Loading...
12. Grenola Ave appeals 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 FAX (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department SUMMARY AGENDA NO. J ~ AGENDA DATE March 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 Greno1a 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. Continued from the February 6, 2007 City Council meeting. 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 4. Continue these appeals to the March 20, 2007 meeting. BACKGROUND: At the February 6th meeting, the City Council conducted a hearing on the two appeals and continued this item (5-0) to the March 6, 2007 meeting. The Council provided the following directions for the applicants, Mehrdad and Homa Mojgani, to follow before tonight's meeting: Modify the plans to meet the City Council's understanding of reasonable mitigation of the privacy impacts of the master bedroom balcony. (J- -=-1 Appeals ofR-2006-08 & RM-2006-13 Page 2 March 6, 2007 -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Work with the appellants to reach an agreement. At this time, the City has only received a proposed privacy protection landscape plan that was submitted the evening of the last Council meeting when this item was discu1?sed on February 6th. No other plans have been submitted by the applicants. The applicants and appellants did agree to participate in the mediation process offered by the City through Project Sentinel, an independent mediator. The mediation was held on February 27, 2007. DISCUSSION: During the meeting, the Council noted the privacy impact concerns of the appellants and requested that the applicants modify their plans by providing an adequate privacy protection landscape plan and mitigate the impacts of the master balcony by eliminating the balcony and providing a faux balcony, recessing the balcony or creating a physical barrier that is architecturally compatible with the residence. The Council also stressed the importance of the applicants working with the appellants to reach agreement on the plans. Further, the Council stated that privacy protection landscaping plans alone would not be sufficient to mitigate the privacy impacts of the balcony. The Council also heard from several members of the public who expressed concerns about the privacy impacts of the balcony and supported the appellants. Staff recommended that if a physical barrier structure is proposed to screen a portion of the balcony to prevent privacy impacts, that the barrier structure should be constructed of a solid louvered structure that is architecturally compatible with the residence. Landscape Plan The applicants submitted a landscape plan (See Exhibit A) to staff on the evening of the February 6 Council meeting; however, they did not present the plans during the meeting. Staff did not have sufficient time to review the plans prior to that meeting to make a determination on the adequacy of plans. Following the meeting, staff reviewed the landscape plans and found that the plans still do not indicate the exact variety (species) and box size of the flowering pear tree proposed along the east side of the property. Without this information, staff cannot determine the ability of these trees to serve as privacy protection landscaping along the east side of the property. Mediation Process On February 27, 2007, Project Sentinel as the mediator commenced the mediation process between the applicant and the appellants. However, the parties were still not able to reach agreement. 11:-1- Appeals ofR-2006-08 & RM-2006-13 Page 3 March 6, 2007 -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Staff subsequently spoke to the applicants, at which time they verbally indicated that they were going to submit a request for a continuance to the March 20th meeting to allow them to revise the plans. However, a written request has not yet been received from the applicants. Staff also spoke to both appellants, Jessica Rose and Elena Herrera, who indicated that they were agreeable to a continuance to March 20th. Enclosures: Exhibit A: Privacy protection landscape plan submitted February 6, 2007 Exhibit B: Minutes to the February 6, 2007 City Council meeting Exhibit C: City Council Report of February 6, 2007 with attachments Exhibit D: Copy of the originally approved plans by the Director of Community Development on August 23, 2006 Prepared by: Aki Honda Snelling, Senior Planner Approved by: ~ Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development David W. Knapp City Manager G:planningj pdreportj appealsjR-2006-08, March 6 CC Appeal I~ -') Exhibit A 1 ! 'j r~ :! ~en.ar.Jium HcJabt: 15 feet SprnoI: 1$-11 feet SpaciD&: a feet Bnl' JrCmPJ.-w~Ptlr: Hd,#Jt: 11 feet Spread: 11 feet SpaciD&: It feet HdPt .fpbata atlwe: 6-3 Dra:wint5; Tide Homa Mojgani Projert Grenola Drive, Cupertino ))0." 11/9/06 Sca>>.I~I~oted Drown By Dra:wint5; Joe Andolina She4it 365 of De.;I;;Jl. Build.. COi'\filltru.ction CUSfQm Landscape D@slgnandCcn5trt.lctiam lr!te1DcldlngP.wers .l"li9lflm.. 5t..,npCc:mm!Ol. Stene,jURl! v.r.t=rlillll . IkWiningi"NMII. - Mm. Outdgor Ughtin!ill . 980' ~_fl,tilYlillh ;~ i i i }.. 6' to B' new plants height at start ~"~"""""",~--,,,~,,,,._-,-~-,_,_,_---'---"~""""-'-'^._'--'-""-""""'-""-- 40B- 925 . 0180 www.jpmlanmcaping.MR:I MrmbernCA-lICBI5ED-BONDED-1NSlJRED~ liaMf!.ti'43897 ri~ L{ Exhibit B February 6,2007 Cupertino City Council Page 5 Approval of the final map permits the map to be forwarded to the County for recording, which completes the subdivision. 19. Adopt a resolution approving an improvement agreement, Allen K. Hsu and Cindy S. Hsu, 21926 Dolores Avenue, APN 357-14-015, Resolution No. 07-027. Through an improvement agreement with the City for a single-family development building permit, these applicants will be obligated to bond and construct city-specified roadside improvements, including curb, gutter, sidewalk, and driveway, along the street frontage of their building site. 20. Approve the Planning Commission recommendation to appoint Lisa Giefer as the Environmental Review Committee representative. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR 13. Accept the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for 05/06. Mayor Wang noted that the General Fund balance had increased by $4.6 million and the auditors had found the city's accounting program in good order. She thanked staff for a job well done and also thanked the Audit Committee for all of their hard work. Sandova1/Kwok moved and seconded to accept the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for 05/06. The motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS 21. Consider approving bingo permit renewals. (Continued from January 16): a) Senior Center Coordinating Council b) St. Joseph's of Cupertino Church c) De Anza Force Soccer (Continue to February 20) Sandoval/Lowenthal moved and seconded to approve the bingo permit renewals for the Senior Center Coordinating Council and St. Joseph's of Cupertino Church. The permit for De Anza Force Soccer was continued to February 20. The motion carried unanimously. 22. Consider two appeals of the Planning Commission's decision to deny an appeal of a Residential Design Review approval and a Minor Residential Permit to construct a new, two-story 4,219 square foot residence with two-second story rear yard decks, Application Nos. R-2006-08 and RM-2006-13, Cliff Cowles (Mojgani residence), 21180 Grenola Avenue, APN 326-28-057. (Continued from January 16). The appellants are: /l-') February 6, 2007 Cupertino City Council Page 6 a) Jessica Rose and John Tracy b) Elena Herrera and Subir Sengupta Director of Community Development Steve Piasecki stated that this project met all of the city's ordinances and there were existing second story balconies in the neighborhood. Appeals had been filed based in part on the architectural design, the negative impact on privacy and the preservation of the oak tree. Staff suggested that Council could consider asking the owner to inset the balcony, reduce the depth of the balcony, add a screening wall around a portion of the balcony or put in a faux balcony. The option of mediation had not been acceptable to the owners. Appellant Elena Herrera restated her position regarding this project. She did not believe this balcony nor the house met the city's ordinances. Furthermore she believed the mass of this house and the balcony did not fit into the neighborhood. Mrs. Herrera also noted that the landscaping plan was insufficient and the oak tree was not protected in any of the plans. Appellant Jessica Rose noted that she had led the annexation efforts of the Garden Gate area into the city with the hope that it would better protect their privacy and neighborhood preservation rights. She noted that this balcony had a negative impact on their privacy and the landscaping plan was not sufficient. Cliff Cowles, architect representing the property owners, stated that this project met all of the city's ordinances and balconies were allowed in the city. He also noted that a privacy landscaping plan should be required and in place and as part of this his client had agreed to a full screening on the side ofthe balcony. Homa Mojgani, property owner, stated that she had submitted new landscaping plans to the city. She said that this process had been very time consuming and she had been emotionally and financially impacted by it. She stated that mediation had been proposed a month ago and she did not think it was necessary since the matter was coming before the Council. The following addressed the Council in support of the appeals filed regarding this project: Saul Chaikin, Tibor Polgor, Eric Sharps, Lester Bowers, Margaret Limberatos, Kathy Berger and Jennifer Griffin. They expressed their concerns regarding the negative impact on privacy and the existing neighborhoods. Council discussed their options regarding the project before them and noted that this was a neighborhood in transition but the negative impact of this project on the neighboring properties had not been resolved, and the landscaping plan had not been submitted in time for Council review. Mahoney/Lowenthal moved to continue this item to March 6, to allow the applicant time to modify the proposal to meet the City Council's understanding of reasonable mitigation 12-~ February 6,2007 Cupertino City Council Page 7 of adverse visual impacts, and to work with the appellants to reach an agreement by eliminating or modifying the balcony, addressing minimal privacy impacts, etc. The property owner agreed to the continuance and the appellants agreed that March 6 was convenient for them. The motion carried unanimously. 23. Consider adopting resolutions regarding new fees. (Continued to March 6): a) Building fees, Resolution No. 07- b) Revision of the housing mitigation in-lieu fee, Resolution No. 07-_ Under the "Postponements" section, these items were continued to March 6. RECESS The meeting was recessed from 9:50 p.m. until 10:05 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) 24. Consider Application Nos. TM-2009-02, Z-2006-01 (EA-2006-02), TS/Civil Engineering (Lau residence), 21600 Rainbow Drive, APN 366-38-012: a) Negative Declaration b) Tentative Map to subdivide a 2.09 net acre parcel into one 40,009 square foot parcel and one 51,171 square foot parcel in a proposed RHS-40 zoning district c) Rezoning of a 2.29 gross-acre parcel from RHS-80 (Residential Hillside Zoning, 80,000 square foot minimum parcel size) to RHS-40 (Residential Hillside Zoning, 40,000 square foot minimum parcel size) First reading of Ordinance No. 07-1993: "An Ordinance of the Cupertino City Council Amending Section 1 of Ordinance No.2 by Rezoning Approximately 2.09 Acres From RHS-80 (Residential Hillside Zoning, 80,000 Square Foot Minimum Lot Size) To RHS-40 (Residential Hillside Zoning, 40,000 Square Foot Minimum Lot Size) Located at 21600 Rainbow Drive, Cupertino Application Z- 2006-01" Council member Lowenthal recused himself from participation on this item because of its proximity to his home. At 1 0:06 p.m., Lowentha11eft the Council Chambers. The applicant's representative from TS/Civil Engineering stated that they were III agreement with all ofthe conditions. Jennifer Griffin stated that she had followed the steps of this subdivision process and noted that she was pleased the property was only been subdivided into two lots. She did /1-1 Exhibit C 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 FAX (408) 777-3333 elT OF CUPEIQINO Community Development Department SUMMARY AGENDA NO. AGENDA DATE February 6,2007 Property Owner: Property Location: Appeal ofR-2006-08 & RM-2006-13 Jessica Rose & John Tracy Elena Herrera & Subir Sengupta Mehrdad & Homa Moj gani 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 Conunission'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. I?--F' 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 si~e 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 "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 11-1 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 neighbor hood 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 Removej refine 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 priva,c:y 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 It -{ b 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. _ _.._ .... _ 4 _~ ___-_ ~._"L_ '_'-"",."'-____ Revised Privacy Protection l.a:ndscapePlan . 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 3D-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 J~-Il 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 1: Planning Commission Staff Report dated November 14, 2006 w / attachments Prepared by: Aki Honda Snelling, Senior Planner Submitted by: Approved by: ._..,)'-te1./~ r:2? ~p c/~- ~ Lt-) ) Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development ~ David W. Knapp City Manager G:planningj pdreportj appealsjR-2006-08, CC Appeal t--~ ~ f J... Exhibit A City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3223 ~ ~ N~V ~ o~ :6 ~ ~ CI CUPEF\TINO CUPERTINO CITY CLERK Phone Number APPEAL 1< (Yl .~ cOub ~ 08 ~; Rn'\ 'l-ooCo .-13 ~-}omcA ~ 0'1 e,hrcloc~ /~ Cl {r{~~ (;tDCow1g 1 i-re SS I C: C-\___ Qose- ~\ -S ohn '\ CO C \/0 \ n L-) loA (l f\ l'~ ~ bo c- A \r-e.n \J-C- dSS-Sl~<C 1. Application No. 2. Applicant(s) Name: 3. Appellant(s) Name: Address Email ro Se.~~((:')\ci3 (2 SbG ~Lo~::::,c\ \ \ Il---L-t' 4. Please check one: A eal 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: 6. Basis of appeal: S-e..-L- i-=\-Ydu\(_lv.d... J- <pGA~ \P~ i) Se GQn c..\ S J-oc-~ r Q. 0L c- bo\..1 u5Y\ \--€.;::> CJUL, \ II V 0\ S lrl- <1--'0 O0'r-' P"0 (?U~ . ~) lov,cASGGA.,.p'V)2; Ce.e-nno+ SUCC~S5~\\d ml h'~c'.\ k.- p;i.J0--G~ \~5u'es. Signature(s) G'j. - ~~. . ( . <:~e--0~v~:~--)I". \ //f ~ 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. (l-;.-13 John R. Tracy Jessica T. Rose 10410 Ann Arbor Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 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 c~nnot 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 developmentwill 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- -(L{ 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 req'uiring 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 space 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 _n_eighboring 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 growthoccursHarol!Qcl.l;!S._ 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 I L-I )' City OF CUPERJINO 1. Application No. 2. Applicapt(s) Name: 3, Appellant(s) Name: Address Phone Number Email Exhibit B City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3223 lii~ lE(~~UW \ i I ) , !~', I IUUI l \ 'k' ~ 'J. r',. '_' v _ _ _ .' [~ 'W01 ;; i i i I ILS'I CUPERTIf\.!O CiTY CLERK APPEAL t< rl1-;;< ()O(o-{) 9: j3 K n1 ;)-{JOG -/ ~ f!-o i'VIJ)- J .lc19//i)/rr) /C~(/~~ Cv tULE3 flfA!A- /-kjt/~AA- $ (~u/9/P S f;1J6urT:4 .21 / Sc? GUlJo/,---+ & (elf ~);;:L IJS7Y-! e/er7.2~ h&-r~/,?{ e4 cckOLJ. c~ //]/1 I 4. Please check one: , . Appeal a decision of Director of Community Development _ ~ppeal a decision of Planning Commission' , 5.~. . Dat~ of 4etermination of Director or mailing of notice of City decision: ;J b,( / &, ?flO~ I 6. Basis of appeal: prvju--r /5 7tlf( ?:1- (tJ.u...J51 D z... ~ GU I Df..-L.-f vf5!, 07z- Ch";-r; .~ t.J-5"T' r I ",' I / ? ,25-c c:::::: r( I f" ,--ot:::: W () iZ1J / j!f,.r-yr'LJ vC/ . , Signature(s) t;J.,,~ Please complete form, include appeal fee of$149.00, and return to the attention ofthe City Clerk, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, (408) 777-3223. \;. -; /1-( ~ ELENA HERRERA SUBIR SENGUPTA _ .'h__ " -.. "cI','~';.-:.~: '. -.-,~._.- 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 Rl 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 of light, 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, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 PAGE lOF 5 I ;L-{ 7 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 radi'us with the exception of the homes built under County guidelines, and is certainly out of scale with its inunediate 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. Weare in danger oflosing all ofthat 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 Penriit 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 th~ .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 of the 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 corners 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 I ~ ~ '6 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 [rod 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. PAGE 3 OF 5 THuRSDAY, NOVEMBER 30,2006 I;L""{~ 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 still 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, Cl 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. S9 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. , ~'::"-f.',1: We very much appreciate your attention. z~~~ ~ Elena Herrera and Subir Sengupta THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 30,2006 PAGE40F5 I :z...,- ltJ .., -. . . ~~.' -'-' - ::...:. .- ,".:' '.~ ~.. ,......-."... "..~_. .. , r,;~,,};<<(, ...... '. ~aBaUlll'i~) "~ ~1fl1j ... .1lJnIBUB!S r;; (j")- r.' -'J~;::e~;~]:i?BrenIB^Ojdd'ii >:) -C;J,--oe- tyah.;'r:\i~u9!iBdHdd\f i~B ~ .' 00 ...... . 'MO!~BO!lddV H 'z--ll ...- _ L' ..-- '::> 0 \ .) 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. -~- - Re 21180 Grenola Vhdv. 1- . ph~.:1 /2.-11- Two projects referenced with balconies, both in immediate neighborhood to 21180 Grenola, 21150 Grenola CurcentHg,zE:;Jt;>r,o<:k project (21135 Hazelbrook) '"-'.~-' ~ ::..:-:~~:-.'-:~~~~~~~;~:~~~-:" -. ~,,;~,~;~~:~~.~_.: ,";,- ,'. .: '. ,T.' ;' .,;;,.>~'" '.' . _:~. ..' ~;'.. :.,..,. '>:': -,~:.:::~: .;:-\~; Re 21180 Grenola ?\v)~.) y ~~h ~ 12..~lJ ~ f\v)fv - 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, . t)QXV~y.er the reference map was misleading and indicated that the prpJf?:QLWGls:.2 blocks away and so he did notcomment. Re 21180 Grenola .. '''.'~. ;;j-';;- .~~'. fhotv\o / 1-- 2- ~ Fits with current look and feel? (Pictures token on some day) Before: Re 21180 Grenola rh)fo 1 V hb\n ~ ()...- 2J Exhibit' C 21150 GRENOLA DRIVE CUPERTINO, CA 95014 408.252.0504 JAN 3 0 2007 ELENA HERRERA SUBIR SENGUPTA 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 _.-. - '," .'0, :...-.._""C ...F AR shall be used in conjunctionwith the residential development standards and guidelines-in thiS:cerdjn~chiid@:t~rmining whether the mass and scale of the project is compatible wlth tii~'s~cfuBdlIi!flleighborhood. 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 maj ority 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--- 2lR .vi" () .1 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 RI 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 hasbeeIireauced to 14'2". I am not confident that this oak tree won't be impacted by the massweequipment and trenching that will exist within this 14-15' range. I . Co '~~~}olJ(;L1h~:1'5". to he the minimum area to be protected - what has changed that this . ..-' .. ha~ become a'smaller envelope? , ,~: c. . I-:-..~~ :~-,:-. '",;",' -'-,-~ 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." t 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 10th 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 i2- - L 1 i " ) 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 perm~t 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. We are in year two of the p1antings, and there is absolutely no expectation of privacy. We are grateful for two things: a) our fust 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. Moigani 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: '-/',' /..f-' ,'; {2.. -1-r I ~ r }l 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 depmiment 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:oftheoConunissioners felt the eastern landscaping should done away with, regardless of the immediate neighbor waiving int~rest in the issue, Itis 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. l:l-)tt €.'~ j, 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 from a balcony is the same as from a window, and on this point I agree. However, I maintain that a window - unless it has a bench-type window seat tQ it, is not usually gazed out and stayed in front of. It is usually passed by from the inside when moving to and frp1TI the closet, the doorways, the bed, etcetera. I believe it is important to view each p,"pject individually, and judge this one on it's own rp.erits. I sincerely hope that each of you had the opportunity and the inclination to view the project from within the Tracy's hoqW. 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 b~lcony on the rear west side. While the Tracy's were smart and conscientious about tRrir remodeling efforts, and wisely placed and sized those windows, it is burdensome ::md'imrealistic 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 foryourefforlstg;fairly,hear this appeal. ~--'_ __-_'",.L Elena Herrera and Subir Sengupta /2---36 :!LOCAL NEWS IN YOUR iINBOX EVERY WEEI<OAY est Vall www.mercurynews.com/news Checking your e-mail? Why not check the news t~o? Sign up for our e-mail newsletter. MERCURYNEWS.COM 'f;,. . t;:, .'. ....... $~ING,FORACGESS . '.' . .~:.:D'~le Waltor;:lefC~ij~':Qt~er'~ff~'rg~~driv~rs .have fileq' "$' '5UittO~~"~:~;~~..f;;~:~fa,,~~gYO~,'~~G~.4B .' .... "e vs . .. DRIVERdN-FATAL"CRASH SOUGHT. ':" ":"'":~r""'v-~-""<'O'''''"'' , ',~,','ci .: :-," Police are searchfn~{fob thedriyer ofa stolen 'carthat:,;~,: slammed into a van friday, killirighi~passenger. PAGE'3B;,i . .; -. ! ;'..-~ ;' , msher opinion . 'Sermng {SUre close he heart 'onsider Bill and Jean ) of contributions to open- ation, their campaign to leasly houses from being 'ortola Valley neighbor- m like small potatoes. is is the philanthropic .nated $1 million to the m 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- I to their own back yard the former publisher of illle and served as ambas- n and Australia. Since the his wife have lived on a la- the Westriclge area of '. They have a sprawling vith commanding views of eas Fault and Windy Hill, uest house and a stable. s place, but hardly opulent mdards.' Ie property covers three , the Lanes were con- ,ne day it would be sold to IIho would level their one- md replace itwith three gi- ek, they asked the town nnr fl rOn~Pl\T8tion ease- Growing pains in Fremont By Usa Fernandez Mrrcury 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 expan- sive 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 Bra- dy 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 defini- .. tion for what constitutes what critic.s call a "monster" home. . The issue is coming to a forefront now, some surmise, because the See HOMES, Page' 2B ' (1/" WISH BOOI{"'-ii(::-::,:)2006 ~~r~.j~~\ Center eases senior isolation . , Hugs, like the one GraceSo~~left, gives JeSsie Navarro, are common at MACS~~dult Q)ly 1;Iealth Care. : ~';;vj;~~ i ~, i ('!, ' ,~"',~r";~ ,; 'MONSTE~!:NS..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. l,Ultil 5 a.m. to get into New Orleans' packed air- port, desperate for any flight out to safety. After living in a convention _ _.,J.".. :~ A......#-;..... t....,~ <1 ;,-"11 11'r:lnlrc: I. NewsLibrary Document Delivery Page 1 of2 ,.....?"J :' v I ~ ',,"",} /"J"J ,."'. .'~ "t..rv....'\~'v..."..r. ...,."./",.-., )'. "1 ""'\"l..At~'/! I."' ' ~ ~'J (, r j,J: ... - /, 11 \/:) I L) \ [".,~ I I C .~~ C.=h.!4 t.;:> i'_::JJ),jll,l, ~'l.;J1..~?/:,.)I. c:.l/.J::.,..!- ./l:;..' J./ . 1;...... l?~u:~Jf~t:rr~~"Nl~~~:kJ~f:~lJ-: - ~ 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? ~,~'::f.,(~'~T ':~":;' ." "'''''''Orl'Tuesday, a group of residents, many of whom live in low-lying ranch homes, Witl~:'i'''~'i"..~,: address the city council to complain about the lack of rules regarding slapping up .,::expansive homes. }<,,--,' :;>::c.",;:;,,,., Many tony towns on the Peninsula and in the South Bay have already dealt withfhe:.,\;~ot6y"'~ 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-- 32.. http://n1.newsbank.comJnl-searchlwe/ Archives?p_action=doc&p:..... docid=11624111 ED3983... 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 than 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 p{~nnfng sfa1Hr~fheCiin'design; something Mountain View has, to review homeowners' plans before they build. ..,. '; - ~-!:' , ~-~' ; At Tuesday's meeting, Planning Director Jeff-'SchwobJ$m tk/citt'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 ,/ JL where new homes must architecturally complement one another to gain approval; a Palo Alto- / 71 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 ( ~--J3 http://nl.newsbank.comlnl-searchlwe/Archives?p_ action=doc&p _ docid= 11624111 ED3983... 1/30/2007 bt"" ',r ~, "" r; , , """" {~ ti.\. _.9:C:" f ~~j!,,"~!~:' j~~-, {~~- ~"- .1fC V./, -.- '- ~ 1;! ,- ..~ ' ii', --~JJ' .,,-;rr,: l J<' t;,ftl" '", .::f:::A.f .,~r- .I:.1'r- r ~ ~.- '? r. ~ 't ~;,.~~..- )J i..:j~~ L=~~ Sp~clng @= ft JPUUlfOSfjiOnlm 10'/1 20' H ,,~l~ ",~ ,/'''' / .I'~ ..<,1"' If :,~J y '!l":,:~,,~~ d:,C:l'~5 ,1/',oi"\....."'. " "-" y,"" )~...~"",,.\'(' /;/" .~,J a",ill tti c,.r{' $(; If e.z I~ ..1" - - - ..,." "../ / ".,,~ >~~ .-" / ,..-" 4}1 )...J;?'- ./r'" ~~,~~~~ !~-~~___~ G:~_e"tii.o' ,-_~=-_-~"j ,--I r I I ).. Exhibit 0 F"- ~ittrosPOr\lm /,//"~ l ,space 6' ./ ~;;;, ~:. Spacing I .;j'i!r {...~ ,,r'" r;' "ili., /~~,t;r.' .~-,. .-..J.. ;?t\ ~J' .,_.1 .I,e. ,.,;T--,' l~.o:" - """'.. HttlQSplJlnmnl . 19~I~1 Heage 2~ . :~':"'_ . .~ ..,..,.)"<..';. ".,~"",."._" ~ . i( : ''', ' L' 16' S"z.cing l .' . flr~~ ~ '/t)3" '.% ~ ~\, '''''",LJI ! ::--,-. f"toma MoJganI ~::",]\~Jt;\:t-Jjr~0~;,i~.F,~:~]; ~~.f:!!''lfiJim:;j>~~~~~~ l!~"",~~~';;:ri.4~ll~,t~llf!;~~:il!~~4.~..::!.~j Tm~~1:id.... ~jed GI"".eoota Orive, Cupertino D\l~ !ftj"9j06 D=-..ma. EJ" Joe Ano.ulin.a De5ign.. Bui.ld... C"n;.;lrut:t.ic.n tLL.iiOm Landit:2PG DesIgn i!n~ Con:>~nJcuon ,~::-~r::,~r:~~;~.,;~~i~~~"~';~:~~~~~:~[~J F~~:':l<:;!$. RECEIVED' ~." 'JAM 2 4 2007 ~1: I of" 0' to s' neVi plants height at start "'os- 925. OleO ;-..-.......".J.jpmlilnctiu1oi r.g.OJ.-n N~~mbi?r 0.0.\- UCBjrr[)-IY...)N[1EfJ~ 1[.j)IJr::--;;.D~ l~II.,~ i."N~_39:;' BY ii-]1 ~t9~t9 Exhibit E /' \ J. __.__~.-,-_.c'_.:. .__,___...u____"___.. J ").. Dronving Title Homa M ujganl Proj~d Grenola Drive, Cupertino D... 11/./0. DrIl\wnBr Joe Andolina Shl!oet or 3.5 D~$jgn Build ConRtruccion Custom landscap,e Oe!il"n and Construction ."~txil:trlgP__s' ,.1iIg:sCmlr. S'IlmpCOndftll . stOFle4l111e W-=rf~UI . IkQlrinlrWllIas.. htIoc. Olllllkoof Lightmll . 1l9Qli fftlfbl.l""'lfl 408.925 - 0180 W'M".jpmlandsc.aping4c:om Me~er~~~~.'.B~~_::~~~l~~~~_~:~__ ~ _J~_ _.__u Scale Iu "Noted. I 10 Dnwinr;: 6' to B' new o.1ants height at start '\--~ S~lbrnt/1~tI{ oJ- Noy. j~ Fe mee{~/~ Pj pnrP-cr~ Ol<-vW15 ',- ~ ./'---.---- ~ ---- ~ --- -_.~~-~-- , 1 - 3S- L-:--' / / / ,r:.-. Exhibit F Dear Neighbor, \"'1 e are the owners 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 (origin'aJly in code and approved by t1)e {::ity). _ 4. Provided professional privacy landscape 'or .'" "'d"O< " 5. Added priv~Gybarrier for part of our b~lcony faci~l?i_o\!!Jl~ighbor. . . ~", We would appreciate your name and signature below if you support our home plan. Thank you in advance. Homa & Mehrdad Mojgani Name Address /. h Qr{(f! 11J39-~ F I 0 n:f. Vis' lei Av€ ," ,(" ,(-, J 1\ I d O~ ri ;-p__ A./" L / tI--.. 10 Y )' U ~LDYClL lA' ( AVL-- !..- ./ / /;;'~\/\I' I ST."t. /,J t{ 'l/\.ll..-c/'- :T-~ / Dc(--6 6 'r-~C3>-<--- VV~ e~- \ , fi5iCl -('1 2-( vlill\. :) 1 01 ') {)-retloI4 T/l \, (1-,-J 10 ~ Name Address f~' J/\ t '~\\11\ ~ VA~K ko fv\ f&tA ___ -~ . < ~vLlL---' / \ /' J ) C\ \ 0--(;<11 . '--'LZ vt'~) ) ~j '-l2- C ()J-vtl/ __~~f--iL4(LJ!~\. ,. j 7 I I~ ~_{:'/Vh..K f\J iL~ytt, t;L--- )4- c I~'; e.- J it-I VI ~ ~CC ~ a./)IJ~C~ ,IV' i'11?\ iJ~(A.,---"\/ J S LA '1/ {' ,6 h 1-< (IccL\ i q,i'e ... - -- L () ~D( I{ ..3;: Ov.~ rk r iMc~ S wjD-) S'aw h n-<';J [\fa 0 ~ IE' C T\'JY}, ~ X~c~V\P>\J Ge/ N~\l~ " ,-\ l '\r V\ ~ ~'~~u.4~. ~ lOGo CAP-tNo LA ])R'YE I'<J t( '6 b ?0xO--\J\S ~ fl\J , . , ' ...< ,/ ,:' ;,' I ,) ;1 D ; ! /__1,;' ( I / Ct.., (/-?'1 ,> ci>'C ( / t Cc. '7"1/)1 C ---' ~ ! I 0 L--/1) t:L.h[", (-(;") l:>l:'-/ a/V,t/ )U~0! ~"')2t tit S~ I)v~' 104--9 '+ rlo f--n ''1''1 ~ +0 Av. 2.\ 0 ,=)-- C, (f'-Y 12_ l\ v \, c., v,r , , \ . .,~~..\t'-tL ~( cfl 9ru (rJ n I \ 11 ?G' ~ 0 'J) -,( - 6., 'v ' .:> --"\':-{ 9 ') ~ t>"-- l' '", S;~~}J :~_~-ch ,,\ D) C A q SO i 4 .. r'[ (( ? ( is; J (' l; D liAc pc ' . . J 0 Cwf." I J-,,, (! I (A 51~ ( V ( 1) ~ ,,~t Vl D/\ I ' ~ 7-11 2-1 [:--+CC~e 10h~ \)r. d\\~ \~~1t\~roolL 7 \ tt\ (-\:-^ 22. \ ~9v\:l.;\L .. R Ilq5 G R~--rJ 0 c..1l .(::) c2v' J (2--37 Name Address , ~t~ J 41,( 61t~ c~_. _' __ 0_ __.~ _., -:.;.--r-- .",,-,- .... ..~ - - --.-: . J 9 ,i I~? a,,,~u<Jc~ Ur'{~ 2 \ I ~. D en-:C4'\.o ~ Or /2- ]{ 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 mee.ts. ;tPE1.,.... followin~findings for denial: 1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will be detrimental or injurious to proper~y 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. / 1 ~3~ 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, II 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 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 existing31~lnch'diameter Coast Live Oak tree on the s~bject _ property in a healthy manner in accordance with the tree protection recoriunendations 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 COVEN ANT 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 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. 11.--'{D 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 ot species, size and health.l he Coast LIve Ual< 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. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/ or agencies with regard to the proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Any misrepresentation of any submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Development Department. 8. 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 :p~ot~st these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail . to file a protest wit.hin t0is 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 I~..-YI 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 LOCA TED 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: __, '"'_'_'~._." ...... .u - .--- - - -.- _. - - 1) The proposed- ~~~;:~(ti~e-'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 RM-2006-13 is hereby approved, subject to the conditions which are enumerated iIi 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. (l-LfJ.... Resolution No. 6430 Page 2 RM-2006-13 November 14,2006 SECl1Ul'\i 11: Yl<'UlbLl Ub~Ll<'lY llUN 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, II 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 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. .. .}. .TRE~PROTECTION ..c_"""'til.'e'applicant shall be required to maintain the existing 31-inch diameter-Coast Live ~ "_ Oak.tree on the s:u.bject property in a healthy manner in accordance with the tr.~~". 'protection recoriunendations outlined in the tree evaluation prepared for this properijr on April 27, 2006 by Michael L. Bench of Barrie D. Coate and Associates. 4. PRIV AC'f 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 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.. - L/ 3 Resolution No. 6430 Page 3 RM-2006-13 November 14,2006 The City Arborist has confirmed that the existing Coast Live Oak h'ee is appropriate tor 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 andlor 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,RESERV ATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Goverrunent 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 Goverrunent Code Sectioit'660'Z0(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with an -gf 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 Plarming 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 / RM - 2006-13 {.L-Lfy 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 staffto comment on bringing the Stevens Creek Corridor project back for review. Ms. Wordell: . Said she was not aware of the options for a~complishing that; the Planning Department is not involved in that ei,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. AId 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. (l--L{S 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 re4uced 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 comproml.fie. .. .Mehrdad:Mofgafti;-.applicant, reviewed the responses to the Planning Commissioners' - dll))menfsfroitiiii:e'tjdober 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. 0" .'.... "~: c,~ ..c Boma 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 repo0;ed 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. Il-~~ . >.; :::,~1~::~~;, Cupertino Planning Commission November 14,2006 4 Jessica Rose, Appellant, Ann Arbor Avenue: . She said they were encouraged at the October 10th 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 of the 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 timelines 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 followinKconditions for approval: ._.F'~,<.~. -;'. ., . ~, .:1" ~ -. . ./ 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 ih 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. {1,--Lf7 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 intrusive, 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 Carmel 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, l;>ecausetb~Y 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 12 -l{ k 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 li-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 haye 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 of the 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 ofMr. 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. , 'i.. 1~--SlJ 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. Aki 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 arid 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 {J--~Jl 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 RI 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 w~s 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 /2<-JJ- 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 Jhat.ifnecessary. Said she did not want to be locked into a 6 foot balcony at this point if thoseoiher issues are 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 ofthehouse 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. tJ -) 3 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 if the 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: ."'C . It is, so you say the balcony is approved subject to a-satisfactory privacy screening plan; then --~-~-- ,- ::tfc-tney~_dbn~:ihowus a satisfactory privacy screening plan, the balcony is no longer- approved: - ~'~,' '/ -""-. ~,- '- '="'. ..J'~ 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 ( 1 ~ S-~ 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. . ,;,.:'"/"; i:,- 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 thebalcony,evet gets approved,':there is going to be an apjJeaTto the City Councii;ana 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. It--)) 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. Aki 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 cutthe 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. { 2- Jb Exhibit I CITY OF CUPERTINO 1 {)'J:O(\ .,...,,....,.....0. A-.:TO........,..,'O r,..Y"'t..:::a.........~......~ r~l..;--=n..".-n..;::t Qt:;,111L1 -,-_~'__' ~;";":""_'_ _..:...'~'_~__':""_; --:...r.':....-~.:.._--, ~.~'--'-..:....:.._____.J......~ w - -'- DEPARTMENT 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 <!x. 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 theappeal(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 h-ee, 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 recoinmended 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. . l~.- f 1 Appeal ofR-2006-08 & RM-20l 13 November 14, 2006 T"'"\..:"='..........cooO..;"...._. 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. Pla:hniri. Commissio. n Com. .'... m.. .. ..e.n.ts......U: . ' ," .. ..... 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 enh-y feature so that it is more symmetrical and in alignment with the turret on the front elevation. Remove or r~fine 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 ofPrQ -er Owners';.Res onses;:,. The balcony has not been removed or reduced per the COIllinission'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 windo"W on tile 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 -:;t Appeal ofR-2006-08 & RM-20'c 13 November 14.2006 phitmin COmmission Comments ........ . -"...'.... .--- . . Restore the privacy protection landscape requirements along the east side of the prop'erty and move the proposed deodar cedar tree forward to provide privacy protection screening of the balcony for Bedroom 2. Provide front yard landscaping and! or brick!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 ReviewbfProer OwnerR~S onses" 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 planfo:t:-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 beige! 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 Plam1.ing Commission consider upholding the appeal and modifying. the approval of the Residential Design Review and Minor Residential Permit: tZ-Ji Appeal ofR-2006-08 & RM-20l .3 November 14, ?006 Page 4 1 ?:r1.C''''' tn ;""l'::>nrp nf hl1ilr1ina npl"mitc::. tl.p nl"nnprhr n\Nnpr,c:: c::l.811 rpvic::f" the nbns ... ..L ... .... 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 h-ees 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 Y I Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme~ Enclosures: - Exhibit A: Property .ownen:0rnments,~nd.: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-&0 Exhibit A. C~ltt, Homa ana 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 th~ balcony after the reduction are drawn. In this desj.9!1, i-he ]Jalc0ny is alj.gned with the edge of t}1~~ h01~se 3fid it i5 no J'lr;'~:'I~L :3t~,-'kj.n,..i 1__"'-:"" 'I'L!:::' \'!r1]'/" "J (-~ JIJ : n. It. _'_ ; I: I I.)!-"j(-::. 2. Lower the entry feature so that it is more sYilMetrical with the turret and the house. The entry feature has been lowered by 1 foot, even though it was already in code far 14'. This request has already been ~aived by the neighbor, Elena Herrera who had raised it as an issue. According to ()pinions ,~)f some of the City corruTlissioners, lovierinc:r the h",igtlt of the porch has enads the look of the house out of proportion. 3. Remove or refine the second story bay window on the front elevation. The sec9nd story bay window has been eliminated and replaced with regl...:-!lar windclw. 4. Provide privacy planting along the west side property line to provide f411 privacy protection screening at installation of a balcony, "tI'~-'Ba1"cbny<:f~;; sti-ll proposed. . . ....;~. We are proposinc:r 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 landscapinc:r). 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 with staff. {~-&( 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 t6 Herrera's instead of peach. We also make sure to select a roof color which is not odd to the nei~hborhood. However, we can not guarantee that every single neighbor would love the color, since people have different t2stes and mAjori.ty are l~0unted. We Sh01JJ.d Dl)t fc)rge~ that we are Dot L 2.. 'r ~_n:.-) a 1_'(')I!il'illl.rli:::1. ~'I_ l-:r:;~ r ,.. 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 land~caping to soften the frontage of the home and has be~n approved by our 11eighbc1r. 10. Applicant shall talk to their neighbors. (rJe did talk to the appell'o,nts f!eighbors (Tracys & Herrera). Tracys propc1sed a privacy land,scape design for our back yard that we agreed to. However, we decided to hire a professional landscaper architect to design 3 new plivacy l~ndscape. The D'2W de5ign 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 r-eplacement. 'L -&J- 120.5' Pla.t b ~ .J T...11I. Accent WEST (RfGHT) ELEVATION Scale 1/4" ~ 1'- 0" DD DD 100.0' E. F"mish Schedule: Exteriorl 3-Coat Stucco. "Pal;unino" (Lt. YeUow/Tan) Roof: Concrete So Tilelite. neasa Grande Bleo.df1 Trim IJ/. Fasciw Painted Wbod Trim Surrounds ~ ''Nude'' (Wtute) Windows Bl Doors Eagle. Vinyl Clad Ultra Windows - ''Whiten Garage 8J. Front Door - Painted Wood.. "Antiquc.n Deck Ralling: Paint2d Articu1a.ted Wroul!ht IrOft .. "White" naJcony: Slate Tile ...,.:::J5 .. 5t;:,... 12 --- EAST (LEFT) ELEVATION Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0" ~ \ ~. V..l "-- u-- ';.0. Plate . 5 12 J O'f'.F. " " ~ ~ .. " ! '" " 00 "l '" .0 " i ill .. " <( to to ,~ ~~ ;;l 0 . ~ ~ . 0: 6 "' fIl Jls ~il ~~~] Q" r:;, .n c:: ~ Q ~g ~:~ ;;;" / ..... ~ <l'J ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~~ ~ ~i ~"r.I ~r-:- -: ill! Q~ ~~il~ ~ $,. .. ,b 'M~ 2<'1 1: fll go'" ~ lie- C,) 6 t:'1l~ ,!21 o Q~ ~~ .Zl>> b 0.. ~ ill ~ ~ ~ a s~ *,Og3 <( = i:n~ TreUis Acct;r.t en z o 1tJ- efnt ell ~ ~ ~ f.1J B / I /L-_~ /' -', o ~ DD DD J; ..... 'VI ): WEST (RIGHT) ELEVATION , Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0" Finish Schedule; ExteriQr: 3-Coa.t Stucco ~ "P1llam1no" (Lt. YeUowlTant Roof: Concrete: S. Tilelite.. "Casa. Grande BlEnd" Trim II. f"pchu Pa.in.ted Wood Trim Surrounds.. "Nude" (Wh.1te) Windows Ii Doors: Eadie Vinyl Clad Ultra. Windows .. I~hita" Garage IJi. Front Door.. Painted Wood. "Antique" Deck Railinl!: Painted Artlculatltd Wrou&ht Iron.. "White" Balcony: SI-.te Tile ~ " ~ EAST (LEFT) ELEVATION - Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0" p ~ ~' -I:.. [[1] ,c::,.. " m D " · '" 10 i q1;i .. g ~ ~ J 5 ... ... cd:a ~ 0., .. r!J III i!!! _,-s' 0 ~ i~lU~ \:-:::-~.~-; == ~ . ri;;; .. "'PI "" ~ <d ~ '" . s<8 ~:~ at ~Il: ~.lMG "l :i m HI l:: ';')~~ :'~ ~~ . '" ~"1,5r,; III ,I tie ~." .$~ is :. tth "1ij..J: ~w ~ II g.., ....~U6 j:>... ,2; B.j t!l~ ~Q ~a ~ is ~6 ~ I; CJ e -1. I) :is ~ <=:E:i~ I1S,o'PJD.t.e nll.is ~.....t (,fj if: o J:lI- ~ I f-< i: I <t, (/1> w d ~~ - .1 Y!'" ~,l# ~' /)>> ,/ ./ p . ,...../'""'-.. .......-- US.5'Rld 105'.0' _~ r_ =-. DDDD 'r , "=~. . ~ . ~ 5'.6" IOQ.o'f:.G. NORTH (FRONT) ELEVATION Finish Schedu1e:: Es:lerion s..coat Stucco. "Palamlno" (Lt. Yenow/Tan) Rool: ConcrEte s.. TUelitE.. "Casa. GrlllDde Rlena" Trim 81. Fascia: Painted Wood Trim Surrounds - "Nude" (White) Windows IJI. Doors: Eagle Vinyl Cle.d Vltr.. Windows. "White" GaMl4e III Front Door.. Painted Wood - "Antique" D~ck RaiUng: J:l'iUnted Articulated Wrought Iron - "'White." Balcony: Slate Tile Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0" ~ " "'.. ,r:::,.. " SOUTH (REAR) ELEVATION Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0" ~ t ~ '\ , , ; '~r ~ l~~ 10'_0' IOO.O'L.G. . ~ PI II! ~ ~ ij a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. J l;!Sl d ~ ~ 0; j .. 00 ~ i~ I;-_::~>' 0 ~ '8~lU~ .:;':1 ~ ~ ~ :=.!l UO- 0:. '" $'-0' ~ <\I Ci ..~ ~] ~.~ ~& .., ': en I! C<! ,~ l:: .;-~~~ :-:~ ~~ . ... h,~... -;; rl Q":g ~ ,,_, .si .. !, 1:: <C 1 .i: l~ c: ~l a 6 eo..: ~z; .3 ./ Q ~ ~ Q, ~ >> ~ I s ~8 ~ ; = ~ ~ ~~~io <( ~~ OIl/) ell CiCI z ~9 ~ (... z <( ow> 0l0ll&.! "" ...l W ~.~ cra~ ytle Magnolia d'f-:::// t " nr~':.~~~irry ~. '~rape mrytle . i::;:;~:}~?;-"'''''l..:.; Deodara Cedar "A~- "8T~~~,.~..-,~~~-#-(~r'~"./.''f,f?-:.~~ -~ <~!-k~ ..~ ',~= ~ ~~~:;"~::<lX#!.:ff.V]f.1 . ;-?\....t7:;l".rI2H,~-<.:r.......;. ~r>. ,rf!" \;.':.;1. t"' l']'~ ..:. 1- -..f- , ....~.~. -'i~,!:H .' . ,,:!.~,.:~,M ,...".' .,....l<' '1),'" :I....ct.~~..'-%fbL,\\.il;j/ ':",-4; ':.~.~. \]1;,' \~c.; " <l.',)';,'. "" " ."-M" .~, '-'-~.- ~ - l.ii;~'''~~ 'j'O~::;',~~" 'C;i~;- (''7:.. ~., 'fl-' --r;.:r :-.:...",,-- .,' "j:f; .. ."-. ~~.. .,.' '<',,', <" ~ ~/' \,. .r,- .;.-': r~..~!'}l>,;:.,.,'=t~.~\; ~ .5",=,',- .... ., [:::'-I'j> r....-;;...:\ "~" :=~-o ,,- :.T7 ,,'}'1-...2.... \,~ ~ \~t~~~~i-) tJ?~~l._. ~<J kP~7. EKlstlnq Oak ~ ~~,j ~~!v!)3J 0 .-/g/ 11) .......- .-;; --i ~/~f",r---~ ~ -= ,/ '\" ,----0 I:'J" ,J/-r/ ~'7 /'~,~ 'J/<$' .--/t....:.~ '-' "\ ~~ ;;1 /\.';''1 <01 ~ .. .<.L;"~),<" neoda... Cedar " .~~ '. . V . .. ~- I ~. . Fenceffilne ," ---- ~!~.\' n r-" t', 'r' ", -(. ",,"1", .. 7' '- .~.r..: :\:;..' . D.C ~~, I,,: 1'" . AOYfcring pear Cherry tau",' podoca us Hedge t:..~~ .....;..~. i~~ ....... I~~t ~...i.'~' \1'-'" ~.J~: \".' ".I.. ~":'.l~ .......~. G1 RESltD-t=.!\.\CE :..!: :''':'l~ \....". (i'; I.F :_':'. . ....... ...1:' :i'~: ~'Iia. Hama. M.oj~ PnJ- <muoladriTa, Cupcrlina Do" . 9n3r.!006 DnwnDT 1"" A.aoJin> ......... lorl ~ Sc"i~6I"tK ~ 108- .:'..~ ;. 'r.. ...... ...;J..,;. .'~:' "'-r:,. ....... ..1 "'- ." ~": -' . \' u-:".:- ,;X ,: .J.~>..' ~;. '-i.~~-;'~"lj lStrawberry bush .'~j \.,,,):- .} ..~~>~ ~,:., -11 r. ~-"~ :t::(,.. .~.><~~.~:~~.")r~':d1: _..:-;:.. "'--""" ',__, ~J.,. ~. i~~:j~),~~.Ji~".". ~~i:;V PittosponJm r:..'; (Black stem) "",-~-g: ,i-'~-- ) :-":..,, 1 '''.-::..-t"7r (tt~:~' ''-'$:9' ~(r~? 1:."''. \_~,. )!(Jt:i:: '~~ 0. ~ -.. ';~ D.esigo . Build. Construction Custom landscape Design and Construction Jntertoddna l"r4O .. Ftagst:me . Stamp c.onawt!- . 5tgna &. Tb _I. _1lem1~\'f.I\J _ ^tbOa .00000_Ugh~ng .1IllCl'. ~~ 408-925-01BO www.jpmlandscaplng.com MemberCLCA-UCENSED - BONDED-INSURED- Ucen<e#7'l3897 {1--~(p Exhibit B Cupertino Planning Co, "llSSlOn 10 October 10, 2006 rnl'Jl1T'1"jpc,,'nVl r!/H,i"irll'1 .(;"I"Inlllnlo("l(" nnnonlor/ 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 st,aff report. . He revi~ed the side yard setback exception. Staff feels that the project site fits the parameters\o! the Rl-5 zoning district and the proposed use permit is consistent with the intent ofthe'Rl ordinance. . Staff recomm'e.pds that the Planning Commission approve the project according to the model , " resolutIOns. \ Richard Kimville, r~esenting Richard Haro Inc.: . Reviewed briefly th~lans pJepared. 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 . iligently with staff and followed their recommendations. Com. Chien: .' . He a~ked what the homeowne~' considerations were when they chose to go below the 750 square feet allowable for seco~d\sry. Richard Kimville: . Said they were trying to keep the over {I project not too large, and it has been worked several times over. There was not a specific iss~ brought up about that; just working with the totals. . Said he CQuld 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}, whe~ you do something like that at this stage. Chair Miiler opened the publIC hearing. \ ~.~-.:~,. ' Jennifer Griffin,.Rancho Rinconada resident: \ . Commended the architect for designing an appro~\iate sized home on the small lot and taking advantage of the basem~nt. She said the house ~ld complement the neighborhood. ChaIr MIller closed the publIc heanng. 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. Aid 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. /1 -0 7 Cupertino Planning Co. .1lsslOn 11 October 10, 2006 'T'l__ ~__~":.J__+":_1 _......._..:+ ......_....1 ............~__......._ ....l:IIo.....~...1.o~+~......l .,....,C>T"Y"n~t nro.-ro. <),T"'''1",,..,...,,''C1r1 An J111IT11Ct '11 ')()()h o:lnrl ............... ..__'-'........................._... r-........-......... ---- -------- --------~--.-.1- ------- ~- .1.-...--- - - '-' ~ 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 DotiDscale with the design and general neighborhood and would have a negative impacf 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. Homa 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 Rl 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 IL---~r Cupertino Planning Co. .1lsslOn 12 October 10, 2006 +-..-:':.-...... ......+.....___T hr\.l1C'COC" +n. h.o. "h.ll~lt r\pvt tA thPrn rPnl~{";na olr3r:-r nnIT1PC: - ,. - - - - -..I -- - -- - - - - - - -' . ~ ... .. - . 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 1}omesbuilt 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 ";cc'::-';~ ','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 ifthere was a need for the arborist to come out at that point. { l~to 1 Cupertino Planning Co. .11SSlOn 13 October 10, 2006 J. 1_.! TT~_...l...._ . Said there was a need because it had to be detern1ined 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 propeliy; 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 workirig 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 11 - j() Cupertino Planning Co. .11sslOn 14 October 10,2006 ......_0 ~..... .,......n.........~+~"....... +"h~C'" rt."t"'lCl hl)C' ~ t-r-:lr>t rrof hn.rnpc th~t u/prp npurpr r'l1111+ in thp 7nr:::. ~nr1 ,xrprp ___ ___ _____________, _____ ___. _u_ _ " " ,.~. .- '.' _ 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? Aid 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 th~ 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 neiJ?;hbor t?weigh in on the issue and as~ 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. 12~ / { Cupertino Planning Co" .1lSSlOn 15 October 10, 2006 ~......~;J C'"ho HT0C' 't""\l,Clot;)C'prl +h,l::OTP orp C&=>f""f'\T\rl ctrvrH cpth<;l"'1.r~ Tn t],p ('<;lCP n-fthp h~lf"':{"\n;PC' if"All ~rp ______ ____ -<- r-~---- - J . ,. -... 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 hav.e a clear view into her new kitchen window, but it is a choice she made. . Expr:..essed.conce1:"?:-~ou~ 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 corner 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 /2-)).... Cupertino Plamling Co. .l1SS10n 16 October 10,2006 t-hrj::>o:=> r11rn~-nC';II.l""l U1P''lT Chrnun p<;trl;PT l('\u/p.rlno it uTi11 rpcll1t in -it hpincr Ant nfnrnn"rt;n-n -....... -... ... · It meets the current R 1 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 mOle compatible with the neighborhood. ' ' . , - .. "--,,,-- 4-c"",Nice,Chair Giefer asked about the Oak tree; it is already prescriptive in the ordinance and in..., ~7.., .'~ , .-- -, '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 !mew 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 concem 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 {'l-/3 Cupertino Planning Cm _l1SS10n 17 October 10,2006 thp np;rrhh{)r'c;: ;,,,rrl to thp ",p.d. or ".d, th"t thp bnrlc;:r.l'l~~in~ thl'lt i.c;: ~llt in ~brp hP::l rom:,'PJP 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 C,om. 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 hright color scheme for the nejghborhood; 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 lmow 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. /1____1'1 Cupertino Planning Co. .1lSSlOn 18 October 10,2006 ~+'(Y~T~ 1>j~co.,...lr-i ~ · Said he was comfOliab1e 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 goingto be incumbent on the property owner to move the proces.8. 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) (2-j) Exhibit C CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 .........,..,.. A n'T'l\ Hlr....T'T' "lC' "",.. 11fl\/ilTTl\.Tlf'lf'V nlC'.n:nr n1D1\HlC'l\.T'U' 1DlC'lDn1Q>'U' lC'nVl\lf A..-'L-J..I!.. J..JI...a.......LJ.V..D...Il.-.I.l............ '--".L _...............-...~....-..... ...-- - - - . -- - - -'._-_. - ---- - --- - - ---_.- 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 AppHcation Summary: Appeal of a Residential Design Review and Minor Residential Permit to construct a new, two-story 4,219 square foot residence with two secOll.d-story rear yard decks. Recommendation: The Planning Commission 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 detision- Projecf"Qata:~. ._.,..'.~~,.-.-,,:~ - - General Plan Designation: Low Density (1-5 DU / 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 FAR/2nd 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 enclosed/2 uncovered 2 stories /26 feet 6 inches [2- jio 4--\ Appeal ofR-2006-08 & RM-200r October 10,2006 Page? Setbacks: Front (Grenola Dr. side) Rear (south) East Side West Side Balconies .tUS! ~tory 20 feet 45 feet 5 feet 10 feet NjA - 0t::LV~LU. ,_nul. 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 JEnvironmental 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 tree evaluation (See Exhibit D) was conducted by Barrie D. Coate & Associates on -.. April 27th, who identifi,~d the tree as a coast live oak in excellent condition. The, C~tI.. ArbO!ist aiso provided several measures to ensure protection of the tree duiJf\g'-.:. ~' - .. construction if the tree is to be preserved. The applicant's designer also resubmittecLa " 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 IS-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 proposed 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 (1_-1'7 Jf,-~ Appeal ofR-2006-08 & RM-200F '''\ October 1 0, 2006 Page 3 the decks and extended the conunent period to August 16th. A letter was sent on . ^ _e'__ " ........-.. r'\.r.^/" _ ,"('_...,.:'__ -;- .L1_ - ____1.:......~_L,...., r-..........-1 ,-,..,....,...r'\.,"'"'\r1~.........rr "'Dcirlont-c +ll~t thP t,^Tn ~tn""\T J-i...UbU~L L-J, LUVV, ~lVL.LLJ.L..LL6 l..J..l"- .......t'y.......................L..LJ -......- .....-------------0 -----~.--. .. -..J residential permit and minor residential permit were approved on August 21 st. On September 6, 2006, the City received two appeals on this project. One appeal was filed by John Tracy and Jessica Rose. The other appeal was filed by Elena Herrera and Subir Sengupta. [Jiscussion: Job,]1 Tracy and Jessica Rosel adjacent residential neighbors '.;\Tho reside at 1U410 f\nn 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 h-ee 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. Theypropose" a' fauX balcony in lieu of ci:true balcony~fqtthe master bedroom. They do not believe the landscaping plan.forprivacy 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 survlvmg. 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. ('2 -76 Jf1) 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 me 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 neigbborhood to tIle proposed residence, but that Heese larger bomes Ivere 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 in the 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 thatthe .~a1co:Q.ie.s 1?e minimal in size for the proposed residence and do not view into a neighboring'lot. . ..' -, "'. -. ,_. _..J_..-.;-........ _~-:-"._,.. Temperature and Glare , . . The proposed home will 'radiate heat and glare into the n~ighborhood 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 fac;:ade of the home. Privacy Screening Although the adjacent property to the east signed a privacy protection waiver, they re'quest 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. D They would like further clarification on how the tree is to be protected if the 'arborist recommends a minimum IS-foot distance between the tree and the home, and the proposed home will have a lesser setback. The arborist's recommendaJions on root exploration, story pole placement and review of utility line locations should be addressed. {'L-79 tf~tf Appeal ofR-2006-08 & RM-200f . "- October 10,2006 Page 5 Staff Response 1 he proposeci resluence wee L::; ct~~ ~c: v C:~UrJ1.LlC.I.L~ ';~a~-lC:u.';'-:::'.; ~':'';'' u. ~-..-;:; :::~;:;:::J- :::::::::::::::::-:.::=, 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. Howeverj the Zoning Ordinance states: "The goaf of the permit is not to require complete visual protection, but to address privasy protection to the greatest extent while still allowing the construction ancfuse''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 supplement landscaping on the west side of the property. The condition requires the applicant to plant two additional 15-gallon, minimum 6-foot high Pittosporuin shrubs along the west property line to provide the ( :L -'tf) +--5 Appeal ofR-2006-08 & RJ\1-200c October)O, 7006 Page 6 reC!,uired 'l)rivacv protection for the second story window and the balcony of the proposed residence. The applicant is agreeable to these condItIOns. 1 ne applicanT nab 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. Oale Tree 111e City Arborist has provided supplemental information (See Exhibit C) to the original arborist report stating that the h'enching for the proposed residence be no more than 14 fe.et 2 inches from tlw trunk (If the oc",k tree, as opposed to the 15 foot distance previously stated, during construction of the residence to preserve the tree, TbIs would allow the home to be constructed per the approved plan with a 14 foot 2 inch setback from the trunk of the h-ee. 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 reconunends are met. A condition of approval to the applications requires that the tree protection reconunendations in the arborist report be met. . Temperature and Glare ,. rhe ZOlJJ:ng Ordinance does not require a study of temperature and glare for approval oLa residential design review. The proposed residence will provide a red tile roofing"- - --~Ifd-:peach colored stuc.c;o ex~erior that are consistent with Mediterranean style homes -fha'( are found withll the Garden Gate neighborhood. Therefore, staff has no criteri~(tb 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&v-0 eljY-c'~:""" / Vu.......'--" 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 :jplanninglpdreportj AppealsjR- 2006-08 .doc ' jl-51 1f~& 1 Application No. 2. Applicant(s) Name: 3. Appellant(s) Name: Address Phone Number Email \ExhibU A /@r ~ fG In WI ~fFI11 U UL SEP 6 2006 jIW CUPERTINO CITY CLERK Citv of Cupertill10 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3223 APPEAL '\:J t,~~'_ ,-~- ~2. ('~-n lJ ' "- (; r:f" .j (,iJ"i,!j -r~~ 1/\ . -\ .--- ,~l..C'lT> /~l .-" i -, ( - , ./ ('i i ' \/1 C I ___'. t ~ h . 6UJ.',J!..-5 'v JC})(i-\CC\'CI./\ 6\ '-5 cSs)Cc\, '\<.s:sQ..... u \ 0 L\ l () r':\ n t'\ 1=\, bur \-=1 v~ l\ O~ ' ~s S '. 5 1'2..--6. y- r~ (J 1.......,.. C. -:J 6' \ \ L \ 1 u u:,,~ 'f 'L.A, \''':~ ~ ~ s aC::::J\\J DO, . '(1--12.. \. 4, Please check one: , 1/1\]Jpeal a decision of Director of Community Development Appeal a decision of Planning Commission 5. Date of de~ermination of Director or mailing of notice ofGity d_~(;:Jsion: oj 23/ 0 6 6. Basis of appeal: -5 [e c'\.. H V'I C lif. (l. }") :u I 1 \.. (;1, Df..')'~\i C\ '\ u~~ 4 s 0" (i e ; c) ') 0;' C\ > ,().,-0,o ,e. \,-, "". v...r~t... C:~f'o.<::..~" .c..t,A ',r _L-, - - , (~)'r \l G '0 \l'." ' 0---L (Y"" 0.- ("'" ck" 1,t" i vec"~ k 1\,-,- , <'eVv bo, \ GO'" Ie 1'\-,.)\ _!{\ ',jOl.c;\',u.. 0 v,- .\2..>()'5 h\0~ fPn'.J c~c ~ ~'~0dl aE..C\.S Ol~ ' L'J e- C'\.;~L 0\ Is 0 ' CJ.:' n c.e/i>t\_i2.LA...... c"- J-:) o....""'-/j- h"l_ f-J...O h,,'l(v D u,/ k. c>-y~ r'r-~-/ (j?1O (j;'Xr'J0 . Signature(s) a.-c'~0=;'~_' ~ (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. ll.--I;" 4---"7 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 isto 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 this balcony violates OUI right to privacy in our house and yard, affects the quality oflife we enjoy and will affect the value of our property. Any person using this balcony will have a full view into OUI 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.:._Gat~ neighboiQ(LO.gj~ nWced with single and two-story homes. We were part ofa core group that annexed bur"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 I L -6 ] 1 *~ nul' h<",Jr ~T"'r-r'f (nr- ....l11t ....mr hn1JC:p. window) to a balconv 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 pUl])OSe of a "view" that can only be enjoyed at the expense of the 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 propelty A_D.Y vievv's beyond that will be include neighboring propeliies. Vie encourage YOLl 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 any 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 lin1ited 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 propeliy owner to present a landscaping plan that meets the minimal ordinance requirements for a two- '.storyIi6use,~:Q:Ii~e..~!ter.Upts so far) we do not believe that within three years a landscapmg 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. '.. ., , ._.' _ ..._......z~ . w Protection Plan for the Oak Tree The City of Cupertino has not followed the recommendation of their arborist to take the minimum required measures to assure survivability of the maj or' 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 number of factors. To list a few: r 1-[ tf 2 tf--;.-C] 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 trunk ,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 minimum 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 . dpeto the size of this oak in the backyard, we question if the oak might llinder the expected growth of the privacy screening plarits and trees. ~--;);:x:~r2i{the City of Cupeitillo' 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 this oak tree a fantastic example of a species native to California landscape, and a rerrlinder of the rural roots of Cupertino and the Garden Gate tract,. but it provides all of us in single~story homes who surround this 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 this 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 Qur home would be deterred by the impact ?f the balcony structure. l2.-O'f 3 t-/-'I () &hn}}~t B tr"'I.!!. ;~_ _.1P U"i__ _ _ __.L.~_ ~ .'-..ILl.J VB. 't\.......-1.l...ajtY"'JL 1(....1UUlV froJl ~ (C ~ fw ~r~ u ~I SEP 6 ZJ06 IlW CUPERTINO CITY CLERK tTTy"(j'F' , CUPErQ"INO 10300 Torre AvenMe CMpertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3223 APPEAL 1. A.pphcatlOll No -J<- Ji ;(X, L 2;' 1):'_ \v'l .:~ll~LC' I "I Appellant(s) Name: (\J~~t t' / , , \' (tf "viA /]" ' j, I ' PI j.' I " I'- '---'IJ ...U -t.- ,') 2. Applicant(s) Name: 3. ('" )-- ,<" 'I \. -7.._, ,; J("O L.r ,.. TJfr .~ -/ fil. .' fl r 7 Address e:') ,I ! L~ ''\ /^ [/"_,...-, l,' ; ,^ '1>'11,)_ ,_rl :) (I 1:::1 Ic,LI''--'L) 1 ,f\ I) F I' ' Phone Number 4 t~ ,}S,;L () C;CJ L iJ -' '1 Email -- 4. Please check one: \( Appeal a decision of Director of Community Development Appeal a decision of Planning Commission 5. Date-ofdeterrnination of Director or mailing of hC)ti9~5!f City,decision: Co. 0-2] --V ~ 6. Basis of appeal: S'-t~ ~d~ /L/~. 00 Please complete form, include appeal fee of $-1-45'iJO, and return to the attention ofthe City Clerk, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, (408) 777-3223. U/ LL ' / I .f I I 7/.%''/ [L-/ , i.JUlv ,~"-------' / . ',-- S ignature( s) { 2 -010 +/l ELENA HERRERA SUBIR SENGUPTA 21150 GRENOLA. DRIVE r-n'ncn--rT'h.Tn rA c)l'i.01d 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 !\ugust,200G" Item:~ - B,l1conies has been added iiS 3 c,wcem upon fllrther reviev/ ofthe jJrojeoci Item 1 - Consistent with existing l)eighborhood look and feel In the cover letter sent by the city, dated July 11 2006, the intent to approve tbe 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 oflife, 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 turn to solitary living within the four, huge walls. As a small example, the city ordinance "encourage porches"- directly supporting tbis community living. This home does not emulate the spirit ofthe ordinance. ill These larger~hoI!l~,s covet: ~<:tIITuch;ofthe width of the lot, are so close to the front ofthe 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 l1lles for width and size, and there may be precedent, but it is our contention that the current l1lles 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 turnover in the neighborhood rather than the preservation of it. .. The plans for this home show a turret - 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 on Green Leaf Dr. (and other GG blocks) east of Stelling where older ranch homes have mostly disappeared to be replaced by the Mediterranean style. I do not object to the style, only to the fact that now the majority are ofthis 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 have their own look and feel. Tills is important to the reference of "Green Leaf Dr., east of Stelling having turned over to completely new 'look and feel' ". 11-8 '7 WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 06,2006 PA.GE 1 OF 3 J+-/ ~ ELENA HERRERA SUBIR SENGUPTA 21150 GRENOLA. DRIVE CUPERTINO, CA 95014 408.252.lJ5U4 E) 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 guardian of the intelligent and well-though out grovvth 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, took, and feel of its neighbors, has 3l fmlJi'-u:u- garage, tluee 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 Greno1a - the large out-of-scale property noted above. To use this as a precedent for further growth and developm~nt 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, are minimal in size and are not sighted near the intersection of a neighboring lot. To place a balcony near a corner 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 COllliDon 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: Temper-atureCHeat) and Glare When purchasing our home, moving from a neighborhood even closer to Memorial Park, we _ ---.gp-ec1eit Q):l.r~;feAl~.F~~QT se~rch 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 current, 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 comfort 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 look 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 {?- --OJ , +--/3 ELENA HERRERA SUBER SENGUPTA 21150 GRENOLA DRIVE n l:: ,.. 1 It 408.252.0504 Item 4: Privacy Screening The privacy screelling-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. We request that the privacy screening landscaping requirements be reinstated on the east side of the pro]2ertv 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 of the tree being less than 15ft. from the perimeter of the foundation. TIlis 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 of the 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. Ell The report states that schematics/plans for utility lines and plumbing/sewer lines be _, ..._.:......, .~.:;7_->-i:-,...:-... "-.:_. presented before coming to any conclusions. _''''''u:c".~~~..--YVe hold the city accountable for the well-being of this tree, a determination that may take years -~- -:c,"':'l1",.'e.....t6-realize. So many trees'have been takerl.down, against city ordinances and guidelines, or eYC;U",,,,, -', 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, SEPTE!vffiER 06, 2006 PAGE 3 OF 3 ('J-- go, Lf- { tf ~ARRI~ D, ~OAT[; AiJD ~OCIAT~ hh~bit C ~()tticwfturar c.oru:wltan~ Pf-lO~!; (4-W) g5g.1052 f:M (4.0'6)-3Sg-1Zg,? ZgS3S ~ummJt Ro.ad, Lns GBt~, CA 9S0gg ~ A X TO; A k~ HCJVld CL ~ax #; f1<m.4: BEm1e D. CMte DA TL R[;:: 'if \))'(1') & t~e,~,o\ CL V I~ I 777~3375 b - '23" -{) G ~>jUM8~R OR PM~~ / C-C C-l ; f-f'c <tSJ vJ Ie? rz3 f - rgSq -67 e I COMMENTS: M \'-""-3 ~ H (!) GLd r1L, , -- I 1- \th C f \ J- >f<9 r\\? If f _ C{ I ,p C'A3 \)J <S' 5> -+ h h 1M (I \- Vll vi g ~ h <0 GL t 4 r-e ~ c k ~,,(g ..per> r ct i'o '-CctJ <:L} Ea:> '1 V1 eo r- DC( k t-ye~i.q:t- ( · . tUG' ~~~~C'('PI't:od tiAaJ +ff'li6~fctg b P V/n r (en s -. (fil f\-D vvt i0z e f(--V1(1i ~ w'~ (\ Ie kr---, C()U)[t:?~ v{ D W f(\{ds;.1 ~ ~ + +[1 cp aj~j-<< o:J+r:euc0~ w,rOl{~rcf"Ua(;p>L+(1)db e 14/ 21/ ~ roVU '1 ~ t I-f'UJ1 K-C' , 'T~ e J fff\? r0 V(C~ 9 0m GL( 1- IA D f b e 5'(! !-J r(; \ (' ",-v('{ J dct J 5' h@ c-d d J2 e 00 t{ 52 (\J Q r-e d Q>rc('f1-~J, (p 5,cv[(f~t-~ ((; , ddjJrft~.. ", 11---QO 4--t S &tdoit C AkiHonda From: Ciddy Wordell Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 2:57 PM To: Aki Honda Subject: FW: email from Michael Bench --mOriginal Message--m Fronl': BARRIE D COATE [mailto:bccoate@verizon,net] Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 12:19 PfVJ 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 ': "~:;;-~r;ro... - 9/20/2006 ().-1 { J}r/ & Exhibit 0 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 Telephone: (408) 777-3308 r.~JPEI\IINO ." A "'\'r /A.......r..\ -'"-7-, ""'""1"""'"1 L'[l..iL \'XVUJ I II -oJ,-,oJoJ 'COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT August 23,2006 Cliff Cowles PO Box 223201 Cannel, California 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 two-story, 4,219 square foot residence, and a Minor Residential permit to allow the construction of two balconies on the neW residence on property located at 21180 Grenola Drive, with the following conditions: 'Cr ,." 1. APPROVED PROTECT This approval is based on a plan set entitled, /I 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 b~ciroom 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 rriarmer 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 O\1VTlers 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 (2 -q ;L 4-~{l Printed on Recycled Paper K-lUUb-Utl, KM-lUUb-l.:$ 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 .. 0_' _ "0. _, ',_ .1__ "--'_-":"--"7-:-~--~.L.-.-.... I\r-..........-..l':'~...................,.......,.f- nOT""\.......,...~D,..'"l.f- reCOraaIIUIl lllU::iL ut:: ;:'ULJl.l.l.HLCU. LV L,J.l'-- '-'-'U~U~L~"J ~ -. _.~ r~---~'- - -r --- -~------ prior to final occupancy of the residence. S. PRIVACY. 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) IS-gallonr minimum six-foot high Pittosporum non-deciduous shrubs (of a species listed m tbe elty' s approved landscape rnitigation measUJ~es plantinp: list) 111 addition to the two (2) IS-gallonr ffinunmrn, six-foot high Plttosporurn non- deciduous shrubs along the west property line to provide the requiTed 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 propertyr 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 Departinent prior to issuance of building permit(s). The City Arborist has confirmed that the eXlshng Coast Live Oal<. tree is appropriate for screening purposes in terms of species, size and health. The Coast Live Oak tree shall be recorded on tbe property as a protected tree along with the new privacy trees and shrubs to be p~arlted 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. CONSULTATIONWTTH OTH:ER 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) (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 2 /1---13 Z+"--I~ R-2006-UiS, KM-IUUb-U Page 3 66020(0.), has begun. If you fail to file a protest wltlun this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally ,_, _ ...,~..,.._:.,j .L_.~__ 1.... 1................... ,...1-....... 11o"T""l ~-n rT C11rh ov:::.r+-l nnQ V(.....LL.L.............. ..L....'<-J....l-L. .....__............. -....------.0--0 - ---' "0 '.. Please be awaTe that if this permit is not used within one year, it shall expire on August 23, 2007. Staff received comments from numerous neighbors expressing concerns about the project, The City received emails and letters from adjacent neighbors expressing concerns about privacy irnpacts onto their adjacent properties due to the second ,story windows and balcunies and the health and retaming of the eXlstlng rnature uak tree In response to these concerns, the applicant 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 staff's attention by one of the adjacent property owners that the privacy protection proposed along the west property line did not sufficiently lll.eet the City'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 residence, compatibility with the neighborhood, privacy protection and preservation of the oak tree. -Additionally, a concern was raised about the color of the proposed residence and the amount of heat that could be radiated due to the ,proposed color scheme. Upon review of these comments and concerns, staff has .determined that the prop?sed project is in compliance with the development standards for the Rl-7.5zonIDg district in which the property is located, 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 City'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 irl 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 !J.--'jY t-l--Lq R-2006-08, RM -2006-13 Page 4 Please note that an appeal of this decision can be made within 14 calendar days hom the date of this letter. If this happensr you will be notified of a public hearingr which will be scheduled before the 1-'lanning Lornrrussion. Sincerely, /.~ , / I [&1&- '\~lI{1/L6Ltf~ Aki Honda Selllur PlaJl.TH"r City of Cupertino ,Enclosures: Approved Plan Set Tree Evaluation by the City Arborist Cc: Homa & Mehrdad Mojganir 22370 Palm Avenue, Cupertinor CA 95014 . Jessica Rose & John Tracy, 10410 Ann Arbor Avenue, Cupertinor CA 95014 Lester Bowersr 21181 Hazelbrook Courtr Cupertinor CA 95014 Elena Herrera & Subir Senguptar 21150 Grenola Drive, Cupertinor CA 95014 Tibor Polgar, 10373 Ann Arbor Avenuer Cupertinor CA 95014 Kathy & Bob Bergerr 10439 Ann Arbor Avenuer Cupertino, CA 95014 -[,ee XUr 21164 Grenola Driver Cupertinor CA~5014 -=- ~. ~ -' '.., - -- ~ _. ~ G: \ Pla.nning \Minor Residential \Rl Approvals \R-2006-08 Actionletter.doc 4 f L-1 J *-2D 4\1'.0" :~ "".2' !-c> LOld" I " " ,.'-."~; '",'~'"Y LL~ .A" ~~'" //// - - -- -, /., ... . II ~.;i 'i<- ">\. y-eJ" c e"\ ~:' , , "VI ' , H' ',' iT "-,",n_; ,,?:: ~ #;-'~r<:X"" ,P_ ;~y ,} \fO(\ -I'D GO S+ --' ,.I ,17G,:1~.1 ,I T ,'- _,L,[ ,~l ~I J n 5, ll.c o~ y ok" \\~ nailing -~ . 1=:1", ..,' ,":, '.I.., i: Ll ~, ,,'"'' I' ,I _or l-T <;"f" ...,~,I..,L I ",LI,.1 I T 1'-"'11 11 ... F ..1 ~- '" ,,"eo ,.- - ' . ' .- '. ., "'. '" ..J' . _.1 ,L"P"'" T - j .LJ! ~ .. - - I'~ 'I--- 1 1111'-16" - I' 60710 Slidil1 d G.I f'ixed81A vr" .J1'iJ 5S Door w 26710 w ng both sides(Te ) mp. 1.....1 ,If I ~::Ji, ~~- i -~ I!~'" i , =1 '; I " (( nil s ~ ~":t,:r ~I~ tt1 Suite ~;a n:l:..' - Pro, /\ I ,,,,,,,,""""''''1'P I ~ 'b, J. .i~;~~: ~:~er); 7~2 sc i ~___c 1"_____ ""< 1 :::r -..\_~I) '1' F" "'~ ] L~ r--R '- ~ .I ."f! ,- T / t\', jh // -i 1\ '\.. 1 i8---- ~L _, i I '\' , ~ 2~~a _/;",- /I "im 1 ~ · I ,,-, I-- ~I:;" - T n ~ {Ter~ 1./' If s. , .........~~., I -j-l'" 1 " ! ,I, 111:6: dl.i'J Jr' a.tl I I I' l' L,;J. LL , It , ,It I --r- , --r r- '0 , a.... .... ~ . ~ .... Master Bedroom I 15'.6" 1 -\ I L ,I --r :T I - I 1.....1 L Ll<!' ; "7 -+- '"H -t- '0 T -r- Coo , -t-' \r,) -"1~2678 sc 9'-6 1 '7\ !I' 'I I --r -'k-- -I 1 T , , -I 'I , 5'..0" "rtT T ~ , ;'" V SEe ION "11' 1 -,- - -. v -.9 - 'f r.J c: c: - Q -+--" o -I;:;;::;: co -"'=00 00-- ILl _ ~ 0.. '"@ '"-- =- _ >-::::l <1> 0-.9- 0 ..0-> ar 0... -.... :0.- cd ffi <C::2: CL c: ~ a:: DC ~g8 ('i "- -:r rF \{r ~ : ~ ~ l . . ~ t ~ r:. pcr~!f;~.'-~-~C~-~'~7~ l :~_~:C~:,:':~--: II '"ce' / / l~} f--"", ../ II ""'(' ( I, ;/'/'v.' '. ~~/ 2!i~~/ 2D~~ (-)- i~ ii..".......t i:..." '!.,J t' .....,.. ,. ' r -fc-r,,~2.~"'t~~,~J;\ 9?D?O'OO"E, \ r":, <:."....- 2!'~~;'" . , V\lOaD f=ENCE ,'-:--"" --,-'---:-- '~"'*' ~ ~- ,..;=,-':.-=--~.~-:=.;" ....:€: cornE:! 205~-9~ 5~ /~ ~.. r ; ;," ,:" I '. <' .,...,_:1>,'- D I 'P. ,/ _1 nc.."\.rY~l'cl':;/-' ~: . " r. . p. I&~b.~~l ~" ""c c . 1 / ~'1"" /.3 ,r:~ t,~ '-., . ~ --J---- --.......- 7 \ -'-. ...........-;:') . ~..~")"... ,) ,.... r-.i~ \ .-..- ,- ~!:;'~--i"b""--~-~\,;\. , \ , \ t.", 1 o~k 36.-40 .L l' "'-.c;________~ -..... _.?..;~'~/, ~~,f.r.' ..-~ \ . i I, ,: ~.~ ....:.....- J J '~ ;,' ...>C' ..,~: !' >: ~. ,cr,,; _. . }~1;::;;'"C11s 1\, . ~~. ._f IZndStc>ry 1'0 I " ~~_--------' /:,.;:< . (: ~ ", J. '1~ ~ 3~f~:~' & Hs Ii/"'/. "'.' /. ',' ..' / /' " -' ../ :... . ....!.!o"" "'."-1_,-,,', .~_, -j \ '~.~~- " 0 , H' ," . .~~.' " .' , __ ,:,.,."--,-U/,/ . ,'I, ,::;c::cr, I , . '. ,. L U - ..-'j " " \ I; 0 , . ,.' .' ./ -..L~' '/"i-o::-:~,,--=;;y.'7' i r;.----;: ,: . . '. '.,:. " "~ . .~ 0 .. ,. '.1, ',' .'., l~"'7-CL,'_-:' ~.'~l'l-'--' j' / / .'" .' ,".!' t, 'i \ 'Z / '.-' ... :,'l/ . ~j ~~S/" ?,.,;..' /' / " // .,., ".';J'>,~ r i j ." '. ,!,,//,"_ "t.J /./ / //' / / --- /.-' ,.1/11 ,;' , .' .' " ;;J..:.J " " ' ,./,. 'D , ' .' ./', ',', "'1~;' - q,"l':J:I'/ " ... / .' .' / .,' , / /,)'.' I': ~",,.,,,, i,;{~t > 1-;;;;.'~;;;:{> /> 'N~.4;2{if s,(//A !;Ji-~: . it . ","3; ''1Yef/j..: '::' :,!~j~OO sY / (" //~JlLI1f..(f;;,l /7/'/ /., ,: 1 )1 i~~"! ~~ 1/"/' "{//./~' ,;"',,","",, ;" .',' ",1:..7 "'J1:l!rn\)1~f / ...-' ,",.." -l"h ~ i:' 'l3 "/" ,'I" ,,',ll:1i,e'e,r,y (' . ( h(;." ="'T~J' '/' /' .", .<'- )j"b{,~/'" l'...,' J~,l' .u'/~ /~ . .,' .... -'Q-;p" / .f' / ... / / .' (, .t~ 1 ;\:1 E''':n,s'~,"-._~_;::::_~'-<--J_,--,--,-:........~='.E:....,,_ul!J~C''''..J'z:.~:,.:l:. ;' - , ..-' " I '::; %~'r1 H'V< -"':i< />~, ~;&i'f[~;" (A::::-l : ";.J[\!i'[\g~ I' , ,"',' , ' ' . .' ' :,.' I ,I. I ' .!\iSp';,f{..'\ L 1.;''',/ /,.'........."/,.../li,, ,.,. ..",' .-- / .' '... ~',~~), ,:>\ j ~~~~),: I' r L~'....,/><./'. ~/ / ['>/ ..(,'//./'// \';{f('r/' <) i ..-... '!'!" ,t' : >' /.., P.tAT<R ~1 {2.iZ.o,g ./ ./ ____. ;"",' :. . 1.. J . i -. ".' -j; ."? C-.,. -;&. .." / . . - " ~ .' ...., : I:' i' ~ ,i; ./ -'rF. o~ ;;..:L,~05:2EV' --- / . ..' :, ~.',~" 5' ,'.,', --1U'-'}~T;~- i r .'. l' I" ,~~..r ~/ '/./' ~l-ill rill !G' / ./ ;,.0:. !'.q ~. ~ ..... :t._ _0.<>-: 4-~ . , 'I' ,,' / ,/. ;;>v ,u i " ,r ..' .", : .'<" .. ' ., L ""id" ~Jocr<ll " ::< :. i l i t:~;~::~>>~~';~~~~l'i'~~!i:~\~;~~" Ii ," ',' 1.1 10 . f / / / J /I'i/~D.~/.' ..'~ //--, " :,:<:,--' ~: I ~ L7~<..~,~~/~,~..~ :.:~<!.::~"">>,7~:';~":~><;< ", :..~. .' ':' '~i \1; EL' ,It " ".'.''''' ',' . , . J .' .. '/..,~ " .. .I" " , f , .' , ! I,. .,'/' ',( , r;....'.... ,.>~.<>:/<.:///////-<./ ....'./ <,.'>;>;"'; '~''', :!~, t. "... .', <, j \ \ ~ / , .. ti, .,. J / . / (. . / / I (r L .___ .___(_~.-,----- '-' -' .' ,_.1, I ;_;--~~_ ~~...:. ., ..t /'.~~. / t;!l-:"" .. ,.. ,- 'e -- -. -. -.--,..----"- _-r ." - ,;;:-- -. "nol(~) , . . ' , i ~ -...~, ----,' 1<-' .' ,'J ' , ~"1 .. ,--" -.,-.." ,'- -- - ,.U c!_ I ' I ~..:/lj r-.":",!'~~~ :f~rr:~~:f1~ci~~:i~::~_!_--- II , ,., .,.,,, . .. . ,'l~,,"" I __---- " . -1L-"""- ,.:'"";~~.,;t;:'1tr~~t:~~~'j~------1'. ~\' ~\l ! ~~"M' . " - L I l ""1\" i 0 '. " \ ~--':_-/...-,- . '" A '~b-\\ If'<i' ", / -____1 . iCmil cte. t '\~i' jFra:al -r....-1 GRAVEL ....,--// ~Il---.?-=-- E.x1s "'th . g I~b=::,/ ' ! tPrive a'iW'f ~_~-----~----- I ~-~:-I\-~l"\'''' "'-"1 ---- \i~---5~..... ~'" ."..ll_,_....5l..:j~"--- _, J 15.4:' PlL 00..5' E,<(;. .~" ,~., J 'k ~~J& _()i'~.on'n"'c" I I fJ 1J! 2p" . ^ ,. .' , . >~~::.:.~.I j, // " r' ','~. ,,'\ 1 . l i . ~. - ._.-.~':~} '0, .( ,," '1" r, ../ ' i i (.' .f I \,:;,_1-, , ' i I f'"< t\. \ ,\ li ["! "15!-;r1, ".:---r-' :~~.:\d '"te> :;' l ' ~~l\b"d~ II . !.-' -j ~ I ! \ , ~ e ~ i ~ ~~\. ~ 'D 0 l!1 b "~I ~ . G'..61 r l,,, ,. .::~: ~ ,-,do I ! ,;;'i.~:) ,~ /" I:.:...;..: _ ^( .-=-..r'~-~~ ~ ~ R Application RM Application (~t -d wb ~ 13 Appro!aI Date i!;!: 'OG Slgnalure 0 jJr ~' . ,w'--- !Case Manager) = {L-q, t-t - :.{ ;z Privacy Landscape - 21180 Grenola Dr. Cupertino Type Height Spread Planting distance max A Cedrus Deodara 80' 40' 20' B Cedrus Deodara 80' 40' 20' C S.Magnolia 80' 40' 20' D S. Magnolia 80' 40' 20' E S . I\1agJrlO Iia 80' 40' 20' F S.Magnolia 801' 40" 201' G S.Magnolia 80' 40' 20' H Cedrus Deodara 80' 40' 20' I Cedrus Deodara 80' 40' 20' J Pittosporum 40' 20' 5' K Pittosporum 40' 20' 5' L Birch 20' 10' M Mary Magnolia 20' 10' ;f All +v--ce<; fV1IV). 7-4(( bo'( ~ ;rJnlY7, h~{tJh.1- '0/ ~u~k plc#1ko!" .~ A1A Sh.-rvths m I n [c;1~ 115Yl t VVlI V\ Co/0,,;'10 p /?fY1+-e.J. ; ,.-~:. -- R Application R ~ :),oof:, -0(3 RM Application fA -:;< [Job ~ / 3 Approval Date . ~J2H)b Signature !ih~!l d .~ ~ase Manager) I L -1 f 4";13 -~~ ;-' -~~ . I L -,1t:t tf <;J)-f BARRiE D. CO , -I: and ASSOCiA Tl HorticL!tural ':::onsultants 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, ':A 95033 ~C'~.~,~'j ~ r:!5? RE C EIVED M,AY 1 8 Z006 EVALUATION OF TREES AT THE COWLES, PROPERTY 21180 GRENOLA DRIVE, C lUJP'JE R TJ:N 0: 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 Ap,p-,Ii,r:ur.ltl~,on /) ') u , K-~ODb -~ RM Application KM - doob ~ /:3 Approval Date 6 ~':26 -0/,') Signature a [/J'; c/Jtvu;fr- (Case Manager) . /L-ftrO +-25 EYALUATlON OF TREES AT Th..O\VLES RESIDENCE, 2] 180 GRENOLA DRIVE, CUI INO Table of Contents Assignment Summary Observations Methods Comments about Specifie Trees Protected Trees Risks to trees by Proposed Construction Recommendations Eru:losures Page 2 Page 2 Page 2 Page 2 Page 3 Page 3 Page 3 Page 4 Page 7 R ApplicatIon ;( - ~O{)b -or;? RM Appiication , 0vr -;;,JoOfp-/3 Approval Date 6 ~:;2:3 -010 Signature (il Li 'Vkvul ,0- ~ , (Case Manager) Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist , /2-/0/ April 2ih, 2006 t.{,~ d-~ EV ALVA TION OF TREES AT Till WLES RESIDENCE, 21180 GRENOLA DRIVE, CUFf ./0 2 A "",unml"lflY "0'-- .,-- I was asked by Aki Honda, Planner, City of Cupertino, to evaluate the exisling trees iUGdU:;U at 21180 Grenola Drive, Cupertino. The plans provided for this evaluation are the Construction Plans prepared by Cliff Cowles, Carmel, Sheets AI-A8, dated 2-28-06. Summary Tnere are 2 trees included in this inventory that may be damaged by proposed constmction One tree is located on this property, and one IS located on the adjacent propeliy toward the soutn 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 # l' 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 ofthe 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 ofthese 2 trees and their approximate canopy dimensions. The 2 trees are classified and given an overall condition rating as follows: Tree # 1 - Coast live 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 stmcture of each specimen is rated on a scale of 1-5 (Excellent - Extremely poor), which provides the basis for the overall 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 Yz feet above soil grade. This is referred to as DBH (Diameter at Breast Height). The diameter of Tree # 2 is c CD ~ .estimated by visual observation at a distance of about 10 feet. I stepped off the canopy spread of JS ~ 8 Tree # 1 from north to south and from east towest. The height and canopy spread of Tree # 2 is ~ .0 C:B ~ ~stimated using visual references only. These trees have been added to the Site Plan, of which a - 0- ~ e; ..g ieduced version is included in the attachments. 0- 0- c::;: , ~ 0-.Q>[lJ ;:r:.. <C Cf) ~ Prepared by: Michael 1. Bench, Consulting Arborist April 2ih, 2006 12-- r D d.- q......;Ll EV ALUA TION OF TREES AT THt. ~OWLES RESIDENCE, 21] 80 GRENOLA DRIVE, CUP. !NO 3 CommelIus avuUlL :;pc..:.i;1.:. ':'~.;:;;:.: 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 of this limb has broken off (photo in attachments). The removal ofthis limb appears to have reduced the screening value of this tree in the lower 6-10 feet of the canopy. However, 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- 1/2 feet above grade lts 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 ofthe 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 Architectw:al and Site Approval Committee to have a special significance to the community." A "Spec.imentree" means any of the following: Species _, MeaSllIement from Natural Grade Single Trunk Diameter/Circumference Multi- Trunk Diameter/Circum feren-ee~ Oak trees; Califorriia Bucke e 4 Vl feet 10 inches (31 inches C ) 20 inches D (63 inches C) 4 1/2 feet 12 inches 38 inches C 25 inches D 79 inches C) Both Trees # 1 and 2 are protected by City of Cupertino regulation, ",," '~ 5ID~ -.2 ~,8 '(J If Tree # 1 is to be preserved, both the root loss and the canopy loss must be limited to a maximum _~ . 0....(;3 ~ ~ of25% total. These (root loss and canopy loss) are not separate unrelated events. They are parts of 8:~ e .g ~ a single living entity. Thus, both canopy loss and root loss must be considered as a whole. <C ~ 6:.s,=; Concerning Tree # 1, if the trenching for the footing or for perimeter drainage would result in an CC a::: ~ en S2.. ' 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, COflsulting Arborist Apri12ih, 2006 [ 2.- {D 3 Hr2~ EVALUATION OF TREES AT TIll IVLES RESIDENCE, 211&0 GRENOLA DRlVE, CUFE m 4 c:;>[i;,-,::..~c.:: :;:-::::: ~==::: :::!:2<::O;~, tl.p,p IT1lld hp: nn significant canopy loss. Also, bear in mind that the recovery period for a major loss (root, canopy, or both) is 2 years. We consider 25%-30% total lOSS 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. Inmy opinion, story roles for the soutn side of the new residence would 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. ~r;~ : It does not appe~r 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 potentfal 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 lll1derground 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. 8m 5 "..;::::! ct:S "_;::::; ~ Cl ~ = ca ~-=" 0....::> ::::i g, .CLottia ,.,..L.<:C D- c:::;;: ~:2 CL"Q>~ 0:: 0::: c:::::C. (f)~, 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% ofthe total canopy. If this cannot be achieved after evaluation, the location of the footing, which would result in root Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist April27ili, 2006 (L~fO i tf'al \:jJ ~ \, ~ C:a:>~ c:: -.8 ca ~ OCOo --s;s _S:;! _ <D-= (J- cO >--w :.::::::: ~ ';:::> .2 g> 0-.9- 0 CO a r.::::l- -.... >-- c:: ~ , .<C, "=. ~ en a> ..= CL-- ~ 0:: 0:: d:.:!: Cf) Q.. EV ALUA TrON OF TREES AT Tl-lli c;OWLES RESIDENCE, 21180 GRENOLA DRlVE, CUPL ..NO 5 l.oss, would be a mULe; pU~l1~. 2. With regard to potential root loss, I recommend 2 options: @ Relocate the footprint a minimum of 15 feet from the trunk of Tree # 1, or o 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 quantitiesofroots 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 \vuu\d be a mute ])oJnt, lfthe quantity of canopy loss \vo\11rl exceed 25% of the tot31 Companies that provide air-spade service include Urban Tree Senllce (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 effective. 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. lfhardscape (i.e'., curbing, paving, ek) exists inside this 13 foot radius, the , protective fencing is usually recommel1dedtopt;,erecc!c;d at the edge of the hardscape feature and be located at least 13 feet from the trunk minimum on all other sides. Occasionally it maybe es.sentialto have a certified arbonst..make'dedsions about the location(s') of protective fencing at the project site. . ' ' I recommend that protective fencing must: g 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. e Protective fencing must be installed prior to the arrival of materials, vehicles, or equipment. (& 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 April 'lih, 2006 (2.- (0 J i{~ /30 EVALUATION OF TREES AT THL _..JWLES RESIDENCE, 2J 180 GRENOLA DRlVE, CUPi NO 6 0>_ 1 ibt..iUll!lJ.l(.,l".LC: J. l\:,:'~ ::.:=:~=- :.~ f,::!! ~'lTQ' @ A 6 inch layer of course wood chips @ Topped with full sheets of 1-\12 inch plywood tied together. 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). El The wood chips must be spread by hand over the existing soil grade to a minimwn depth of 6 inches over the specific area to be protected. '" The plyvvood mUSL be secureu to plTvent slippage @ 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 recommendthat-theentire 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' r6'Ot-: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 l/4 to % inch in diameter primarily. One supplier is Reuser, lnc" 370 Santana Dr., Cloverdale, 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 ISA, Western Chapter Standards, 1998. 13. Any pathways or other hardscape inside the driplines of protected trees must be constructed completely on top of the 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 1. Bench, Consulting Asborist April 27f}" 2006 /2-iO& j},-3 { ( " EVALUATION OF TREES AT THE COWLES RESIDENCE, 21180 GRENOLADRlVE, CUP~ _,lNO 7 edges to integrate the new naru.::;t.;QVV ~v ~:lc, J.J.':"~-~;-,:'~ ;;:-:.:::-. 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 cine.clly III contact with the bark of trees because oftne 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 CaliforDia native oaks can be obtained from the California Oak Foundation, 1212 Broadway, Suite 810, Oakland, 94612. Respect ~~" Michael L. Bench, Associate ~a~r~ J\1l,B/ sh - ---: -; - .... '-'En'Clclsures:- .'. , '" - Assumptions and Limiting Conditions -_:-~-~ 'PhHtlr:-;,,:':::' , - .. - - Map Tree Chart '0 . -'.'"'!i ,-",-,,-,~,,.,.,,"~-'>---"'-~'" R AppHcation R - Jwb -09, RM Application 011- !Joole - /.~ Approval Date, (5 -:23-DIn Signature (tIu. (kJ/l f/j~ (Ca->€ Manage~ 12--ib7 Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consultiflg Asborist April zih; 2006 1[_7 ? lfl \ I \ I \ I \ 1 I I I \ 1 I I I I I \ ~, ' . IVI'\ Il'\..lVl.-! >oJ I ""- ......-. ----- HI 'f"~lication K ,- ;;'000 -OR RM Application 12M - ';?oofp -; ;.; Approval Date 0 -23 -Db ,~ Signature ri/u -fIzrJ - / (Case Manager) v f-.PLtf^....... , CONSULTING ARBORISTS ~ BARRIE D. COAH . and ASSOClA lES (400) 353-1052 ~ ''''''~.'""' . LOlGalOl,CA 95030 Tree numbers correspond to evaluation charts, All dimensions and tree locations are approximate, '1 ! .- 1\ to::. "'5 :.,~' VI [ "l:! V 9 ~' ':' "! t I:") 0 l ~. l> to ~, 'Q ~ ~ ,0' ~ III 1>0'.<1" ,..~ICIL' 1 t , \fJ)~\ i~t: ~ ~ m -!... \}J C} \}1 ~ c\ :,IUOllVll VI ll.......................... ....- -- 21180 Grenola Drive, vupertilo Requested by: Aki Horda Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consu ting Arborist Date: A ril 271h, 2006 Job # 04-Ot-088 This logo is atlached to a plan done by another pl1lfessional. The presence of lhis logo is not for the purpose of dah ning credit for the plan but merely to add horticultural or arboriculturll information to a plan repared by others, . i ~__:--~,_. I _--I .,' T , " ' !- \ I 1 \ ~t ~ 'H~ .''''t'- .... -....-l, \ t \ ~ I 1 \ I 1 \ 1 1 I, \," '. ," L..1,:,r ': l ' \ I I I I ___J' I \ \ \ "\" ----------\" ,. 'il\.... -. p. ~ i? ! \ .,\~,h.-.. \1" IP I ! \ \ , 20'-0' If'" tl IH i ; :;:' ~ 'tl! ~ , \ ' \ ., _..:....-\-i.Jl . \ ' ':I q, --------------- \ : \~ '~ \ , , , I \- , , L '- I 0 0 , U u 3'\= z i 0 D) \ :3 I 1::.. I I CD , , 0 I Q) 0 I 6 I 0 I CD ~ I I CD CD I I en I -0 I I ... , 0 I -0 I I CD I ;::l. I , ':.< I , IV , , , , .....,--.,._.-J~.,_ CD '--"i~ 0 I , G) I I ... , CD I ::J ___L___ I 0 I I m ---,..--- 1 0 I , -, ---+--- <' .CD , I , 0 ___1.___ , C I -0 , I CD ---,..--- ~ I I ::J I ---+--- 0 I I , , , I ---+--- I I I ---+--- I I I ---.--- I 1 l I I I ___1__'_ I '1' .1_' --"2--~._":_ I I I --+ I I , --+ I , I ~ --+-- <::-. ' ..... : II J ---t r..;. ... ~ l ': ~ ~-- _.:.-.!: -- ~ C 52~-- ~2 1tS ~ __~l -- 'ro .~ . I o - tti ~:~ --- 0...::> ::J,o> "'5- 0... -+-", "" CL <t: ~e ~~~- <C~ u:::: a: <t: ~! I 1 I 1 1 , 1 1 , I I , , : I I I , , , 1 , \ I' " I' ,. " " ,. I , 1 1 1 I , , 1 , 1 1 \ I , I , I , , , , I I I CI) , I I :1'0 I I I , I I , ___-t-___ I I I I ---T--- I I I ---~--- I I ! I I , ---+--- I I ---t--- I I I ___.L___ I I I i i i ~ I I I I I I' I I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I' I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I ,I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I T I I I , " I I I I I I I I 1 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 I I I I I I I It' .~=-~~"~-y==~.-+~-=:==~~~i~-)r'O'='~'7C~=' 1 l I r I I I I I I I f I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ___J-___ ___.L___ __~___ ___~___ ___k___ ---~--- I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----r--- ---T--- ---r--- ---T--- ---r--- ---,--- I I I I I I I I I I I I ___~--- ---t--- ---~--- ---t--- ---~--- ---~--- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ___-L___ ___1___ __~___ ___1_-- ___L___ ___J___ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I J I I I I I ___,-___ ---T--- ---r--- ---T--- ~--r--- ---,--- I I I 1 I I I I , I I I 1 I I I I I ---~--- ---+--- --~--- ---*--- ---~--- ---~--- I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I 1 I I I I I I , I _~_....1____ I I I I ---...,...--- I I , _ ___J..___ , I I I .. ___4-___ I I I , ---TOo-- I I I ___...L.___ I I I I I '1 ___J.___ I I I I ---.,.--- I I --- f--- I I I ---~--- I , I , ---,.--- I I I --_.&._-- I I I I I I I I I I , I I ---~~-- ---f--- I I I I I I ---~--- --_.&.--- I I I I , I I I ----r--- ---TOo-- I I I I I I ___~___ ___1_-- 1 I I I , I I I I I , I ___04-___ ---.--- I I , I I I : : .,... I I I I I I __-t-___ ---*--- I , I I I I ---l---- ---f--- I I , I I I --....1---- --_.&.--- I , I I I ,~ I I I I I I. __-L___ ---~--- I I I I I I -I. uL-.~ --""r--- ---.,........- I I , I I I --+--- ---f--- I I I , I I __-+-___ ___1-___ , I I , I I I , ---r--- ---i--- I I I I I , __-1.-___ ___J.___ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ---l---- ---f--- I , I I I I __~___ ___04.___ I I I I I I I I ---r--- ---,.--- I I I I I I __-L._";_ ___J.___ I I I I I I I I I I I I __~___ _--04--- I I I I I I I I ;0 10:0 ~:~ ~:2 i g:~ Ci:~ : 03.::::0 c: lC: : CI) lCD CI): < I CD:~ ~ ,CD : :3:0:::; 10 : u '0 9::m \ ~ in cu'i^ I "I I ~ @' : : : ::3 ~ : I en I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' , I I , If' .\ . & I _"'=rzc=::.."o'r~cc-c.:~-=:~::=\=.".7.~-~.O'~~==~~:O.:O..~.=~...:~=.c~==I=~ I 1----1.. l~' . I I Q) I. : : :N --~~--- ---~--- ---~--- : ! : s ---r--- ___~--- ---r--- _______________________________________ ro I I I Q) , I I DBH (/l ___~--- ___~--- ___~--- _______________________________________ C 1 I I ..., I I I en ___L___ ___1___ ___L___ 3 I I I ('0 I I I :J ___~--- ___~--- ___~--- ur 'i :0; !~ ---~--- ---~--- ---~--- ~ :0.' :01 I 10 1()1 i i I ,-'- I I ---...--- ---~--- I I : : -1- ---1---- ----1--- , I I I I I ___'-___ ___-1___ I I I ' ~ ! "1 I I ---1---- I I I I ---r--- , I I ---'---- I I : i I I ---.,--- , I ---~--- , I I I ___01.___ , I : - ~ _ "_._ : _', .'- r ',.-' ;-: "': I I _.1. I ---~--- ---i--- ---r--- ---1--- I ~ I I -. I I I I ~,I I _.:. I ,.0.1.- . ---:-r--- ...~--1,.--~~-' ~_:-I,---- ---..n--- .... 1,_ I .- I I I .---1---- ---f--- ~-+--- ----1--- I I I . t I I , I I I J I ---...--- ---~--- ---~--- ---~--- I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I ---r--- ---j--- ---r--- ---,--- I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I ___~___ ___~___ ___L___ ___-1___ I I I I I I I I I I I ~ I I I I , I I , I I ---l---- ----1--- I I I I I I ---1---- ---.1--- I I I I I I I I ---,--- ---,.--- I I I I I , __-1-___ ___.1___ I I I I I I I I I r I I ---1---- ---~--- I I I I I I r I I I , I I I I I I I ---1---- ----1--- I I , I I I ---~--- ---~--- I I I I I I I I ---.--- ---,--- , I I I I I ___L___ ___.1___ I I I I I I I I I I I , ___1-___ ___..l___ I I I I I I I ! I , I ___L..___ I , I I ---r--- , I , ___L___ , I I I I I I ___.1___ I I I I ---.,--- I I , ___J___ I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I I I , , I I I I -'- ___J.___ ___...L..___ ___J..___ __....1-___ ___J.___ ___L___ ___.1___ I I I I I I , II , I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I CD I , I I I I --- --- ---T--- ----r---- ---T--- --.--- ---T--- ---,---- CD I , I I I I r I I I I I ~ , I I I I I U ___1___ ___J..___ ___.L___ __J..___ ___.L___ ___L_-_ --- --- , I 1 , I , m 01 I I I I I I lCl I , I , I I CD II I , I I I I -" :2 0 0 ...." ...., -" ~ I I I , , -" I : :l;j:: I u 0) :J .-+ ~ ~ ~ ~~ '-" c.n ~O 5iO ..." -=1 Frl c.n b:O >> ;::'0 ~ Frl V (J o :;1:> -l FFI Z m :3 CD at:3 ot:l s~ ~l Be o~ DIAMETER@ 4-1/2 FEET --------------------------------------- MULTI-SYSTEM DBH --------------------------------------- DIAMETER @ 2 FEET HEIGHT ESTIMATED --------------------------------------- SPREAD ESTIMATED 1-'- HEALTH (1-5) ---~--- -------------------------------------- () iN STRUCTURE (1-5) g ---r--- _______________________________________ CL : CONDITION RATING (2-10) ---~--- --------------------------------------- g 1 HAZARD RATING (4-12) CROWN CLEANING c"'tl. --------- -------------- -- ---- -- - ...... ---- -,~ CROWN THINNING 5 _______________________________________ ;s CROWN RESTORATION r.e.. --------------------------------------- () -~~~~-~~~~~~~------------------ ~ ::l REMOVE END-VvEIGHT to --------------------------------------- ~ CABLES NEEDED # ~ _______________________________________ CL r/l a: I I I ___L___ I I , I ---t----- I , I ---f---- I , I ---1---- I I I ---r--- I I I ___L___ I I : PRUNING PRIORITY (1-5) I I I I I ---r--- I I I ---1---- I I I I ---r--- I I , ___L___ I I I I I I ___l-___ I I I ! --------------------------------------- ROOT COLLAR COVERED (1-5) --------------------------------------- I I I ___1..__": I I I I ---.--, I I I ___L___ I I I I --------------------------------------- RECOMMEND REMOVAL --------------------------------------- REMOVAL PRIORITY (1-3) HERITAGE TREE? PROTECTED TREE? Cf) ..... C.l ..... c: (/l 12---10 '1 *~31 E'v' ALUA T10N OF TREES AT Th J\VLES RESIDENCE, 21180 GRENOLA DRlVE, cm iI-10 Photo of Partially Cut, Partially Broken Limb facing Northwest :,~,,!"'.,,;,':" " <~I}; .~;6.}'.'_!~,\. ..;t -'. .' ,'.. . ~Jh{~^' ..-..... ".. . -.~ Photo of Same Tree from NOltheast 40 ~~ ,_ ._; ______:-::_~~-:-r---:~-- R AppilcaHon 12- d,{J)ob -00 RM Application RJt1 -- ~ DO&> ~ 1;<; , Approval Date ~;) 3 ~ 0(" Signature {)it{ , f ~~ (Case Manager) p,p:n;<,pcl nv'lvfir,h,pl T Rpnr,h r'nnC:1l1tina f>.,-l...nr;ot A ~....,...;l 0'7tb r)nnt: (2-110 Lt--35 BARRiE Do COA IE and ASSOCIATES ~'i"' Horti cutural Consultarlts ?3535 Summit Road Los Gatos, CA 95033 40Bl353-1052 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,fol'ITlation provided by others, 3. The appraiser/consultant shall not be required to give teS'[iillony 01 to attelld COUlt by l'eaSOI'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~: 1 D.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 'tull,reot .," ' c.QU?sJnspeGtion, consisting of excavating the soil around the tree to uncover the root collar and majDf buttress roots, was not performed, unless otherwise stated. We cannotAake,.,.,.~;~:,,~~, ' responsibility for any root defects which could only have been discovered by suchi:lf'l ;':: ;.:'r:'~ .' inspection. - CONSUL riNG 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 otten 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. cO~ ~ Cra2V Barrie D, Coate I SA Certified Arborist Horticultural Consultant R AppticatiOi! R ~d([)O Co -or;; RM Application ki1 ~ dVOb ~ I 3 Approval Date " n ~ :;2 3 -0 b Signature [j Jw P{WU[~ (Case Manage~ I 2- - f 11 t-{ ---3& (E.)l~tory SFD EX. BUILDI~9~:g mu:E:il 1. All di"tarbed. aa:rlal:es r"anul:iDg, l:nno. g.nu:D.ng IbalI be. Ile.e.ded &D:f mu1clled a.I nee,ded befD1'~ wlnb!:z' r.Uns. bt:iJl.g pre:paftd aDd ~ed l:D CIJtdra1 e:ru.s10l). b7 ditctlve pl~ Il'Uch as t'7e. gn.sa, barle;r Dr aOIDB othe:t' laat ~ leed. ~ .2. Dri~ ruuoJt IJJl. sJ'ba b7 Iibeat:Dow tg l'etJd;;J.til'e. sllJia,.cz:s. z. CoD~ ranoD to be ~ (l.wa:y Irou:l. lIb-uctlne 1Din.- 2'110 IIlape mr 11 mlDhaam 01 6 ted:. Ral;l! ~ br GuttznI Typ. oB "'01 through. 4" IIl;1lld PVC pipe into 1!JdstmC. c.ou.crete. ~ II'tDrm waia" ~ .wale ..I:atnd- '\t 4. A cop}' of all eompi!t.ctioD. test!! IUld 5nAl ~ding report $h!Jl hoe lubmJtte.d to the City pdor to scheduling LDY inspectioll$. Prior to the. eontf1\.etor I'1!qU90tinl!. Ioand.a.l:Ul. ln5pe.eti0ll. the SDib Engioecr shall a.dvise. tbe bulldini!. Official in writing l:har. 11 tbe. DuDding Footine; ex<:ra.Vil.tiOD5 Ulod ballcfu:lg pad were. prepa..Rd in i!t.ccordallCoe with the !IOU l"I:.port l'l!ComJ:tuandatiOns, 2) The toundatian fonnlnQ: ~ t!'ll.dlo.t comPlr with the. soU report i!t.J\d approved pla..o!l. and 51 the. d.raina.ie system l$ in ;uX.on:li!t.DCe with. the soil report. \ 5. All Constrnclion &!. Ma.tuii!t.ls per StnlctuaJ Engineering sheets provided by MS E.n{!ineering, ~ell, CA 1408.317.6504). c::: c: ~Q ~ O-roCU S .9.c::J. Q) 8. Reeommll!!ldations inchu:w:\ in the Geote.ehrUca.l Report, datcdDec. 27, 2005, by Am~CiU\ ~ a.. CCS ~ 'g;oU Tut:i.ng. Inc., SUI. Jose, CA, (408_559_8400), sb..eJJ be incorpOl"Zl.ted ill the vadine pluls a.r.d ~.g- e ~ ~~dljC&tions. ::c ::;: ~ C . No ortlUlic m&1erlaJ 5baJl b<: pennit:t.e..d l~ r: CC ~ CI3 ('"~ d which does nlrt eltceul 4 ino:h~ in dt;pth. - ~ I 9.0WylTliLteriaJsIl>eetinll.n materlll1 s~eatioos. 10. DastlrOm. gradinl! Oper.\ltiot>$ mU9t be ~~Vide ~u.ipln=t to d.a.m.pen,en.dini sdtes: to a.void dl1Slt. --- ----- -~ ~----- ~ I / / 75. P!L N90"OO'OO"E "m;e ~Dmer 205lS!S 65 fe"Z6,f-~8"ar WOOD FENCE -.1 I ~- I. I ~ R..,.,y....cl f ~ Sc.tb.>.ck; Ii I ~p!S" / I / 1[: , 20 67'Ir - 204_!"lrlCI!I ,1 I / I / ... / / 15'~0" \lJ b )IN:! St.....,. 0 .... ~ S.u..d< 0 Z 14'.6" 5'.0" ~ ~ ~ r 10'.q~ Side Y...... ""...'" lli:tCI!Bd Storlo:=) ----- ",- ,'" ------- --- /",- '7 F......l y.....d ~ S"u,..... GRAVEL -------------- ----- is.C' t'/L N9C.OO'OO"E GRAVEL ~ ~1 -"""- --~a.c._ 1l4.5'ltidSl'" EX. BUILDING U4.5'RidQe SIDEWALK ProDosed: Two-Story SFD: 4,219 sI 45% F. hR 1st floor: 2,910 si Living: 2,271 sf Two-Car Gac-a..ge.: 658 si 2nd Floor: LS09 si 45% Is. Flr. " ~ " i: 10 In 00 '" " :;; <0 g " " ~ ~ "' <b ... ... " ., .. ~ = = <::i 6 ~ 0; ; "" I,) 2i1BO Grenolo. Or. L-ot "1, lract._t::Jo'JoJ. uaraen. 'U~l,,", ~..~-=- APN !:! 32&28-057 Lat: 9,575 sf Entry Porch: Proposed Ba\coo..ie.s: ~ Existing Finish Gra.de.: Proposed 5f'D F,F.: Lot Coverage: 2,975 sf 3L 70% FAR: (45% max..) 4.2I9 sf 45.00% 57 si 160 sf '" ~ . ~" ~U~ \~~ ~ ~ --~ ~ ~ -'" CJ , ~ I 0' ' ~ :2 - , "" 100,0' .Ma.in: 10L5' Upper: W.5' /Vi.;u:..imun- I~~dg>-.: !-tecil!l-i.t. \.W'-6" Ir(.m '.:..G.l l26.5' >. .J:> : ~ dS ~ ~ ~ Excavate and Recompa.ct Existing Septic Tank ~ One 42" Sycamore To Be Removed S=pe of Work: S. Build New SFD plus Garage p Plans to be in COI1\pll with CA n-uilding and Codes (2001) ';3 ld gJ '0.0 ~ ..... lO ~o S~ lO~ alO <1:"1'. ut; o'f j~ B~ "".., 8 6 ,Z; cO: ..s< -0>> ' d ., ~6 , ..s ~~ ~u 1. Demo existing 1,235 sf SFD 2. Excavate and recompact existi Septic Tank SITE PLAN Scale 1/8" - 1'- 0" Job Copies of Building FIre System. Plans l!l,nd Permits must be onsite during Inspections. Dee. Class: R-5 Build. Const.: TYpe V. Fire. Ra.ting: Sprinkler TARLE OF CONTENTS A.I SITE PLAN A.2 MAIN FLOOR PLAN A-3 2nd FLOOR PLAN/Privacy PlantiJ g A.4 FRONTIREAR ELEVATIONS A.S SIDE ELEVATIONS A-6 ROOF PLAN A.7 SECTIONS A.S LANDSCAPING A.9 ELECTRICAL A.IO T.24 CERTIFICATES 5-1.0 SPECIFICATIONS 5-U SHEATHINGlNAILlNG 5-1.2 TYPICAL PET AILS 5-1.3 SHEAR DETAILS 5-2.0 FOUNDATION PLAN 5-2.1 2ND FLOOR FRAMING 5-2.2 UPPER ROOF FRAMING uJ' E-< .... f/) ~ R Application ;2 -~co(:, - 06 RM Application /!Jvt -!) (!Job -/:3 Approval Date :J;:~-ot, Signature {)lvr' , j- ICaSe Manago~ ~ , l.rJ 59'.0. 11'-4" 46',8" SOB0.3 F.d (T..".,.. p -~- Noo 5040 HS(Hgr...J 16'-2" 15'-10' _nS IN......,.) lD 1 t'-l~' G..at Room ~ 01 Bedroom ~ 4 o o ~ jg .... "'- I Living ~=m 15'-5" . ~ M80DH.coaoT~WDB _I 12050 Arduod A,bo,,,,, (T-.p.) '( o ~ 160110 Gat'lL&!~ DDer .(Ub:;o Arcb_ T~dliao "-=cat SECTIO ''B1l PROPOSED 1st FLOORPLAN ~9'-O" SECTION lie" = Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0" , 0 ;:; , 0 '" " , ., .. " 0; <:) 5 j 0. ; .. () '" ~ . > ;: ~ ~~ ~U~ '~;:" ~ ~a - .- ~ ! U~I k --I' ~ ~ Q <:; c 00 (3 'Vi ~ ":;: - . 100: o ~ SECTION 1JA" -a '" ld ~ ,'Of) ",a ::C'i ,,",00 oc;, '" 0 ....... ~~ uti; ';; ld 0<;' ~'1j-E~ ~.a 2~ ~ e.l "'''' ~~ r3,~ o 00; cil~ ~~ b 0 ~ ~ ld ~" ~ s ~~ ~~ ~~ <pIoc(;lr/l z <( Z...l _0. <(0: "'0 ) ....l ~ ~ 1!)t9'699"1~O'1f'2d 6t;:;fl'9C;91~D 6ZS~G V:J 'ji'lm.ro:> 106~6 xog: '0 'd slltn.lad ]fJ S\Jllld .;i!01S)A'aH '~WIOj';/~ 6oLL'!)!lo'8017 'L!lo-llo-9o~ 'o/<l'd'V AlU~ ".l"l~S t'IOS6 V:) 'oU'!l.I'31do:) ".IO "'elo"U'2'>ll"\ 0911(; !u-e~fow p-ep.l'l3W 7B ;OH . :.101 -a~u~P!S'3t1 AJ:olS-OM...L M.aN " NVidtlOOld tl~ddfl rn S<JjMO:) nH~ ~j :Jtq: l.:!M"e.JQ ~~;:~ ~..~ - - z o 1=~ (.l= ~ Cl Z ~ ~= en ~~ o "01 p... 7 ~ ~ c:::::~ o NO~ c::::: OCll ~ ~ ~ ...l~'.:...:.::c-::__-="~':::~ ~ o :; . e -~.... ~. ~. " ~ 5ID ~Q~8 ~-Q"""ffi ~~ -- Cl...:> =:1 0) 8:~e~~ <C:2: 8.:.!2Jill 0= cc <x:: CI)!;2. /2-1/1..( 15'.0. ~ i)i o ~ tJj NORTH (FRONT) ELEVATION Scale,l/4" = 1'- 0" Finish Schedule:: Ext:eriar: 3-Coat Stucco ~ "Pala.mino" (Lt. Ye.Uow/Ta.n) Roon Con.crete. ~ Tileliteo- ''Ca.sa.. Gra.n.de Rle:n.d" Trim 8l Fa.scia.: Pa.in.ted Wood Trim Surrounds. "Nude" (White) Windows Bl Doors:: Eagle VJA)"1 Cl.d IDtra WmdDws . ''Whiten Gara..ge. 8l Front Door. Pa.i.D.ted Wood. "Antique." De.ck. Ra.llin.g: Painted Articula.ted Wrought IrDn.. "White." Ra.!cOQ.yl Slate. Tile R Application R - /)fY} & -1J6 RM Application 11M - gmiP -/.') Approval Date) ~'"21: h Signature ('/u: ' (Case ManagBlj IIII I III 12&..5' Ia e ~ 12 .C::- 12 ~ SOUTH (REAR) ELEVATION Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0" ~ t-J , - '\ I I, OS .Ide l00:O'E..G. ~U~R~ IQ ~ C) I:; i o G ~ ~ ~ lI.. ~ U I'l I ~ ~ I ~ 0"" ~~]I ~ ) 0. . >. y ! ,,a ~ ~.~ rtt "l";: Q ;.,& -..... I '1 ~\ "" 'l'", . ~: '<< C'l ~ E"d5~ ';; III 69 ~"O.sgil ~ ;. t r.O ~..c 2l~ III c.l Cl.tQ o:~86 >> ' ,Z; w ;.. 0; ~Q!$~~ b 0 to ~ ~ 5. ~ S \3~ ~~ ~d <C '""" c:l Ci') 5'.0. o ~ fI) 06 Z ~CJ::9 z<~ C'~> I W f,l., ...l W ~ --.... \'--l ( R Application /2-;}{)()fo-()9, RM Application /?J.{ - :/oDb -/-q Approval Date(JJ~:J-DI1 Signature ' , v~ ICase Managa~ .- - ~ T..m. Accent' o ~ DB DD 100.0' Finb:h Schedule;: T ) , J Erler-ion 3-Coa.t Stucco - ''Pala..mino'' (Lt. YeUo,:-v' an. Rooe ConcretE. S- Tilelite-- "Case. ~a.n~ Ble.D.~ ''I'( d " (White.) ~::::.~~~~~:m~:V~:~ITcr::r m::w;iowsu. ~White" Garage 8! Fron.t Door. Pa...in.te.d Wood . "Antique" . '11' . De.ck Ra..i.liAt: Painted Articu1a.ted Wrought Iron. "White. :BaIconJr' Sla.te Tile WEST (RIGHT) ELEVATION Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0" ~. '" st:;::".. '" o 11 mi EAST (LEFT) ELEVATION Scale 1/4" ~ 1'- 0" rtJ (,) . ~'3 ~U~ ~?3 C600I ~ -,:.# ~ ~ rJo. > .0 ~ ~ .. Q '.to ,:: ~ .~ o. t! .~ "'0: '2 ~ cd ~ 'QJ) t': ,......, l..":l O <l'" ~ 0"1 .,.,~ ~~ lo;j5\i ~ t'd 6"< ~'"O,a~ .g ;.. teb .~..c::: ..... ~ Cll S-'" C:~U6 ~.c; rZ l5 Q~ ~Od ~-;. ~ g ~ !-~U ~ ::; ~ ~ClO~ :z: Ior'C \E 0 < pi.l ;l C/) 4.0'Pln.te. , 5 T..m, A=Cnt rtJ Z o W.... Sr-- rn~ w d 1 . :F ~ (t'R-xed ,-t~O ~lIUl.Ii?ld 7f1 s\I\!ld 66LL'!l!l6'901> 'L90-96-961: 'ol-l'd'\f Altl~ "JVJ~S I>lO!l6 V~ 'oUJP"ldn~ "JQ "loti""!) 08116 !U'2;fr "l pl?p.nJ~W 7fJ '2UTOH :.IOl -a:nJap!S3t1 ..t..JolS-OM..L M'3N " llJO~!A"OU 90/06/~ WV'ld ~O( S'3jM.O:) nnJi ~? '::)'Ii!lllT.Jtl:) ,olil 'O'd :Jtq UM'e.J([ . .. ." i:il liJ ~ j ., ~ ;:l IW ~ o 1== U~ \7l z < pJ, Q.. '- o o ~!] 0: "31V]d .0',6 d"d .s101 ~ "- " ~ ~ ~ (,O"lOl',J.:I) ;:Ol"ld ,lr,6 ~ ~~ g ~lI) 0: ~ b ~_ d. _ 'tl >> ~Sf-o th- ~ Ill~ ~ 1) "Q - .. ~ ~ ~ Cl .: 8 '" ~ ~ ~ e IOU U r ~ " e: ]'f-o rile. ~ta -..9 IQ .~ z o E~ 11l rIl :Sa> -2-~~ ~ .Q ro ~ ~ __ 0..:> :=J fj~ 25:~ e ~~ -C:X::::E g:.!2'1ll cc cc -c:x:: Cf) Q. (2- - rll ~Red5 . ~ Workshop o ~ Study Foyer' Utilities 00. ' Bid SECTION ilAiI Scale 1(4" = 1'- 0" 8"An~tof1..t c.llinV .ID o ~ 8'.-6" ~ Entry SECTION "B" Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0" --.. l" I RApplication r( -;)oob - OR RM Application RH - /)n/1 10 -/:3 Approval Date , ~ - 023 -() to Signature (JlkiJrni~ ICaseManag9~ - ~ lOO.O'E:..G. :, I, Ii UHS Rid!!"c l24" AnfiJe.to f1.t.t Ce..ili.ne) o ~ StruetlU"al BeAJD~ pc:r EIlI!iJI=ri1\4 :!ri IIlll"OC "1\ ""'..JI. DON I.,. ..I.";",, ,~"I,~,. ",..l1e.rl-~ f'1....<c.t.l.~ Livin$ l:L-t..rl... ;5. =->ot 51..=.. W<>.II> to .......a S 1/2" w~"" ..,..~cd ~:l~~"l::-.. l!..d~ Typ. lOO.O'E.Ci !:n'''I&'''OC All Wooll~ V.OX ~~~~~~:R~U ~...lJ-""..tStuc.coW..u~ too ........ S lIt"...e.ep ~"'"~"'" ~1~~"J:::;, ~d" Typ. Ct..=s A Collcnob:. Flat TUr. Typo ov.... 40 Ib. Pell ov= S/4" plTw",.,,1' 'Mt.hdipsOoO.li. ,r:::",. 12 1I2"'Cd).a.t&..t-d or sIr GypsIUlO Drr-Jl Tl'?'caJ A1lCd~a.ts....d Wa.ll: Bed ;; p Util Gara.ge o . SECTION "e" Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0" s " " " g .., ~ " g " " . <t ;; 0 u :; " ~ 0 " d 0. ~ "" u III ~ . n ~ o~ r: ~~U ~ 9 _/ toM ~ '-'" ~ f.l - 1",);;; ~ ~ <d .. Q to ~ ~.!:: 0" .. '. ~& 'a Ol ~ 0'1 'QG :::; ..... to ~o S~ """, ",0 ~""- ul;; 0''< ,3~ B~ c.., ~ . U 0 ,2; 00: ..s": o >> ~6 (3 ,; 0" $.!i o;;~ ~-o ";; ~ u"tj ~ ~ :SA ~ ClI ~~ ~~ o ~ ~ ~ '" 0 ~~ 2rielB"'O AlIW..u"ll.l/'l lasulati...c.,';"e.R..:so 'WoJIaR." .".,..... (/) Z o - f- u W if) JD1..5'f'"l"'. EO~81d~~ e Exhibit 0 To: Aki Honda, Senior .mner, City of Cupertino 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. 'J O. Talk to the neighbors. 'W'e'request that the Commission uphold our Appeal. In review of the Applicant's written respOfl~ec-., ,.< to the specific comments decided by the Commission, we do not find that the objectives have)lE3@n".cc" :~:'~t;;;~iri~fjE(:a satisfactory manner. We were very disappointed at the lack of response that~~~~~~,:T'~; . ---"---Applicants made to the clear and specific direction from the Commission on this projecC -, " . 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-flCf Page 1 of2 AkiHonda From: Elena [elena_herrera@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 07,2006 12:02 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 thillgs I find disturbing about the current status with the 21180 Grenola project, as evidenced by the Mojgani's replies to 10 specific items. , ;;;;'_~'_;: ...!,;,.-I.'-,iot.......-;...~;>.;;;,c... -, .. Regarding the itemdeft from em previous Planning Commission meeting.~- ~'c'"" , / ~ .~..-::: .~-:-". '~.-c- _;'..::-~ ~.!.!~t7"~:'7"~~" .. 7, 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? I 2-- i 1 0 11/8/2006 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 Fas: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 roofing material samples. , --..;......,""-. -" - ._~.~ - --;......' , L. '. 11/8/2006 l2--1 ]. } cc- / 3~~ ~o7 */;t. Grace Schmidt From: Patrick Kwok2 Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 2: 19 PM To: jfhong@sbcglobal.net Subject: Re: Feb. 6 Council Meeting r.l '1\ If L ,'" '_~..i :'C' IB~~ I have visited the site and the backyard of john and Rose and will take it into strong considertation. Please attend Council meeting and present your case. In case you cannot make it, please ask City Clerk to read your letter at the meeting. Best regards -----Original Messageun- From: jfhong@sbcglobal.net To: pkwok@cupertino.org Sent: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 7:48 AM Subject: Feb. 6 Council Meeting Dear Councilman Patrick Kwok, We are writing to you in regard to the proposed construction of a house on 21180 Grenola in our Garden Gate neighborhood. john Tracy and Jessica Rose will be presenting an appeal to the City Council on Tuesday, Feb. 6. The appeal focuses on the construction of two balconies which invade the family's home and backyard privacy. We have lived in this neighborhood for 18 years and observed dramatic architectural changes that have occurred here as well as throughout the rest of the city. When we were first asked to consider being annexed to the City of Cupertino, we hesitated because we felt that strict housing guidelines were a disadvantage. However, we concluded that the city's planning oversight would be beneficial and result in well thought out development. Back to the issue at hand, we had the opportunity to visit the construction site as well as john and jessica's house and yard. If that same house was being constructed next door to ours, I would have the same concern. First, the proposed size of the house is excessive -- 4,200 square feet! Imagine the contrast. It would sit next to houses that are less than 2,000 square feet. But more importantly, the idea of your neighbor looking into the privacy of your home and yard is not acceptable. We all feel that our house is our castle and we all want it to be the perfect abode but that does not mean or need to be at the expense of someone else's right to privacy. Reasonableness should be what we all aim for. We hope that you will consider these issues as you deliberate the Tracy/Rose appeal Tuesday evening. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us at jfhong@sbcglobal net or 996-8996. Thank you for your continued service to the Cupertino community. Best regards, Joan Hong and Roger Day 10481 Ann Arbor Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 Ch!!_~_K_Q~_t_tl1~J'eJiv__A_OI",. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of 2/7 /2007 c.c.-13 - (p -07 :tt \~ Grace Schmidt From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Aki Honda Wednesday, February 28,20075:14 PM Kimberly Smith; Grace Schmidt Steve Piasecki; Ciddy Wordell FW: request for extension F \\Ar H.>, I B r,C,!' r . ~ ' . ~ . r.:J '," ie, f \~ ~ ~ "! Hi Kim and Grace, Here is the written request for a continuance of the Grenola Avenue appeal by the property owners, Homa & Mehrdad Mojgani. Could you forward this to the Council? Thanks, Aki -----Original Message----- From: Mehrdad Mojgani [mailto:Mehrdad.Mojgani@Sun.COM] Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 4:59 PM . To: Mehrdad Mojgani; Aki Honda; mehrdad mojgani Subject: request for extension Dear Aki, As you know, we attended the mediation last night and we made some progress. To finalize our plan, we need some more time. We would appreciate it if our City council meeting get extended to March 20th. Regards, Mehrdad 1