupertino Planning Co! .1lSSlOn
15
October 10,2006
S~i~~ s~~ ';'I/3~ p!o~:.'~~ ~~~r~ ?fO ~O~A,,:rl C'tr~~' ~e!'b?~k~. I~ t~~ ':~.~~ 0f th~ b?1(,011_i.~c.;~ ~f Y01.~ ?r,=,
able to bring them back, perhaps not have them rounded, have them step out two to three
feet, if they must be there, but also what the previous speaker said about the slab houses in
Garden Gate, Rancho is on slab also, if you bring in the new homes, they have probably a
crawl space underneath them; if not a whole basement area, so that is going to put another
five to six feet on the height. She suggested that the portico was too high.
Chair Miller closed the public hearing.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. Said she felt the entry feature is too large and dominates the entry of the house. Said
she would like it lowered, and agreed that the second story bay window seems to be
out of alignment with the architecture and sticks out.
. Relative to tree protection, she said she was not sure they were doing enough to protect the
Oak as they have for others in the past, and was uncertain if final approval included such
things as trenching, root barriers, fencing it off, posting, no storage under it, no dumping, the
usual things done for Oaks,
AId Honda:
. Said they were all standard conditions, and it is stated in the conditions to look at the
arborist's report and all of the arborist's recommendations.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. Said she was sympathetic with the privacy issue since she resided on a sloped lot and in the
process of remodeling her home, added large kitchen windows. She said she was aware that
her neighbors would have a clear view into her new kitchen window, but it is a choice she
made.
. Expressed concern about the privacy plantings on the east side; a site visit showed the
clearest shot it to the east; there are screening trees already on the west side of the lot, but
you can see quite extensively on the east. She said she was surprised the neighbor had
waived the privacy plantings, and she suggested they be reinstated even though they were
waived.
. Suggested that Tree A, the deodora. cedar be moved forward to the area approximately 8 or
10 feet from the comer of where the current story poles are and approximately 8 feet from
the common property line fence. The reason is that off the east balcony, one would be able
to see quite a far way to the east and the plantings would help those and future neighbors
with their privacy.
. Said she would prefer that the balcony be removed and replaced with a faux balcony, with
French doors, and curve out 18 inches as an architectural feature. It would maintain the
integrity of the back of the house and solve many privacy issues heard today. Balconies
need to be well placed. She suggested an option of pulling that section of the house forward,
moving the closet around the staircase.
. He said there appeared to be confusion about the privacy plantings, and suggested bringing
that portion back to the DRC to finalize the landscaping plan, or give some specific direction
on where it needs to be increased, so that staff can work with them, and make it as
expeditious as possible.
Com. Saadati:
. Said that privacy is the major issue and needs to be addressed by planting trees or modifying
the balcony. As far as the front entry feature, the way it is presently designed based on the
;22--& )'
Cupertino Planning Co. .11SSlOn
16
October 10, 2006
!~1"'~~ ~~-rr~!"1C~0!"'! ,(.'~~'.u c:1:0u~ p~rJi,=,!"~ Jr".~/'?'~i"!'? jt uril1 r~~lJ1t i!l ~t r\l=:-j"!1!"T1\1_1t f"\fnrol){)r1:;nn
-- '...... ......... ...
. It meets the current Rl requirement; if you want to change the plate height that is something
we have, but a lot of effort has been put into make in an entry feature. The intent was to
lower it, but if the roof slope is one to one, then the ridge is going to be substantially higher.
Perhaps in the future we need to address it to keep it lower; and depending on the width of
the entry feature, then the ridge of it would be much higher. Those are the issues that we
could address.
. The bay window seems to be out of proportion, and could be addressed by the architect.
The original balcony is out of proportion; a smaller balcony makes the plan look much nicer
and would serve the function and cost less. The main issue is addressing the privacy by .
either going back with the Director of Community Development or coming back to the DRC.
Com. Chien:
. Said he felt the privacy plan was deficient and needed to be strengthened. He said it
appeared that the privacy planting was done after the fact by the property owner. He
suggested that the entry height and deck be negotiated and some adjustments be made.
Com. Wong:
. Said he concurred with Vice Chair Giefer in most areas. The front portico is too large, and
should be lowered. If it could be kept symmetrical to the height shown, it would be more
compatible with the neighborhood.
. The bay window is not compatible with the front; and I do not support the bay window
sticking out.
. The peach color is too bright and is not compatible with the neighborhood; choose another
color that would be more compatible with the neighborhood.
. Agree with staff on softening some architectural features to help soften it to be more
compatible with the neighborhood.
. Vice Chair Giefer asked about the Oak tree; it is already prescriptive in the ordinance and in
the model resolution.
. Relative to the elevation of the second story, said that he was concerned about the balcony
sticking out. .
. Referring to the second story floor plan, he said he liked the enclosed balcony vs. the
balcony that stuck out too far.
. Suggested that the applicant work with staff to reduce the size of the balcony; agreed with
Vice Chair Giefer to either reduce the bedroom to bring back the balcony if they want to
keep the 60 square foot balcony so that it won't intrude out and on both balconies. It should
be a solid vs. see through wall because of the privacy protection of this particular neighbor;
even with the trees and shrubs planted, you can still see into the back yard.
. He said he knew that it was difficult to accept a second story home in a neighborhood of
mainly one-story homes. He said the Planning Commission should not make decisions about
where the rooms are located, it would help to push it back a little, and make the balcony
come back a little; and ensure there is a good landscape plan.
. Said although the east side neighbor waived their rights, he did not feel it was unreasonable
of the applicant to plant privacy protection on the second story windows facing east. They
could be shrubs or trees to help mitigate the privacy intrusions. .
Chair Miller:
. He expressed concern about the privacy impacts of the balcony, and said that it was not
acceptable that the neighbor could see into the backyard of the neighbor. The choices would
be to eliminate the balcony or in some way reduce the balcony so much that you cannot view
J-2--~(p
Cupertino Planning Co. .HSSlon
17
October 10, 2006
tb", T1f>igl1h"r'" ~/"rrl to thP Ulpd~ or ",,1. th"t thp bnrl"r"f'in~ th"t is. f'llt in f'hl(~p np " r,nmf'lptp
screen on day 1, not three years from now.
. He said there are rights of the property owner and there are the rights of the neighbor also.
The balcony is different from a window.
. Concurred that some softening of the front was needed; a neighbor suggested some
landscaping that was in the rendering and some landscaping would help soften the front.
Said he agreed that there needs to be landscaping along the east side as well. Many issues
can be mitigated with landscaping; more landscaping than normal is needed because it is a
very large home.
Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Giefer, second by Com. Wong, to uphold the appeal with
the following modifications:
· Pull back the second story balcony in the master suite so that it is non-
intrusive to their neighbors on the west side, or eliminate it and recommend
a faux balcony in its place;
· The final design details will be referred to the DRC;
· The entry feature height should be lower to be more in alignment and
symmetrical with the front elevation turrets;
· The second story bay window be refined or removed;
· The privacy planting on the west side of the building be increased in height
and density to provide full screening at time of installation;
· The east side privacy planting be restored specifically tree A - the deodora
cedar, moved forward to not crowd the Oak and provide screening for the
second story balcony on the east side into that adjacent neighbor's yard;
· The landscaping and/or brick/rock features on the front elevation to soften
the elevation;
· The applicant to work with staff on a final landscaping plan;
· The applicant work with staff to identify a less bright color scheme for the
neighborhood; and
· The final design will come back to the DRC.
.
Com. Chien:
. Said he would be more comfortable with the recommendations; the Planning Commission
has the purview to do anything at the DRC level. He said he would rather not design the
house on the fly, on the dais, and preferred that it go to the DRC to address. He proposed the
amendment for acceptance.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. Said she was not willing to accept the amendment since she felt it was more expeditious for
the applicant to know what the specifics are, so they are not spending incremental dollars
trying to redesign the entire second floor, when it is one small piece that needs to be fixed.
Com. Chien:
. Asked the city attorney, why bind the Planning Commission to certain requirements when it
is going back to the DRC, and the DRC will have the purview to make any decision.
Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney:
. Said it can be done either way by a motion for a specific requirement or make it a broader,
specifying the things that they are not happy with, and direct the DRC to look at those things
and come up with solutions. She said she could not say what the best option was.
2L-~1
Cupertino Planning Co. .1lSSlOn
18
October 10,2006
~te~T~ pi?~~~~~:
. Said he was comfOliable with the DRC, and asked the applicant if they were agreeable to a
continuance to work on the issues.
Com. Chien:
. Said he had confidence in the DRC and did not want it back at the Planning Commission
level.
Staff explained the options available to the applicant, and explained the conditions outlined in the
motion made.
The applicant agreed to a continuance to work with the neighbors and city staff. There was
consensus that an application fee would not be charged.
Withdrawal of Motion: Vice Chair Giefer withdrew the motion to uphold the appeal in
favor of a continuance of the application to the November 14,2006
Planning Commission meeting. Com. Wong accepted the
withdrawal of the motion.
Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Giefer, second by Com. Wong, to continue further
discussion of Applications R-2006-08 and RM-2006-13 to the November 14,
2006 Planning Commission meeting.
Com. Chien:
. We decided in the original motion to take it to the DRC so that we could have an open forum
where all parties are involved to discuss how we could come to a solution. The process we
are going to now is not as transparent, it is going to be incumbent on the property owner to
move the process forward and we would be back here possibly with or without new
information depending on what the applicant does. My preference would be to take it to the
DRC where everybody gets a full airing of the case.
Com. Wong:
. Explained that if the application is continued, all suggestions are off the table, and the
applicant will be forced to work harder and work with their neighborhood so that when they
come back in 30 days, hopefully they will have a plan that all their neighbors will strongly
support the project or there will be a repeat of the long discussion. He said he felt it was a
win-win situation.
Chair Miller:
. Said he agreed with Com. Wong, the DRC is only two commissioners, and it will come back
to the full Planning Commission and hopefully they will have talked to the neighbors and
reached some agreement.
Steve Piasecki:
. We prefer when we give the applicant the option of going to DRC or coming back to the
Planning Commission, of deferring to whatever option they prefer because there is a
significant delay, and they will have to spend money and lose time. Staff would rather they
be in agreement, rather than dictate one formula which may not work out, and cause more
delays for the applicant.
(V ote: 5-0-0)
22-&6
Exhibit c
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
lrY~" A Tl":'"'......r....T...... 0T.' I'"Yl\Irl'-/HT1'<H'T'V TYU:;'.Tl:nr ,YIDl\/if1:;l\.TT DlGPnD'V' lGnDl\K
JL-'JI--J..II....c..lL..L"".JL..LV.A.......,.I............................... ........_....~..........~...._....,,--~ - -'- ~ -----.---~- ----'- _..:....'--'- - '-~.._~-
Application: Appeal of R-2006-08 Agenda Date: October 10, 2006
and RM-2006-13
Appellant: John Tracy & Jessica Rose
Elena Herrera & Subir Sengupta
Property Location: 21180 Grenola Drive
Application Summary:
Appeal of a Residential Design Review and Minor Residential Permit to construct a
new, two-story 4,219 square foot residence with two second-story rear yard decks.
Recommendation:
The Planning COInll1ission has the option of making either recommendation to the City
Council:
1. Deny the appeal(s) and uphold the Director of Community Development's
decision, or
2. Uphold the appeal(s) and Director of Community Development's decision, or
3. Uphold the appeal(s) and modify the Director of Community Development's
decision
Project Data:
General Plan Designation: Low Density (1-5 DU j gross acre)
Zoning Designation: R1-10
Lot Area: 9,375 square feet (.21 acres)
Proposed Residence
First Floor Living SF:
Second Floor Living SF:
Garage SF:
Total Building SF:
Floor Area Ratio:
First Floor F ARj2nd Floor FAR:
Lot Coverage:
Master Bedroom Balcony:
Bedroom 2 Balcony:
Parking:
StoriesjHeight:
2,272 square feet
1,309 square feet
638 square feet
4,219 square feet
.45
.45
31%
60 square feet
53 square feet
2 eI1closedj2 uncovered
2 stories j 26 feet 6 inches
1-2--& q
~
Appeal ofR-2006-08 & RM-200(
October 10, 2006
Page 2
Setbacks:
Front (Grenola Dr. side)
Rear (south)
East Side
West Side
Balconies
t'irst Story
20 feet
45 feet
5 feet
10 feet
NjA
~ "II.........
bc::C0iiu cY Lvi y
33 feet
46 feet
18 feet
14 feet 6 inches
20 feet (east side)
17 feet (west side)
Project Consistency with: General Plan Yes Zoning Yes
Environmental Assessment: Categorically Exempt
Background:
In April of 2006, the applicants, Mehrdad and Homa Mojgani, applied for a two-story
residential permit and minor residential permit to construct a 4,219 square foot, two-
story single family residence with two-story decks on their property located at 21180
Grenola Drive. Based on concerns expressed by neighbors that an existing oak tree was
to be removed on the property, staff conducted an inspection of the property and
discovered that the applicants had mislabeled the existing oak h-ee on the property as a
sycamore tree that they were proposing to remove. As a result, staff notified the
applicant that oak trees are protected trees and that the application could not be
processed until a tree evaluation could be conducted by the City's Arborist.
A h-ee evaluation (See Exhibit D) was conducted by Barrie D. Coate & Associates on
April 27th, who identified the tree as a coast live oak in excellent condition. The City
Arborist also provided several measures to ensure protection of the tree during
construction if the tree is to be preserved. The applicant's designer also resubmitted a
revised site plan, indicating that the oak tree was actually 14 feet 2 inches from the
proposed new home, rather than the 12-foot distance as previously shown. As a result,
the City Arborist stated that trenching could occur 14 feet 2 inches from the trunk
diameter, rather than the 15-foot distance as recommended in the tree report. Due to
this information, the applicants decided to retain the tree since the tree report indicated
that it could be preserved. Further, the City Arborist stated that the pruning required
to construct the new residence would result in a fairly minor canopy loss and that the
tree should be able to tolerate the canopy loss if the pruning is done by a certified
arborist and meets the ISA Western Chapter standards.
Staff determined that the pi-oposed residence met all development regulations for a
two-story residence with two-story decks and consequently sent a letter to neighbors
notifying them of the application and requesting comments by July 25th, The City
received comments from the surrounding residents who expressed concern about the
proposed two-story residence and asked that the story poles be installed to accurately
reflect the location of the two-story decks to be constructed on the residence. Staff
subsequently requested the applicant to install the story poles showing the location of
22--70
~
Appeal ofR-2006-08 & RM-200f '~
October 10, 2006
Page 3
the decks and extended the comment period to August 16th. A letter was sent on
.' ~_____,:.,; ......1"' .-..00..... . .,-~'r...,.-;..,-.;- .d_,_. _...,._~.~':~~:-.L....... ................;1 ,........~............0'.,-r"'\0~Y\rr '1"ocirion+c +1""':::l+ t'hp. t"\^Tfl c:.tnl\T
nu.!:,u.:::'L LJ, LVVV, J.LVLLJ.]U'6 LH~ ~t't'~~~~~LL~ _H_ ~-~------._-_c-o -------...- .. .. -. J
residential permit and minor residential permit were approved on August 21st.
On September 6, 2006, the City received two appeals on this project. One appeal was
filed by J OM Tracy and Jessica Rose. The other appeal was filed by Elena Herrera and
Subir Sengupta.
Discussion:
John Tracy and Jessica Rose, adjacent residential neighbors who reside at 10410 A1ll1
Arbor Avenue, submitted an appeal (See Exhibit A) of the minor residential permit
approving the second story balcony to the master bedroom of the proposed residence
and voiced their concerns about protection of the existing oak tree on the property. The
appeal letter provided the following concerns and comments:
Second Story Master Bedroom Balcony
The balcony will have a full view into their backyard, living room, patio, and
master bedroom window affecting their privacy and quality of life.
They question the compatibility of the proposed Mediterranean residence
with the neighborhood and believe there are no homes with rear facing
balconies in the Garden Gate neighborhood.
The proposed two-story home is surrounded by three single-family homes
and will allow the homeowner to view into these surrounding homes.
They question the proposed .home owners' purpose to construct a balcony
that will view into their yard and has no ,surrounding hillside views.
They propose a faux balcony in lieu of a true balcony for the master bedroom.
They do not believe the landscaping plan for privacy protection will
adequately mitigate privacy impacts and that the plants will not grow tall
enough within three years to provide privacy mitigation.
Protection Plan for the Oak Tree
They question the ability of the oak tree to survive if the arborist report
recommends maintaining a 15 foot distance from the tree when the plan
indicates the proposed house will be 14 feet 2 inches from the tree.
There is no follow-up that the arborist has estimated the proposed canopy
and root system loss with the installation of the story poles.
They believe there would be a 25% root loss if the foundation of the home is
. placed at 15 feet from the tree trunk and would threaten the tree's chance of
survlvrng.
They would like to know the impact of the privacy landscaping on the
existing oak tree as they state oaks are difficult to plant around.
21-- 1 (
rl=f-b
Appeal ofR-2006-08 & RM-200
October 10,2006
Page 4
An appeal (See Exhibit B) was also submitted by Elena Herrera and Subir Sengupta of
21150 Grenola Drive, who reside two houses down trom the subJect property. -lney
provided the following concerns and comments:
Proposed Residence
The size, look and style of the proposed residence neither fits nor
compliments the neighborhood.
They realize that there are similar homes within the Garden Gate
neighborll.ood to the proposed residence, but that these larger homes ,-\rere
approved when these properties were within the Santa Clara County's
jurisdiction. .
There is a proliferation of large homes within their neighborhood, and they
believe it affects the quality of life inthe neighborhood.
They request a major design change to the proposed residence and feel the
proposed turret contributes to the "massive and block-ish look and feel" of
the home.
The home replicates the Mediterranean style homes that are pervasive on
Green Leaf Drive.
The home is out of scale with the neighborhood.
Balconies
Only one home on Grenola has a balconies.
They request that the balconies be minimal in size for the proposed residence
and do not view into a neighboring lot.
Temperature and Glare
The proposed home will radiate heat and glare into the neighborhood and
will compromise their health and comfort in the neighborhood.
Darker tone homes with darker roof materials will provide a less intrusive
roof line and provide a softening of the fa<;ade of the home.
Privacy Screening
Although. the adjacent property to the east signed a privacy protection
waiver, they request that the privacy landscaping requirements be reinstated
on the east side of the property to address their concerns.
Oak Tree'
The existing oak tree on the property should be protected.
They would like further clarification on how the tree is to be protected if the
'arborist recommends a minimum 15-foot distance between the tree and the
home, and the proposed home will have a lesser setback.
The arborist's recommenda,tions on root exploration, story pole placement
and review of utility line locations should be addressed.
12-11-
~
Appeal ofR-2006-08 & RM-200f -."
October 10, 2006
Page 5
Staff Response
r .,~ ~.- _' _ .. .. ,'I , _ ~ _, ' . 1 " . J r
lhe proposea reslc.ience llLeei.~ ell! UC:VC:IU1-'ULt::lL~ ';~aHc..u.;':"~ .LGi.- u. ~-...-;::; ::;:;::;:-;- rc::::i:::c::....:::,
including the setbacks, lot coverage, FAR, parking and height. Additionally, it exceeds
the minimum second story setbacks along the front, rear and side yards. Further, the
design of the residence as a Mediterranean style home with red tile roofing and stucco
exterior is consistent with other Mediterranean style homes that are present within the
Garden Gate neighborhood. As a result, staff approved the residential design review
and minor residential permit.
Balconies
The proposed balconies meet the requirements to allow second story balconies in
accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. As. a result, staff approved the minor residential
permit for the balconies that include requirements for privacy protection landscaping.
The proposed balconies are 53 square feet (bedroom 2) and 60 square feet (master
bedroom) with a 20-foot setback along the east property line and a 17-foot setback along
the west property line. Additionally, the balconies have a 47-foot setback from the rear
property line. These setbacks exceed the minimum setbacks of 15-feet from the side
yard and 20-feet from the rear yard for two-story balconies.
The appellants have stated their concerns that the balconies will create privacy impacts
onto their properties and that balconies are not prevalent within the neighborhood.
However, the Zoning Ordinance states:
liThe goal of the permit is not to require complete visual protection, but to
address privacy protection to the greatest extent while still allowing the
construction and use of an outdoor deck."
Staff believes that the applicants have addressed the privacy protection to the greatest
extent with the privacy protection landscape plan and by exceeding the setback
requirements. Additionally, the applicant has already reduced the master bedroom
balcony to 60 square feet from their initial proposal (that also met the two-story balcony
requirements) in response to their neighbor's request during the review period for the
application. Regarding prevalence of balconies in a neighborhood, the ordinance does
not prohibit second story balconies from being proposed or approved where balconies
may not be prevalent within a neighborhood. However, staff has found that there are
homes on Grenola Drive, Hazelbrook and Greenleaf Drive within the Garden Gate
neighborhood that do have second story, rear yard facing balconies.
Privacy Landscaping
The applicant has provided a landscape privacy protection plan (See Exhibit D) that
meets the privacy protection landscape requirements in accordance with the Rl
ordinance with the additional condition to supple~ent landscaping on the west side of
the property. The condition requires the applicant to plant two additional 15-gallon,
minimum 6-foot high Pittosporum shrubs along the west property line to provide the
22-73
.~
Appeal ofR-2006-08 & RM-200f
October-J O. 2006
Page 6
required privacv protection for the second story window and the balcony of the
proposed residence. The applicant is agreeable to these conditions.l he applicant ha~
chosen landscaping that is listed on the City's privacy protection planting list. Staff
finds this landscape plan sufficient to meet the intent of the ordinance requirements.
Oak Tree
The City Arborist has provided supplemental information (See Exhibit C) to the original
arborist report stating that the trenching for the proposed residence be no more than 14
feet 2 inches horn the trunk of the oak tree, as opposed to the 15 foot distance
previously stated, during construction of the residence to preserve the tree. This would
allow the home to be consh'ucted per the approved plan with a 14 foot 2 inch setback
from the trunk of the tree. Additionally, the City Arborist states that the story poles
have been reviewed and that the pruning required to construct the building would
result in fairly minor canopy loss. The City Arborist also states that the tree should
easily tolerate the canopy loss if the pruning is done by a certified arborist and the
pruning me~ts the ISA Western Chapter standards. Staff also confirmed with the City
Arbortst that it appears the tree can be retained with the proposed residential
development on site as long as the tree protection measures that the City Arborist
recommends are met. A condition of approval to the applications requires that the tree
protection recommendations in the arborist report be met.
Temperature and Glare
The Zoning Ordinance does not require a study of temperature and glare for approval
of a residential design review. The proposed residence will provide a red tile roofing
and peach colored stucco exterior that are consistent with Mediterranean style homes
that are found within the Garden Gate neighborhood. Therefore, staff has no criteria to
request the applicant to change the design, color and materials on the residence based
upon the possible temperature and glare impacts a residence may create within a
neighbhood.
Submitted by: Aki Honda, Senior Planner .
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development :5t.Uv-G evv-c./k. /
Vuj-""
Enclosures:
Exhibit A: Appeal submitted by John Tracy and Jessica Rose
Exhibit B: Appeal submitted by Elena Herrera and Subir Sengupta
Exhibit C: City Arborist supplemental information
Exhibit D: Approval letter with conditions of approval and Plan Set
g :jplanning/pdreportj AppealsjR-2 006-08 .doc .
22- -;'1.
~
Exhib~t A.
APPEAL
IrRJ~(G]n w ~rf))l
u Uj Sf? 6 2006 JUlJ
CUPERTINO CITY CLERK
CliY"
CUPEI\IINO
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3223
1.
Application No.
':;--' -, ,--, { p.
f<~ --. J ~'( I!!} t - - C ; { \
!
(.!J"I,!J(
-j>"
( ,,-~!.''\-./\
~-.. ..
.-- ..L._Ll'(t l:~,)
, .-
f
'.. ./
Phone Number
(, !' .. \// I
'-', t ~ h C c0J"JLS
'v
J D h n -T C' CJ.... C v'J b\ --S c,S S) c. c\.. '\"2_-,:;; <)C
\ 0 L\ I. \) )"-1 n t\ P,,, bor \-=1 v--L-
l\O~ LSS '- 5 r~b
2.
Applicant(s) Name:
3.
Appellant(s) Name:
Address
Email
r OSt2.-.)-~.u:_~~ 3 E:: s D~:J\} bo, \ . YV2..~
4. Please check.one:
, I-~peal a decision of Director of Community Development
Appeal a decision of Planning Commission
5. Date of determination of Director or mailing of notice of City decision:
o}-23/ 0 6
6. Basis of appeal: -52:.e C\. He., c. lIe c.C
I~s o~ ()etcJ.ho~,(\<", ,n..-o.o.e.I::--t--v'-... ,,,,J. C^-"P,Q-C.z.J...,z \'\..-t.. c,,-pe'::-OliC'I.'\ CY'l_
, [.:J ~r 'tT 0 ~J '.J \,\ ,J IJ
Y'\...L rry" )(;",0,-- f 0'\c,lcf,'I-.jC\,,"\ c]J-ec\)~-t J;:c- I\---<... GL(.'VC' bo\. \ LA,;,'h \~, V'h:o..J\
'\.-\ vo..cJlLs' 0 v c- -e.. X:;5 h\'?5 pn '-.[ c~c 2J J.y,. r~dl a eel. S 0 l~ .
L'v e- C'\.,~L v\ Is 0 c.z:' () c.e/Cd~Q..[,t c"- J:j e-k...4- h__.\._ f.-....LO h,-"Q~....../ D 0...- k, ('0',--",
t~-l_/ rPlO cY'){r'J~ .
Signature(s) (\ . - .<~ (\
lJ~..c.~c-v'~--, \~ ~
(j
Please complete form, include appeal fee of $149 .00, and return to the attention ofthe
City Clerk, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, (~08) 777-3223.
22--iJ
~
John R. Tracy
Jessica T. Rose
10410 Ann Arbor Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
408-255-5126
rosetracy3 @sbcglobal.net
September 6, 2006
To: The City Of Cupertino Planning Department
This letter and submitted fee is to appeal the approval of the residence at 21180 Grenola
Drive, Cupertino. We live next door to this property and our appeal is based on two
counts:
Second StOry Master Bedroom Balcony:
The existence of tins balcony violates our right to privacy in our house and yard, affects
the quality of life we enjoy and will affect the value of our property. Any person using
this balcony will have a full view into our main living room, patio, master bedroom
window and entire back yard areas. And any person in our house or in our backyard, will
have full and unobstructed view of the balcony and anyone using it. The City must
recognize that Garden Gate neighborhood is mixed with single and two-story homes. We
were part of a core group that annexed our neighborhood into the City of Cupertino six
years ago primarily to have protection from the overwhelmingly large two-story homes
that were thoughtless constructed around existing single~story residences due to weak and
misguided county ordinances. We expect the City to recognize that an existing
homeowner has the right to expect a maintained level of privacy during development of a
neighboring home.
We question how this home can be considered "compatible" with homes in the
neighborhood. First, there are no homes with rear facing balconies that we are aware of
in Garden Gate. Second, the existing privacy in a neighboring property should not be
compromised by new construction. Do we have to accept that there will be a large and
imposing Mediterranean style house next to our newly renovated "cottage/craftsman"
style home? Do we have to accept that it is twice the size of our home, complete with a
large and uninviting columned front door? We cannot accept the approval of a balcony
that views into our house and into our entire back yard. We look to the City to protect
our existing privacy to the greatest extent. The proposed home will be surrounded by
three single-story homes. How can the rear-balconies proposed on this home be justified
when it will allow the user to view down into three homes? Why is this considered a
permissible and acceptable design form? It is an unnerving experience to look up from
1 22... -J 10
~
r\l1T },'OI,:,1:- ",S'>lrrl (nr ,mt ,mr h,mc::p. window) to a balcony that stands that view over our
property as currently depicted by the story poles.
The purpose of a balcony is to provide a large window, fresh air, natural light and a place
to sit and relax. We question the "view" that this balcony will provide. What is the
purpose of a "view" that can only be enjoyed at the expense ofthe existing neighbor's
privacy? It must be acknowledged that this neighborhood is not in the hills of Cupertino,
but rather the flat lands. This balcony will view directly into our house, our entire
backyard and into the large Heritage: Oak tree located on the Grenola properi"y !\__l1Y
views beyond that will be include neighboring properi"ies. We encourage you to do a site
visit and discover the "views" this balcony would have. We invited the property owner
to our home to see fIrst hand our concerns and in an effort to resolve this issue with us,
they suggested we put curtains on our windows and they promised to "go inside" if ever
we are using our backyard for entertaining. This implicitly implies that the balcony
would allow them an invasive presence on our property. Should we then go inside when
they are using their balcony? And what guarantee do we have that allY future resident
would agree to this behavior and second, why should either of our behaviors be
dependent upon each other? We proposed the property owner consider a "faux"
balcony. It would include the large sliding glass door for fresh air, natural light, and
limited views into their backyard. The railing would be cosmetic and offer the look and
feel of a balcony without the intrusive exterior 60 square foot patio sits above
neighboring yards and houses.
It seems logical that a landscaping plan would mitigate the impact of this balcony on our
yard. Aside from what it has taken from us to get the City to require the property owner
to present a landscaping plan that meets the minimal ordinance requirements for a two-
story house, (three attempts so far) we do not believe that within three years a
landscaping plan could protect us from the impact of this balcony "to the greatest extent".
Consider that the floor of the balcony sits at approximately 11 feet. To effectively screen
our yard from a 6 foot person enjoying the "view" we would need approximately 17 feet
of landscape screening within three years. The current requirement for landscaping
along this existing 6 foot property fence is a 6 foot plant (s). Unless that plant is
replacing its size annually, the protection from a landscaping screen that should protect
our privacy to the greatest extent within three years, is impossible. We also question
. how these plants and trees vital to our protect privacy rights will grow with the large oak
tree canopy so close.
.Protection Plan for the Oak Tree
The City bf Cupertino has not followed the recommendation of their arborist to take the
minimum required measures to assure survivability of the major 'oak tree in, the Grenola
property. The referenced report discusses two key assessments for the tree.
First, whether the tree can be expected to survive based on the location of the proposed
structure relative to the tree location. This assessment is at best inconclusive based upon
a munber of factors. To list a few:
2n--7'
#'
a. The arborists' recommends the closest wall be at least 15 feet from the trunk of
the tree. The plan shows it being less than 14'2" (kitchen nook estimated to be
12')
b. The arborists' recommends a follow-up assessment to be made after the
installation of story poles to accurately estimate the canopy and root system loss.
No such follow up reports provided.
c. The arborist states that the tree would not be expected to survive if the
, combination of the canopy and root system were reduced more the 25%. The
arborist also states that if a foundation is placed at 15 feet from the tree t11111k ,that
it would equate to 25% loss in root mass. Therefore, any additional loss to the
canopy by trimming to make room for the structure would surely threaten the
tree's chance of surviving. And, the arborists' sketch of the tree relative to the
house shows overlap suggesting some canopy trimming is necessary. The story
poles visibly verify this overlap as welL
Second, the minimllill steps to be followed to protect the tree during construction. The
assessment is very detailed and thorough. But, as the arborist states" . . . a moot point"..if
the plans do not meet his previously stated minimum requirements for tree survivability
based on the location of the proposed structure.
We would also like the arborists report to include the impact of the proposed privacy
landscaping plan on the oak. Oaks are often noted as being difficult to plant around, and
due to the size of tbis oak in the backyard, we question if the oak might lunder the
expected growth of the privacy screening plants and trees.
It is the City of Cupertino's responsibility to ensure that the health and beauty of this tree
remains intact. We have been aware for a year that the property owner intended to
"remove" or "relocate" the tree. We also noticed it was labeled a "sycamore tree to be
removed" on the house plans submitted for approval by the City. Not only is tbis oak tree
a fantastic example of a species native to California landscape, and a reminder of the
rural roots of Cupertino and the Garden Gate tract, but it provides all of us in single~story
homes who surround tbis two-story, 4,219 square foot home an existing landscaping
feature that greatly buffers us from the visual impact of the large home to be constructed.
Weare aware that the City has protected it, but we read tbis arborists report as
preliminary at best and the City has no right to consider it conclusive and worthy of
approval without further follow up action with the arborist.
In closing, we are looking to the "planners" of the City to review this situation with fresh
eyes and an understanding that a cookie cutter approach to home development in a
community with such diverse neighborhood settings as Cupertino is not realistic. And as
property values continue to climb, maintaining our home as the asset that it is, has
become of utmost concern to us. Judging by the number of sympathetic comments we
are receiving from the neighbors and our house visitors when viewing the story poles that
loom over the back side of our property, we can safely assume that any potential property
buyer of aur home would be detened by the impact ?f the balcony structure.
\2-/1
~
tlhib~t B
r [5)llE a: ~- D WI ~rni1
U~I SEP 6 2006 llW.
CUPERTINO CITY CLERK
,!,~.L-;....__.Jr' P1~",:,:~ -7"A...~- ~
'L..-.H..LJ' VA 'L..-1Ut.p~.l. \L..u..lliLv
CT'fYij"F
CUPEI\fINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3223
APPEAL
1.
ApplicatlOl1 No.
i<-- ~+i)OC' . i.f) 'i~\,-j\- :LI~LC- i')
3.
Appellant(s) Name:
(\J~~f c.-DLUe(~
(/ -. ,
(tf 'J/A
<'- "l,I'n"1
,'?f?:.'l/;l)f '.7 L Ii: r
2.
Applicant(s) Name:
Phone Number
/J.i I r I-~ (-' I/"'" \,' 1 ,^ .f'>.... '11( _
v.......r :) I_I ,-'1 I{...LIUL) I .-'rY l') 1'-
-I' '
-4 L-<( -.~-S:l [; 1)Dq~
Address
Email
-----
4. Please check one:
\( Appeal a decision of Director of Community Development
Appeal a decision of Planning Commission
5. Date of determination of Director or mailing of notice of City decision:
(J'-2J -()(;
6, Basis of appeal:
S;-t~ c0MlcJ~
/L/1. ro
Please complete form, include appeal fee of $-14-5-iJO, and return to the attention of the
City Clerk, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, (408) 777-3223.
U!~, .
/ /
.l/JJ.fl--/' . '-1iMv <>,-----
f ' '.--
Signature(s)
22--- 79
~
ELENA HERRERA
SUBIR SENGUPTA
21150 GRENOLA DRIVE
r- .,1 n t':' n "T' T "'-1 n r A Q c; () 1 d.
408.252.0504
To the City of Cupertino
With this letter and fee, we are appealing the approval of the home building permit for 21180
Grenola Drive.
Much of this letter is similar in content to our original e-mail expressing concern dated 02
i'>.ugust, 2006. Itern 2 - Balconies has been added as a concern upon ftnther review of the project.
Item 1 - Consistent with existing neighborhood look and feel
In the cover letter sent by the city, dated July 1 I 2006, the intent to approve the project is stated
along with the sentiment that the look and feel of the home fits in with the existing neighborhood.
We take great exception to this, in that the size, look, and style neither fits in with the
neighborhood, nor can it be seen to compliment the neighborhood. Although there are homes in
the neighborhood that are similar in look in feel:
'" The great majority of the homes of this style were built, in this sub-set of Garden Gate,
prior to the annexation of this county pocket into the city.
@ This home is much larger than the average home in this 3-4 block area, 1 Although there
is a great re-building of the neighborhood, the city - as a guardian of the community -
has the responsibility to maintain the quality of life, the integrity of the neighborhood
life-style, and the values of community living. By continuing to perpetuate a trend in
massive, block-like, cement structures, we instead invite a tum to solitary living within
the four, huge walls. As a small example, the city ordinance "encourage porches"-
directly supporting this community living. This home does not emulate the spirit of the
ordinance.
to These larger homes cover so much of the width of the lot, are so close to the front of the
lot, and are so large that they are intrusive not only into the neighboring homes, but also
have a palpable intrusive feel into anyone walking by. To be sure, they may fit within the
CUlTent rules for width and size, and there may be precedent, but it is our contention that
the current rules are not sufficient to maintain our "quality of life" and to perpetuate this
style and size of homes will surely destroy it. Please walk the neighborhood to
understand this point, including the area east of Stelling, for a stark and contrasting
example of the tumover in the neighborhood rather than the preservation of it.
.. The plans for this home show a tulTet - or a rounded "bay window" - above the entry that
greatly contributes to the massive and block-ish look and feel. Again, this is a feature far
more suited to a much larger lot, in a neighborhood full of much larger lots. To preserve
the look and feel of our neighborhood, this would be a major design change to be sure,
but had the planning department taken the guidelines to heart, this should not have been
approved.
" This home replicates a style pervasive 011 Green Leaf Dr. (and other GG blocks) east of
Stelling where older ranch homes have mostly disappeared to be replaced by the
MeditelTanean style. I do not object to the style, only to the fact that now the majority are
of this theme, it cannot be said to be a "mix"; the neighborhood feel has completely
changed over to an impersonal, blaringly bright, and hot environment.
1 Although we are part of the greater Garden Gate Neighborhood, when a person drives through tbe area it
can easily be seen to have distinct parts that bave their own look and feel. This is important to the
reference of "Green Leaf Dr., east of Stelling having turned over to completely new 'look and feel' ".
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 06,2006
PAGE10F3
a21 - fD
#-/~
ELENA HERRERA
SUBIR SENGUPTA
21150 GRENOLA DRIVE
CUPERTINO, CA 95014
408.252.05u4
() Building a grandiose home does not guarantee a positive impact to the neighborhood
when re-selling. Although we do not expect the city to ensure this, we do expect the city
to be a guardifu. of the intelligent and well-though out growth of the community. To be
sure, a very large home, completely out of scale with the neighborhood remained on the
market for months during the time of the multiple-offer, "bidding war" frenzy in the
summer of2005. This particular home: is over 5,000 sq. ft., far exceeding the relative
size, look, and feel of its neighbors, has a four-car garage, three balconies overlooking
neighborhood properties, and many more amenities that are far more suitable to a
neighborhood such as Linda VistaJRegnart Road.
Item 2: Balconies
Only one home in the neighborhood has balconies, 21140 Grenola - the large out-of-scale
property noted above. To use this as a precedent for further growth and development in this
direction is wrong. We contend that the city was negligent in the planning process of both 21140
and 21180 Grenola, and expect the city to correct this oversight immediately by ensuring that
balconies, if at all allowed, ani minimal in size and are not sighted near the intersection of a
neighboring lot. To place a balcony near a comer of the home, to build a balcony that can hold
more than two people, and - in and of itself - to build a balcony at all says to the community "I
wish to survey my kingdom" not "enjoy my own backyard". Standing upon such a balcony, one
does not "enjoy their own yard" as is the common contention, instead one enjoys the vista beyond
the home, and therefore intrudes into the neighboring yards. Again, please visit the balconies of
21140 for a first-hand illustration of this oversight.
Item 3: Temperature(Heat) and Glare
When purchasing our home, moving from a neighborhood even closer to Memorial Park, we
directed our realtor to "NOT search on 'these' streets (east of Stelling) and illustrated to her the
heat, glare, and noise factors when driving through these streets. By removing so many trees
outside the protections of the ordinance, and by building larger homes on the lots, the loss of
ambience and the gain of heat and glare is tangible. I (E. H.) drove my realtor through the three
neighborhoods (our former, our cunent, and east of Stelling) to illustrate the effects by noting the
temperature gauge in the car, the presence or lack of any breeze or tree-rustling, and the noise
level increase or reduction as we stood outside at three different times of the day.
We strongly believe that we will greatly feel the negative effects of the mass of concrete that will
radiate heat into the neighborhood. As an example, we live directly across from such a home,
built prior to city annexation. This home radiates so much heat and glare that the imposition is
palpable, annoying, and directly compromises our health and comfOlt during the majority of the
year, this being the temperate climate that the valley provides.
With further regard to the heat and glare issues, I provide 2 examples of homes recently built that,
although Mediterranean in style, are of a darker paint tone and have a darker roof material that
would a) provide a less intrusive roof line and b) provide a softer, less imposing iook to the
facade of such a large home. Please visit 21180 Grenola and 21090 Hazelbrook for illustrations
of this concept.
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 06, 2006
PAGE20F3 }of
2.2-- {J
.~
ELENA HERRERA
SUBIR SENGUPTA
21150 GRENOLA DRIVE
C U l' :: T:. :: : :.: :;:. -":'
408.252.0504
n I: (\ 1 A
Item 4: Privacy Screening
The privacy screening-plantings along the side nearest our home are either non-existent or
insufficient. Apparently, the city holds that only the adiacent property owner needs to relinquish
rights to the concern of privacy landscaping.
Vie request that the privacy screening landscaping requirements be
reinstated on the east side of the 2IQJ2ertv line.
Item 5: Heritage Oak
The beautiful helitage oak on the property needs to be protected. I have seen only a preliminary
arborists report in the approval package of the project. There are many points in the report that
indicate more information was needed before a judgment on the impact to the tree could be
rendered.
'" The report outlines specific plans for protecting the root zone during construction that
conflict with the building plans. For example, the current plans show the trunk ofthe tree
being less than 15ft. from the perimeter of the foundation. This 15ft. is a minimal
guideline per this arborist that, if held to, would minimally affect the tree, and is no
guarantee that the tree would survive. If it is even 15 feet, how can the building of the
foundation not be intrusive and damaging to the root system?
'" It is noted in the report that further root exploration be done, two methods are given, to be
able to give a reasonable estimate as to the viability ofthe project.
'" It is noted in the report that the story poles should be in place before coming to any
conclusions: the story poles were not up at the time of the arborists report.
EO The report states that schematics/plans for utility lines and plumbing/sewer lines be
presented before coming to any conclusions.
We hold the city accountable for the well-being of this tree, a determination that may take years
to realize. So many trees have been taken down, against city ordinances and guidelines, or even
outside the current guidelines, that we cannot risk a further deterioration of the treasure that this
old, green, wooded neighborhood is.
We fully expect to see further documentation by this arborist, and request the city apply due
diligence in requiring a second arborist opinion. We base this request on having had our own
arborist take a look at the site and state that he felt that plans to build a large home on that lot
would be "detrimental to the health of the tree."
Summary
We feel that these issues are a testament to the lack of oversight of the planning department with
regard to the city's own guidelines, and feel that further development along these lines follow a
trend that this neighborhood can't afford. Indeed, the residents ofthis neighborhood specifically
campaigned for annexation into Cupertino for the protections, guidelines, and vested interest of
the city in maintaining and preserving the quality of life with regard to the neighborhood and it's
eventual renewal and growth. .
Vie will be pursuing the matter with great interest.
Thank you,
Elena Herrera and Subir Sengupta
21150 Grenola Dr.,
Cupertino, CA 95014
WEDNESDAY, SEPTElvLBER 06,2006
PAGE30F3 r-
'J- 2-0 L
4-1 rf
I2ARRI~ D. ~OAT~ AND ~OCIAT~
hhibat c
HOtHcuftural CD.ru:ultanh:
p~ONr; 14-Q<?J SSS.1052 l=AX (40l?)-3SS-12g,?
ZS5SS ~umrnIt Ro.ud, Log G<!to.g, CA 950gg
TO: A k~ H0vtd CL
morJ1: BSH1e D^ &arB DATI.;
R(: -'5Z f ! 3' (7'] & ~f'Ji). [) \ CL V \--- I
~ A X
~axll; 777~ 333:5
b ~ '23-D0
NUM8!;R OR PAG~ f
C.C. C-l ~f'~C.ew I Q). g'31-(QSCf-oJGf
COMMENTS:
M \~-S ~ H (!) GL d ~I
. I >-(2<9 k-" r ft~ C{: f-P C--c> \)J \0' > -+ \rh
VIA" I- vt \ vi g Q h D <.-(1- 4 t-e I{ c k fvtg {'an- ct {'() tZotJ CL} Fro '1
V1 e cz r-- CJ C( k 1-y eC2!4f- (. .
. tV€=' It)Q d S:}7PCl"?\'~d ruaJ +r--eL{6~f~
~ P VI (1] r. ( () see (- ~ c1-AA ( fi ( f\-D (),1 i 0z e f f--V{ U1 ~
wW Ue K (~I CfJ !.J)[f?~ vi ~ w fivtd" 1- ~ G\. {- +Ct <p
C!('j-c{ Q( +r-e uc0 WIDe{ (cf ~Cf ClP +(0 b e /4/ 2//
~ - -
~ro\M 1~ tt--f'UJ1 K-~
'YM e J tfF\:J re C1C-C 90(1) GL (J IA @ f b e
5' (t t{ r(; l C cLU--t7 dw J 2. ~ @ C{ (d f, f' co I/{ s;: /J Q re J
a('('<:"tr-w~ (f'
5/ ut ('f:~t-~ ( (; "
ddJJr?t~~
22--!]
~
Exhibit C
AkiHon<dla
From: Ciddy Wordell
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 2:57 PM
To: Aki Honda
Subject: FW: email from Michael Bench
-----Original Message-----
from: BARRIE D COATE [mailto:bccoate@verizon.net]
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 12:19 pr"1
To: Ciddy Wordell .
Subject: email from Michael Bench
Re: Cowles Residence, 21180 Genola Drive
I have looked at the story poles in relation to the large Coast Live Oak and the pruning
required to construct the building would be fairly minor canopy loss and therefore I find it quite
acceptable. The tree should easily tolerate the canopy loss. It would be essential that the
pruning be done by a certified arborist and that the pruning meet the ISA Western Chapter
standards. I find this acceptable if the pruning is done properly.
dictated by Mick, 9/15/06
9/20/2006
22--l'Lf
r&.j. t f1
Exhibit 0
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
Telephone: (408) 777-3308
r~JPEIQ'INO
T" '" "r" / ,,/"'\ ,.., \ -"-.,.-r "'......,.,......
r~.Li,-. \ :cv0) I / I -~JjJ
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
August 23, 2006
Cliff Cowles
po. Box 223201
Cannet Caliiornia 93922
SUBJECT: RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW ACTION LETTER - Applications R-2006-08
and RM-2006-13:
This letter confirms the decision of the Director of Community Development given on
August 21, 2006, approving a residential design review for a new tvvo-story, 4,219
square foot residence, and a Minor Residential permit to allow the construction of tvvo
balconies on the new residence on property located at 21180 Grenola Drive, with the
following conditions:
1. APPROVED PROTECT
This approval is based on a plan set entitled, If A New Two-Story Residence for
Homa & Mehrdad Mojgani/' consisting of seven sheets dated March 20, 2006,
including a site plan, first and second floor plans, elevations, roof plan and
section, and a privacy protection landscape plan and revised master bedroom
balcony plan with reduced balcony, except as may be amended by conditions in
this resolution.
2. REVISED BALCONY
Prior to issuance of buildingpermit(s), the applicant shall reduce the size of the
master bedroom balcony to a maximum six-foot depth and 60 square feet as
shown in the revised master bedroom balcony plan.
3. TREE PROTECTION
The applicant shall be required to maintain the existing 31-inch diameter Coast
Live Oak tree on the subject property in a healthy manner in accordance with the
h"ee protection recommendations outlined in the tree evaluation prepared for this
property on April 27, 2006 by Michael L. Bench of Barrie D. Coate and
Associates.
4. PRIV ACY 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 and second
story balconies with views into neighboring yards and with a sill height that is 5
Printed on Recycled Paper
22 -J-)
~
K-lUUb-U<S, KM-lUUb-U
Page 2
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
recordatioIl llLUS[ ~t: 6U0wiLLcJ Lc G-i.(; CCli-ili-.:::r-.:-:;'-
prior to final occupancy of the residence.
r'\.-.....,......lr;r~.............+ T'0~~....~a''''"l+-
~-. -.-r"':-.-u- - -r-----------
5. PRIV ACi PROTECTION PLAN
Prior to issuance of building permit(s), the applicant shall provide a revised
privacy protection landscape plan that additionally provides for a total of three
(3) I5-gallon, minimum six-foot high Pittosporum non-deciduous shrubs (of a
species listed irl the City's approved landscape mihgatiOl, nl.easUJ:es planting list)
in addition to the two (2) I5-gallon, minimum six-foot high Pittosporum n011-
deciduous shrubs along the west property line to provide the required privacy
protection from the second floor window of the proposed master bedroom. The
privacy protection plan shall also include two (2) deodar cedar trees along the
south east side of the property, five (5) magnolia trees along the south (rear)
property line, and two (2) deodar cedar trees along the south west side of the
property, unless alternative privacy trees/ shrubs have been agreed upon by the
property owner and adjacent neighbor(s). The revised privacy protection plan
shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department
prior to issuance of building permit(s).
The City Arborist has confirmed that the existing Coast Live Oak tree is
appropriate for screening purposes in terms of species, size and health. The
Coast Live Oak tree shall be recorded on the property as a protected tree along
with the new privacy trees and shrubs to be planted on the property.
I
6. FRONTYARDTREE
A new 24-inch box tree shall be planted in the front yard to meet landscaping
requirements. The type and size of tree shall be reviewed and approved by the
Public Works and Community Development Departments.
7. CONSULT AnON 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. 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) (I), 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
2
22-Jh
;..{-It-
R-2006-0~, .Kf\ll-LUUtJ-1j
Page 3
66020(a)r has begun. If you fail to file a protest Wll1Un this 90-day period
complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020r you will be legally
1_.~,-:_-:-_,~.,-1 L-:_,_-:- l'i.L-,"-"~ ........l-.........110T'l.,.....;'Y"\rr C'1"11'l, Dv~r+innQ
LiL.-i....L.L"-..........l....l.'-'.j.....L.L..L.~...."-...... ----~-----o--:...b:.--....-". c'."'__ ,. '-.
Please be aware that if this permit is not used within one year, it shall expire on August
23r 2007.
Staff received comments from numerous neighbors expressing concerns about the
project The City received emails and letters from adjacent neighbors expressing
concen,s about privacy inlpacts onto their adjacent properties clue to the second story
windows and balconies and the health and retaining of the existing Inature oak h-ee. In
response to these concerns, the applicilllt has reduced the size of the second story
master bedroom balcony to 60 square feet and has added privacy protection
landscaping. Additionally, it was brought to staffs attention by one of the adjacent
property owners that the privacy protection proposed along the west property line did
not sufficiently meet the Cityr s privacy protection measures. As a result, staff has added
a condition of approval that requires that additional privacy protection shrubs be
planted to satisfy this requirement.
Staff also received comments from other property owners within the neighborhood
expressing concerns about the project. These include concerns about the massing and
size of the proposed residencer compatibility with the neighborhoodr privacy protection
and preservation of the oak tree. AdditionallYr a concern was raised about the color of
the proposed residence illld the amount of heat that could be radiated due to the
proposed color scheme. Upon review of these comments and concernsr staff has
determined that the proposed project is in compliance with the development standards
for the R1-7.5 zoning district in which the property is locatedr and that the
Mediterranean style and color of the home are consistent with other homes within the
neighborhood. Further, the applicant will be required to revise the privacy protection
plan to comply with the Cityr s privacy protection requirements. The existing Coast Live
Oak tree will also be preserved in conjunction with these applications and conditions of
approval are required to ensure the protection of this tree.
Regarding the color of the home, the proposed color scheme is in character with other
Mediterranean'style homes within the neighborhood and the proposed architectural
style of the home. The City currently has no requirements to 'prohibit certain color
schemes due to the possibility that certain colors may reflect heat/light within the
neighborhood. Therefore, staff is not recommending a change in the proposed color
scheme.
Staff has made all the findings that are required for approval of a Minor Residential
Permit as required by the of Cupertino's Municipal Code, Chapter 19.28.090 (B) and
19.28.100 (D). .
3
22--/7
A4!t
R-2006-08, RM-2006-13
Page 4
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 before the Planning Comrrussion.
Sincerely,
/~ / I
[~!er. -\~1;t1!VL6t~
Aki Honda
Senior Planner
City of Cupertino
. Enclosures: Approved Plan Set
Tree Evaluation by the City Arborist
Cc: Homa & Mehrdad Mojgani, 22370 Palm Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014
. Jessica Rose & John Tracy, 10410 Ann Arbor Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014
Lester BOIDers, 21181 Hazelbrook Court, Cupertino, CA 95014
Elena Herrera & Subir Sengupta, 21150 Grenola Drive, Cupertino, CA 95014
Tibor Polgar, 10~73 Ann Arbor Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014
Kathy & Bob Berger, 10439 Ann Arbor Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014
Lee Xu, 21164 Grenola Drive, Cupertino, CA 95014
G: \ Planning \ Minor Residential \ RI Approvals \ R-2006-08 Actionletter.doc
4
12-)'tf
Jf-%
_---- ___ ... s{. 'v.eJ-v.ceA
~L --_, ~\7A\CD(\i>- ' r
..._.... X;J..--' 1:-1-) . L:,o S1-'
.." _ I "~ 'Clo..d '
i, . ~ ---- \ J?_ Balcony
It). Ie on- y ~\. \~ Railing ~
U .3' Y. . '\' 00
~J. ..1.
4\1'.0"
1
1,[1'_6"
;)'-2" r>
rr
--
"'""-::.. ,,'"
L ....d. ~.,,'"
.eJ I .....
.J'. II i~.:.LJ ......
,I I 1 1.1. I.,.y'.!'i,' ....L . ... .. .. __.... _. ~ -LL
2:" ,I ,j( - 1..1 ...1. . .
L 'b... I I. I I .L. :r'.' .,.' ,A.. -(;
_ I 1)~1 1 ~I\' .. ~. - J. ., .I L_;I_i IT [/L.1 T-:r!L
..~A "" . , ~ mfr "r',
~ . ."~'X1<~~'i """"
\~~:=='::' ,_ ~ I
J~~
-1"\..)"':
:::.:.:~:: : .: .: ::'::
~"
'-_ Old Balcony
16'-6"
"T
'Y'
L
."'
.L . I
60710 SUdin < _J
F'ixedBlA vr ; Grn ss Door w 26710
w ng both sides(Temp.)
_0
~
-'
tJ}
...
878
SC
.....
.; .:":
';'-:"':"::':" l':I Mastel!"
Or! ~ Rath l '
i;l@;: Suite p ~
Upper li i aU
-7 (Open to .' oyel!")
~
:::-:--= 1 ---- '^'< L
11~ .5' IF" ---.........;~-
1!.'lllJl>.' 0
_~ ~ V;
\ j~
.:t ~ J ~
P I L
l 1\
:::r
]
l
1L
"
wra"\
0,.,
-I ( ;0
'0 e~ 'vr:nd 1. I If oF.
: 1 ~ I ~""'I,.iJ Jj-" atl~
~l 2878-
\ SC
'== !I~ ~
~t'"" _ ~
I I
Master
Bedroom
Jl5'.6"
..L I
o
I
t-.
....
I
I
'JY
'~2878
sc
9'-6
T
,
"
,
1
.Y
tJ)
I
if.)
I
T --'k-
I
T
I' l-t
I.
..LT
II
..l..
I
I
1..
1.. I
~
I
i"
5'.0"
V SEe ION
"J! '
c
c.o........
o -I-' ro
-..;=~c::l
~ __ _ CD
. _ CL CCS lL--=-
_ >-::::l '"
Cl...9- 0 -I-' g>
0.... -.... 1- ro ffi
<C:2: CLC~
cr: IDC ~gg
~~
~*
N
(f,
({r
~
,
,
~
.,J.
I
.
~
.
~
~
,
N9DD90'OO"E
ffimEr. ., . __....' .. . fc"r:-,"2,~':'-l~f.!:!::-. ,~___._..~.,...*.,..,=~=r,_=,
, v /~~::~~'c7~:'~~~=r' ! [;, '" j~ "JOOD FElICE
f- , 'u V I~i/ --
j.,:5..,':.0.~- / J l_~jl~;%1?---2~j{ u; J
;;:'.;' ,'} ~ __ '-__"'" r' ],t..,; }
q, ..,""; ", I' ><.j: ,..
\': . l'.....l f: "., ~') ...._ . ,..,0' .,' 1 (
t<:::,--'.., 1 Xu rl~ \"-,. . }"C/ ~...::_--...)<,:t. lJ 1./
r./ -. /~~=_.._---;:;~w:~~&,----~~-~--~-'\..;\... ..1...'~ -, oil.:l
'("'.':' ',) i ' \ \ .,
rt~ Ie:::':: ,:"" 1 o'tOb-40 M; ~ f-~
!I ' ,'l \. ,; ,;" i
" .1 C\~'b"cJ; , -------.. ]
1i . J...' ' ~
t-- I !\ - ~ - t~::;-Hb'
1 [ f \, r'.j l.00.,/j ZndStory I iJ'O
\. j'~ _ , , . . . . . J' i U"cJ., . b
, BiMJ.Ll_,! /' ~::-:--:--'7T'f " /<:'.'<'. '::~ '.'_ - - 'L\ :~, ,r~;t,-l 3d!,,,,";;" H f'
! . P. ~~. '.' . " ":'-'-"""~:S/' -''!-- - '--!.. .LJ_._-'!' '1, 110
! W ./ ';~:"'.' ',)l:'." ......:.l ~-"-~",,:'O;ijl~~>>>>)!Jl i j~
\ _ ' . " . ,. ' '" ~!3~,'.',r / __ /... / ,. ... .1 I I, '-
~\ 0 /." ~"\ .'j"'L_ -=:1~10.::II~/ / ..' ./ / //,/ /' / ,/ ./~; ".i~ 14'-6" ~;.
~ b ~~{tW' i:::'-f~("; ~-Il~d/~f~'~'{' ...... // r.qg;~/ ,4,' ?1~ sf/ ,/>/ ,.:: j","'rj..--O -~ - ~,i .;;::
~ 0 (." [ ~',o' 1'.' pjo / ,- / / .' j'" / ,/b, / / . ...', ; '] ~ ' " - o~
I ',FJI Sf/I'" " ')1g(}1Ji sf / .... .... h .,/(!;y/ . , /./ ,"j .'''~ :<. PI
:-., 0 /,-'... ...,/ ''/.',' f;~"'&' "" =,' ... .- / J),,'WW-<2'[:<ii),il"W/ /' ,/ -- "; . ,oj 1. -..! \~
r <..~ /' ,/> ..t. '/. "'BJiji~.G'..~,::G,.f1.L ./ ... / L"/ / /T-.}"" / / 1'.J! n '~l '-
''',..~~ ,J:.,u1ri{J:," 'j""'" /. "'/<Q-g:i1l,11',n~.{",/",~".,/._../"":"! Its:!
h";: ..... .e'"J':l.h"~' _,__~';"~~""7'.~:-"._.~-:,_,.,_U!.liJ~'1.f':"',f---:;; ./ -! "~' .;~
yes. ~~~irff:'_Jk/ ~;:/. ~': ~i~i;c' . El~j . :: '---1 !
[., 0" t~':[-l.I /:;: 'iUT''':\ '~-~lt
Fido, 'I,' ./ .r,../ /!;,.,'..". .'.: LS;d<' "",rd I':
~...;;..,..~.;..;;",..~...dCl,.. .~. .. /' /' ,~,. . ~. S'="Lbc.c::.\t ~
./,/-' ../".... ..,//.,._,.~.'..!..~.~.'..:-.~.,..:::..-. :.1,.
,! . . ,,,,.,'-: :Ji(1~~~~;~)d ilJ ;',.\
'~,.... !'" /. >F: II '."i,',".. I o'!:I/~A:.~":" \. '.; ;.;, ii
I / . . .. ;' j .' ~ r ' / ,,=-,,~,~., // . /n' i;
-_~...~,~~. .t!u\l~~~:iftiff/-J~~~f~~/:~il~"~l J-~
.b,~ :"""~:~~c~-:;i\~t"o'J;~u ~:~:' _L ~~-_____~~_~~
,,__'~""~,:,-~___ . Ex1s 'llh'n~ (.~ is"tbn.c.y' "I'
~ ~rlvc :t"~vv, ~-------~------
~~-:-I\---l\'" - .--"! --- \ j---s~-.
~"-.",, U_,>~,L__._..J 'lS.@'PlL OOEE.<G. .~"'~.. J
, k _;~ _DB"~.~~n"c . " I
...:t: c.ornE::!:
205;.-9"
6:'
R Application
RM Application (qt,t -~ rob - /3
Appro~aJ Date iI::z~ -0",
Slgnalure {i jj{ G .' . U"---
(Case ManageD
2.2. - Cj D
~ ~z-
Privacy Landscape - 21180 Grenola Dr. Cupertino
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
Type
Cedrus Deodara
Cedrus Deodara
S.Magnolia
S. Magnolia
S.Iv1agnoIia
S.Magnolia
S. Magnolia
Cedrus Deodara
Cedrus Deodara
Pittosporum
Pittosporum
Birch
Mary Magnolia
Height
80'
80'
80'
80'
80'
80'
80'
80'
80'
40'
40'
Spread
40'
40'
40'
40'
40'
40'
40'
40'
40'
20'
20'
20'
20'
Planting distance max
20'
. 20'
20'
20'
20'
20'
20'
20'
20'
5'
5'
10'
10'
;f Ail tv-ces. fYllV]. 7-4ti 00'( ~ IfItlln, h~.(tjh--{- f!jl h'1~ plc1rY1kd.
.* A-vt Srvrvchs m /f1 [C; 1?i 115Y1 f VVlI n ro; ~"1"" r /.qY1+e.J.
R Application R- :;200(:> -06
RM Application fA - ~ Dob -/3
Approval Date f) -c23-o(:;
Signature !lbthh/l/Lrd .~
~ase Manager)
22 - Cj {
~I - ;F5
'2-2- --12
;..f :J if
8ARR~E 00 CO -;:
and ASSOCIA Ti
Horticutural ':::onsultants
23535 Summit Road
Los Gatos, ':A 95033
-.1.C''3/2,~?,..1 052
HE C EIVED fVlAY 1 8 Z006
EVALUATION OF TREES AT THE
COWLES PROPERTY
21180 GRENOLA DRIVE,
CUPERTINO
Prepared at the request of:
Aki Honda
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Prepared by:
Michael L. Bench
Consulting Arborist
April 27t\ 2006
Job # 04-06-088
R App-_lf,'r:;~tl~.On /)
v", K ~.:)ODb -~
RM Application f3t1- dDOb -/3
Approval Date 6 -.23-0(,'1
Signature (J fL(' cfkvu:~
(Case Manager)
'22;--1J
,Af - c25'
EV ALVA nON OF TREES AT IlL. ()\liLES RESIDENCE, 21180 GRENOLA DRlVE, crn JNO
1
Table of Contents
Assignment
Summary
Observations
Methods
Comments about Specific Trees
Protected Trees
Risks to trees by Proposed Construction
Recommendations
Enclosures
Page 2
Page 2
Page 2
Page 2
Page 3
Page 3
Page 3
Page 4
Page 7
R App!icatlon K - ~OOb -0,(<
RM Appiication . 12M -;;{ooG -/3
Approval Date . ~_3 -O/r-
Signature 1),/ L( Vk :f .0-
(Case Manager)
Prepared by: Michael L Bench, Consulting Arborist
April 2ih, 200'-.2- -1 '1
~/;Lt:
EV ALUA TION OF TREES AT THL WLES RESIDENCE, 21180 GRENOLA DRIVE, CUPI ~o
2
A "Slgn!t1'f'1T1if
I was asked by Aki Honda, Planner, City of Cupertino, to evaluate the exisTing trees iU\;dU:;;J hI
21180 Grenola Drive, Cupertino.
The plans proyided for this evaluation are the Construction Plans prepared by Cliff Cowles,
Carmel, Sheets AI-A8, dated 2-28-06.
Summary
There are 2 trees included in this inventory that may be damaged by proposed construction One
tree is located on this property, and one is located on the adjacent propeliy toward the south
The 2 trees are identified here and given a condition rating. Some characteristics concerning these
trees are briefly described.
Both Trees # 1 and 2 are protected by city regulation.
It appears that Tree # 1 could be preserved, but this may require revisions to the plans, or relocation
of the foot print, and mitigation procedures to be diligently implemented.
A reasonably accurate estimate of the potential canopy loss to Tree # 1 is not possible with only the
plans provided. Options are suggested.
Observations
There are 2 trees included in this evaluation. Tree # 1 is located on this site, and'Tree # 2 is located
on the neighboring property toward the south near the southwest corner of this property. The
attached map shows the locations of these 2 trees and their approximate canopy dimensions.
The 2 trees are classified and given an overall condition rating as follows:
Tree # 1 - Coast liye oak (Quercus agrifolia) in excellent condition
Tree # 2 - Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) in excellent condition
The particulars of these 2 trees (species, trunk diameter, height, spread, and structure) are included
in the attachments that follow this text. Please note on these data sheets that the health and structure
of each specimen is rated on a scale of 1-5 (Excellent - Extremely poor), which provides the basis
for the oyerall condition rating of each tree, stated above. The condition ratings are ranked using
the following range: (1) Excellent, (2) Good, (3) Fair, (4) Poor, (5) Extremely Poor.
Methods
The trunk measurement of Tree # 1 has been taken using a diameter tape at 4 V2 feet above soil
grade. This is referred to as DBH (Diameter at Breast Height). The diameter of Tree # 2 is
5 a:> ~ .estimated by yisual observation at a distance of about 10 feet. I stepped off the canopy spread of
)5 ~ ~ Tree # I from north to south and from east to west. The height and canopy spread of Tree # 2 is
13 - ~ c.a ~ ~stimated using visual references only. These trees have been added to the Site Plan, of which a
-0..--9- e; ~ ieduced version is included in the attachments.
0_ -.... ~ c:::2
= 0.. 0') a>
= 0--- ~
a:::. <C U') 9.
Prepared by: Michael 1. Bench, Consulting Arborist
April2t\ 2006 2)...-'] r
4<21
EV ALUA TION OF TREES AT THt.. ~OWLES RESIDENCE, 21180 GRENOLA DRIVE, CUP. JNO
3
CommeRl[S auulit Spt;,,;,iiic 'I;'~,:,:;
The lowest limb of Tree # 1, facing northwest and approximately 12 inches in diameter, has been
removed. The perimeter of the wound had been cut with a saw, but the interior wood ofthis limb
has broken off (Photo in ~ttachments). The removal ofthis limb appears to have reduced the
screening value of this tree in the lower 6-10 feet of the canopy. Howeyer, this tree provides an
effective screen, especially toward the southeast. As the proposed new residence is to be'a two-
story, Tree # 1 would immediately screen portions of the second story for the neighboring residents
facing south.
Tree # 1 has a trunk diameter of 31.2 inches at 4 Y2 feet above grade. Its canopy spread IS
approximately 55 feet north to south and east to west, but the canopy is not symmetrical or equal on
all sides. There is a greater quantity of canopy on the east side of the trunk than the west side, and
there is a slightly greater canopy on the south side than the north side, but only by a few feet. The
canopy is shown on the attached map.
Protected Trees
The City of Cupertino (Chapter 14.18 "finds that the preservation of specimen and heritage trees
on private and public property, and the protection of all trees during construction, is necessary for
the best interests of the City and of the citizens and the public thereof." The City "finds it is in the
public interest to enact regulations controlling the care and removal of specimen and heritage
trees..." A "Heritage Tree" means "any tree or grove' of trees which, because of factors, but not
limited to, its historic value, unique quality, girth, height or species, has been found by the
Architectural and Site Approyal Committee to have a special significance to the community." A
"Specimen tree" means any of the following:
Both Trees # 1 and 2 are protected by City of Cupertino regulation.
,. ~
.~
5a>~
.~ ~,;3 "(J If Tree # 1 is to be preserved, both the root loss and the canopy loss must be limited to a maximum
~ _ o...ca ~ ~of 25% total. These (root loss and canopy loss) are not separate unrelated events. They are parts of
-8:~ 2 ~ [a single living entity. Thus, both canopy loss and root loss must be considered as a whole.
<C ~ 8:.s,=; Concerning Tree # 1, if the trenching for the footing or for perimeter drainage would result in an
cccc~cnQ .
Risks to Trees by Proposed Construction
The plan proposes to remove Tree # 1, and notes on the plan that this tree is a sycamore. . The new
residence is shown to be located 12 feet from the tnink. This would not be a sufficient distance to
expect the survival of Tree # 1.
Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, COflsultiflg Asborist
April 2ih, 200~1. ..-C; ~
~/> c2'6
EV ALUA TION OF TREES AT THl. IJfLES RESIDENCE, 21180 GRENOLA DRlVE, CUFE ~O
4
CS>~ili-iJ.~c;d ,;:;::;: 1::;:: :::: '2~ol.::, t},prp rrmd hp: nn si g:nificant canopy loss. Also, bear in mind that the
recoyery period for a major loss (root, canopy, or both) is 2 years. We consider 25%-3U% total ioss
to be a major loss.
Concerning root loss of Tree # 1, there must be no trenching or excavation within 15 feet of the
trunk. This distance of 15 feet would be the minimum distance and would result in approximately
20%-25% root loss at this location. In this event, the canopy loss must be minimal. Whether or not
there would be minimal canopy loss, using the plan alone, is not possible to estimate. In my
opinion, story poles for the south side of the new residence "vould be required to more accurately
estimate the canopy loss.
Bear in mind that the root loss estimate is based on experience with coast live oak species and on
the typical plant morphology of a large oak tree. An alternative method of estimating the potential
root loss would be to excavate the soil using an air spade or a water jet spade at the location of the
proposed footing. We usually consider this method to be more accurate. An air spade or water jet
spade simply removes the soil without damaging the roots. Then the trench could be inspected to
estimate the root loss. Of course, there is no guarantee that this method would yield a positive
result for the owner.
Another important element is that the plans provided are incomplete with 'regard to Tree # 1. The
plans do not show any backyard hardscape or landscaping. Nor do the plans show drainage or
utilities. Without these elements provided in the plans, the potential impact to Tree # 1 cannot be
fully assessed.
It does not appear that any grading, excavation, or construction would occur adjacent to the back
fence. If there is no grading or soil work in the area within 10 feet of the back fence nearest Tree #
2, the potential damage to Tree # 2 would be insignificant.
The trees at this site would likely be at risk of damage by construction or construction procedures
that are common to most construction sites. These procedures may include the dumping or the
stockpiling of materials over root systems, may include the trenching across the root zones for
utilities or for landscape irrigation, or may include construction traffic across the root system
resulting in soil compaction and root die back.
If any lU1derground utilities are replaced or upgraded, it would be essential that the location of
trenches be planned prior to construction, and those locations shown on plans, and that the trenches
be located at the exact locations shown on the plans.
Recommendations
If Tree # 1 is to be preserved, both the root loss and the canopy loss must be limited as previously
described.
~
ga:>~
g "..;:::::; "ttS
'_p ~o
~ = ca ~-;:::'
0-::> ~g,
.0001Cia
~ <:I( Ci. C ::;;;;
c::C ~ 0- .Q>~
cc. a:: <!: (f) !;2.
1. Concerning potential canopy loss, I recommend that story poles be installed for the south
side of the residence in order to more accurately assess the impact. In my opinion this must
be done first. The quantity of canopy loss must not exceed 25% of the total canopy. If this
cannot be achieved after eyaluation, the location of the footing, which would result in root
Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist
Apri l 2 7frJ, 2006 2 2----7'7
~
Cj}
~
\
--..()
C
~
CQ.)\'".J
C .9 - ",,~
o(tico'-J
-.p 0 D CD
ro .- - =-
(J - ro ..... ""
:..:::::: 0- > .2 g>
0-0-0 co:;a
,::2. c:::::C ..... C:::2
<C '= 0- 0)""
..=. 0--- ~
irC a:: <C. en Q.
EVALUATION OF TREES AT THE <.;OWl.ES RESIDENCE, 21180 GRENOLA DRlVE, CUPL ,NO
5
loss, would be a mUle pV~l1l.
2. With regard to potential root loss, I recommend 2 options:
III Relocate the footprint a minimum of 15 feet from the trunk of Tree # 1, or
@ Excavate the intended location of the footing using an air spade or a water jet spade. The
exposed roots must be inspected by the city arborist. The size and quantities of roots
exposed by this excavation would determine whether or not it would be feasible to
construct a standard spread footing, or a pier and on-grade beam footing. However, this
\wuld be a mute point, lftne quantity of canopy loss would exceed 25% of the total
Companies that provide air-spade service include Urban Tree Service (650-321-0202)
and Arborwell (888-969-8733). .
Depending on the outcome of Recommendations # 1 and 2, Tree # 1 may be preserved. In
this event, the following mitigation procedures typically required at most construction sites
would be required.
3. I recommend that protective fencing be provided during the construction period to protect
those trees that are planned to be preserved. This fencing must protect a sufficient portion of
the root zone to be effectiye. In most cases, it would be essential to locate the fencing a
minimum radius distance of 10 times the trunk diameter in all directions from the trunk.
For example, a tree with a trunk diameter of 15 inches dbh (Diameter at Breast Height = 54
inches above grade) would require that protective fencing be erected 13 feet minimum from
the trunk. Ifhardscape (i.e:, curbing, paving, etc;) exists inside this 13 foot radius, the
protectiye fencing is usually recommended to be erected at the edge of the hardscape feature
and be located at least 13 feet from the trunk minimum on all other sides. Occasionally it
may be essential to have a certified arborist make decisions about the location(s) of
protective fencing at the project site.
I recommend that protective fencing must:
!j Consist of chain link fencing and having a ininimum height of 6 feet.
@ Be mounted on steel posts driven approximately 2 feet into the soil.
@ Fencing posts must be located a maximum of 10 feet on center.
El Protective fencing must be installed prior to the arrival of materials, vehicles, or
equipment.
e Protective fencing must not be moved, even temporarily, and must remain in place until
all construction is completed.
Note: In my experience, less substantial fencing is not respected by
contractors.
4. Because it would not be practical to protect the root zone near the new residence with
protective fencing, a root buffer would be essential. A root buffer allows work to be done
over the root system without significant root loss. However, this root buffer is intended to
bare the weight only for workers with hand equipment, and is not intended for tractors or
lift equipment.
Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist
April2ih, 200~2-~ 7 J>
~
EVALUATION OF TREES AT THL _ -JWLES RESIDENCE, 2] 180 GRENOLA DRIVE, CUPi. NO
6
I reCLJlijjl1~liG. Ci. I0;:.t t:.:=:~:- ::~ ~~!!(\~H~'
Ii A 6 inch layer of course wood chips
Ij Topped with full sh,eets of 1-~ inch plywood tied to~ether.
e The wood chips must be course (approximately % inch in diameter or larger) to be.
effective (shredded redwood is not acceptable for this purpose due to its
compressibility).
a The wood chips must be spread by hand over the existing soil grade to a minimum depth
of 6 inches over the specific area to be protected.
G The plywood must be secured to prevent slippage
€I This root buffer must be installed in conjunction with protective fencing and must
remain in place until all construction is completed.
5. There must be no grading, trenching, or surface scraping inside the driplines of protected
trees, unless specifically described in another section ofthis report.
6. Trenches for any utilities (gas, electricity, water, phone, TV cable, etc.) must be located
outside the driplines of protected trees, unless approved by a certified arborist.
7. I recommend that Trees # 1 must be irrigated throughout the entire construction period
during the dry months (any month receiving less than 1 inch ofrainfall). Irrigate a
minimum of 10 gallons of water for each inch of trunk diameter every two weeks. A soaker
hose or a drip line is preferred for this purpose.
8. I recommend that the entire area inside the dripline of Trees # 1 must be mulched to the
extent feasible. Mulching consists of a protective material (wood chips, gravel) being
spread over the root zone inside the dripline. This material must be 4 inches in depth after
spreading, which must be done by hand. I prefer course wood chips because it is organic,
and degrades naturally over time. Wood chips must be 1;4 to % inch in diameter primarily.
One supplier is Reuser, Inc., 370 Santana Dr., Cloverda1e, CA 95425, (707)894-4224.
9. If any old irrigation lines, drain lines, sewer lines, or any other underground features exist
inside the driplines of protected trees, but would not be used, I recommend that they be cut
off approximately at soil grade and left in the ground.
10. Materials must not be stored, stockpiled, dumped, or buried inside the driplines of protected
trees.
11. Excavated soil must not be piled or dumped, even temporarily, inside the driplines of
protected trees.
12. .Any pruning must be done by an arborist certified by the ISA (International Society of
Arboriculture) and according to IS A, Western Chapter Standards, 1998.
13. .Any pathways or other hardscape inside the driplines of protected trees must be constructed
completely on top ofthe existing soil grade without excavation. Fill soil may be added to
the edge of finished hardscape for a maximum distance of approximately 2 feet from the
Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist
April 27111, 2006 11. -90;
~
EVALUATION OF TREES AT THE COWLES RESIDENCE, 21180 GRENOLA DRlVE, CUP..... _.INO
7
edges to integrate the new naro.SI;Cl-l--JC ~u l~l':; ;:i':"~-":i.:': ;;:-:.:.::.
14. The sprinkler irrigation must not be done within 20 feet of the trunk of Tree # 1.
15. Landscape irrigation trenches must be a minimum distance of 10 times the trunk diameter
from the trunks of protected trees.
16. Landscape materials (cobbles, decorative bark, stones, fencing, etc.) must not be installed
directly in contact ,"vith the bark oftrees because ofthe risk of serious disease infection
17. The plants that are planted inside the driplines of oak trees must be of species that are
compatible with the enviromnental and cultural requirements of oaks trees. A publication
about plants compatible with California native oaks can be obtained from the California
Oak Foundation, 1212 Broadway, Suite 810, Oakland, 94612.
Respect
~~"
Michael 1. Bench, Associate
\v~Gm~
arrie D. Coate, Principal
"MLB/sh
Enclosures:
Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
Photo
Map
Tree Chart
R Application R ~ 2wb - o~
RM Application r2fi1 ~ Rook ~/.3
Approval Date. 6 r:2 3-oh
Signature ~ . (in/! ;(1;J~
(Case Manage~
Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist
tl'
Apri127 " 2006 22' {(Jt;
~
I
I
I
I
/
I
\
. lVI\ IIVVl-1 \..JI" H_ .....-..- --.
CV.:..1IUCllIUII VI \lv"':;u C,At \.11..... ......v..,.......... r-'....I~-..I
Fl, ,r'~liGation K ~ ;<oofo -08
RM Application ;2u - doob -I :-;
Approval Date ~ -;2 3 -Db . /
Signature tllu -fIoJ - /
(Case Manager) . v t-pLtfA...... ,
CONSULTING ARBORISTS
~ BARRIE D. COATE
'and ASSOCIATES
(400) 353-1052
23535 Summn Road
Los Gal.., CA 95030
Date: A ril 271h, 2006 Job # 04-01',-088
This logo is atlached to a plan done by another professional. The
presence of th is logo is not for the purpose of c1ah nin9 credit for the
plan but merely to add horticultural or arboriculturdl information to a
plan repared by others.
-! l .- ~ i-~ "5 ~.11& I/l
~. "'lil ;-
'" <it
~.
q
t
C)~
~. ~
~
~-
'0
~
~
.0-
pt
III
1>0'-0"
10 ~l CJL
1
I cn~'
~!S
21180 Grenola Drive, vupertilo
Requested by: Aki Horda
Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consuting Arborist
Tree numbers correspond to evaluation charts.
All dimensions and tree locations are
approximate.
,I
. -----._.~---,
-.. . 1- i
. - / \
I 1
I
\
\
\
l
1>_
20'-0.
~
~
!
I
.\C---,
1\'1
!p
I
!
I
\
I
'fi
r-
IH
~
~
- I.,
\
-~'\-i.r
\
';1
q.
---------------
,
\~ .~
\
I I 1
, , I
, I ,
, , I
I. ,. I.
I , ,
, I :
L L. I I
0 0 , , 1
U u T I T
, , I
~ Z i i I
0 ill I , I
:3 I I I
.!:>. I , I
I CD , , 1
0 I I I
, , I
0) 0 I I
I , ,
0 0 , I
(J:) ::;:: I I
I I
(J:) CD I I
I ,
(JJ I I
I I
U I I
(3 I I
I I
U I I
I I
CD I ,
;::!. I I
I I
'-::- I I
I I
N , ,
I , I
I , I I
, ' ,
(J:) ~=9~~.=-";;"~._-~ "..;
0 I I I
, , ,
GJ , I I
I I I
-; I I I
CD I , I
::J ___.1.___ ---~--- ___.L___
, , ,
Q.. I I I
I , I
Q) ---T--- ----.--- ---T---
, I ,
0 I I ,
, I ,
-; ---+--- , ---+---
:C. ---1---
.CD I , 1
, , ,
1 1 ,
0 ___J.___ ----'---- ___.1___
I I 1
C I I I
U I , I
I I ,
CD ---T--- ---..,...--- --- T---
~. , , I
, ., ,
::J 1 , ,
---+--- ----t---- ---+---
0 I I I
I 1 ,
, I I
C
COQ.)
o1tiro
:.~ _2 c::l
_~ D- co
-1S.. CL E;
~ <:t: is..
.;;:.C z q::
,:c a: <c
U
ill
(Q
CD
-'-
II
m
CD
(f)
~
o
-;,
CJl
II
~
o
-;
~
I
,
I
---~---
1
I
---+---
I
I
___1___
,
I
,
I
I
,
___-i-___
1
I
I
1
---,---
I
I
I
___...J-___
,
1
I
1
,
,
---+---
I
,
I
---+---
I
I
I
___J.___
I
,
,
I ,
, ,
I I
___.1___ ___...1...___
1 1
, I
1 ,
I ,
--,.--- ---....,...---
I I
I I
1 1
__1 _ ___J..___
, I
1 ,
I I
1 I
--+- - ----+----
1 I
I I
~ --~ -- ---~---
~ I ,
-r : 1/ :
Nl ---t - ---7---
~ "'~ :
~ J--
-~~ --
~--
--.-+ --
~i~
::::II 0>
-+--" I '"
~.~-
c=::::;;
Q:/~
,
I
,
I
,
I
___,n_
,
I
,
___-t-___
I
,
I
I
---..,...---
1
,
,
----'----
I
,
1
I
I
1
---~-_..
1
,
I
I
I
I
I
___.1.___
I
I
1
I
---Too--
I
,
I
___1___
I
I
,
I
,
I
,
___...J...___
I
,
1
1
---...---
I
I
,
----'----
I
,
,
I
I
,
I
1
I
I
I
1
,
I
I
I
I
1
,
,
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
1
I
I
j~.~.~-_.
,
I
I
,
I
---~---
I
,
,
--.....----
I
,
I
---}----
I
I
I
__-1-___
I
,
,
I
---r---
,
I
I
--0-+----
I
I
,
I
,
.,
___J.___
I
I
I
I
---~---
I
I
---t---
,
I
,
---+---
,
I
,
,
---T---
I
,
I
___.L___
I
I
I
,
,
I
I
I
---+---
I
I
,
___.L___
I
I
,
1
---Too--
I
I
,
___J.___
,
.1
I
I
I
I
--......---
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
___.L___
,
I
I
I
---Too--
I
I
I
___.L..__
,
I
I
I
I
,
I'
,
I
I
,
I
I
, , I I I ,
I , I I I
: I , I 1 I
I I 1 iN I
" ,. ... I' , ->.
I 1 , I I I I..
, I , I , I +I:
I , , I I I
I I I I , ,
I :
I I
I ,
__-+-___ ----t---
, ,
I I
---~--- ---~---
I I
I I
1 ,
__....L-___ ___J.___
I I
I I
l '
, I
I ,
I ,.
---'---- -_..~---
I I
I ,
I ,
I I
--~--- ---.,---
I I
, I
, I
---}---- ---t---
I I
I I
I I
---+---- ---~---
, I
I I
, 1
I ,
--,--- ---T---
I I
I I
1 I
__....1-___ ___.1___
I ,
I ,
I I
I ,
, 1
I I
I ,
---~--- ---t---
I I
I I
, I
---'---- ---""---
I ,
I ,
, ,
, I
---r--- ---,.---
I I
I ,
I I
__-L_"':_ ___1.____
1 ,
I I
, ,
I I
, ,
I 1
---1---- _--01---
I I
I I
, ,
! I
I
I
,
__..J...___
I
,
I
I
--r---
,
I
I
__J..___
I
I
,
,
,
I
,
___J.___
,
I
I
,
---,.---
I
,
,
___J.___
I
,
I
,
I I : : C/) '0 0:0
: ; I !~. :0 r::: 10
i ill.. I'" ~ 1m
: : ~ : a:~ ~:~
: : : ~ 0;" ::::u c:: c
: l : : en:~ ~ lti5
! : 1 : ~!::;:: ~ :0
\ I \ ~ \~ ~\~
I I I ~ I I
:: ~ Cti' : :
: 1 ::::J : :
I I I en I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I E I
! I r I" I
C .. :==' ~4~'=.?se''''r=.~~~=.=t'''~..".,~~~~~~=r..,'7='~=~==~~""<~..=.==c.=='~=l=. ~
: : : ; :-1- :~
I I I I I CD I-
; : : : : pv
___J.___ ___~___ ___.1___ __~~___ ___.1___ ---~---
: \ \ l \ : $;
___,.___ ---r--- ___,___ ---r--- ___,___ ---r--- _______________________________________ m
I I I I I I Q)
I , I I I I DBH (Jl
___~--- ___~--- ___~--- ___~--- ___~--- ___~--- _______________________________________ c
: : : : : : @
___1___ ___L___ ___1___ ___L___ ___J___ ___L___ 3
I I 1 I I I C'D
: : : : : : :J
___~--- ___~--- ___~--- ___~--- ___~--- ___~--- en
: ! !: !c;; :~
___~--- ___~--- ___~--- ---r--- ---~--- ___r___
: : : : ~w :(11
I I I I 10 101
:
,
I
---~---
I
,
,
,
---r---
1
I
I
---'----
I
,
I
I
I
,
---..---
,
I
---~---
I
,
I
---~---
1
,
,
, ,
, I
, I
___'-___ ___..1___
I ,
I I
I ,
I I
---r---- ---~---
I I
, I
---~--- ---t---
I I
, ,
I I
___....___ ----4---
I I
, I
I I
I 1
---r---- ---j---
, I
I 1
I 1
___L.___ ___..1___
I I
, I
I :
I ,
I I
I I
, I
I I
---l---- ---4---
, ,
I I
, I
---1---- --_.&---
, ,
, 1
, ,
, I
---r--- ---,---
, 1
I ,
, ,
__~___ ___..1___
I ,
, 1
1 I
I I
, r
I ,
___5-___ ----&---
I I
I ,
I I
I ,
I
I
I
___L.___
,
,
,
I
---,----
I
I
I
___L___
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
___.1___
I
I
I
I
---,---
,
I
I
___J___
I
1
; :~
I I
---1---- ----4---
1 I
, , ->.
---~--- ---~---
, '
, I
, 1
___L..___ ___.J.___
I I
, I
i 1
I I
I I
I I
___1-___ ___..1___
I I
I I
I I
, I
___,..___ ---"'f---
1 ,
I ,
---~--- ---i---
I I
, I
I I
---1---- ---...---
, I
, I
1 ,
, ,
---r--- ---,---
I ,
I I
I 1
___L..___ ___.J___
, I
I I
: I
1 ,
, I
, ,
, I
I ,
---l---- ---4---
, ,
I ,
I I
___~___ ___.J.___
, I
, I
, I
I '
---r--- ---,---
, I
I I
, ,
___L.___ ___..1___
, I
I I
I 1
1 I
, I
, I
___1-0___ ___..a___
I I
I ,
I ,
I ,
,
I
,
___L..___
I
,
I
,
---1"'---
I
I
I
___L___
I
I
I
I
I
,
,
___.1___
,
,
I
,
---,---
1
,
I
___J___
I
I
I
,
J2
[l)
::J
.......
~
~
Q,.
~~
~o
~O
"">
=l
Fr'I
en
o:J
>-
;;>0
;:o:::l
&"::3
c>t':l
S~
~ '"
~~
<.O~
sg
o~
Fr'I
o
()
o
>
----1
I"'FI
Z
ill
:3
CD
DBH
---------------------------------------
DIAMETER @ 2 FEET
HEIGHT ESTIMATED
---------------------------------------
SPREAD ESTIMATED
\-'- HEALTH (1-5)
---~--- --------------------------------------~ ()
!N STRUCTURE (1-5) g
___~--- _______________________________________ Cl
! CONDITION RATING (2-10) a:
___~___ _______________________________________ 0
! HAZARD RATING (4-12) ::l
CROWN CLEANING -0
--------------------------------------- ~
CROWN THINNING g
____~__________________________________ ::l
CROWN RESTORATION to
------------------------~-------------- ()
CROWN RAISING ~
---------------------------------------
REMOVE END-WEIGHT ~
--------------------------------------- ~
CABLES NEEDED # ~
_______________________________________ Cl
(Jl
I
I
,
___1..___
I
I
,
I
---~---
I
I
I
___~n-
I
I
,
---....---
I
I
I
---1----
,
,
I
___L..___
I
I
,
PRUNING PRIORITY (1-5)
,
I
,
I
,
--+---
,
I
,
---'----
,
I
I
I
---r---
I
1
I
___1..___
I
,
,
,
I
I
___J..___
,
I
,
I
---------------------------------------
ROOT COLLAR COVERED (1-5)
---------------------------------------
I
,
I
___L.___
I
,
I
,
---r---~
,
,
I
___l..___
,
I
I
,
---------------------------------------
REMOVAL PRIORITY (1-3)
HERITAGE TREE?
PROTECTED TREE?
U'l
,.,.
III
'*
c:
(Jl
~7--' 0 2-
~
PlAUJATlON OF TREES AT Th JWLES RESIDENCE, 21180 GRENOLADRIVE, cm iNO
Photo of Partially Cut, Partially Broken Limb facing Northwest
:.~T' .o;.~"
~:: . ~ : :'..
.:~: ',(t~k~
...' '-"",- .
"
~i'{"~'"'
...
-:!!
.....,}.:
Photo of Same Tree from NOliheast
R Application R-eJlDOb -og
RM Application ~ ..- d D () &, ~ I;;;
Approval Date . J!; :;13 ~ 0("
Signature tit<<- . (: VJd~
(Case Manager)
1Jn'n~,p.rl hv'lVfirh,p.1 T Rpnr.h r"ncllltinn 4.,,\-'''1';0+
A,,_:1,)7til "Inn?:.
12 -/ OJ
43:5
BARRiE Do COATE
and ASSOC~A TES
Hor1i cutufal Consultants
73535 Summit Road
Los Gatos, CA 95033
408135:>-1052
ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDiTiONS
1. Any legal description provided to the appraiser/consultant is assumed to be correct.
No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character nor is any opinion rendered as to
the quality of any title.
2, The appraiser/consultant can neither guarantee nor be responsible for accuracy of
ir,fomlation provided by others,
3. The appraiser/consultant shall not be required to give testimony or to attend coud by reaSOI-1
of this appraisal unless subsequent written arrangements are made, including payment of an
additional fee for services.
4. Loss or removal of any part of this report invalidates the entire appraisal/evaluation.
5. Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any
purpose by any other than the person(s) to whom it is addressed without written consent of
this appraiser/consultant.
6. This report and the values expressed herein represent the opinion of the
appraiser/consultant, and the appraiser's/consultant's fee is in no way contingent upon the
reporting of a specified value nor upon any finding to be reported.
7. Sketches, diagrams, graphs, photos, etc., in this report, being intended as visual aids, are
not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering reports or surveys.
8. This report has been made in conformity with acceptable appraisal/evaluation/diagnostic
reporting techniques and procedures, as recommended by the International Society of
Arboriculture.
9. When applying any pesticide, fungicide, or herbicide, always follow label instructions.
10. No tree described in this report was climbed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take
responsibility for any defects which could only have been discovered by climbing. A full root
collar inspection, consisting of excavating the soil around the tree to uncover the root collar
and major buttress roots, was not performed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take
responsibility for any root defects which could only have been discovered by such an
i nspecti on.
CONSUL liNG ARBORIST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training, and experience to
examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to
reduce risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations
of the arborist, or to seek additional advice.
Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree.
Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often
hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or
safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments,
like medicine, cannot be guaranteed.
Trees can.be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some
degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate all trees.
tiJ~tJ.~
Barrie D. Coate
ISA Certified Arborist
Horticultural Consultant
R AppiicatiO;! f! ~ dVO Co - O~
RM Application K;if ~ dt/Ob ~ I 3
Approval Date " v ~ ;23-0 b
Signature i j )tJj {.4wuL~
(Case ManageD
22--!Olj
~'3r,
(E) loStory
SFD
EX. BUILDltft~~po
~
1. AH disblrbed. lIud1LceS realllliag. tnlom ~ i1bbJ1 be lIe.eded and m~ as ne:ede..d be:lDre
wiD.tzr n.Ulsj be:inC p~.nd ~ed to CDntTol e:roaign by diectil'e pli!.Jl1:ing suc:h IL!i
rye grasa. ba.rtQ" Dr aame atbm' hult ~ lleed.
2. Driwway I'UQnft tnl. s.ite bJ aheet DDW b;l veget<!.tive. &urta.ce:s..
;5. ConCCQb;ded nmn!l to be diredzd e.~ froD:l. atructu!'e min. 2% slope for a. mlnlmam 01 S
leet. RDo! ~ by Gutt:enI Typ. DB roo! through 4" BoUd PVC pipe irltu c:d.aane coocn:te
~ I!J1:Drmwat2r~nva.lea.tatreet.
\j 4. A copy of a.1l CD1lI.pactio.o te9t5l r.nd finAll!'Gdint report sh4ll be. submitted to the City prior
to 5ebeduli:o.g lUQ' inspections. PriQr UI the contractor re.qUC05ltinll. ll. loundatiJl. wpe.ctiQ:ll.. the.
Soils EJl4inecr shall advise. the. buildiDe: Omc:ia.l ill writing ~ 1) the tllillding Footing
a:cr:o.va.tiOn5 LDd building pad wen. pre.p~ ill a.CCOrdLD~ with the. 90il report
l'1OComn>enda.l:ion5, .2) The. fou.D.dwcm fo~ r:o.nd gradia.g complr with the. soU re.port r.nd
r:o.pproved pluls. a.nd Sl the. drainage. sys;,te..m i5 in accOroil.llCe. with the soil report.
c:: 5. All Coutnactiol!. Bl. M~uiili per StructW"il.1 E.ngine.e.rinfi sheets providl!.d by MS E~ee.rine:,
5:2~ C~pbe.1l, CA 1408..377.6504).
~ _~ 0 a.> 6. R~mn>eIldat:ions included in the. Geote..c:h.nica.1 Re.port. dll.tedDec.. 27. 2005, by Ame.rica.n
~ 0... C'U "- !5ail Testing, lDc.., 5r..n dOH., CA, (406_559.6400), sbaJJ be. incorpOnl.te.d in the. gns.di.D.ll p1a.ns r:o.nd
~~e ~~eci!i~tionS.
:::C:2.: ~ c::; . No oreUlic ~r.1 ",haJJ be permitted i~
:c: CC <C Ci5("~ d whicb does)lot exceed 4 ioeb.es i.o de'~
N
~
I
-
'CJ
~
9. OnI:1materia.ls m_tint i.o sta.rldards Yh.aJl be. used. See Structural E.ngiJleerme lor
ma.t=ia.1 spe.cific.il.tions.
10. DIISt lram. gradlnl! Ope.til.tiOJlS IDwtt: be ~~Vide. e..qwPlI\=t to d.unpeJl gn.ding
sites to llLvaid dust. --......-...
-----
"
-----
~
I
/
I
~5. ;PIL
N90000'OO"E
fenz5,;l-.~€6'"=r
WOOD FENCE
I '<Ii-
/~ R<:OU'Yard
I ~ Sel.!:l.>.d<
(
\
20 r- -
204.!qm:;1O 1
'.
\
/
/
/
I
I
/
2OS31~ -
---7-----
.----
-----
~-
/'
------------
~--
~ f"rPllt Y...cI
~ S"U:,,,",,,
GRAVEL
7S.!:' tilL 995' ~c.
N9COOO'OO"E
GRAVEL
,_
^ nDI\/C:
20585
"
I
~FS"
I
I
I
~
b
o
b
~
o
Z
---aG.E::._
U4.5':Ridlte
SIOEWALK
EX. BUILDING
1]4..5' Qidfie
2i1BO Grenali>- O!', L,.at. ~/. lraC[ 0.:1-.1. l..faraen '--"'>.\"" ""'<4;;~
APN # 326-28-057 Lot: 9,375 Sl
Prooosed:
Two--Story SFD: 4,219 sf 45% F .lR
1st F1~r! 2,910 sf
Living: 2,271 sf
Two.car Ga.rage: 6.'58 sf
2nd Floor: Ui09 sf 45% 15'" Fir.
En try Porch: 57 sf
Proposed Ba.lcor.1es: 160 sf
Lot Coverage: 2,973 sf SL 70%
F.AR: (45% max.) 4,219 sf 45.00%
Hei~hts:
E-xi$tin..g Finish Gr-ade:
Proposed SFn r.F.:
100,0'
Ma.in: lOtS
Uppe.r': IDB
: lV~a..Kjmum j:.:.tidg",- lrhoigr..t, (.'2:6'.6" ir'{)'l\ ~.:,.GJ 12;3.5'
~
Excava.te and Recompact E.xisting Septic Tank
~
One. 42" Syca..more To Be Removed
S=pe of Work:
1. Demo existing 1,235 sf SFD
2. Excavate and recompact existi
Septic Tank
Plans to be in Compli
with. CA B.uilding a.nd
Codes (2001)
3. Build New SFD plus Garage p
Job Copies of &uiJding
Fire. Sys~m Plans and
Permits must be onsite
during Inspections.
Dce. Class: R-5
:Build. Const.: Type V ~
rlTe Rating; Sprinkler
T ARLE. OF CONTE.NTS
A.I SITE pLAN
A.2 MAIN FLOOR PLAN
A-3 2nd FLOOR PLANlPrivacy PlantiJ. ~
A.4 FRONTIREAR ELEVATIONS
A.S SIDE ELEVATIONS
A-G ROOF PLAN
A.7 SECTIONS
A.S LANDSCAPING
A.9 ELECTRICAL
A.IO T-24 CERTIFICATES
s.LO SPECIFICATIONS
s.U SHEA THlNGlNAll..ING
s.U TYPICAL DETAILS
$013 SHEAR DET All-S
$02.0 FOUNDATION PLAN
$021 2ND FLOOR FRAMING
$02.2 UPPER ROOF FRAMING
SITE PLAN
Scale 1/8" = 1'- 0"
N N
~
,., :;
N
" <(
"
0 U
'"
0 ~
0: ~ ""
U
,~
.!!! "
~ ~
iF~.~U !
~~~
-::~ ~..!!
-"
(,)
" ~ I
~ .~ I~
- .
"'"
;:,
.a
, ~.
~
~
~
'2 a>
ed ~
'QI ~
'O~""""
oC\!
~""ClO
~ C')~
~"tl~r-:
';:; ~ 0::5
~"O.S~
'" ;.. t: t6
:'5!..c:: 2..
: 0) ""~
c: ~ a ci
>. ,Z;
Lo r.. 0:
~~ ~~
o "0 ~
~ ..< ~8
~ ' ~
" ~ ~
'Z; - ~ d
~:Cc:l
=8
R Application /2. -~Q:l(, - 06 _
RM Application !b1-/2!!Job -/:3
Approval Date .;;:5-~
Signature {Ji0. - j
[CaSe Managoij
~
N
1
c
~
59'.0.
11'.4"
- ~r
504U HS (1"4<><",-)
_ns
lNor..J
~
11 '.1~'
:0
Bedroom
4
o
o ~
~
I
Living
Room
15'.5'"
.
~
Office
12'~4.
2SSODH.cDlI01'~&ODS
./12OSO Ard=l Abo_
tTaD.~
.
~
.
~
lS080G......c~DOQ"
wfLito:.a
Arda,o,d TrclliaA.
PROPOSED
1st
FLOORPLAN
Scale 114" = 1'- 0"
59'...0"
SECTION
IICII
~
;i 171 ~ ~ i
~ ~ ~ ~ i
co .....;" ~ ::;
o ~ ~
0; 3
~-i-
f/)
Cll .
~~
~ o~
.U~
,~,? "" ~ I
:~. 8~!
..a <"l; ~ .
~ ~:~
(d ~ ~
CS "'0:
o
~
SECTION
flAil
'2 Cl'>
fd ~
,'OIl :;;
'f1O
';C'i
0/)=
or:;;. Cl'> ~
~"d5li
'; fd ocr
g"dj~
· ;.. ~ r.b
:s..c::: .. C>l
~ 0) go,,:
C:~t)o
~.c; ,.z;
S oQ.
rI}~.!!l~
o 0..
~fd~=
~ S o~
. 00=
z;)0p4 ~ 0
<( ~ ..'"
II
z
<
z~
-0:
:So
,
...:l
""
~
}.J
~
I
<3
-J
R Application
RM Application
Approval Date
Signature
(Case Managa~
~
5'-0"
0'_6"
SECTION
''B1r
6'-6
PROPOSED
2nd
FLOORPLAN
Scale I}4" = 1'- 0"
SE<;;:~~ON
t~I~~~:jT~IJ~ >;:)~:~
5'-0"
4.1'-0
~
W ,
,y,
~ ...~
;.r; .I
A'
;I: . ~
.,
rJj
w
"i
~o
~~
'-~ =
~)
~
.e
~
'"
~
I:l
Z
<C
~..J
~~
0.0
;;JO
..J
""
'2 '"
III ..
. 'C! ~
..... III
o .".,
~ sC'!
Ill'"
",0
.. <<l'
.E "0 u li
~. Id 6'"
. "0 .5..'"
61 ;. .....
~..dH
" ~ Q.l'l
o:~r36
~.c; J"~
..~ Q.
rI}\lQ ~<
~ g to
E- '" ·
.U
~ :; ~
~O~.s
<::C~~
..., ;,:
~ :~
~ ~
"IX
~ ~ ~ ;:
~ ~ ~ ~
oN ." CD I::
X <t: ~ ~
o U ...t -1
~-:~~
o. ~
0.' "'
U
1S-0.
o
~
126SRirl
~
~
un
NORTH (FRONT)
ELEVATION
Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0"
Finish Schedule.:
Extzdar. 3-Coa.t Stucco. ''Pa.1a..mino'' (Lt. YeUowlTa..n.)
Roof: CoD.crett ~ Til'tlite-- "Ca..sa Gra.ndlt Bleo.d'!
TriIn 81. F~a: Painte;d Wood. Trim SurrOWlt.ds . 'Nude" (White)
Windows 8l. Door'S: Eagle. Vmyl Oad Oltra. W"mdows . 'White'!
Gara"te Bt. Fron.t Door. PiUnted Wood. "Antique'!
Deck Railin.g: Painted Articula.ted Wrought Iron. . "White"
.Ba.lcony:. Sla.te Tile.
R Application R. -~()(J(r IJa
RM Application /Uvt - Jrnb -I')
Approval Date) L?~ b
Signature ('iI-/.' .
ICase Managlllj
(0
~
I
-
c:::,
~
I II I II III
126.5'Ri ...
...::::lS
'"
5[:::",.
'"
SOUTH (REAR)
ELEVATION
Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0"
O.5'Pla.te
JOO.O'E..G.
~ i
... i
II I
,
1
I
~ " I
~n
~u~1
~"::::: :; ~ I
~ d~1
,Ll .
. ~
~
..
A
~ 0
00
o:~
" >
- .
"a
'-
5'.0.
o
~
'2 '"
!d f::!
'Oft ~
'1'",
. ~~
.e::; "'~
~ "'c:l ~r-:
-;; !d 69
~ "'c:l ,a ~
~ ;.. .. ch
~..d.'JiN
~ Cl) 0.",
c:~ao
~< t!~
cil~ ~<
b '0 ~
~ ~ 5 =
~ = ~~
~ Q 0 j
Z IopoC $1 u
<( """ o:l CIl
f/'j
~ Z
o
~o:....
Z<~
.....~<
.... .>
l w
'- ~
W
B
i0
~
1
-.
C>
-..~
R Application R-;}fX)fo -of?>
RM Application /2-1 - c2DDb - / ~
Approval Date(~'3-D{'
Signature ~. V.-r-'
(Case Managa~
o
~
L',
r
T..m.
A_'
DO DD
100.0' E
WEST (RIGHT)
ELEVATION
Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0"
~;~io~~~ Stucco - "Palamin.o" (Lt. Y~U~;^'/Ta.n)
~~c ~Fc:~:: ~J:~:J;;~T~a.n~~~:~s ~ 'Nude" (White)
~~ows ~ Doors: Eat1e Vinyl Clad. DItta. Windows. ''White''
Garage. Bl Front Door - Painted Wood . "Antique" I ."
Deck Ra.ilin.gl pa.inted Articulated Wrought Ircn ~ 'W'hJte
RalconJr. Slate. Tile
...:::J5
12
EAST (LEFT)
ELEVATION
Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0"
[J)
Cll .
"i:a
~ 05
~U~
\~: = ~
- l"jO:
:;
.a
"
~
~
Q
's: ,::;
00
~:~
"'0:
5b...
12
'a ao
~ ~
'QI) ~
,~ ......,
Q '<l' C~
~ C:i:'l
lOCO
al~
~'1'j5,.:
";; ~ o~
~ "fj :E ~
~ ;.. ~ch
.~.c:: .. ~
~ e.> go'"
Cl: <' u ci
>. ..c; r Z;
5 Q~
iIl~ rd<
~ g ~
1- l:u
~ " e
~ Q 0 rd
:z: lop! sg iJ
<toIo4 c:iCll
4.0'Pla.tl!.
. S
fJ)
Z
0
W....
SE-< !
fJ)~
W
..:l
W
" TrdliE
A=<M
1 O'F.F.
IA-5]
'(3 '"
(lj Q>l
'Q.O ~
~ '"
~'"
g~
.0::; Cl)O
.. .0:'"
,E"Qu:;;
" ld 6<:1
g "Q .=~
ell ;.. 't- I
1..c:: .ll~
" eo) c....,
c:~ao
~< ~~
~~ ~~
o o~
~ ld ~6
~Oe~~
:z: cc.!l
.o::C;;~
~
~
~
'"
~z
0<
1""\...:1
~
III
Cl
~
~~
--;~.# ~
Q
"
.:
u
.
~
u
~
A
~
~
Q
I
n4.S' Ridge.
U~S mdde
.
E!
I
~
A
"
l
!.L.E. '-!.. SECTION
- - !] - V nAil
-
,/
~ "
~ "
~ -
- -
~~
Ie ~
SEs;f.~ON ROOF PLAN
Class A Concrete S-Ttlelite-
"Casa Grande Blend"
12" Crown Molding Typ.
5 /12 Slope
with Hip Typ.
9'.0" Plll-u
'fY.1~O'
15'-0'
(E) l-Story
SFD
109.0' @ Flat
Qaoi
SECTION
llell
R Application
RM Application
Approval Date
Signature
(Case Manage1j
N
~
I
-
--
C7
CII Workshop
. 11IM
6'-6"
o
~
Entry
~
~
I
RApplication R -;)()Ofo - OR
RM Application RH - ,1/ln t, -f:3
Approval Date ~-(23-(}("
Signature {1' .~
(Care Manags~
Un.9Q.jd ..
~ lkd5
"
o
~
$.t,rllctu:raJ
fi.=..pcr
E.nl!U>""-rif4;!
"
2,;6eI6" oc
41IW..JI,CON
Utilities
"
~ Study
Foyer
Living
E....-lcrior ;5.a>ot>lSh.ccoW;.Jls
toh.A\le;;;1I2'we"'PlJICre~
~.::14~"':;" cr..d., "T!"!>-
100.0' G ~ B
lOO.O'E.G
SECTION i1AiI
Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0"
"'. 6" Ane1e to F1.a.t
ee.ifint}
o
i::
o.."s A eoll",",k fht Till: Typo.
,,\lel' 40 Jh. f'c::l1 o"=' 314" plywood
with clips UOJ'l
SECTION "B"
Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0"
Bath 2 Bed 3
l00.0't:.G.
0tiL
Garage
o
"
SECTION "C"
Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0"
s '" '" ~
'" ~ "
::l ~ "
" '" '" '"
3 <: ;'l ~
u ~ ..,
" ~ "
0 ~
0: ; "-
u
III
..!! .
in
~' o~
I.' o~U~
~-J.;'" :: ~
- "JC:
~
~
"
Q
~ ~
00
~ :~
- .
lO"
....
d '"
ttl ~
'Q.Il ~
'-'0 <l':g
~ a~
1tl0>
"'~
~_ <l:......
.E ...." UlO
" ttl ci9
~'O:B~
~ ;.. ;; tb
....c:: ~....
~ Cll g.~
Q:~UO
~C; ...z:
2 00:
ell ~ .$~
Q ~~
? ~6
~ e
" 0 Q.!!I
z: lop( $I U
<l: ~ IN(/)
2dl~lB"O"
AIl"'alI..U(.M.
~...e"",.,..JHiO
,","""'R'd'
""""..'"
(/)
Z
o
-
f-4
U
W
r./)
]01.S'f"F.
'''~'E?J
To:
Aki Honda, Senior .jnner, City of Cupertino
Exhibit 0
From: Jessica Rose and John Tracy, 10410 Ann Arbor Avenue
Re: Appeal of R-2006-08. Appeal of the Residential Design and Minor Residential Permit to
construct a new, two-story 4,219 sq. ft. residence with two second - story rear yard decks
on 21180 Grenola Drive.
Date: November 6, 206
Cc: Staff Report for Planning Commission Meeting 11/14/06
At the close of the October 10, 2006 Cupertino Planning Commission meeting, the Commission
withdrew the motion to uphold our Appeal in favor of a Continuance at the Applicant's request.
The Commission made it clear that 10 concerns with the project shall be remedied by the next
Commission meeting before plan approval could be considered. The Applicants selected the next
meeting date and agreed to the conditions. Per the Draft Meeting Minutes, the items are:
1. Eliminate the west side balcony.. .or significantly reduce it to a "faux" balcony...
2. Lower the entry...
3. Remove second story bay windows...
4. Provide fully mature privacy planting on west side of property... if a balcony is still proposed.
5. Reinstate privacy planting on east side of property.
6. Move tree to specified position on east side property line for maximum privacy screening.
7. Work with City staff to improve privacy protection plan.
8. Tone down the color of the residence and roof.
9. Soften the frontage by the addition of; landscaping, rock work, architectural enhancements.
10. Talk to the neighbors.
We request that the Commission uphold our Appeal. In review of the Applicant's written response
to the specific comments decided by the Commission, we do not find that the objectives have been
met in a satisfactory manner. We were very disappointed at the lack of response that the
Applicants made to the clear and specific direction from the Commission on this project.
The following arguments support this conclusion (these 10 items correspond to the 10 items listed
above ):
1. Not Satisfactory: The balcony has neither been "eliminated" or "significantly reduced".
2. Satisfactory: Although, it is debatable as to how "more symmetrical" the entry has become
by lowering it 12 inches.
3. Satisfactory: the bay windows are shown to be removed.
4. Not Satisfactory: The new JPM landscaping plan is incomplete. Missing: second floor of
house, cones of vision, dimensional location of planting, size of plants at installation.
5. Not Satisfactory: For the same reasons as item 4 above.
6. Not Satisfactory: For the same reasons as item 4 above.
7. Not Satisfactory: Tree not present on plan. Due to the incompleteness of the new
landscaping plan we suspect the City has not been approached for comment on this plan.
8. Not Satisfactory: No change of residence / roof color changes were found.
9. Not Satisfactory: The provided elevations do not indicate any changes that may "soften"
its appearance. Also, the new JPM landscaping plan does not include front yard details.
10. Not Satisfactory: The applicant did speak with us about landscaping only. We were asked
what we wanted for landscaping. We were not given an update on house plans, balcony
status, or offered a proposed landscaping plan. Our expectation was we would be provided
new plans as the basis for review and discussion, therefore our discussion was preliminary
at best.
Regards, Jessica Rose and John Tracy
2'2- -112-
Page 1 of2
Aki Honda
From: Elena [elena_herrera@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 07,200612:02 PM
To: Aki Honda
Cc: Subir Sengupta; Jessica Rose
Subject: 21180 Grenola Dr.
Elena Herrera
Subir Sengupta
21150 Grenola Drive
Cupertino, CA 95014
7 November 2006
Aki Honda
Planning Department
City of Cupertino
Thank you for talking with us the other day. I want to note some things I find disturbing about the current
status with the 21180 Grenola project, as evidenced by the Mojgani's replies to 10 specific items.
Regarding the items left from our previous Planning Commission meeting.
1. The Balconies
The balcony has not been reduced or modified from the plans presented at the meeting. Although it
was reduced prior to the meeting, we do not see any changes.
2. Entry Feature
We did not "waive" our interest in lowering the entry - - we concurred with one commissioner that
lowering it too much would further make the round feature more prominent.
4. Privacy Planting
One option that seems to have been lost was a consideration of planting more mature specimens
rather than create the need to wait for several years for the privacy screen to kick-in.
6. The Deodar Cedar
Moving the deodar was an excellent recommendation to mitigate the privacy issue along the eastern
border - - what happened?
22-11]
ll/8/2006
Page 2 of2
7. Landscape Plan
When will the city be reviewing the new landscape plan as it will appear with the modifications to the
house?
8. Tone Down the Color Scheme
Due to the large size of the home (4200 sq. ft) I don't feel it's fair or right to compare colors of
homes in the 1,100 sq. ft. range. I must re-iterate that the desire to annex into Cupertino was a
defacto request to obtain the guidance and expertise of the city when growing our agreeably
transitional neighborhood.
9. Front Landscaping or Brick/Rock on Fa<;ade
Neither my husband nor I approved any landscaping plan, I'm not sure which neighbor this comment
refers to. We did agree that landscaping would help. Mr. Mojgani agreed that we together we would
look at paint and roofmg material samples.
:22-lll(
ll/8/2006
Cupertino City Council
Jessica Rose and John Tracy
21180 Grenola Drive
February 1,2007
RE:
C{ I 2- - i/ - 07
XkWt ~ d;)
To:
From:
Re:
Date:
Subject: Why Are We at the Council Level?
This question must be foremost in your mind. We will have three minutes to present to you at the
Council meeting on February 6. We are facing an issue that other residents in Cupertino face as
well, the integration of new home development on a lot surrounded by existing homes. We have
been disappointed in how our privacy concerns have been addressed by the planning department in
Cupertino. Weare following the Appeal process to address our problems. This document will share
with you our experience. Since April, we have tirele~sly worked with Aki Honda (City Planner) and
the Mojgani's (applicant) to address and mediate these issues. Despite this effort, we have been
unsuccessful in rmding resolution.
Planning Department Level.
The planning department explained to us that the balcony meets the ordinance requirements and
therefore should be approved. It was viewed as an architectural feature - just a chimney or window is
to the exterior of a house. The planning department states that the privacy landscaping plan will
address our privacy concerns. We believe a balcony is significantly more intrusive to privacy than a
chimney or a window. We are saddened that since July we have received three City mailings
noticing the neighborhood of approval of these plans. Each contained a seriously inadequate
land~(;.:~1!..ipg plan. How can we be satisfied our privacy concerns are mitigatedby a substandard
iaJidscaping plan? We do not believe our rights have been reasonably protected.
Apoeal to the Planning Commission October 10.2006.
Commissioners spend over an hour discussing: 1) various design concerns, 2) deficient landscaping
3) recognition that the balcony was too large and invasive. The commissioners carefully worded a
molwIl:1fWis medIately seconded and was ready for vote. (See minutes) The motion would
uphold our appeal and detailed 9 modifications to be addressed, including that the balcony be
"significantly reduced or eliminated". The applicant and appellant would then work ~ebRC oIi'''''',\
these 9 modifications and then return to the Planning Commission. - J
~-<_._------<_.<-<<---<---------
This would have been a win-win situation; the commission validated our privacy concerns,
recognized the invasive nature of this balcony, and that landscaping plan was inadequate at best.
Commissioners suggested other ideas that would honor the feel a balcony provides without intruding
on neighboring privacy. We would now e directed to the DRC which would provide a more
productive setting to move forward. The next action was pivotal; Drrector teve lasecki suggested
that the Mojgani's be asked if they would be agreeable to this process and pointed out they could
alternatively ask for a continuance. If so, the motion would be denied and the Mojgani's would be
responsible for working with the neighbors and planning to address the commissions 9 items. These
two options were explained to them several times. They opted for the continuance. The motion was
withdrawn.
At this point, we questioned out of turn, "Why are we not being asked for our opinion?" After all, it is
our appeal that brought this plan to the Commission in the fIrst place. We were respectfully asked to
be quiet. Later Deputy City Attorney Eileen Murray apologized to us for this error and
acknowledged that both applicant and appellant should have been able to comment. (We would have
requested going to the DRC)
November Planning Commission Meeting 11114/06:
Immediately it was apparent to us that the tone and direction of the Planning Commission had
changed. Although the landscaping plan was still considered deficient, the COmmission emphasized
the nee for the neighbors to work together. We were very surprised that the balcony was to remain
- -
the original size, despite engthy discussion regarding lack of noticeable improvement to the
landscaping plan. We were COnfuSe(~;~t.ati.B th..l we W"e~rking with our neighbors.
The result of this meeting wasffi:.t 9 al ~nied with a 3-2 vo~
At the recess, we asked a cOmmissioner "What happened?!" The reply "There was a very
unflattering email about your lack of cooperation." This is when we realized that the Mojgani's
communicated with some of the commissioners between the two meetings. Naively it never occurred
. to us to that communication with commissioners regarding a continued agenda item outside of the PC
meeting would have been appropriate or allowed.
Summary:
Attached you will find my communication log. We suggest you read it; it demonstrates our unfailing
commitment since April to resolve any and all issues on this project. We were willing to pursue the
DRC process, we were willing to attend a City sponsored mediation program (the Mojgani's refused)
and there were many suggestions by the commissioners at the October meeting on changes that could
be made to protect our privacy and provide for a balcony design.
We maintain that a balcony in our neighborhood setting is intrusive beyond reason and violates our
right to privacy, changes the quality of life we enjoy in our house and backyard and ultimately affects
the value of our newly remodeled home. The Planning department in Cupertino must be prepared to
guide new home design in existing neighborhoods to be considerate of existing homes while still
allowing new construction to occur.
Please contact us at any time for additional information.
Please let us state again that we sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have given to our
concerns. We thank each of you!
. 'J, ~
Ji~r
Date
Communication
Jul-OS
21180 Grenola Drive property sold
Aug-OS
Met new property owners, H & M. Mojgani. In the process of remodeling, we were not living in 10410 Ann Arbor.
Fall200S
Meet "over the fence" with Mojgani's. We inquire about plans for the heritage oak tree on their property. They state it's not the type of
tree they like, and they hope to move it or replace it. We try to encourage them regarding the value of the tree, and urge them "to clean
it up and care for it as it could be beautiful and useful shade if well-maintained"
Feb-06
We move back in to our 10410 Ann Arbor Avenue home.
Apr-06
Mrs. Mogjani visits unscheduled. Presents house plans for the first time.
She presents a waiver for us to sign, releasing them from any privacy landscaping requirements along our shared fence line. She cites the
cost impact and the time to make decisions and assures that her plan is to landscape eventually. We learn of the rear-balconies at this
point. We offer to consider the request overnight:, but express a concern over the balconies.
Write an email explaining why we cannot sign waiver (see attached)
Mrs. Mogjani stops by before she receives the email. We decline to sign and refer to our email. She is upset and asks us to put our name
and address on the waiver "in case the City needs to contact us". We don't, afraid that our signature could be construed as a waiver.
Contacted Aki Honda to introduce ourselves and express our concern about privacy and the balcony and confinn our resistance to the
waiver. Ms. Honda offered to contact us when house plans have been submited and become available for review.
S-Apr-06
Mar-06
Sr. Planner Colin Yung stops by our house while in the area. We had worked extensively with Mr. Yung on the Garden Gate annexation
process and election.
Mr. Yung came in to see our remodel and "get an acorn off the neighbor's Sycamore Tree".
He is holding an acorn and good naturedly explains the 21180 Grenola property owners are disputing the type of tree located on the rear
of the lot as being a 'sycamore'. We explained our efforts to encourage them to save the tree in earlier conversations. He suggested
further comments be directed to Aki Honda.
Page 1 of7
Date
Communication
Check in w / Planner Aki Honda. She says the City is still confinning the species of tree and in dispute with the Mojgani's that it is not a
Sycamore and to have the City arborist assess the tree.
May-06
Jun-06
Jun-06
J un-06
11-Jul-06
Jul-06
Aki Honda notifies us that the house plans have been submited and are available for review during office hours.
We go to planning. Unexpectedly see Mrs. Mojgani also waiting to see Aki Honda. She asks if we are at planning to do a project on our
house, we reply our interest is to see her final house plans.
We wait while Mrs. Mojgani meets with Ms. Honda first. We overhear a heated discussion regarding the oak. tree. Mrs. Mojgani leaves.
We approach Ms.Honda to see the plans.
We're informed that the Mojgani's are very upset about the limitations of the oak. tree and are now considering changing their plans and
might even sell the property. They want their plans be put on hold and have stated that "neighbors" are not allowed to view them until
they decide what to do next, thus we are denied access to filed the plans.
Schedule meeting at planning with Aki Honda and neighbor Less Bower (resides to the rear of project property.)
Present a list of questions and concerns regarding the house plans after finally viewing them. Specific concerns: Tree labeled incorrecdy
as a "Sycamore to be removed", Invasive Balconies, landscaping plan is missing many key details and notes the first story of the home
only.
Receive official City notice to neighborhood containing the 21180 Grenola house plans, landscaping plan and stating the intention to
approve the plans. Comments due to planning by July 25,2006.
Landscaping plan had one shrob and one tree designated along our shared property line. Does not meet ordinance.
Story poles constructed on 21180 Grenola property. Called Aki Honda to inform that the balconies were not included in the story pole
structure. She states they should be and the two-week notification period for the community would now begin from the date the poles
reflect the balconies. Date extended to early August. .
Page 2 of7
Date
26-Jul-06
Communication
July 27,2006
3-Aug-06
Wrote introductory letter to neighbors adjacent to 21180 GrenoIa property. Letter stated concerns over design of the home containing
two rear balconies that affect our privacy and that the landscaping plan to be approved by the City Planning Department still did not
meet ordinance standards.
Invited interested neighbors to discuss with us further. Met Elena Herrera and Subir Sengupta from this.
Aki Honda was cc'd on this letter to neighbors.
Wrote 6 page document to Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development, cc Aki Honda, Planner:
In response to 7/11/06 City Planning Dept. notice of pending approval of the 21180 Grenola Drive Minor Residential PernIit. Two
page letter sununarized (1) Landscaping plan is incomplete for reasons outlined in document. (2) Balcony and windows invade our
privacy and impact our residence. 4 pgs of detailed comments attached w / photographs of relevant area.
Receive official City notice to neighbors containing 21180 Grenola Dr. house plans with updated landscaping plan which states
intention to approve within 14 days.
Master Balcony has been reduced from 8 feet to 6 feet protrusion off rear of house comer.
Landscaping plan added (1) tree and (1) bush along our shared property line. Plan still does not meet ordinance.
August 9,2006 Email invitation to Mojgani family to attend our Ann Arbor Avenue block party. They accept and attend briefly.
10-Aug-06 Email to Aki Honda questioning a lack of City acknowledgment or response to the concerns outlined in our letter submitted 7/27/06.
Acknowledged reduction of balcony by 2 feet, express confusion as to why the landscaping is still insufficient. Expressed continuing
concern about tree protection plan for the heritage oak tree and concern over inaccurate label of oak as a sycamore "to be removed" .
Requested a site visit.
Aug-06 John Tracy creates a privacy landscaping plan to the ordinance specifications. All cones of vision from 2nd story windows/balconies are
noted, our house is properly positioned, tree/shrub size/location are noted and labeled. This plan is an accurate portrayal of minimwn
requirement as defined by City Ordinance.
August 16,2006 Aki Honda agrees to a site visit. We present the landscaping plan John created to illustrate how deficient the current plan is. Aki
conunents "This is a lot of trees to ask someone to plant on their property". We argue that'the tree/shrub nwnber and location is
dictated by the 2nd story window jamb locations per the City ordinance. She agrees to take the plan. She is sympathetic to our concerns
with the balcony.
Page 3 of7
Date
Communication
16-Aug-06
Emailletter to the Mojgani's. Subj: Approval of Grenola House Plans inviting them to our house to view from our property the impact
of the balcony and master windowto our privacy, quality of life and property value.
In this email we express disappointment in their lack of interest to create an effective landscaping plan that complies with the ordinance
and protects us from their new home. We state that due to the substandard landscaping plan in 8/3/06 City notice mailing and the plan
to proceed with the master balcony, we plan to appeal a decision by the City to the Planning Commission.
August 23,2006 7:30am Mojgani's visit our property. We show them our small, high, triangle windows on either side of the fireplace and how the
balcony railing provides a perfect view into our house. They suggest we get curtains on these windows and assure us they have no
interest in looking into our house. Outside we show them how the balcony provides a view of our entire backyard area, and we will
have no place to hide from a balcony occupant. They respond with a promise to leave the balcony if we are ever entertaining outside.
They finnly reiterate their right to a balcony. We disagree.
23-Aug-06
26-Aug-06
6-Sep-06
Septemeber
2006
10-0ct-06
City mailing of notification of approval of the 21180 residence for the residential design and Minor Residential Permit for the two rear
balconies. The landscaping is conditional and meets minimwn ordinance requirements, but is not drawn as such and is rather outlined as
a condition of approval.
Email from Mojgani's thanking us for the invitation to our house to view our concerns. They suggested they could add juniper trees
along our high family room windows as an effective alternative to shrubs. The junipers might be faster growing and easy to care for by
both of us.
We submit letter and fee of $150. to the City to appeal approval of 21180 Grenola Drive. Citing the invasive nature of the balcony,
regardless of landscaping plan, question compatability of this home with the three single-story homes that are adjacent to it's property
lines. Question why only minirnwn landscaping plan was approved for such an invasive stucture, and that landscaping cannot mitigate a
20 foot high screen within three years as mandated by the ordinance for reasonable privacy protection via landscaping. Concern for the
oak. tree care is also noted.
We are notified by the City of Planning Commission to hear our appeal on October 10, 2006.
Planning Commission Hearing. PC cited concern- house design, deficient landscaping, and balcony to large and invasive. Lengthy
conversation on these points. Motion: Uphold the Appeal with 9 modifications to the design, landscaping and balcony (listed) and work
Page 4 of7
Date
Communication
Oct -06
(post 10/10 PC
mtg)
Wed. 10/25/06
Thurs.
10/26/2006
Sun. 1/029/06
Sun. 10/29/06
10/30/2006
with the DRC. Motion second. Director Steve Piasecki suggested that the applicant (Mojgani's) should be asked if there would be
agreeable to this process and pointed out alternativdy they could .ask for a continuance to return to the PC at a later date. The applicant
(Mojgani's) opted for a continuance. The motion was denied.
Schedule meeting with Steve Piasecki and Aki Honda to discuss our concerns with how the Planning Dept. has handled this situation
with us. Voiced our concern over current lack of landscaping plan, yet three City notices have stated intention to approve the plan.
We wonder how the City can argue that landscaping will mitigate our privacy concerns when the current plan is seriously deficient?
Modifications to the plan were done in text fonnat, not on an accurate landscape drawing or plan. Expressed disappointment in lack of
acknowledgement of our two written documents to the City Planning Dept (! /26/06 and 9/6/06). Expressed concerns about the
landscaping drawing, the lack of acknowledgement of our concern for the fate of the oak tree during the construction process, and note
that one limb has already been poorly severed with a skill saw. Steve listened to our concerns.
Received email from Mojgani's asking us to meet today or tomorrow morning to discuss privacy landscape.
We respond having been gone all day that a better time to meet would be tomorrow morning or Sunday.
We send an email update that we are home today and any time after 11:30am would work. Please stop by.
Mojgani's respond that they will come by this afternoon. Mojgani's come to our house. They did not have new plans to show us, but
asked to hear what we wanted. We provided the landscaping drawing John created in August to them again. We considered it a starting
point for a reasonable landscaping plan. The Mogjani's were very satisfied with their drawing. They did not disclose to us that they had
decided not to reduce or eliminate the balcony as suggested by the Planning Commission.
We suggested we meet again at the city. Meeting lasted about 45 minutes.
Followed up with Aki Honda regarding our meeting with the Mogjani's. She promised to notify us when a wrtten response was
submitted for the next PC meeting. She reminded us that all correspondence to this issue must be received by her office noon, Tuesday
Novemeber 7th, one week prior to the PC meeting for her report.
Page 5 of7
Date
Monday
11/6/06
Tuesday
11/7 /06
Wednesday
11/8/06
November
14,2006
PC Meeting
Communication
Aki Honda notified us that the Mojgani's had submited a written document and landscaping drawing in response to the Planning
commissions direction at the October 10th meeting. We met with Aki and received a copy of the written reply from the Mojgani's. Aki
reinterated the deadline of noon the next day for our written response for her staff report. She also noted that the Mojgani's had not
addressed most of what the Planning Commission had directed them to correct.
We submit our letter for the staff report. John delayed a business trip to be available until the noon deadline so our response would be
current and accurate.
Late afternoon we receive an email from Aki Honda stating she and Steve Piasecki had met with the Mojgani's again to try and improve
their response to the Pc. They were now verbally proposing an entirdy different balcony railing with a trellis stroction on the side of the
railing facing our property. We asked if the balcony was reduced at all. She replied it was not. We asked for a drawing to review, she
replied there wasn't one due to the late date of this new information.
11:-- a.m.:
Mrs. Mojgani makes an unscheduled visit to our home to present the latest landscape and balcony plans. Unfortunately, Jessica is in a
paid meeting with a landscaping architect and is unavailable. Mrs. Mojgani states the urgency in presenting these plans. Jessica replies
that John is out of town for the rest of the week, !;hat he had delayed his departure for yesterday's deadline for all new information, and
that this wasn't a good time until he returns. We would have to continue discussion at the comm'n in 3 business days.
Mrs. Mojgani continues to insist we meet right then. Jessica further explains that we had just learned the day before that the balcony size
had not changed despite Planning Commission direction. We cannot discuss a landscaping plan while the structure in question is still in
dispute. Jessica states again that the deadline for information was yesterday and that we were available until that point. Now was
inconvenient and we would have to meet the following week.
Later that day, Jessica notifies Aki Honda of the uncomfortable nature of the unexpected visit by Mrs. Mojgani. Aki assures Jessica that
she cannot be expected to always be available to discuss this situation and that she felt it was reasonable to say this week was not a time
when we could meet.
Planning Commission Meeting. Direction and tone of PC changed. Landscaping was still considered deficient; commissioners also
stressed importance of working with neighbors to resolve issues. Most emphasis on poor landscaping plan. Mojgani's introduced a new
concept _ a 5 foot high trellis screen over half the railing facing west neighbors. No drawing was presented. Also produced an updated
landscaping plan that had not been dist'd in the Commissions' packets of information. Commissioners voiced concerns about intro of
new design/landscaping without proper notice for neighbors to respond. Dec'n to uphold appeal and have a compo landscaping before
ret'g to approp. body. Discussion: Both applicant and appellant asked to comment. We stressed that balcony should not be approved
without a landscaping plan to demonstrate privacy has been mitigated Motion to deny appeal with the stip'n that the landscaping
privacy plan must be very complete. Motion approved (Giefer and Chien voted no)
Approached a commissioner and asked "What happened?" Reply "'There was a very unflattering email about your lack of cooperation".
Page 60f7
Date
Communication
Break
November
17,2006
December 5,
2006
November 30,
2006
December12,
2006
December
December
January 3 2007
January 2007
January 2007
January 2007
We learned that the Mojgani's had communicated with some commissioners between the two meetings. We had thought such
communication would be inappropriate and unethical as the item in discussion was a continued and not final.
Phone conversation with Deputy City Attorney Eileen Murray. Expressed our confusion as to why in the 10/10 PC meeting we were not
permitted to comment on the motion on the table, and at the 11/14 meeting we were asked to comment. She apologized and said that if
the applicant was asked to comment we should have also been. We pointed out that in the October meeting, essentially the applicant
was being asked whether or not the appeal of their plans should be upheld or denied Ms. Murray acknowledged that the discussion was
mishandled. We also discussed email communication with commissioners between meetings regarding a continued agenda item. It
appeared to me that the City website emaillistings for some of the commissioners appeared to be to personal email accounts. That
would imply that the City was encouraging communication on private email which would therefore render the communication private,
not public record. She took note to investigate.
Memo to Planning Commission. Acknowledged their time on our concerns. Expressed our disappointment on the approval of the
balcony without a privacy landscaping plan approved.
Addressed the email that stated". . .and the Tracy's refused to speak with us." Informed them of the scheduled meeting with the
Mojgani's on October 29th in which we provided a detailed landscaping drawing. Informed them of the issues surrounding the
unscheduled visit on November 8th at our home in which we were unable to meet and as that was the only other contact we had, we
assume that unscheduled visit must have been what was communicated to them as "refusing" to meet. Defended our dedicated effort to
work this out. Defended our role in the neighborhood and school community and how we take offense to the implication we would
refuse to meet on this issue we have been working on since April 2005. Included a detailed communication log with emails that
demonstrates the efforts we put into meeting with the Mojgani's on Oct 29th as requested
File Appeal of Planning Commission Decision with the City Council. Fee $150.
Balcony is invasive, landscaping cannot mitigate.
Letter to each City Council Member introducing ourselves, photos, stating our concerns.
Checked in with Aki Honda to see if any revised Landscaping or drawing of proposed lattice balcony railing had been submitted. No
new information.
Ciddy Wardell called to ask us to consider participating in a mediation program sponsored by the City of Cupertino. We eagerly agreed.
Representative from mediation program informed us that the Mojgani's were not interested in the meditation process with us.
Email follow up with City Council members inviting them to visit our home and see the situation first hand.
V oicemail invitation to Ciddy Wardell and Steve Piasecki to visit our home and see first hand this situation.
Checked in with Aki Honda for any new information regarding the proposed house. Nothing new to report.
Page 7 of7
To:
From:
Re:
Date:
Cupertino City Council
Jessica Rose and John Tracy
21180 Grenola Drive
February 1,2007
Rf} ~Ikm .~~
Subject: Why Are We at the Council Level?
This question must be foremost in your mind. We will have three minutes to present to you at the
Council meeting on February 6. We are facing an issue that other residents in Cupertino face as
well, the integration of new home development on a lot surrounded by existing homes. We have
been disappointed in how our privacy concerns have been addressed by the planning department in
Cupertino. We are following the Appeal process to address our problems. This document will share
with you our experience. Since April, we have tirelessly worked with Aki Honda (City Planner) and
the Mojgani's (applicant) to address and mediate these issues. Despite this effort, we have been
unsuccessful in fmding resolution.
Planning Deoartment Level.
The planning department explained to us that the balcony meets the ordinance requirements and
therefore should be approved. It was viewed as an architectural feature - just a chimney or window is
to the exterior of a house. The planning department states that the privacy landscaping plan will
address our privacy concerns. We believe a balcony is significantly more intrusive to privacy than a
chimney or a window. We are saddened that since July we have received three City mailings
noticing the neighborhood of approval of these plans. Each contained a seriously inadequate
landscaping plan. How can we be satisfied our privacy concerns are mitigated by a substandard
landscaping plan? We do not believe our rights have been reasonably protected.
Aooeal to the Plannina Commission October 10.2006.
Commissioners spend over an hour discussing: 1) various design concerns, 2) deficient landscaping
3) recognition that the balcony was too large and invasive. The commissioners carefully worded a
motion, it was immediately seconded and was ready for vote. (See minutes) The motion would
uphold our appeal and detailed 9 modifications to be addressed, including that the balcony be
"significantly reduced or eliminated". The applicant and appellant would then work with the DRC on
these 9 modifications and then return to the Planning Commission.
This would have been a win-win situation; the commission validated our privacy concerns,
recognized the invasive nature of this balcony, and that landscaping plan was inadequate at best.
Commissioners suggested other ideas that would honor the feel a balcony provides without intruding
on neighboring privacy. We would now be directed to the DRC which would provide a more
productive setting to move forward. The next action was pivotal; Director Steve Piasecki suggested
that the Mojgani's be asked if they would be agreeable to this process and pointed out they could
alternatively ask for a continuance. If so, the motion would be denied and the Mojgani's would be
responsible for working with the neighbors and planning to address the commissions 9 items. These
two options were explained to them several times. They opted for the continuance. The motion was
withdrawn.
At this point, we questioned out of turn, "Why are we not being asked for our opinion?" After all, it is
our appeal that brought this plan to the Commission in the first place. We were respectfully asked to
be quiet. Later Deputy City Attorney Eileen Murray apologized to us for this error and
acknowledged that both applicant and appellant should have been able to comment. (We would have
requested going to the DRC)
November Plannina Commission Meetina 11/14/06:
Immediately it was apparent to us that the tone and direction of the Planning Commission had
changed. Although the landscaping plan was still considered deficient, the commission emphasized
the need for the neighbors to work together. We were very surprised that the balcony was to remain
the original size, despite lengthy discussion regarding lack of noticeable improvement to the
landscaping plan. We were confused by the implication that we were not working with our neighbors.
The result of this meeting was that our appeal was denied with a 3-2 vote.
At the recess, we asked a commissioner "What happened?!" The reply "There was a very
unflattering email about your lack of cooperation." This is when we realized that the Mojgani's
communicated with some of the commissioners between the two meetings. Naively it never occurred
to us to that communication with commissioners regarding a continued agenda item outside of the PC
meeting would have been appropriate or allowed.
Summary:
Attached you will find my communication log. We suggest you read it; it demonstrates our unfailing
commitment since April to resolve any and all issues on this project. We were willing to pursue the
DRC process, we were willing to attend a City sponsored mediation program (the Mojgani's refused)
and there were many suggestions by the commissioners at the October meeting on changes that could
be made to protect our privacy and provide for a balcony design.
We maintain that a balcony in our neighborhood setting is intrusive beyond reason and violates our
right to privacy, changes the quality of life we enjoy in our house and backyard and ultimately affects
the value of our newly remodeled home. The Planning department in Cupertino must be prepared to
guide new home design in existing neighborhoods to be considerate of existing homes while still
allowing new construction to occur.
Please contact us at any time for additional information.
Please let us state again that we sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have given to our
concerns. We thank each of you!
~~y
Date
Communication
Jul-OS
Aug-OS
Fall 2005
Feb-06
Apr-06
5-Apr-06
Mar-06
21180 Grenola Drive property sold
Met new property owners, H & M. Mojgani. In the process of remodeling, we were not living in 10410 Ann Arbor.
Meet "over the fence" with Mojgani's. We inquire about plans for the heritage oak tree on their property. They state it's not the type of
tree they like, and they hope to move it or replace it. We try to encourage them regarding the value of the tree, and urge them "to clean
it up and care for it as it could be beautiful and useful shade if well-maintained"
We move back in to our 10410 Ann Arbor Avenue home.
Mrs. Mogjani visits unscheduled. Presents house plans for the first time.
She presents a waiver for us to sign, releasing them from any privacy landscaping requirements along our shared fence line. She cites the
cost impact and the time to make decisions and assures that her plan is to landscape eventually. We learn of the rear-balconies at this
point. We offer to consider the request overnight, but express a concern over the balconies.
Write an email explaining why we cannot sign waiver (see attached.)
Mrs. Mogjani stops by before she receives the email. We decline to sign and refer to our email. She is upset and asks us to put our name
and address on the waiver "in case the City needs to contact us". We don't, afraid that our signature could be construed as a waiver.
Contacted Aki Honda to introduce ourselves and express our concern about privacy and the balcony and confirm our resistance to the
waiver. Ms. Honda offered to contact us when house plans have been submited and become available for review.
Sr. Planner Colin Yung stops by our house while in the area. We had worked extensively with Mr. Yung on the Garden Gate annexation
process and election.
Mr. Yung came in to see our remodel and "get an acorn off the neighbor's Sycamore Tree".
He is holding an acorn and good naturedly explains the 21180 Grenola property owners are disputing the type of tree located on the rear
of the lot as being a 'sycamore'. We explained our efforts to encourage them to save the tree in earlier conversations. He suggested
further comments be directed to Aki Honda.
Page 1 of7
Date
Communication
Check in wi Planner Aki Honda. She says the City is still confirming the species of tree and in dispute with the Mojgani's that it is not a
Sycamore and to have the City arborist assess the tree. .
May-06
Jun-06
Joo-06
Jun-06
ll-Jul-06
]ul-06
Aki Honda notifies us that the house plans have been submited and are available for review during office hours.
We go to planning. Unexpectedly see Mrs. Mojgani also waiting to see Aki Honda. She asks if we are at planning to do a project on our
house, we reply our interest is to see her final house plans.
We wait while Mrs. Mojgani meets with Ms. Honda first. We overhear a heated discussion regarding the oak tree. Mrs. Mojgani leaves.
We approach Ms.Honda to see the plans.
We're informed that the Mojgani's are very upset about the limitations of the oak tree and are now considering changing their plans and
might even sell the property. They want their plans be put on hold and have stated that "neighbors" are not allowed to view them until
they decide what to do next, thus we are denied access to filed the plans.
Schedule meeting at planning with Aki Honda and neighbor Less Bower (resides to the rear of project property.)
Present a list of questions and concerns regarding the house plans after finally viewing them. Specific concerns: Tree labeled incorrectly
as a "Sycamore to be removed", Invasive Balconies, landscaping plan is missing many key details and notes the first story of the home
only.
Receive official City notice to neighborhood containing the 21180 Grenola house plans, landscaping plan and stating the intention to
approve the plans. Comments due to planning by July 2S,2006.
Landscaping plan had one shrub and one tree designated along our shared property line.Does not meet ordinance.
Story poles constructed on 21180 Grenola property. Called Aki Honda to inform that the balconies were not included in the story pole
structure. She states they should be and the two-week notification period for the community would now begin from the date the poles
reflect the balconies. Date extended to early August. .
Page 2 of7
Date
Communication
26-Jul-06
Wrote introductory letter to neighbors adjacent to 21180 Grenola property. Letter stated concerns over design of the home containing
two rear balconies that affect our privacy and that the landscaping plan to be approved by the City Planning Department still did not
meet ordinance standards.
July 27,2006
3-Aug-06
Invited interested neighbors to discuss with us further. Met Elena Herrera and Subir Sengupta from this.
Aki Honda was cc'd on this letter to neighbors.
Wrote 6 page document to Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development, cc Aki Honda, Planner:
In response to 7/11/06 City Planning Dept. notice of pending approval of the 21180 Grenola Drive Minor Residential Permit. Two
page letter summarized (1) Landscaping plan is incomplete for reasons outlined in document. (2) Balcony and windows invade our
privacy and impact our residence. 4 pgs of detailed comments attached w/ photographs of relevant area.
Receive official City notice to neighbors containing 21180 Grenola Dr. house plans with updated landscaping plan which states
intention to approve within 14 days.
Master Balcony has been reduced from 8 feet to 6 feet protrusion off rear of house comer.
Landscaping plan added (1) tree and (1) bush along our shared property line. Plan still does not meet ordinance.
August 9,2006 Email invitation to Mojgani family to attend our Ann Arbor Avenue block party. They accept and attend briefly.
10-Aug-06 Email to Aki Honda questioning a lack of City acknowledgment or response to the concerns outlined in our letter submitted 7/27/06.
Acknowledged reduction of balcony by 2 feet, express confusion as to why the landscaping is still insufficient. Expressed continuing
concern about tree protection plan for the heritage oak tree and concern over inaccurate label of oak as a sycamore "to be removed" .
Requested a site visit.
Aug-06 John Tracy creates a privacy landscaping plan to the ordinance specifications. All cones of vision from 2nd story windows/balconies are
noted, our house is properly positioned, treel shrub size/location are noted and labeled. TIlls plan is an accurate portrayal of minimum
requirement as defined by City Ordinance.
August 16,2006 Aki Honda agrees to a site visit. We present the landscaping plan John created to illustrate how deficient the current plan is. Aki
comments "1bis is a lot of trees to ask someone to plant on their property". We argue that the treelshrub number and location is
dictated by the 2nd story window jamb locations per the City ordinance. She agrees to take the plan. She is sympathetic to our concerns
with the balcony.
Page 3 of7
Date
Communication
16-Aug-06
August 23,2006
23-Aug-06
26-Aug-06
6-Sep-06
Septemeber
2006
10-0ct-06
Emailletter to the Mojgani's. Subj: Approval of Grenola House Plans inviting them to our house to view from our property the impact
of the balcony and master windowto our privacy, quality of life and property value.
In this email we express disappointment in their lack of interest to create an effective landscaping plan that complies with the ordinance
and protects us from their new home. We state that due to the substandard landscaping plan in 8/3/06 City notice mailing and the plan
to proceed with the master balcony, we plan to appeal a decision by the City to the Planning Commission.
7:30am Mojgani's visit our property. We show them our small, high, triangle windows on either side of the fireplace and how the
balcony railing provides a perfect view into our house. They suggest we get curtains on these windows and assure us they have no
interest in looking into our house. Outside we show them how the balcony provides a view of our entire backyard area, and we will
have no place to hide from a balcony occupant. They respond with a promise to leave the balcony if we are ever entertaining outside.
They firmly reiterate their right to a balcony. We disagree.
City mailing of notification of approval of the 21180 residence for the residential design and Minor Residential Permit for the two rear
balconies. The landscaping is conditional and meets minimum ordinance requirements, but is not drawn as such and is rather outlined as
a condition of approval.
Email from Mojgani's thanking us for the invitation to our house to view our concerns. They suggested they could add juniper trees
along our high family room windows as an effective alternative to shrubs. The junipers might be faster growing and easy to care for by
both of us.
We submit letter and fee of $IS0. to the City to appeal approval of 21180 Grenola Drive. Citing the invasive nature of the balcony,
regardless of landscaping plan, question compatability of this home with the three single-story homes that are adjacent to it's property
lines. Question why only minimum landscaping plan was approved for such an invasive stucture, and that landscaping cannot mitigate a
20 foot high screen within three years as mandated by the ordinance for reasonable privacy protection via landscaping. Concern for the
oak tree care is also noted.
We are notified by the City of Planning Commission to hear our appeal on October 10, 2006.
Planning Commission Hearing. PC cited concern- house design, deficient landscaping, and balcony to large and invasive. Lengthy
conversation on these points. Motion: Uphold the Appeal with 9 modifications to the design, landscaping and balcony (listed) and work
Page 4 of7
Date
Communication
Oct-06
(post 10/to PC
mtg)
Wed. 1O/2S/06
Thurs.
10/26/2006
Sun. 11029/06
Sun. 10/29/06
10/30/2006
with the DRC. Motion second. Director Steve Piasecki suggested that the applicant (Mojgani's) should be asked if there would be
agreeable to this process and pointed out alternatively they could .ask for a continuance to return to the PC at a later date. The applicant
(Mojgani's) opted for a continuance. The motion was denied.
Schedule meeting with Steve Piasecki and Aki Honda to discuss our concerns with how the Planning Dept. has handled this situation
with us. Voiced our concern over current lack of landscaping plan, yet three City notices have stated intention to approve the plan.
We wonder how the City can argue that landscaping will mitigate our privacy concerns when the current plan is seriously deficient?
Modifications to the plan were done in text format, not on an accurate landscape drawing or plan. Expressed disappointment in lack of
acknowledgement of our two written documents to the City Planning Dept (l126/06 and 9/6/06). Expressed concerns about the
landscaping drawing, the lack of acknowledgement of our concern for the fate of the oak tree during the construction process, and note
that one limb has already been poorly severed with a skill saw. Steve listened to our concerns.
Received email from Mojgani's asking us to meet today or tomorrow morning to discuss privacy landscape.
We respond having been gone all day that a better time to meet would be tomorrow morning or Sunday.
We send an email update that we are home today and any time after 11:30am would work. Please stop by.
Mojgani's respond that they will come by this afternoon. Mojgani's come to our house. They did not have new plans to show us, but
asked to hear what we wanted. We provided the landscaping drawing John created in August to them again. We considered it a starting
point for a reasonable landscaping plan. The Mogjani's were very satisfied with their drawing. They did not disclose to us that they had
decided not to reduce or eliminate the balcony as suggested by the Planning Commission.
We suggested we meet again at the city. Meeting lasted about 45 minutes.
Followed up with Aki Honda regarding our meeting with the Mogjani's. She promised to notify us when a wrtten response was
submitted for the next PC meeting. She reminded us that all correspondence to this issue must be received by her office noon, Tuesday
Novemeber 7th, one week prior to the PC meeting for her report.
Page 5 of7
Date
Communication
Monday
11/6/06
Tuesday
11/7/06
Wednesday
11/8/06
November
14,2006
PC Meeting
Aki Honda notified us that the Mojgani's had submited a written document and landscaping drawing in response to the Planning
commissions direction at the October 10th meeting. We met with Aki and received a copy of the written reply from the Mojgani's. Aki
reinterated the deadline of noon the next day for our written response for her staff report. She also noted that the Mojgani's had not
addressed most of what the Planning Commission had directed them to correct.
We submit our letter for the staff report. John delayed a business trip to be available until the noon deadline so our response would be
current and accurate.
Late afternoon we receive an email from Aki Honda stating she and Steve Piasecki had met with the Mojgani's again to try and improve
their response to the Pc. They were now verbally proposing an entirely different balcony railing with a trellis struction on the side of the
railing facing our property. We asked if the balcony was reduced at all. She replied it was not. We asked for a drawing to review, she
replied there wasn't one due to the late date of this new information.
11:-- a.m.:
Mrs. Mojgani makes an unscheduled visit to our home to present the latest landscape and balcony plans. Unfortunately, Jessica is in a
paid meeting with a landscaping architect and is unavailable. Mrs. Mojgani states the urgency in presenting these plans. Jessica replies
that John is out of town for the rest of the week, !;hat he had delayed his departure for yesterday's deadline for all new information, and
that this wasn't a good time until he returns. We would have to continue discussion at the comm'n in 3 business days.
Mrs. Mojgani continues to insist we meet right then. Jessica further explains that we had just learned the day before that the balcony size
had not changed despite Planning Commission direction. We cannot discuss a landscaping plan while the structure in question is still in
dispute. Jessica states again that the deadline for information was yesterday and that we were available until that point. Now was
inconvenient and we would have to meet the following week.
Later that day, Jessica notifies Aki Honda of the uncomfortable nature of the unexpected visit by Mrs. Mojgani. Aki assures Jessica that
she cannot be expected to always be available to discuss this situation and that she felt it was reasonable to say this week was not a time
when we could meet.
Planning Commission Meeting. Direction and tone of PC changed. Landscaping was still considered deficient; commissioners also
stressed importance of working with neighbors to resolve issues. Most emphasis on poor landscaping plan. Mojgani's introduced a new
concept - a S foot high trellis screen over half the railing facing west neighbors. No drawing was presented Also produced an updated
landscaping plan that had not been dist'd in the Commissions' packets of information. Commissioners voiced concerns about intro of
new design/landscaping without proper notice for neighbors to respond. Dec'n to uphold appeal and have a compo landscaping before
ret'g to approp. body. Discussion: Both applicant and appellant asked to comment. We stressed that balcony should not be approved
without a landscaping plan to demonstrate privacy has been mitigated. Motion to deny appeal with the stip'n that the landscaping
privacy plan must be very complete. Motion approved (Giefer and Chien voted no)
Approached a commissioner and asked ''What happened?" Reply "'There was a very unflattering email about your lack of cooperation".
Page 6 of7
Date
Communication
Break
November
17,2006
December 5,
2006
November 30,
2006
December12,
2006
December
December
January 3 2007
January 2007
January 2007
January 2007
We learned that the Mojgani's had communicated with some commissioners between the two meetings. We had thought such
communication would be inappropriate and unethical as the item in discussion was a continued and not final.
Phone conversation with Deputy City Attorney Eileen Murray. Expressed our confusion as to why in the 10/10 PC meeting we were not
permitted to comment on the motion on the table, and at the 11/14 meeting we were asked to comment. She apologized and said that if
the applicant was asked to comment we should have also been. We pointed out that in the October meeting, essentially the applicant
was being asked whether or not the appeal of their plans should be upheld or denied Ms. Murray acknowledged that the discussion was
mishandled. We also discussed email communication with commissioners between meetings regarding a continued agenda item. It
appeared to me that the City web site emaillistings for some of the commissioners appeared to be to personal email accounts. That
would imply that the City was encouraging communication on private email which would therefore render the communication private,
not public record. She took note to investigate.
Memo to Planning Commission. Acknowledged their time on our concerns. Expressed our disappointment on the approval of the
balcony without a privacy landscaping plan approved.
Addressed the email that stated". . .and the Tracy's refused to speak with us." Informed them of the scheduled meeting with the
Mojgani's on October 29th in which we provided a detailed landscaping drawing. Informed them of the issues surrounding the
unscheduled visit on November 8th at our home in which we were unable to meet and as that was the only other contact we had, we
assume that unscheduled visit must have been what was communicated to them as "refusing" to meet. Defended our dedicated effort to
work this out. Defended our role in the neighborhood and school community and how we take offense to the implication we would
refuse to meet on this issue we have been working on since April 2005. Included a detailed communication log with emails that
demonstrates the efforts we put into meeting with the Mojgani's on Oct 29th as requested
File Appeal of Planning Commission Decision with the City Council. Fee $150.
Balcony is invasive, landscaping cannot mitigate.
Letter to each City Council Member introducing ourselves, photos, stating our concerns.
Checked in with Aki Honda to see if any revised Landscaping or drawing of proposed lattice balcony railing had been submitted. No
new information.
Ciddy Wardell called to ask us to consider participating in a mediation program sponsored by the City of Cupertino. We eagerly agreed.
Representative from mediation program informed us that the Mojgani's were not interested in the meditation process with us.
Email follow up with City Council members inviting them to visit our home and see the situation first hand.
V oicemail invitation to Ciddy Wardell and Steve Piasecki to visit our home and see first hand this situation.
Checked in with Aki Honda for any new information regarding the proposed house. Nothing new to report.
Page 7 of7