.01 TM-2007-03, V-2007-03, EXC-2007-14 Jitka/Han
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application:
TM-2007-03, V-2007-03,
EXC-2006-14
Jitka Cymbal
Sue-Jane Han
21871 Dolores Avenue
Agenda Date: August 14, 2007
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Property Location:
Application Summary:
TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide a .46 acre lot into two parcels of 9,685 square feet and
9,686 square feet, respectively in a Rl-7.5 zoning district.
VARIANCE to allow a 50-foot lot width, instead of the required 60-foot width, for the
two proposed parcels.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the tentative map, the
variance and the exception in accordance with the model resolutions.
Project Data:
General Plan Designation:
Zoning Designation:
Total Acreage (gross):
Net Acreage per parcel:
Density:
Low Density Residential, 1-5 DU / gr. acre
Rl-7.5
.46
Lot 1- 9,685 sq. ft., Lot 2- 9,686 sq. ft.
4.3 du/gr. acre.
Project Consistency with: General Plan:
Zoning:
Yes, Policy 2-23
Yes
Categorically exempt.
Environmental Assessment:
BACKGROUND:
On January 23, 2007, the Planning commission voted (4-1) to deny the proposed project.
The Commission was concerned about the side-by-side lot design and felt that the
project did not match the flag lot pattern of the immediate neighborhood. The
Commission had concerns on the requested five foot side yard setback exception. The
Commission's decision was appealed to the City Council. On February 20, 2007, the
City Council upheld the PlaIu1ing Commission's decision due to a draw vote (2-2) with
one Council member absent. On May 1,2007, the Council considered and denied the
appliCaI1t's reconsideration request based on the principle that procedurally they did
not want to go back on a decision that was made by the Council with a quorum even if
one Council member was absent during the deliberation. The Council suggested that
1 - 1
Th1-2007-03, V-2007-03
Page 2
August 14, 2007
tIle applicant 11as the option to
reapply and be IleaI'd by the full
COUllcil if necessary. TIle applicallt
l1as reapplied for tIle saIne project.
TIle project site is located 011 tIle llortll
side of Dolores A ,\rellue bet1\reell
Byrlle A\ienue a11d Orallge Avellue.
A malll residellce, t1'VO detacIled
cottages alld a detacl1ed slled
curI'elltly exist 011 tIle parcel. Slllgle-
family residelltial parcels surroUlld
tIle subject site. TIle pI'op~sal is to
denlolisll all of tIle structures 011 tIle
property, subdivide llltO t1\ro lots alld
build tvV'o llevv slllgle family Ilolnes.
DISCUSSION:
There are t\\TO l11ajor discussioll pOlllts for tllis subdivisio11: flag lot v. c01lvel1tiollallots
alld the proposed lot vv-idtI1..
Flag lot vs. Conventional lots
TIle parce.! is approxinlately 100 feet '^lide alld 190 feet deep. TIle lot is ll0t \"Tide ellougIl
for tvvo Inlllill1UlTI 60 foot 'vvidtl1s as required by tIle Rl OI'dlllallce. TIle site Call be
subdivided into t,,,ro lots \vith a flag lot III tIle rear to lneet the lninirnum lot vvidtll
requirenlellt. Alternatively, tIle property could be divided dO\~ll tIle middle creatll1g
t,vo c011velltionallots, resulting in lot vvidtlls narrO\^ler tlla11 tIle required 60 feet.
General Plan
TIle Gelleral PlaIl (Policy 2-23) specifies tllat flag lots sllould be created only \vl1en tllere
is no reasonable aIternati\re tIlat llltegrates \\TitIl tIle lot pattern in tIle 11eigl1borll0od.
TIus policy discourages 11e\~ flag lots ill tIle lllterest of ptomotlllg better 110use to street
relatiollships in residelltiallleigllborlloods.
Plal111.i11g C0711171issio71 .
TIle Plalullllg COlTIlllissioll1las appro\Ted a siInilar \Tariallce request (TM-2005-14, 21988
McClellan Road) allo1villg the subdivisioll to convelltiollal lots \vitIl substalldard lot
\~idtllS (less tha11 60 feet) ill tIle lllterest of better integratulg tIle future residellce llltO
tIle neigIlborllood. However, in tIle case of tllis project, tIle COlnnlissioll1las pre\riously
felt tllat a flag lot desigIl is more appropriate alld COllsistel1t '''TitIl tIle imlllediate patterll
of the 11eigllborIl0od~ TIle applicallt cOlltends tllat tIle pI'edolnlllate 11eigllborll0od
patterll is side-by-side lots alld tllat tIle proposed subdivisiol1 desigIl is COllsistent \~itIl
1 - 2
August 14, 2007
tIle lot pattern aJld overall lot
"vidths of tIle elltire
lleigllborIlood. Please see tIle
data pro\rided by the applicaIlt
(ex11ibit A).
Neigllborh.ood Outreaclz
SUlce tIle last tinle tIle PImuling
Co 111n1.issiOll revie\~ed tllis
project, tIle applicaJ.lt 11.as
attenlpted to cOlnmUlucate witll
In allY of tIle in1.mediate
lleigllbors aJ.ld 11as obtallled tell
~igtlatures of support (exl1.ibit B).
One of tIle Inall1. COl1cerns
previously expressed by tIle tvvo
adjacent lleigllbors to tIle east
,-vas tIlat tllere vvas ll0t sufficient
side yard setback proposed (5
foot) along tIle project's easterly property lille. lil respol1se to tlus, tIle applicant 11as
vvithdra"\vIl tIle origulal five foot side yard setback exceptioll request 8lld 11as
\ToIunteered to provide at least 10 feet of buildi11g side yard setback. alollg tIle easterly
property lUle (see exllibit D). TIlis SIlou1d be added as a COllditioll of tIle project sllould
tIle COll11nissioll decide to approve tIle project. lil additioll, ill order to ellsure that tIle
future buildings are designed consistelltly vvitll tIle surroUlldulg homes, a COllditioll
should be added tllat requires tIle desigIl revievv of tIle t,,\TO honles be approved prior to
tIle fU1.al recordatioll of tIle final map.
Staff supports tIle proposed side-by-side lot desigrl alld tIle lot \vidt11S prinlarily because
tIle project is Coi1Sistel1.t \\Titll the ultellt of tIle City's Gelleral Plall. FurtIlerlllore, the
project is compatible ,-vitll tIle overall establislled patterl1. of tIle lleigI1.borIlood. It is a
fact tllat t11ere are more .flag lots 011 Dolores A vellue, Ilo,\,\T€Ver tIle ell tire lleigI1.borhood
consists of more l1.arro,.v side-by-side lots. Tllere are not rnallY lots left ill tllis
lleighborhood tIlat ,,\rilI be able to pllysically perlnit sinlilar subdivisions III tIle future,
so eitller ,vay tIle project vvillllot sigl1.ifical1tly cllallge tIle patterll of tIle l1eigl1.borllood.
Tree Removal and Retention:
Tell trees .are located on the subject property, tllree of wI1.lc11 are sigIillical1t (Deodar
Cedars #1 & #2 and Coast Redwood #5). Only the two Deodar Cedars are protected by
tIle Tree OrdUlallce. Accordulg to tIle applica1lt, tIle Coast Redvvood #5 l1.as already
been renloved due to its poor COllditio11~ Staff reCOlllnlellds tIlat the tvvo Cedar trees be
preserved as part of tIlis approval alld tIlat Olle 36 ulcIl box Redvvood sIlouId be plallted
to replace t11e relTIoved red,\"rood. As for tIle otI1er trees 011 tIle property, tIle applica11t
1 - 3
IM-2007 -03, V -2007 -03
Page 4
August 14, 2007
has the option of removing them since they are not protected. Staff recommends a
condition of approval that requires the existing trees be retained to the maximum extent
possible and that the applicant work with the Director of Community Development to
make the final decision on the retention of these trees at the design review stage. The
applicant is also required to record a covenant on the property that ensures the
preservation and maintenance of the new replacement trees and any trees that are
required to be preserved as part of this approval.
Prepared by: Gary Chao, Senior Planner . ~_"
Approved by: . Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development~
Enclosures: Model Resolution for TM-2007-03
Model Resolution for V-2007-D3
Exhibit A: Neighborhood Data
Exhibit B: Petition of Support by Neighbors
Exhibit C: Tree Survey & Arborist Report
Exhibit D: Email from the Applicant, received on August 9, 2007
City Council Meeting Minutes, May 1, 2007
City Council Meeting Minutes, February 20, 2007
Plan Set
1 - 4
TM-2007-D3
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO.
OF THE'PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A
TENTATIVE MAP TO SUBDIVIDE A .46 ACRE LOT INTO TWO SIDE-BY-SIDE
PARCELS OF 9,685 SQUARE FEET AND 9,686 SQUARE FEET, RESPECTIVELY IN A
Rl-7.5 ZONING DISTRICT, AT 21871 DOLORES AVENUE
SECTION I: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application
for a Tentative Subdivision Map, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the
Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held
one or more public hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said
application; and has satisfied the following requirements:
1) That the proposed subdivision map is consistent with the City of Cupertino
General Plan.
2) That the design and improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent
with the General Plan.
3) That the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of development
contemplated under the approved subdivision.
4). That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not
likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and
unavoidable injure fish and wildlife or their habitat.
5) That the design of ~he subdivision or the type of improvements associated
there with is not likely to cause serious public health problems.
6) That the design of the subdivision and its associated improvements will not
conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or
use of property within the proposed subdivision.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the application for Tentative Subdivision Map is hereby
approved, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning
on Page 2 thereof; and
1 - 5
Resolution No.
Page 2
TM-2007-03
August 14,2007
That the sub conclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this
resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application
No. TM-2006-12 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of
August 14,2007, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
TM-2007-03
Jitka Cymbal
21871 Dolores Avenue
SECTION ill: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
The recommendation of approval is based on the Plan Set titled, "Tentative Map,
Lands of Hsu and Han, 21871 Dolores Avenue, Cupertino, California", received
November 15, 2006, except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this
Resolution.
2.. TREE PRESERVATION
All existing trees must be retained to the maximum extent possible. The applicant
must work with the Director of Community Development to make the final decision
on the retention of these trees at the design review stage. Revised landscaping plan
shall be reviewed and approved by the Director prior to issuance of building
permits.
3. COVENANT
The two Cedar (#1 & #2) trees shall be preserved as part of this approval and that
one 36 inch box Redwood be planted to replace the removed redwood (#5). Prior to
issuance of building permits, the applicant is required to record a covenant on the
property that ensures the preservation and maintenance of the new replacement
trees and any trees that are required to be preserved as part of this approval.
4. VISUAL IMPACT
The applicant shall make every effort to work with staff at the R1 Desigrl Review
Approval Process to minimize any negative visual or building interface impacts to
the adjacent neighbors. .
SECTION IV: CONDmONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT.
1 - 6
Resolution No.
Page 3
TM-2007-03
August 14, 2007
5. STREET WIDENING
Street widening and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City
Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer.
6. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS
Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed in
accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer.
7. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION
Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer.
Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of
visual interference to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the
maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located.
8. FIRE HYDRANT
Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City and Santa Clara County Fire
as needed.
9. GRADING
Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance
with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404
permits maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/or Regional
Water Quality Control Board as appropriate.
10. DRAINAGE
Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
11. FIREPROTECTION
Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the
City as needed.
12. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities
Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of
Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of
underground utility devices. The developer shall submit detailed plans showing
utility undergrOtll1d provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the
affected Utility provider and the City Engineer.
13. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
The project developer shall enter into a development agreemep.t with the City of
Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking
and inspection fees, storm dram fees, park dedication fees and fees for under
1 - 7
Resolution No.
Page 4
TM-2007-03
August 14, 2007
grounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of
construction permits.
Fees:
a. Checking & Inspection Fees:
$2,194.00 minimum .
b. Grading Permit:
$ 5% of Off-Site Improvement Cost or
c. Development Maintenance Deposit:
d. Storm Drainage Fee:
e. Power Cost:
f. Map Checking Fees:
g. Park Fees:
h. Street Tree
$ 6% of Site Improvement Cost or
$2,060.00 minimum
$ 2,000.00
$ 593.40
NjA
$3,348.00
$15,750.00
By Developer
Bonds:
a. Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site
Improvements
b.. Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvement .
c. On-site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements.
-The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule
adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified
at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the
event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then
current fee schedule.
14. TRANSFORMERS
Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment
enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground
such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas.
15. AMENDED DEVELOPMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP)
REQUIREMENTS
a. Permanent Stormwater Quality BMPs Required
In accordance with chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and
Watershed Protection, of the City Code, all development and redevelopment
projects shall include permanent BMPs in order to reduce the water quality
impacts of stormwater runoff from the entire site for the life of the project.
b. Stormwater Management Plan Required
The applicant shall submit a Stormwater Management Plan for this project.
The permanent storm water quality best management practices (BMPs)
1 - 8
Resolution No.
Page 5
TM-2007-03
August 14,2007
included in this plan shall be selected and designed in accordance with chapter
9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the City
Code.
c. BMP Agreements
The applicant and the City shall enter into a recorded agreement and covenant
nuuling with the land for perpetual BMP maintenance by the property
owners(s). In addition, the owner(s) and the City shall enter into a recorded
easement agreement and covenant running with the land allowing City access
at the site for BMP inspection.
d. Hydromodification Plan (HMP) Required
The applicant must provide a comprehensive plan to control any combination
of on-site, off-site and in-stream control measures incorporated into specific
redevelopment projects in order to reduce stormwater runoff so as to not
increase the erosion potential of the receiving watercourse over the pre-project
condition.
16. MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
The applicant will be required to maintain all items, which are non-standard
within the City's right of way. The applicant and the City must enter into a
recorded agreement for this aforementioned work.
17. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN
The developer must submit a traffic control plan by a Registered Traffic Engineer
to be approved by the City. The plan shall include a temporary traffic control plan
for work in the right of way as well as a routing plan for all vehicles used during
construction. All traffic control signs must be reviewed and approved by the City
prior to commencement of work.
The City has adopted Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices'(MUTCD)
standards for all signage and striping work throughout the City.
18. REFUSE TRUCK ACCESS
The developer must obtain clearance from the Environmental Programs
Department in regards to refuse truck access for the proposed development.
CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF
ENGINEERING/SURVEYING CONDITIONS
(Section 66474.18 of the California Government Code)
1 - 9
Resolution No.
Page 6
TM-2007-03
August 14, 2007
I hereby certify that the engineering and surveying conditions specified in Section IV.
Of this resolution conform to generally accepted engineering practices
Ralph Qualls, Director of Public Works
City Engineer CA License 22046
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of August 2007, at a Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll
call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
Steve Piasecki, Director
Community Development Department
Lisa Geifer, Chairperson
Planning Commission
1 - 10
v -2007-03
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO.
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW LOT WIDTHS OF APPROXIMATELY 50 FEET
INSTEAD OF 60 FEET FOR A PROPOSED TWO-PARCEL SUBDIVISION ON 21871
DOLORES AVENUE, AS REQUIRED BY CHAPTER 19.28 OF THE CUPERTINO
MUNICIPAL CODE.
SECTION I: FIND~GS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino has received an application
for a Variance, as described in Section II. of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural
Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one
Public Hearing on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has meet the burden of proof required to support the application,
and has satisfied the following criteria:
1) That there are extraordinary or exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to
the property involved that do not apply generally to properties in the same district .
2) That granting of the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial property rights of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss
or unnecessary hardship.
3) That granting the Variance will not be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
and general welfare, or convenience, and to secure the purpose of the title.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL VEp:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, testimony, exhibits and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the application for Variance is hereby approved by the Planning
COIDmission of the City of Cupertino; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
That the subconclusions upon which the findings specified in this Resolution are based are
contained in the public hearing record concerning Application V-2007-03, as set forth in the
Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of August 14, 2007, and are incorporated by
reference as though fully set forth herein.
1 - 11
Resolution No.
Page -2-
V-2007-03
August 14, 2007
SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
v - 2007-03
Jitka Cymbal
21871 Dolore~ Avenue
SECTION III: CONDmONS OF APPROVAL
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
The recommendation of approval is based on the Plan Set titled, "Tentative Map,
Lands of Hsu and Ran, 21871 Dolores Avenue, Cupertino, California", received
November 15, 2006, except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this
Resolution.
2. SIDEYARD SETBACK
The minimum ground floor side yard setbacks along the westerly and easterly
property line shall be 10 feet.
3. DESIGN REVIEW
The design review shall be approved by the City prior to the final recordation of the
map in order to ensure that the homes are designed consistently with the surrounding
homes.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of August 2007, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
Lisa Geifer, Chair of
Cupertino Planning Commission
F:\PDREPOR1\RES\2007\V-2007-03 res.doc
1 - 12
To: City of Cupertino
I support the lot side by side subdivision at 21871 Dolores Avenue,
Cupertino to allow the exception of 50 foot lot width.
Name
Address
signature Date
A\\e~] I-t-Sl,l 2.1 q 7-& 'Vo\",ce..s ktv~" A-'--f~"'. ~ '.
liI~. fl- C\ 1_ r lA.. rL A ' nJ r J- ~ ..z;1d~07
1i~ ~ i.(~<tfD .~~ . ~'7" ,
'V i (\ (] . 1..'- \( . V ~
~I ,I ~ . . ~ . \--.#';FtJfl '-10 ~l
~fTl rift (4Lti!l1 f'loIl., C4A ~ ) A ~G? Ootcl!Nl:;. ~~ 2jIJ J
Yt'I't'}i-fW{}..S~-1v ~f?ol '7>,jDV~ M/. ji;Iz.~
jWa,,-Ja,YV'- b~' :J..Vl00 tJo\"r-:: ~~
IJ~Z ~~\ o?19c;, 1/~~ . ;;J:~'
.;;.~ .. ..J...l ~o A~~rY- ~ . ~/). ' 2-'1/6..
r_/U~. l'
'". '. . 2s?/Lro Z<5
,.,auJ;/1{ ,;)/,ftfo 4.fet1Jc1f- Jfw:/~. I/JtZt.~ ...;:~
i I -...,) 0. ::> (- -;"''<J (0 Ite J1~6-. /1... D / ?
J",J1P4j 5lOG .-:; O.Y-J 'f--' . ~/ -- ( .'
1 - 15
- - -:- 't .. -ALCAZAR - . ~~
~ 219ro ~
10'l.1,- I 100.\5 : \OQ.H~
/
I
I
I
I
I
I
158 : 157 I r36
~ ._--;~-~. T - -;1;" .~. !~~; 1
-J ~ 'N t=o:a I : 0.26 AC. g
:z ~ d PIN. r 11"'7" ~
.b - ~ 139' : Vi L!:!
i~ 29 ZA
26
\l-
~
~
{/)lXJ
> 2j~
.... 0
<( 6-
7
W
. ~ :20'
:! U:r.1 J
21~c!J
:=Q
tQrl\'
\U\~\~
It t
I )
N I I
75 ~(l~ 1~' r
_~w.....o ~ 50 I
~ .:n f - I
?~. . 13.'1.____r3:3: 1~2
143 noo.'~ I la~I.~ rOrfit>
LOT 1 peL. 8 pel B
0.261 AC. ~ ~ ,
. 7.J. co. ~ 57 . 54
I:' .
32
33
34
51
@
I I~ (j4 ~fI~
: ,. ~ -JLfe~ l
9'l I
_ H.!:. I
2 r 8.11
573/31 AVENU~'
21925 2185/ 2tf11t] .
7~ r lC':.15 to.) 15 lOCI. 15 , 100.15 / I. I 00.13
, 1\' ^ I A-' . I
N 60 1 rl 47 t\ / ~ 65 : U 66 , U gz :-N 45 a~ 46 0 'Y/ I
15 ... ~ ~ ........ ~ I ~ - ~ ~~~-d .I(fQ rOVnJE7fS If&1. I L:7lt~ R:'U In:q - of - "': 't}. R.O.S.
I.: n ~ ([, : g IN5-9!' 1l19B-97 : 1999-D7 , ~ !OJ 148 :;: (; I
155 g: I .154 I 15.3 152 I 1S1 \ 150 I · 1J,.~ 1 0..15'"
PTN 156 -t --- - 't-:--------. -- .2"~l------..-...~:Th ---lo.:uii---rf.lNfOD:15_
. 157 : 150 159 I 160 . pel e 1b:2 1 163 n ~ r
PTN . I ... 6 ~ 0 I I!!. 0 V1 ,..l!j
. NI /I) .-' I
!:;~ 156 n CJ 1 I 9 2. ai/It ,.) AB .12 ~ "
~ q:.L.. I - SI OIff'IrnS fi!ij ~.:t., ~ .:L Jenl PTN --:7
. ~, I 111D8-P7 Jl · .- I I IJ 1 l~~
Z - I -2tit&j- I ;0 I 163 L l() 0<'1:
. I, Me C!El.lA}/ I no cQ I II) _~
~ -:T - -I f R(lJ.[J -- - - -- 0 75.1' lOO.I!i '_
>-~ t80.179.17'S117ir/,-...--:...--r..-'-!1----.- rr- ._J.___ ---.--1 -, t'( -F---.,;---J -1--r-l-- 0
ro - ~ 1 ~' I I 175 I I t :170 pel : J~TN I P1N 1166~165116 8 ~
. ~ ~ 1176r :1741 173 .172 171 63; A I :'1.'8' 167 I 157 I 1
I I I I r: I · 0 I - t. 'Jo'
20 ~ i-I N 'I II..) 6 V1J W' ,~~ I 1 - . - J
71 I C'i I . 10 I I 8 - ~ ',dQ 01 I CI 'J 1 - ~ -.
'I:l Q en. ........) -=-0 \.J r... _ 0 L ~ ~
,i ~ - a I 9 I . I -=00 ~ I '0 -.:=0 I. 0 ~ I
~t. ') I r , , I I l7)' I r- I""'
~~ 60.15 I I ": '.i CJh: : I {J"I ~9"'1 (})o I
. 'i~ 100.15 1'L~.rr lM.ts . J~l" sa SO. 15 r{l' , ~
I . I I - ".
- b 2.92; 2190,. 2ld9.! 31B'" b 211121 21$15 .0 =:;
~- "~\1C CLELLAN--" d~a~g~_ ~ ROAD~.'Q
P.M. 428-M-J
.) , \l'./ r.'J ( (' J .J, .... II" VI ~S ( 'Ole ~~
. 'I ~ .J ~\ r..jj RIO~S. 577/44
'=
~.
. :\1
~
I
. I
//l!-ir) A /)f5T~ "';U~Ff}vr(
f~ . .
. ~\",,.) . r
. \
, .. I (J "'I
,..) ..Y~ C
'~
\@
f f'
~ ~ ?.:.)
@
371/4 .
ill
r(~~
-\'I+E-
'sjJ
r.
r
f' == 100~
LAWRENCE E. STONE - ASSE~
Drltlstrof mop fur qs~e5smenl pvtpo~
Crrr.t'lir~d unr!~ R. &: 1. ('J)/je, Ser...
~ffucU\'~ Roll Y~r 2C01-2oo2
Gary Chao
Cc:
Subject:
Tracy Hsu [tracy_hsu@yahoo.com]
Thursday, August 09, 2007 10:59 AM
Igiefer@sbcglobal.net; mmiller@interorealestate.com; dkaneda@ideasLcom; gwong212
@aol.com; Cary Chien
Gary Chao; Suejane Han
lot subdivision on 21871 Dolores Ave
From:
Sent:
To:
Dear Commissioner,
I am writing you this email.for the lot subdivision on
21871 Dolores Ave., Cupertin9. Most of you may still remember that our proposal was denied
by the planning commission early this year. We appealed the council meeting. It was a 2-2
vote. Unfortunately we didn't realize that we could postpone the meeting, and we didn't
give a chance to continue the discussion when one of members is absent. One of council
members pointed out that usually the applicant is automatically granted to continue the
discussion when one of council members is absent, but we didn't give this opportunity. We
feel our case hasn't been treated fairly. After talked to neighbors and city staff, we
resubmitted the application. The public hearing is scheduled on Aug. 14.
There are two main concerns in last planning commission's public hearing. One concern is
the 5-foot side setbacks variance. We have withdrew this variance. We will adhere the R1
Ordiance.
The other concern 50-foot front width variance. We understand city tries to avoid
variance. But if we look at the entire Monta Vista area, it clearly shows 50-foot front
width lot dominates this area. The map shows ~6 houses are flag lots, and 77 houses are
substanqard lot (front width is less than 60 feet).
There are 56 out of 77 are 50-foot front width. Our proposal is following the pre-dominant
pattern in the Monta Vista area. It's not creating a new pattern.
Also the city's general policy is not to create flag lot unless there is no alternative.
We fully agree this general policy.
In the past several months, we spent a lot of time to talk and work with neighbors. There
are 10 houses surrounding the property. we got 5 support, 3 neutral, and 2 against. We
have more support than against. In the meantime, we worked with the 2 neighbors which are
against the project. One of them, 21909 Dolores Ave., requests us to put 10-foot side
setback next to his property. The owner explicitly told me that he is not going to against
the project if we put 10-foot side setback next to his property. We have asked our project
manager to add this one as a condition to lot subdivision. The other neighbor, 21901
Dolores Ave, is against the project. I visited this neighbor many times. Unfortunately the
owner refused to talk to me.
Please reconsider our case. I am sure you could make your judgement based on the above
facts and owner's preference.
Regards,
-Tracy Hsu
Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Hal Play Monopoly Here. and Now (it's updated for today's
economy) at Yahoo I Games.
http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow
1
1- 17
May 1, 2007.
Cupertino City Council
Page 7
Sandoval/Lowenthal moved and seconded tf) t"'p]~ (hlt\. 11. dl.~ mouon carned.
UllanilnouRlv
15. Consider a Petition for Reconsideration of the City Council's decision to deny a Tentative
Map to subdivide a .46-acre parcel into two parcels of 9,685 square fee~ and 9,686 square
feet, respectively, and to deny a variance to allow a 50-foot lot width. instead of the
requlred 60-foot width, for two proposed parcels, Application Nos. EXC-2006-14, TM-
2006-12, V-2007-01, Jitka Cvinbal (\Vestfall Engineers), 21871" Dolores Avenue, APN .
357-14~026. The petitioners are Tracy Hsu and Suejane HaD.. Adopt a re,solution to either:
a) Deny the rehearing, Resolution No. 07-075; or
~) Grant the rehearing, Resolution No. 07-076; or
c) Approve the application if rehearing is granted, Resolution No. 07-077
Jitka Cymbal, representing the petitioners, commented on the previous discussion
concerning flag lots and side-by-side lots and stated that side-by-side lots were more
prevalent in .the neighborhood than flag lo.ts. She also noted that there were onJ.y three lots
in the neighqorhood that were of a similar size with similar development opportunities.
Cindy Hsu and Rachel Chang stated their support of side-by-side lots.
J etmifer Griffin stated her support in this case of a flag lot rather than the creation of two
substandard \vidth lots, potentially 30 feet wide and 125 feet long with.minimal side
. setbacks. If side-by-side homes were approved she recommended the house sizes be
constrained.
Suejane Han and Tracy Hsu,co-owners of the parcel, commented that a majority of the
adjacent neighbors were in favor of side-by-side homes for this subdivision. They further
noted that most of the lots in tb.is neighborhood were narrow and their design pians
included protection of the trees on the property.
Council discussed the request before them and the City Attorney's report on the fincfuigs
required for reconsideration. The basic question was whether or not any new evidence
had been presented at this meeting.
Ma110ney/Kwok moved and' seconded to adopt Resolution No. 07-075, to deny the
rehearing. The motion carried 3-2, with Sandoval and Lowenthal voting no;
16. Consider adopting a resolution upholding the City Manager's desi
. Officer's decision to deny an a eal b J a Kamdar r e issuance of. a
Revocable Encroachment Permit by the Dlrec IC Works for the installation of a
fence adjacent to 10060 Cannen , esolution No. 07-078.
stributed an email dated April 26 from Jay Kamdar withdra~g his
1 - 18
May 1, 2007
Cupertino City Council
Page 8
During Postponements, Kwok/11ahoneymoved and seconded to (1) Table this item, since
". the appellant had withdrawn his appeal; and (1) Direct staff to place an item on the May
10 Council work session to discuss policies and procedures regarding the appeal of
administrative decisions. The motion carried unanimously. ........ ....-
ORDINANCES
17. Conduct the second reading of Ordinance No'. 07-2000: "An Ordinarice of the Cupertino
City Council Amending Chapter 19.28.050 of the :Municipal Code, Single Family.
Residential Zones (Rn Regarding Buildings Proposed on Properties wit;b. an Average
Slope Equal to. ~r Greater than Fifteen Percent, Application No. MCA-2006-0 1."
(Continued from Apri1' 17).
Patrick Kwok stated for the record that although he was not at the meeting when this was
last discussed, he did. read the staff report and .watch the videotape of the meeting.
Community Development Director Steve Piasecki noted that at their' April 17 meeting
CoUncil had continued this item to' allow the neighbors to reach some agreement on the
RI hillside zoning issue. Piasecki said that staff had not had the opportunity to fully
review their suggestions, but he hlghlighted them and their possible ramifications.
Mark Santoro (speaking a.Iso for Suzette Pangrle, Sherry Fang, aild Frank Sun) stated that
a lot of information had been received from. the neighbors, and the conSensus was that
they did not want to be.separated from the rest 6fthe dty; they wanted the issue resolved
tonight; they did not want spot zoning; they did not want the matter to go back to the
Planning Commission; they wanted to stay RI; and they believed tl+ere was confusion
regarding the 10% line. . They were requesting that Section 19.28.050, Section CI and C2
of the RI ordinance be removed and replaced with the following: The following rules
apply to buildings whose slope within the footprint of the proposed building are over
15%: I) allowable floor area be reduced by 1 % for each percentage of slope over 15%
within the building footprint. The maximum floor area reduction sb,all be 50%. and 2) in
order to reduce the footprint of buildings 011 hillsides the size of the sec.ond floor of a,two
story building may exceed the 45% RI limit however it shall not' exceed 100% of the first
floor. Mr. Santoro concluded that the recommendation of the north side (including some
members of the south side) was to remove Section 19.28..050, Sections C1 and C2 from
the'RI Ordinance. However, they were willing to accept the south side's proposal.
James Seay noted that their home was built in 1979 and he currently wanted to do a
remodel which would include an elevator. . He would be negatively impacted by this
~QJ;'dil1ance. . .
Bob Rodert questioned what the problem was with the Cl,llTent ordinances. He could not
support changes that werenot directed at solving specific community-wide problems. He
recommended maintaining the current ordinances.
""'t<~........
l..~..,
"'"
1 - 19
February 20, 2007
Cupertino City Council
Page 3
the Superior Court web site to obtain applications and receive fu.rtlier inforn;tation can be fo on
. the Cupertino website at www.cupertino.org.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Sandoval/Kwok moved and seconded to approve the items on the Consent alendar as
recomme~ded, with the exception of item No.8, which was pulled for discussi . Ayes: Kyvok,
Mahoney, Sandoval, and \Vang. Noes: None. Absent:. Richard Lowenthal.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ort for the year ending June 30, 2006.
5. . Approv:e the minutes from the February 6 City Council meeting.
6. Adopt resohltions accepting Accounts Pavable for January , February 2, and February
9, Resolution Nos. 07-030 to 07-032.
7. Adopt a resolutio~ accepting Pavro.ll for Feb~ary 9,
ITEMS RE:MOVED FROM THE CONSENT CAL
8.
Sandoval/Mahoney moved and secon to continue this item to March 6. Ayes: Kwok,
Malloney, Sandoval, and Wang. No . None. Absent: Richard Lowenthal.
9. Coilsider approving a bin 0 ermit renewal from De Anza Force Soccer. (Continued from
February 6).
.. .
Kwok/Mallon moved and seconded to approve the bingo permit renew~ for DeAnza
The motion carried unanimously with Lowenthal absent.
as opened at 7:16 p.m. There were no speakers and the public
7:18 p.m.
The public hearing
hearing was close
10. an appeal of the Plamling Commission's decision to modify the use pennit for
Peet' offee to allow'an opening time of 5:30 a.m., Applipation No. M-2006-07, Laura
Th as (peet's Coffee), 20807 Stevens Creek -Blvd., APN 326-32-051. The appellant is
uncilmember Richard Lowenthal.
Under postponements, this item was continued to March 6 as requested by the applicant.
.. .
11. Consider an appeal 6fthe Planning Commission's decision to deny an exception to allow
a 5-foot side yard setback. to deny a Tentative Map to subdivide a .46-acre parcel into
two parcels .of 9,685 square feet and 9,686 square feet, respectively, and to deny a
variance to allow a 50-foot lot width, instead of the required 60-foot width, for two
proposed parcels, Application Nos. EXC-.2006-14, TM-2006-12, V-2007-0l, Jitka
1 - 20
February 20, 2007
Cupertino City Council
, Page 4
,,'
Cvinbal (Westfall Engineers), 21871 Dolores Avenue, APN 357-14-026. The appellant is
Jitlca Cymbal.
Director of Community Development Steve Piasecki noted that the applicant had
withdrawn the appeal for the exception portion of the application, EXC-2006-14.
Applicant Jitka Cymb~l reviewed the project.
The public hearing was opened at 7:50 p.m.
Johnny 'Vang said he was concerned about the loss of privacy with a flag lot due to the
many windows that would face his.house from the,side.
Rhoda Fry said that she was not in favor of variances and was cOllcemed about the
drainage issue. She said' that the lots should be compared to, others on the street for '
compatibility, rather than the overall neighborhood, and she did not think side-by-side
lots would be compatible' in this case. She said she would like to see some big trees
planted in Manta Vista.
Jem1ifer Griffin said she is ,familiar with the problems of small lots, noting that she can
hear her neighbor's conversations from her window. She said she was concemed about
creating two substandard lots and that homes built side by side would look like Inobile
homes. She thought flag lots were a better idea in this situatio~ and she also urged
C9uncil to preserve the trees.
Victoria Gomez said she lives across the street from the property in question. She noted
that the applicant had already built hvo houses elsewhere and that they are beautiful. She
said she would like to see diversity in the neighborhood arid urged Council to uphold the
appeal to build the houses side by side.
Cindy Hsu, owner, said that Cupertino is the only city where she has seen flag lots. She
said they are not safe because fire dep~ent vehicles have difficulty reaching the
houses. She asked Council to uphold the appeal.
Tracy Hsu, owner, said she was told by CitY staff to ayoid flag lots. She noted that the
Planning Commission failed to give clear guidelines to City staff and to the applicant, and
that the City should stay with i~ policy of avoiding flag lo~.
Suejane' Han distributed a petition in support of upholding the appeal. She said she
counted 76 side-by-side houses vs. 26 flag lots in the Monta Vista area. She believed that
that side-by-side lots are safer, and building flag lots is an old practice.
r .
The public hearing was closed at 8:12 p.m.
1 - 21
February 20, 2007
Cupertino City Council
Page 5
Mahoney/Sandoval moved and seconded to cont~ue the item to March 20 and to have
the applicant bring back plans of what the lot would look like as a side by side. The
motion failed with Patrick Kwok and Kris 'Vang voting no, Orrin' Mahon.ey and Dolly
Sandoval voting yes, and Richard Lowenthal ~sent.
Mahoney/Sandoval moved and seconded to uphold the appeal and grant the variap.ce. The
motion failed with Patrick Kwok and Kris Wang voting no, Orrin M.ab.oney and Dolly
Sandoval voting yes, and Richard Lowfmthal absent. The appeal is denied and the
Planning'Co~l1mission decision is upheld. .
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
12. Consider a Community Development Director's referral of' a minor m
approve the final front plaza design ~d gateway feature. for Oak Park la e along N.
De Anza Boulevard required by a previously approved use permit iCa:tion (U-2004-
09), Application No. DIR-2907-06, Chuck Bommarito) 1074? e Anza Blvd, APN
326-10-064.
J emlifer Grifflll said that the project looked nice on pap , ut the resulting housing is too
high and too dense, and ci'eates an oddly shaped ro ne along Highway 280. She urged
Council to add lots of trees to the project and no that any artwork put there should be
around 5-feet tall and have muted colors in ord 0 keep it looking like a wooded area.
SandovaVKwok moved and seconded t approve the l'J?inor modification to the front
plaza design and gateway feature. le motion carried unanimously with 'Richard
Lowenthal absent.
a) TIle evaluati of traffic safety issues in the tri-school area including Monta Vista'
High, Ke ay Middle, and Lincoln elementary schools
Council recessed fi.'om 8:55 p.m. to 9:
13. Receive staffrecommen
b) Defer scussion of the reopening the Scenic Circle gate into Blackberry Farm as a
sep te item .
Rhod ry said that the City should put money ~to pedestrian safety, especially in the
Mo a Vista area.
avid Greenstein talked about traffic around the schools and said the best $olution is to
get parent participation and to educate the public about using alternative transportation to
get their cllildren to and from school.
1 - 22
February 20,2007
Cupertino City Council
P ~ge 6
Joe Walton, member pf Bicycle Pedestrian Commission, suggested that the gate access
into Monta Vista High School be opened so that bikes could be ridden through and to
provide better bicycle parking at the schooL He also suggested a car pool website that
parents could utilize. ~e noted that the commission wanted to work with the Public
Works staff further on these issues and encouraged Council to do what it could to help
alleviate tra~c congestion around the schools. .
NOlm Donovan .said that the Scenic Circle gate should be opened to allow bicycle and
pedestrian access to school. .
Jennifer Griffin and Louis.e Levy both said that they would like to see school buses as a
i: solution.
Robert Levy noted that the City has no control over the busing issue since the school
districts gave them up, but encouraged the City to use its surplus dollars to help with
traffic Congestion.
Council discussed having Council member Sandoval continue to work with the
neighborhood, schools, and the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), and to have
Mayor Wang go to Sacr~ento to look int9 a grant. The Council also discussed having
the .Bicycle Pedestrian and Public Safety Commissions continue to work with staff on the
traffic issue regardirig safer routes to school.
Mahoney/Kwok moved' and seconded to. accept. staff's recommendations and to
iricorporate the discussion of the tri-school area traffic safety issues into the work
program.
NEW BUSINESS
14. Review and adopt the 2007-08 City Council work program. C<;ontinued from February 6).
Kwok/Mahoney moved and seconded to adopt the 2007-08 work program with the
following amendments. The motion carried unanimously:
.
On page 1, delete items 1 and 2 (Dynasty Restaurant and Alexander's Steakhouse)
in .the Completed section under Status, and stlike the comments regarding the 13 7
Vallco condominiums adding instead, "awaiting application from VaUco"
.
On page 2, delete the HP Site under Project Goal, Status, and Comments
.
On page 2, change the Capital Improvements and Plans from number 1 tq;-number
2, and strike the comments for the Mary Avenue Pedestriim Footbridge "\,.
On page 2, add some interim dates under the Status section regarding the Stevens
Creek Corridor Park, and strike the comments regarding issues to be resolved for
Phase II adding instead, "Resolve issues and begin the grant application process
for phase II"
1 - 23
.
vZ - ~
EXISTING
c:J
.
o
o
o
@
d
e
~
-------
-------
-ss-ss_
-0-0_
-G-~.-
-\J-\!-
LEGEND
BULDING
HONllHENT
CURB INLET
AREA DRAIN
PlILE
SANIT ARY SEIo'ER MANHOLr
STORM DRAIN MANHllLE
,IIlE HYDRANT
VATER VALVE
STREET UGHT
CLE:ANOUT
BllUNDARY
LOT LINE
CENTERLINE
LIMIT Of EASEMENT
CURB
CIJRII AND GUTTER
E:llGE Of PAVEMENT
CONTOUIl
ITNtE
n..o... LINE
SAHlT AI/Y SE:\J!:Il
STORM DRAlN
ELrCTRlCAL
GAS
"'ATER
IMPERIAL AVENUE
VICINITY MAP
Nil I BY I DATE
REVISION
I I
> . I
I : I
> .
I II
> I II
I I II
I i. .
I I - I I
II > i
1/ I : ! I
II >I~: 'r;:
___ II ~ 1
------ I I > I '~ l.A
I ' " I i /11
I' '" {
I I ~ 1'" .j.'-<:J I I ~
I ". ./ I II
-'-'- II -. / I .
_..._..._ )r ::;'_-" , ~-SiJtL1GtfT
_ ss _ j oJa . ,""- o. .. >-I(T'"
-SD -0', .. I I I Lj.........s. - - - -
I I if' ---
-6-G- II >::: I I
-\{-v- II I I ~ J I O:"COOI1
II >1::: I 1 or.,.,__
'I > I I I.,.I!>>~'. I f - - --,
1\ I::: I 1 . . I I
II :.' I .'65." "', I ~ ~ I I-i
I I I ~ 1365.l5;:; I EX. HOUSE I I
II j I "'I 8 I ROIOI.f: I~
I I I::: 1, ~I"U r(-<Tn,....t-~... L .J
I I "" > I 'I A ZI (.r !:;- Il )..1 I
II ,1::: "x 1\ r ~ I I)' I
~ I :. '-, L 'f? '" I 'y-..;'...... ';-}, : I
'. / i""\ .J lilt.!' ......Aj '1
. '/ ). \ ~ '! '= -< ~,-..-
II I "" ! I J. \ . . .?+-- -" .:c---1...."
I '" r \ (. II
:. I .3M,.. '" ~\..,.. " i
II /w i rt .~~/
I I > => ::: I I r ~ I f ~u..u
I I I Z I '" .'1.... T ('
I, r-'~
I I w I I ....~_....-J)~)-' ~
:.>~ I t.
II l<rl i~ C
II >... ! l!l \-
- ..(I)'" '/ . - (
1\ l'~"'i .".,,/~ I -'
I I u..I ,-/- , ~
:. ~ v~ 1 '.-:
~ ~ 'I '-,
, I . .Q I ,:J \ - '.- --' , ,. ,-
--J i'&3.,. '- ,-".'
II >0 I I
II I ~ ~ ,~\
11>1 1\ r
II I ~ l rl..~.e -
I I > I ! I i €~
J.1.... I::: ~ I I
I ! .,..... I II
>.. -.:; II
I I ! II
:. ~ ,_ I I
I If! I
::l I I
I I i
'" II
.. II
PROPOSED
c:J
.
.
.
.
.
@
iC
.
~
-----
SITE
0::
<
N
<
o
..J
<
Owacr 8Dd SuDdnida':
EaPcer:
NDICS:
Tn<)'1Iso -.I Socj_Hoo
21171 _ A.....
c.,....;...CA".I.
l"ol46HOlD
w_ &c;oeon.1oc.
J'SI3 Bia a.;. WI)'
s__ CA 9WID
Tel. 161-4244
F..I61.Q61
SIIeIrUO.46aaw
~...(cxisli.cl
'E::.:iaaa-.~
=~;::;:DD
,.,.,...., .....1. k-I."lID
kialcr.l pI_ daiJUZioa ~ Jailladill
I
I I
I
L_____Ex.HOUSE I
CHEN _____.J
~"'b
BY I DATE I DA T[o NOVEMBER 2006
SCALE, HeR. I' EIO'
VERT.
DES I GNEDo JC I n, KAREL CYMBAL, RCE 345341
CHECKEIlo KC DA JE.
PROJ. DIGR, JC
4
WESTFALL ENGINEERS) INC.
0{1oCto-
'( e,,"
>-,
_) _....7.
J..
1
)\
"
)
)
....)
T'
~::::. --:'!.~
,-.
'-'
.... I
SCALE
I' = 1 0'
I
I Ex. HOUSE I
L-__________-.J
FUNG
~~.E_11,g3.!.2. _
WANG
- - -~tS
r - - - - "I __-_-y- r - - - l
I I ,....rl ., 'rl-. I
~ ~) I
I EX. COTTAGE I ,03. 7. ,-' -. I
REIotOI.f: . (J. ).... I
I I 1 J" -l.J~~ I
L . 1
_ _ _ ..- --1... PI 9,665 sq. ft. {' j.
\ ......-,..... ( """," t
l.......c i- t l:Jri.cA. , I .....
( r I \ /<Y{ Jig
( ...'t m. I ~ I.... 58
It L-.J "( j- l --_J3&!.96
'I ~,~ ~ "( ~ \
I -<....... .:_J:... .;;: y' '0,>, 1
1, - ;.. 0'''' '1lD: ~+1 r-)' ~\ ~
'.,. .,/ '_.J}-' .
. _\)__ . It)
" .,) ~.'-J...j..--'-- \ d
-, ..ri ~____ \ 0
.-" """"" ",.,. ~,~J r l ! r
I I' \ 0
I \ ~
r-.,........-. I I \ . ~
,_ hI . ~
(1 QLJ..~, I I \ Iz
I ~. ,"') \ I
. "P. I I I .
( /.' \
"1. Ir) .'63,57 I I i II
.............."..f- Ex.COTTAGE \
/ I REMOVE I ~
'2 .
_,/ 9,686 sq. ft. I I 1,
,/ \
_.-/ I I ;
"" 16 I I
I I
I I
I I
L _ _ _ _ J'61 '"
...".
..
z
<
F
<
z
<
"
z
<
0::
r
I
I
I
i-.J
I
I
I
I Ex. HOUSE
I
I
,
I
j
I
L_
JI
II
I'
..' .--
<:1f."~OO.OO.OO.E 193.42'
I
::=i
~
~
...."....
~Ils
RADHAKRISHNA
PARSAY
r----------l
I EX. HOUSE I
I I
I I
TENTATIVE MAP
LANDS OF HSU AND HAN
2J 871 DlILDl1E~ AVENUE, CUPERTINO
JOB "'11
2006-133
-
SHEE:l
I
[]f'2
1.593 1IIG BASIN liAY, iARATOGA, CA 95070 (.09)867-0244