The URL can be used to link to this page

PC Summary 01-23-07 City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 (408) 777-3308 To: Mayor and City Council Members From: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development Date: January 31, 2007 Subj: REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISIONS MADE January 23, 2007 Chapter 19.32 of the Cupertino Municipal code provides for a eal of decisions made b the Plannin Commission 1. Application TM-2006-12, EXC-2006-14, V-2007-01, Jitka Cymbal (Westfall Engineers), 21871 Dolores Ave Description Exception to allow 5 foot side yard setbacks Tentative map to subdivide a.46 parcel into two parcels of9,685 square feet and 9,686 square feet, respectively Variance to allow a 50 foot lot width instead of the required 60- foot lot width, for two proposed parcels Action The Planning Commission denied the application on a 3-1 vote. The fourteen day-calendar day appeal will expire on February 6, 2007. Enclosures: Planning Commission Report of January 23, 2007 Planning Commission Resolution No. 6444, 6445, 6446 g:planning/Post Hearing/summary to cc012307 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Applicant: Property Owner: Property Location: TM-2006-12, V-2007-01, EXC-2006-14 Jitka Cymbal Sue-Jane Han 21871 Dolores Avenue Agenda Date: January 23, 2007 Application: Application Summary: TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide a .46 acre lot into two parcels of 9,685 square feet and 9,686 square feet, respectively in a Rl-7.5 zoning district. VARIANCE to allow a 50-foot lot width, instead of the required 60-foot width, for the two proposed parcels. EXECPTION to allow 5-foot side yard setbacks, instead of the required combined 15 feet. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the tentative map, the variance and the exception in accordance with the model resolutions. Project Data: General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: Total Acreage (gross): Net Acreage per parcel: Density: Low Density Residential, 1-5 DUj gr. acre Rl-7.5 .46 Lot 1- 9,685 sq. ft., Lot 2- 9,686 sq. ft. 4.3 duj gr. acre. Environmental Assessment: Yes, Policy 2-23 Yes Categorically exempt. Project Consistency with: General Plan: Zoning: BACKGROUND: The project site is located on the north side of Dolores Avenue between Byrne Avenue and Orange Avenue. A main residence, two detached cottages and a detached shed currently exist on the parcel. Single-family residential parcels surround the subject parcel. The project proposes to demolish all of the structures on the property, subdivide into two lots and build two new single family homes. 1--1 TM-2006-12, V-2007-0l, EXC-2006-14 Page 2 January 9, 2007 DISCUSSION: ~here are two major discussion points for this subdivision: conformance with the R1 Ordinance (substandard lot widths & 5-foot side yard setbacks) and tree removal and retention. Rl Ordinance Conformance: Lot Width The proposed project parcel is approximately 100 feet wide and 190 feet deep. The project lot is not wide enough for two minimum 60-foot wide lots as required by the R1 Ordinance. The site can be subdivided into two lots with a flag lot in the rear and a smaller conventional lot in the front similar to the adjacent properties (see aerial diagram below). Alternatively, the property could be divided down the middle creating two conventional lots resulting in lot widths narrower than the required 60 feet. The General Plan discourages the creation of new flag lots unless if they are the only reasonable alternative that integrates with the lot patterns in the neighborhood. The Planning Commission recently approved a similar variance (TM-2005-14, 21988 McClellan Road) allowing the subdivision of conventional lots with lot widths narrower than the required 60 feet in the interest of better integrating the future residence into the neighborhood. The project site is located in the Monta Vista neighborhood that consist of a variety of different lot patterns, including numerous conventional lots with substandard widths (50 feet) and flag lots (see diagram above). Staff supports the variance request and believes that the variance findings for the lot width can be made: 1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions apply to the property involved that do not apply generally to the property in the same district. In order for this property to subdivide with conventional lots, a variance is needed for narrower lot width. The property could be subdivided with a flag lot that does not require a variance, and the exceptional circumstance is that conventional lots are desired so that residences can face the street and be better integrated the homes into the neighborhood. 1-2 TM-2006-12, V-2007-01, EXC-2006-14 Page 3 January 9, 2007 2. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship. The proposed lots conform to the General Plan, zoning and the lot sizes in the surrounding area, thereby allowing the property owner to achieve property rights similar to others in the area. 3. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare, or convenience, and to secure the purpose of the title. The subdivision will not be detrimental to the vicinity. Side Yard Setbacks In general, the R1 Ordinance requires ground floor side yard setbacks be a combination of 15 feet with a minimum of five feet on one side. Only Rl-5 zoned lots are allowed to have five foot side yard setbacks. The intent of this rule is to permit less side yard setbacks on narrower lots (50 feet wide or less) in order to provide greater flexibility to construct a reasonable and balanced floor plan. The City has previously approved exceptions to allow five foot side yards setbacks on lots that are located outside of Rl-5 zoning districts if the following fundamental principles are met: 1. The setback pattern is consistent with the neighborhood; and 2. The project lot width is substandard (less than 60 wide); and 3. The five foot setbacks will not cause building interface issues. The applicant is requesting an exception to allow five foot side yard setbacks. The project is located in the Monta Vista area which has a variety of lot and setback patterns. A survey of the immediate neighborhood indicates that there are approximately 34 lots with similar lot widths and side yard setbacks (see diagram below). In addition, further R1 design control at the design review process for the new homes will ensure that the buildings are design to minimize undesirable building interface issues to the adjacent neighbors. /-3 TM-2006-12, V-2007-01, EXC-2006-14 Page 4 January 9,2007 Staff supports the side yard exception request and believes that the variance findings for the lot width can be made: 1. Literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter will result in restrictions inconsistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter. The proposed project is consistent with the intent of the ordinance and will not impact the neighborhood. The five-foot side yard setback is appropriate in order to allow for a functional floor plan and a balanced front elevation on a narrow lot. The substandard lot width and a literal enforcement of the ordinance will not allow enough design flexibility. 2. The granting of the exception will not result in a condition which is materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. The proposed setbacks are consistent with the neighborhood pattern and will not create public health, safety or welfare issues. 3. The proposed exception will not result in significant visual impact as viewed from abutting properties. The proposed setback will not result in significant visual impacts for the neighboring properties since the Rl design review approval process for the. two new homes will ensure that the buildings are designed to minimize negative visual impacts.. 1-1 TM~2006-12, V-2007-01, EXC-2006-14 Page 5 January 9, 2007 4. That the exceptions to. be granted are ones that will require the least l11Odification of the prescribed regulations and the minimum exception that will accomplish the purpose The proposed side yard setback exception is consistent with the intent of the Ordinance in that the project lots consist of substandard lot widths and the five foot side yard setbacks provide greater design flexibility to allow reasonable and balanced floor plans. The side yard setback exception is the minimum exception necessary to achieve these goals. Tree Removal and Retention: Ten trees are located on the subject property,. three of which are significant (Deodar Cedars #1 & #2 and Coast Redwood #5). Only the two Deodar Cedars are protected by the Tree Ordinance. According to the applicant, the Coast Redwood #5 has already been removed due to its poor condition. Staff recommends that the two Cedar trees be preserved as part of this approval and that one 36 inch box Redwood be planted to replace the removed redwood. As for the other trees on the property, the applicant has the option of removing them since they are not protected. Staff recommends a condition of approval that requires the existing trees be retained to the maximum extent possible and that the applicant work with the Director of Community Development to make the final decision on the retention of these trees at the design review stage. The applicant is also required to record a covenant on the property that ensures the preservation and maintenance of the new replacement trees and any trees that are required to be preserved as part of this approval. Prepared by: Gary Chao, Associate Planner Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developm~ Enclosures: Model Resolution for TM-2006-12 Model Resolution for V -2006-03 Model Resolutionfor EXC-2006-0 Plan Set Exhibit A: Tree Survey & Arborist Report 1-5 TM-2006-12 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE MAP TO SUBDIVIDE A .46 ACRE LOT INTO T\NO PARCELS OF 9/685 SQUARE FEET AND 9/686 SQUARE FEET, RESPECTIVELY IN A R1-7.5 ZONING DISTRICT, AT 21871 DOLORES A VENUE SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Tentative Subdivision Map, 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 applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1) That the proposed subdivision map is consistent with the City of Cupertino General Plan. 2) That the design and improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the General Plan. 3) That the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of development contemplated under the approved subdivision. 4) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and unavoidable injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. 5) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements associated there with is not likely to cause serious public health problems. 6) That the design of the subdivision and its associated improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Tentative Subdivision Map is hereby recommended for approval, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof; and 1-1.0 Resolution No. Page 2 TM-2006-12 January 23, 2007 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. TM-2006-12 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of January 23,2007, and are incorporated by reference as though fully setforth herein. SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: TM-2006-12 Jitka Cymbal 21871 Dolores Avenue SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS The recommendation of approval is based on the Plan Set titled, "Tentative Map, Lands of Hsu and Han, 21871 Dolores Avenue, Cupertino, California", dated November 2006 (two pages), except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution. 2. TREE PRESERV A TION All existing trees must be retained to the maximum extent possible. The applicant must work with the Director of Community Development to make the final decision on the retention of these trees at the design review stage. Revised landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Director prior to issuance of building permits. 3. COVENANT The two Cedar (#1 & #2) trees shall be preserved as part of this approval and that one 36 inch box Redwood be planted to replace the removed redwood (#5). Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant is required to record a covenant on the property that ensures the preservation and maintenance of the new replacement trees and any trees that are required to be preserved as part of this approval. 4. VISUAL IMPACT The applicant shall make every effort to work with staff at the R1 Design Review Approval Process to minimize any negative visual or building interface impacts to the adjacent neighbors. SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. t -7 Resolution No. Page 3 TM-2006-12 January 23, 2007 5. STREET WIDENING Street widening and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer. 6. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed In accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. 7. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION Street lighting shan be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of visual interference to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located. 8. FIRE HYDRANT Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City and Santa Clara County Fire as needed. 9. GRADING Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404 permits maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/ or Regional Water Quality Control Board as appropriate. 10. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 11. FIRE PROTECTION Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the City as needed. 12. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of underground utility devices. The developer shall submit detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer. 13. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for under (-<6 Resolution No. Page 4 TM-2006-12 January 23, 2007 grounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed pnor to Issuance of construction permits. Fees: a. Checking & Inspection Fees: $2,194.00 minimum b. Grading Permit: c. Development Maintenance Deposit: d. Storm Drainage Fee: e. Power Cost: f. Map Checking Fees: g. Park Fees: h. Street Tree $ 5 % of Off-Site Improvement Cost or $ 6 % of Site Improvement Cost or $2,060.00 minimum $ 2,000.00 $ 593.40 NjA $3,348.00 $15,750.00 By Developer Bonds: a. Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements b. Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvement c. On-site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements. -The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit'in the event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule. 14. TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas. 15. AMENDED DEVELOPMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP) REQUIREMENTS a. Permanent Stormwater Quality BMPs Required In accordance with chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the City Code, all development and redevelopment projects shall include permanent BMPs in order to reduce the water quality impacts of stormwater runoff from the entire site for the life of the project. b. Stormwater Management Plan Required The applicant shall submit a Stormwater Management Plan for this project. The permanent storm water quality best management practices (BMPs) r-e? Resolution No. Page 5 TM-2006-12 January 23, 2007 included in this plan shall be selected and designed in accordance with chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the City Code. c. BMP Agreements The applicant and the City shall enter into a recorded agreement and covenant running with the land for perpetual BMP maintenance by the property owners(s). In addition, the owner(s) and the City shaH enter into a recorded easement agreement and covenant running with the land allowing City access at the site for BMP inspection. d. Hydromodification Plan (HMP) Required The applicant must provide a comprehensive plan to control any combination of on-site, off-site and in-stream control measures incorporated into specific redevelopment projects in order to reduce stormwater runoff so as to not increase the erosion potential of the receiving watercourse over the pre-project condition. 16. MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT The applicant will be required to maintain all items, which are non-standard within the City's right of way. The applicant and the City must enter into a recorded agreement for this aforementioned work. 17. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN The developer must submit a traffic control plan by a Registered Traffic Engineer to be approved by the City. The plan shall include a temporary traffic control plan for work in the right of way as well as a routing plan for all vehicles used during construction. All traffic control signs must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to commencement of work. The City has adopted Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards for all signage and striping work throughout the City. 18. REFUSE TRUCK ACCESS The developer must obtain clearance from the Environmental Programs Department in regards to refuse truck access for the proposed development. CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF ENGINEERING/SURVEYING CONDITIONS (Section 66474.18 of the California Government Code) '....fO Resolution No. Page 6 TM-2006-12 January 23, 2007 I hereby certify that the engineering and surveying conditions specified in Section IV. Of this resolution conform to generally accepted engineering practices Ralph Qualls, Director of Public Works City Engineer CA License 22046 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of January 2007, 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: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki, Director Community Development Department Lisa Geifer, Chairperson Planning Commission 1---11 V -2007 ~01 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 50-FOOT LOT WIDTH, INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 60--FOOT ,NIDTH! FOT THE TWO. PROPOSED P ARCE AT 21871 DOLORES A VENUE. SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Corrunission. of the City of Cupertino has received an application for a Variance, 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 Corrunission has held at least one Public Hearing on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has meet the burden of proof required to support the application, and has satisfied the following criteria: 1) That there are extraordinary or exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to properties in the same district. 2) That granting of the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship. 3) That granting the Variance will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare, or convenience, and to secure the purpose of the title. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, testimony, exhibits and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Variance is hereby approved by the Planning Conunission of the City of Cupertino; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the subconclusiorls upon which the findings specified in this Resolution are based are contained in the public hearing record concerning Application V-2007-01, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of January 23 2007, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 1-/1. Resolution No. Page -2- V-2007-01 January 23, 2007 SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: V-2007-01 Jitka Cymbal 21871 Dolores Avenue SECTION III: CONDITIONS. OF APPROVAL 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approved is based on the tentative map entitled "TENT A TIVE MAP, LANDS OF HSU AND HAN, 21871 DOLORES A VENUE, CUPERTINO" by Westfall Engineers, Inc., dated November 2006, and consisting of two sheets labeled pages 1 and 2, except as may be amended by the conditions contained in this resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of January, 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: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Lisa Geifer, Chair Cupertino Planning Commission I-I) EXC-2006-14 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO TO ALLOW 5-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACKS, INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED COMBINED 15 FEET AT 21871 DOLORES AVENUE SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: EXC-2006-14 Jitka Cymbal 21871 DOLORES AVENUE SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for an exception to the Sign Code, as described in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds the following with regards to this application: 1. Literal Enforcement of the provisions of this chapter will result in restrictions inconsistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter 2. The granting of the exception will not result in a condition which is materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare 3. The proposed exception will not result in significant visual impact as viewed from abutting properties 4. That the exceptions to be granted are ones that will require the least modification of the prescribed regulations and the minimum variance that will accomplish the purpose. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the exception to the sign ordinance for an exposed neon ground sign border is hereby approved subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution; and ( -{If Resolution No. Page 2 EXC-2006-14 January 23, 2007 SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on a plan set titled: "Tentative Map, Lands of Hsu and Han, 21871 Dolores Avenue, Cupertino, California" consisting of two pages, except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution. 2. TREE PRESERVATION All existing trees must be retained to the maximum extent possible. The applicant must work with the Director of Community Development to make the final decision on the retention of these trees at the design review stage. Revised landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Director prior to issuance of building permits. 3. COVENANT The two Cedar (#1 & #2) trees shall be preserved as part of this approval and that one 36 inch box Redwood be planted to replace the removed redwood (#5). Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant is required to record a covenant on the property that ensures the preservation and maintenance of the new replacement trees and any trees that are required to be preserved as part of this approval. 4. VISUAL IMPACT The applicant shall make every effort to work with staff at the R1 Design Review Approval Process to minimize any negative visual or building interface impacts to the adjacent neighbors. 5. 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. That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application EXC-2006-14, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of January 23, 2007 and are incorporated by reference herein. . r- /-( :J HSU/HAN PROPERTY, 21871 DOLORES AVENUE CUPERTINO 1 ' Assignment On October 2nd, 2006, I met Mrs. Sue Han at the property to prepare an analysis ofthe trees on the property. The plan used for this analysis is by Westfall Engineers, Inc., titled 'Tentative Map; Lands ofHsu and Ran' dated September 2006. At this time we do not have the plans that show the proposed new structures so it is not possible to provide specific recommendations for tree preservation during construction, but the enclosed notes titled "Tree Protection Before, During, and After Construction" should be used as guidelines for tree protection. It will.be necessary to install fences to protect at least the two Deodara Cedar trees before any demolition or construction activity begins, The suggested fence locations are drawn into the map I was provided. If those recommended fence locations conflict with proposed construction we should review the construction plans with tree preservation detail in mind. Summary The site bas 4 trees on it of a size large enough to be controlled by City Ordinance. The most important ones are two Deodar Cedars (Cedrus deodara) which are near the south side near the front of the property. The majority of the other trees are of less important species such as Black Locust (Robinia pseudoacacia). There is one Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) in rather poor condition along the east property line. The Deodara Cedar trees have been severely pruned and over thinned causing them to be very stubbed looking at this point and being of much lesser value than they might have been otherwise. These trees (#1 and # 2) are both healthy but have been damaged by the severe stub- cutting of each of the limbs. It will be necessary over a period of time to re-prune these trees as they respond to the severe pruning they received. PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COA TE, CONSULTING ARBORIST OCTOBER 2ND, 2006 l/l~ HSU/HAN PROPERTY, 21871 DOLORES AVENUE CUPERTINO 2 Conclusion There are nine trees on the property and on~ on the adjacent property to the west in this survey. Of these, only the two Deodara Cedars, one Coast Redwood are significant trees. The three Black Locusts species are brittle and the specimens are poorly formed and of little importance. The rest of the trees are smaller than the size commonly covered by City regulations but are included in this report because they were shown on the plan provided. Respectfully submitted, ~,f)~ Barrie D. Coate BDC/phlg Enclosures: Assumptions & Limiting Conditions Tree Protection Notes Photographs Map PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORlST OCTOBER 2ND, 2006 (--(q . BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES Horti cutural Consultants 23535 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 d)aracter 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 information provided by others, J. The appraiser/consultant shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reasorl 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. 1 D.No tree described in this report was climbed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot ta.ke . responsibility for any defects which could only have been discovered by climbing. Afull 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 inspection. CONSULTING 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. ~aVzie ~ {b-dV Barrie D. Coate I SA Certified Arborist Horticultural Consultant (-20 BARRIE D . COATE AND ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 Fax (408) 353-1238 23535 Summit Rd. Los GatosJ CA 95033 TREE PROTECTION BEFORE, DURING, AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION These are general recommendations And may be superseded by site-specific instructions BEFORE Plan location of trenching to avoid all possible cuts beneath tree canopies. This includes trenches for utilities, irrigation lines, cable TV and roof drains. Plan construction period fence locations which will prevent equipment travel or material storage beneath tree canopies. Install fences before any construction related equipment is allowed on site. This includes pickup trucks. Inform subcontractors in writing that they must read this document. Require return of signed copies to demonstrate that they have read the document. Prune any tree parts, which conflict with construction between August and January. Except for pines which may be pruned between October-January. Only an ISA certified arborist, using ISA pruning instructions may be used for his work. Iflimbs are in conflict with the construction equipment before the certified arborist is on-site, carpenters may cut off offending parts of 6" diameter or less, leaving an 18" long stub, which should be re-cut later by the arborist. Under no circumstances may any party remove more than 30% of a trees foliage, or prune so that an unbalanced canopy is created. DURING A void use of any wheeled equipment beneath tree canopies. Maintain fences at originallocation in vertical, undamaged condition until all contractors and subcontractors, including painters are gone. Clear root collars of retained trees enough to leave 5-6 buttress roots bases visible at 12" from the trunk. Irrigate trees adjacent to construction activity during hot months (June-October). Apply 10 gallons of water per 1" of trunk diameter (measured at 4 12') once per 2 week period by soaker hose. Apply water at the dripline, or adjacent to construction not around the trunk. Apply mulch to make a 3" deep layer in all areas beneath tree canopies and inside fences. Any organic material which is non toxic may be used. AFTER Irrigate monthly with 10 gallons of water per 1" oftrunk diameter with a soaker hose, placed just inside the drip line. Continue until 8" of rain has fallen. Avoid cutting irrigation trenches beneath tree canopies. A void rototilling beneath tree canopies since that will destroy the small surface roots which absorb water. Avoid installation of turf or other frequently irrigated plants beneath tree canopies. 3\ j-JI I ~I I ~ II ~I~;! ~ ~ c ~ I WI :1 fij HI 52 I!: ('. M! Ii ! , I ~ IIJ U,I 0( HI, tL, ~l.-:' I 1 I - w · :!: Q 0:: 010 o..! . I @ ~ 0:: ~l fiI,1-11- 1-1 ~I I ,0:: - ~ -, I- W ~I ~I wi ,m!i:~F~g~11 ~I~'~~I~! ~ 52 0:: 0:::> 0 ""II-' 1-" O. W tL I- .... - -I u' ree# J: W J: W 0:: W :>':>1 wi ._J 40 39 1 _3 . I I I --- --j---1 , 2 'I · 4-+--+--i-t--~- · , I I · 1 I I I I I L I " , -...- ---..---~-- -~-- I I! I I Ti7 · 30L15 1 I I.. I I P I - · -I -- --+- --1---' -ri-- ,-Il---t----- - . I 1 I I, I, I 1 I 6 1.lncense Ced!'L____________ 4-i1--L.J..1Q _13 J 1 1 +.1___LJ__ __L __1_1- ~ ._Lj_____ --r- __-- ,. , I I I 'I " , Cafoceclrus decurrens I I ,I I I I I __LI.6P.ricot Tf!3~_____...._.._._.__.. j)-f....-f--I--U-p...~ - -t-- Prunus armenlsea I I I I I 'I 1 I I I I · , . -!_L~~ Tre~_______________ -4-!--"-1 15lJl -U-~- ....1.+___ ---+-t-+-..J----~----TF!2!\ Da!!'..~ Brach chiton Ineus I I! I 1'1 ! I I I I I 9 I.Bla_ck Lo~st...._____________ 13 .il.!9..~---i-~.Q..-~.Q. 1 1. _~~____ Robinia eudoacacia 1, I I 1 I 1 I I I I , I I I., 1 , I 1 0 I.~~~_J!!~_________________ ~1---11----I_--ll~Ul 1+~_ -~-.r' --- --r--+---L-l---+----rl- --T' --J--l---t-L---- I · I I I I I I I , I I , I Brachvchlton I}OIJufneus " l. , ,., ,I I I " I, I I : MI:ASUREMENTS CONDITION DISPOSITION BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES 14IJI)3S3-1m2 23535 MnU. 1M Gllos,CA t5030 * CD W/IB = CODOMINANT LEADERS WITH INCLUDED BARK ** RECOMMENDED + P = PRESERVE; T=TRANSPLANT; R=REMOVE \ ~ ~ The Lands of HsulHan 21871 Dolores Avenue Cupertino 10-( 1I0ctober 2nd, 2006 NOTES ~ :E :E o o 0::- ml gl I I I ~I I -H--- I ---t-- 1 = Best, 5 + Worst HSUIHAN PROPERTY, 21871 DOLORES AVENUE CUPERTINO - 'I:: --~, ~~ "" ~ ,.. ~ ,I " ;f""~:""'" ~tJ I ~ .....~ f'. 'iF ,....... f ...,.~ ". --~~ , ,14 -~t:l'i"~ ~ ,. ,'. .:;;~::;;J " ' ,r ". .,.'.;!' ';l~rt. " "" ,.tJt<. ~ .~. "~'~.'.t ~~- i ! '" ..-..r.:: __~~ I ~ J ~coa.... ...~ ", ,;;r..Oo4F:::\.. .--- ."':'" t:f~~ "~ .,.. ,r- . "" _ ('. .~ ~- .---. r~ -_.~-- l r~ 2. Trees #1 & #2. ~ PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORlST -\ ;;,.1 ..i ~' ! 4 , .aj .'....'...1.... ., j ~ +- 1. Tree # 1. r.;.~ __ "'l 7 ;;.. v;'_...... ~_ OCTOBER 2ND, 2006 HSUIHAN PROPERTY, 21871 DOLORES AVENUE CUPERTINO .... "1.' ~r.t ;~t::'J;"..-""...,.. ~~,:"i-~ J~I. - .'trl':, . . ~f, ..'1' . '" t' < I. l.. *- 5. Tree #6. ~.::. ~ "':t: ~- - .,.;. i - :i:...:",,'- ....~~ Y';",. """~,t"':.- :~_-~,..__ . t_.. ! '__._ ...:......__ 1 6. Tree #7. , .-- ~ ~r. ,"C:~:::i'_~l"~-~' 7 ~!~?,~~:~0!~:"~~~~~i~\' ; '.',~;' r> .. "''"Ji 5:'1' ,.If. rt.~'.i ",.:f~ ~ /r~l1(:f:.~,~:- ,r\ '" _;~i~'f.,;~~ ':l'lL .j\<'~ i, \. t"rl . .: ''':.~;:.~f;\,~:~l.~~~~:jj -t~ 'f ;_ __. 11 .. ~ .' :>. ,. ,~.;" "~)<~'." :'."!:. .' ",.16:....~..~) '<4~--; .~< ;' '';:'':.~ .,:f;L'::;.,..:-..fjp:~:.i;r:. ;~,:. ..'.?- ,I ~ ~~;':l .. . :;'I?'~'1';_':"~11....,,' ,". ~:f. '> t,t,.;.,. i"', ..,Y'.'~ "'~". ' ~~~..' " j _',', . ~ 'I." . ~ "_ '~"'fitf;(~/i!~.~'\.:"":'I'{ .....~"I*....)lI.~.~I( . f ~, Ol.. ~. '2~~~~~~~tt(-~ .' ' " ~ \~~.~:i~:\~:~1~#;:.;~.,:\.~.i,_f::~"~'~ . ". : o. ;1 ~-".;1:'" ...~~ Ii' ~\l " L: ... ~'.- PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COA TE, CONSULTING ARBORlST OCTOBER i''D, 2006 HSUfHAN PROPERTY, 21871 DOLORES AVENUE CUPERTINO r- I f' ') · ~'JI ',.,t ~ t."~"\ .... '/.':;'4 r" , J".,d J " 'j I '," > . " 1.-- . , ,:t. . . I . r ,"'.. 0'.':' A "" ...t;. .' . . '.' ~ f\..:~_~~'i'..r;'~:' ."--::,*;,.';.- "~ J ~ p:.;;,t, ):"1;;; e;:~ ','::. _ {" " \ t... 'l '. ij I . i';' " .,. .'" f" ~ . '., \. 1:1 . . . ~..., :U. ;'.:~.~'-~. . .t.~:!:. , , ~ _ .~~ :., '. -,_..S ., .; .~ b.-..::;",."'" I .1..~..7.,i: - ! ,~..1,- . i":::' ':[.,. ".. i"j ....: ,.... ;;. 1... i.... . 1"- '" ~ \ ,. i_--= . .J . ~ ..' ". '.' .: ~,::." '. ~. ~~~<-:.. r, '!r"l~,<t:.~, ~. -1 .- f..;;,. ~ .. ~_ "':1 ".: _ ~ r~. . ~-:'; :};' ~~;. .~,,~ ~~. _l ~ "!J ~r '~'l f if ,j-- ".., . '., -',.. :, ',' ...... .. ..,.. ....,. ,.,. '< t"~{ j ~y l'~f /, "~'\ :~E:':':.~ }'i2:U;;!:~~, ~;:~:l'1jj ~ ), ~ 'r;, j', ~ . ';t . . ~::rl1r---.t..-t;:;~ W~..dt J; 1 I ~lstJ,---.J~ f" _ "'~' .' ~..J ,."r.:.....) ~~ j lA.' c;J ~~~, ~ .=t~;.. ! I J j , . ,f . i 9. Cypress along neighbor's property line. PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORlST OCTOBER 2ND, 2006 LEGEND EXISTING c=J . o o BULDING MONUMENT CURB INLET AREA DRAIN POLE SANIT ARY SEVER MANHOLE STORM DRAIN MANHOlE o o @ d: @ ~ FIRE HYDRANT VATER VALVE STREET LIGHT CLEANOUT BOUNDARY LOT LINE CENTERLINE LIMIT OF EASEMENT CURB CURB AND GUTTER EDGE OF PAVEMENT CONTOUR FENCE FLOv LINE SANIT ARY SEVER S TeRM DRAIN ELECTRICAL GAS VATER -----.-- ------- -G -G ._- -\}-\}- c < o a:: z ~ L&J d (,) ~- IMPERIAL A VENUE VICINITY MAP NO. I BY I DATE I :> I :> I I I I :> I I I I, :> ~!MH .,.' I I~' I - - - I! 1 ," I I -- I I .:> I I 0 !I I ' "" /(, ,I ',." /' I _. ! I> I"'" '"'I ,.-' /: I I ~ __=~= I I ,1 // ! ,! ==~_ !JJa:> I'" I ,-j366 01 : ~ST"L1GHT -0JP 9. -" _, I I '1- ,.", -V ~,- I I > , if' - - - - -\1- I, I I I - - - II:> ~ i ill ~ ! I I ~4'C(DAR , ' I "-l" II I "; I. I "..> ...--- . > I . ".,. P -- II I' ~ I" · --, II > I'"" I I I I II I' I 1=" I II II:> I ~., b I ",.", " I I I ; 1 " I """'" I ~ : ~ 365. 12 I I" > " 1 ",I A"I'Y" I ~ "I I llJ (~y, I I I ' I : .A\ 'I'~ L. r'" - J , 1. Y , \ ~, -.' l ~\ I ~' ,. .., 1\ ' .' ' I :> "'. t .' ,,;0 L." " \ _,-,..'y ". (. :;: i I 2 I \ /".'( ,co( 1 \ ~ I './! ,). -, ". 01k' A , > ,--' : ,;. \ . I I I I - 364, 94 '~t'364. 84 \, i : ,. .J II W. "~,,,/ " :> ::> '"' I \ (" '" I ----.JY"" ~- .364.71 I I I Z I L." _! W ~.' '-'.~i,.cT .L. I I '~ ,r L II w i \~" I r" \ :> > '" : \ ',.--\' ,,-,~-' .~ I! · "~' \ I 14: I '-" i ~ t <:m'ACA > T '. I! ~~' ~,L,___ ~ 'r ' I I 1 W".. >", I "-'--"- Z. ~ , >0,:1' _.c " , I ~. 1'7~'''' ) I g.' ,,-' , . I " I 1 -', ," -"C_'c,,, I I >' I~ " J, ,,,.---- I 12~ ,I'" I :> I I I 0 I :> I 131292 I ti :> I I " i I :> t1 I PROPOSED c:=J . . . . . <!> <<: ~ . ------- SITE a:: < N < (.) ...J < REVISION :> I I I I I i , I Trocy !lJu .... SuojaDe 11m 2\ 111 do..... Av..... C~CA 9~I4 Tel. 464-S030 Owlla- .... Subdivider: Engineer: WeIlfaIl EAci_IIlC. 14SIJ Bia Bas.. Wwy Sonlop, CA 9~70 Tel. 867-0244 FIX 867~26I N_ Silo... 0.46 ..... iBai\diDJ ... (cxioliDg) '&isriq; GOO-_ !propoted ... - mideDtial ~.......R.1.mo IProPosed >ODiDs - R-I-7500 iGaleraI p,,", deoipatioA -'-liaI EX. HOUSE L_____________.J CHEN -'-. -', , - 1136",. 42 r -~ . ")E-~. 99 '" '"' I I I '"' '" BY I DATE: DATE, NOVEMBER 2006 SCALE' HDR. 1":10' VERT. DESIGNED> JC CHECKED, KC PROJ. ENGR. JC 4 WESTFALL ENGINEERS) INC. BY, KAREL CYMBAL, RCE 3453 DATE. 14583 BIG BASIN IIAY, SARATOGA. CA 95070 (408)867-0244 fiOO'OO'OO~E _ 11,23.11' _ ,----, I I I EX. COTTAGE I REMOVE I L _ _ _ .,-- -.-l3l>3 91 1 r-i,'""'(" '~l l/ II ) \ ~ -5- fR. TRbr \(r L-1) i \..., ,.' i \~(Jj~ . 364. 79 01)()'OO"E 193.42' ,_-f.--......'v.--.... (~Qi4 (~ \..."'... A C"\__-\,_,",j/~rjJ ,./'- / .-// ,~ ...,. 0~4'Rl:JOO'OO'OO"E 193.42' ~,;t -~ . 363. S7 1 9.685 sq. ft. ,>- , 2 9,686 sq. ft. RADHAKRISHNA .,r("'",0'-(..-- r ....... \ '-( ""--\_.'~' ;--y .'36>'3.16 ,'" ..,. t,0' TR[( SCALE I i ~HOOE I L___________~ WANG (A r--- _ ~...'~.. ~ ! l ,.-f~.r{ ,( ; f 'Y-\-)_-..., I I , J-\ I h. I .1--", I EX.SHED -'---. REMOVE .1.1 J.. fl, t; I-- y' ~ ...~_j '0> 363. 72 ,.'-;" {(" /. '>- c:#A~~ ~;-1'----i"\cr",j~/,j__j...J....-r/ i~. ----l EX.COTTAGE REMOVE L - - J 363 30 ..-< ".t- =-=- ~ "s 1-------------1 , I I I ! EX. HOUSE TENTATIVE LANDS OF HSU ..... I 1 " = 1 0' , --.J 362. 96 ~Os MAP AND 21871 DOLORES AVENUE, CUPERTINO HAN -~ -? , , I ;... 0 g, ! 363. 58 I I I I ~~ I F: i.J ,. ib z I 0 ;.... -<( v ~ I 0, I 11(l) < IZ z -<( I " i EX. HOUSE Z II < lr ! I I ~II ! I I I I, l__ _ II I J 6&., PARSAY JOB NO. 2006-133 - SHEET I OF2 EXISTING CJ . o o o o @ <i. @ ~ --[ .-(- -G-G- -IJ-IJ- o < o Q: z < ::t ~ () () ::E BULDING MONUMENT CURB INLET AREA DRAIN POLE SANIT ARY SE\.tER MANHOLE STORM DRAIN MANHOLE FIRE HYDRANT \.tATER VALVE STREET LIGHT CLEANOUT BOUNDARY LOT LINE CENTERLINE LIMIT Of" EASEMENT ------ CURB CURB AND GUTTER EDGE Of" PAVEMENT CONTOUR FENCE FLO\.t LINE SANIT ARY SEVER STORM DRAIN ELECTRICAL GAS \.tATER LEGEND IMPERIAL AVENUE VICINITY MAP NO. I BY I DATE . REVISION PROPOSED c=J . . . . . @ << ~ . --...-.--- I I i ! I I ___ I I I I I i I _._.- II ------- -ss- j3k _SD_0~PII'8S -6-6- -lJ-lJ- SITE Q: < N < ~ < I > I > I > ! cr:~ I ~~ ,,> I "" I 0 -~ 0 I ~,.,~, I r > ~ I: 1 1 I I I I I I )0 0 II I 0, .365.59 I , > I I I ~ I I > I I I I ~ , I '^'. > I I " I I I ""k ~ ..(oJ '.::- ~ I > """,l_--///' ~ I 1 ~ . 364.94 ,~ I I I II >~~ II l~ I I >>~ I I I <I: I , I > 0 I "" CI) '" I r'w'+,~,,/ -.,." 11 >tY",- II .~6g 01 I > , 10, '" I ~ Vl Ii> I I ! I ~ i I =- I ! J<e 92 I ~ > I > I > =- I Vl Vl I i I I I , i I I I I I I I CHEN I I I 1-' f I I~ i '--1 I ! 4.8% ~ 6S ~o I' I . 362. 99 I I I I Vl '" I '" Vl I '" V> I I I I I I I :;\ BY I DATE I DATE. NOVEMBER 2006 SCAlE. HOR. I' "10' VERT. DESIGNE!)I JC I BY' KAREL CYMBAL ReE 34534 CHECKED. KC DATE. PROJ. E:NGR. JC 4 WESTFALL ENGINEERS1 INC. FENCE/RETA!NING ~ WALL 3'MAX. '\. NOO'OO'OO"E 1193.42' I I I PROPOSED RtsrDrncr - I -1363.9\ F.F.EL.368.0 I r~'~y--., PAD 365.0 I f" 1-) I( II '1 ! " "5' FR. TREl: \\ L~ ~ \ "~,~,J EX. COTTAGE REMOVE ~ (~~-:~ ( I 06'_ II i . l --",<oJ" 'i~''\ '-1 ",i ~--\._/\'''J/---'' PROPOSED RES!DENCE/ F.F.El. 367.00 / PAD 364.00 / . 363. 57 ---_.- ~ - - - NOO'OO" OO'T1'9'3.42' {.'" '-:- FENCE/RETAINING WALL 3'MAX. 14583 BIG BASIN IIAY. SARATOGA. CA 95070 (408) 867-024-4 ~/ SCALE l' =10' WANG jJ F /L 366.0 ; -1- ! \ \ ~\ 1\ I ;t:, \ I I ~ F fL 367.0- _ ,-- - - (-.{-r-(~).-h -: - -l 363. 72 A--' .~\ I II .. _\ ,..........) I ..s.' - )----..1' I 1 1 ---I I EX.SHED I' 9.685 ~ .....'\ . REMOVE , sq., . ":'1 ;'>- '" II ~ ~~ : ~ <'1.",0. ~ I r< !1k. f: 1,1 ~ - h\' ":,, ,<I> ) - I 1", 0,,' ' " ;y - .!J 362. 96 ...,'" _/ '0> >- 010' TR!:E . ! I L-J \-.- _ J' :'l",JJ-Iy_rr -r'OO"E' "... F IL ':t66.0. u::r- r ~ I - - t- I I' I EX.COTTAGE I REMOVE I I 2 9,686 sq. It. ~ 363. I€- I I I -I I F /L 364~S- +-- - -I ~~ -:-. __ _ --.1363 30 <~ - - "'0'" <"os ~D& RADHAKRISHNA -~ I , . ~ t; o It) 363. 58 , ~~ 2 ~ 0 0 z r-.. < Ii iE < z < I Cl z I' < Q: ~I ~I I, I' PAR SAY JOB NO. 2006-133 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN LANDS OF HSU AND HAN 21871 DOLORES AVENUE, CUPERTINO SHEET 2 OF2 EXC-2006-14 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 (Denial) RESOLUTION NO. 6444 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO TO DENY THE REQUEST OF 5-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACKS, INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED COMBINED 15 FEET AT 21871 DOLORES AVENUE SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: EXC-2006-14 Jitka Cymbal 21871 DOLORES AVENUE SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for 5-foot side yard setbacks, as described in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds the following with regards to this application: 1. Literal Enforcement of the provisions of this chapter will result in restrictions inconsistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter 2. The granting of the exception will result in a condition which is materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare 3. The proposed exception will result in significant visual impact as viewed from abutting properties 4. That the exceptions to be granted are not ones that will require the least modification of the prescribed regulations and the minimum variance that will accomplish the purpose. That the subconclusions upon which the findings specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application EXC-2006-14, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of January 23, 2007 and are incorporated by reference herein. TM-2006-12 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 (Denial) RESOLUTION NO. 6445 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DENYING A TENTATIVE MAP TO SUBDIVIDE A .46 ACRE LOT INTO TWO PARCELS OF 9,685 SQUARE FEET AND 9,686 SQUARE FEET, RESPECTIVELY IN A Rl-7.5 ZONING DISTRICT, AT 21871 DOLORES AVENUE SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Tentative Subdivision Map, 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 applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has not satisfied the following requirements: 1) That the proposed subdivision map is consistent with the City of Cupertino General Plan. 2) That the design and improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the General Plan. 3) That the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of development contemplated under the approved subdivision. 4) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and unavoidable injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. 5) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements associated there with is not likely to cause serious public health problems. 6) That the design of the subdivision and its associated improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Tentative Subdivision Map is hereby denied. Resolution No. 6445 Page 2 TM-2006-12 January 23,2007 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. TM-2006-12 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of January 23, 2007, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: TM-2006-12 Jitka Cymbal 21871 Dolores Avenue PASSED AND DENIED this 23rd day of January 2007, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: A YES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Giefer, Miller, Wong COMMISSIONERS: Vice Chair Chien COMMISSIONERS: none COMMISSIONERS: none ATTEST: APPROVED: / s / Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki, Director Community Development Department / s / Lisa Giefer Lisa Geifer I Chairperson Planning Commission V -2007 -01 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 (Denial) RESOLUTION NO. 6446 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DENYING A V ARIANCE TO ALLOW A 50-FOOT LOT WIDTH, INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 60-FooT WIDTH, FOT THE TWO PROPOSED P ARCE AT 21871 DOLORES A VENUE. SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino has received an application for a Variance, 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 at least one Public Hearing on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support the application, and has not satisfied the following criteria: 1) That there are extraordinary or exceptional circumstances or conditions-applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to properties in the same district. 2) That granting of the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship. 3) That granting the Variance will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare, or convenience, and to secure the purpose of the title. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, testimony, exhibits and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Variance is hereby denied by the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the subconclusions upon which the findings specified in this Resolution are based are contained in the public hearing record concerning Application V-2007-01, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of January 23 2007, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. Resolution No. 6446 Page -2- V -2007 -01 January 23, 2007 SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: V -2007 -01 Jitka Cymbal 21871 Dolores Avenue PASSED AND DENIED this 23rd day of January, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: A YES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Giefer, Miller, Wong COMMISSIONERS: Vice Chair Chien COMMISSIONERS: none COMMISSIONERS: none ATTEST: APPROVED: / s / Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development / s / Lisa Giefer Lisa Geifer, Chair Cupertino Planning Commission