.02 TM-2007-03 Sue Jane 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
Applicant: Jitka Cymbal
Property Owner: Sue-J~ne Hall
Property Location: 21871 Dolores Avenue
Agenda Date: August 28, 2007
Application Summary:
TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide a .46 acre lot llltO two parcels of 9,685 square feet a1ld
9,686 square feet, respectively in a RI-7.5 zOl1.i1lg district.
VARIANCE to allow a 50-foot lot width, instead of the required 60-foot widtll, for the
two proposed parcels.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends th.at tI1.e Plarullllg Commissio1l approve tIle tentative map, tIle
varia1lce and the exceptio1l III accordance with tIle model resolutio11.S.
*Tlle Pla11Jmlg C011Ullissio1l contlllued th.is itelll frolll its August 14, 2007 111eetulg per
tIle applicaJlt's request.
Project Data:
General Plan Designation:
Zoning Designation:
Total Acreage (gross):
Net Acreage per parcel:
Density:
Low Density Residential, 1-5 DU I gr. acre
R1-7.5
.46
Lot 1- 9,685 sq. ft., Lot 2- 9,686 sq. ft.
4.3 dul gr. acre.
Project Consistency with: General Plan:
Zoning:
Yes, Policy 2-23
Yes
Categorically exempt.
Environmental Assessment:
BACKGROUND:
On January 23, 2007, the Plarullllg commission voted (3-1-1, Saadati absent)) to deny tIle
proposed project. The Co~missioll was cOllcer11ed about tIle side-by-side lot design
a11d felt tllat tIle project did not Inatcll tIle flag lot pattern. of tIle immediate
1leigllborhood. The Commissio11 11ad concer1ls 011 tIle requested five foot side yard
setback exceptio11. The Commission's decisioll was appealed to tIle City Cowlcil. 011
February 20, 2007, the City Cow1.ciI uplleld tIle Plalmlllg Commission's decisioll due to
a draw vote (2-2) with one COUllCil member absellt. all May 1, 2007, the C0U11Cil
cOllsidered and dellied tIle applicallt's recollsideration request based 011 the principle
TIv1- 2007-03, V -2007-03
Page 2
August 28, 2007
that procedurally they did not want to go back 011 a decision that was lnade by t~e
COUl1cil with ~ quorum even if Olle COUllCil member was absellt during the deliberation.
The Council suggested that the
applicant h.as tIle option to reapply
and be heard by the full Council. if
11ecessary. The applicant I1as
reapplied for the same project.
The project site is located 011 tIle 110rth
side of Dolores A vellue between
Byrlle Avenue and Orallge Avellue.
A main residellce, two detached
cottages alld a detacI1ed sI1ed
currelltly exist 011 tIle parcel. Slllgle-
family residelltial parcels surround
tIle subject site. The proposal is to
demolish all of the structures on tIle
property, subdivide into two lots and
build two new slllgle family 11omes.
DISCUSSION:
TIlere are two major discussion.polllts .for this subdivisioll: flag lot v. cOllventiollallots
al1d the proposed lot widt11.
Flag lot vs. Conventional lots
The parcel is approximately 100 feet wide and 190 feet deep. The lot is not wide enough
for two minimum 60 foot widtI1s as required by the R1 Ordlllance. The site call be
subdivided illtO two lots with a flag lot in the rear to meet the mlllilnum lot widtI1
requirelnellt. Alterllatively, tIle property could be divided dOWll tIle middle creating
two cOllvelltionallots, resulting llllot widths narrower than.tlle required 60 feet.
General Plan
Tile Gelleral Plall (Policy 2-23) specifies that flag lots should be created Ollly whell there
is 110 teasonable alterllative tI1at llltegrates with the lot patterll in the neighborllood.
This policy discourages new flag lots III the interest of promotlllg better 110use to street'
relationsllips ill residelltial neighborhoods.
Planning C0711711ission
Tile Plalulillg Commissiollllas approved a, similar variallce request (TM-2005-14, 21988
McClellan Road) allowlllg the subdivisioll to conventiollal lots witll substandard lot
widths (less than 60 feet) ill the interest of better illtegrating the future residence llltO
tIle 11eigh.borllood. However, in the case of tllis project, tIle Comm.issioll has previously
felt tllat a flag lot design is more appropriate and consistel1t witll the immediate patterll
TM-2007-03, V-2007-03
Page 3
of tIle lleigIl.borllood.
August 28,2007
TIle applicallt contends that tll.e predominate neigh.borllood
pattern is side-by-side lots and
tllat the proposed. subdivision
desigIl. is consistent . with the lot
pattern an.d overall lot widtI1.S of
the entire lleighborhood. Please
see the data provided by the
applicallt (exhibit A).
Neighborhood Outreach
SiIlce tIle last time the Plarul.Ulg
Commission reviewed tllis
project, tIle applicallt Il.as
attempted to commullicate witll
mallY of tIle ilnmediate
lleighbors alld has obtailled tell.
sigIlatures of support (exll.ibit B).
One of tIle lnain COllcerns
previously expressed by tIle two
adjacent neighbors to tIle east
was tllat there was ll.Ot sufficiellt
side yard setback proposed (5 foot) along the project's easterly property line. III
response to this, the applicallt Ilas witlldrawll the origlllai five foot side yard setback
exception request and has volunteered to provide at least 10 feet of buildulg side yard
setback along the easterly property lill.e (see exhibit D). This should be added as a
COllditioll of tIl.e project sIlould the Commission decide to approve tIle project. In
addition:, Ul. order to ensure that tIle future buildings are desiglled COllsistelltly with tIle
surrounding homes, a conditioll. sIlould be added tll.at requires the desigIl. review of tIle
two homes be approved prior to tIle flllal recordation of the final map.
Staff supports the proposed side-by-side lot desigIl. alld the lot widths primarily because
the project is cOll.sistent witll. the illtellt of tIl.e City's Gelleral Plall. Furthermore, the
project is compatible witll. the overall establislled pattern of tIle lleigll.borllood. It is a
fact tllat there are more flag lots 011 Dolores AVell.Ue, Ilowever tIle ell.tire neigllborhood
cOll.sists of more narrow side-by-side lots. Tllere are l10t mallY lots left III this
neigllborllood that will be able to physically permit si11l.ilar subdivisions Ul the future,
so either way the project will not significantly change the patterll of tIle lleigllborllood.
Tree Removal and Retention:
Tell trees are located 011 tIle subject property, tllree of wll.icIl. are significallt (Deodar
Cedars #1 & #2 .all.d Coast Redwood #5). Only tIle two Deodar Cedars are protected by
tIle Tree Ordinance. Accordulg to tIle applicallt, tIle Coast Redwood #5 has already
been removed due to its poor cOll.ditioll. Staff recommends that tIle two Ceqar trees be
TM-2007-D3, V-2007-D3
Page 4
August 28, 2007
preserved as part of this approval and that one 36 inch box Redwood should be planted
to replace the removed redwood. As for the other trees on the property, the applicant
has the option of removing them since they are not protected. Staff recommends a
condition of approval that requires the existing trees'be retained to the maximum extent
possible and that the applicant work with the Director of Community Development to
make the final decision on the retention of these trees at the design review stage. The
applicant is also required to record a covenant on the property that ensures the
preservation and maintenance. of the new replacement trees and any trees that are
required to be preserved as part of this approval.
Prepared by: Gary Chao, Senior Planner LJ
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development ~~. (j~ r:Iiv /
Enclosures: Model Resolution for TM-2007 -03 ~
Model Resolution for V-2007-03
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
TM-2007-03
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 the subdivision or the type of improvements associated
there with is not likely to cause serious public health problems.
6) That the design of the subdivision and its associated improvements will not
conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or
use of property within the proposed subdivision.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the application for Tentative Subdivision Map is hereby
approved, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in. this Resolution beginning
on Page 2 thereof; and
Resolution No.
Page 2
TM-2007 -03
August 28, 2007
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this
resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application
No. TM-2006-12 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of
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 Rl Design Review
Approval Process to minimize any negative visual or building interface impacts to
the adjacent neighbors.
Resolution No.
Page 3
TM-2007 -03
August 28, 2007
SECTION IV: CONDmONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT.
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 t].1e City Engineer.
Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of
visual interference to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the
maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located.
8. FIRE HYDRANT
Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City and Santa Clara County Fire
as needed.
9. GRADING
Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance
with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404
permits maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/ or Regional
Water Quality Control Board as appropriate.
10. DRAINAGE
Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
11. FIRE PROTECTION
Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the
City as needed.
12. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities
Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of
Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of
underground utility devices. The developer shall submit detailed plans showing
utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the
affected Utility provider and the City Engineer.
:Resolution No.
Page 4
TM-2007-03
August 28, 2007
13. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of
Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking
and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for under
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:
c. Development Maintenance Deposit:
d. Storm Drainage Fee:
e. Power Cost:
f. Map Checking Fees:
g. Park Fees:
h. Street Tree
$ 5% of Off-Site Improvement Cost or
$ 6% of Site Improvement Cost or
$2,060.00 minimum
$ 2,000.00
$ 593.40
N/A
$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.
Resolution No.
Page 5
TM-2007-03
August 28,2007
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)
includedin this plan shall be selected and designed in accordance with chapter
9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the City
Code.
c. BMP Agreements
The applicant and the City shall enter into a recorded agreement and covenant
running with the land for perpetual BMP maintenance by the property
owners(s). In addition, the owner(s) and the City 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.
Resolution No.
Page 6
TM-2007-03
August 28, 2007
CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF
ENGINEERING/SURVEYING CONDITIONS
(Section 66474.18 of the California Government Code)
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 28th 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
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 SUBDMSION ON 21871
DOLORES AVENUE, AS REQUIRED BY CHAPTER 19.28 OF THE CUPERTINO
MUNICIPAL CODE.
SECTION I: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino has received an application
for a Variance, as described in Section II. of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural
Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one
Public Hearing on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has meet the burden of proof required to support the application,
and has satisfied the following criteria:
1) That there are extraordinary or exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to
the property involved that do not apply generally to properties in the same district.
2) That granting of the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial property rights of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss
or unnecessary hardship.
3) That granting the Variance will not be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
and general welfare, or convenience, and to secure the purpose of the title.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, testimony, exhibits and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the application for Variance is hereby approved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Cupertino; and
BElT FURTHER RESOLVED:
That the sub conclusions upon which the findings specified in this Resolution are based are
contained in the public hearing record concerning Application V-2007-03, as set fqrth in the
Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of August 14, 2007, and are incorporated by
reference as though fully set forth herein. .
Resolution No.
Page -2-
v -2007-03
August 28, 2007
SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
v - 2007-03
Jitka Cymbal
21871 Dolores 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 Han, 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 28th 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
G:\Planning\PDREPOR1\RES\2007\V -2007-03 res.doc
To: City of Cupeliino
I suppolithe lot side by side subdivision at 21871 Dolores Avenue,
Cupertino to allow the exception of 50 foot lot width.
NatTIe
Address
signature Date
Z-i q 2-& '170\ ~"e.-s Jtve.--" /~~ ~,<.? .
~ ~(<6'),D 'ffl~' ~~
\?,JcJ) ~ ~'- \( ~~t=~l ~-Q ~
(2.l't'- HPt f41-1s.1li "'-.A, utA 4.tfN7 ) :0 ~G ~ /) ol.lI..1X,. , ~~ 2/ II
Y/I1-c;l/iJu... sLu-lv ~/flol fi,iwM AirA', j{/z-7ti ~ -
III (Z--(\,CJ a- Y\..f't f;'cJf!.~.~. .~ ' ~ \ 0, QA) \" 0 \ Irc,:: 11 i\ /17 ~ fJ .f~
, ' v "'~ fV''U/it.v~",~
;4lwrAZ I~\ ;V90J f[)rtc~ ;a" ';if: '" {;
?I " 'i ~r{ /.0-P{~/"Y-~
;~~ .z l OJ'-,o (~~?-=,V ~ ~:~
YaW;/1{ d;rf60 4.fetlJ,--cl;'- /f0t,/ ~___(2~
~ G l:1 "". r. 0 "t-~ /1'
..--:_~ ! __.- '"""')) Q. ::;> S- 'f---,(J (] It ~J /,:J ~6.- U 1;/' t, '-__ ... rfJ -
...J d i1frlJ4:j' ,.' Y / c~ (. -=-< o' "':>'- .~:/ \ l>'_
i/
{J
~A\\.e ~~ 1-1" Ll
Qlt" Ii
'.:.,~
7S N
34 . " ~ ~ SO
"', ~ ci
gl g :J m
136 ! 135 134 ;
~
;Do.1~ .. . , Gt
LOT 1 I in lOT 1
0.26 AC. ~ 0.211 I AI::.
70 ~ : 74-
- ,
:)4 ,,;1;:;
:;, - = I~
-2" 7!.I!3 JLI
flJ11 ...
tOOl5 ' 573/37 A
~~ ^65 [;\UCJ.15 ; {i'mls r' 2'810 \lENU~
.~ ,U 66 : ..' ,,".r .
,m." _....' 07 ' "
. : ......,. ._ "" 'r" .'
'~~'~'1 10' · ""... i: g 45 Ill' 46 ~'
'--.-. . 150' .' - 0 ]
159 u_~.... l.j.~: 148 d ~ . R.OS. 371/'A
,160 .,. .-.. · 0 ·
.z " ^ 68' . Pel . ;"60::215-- r PTN- 'o~1~ " .
~~ ~ 0 '
""r' .... a 48 ' 163 20
A/NHll tOO - : 42 ~:I -
80:;; ~, PTN
.._. _.__._ . ,1.' 2' ,.z
171 :170 . i" __.1'!0' "[I - ~ I~<(
~. PCL ^ I ~:J-iJ@"5 -0::::
vv' I pm I ....-1-
5 .;;; ~."' I :1881 167 I PTN \'66\165116 I 0
_ 0 '~9,,1 .. . l. 167 1 i
S! m" .:t.. "'I :;1 I
_, 1~.2 1 -1 ?Q'
:., ,1-1 ~~
.,.v r:l' I g ~I
1/fJ' 50 I r r;," cr J ..
~.I;'l t{.I.I"'~~ ./
~r.8r5
ROAD..!...t..
<l
158
11
..B.
:JIB41
'b
'OO.t~ , .. .,
'" .............. -
'" · - - 428-M-,l
P.M.
\~ ,
S(~tbaLj'(b~.( fif/;4
i
~
,..J.
~
(l}!II
;; ~~~ 32
<(~~ -
Q 138 i 157
::l ,----- ---. "t- - -'T" .~'-
m20' : 141
~ 11'
-' ~ '"
::;: :!l d PTN.
e. .. ~ 139'
I
- - -:- '\ . -ALCAZAR
~ 21910
IQQ,I,. : IQQ,15
;/./100
~.'~
~
li
'j IlO.IS ;
;~ rl:or2:-j
" 0.18 AC.
.. '"
I"' '" I
.g 69 g.
I - :
I
. I
: 20 I BO.15
@
j JO'
Wa
:>"
z ~ 1~
w
}-
!!.921i
.r:;
1
I
~ ~ 60
g: t ~ .154 '
-~ ...
I -
... 75
'" ~
'"
.: _ 135
pm 155
157
1
/lcRAt; A Ws "5uf'ftJr-G -w--r
~ ~1= s r'tie
-"""'-11-/1..11 JI......IUI.
n r.lIVI'1Ir'l VI..J'I1
2 I IifJO
~.....
"-
\U~\'i
1\ VE~8~ E ~
iCo:i5
- li7l1~ - -f
75';)1l
!fE ;tl I
.,; 2~
1~1 "' W
--~...~:.~--- ::J
147 Z
€1 ~ ~
<C
21Ma
21828-5
~
5/
...
~~
..
26
0.25 AC,
_M'~-'4
pel A I i I
:1 ~ ...'~ 53
r".~r -
I ~ 9/[
I ,O.17AC.
so
II
"1
'"
01
!
1.90.15
N
"': 80.13
:;l rh----
- I LOT 2 ·
; 0.183 AC, :,
,N .".
:~ 73 ~II: M
I -- '
201 ~ BO.ts
o'
').':\.
eo
~\
B - <i;/clr?
56
@
~
-{~-
'sj/
!
1B := 100'
LAWRENCE E. STONE - ASSE!
CalilSl[Q' mqJ ~r messm."T11 P'JlPo~
C()f.pil~ lJIltkt it If. 1 Code, S~
Eftvetf'X! Roll Ye<lr 20Cl-~2
HSU/HAN PROPERTY, 21S', & JOLORES AVENUE CUPERTINO
1
Assignment
On October 2nd, 2006, I met Mrs. Sue Han at the property to prepare an analysis of the
trees on the property.
The plan used for this analysis is by Westfall Engineers, Inc., titled 'Tentative Map;
Lands ofHsu and Ran' dated September 2006.
At this time we do not have the plans that show the proposed new structures so it is not
possible to provide specific recommendations for tree preservation during construction,
but the enclosed notes titled "Tree Protection Before, During, and After Construction"
should be used as guidelines for tree protection.
It will, be necessary to install fences to protect at least the two Deodara Cedar trees before
any demolition or construction activity begins.
The suggested fence locations are drawn into the map I was provided. If those
recommended fence locations conflict with proposed construction we should review the
construction plans with tree preservation detail in mind.
Summary
The site has 4 trees on it of a size large enough to be contr~Iled by City Ordinance.
The most important ones are two Deodar Cedars (Cedrus deodara) which are near the
south side near the front of the property.
The majority of the other trees are ofless important species such as Black Locust
(Robinia pseudoacacia). There is one Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) in rather
poor condition along the east property line.
The Deodara Cedar trees have been severely pruned and over thinned causing them to be
very stubbed looking at this point and being of much lesser value than they might have
been otherwise.
These trees (#1 and # 2) are both healthy but have been damaged by the severe stub-
cutting of each of the limbs. It will be necessary over a period of time to re-prune these
trees as they respond to the severe pruning they received.
"
PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORlST
OCTOBER 2ND, 2006
HSU/HANPROPERTY,21b.4 OOLORESAVENUE CUPERTINO
2
Conclusion
There are nine trees on the property and one on the adjacent property to the west in this
survey. Of these, only the two Deodara Cedars, one Coast Redwood are significant trees.
The three Black Locusts species are brittle and the specimens are poorly formed and of
little importance. The rest of the trees are smaller than the size commonly covered by
City regulations but are included in this report because they were shown on the plan
provided.
Respectfully submitted,
~.t:?~
Barrie D. Coate
BDC/phlg
Enclosures: Assumptions & Limiting Conditions
Tree Protection Notes
Photographs .
Map
PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORlST
OCTOBER 2ND, 2006
BARRI E D. COATE .
and ASSOCIATES
Horticutural Consultants
23535 Summit Road
Los Gatos. CA 95033
4081353-1 052
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 c~aracter nor is any opinion rendered as to
the quality of any title. .
2. The appraiser/consultant can neither guarantee nor be responsible for accuracy of
information provided by others.
3. The appraiser/consultant shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason
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 a.No tree described in this report was climbed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take
responsibility for any defects which could only have been discovered by climbing. A full root
collar inspection, consisting of excavating the soil around the tree to uncover the root collar
and major buttress roots, was not performed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take
responsibility for any root defects which could only have been discovered by such an
inspection. .
CONSULTING ARBORIST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training, and experience to
examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to
reduce risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations
of the arborist, or to seek additional advice.
Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree.
Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often
hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or
safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments,
like medicine, cannot be guaranteed.
Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some
degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate all trees.
cOaM-Ze .6J. ~
Barrie D. Coate
ISA Certified Arborist
Horticultural Consultant
BARRIE D. CuATE AND ASSOCIATES
Horticultural Consultants
(408) 353-1052
Fax (408) 353-1238
23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033
TREE PROTECTION BEFORE, DURING, AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION
These are general recommendations
And may be superseded by site-specific instructions
BEFORE
Plan location oftrenching to avoid all possible cuts beneath tree canopies. This includes trenches
for utilities, irrigation lines, cable TV and roof drains.
Plan construction period fence locations which will prevent equipment travel or material storage
beneath tree canopies.
Install fences before any construction related equipment is allowed on site. This includes pickup
trucks .
Inform subcontractors in writing that they must read this document. Require return of signed
copies to demonstrate that they have read the document.
Prune any tree parts, which conflict with construction between August and January. Except for
pines which may be pruned between October-January. Only an ISA certified arborist, using
ISA pruning instructions may be used for his work. If limbs are in conflict with the
construction equipment before the certified arborist is on-site, carpenters may cut off
offending parts of 6" diameter or less, leaving an 18" long stub, which should be re-cut later
by the arborist.
Under no Circumstances may any party remove more than 30% ofa trees foliage, or prune so
that an unbalanced canopy is created.
DURING
Avoid use of any wheeled equipment beneath tree canopies.
Maintain fences at original location in vertical, undamaged condition until all contractors and
subcontractors, including painters are gone.
Clear root collars of retained trees enough to leave 5-6 buttress roots bases visible at 12" from
the trunk.
Irrigate trees adjacent to construction activity during hot months (June-October). Apply 10
gallons of water per 1" of trunk diameter (measured at 4 Yz') once per 2 week period by
soaker hose. Apply water at the dripline, or adjacent to construction not around the trunk.
Apply mulch to make a 3" deep layer in all areas beneath tree canopies and inside fences. Any
organic material which is non toxic may be used.
AFTER
Irrigate monthly with 10 gallons of water per 1" of trunk diameter with a soaker hose, placed just
inside the drip line. Continue until 8" of rain has fallen. .
Avoid cutting irrigation trenches beneath tree canopies.
A void rototilling beneath tree canopies since that will destroy the small surface roots which
absorb water.
Avoid installation of turf or other frequently irrigated plants beneath tree canopies.
3\
MEASUREMENTS
CONDITION
DISPOSITION
NOTES
I I I ~
3:1. fill ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ m ~I~I
~ I 0 1 w ~ ~ ~I
:nl 0 ~ m 01 ~II ~ ~ ~I
~I I O'~ ~ W :ffi
~I ~I m ~ 01 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~I ~
;:1 wllfi 9 bl fi} ~ ~ ~ ~: 0
01 ~ ~ W 01 W 0: W :) :) frl
I
I
I
1 I
-- ---f--
1
J
I
I
I
I t-t--f-
rro~ Da!"a~
9
BARRIE D. COATE
ind ASSOCIATES
(4lJI)3S3-llli2
23535 s.1Il1..
1.1I GltOl,rA 9ml
---;--
I
I
I
1
I
The Lands of HsulHan
21871 Dolores Avenue
Cupertino
* CD WIIB = CODOMINANT LEADERS WITH INCLUDED BARK
** RECOMMENDED + P = PRESERVE; T=TRANSPLANT; R=REMOVE
1 = Best, 5 + Worst
'"
1 0-06-204l0ctober 2nd, 2006
HSUIHAN PROPERTY~ 21871 DOLORES AVENUE CUPERTINO
:,t,t::rr,;~;, ~ ~ - -
1(",; fI~''':~''.''~';'':k~
,," . ~ .~ :f}:~~~ ~"'~ l,'~ j7r- _ ~ ~ ~ ..
.....~~ ." '!~r-.,;.. ........' ~d'''' ~
. ~~,~~~f~t~~~.~ .~,
,.. ii(,. i'Fe' ~~,. 'tl .,~:, I
,'['1;1:1 r;,.~...;ttJf Q. ~, ~ ~ "iT';<<';., f~ ';.
" ", .. .~. -----.:..-~ ~..!l:t.p:!f.,,~,'_.
. :~;t~::c~~ ,~ k ~ r I. ~ -
- ...
.1"-
... . ~ ", :~. ~ ~
L_
.,. ,,"';."
'')
t-
:. J' ',' - .,;;...:.'~...~
...I~ l'
.~ -:- - -..-..'" ~
41J)\..
~:---:~~;(,,~
~ d
~.i
~ -~
~
,--....,
;f=~
,f f
~
.. "'--
. ''''\1.,. '
. ...... - ..
2. Trees # 1 & #2.
~
'-
1
ft
'"
1
~'" "" .. ~
~::."';
- - .
......' '-.1 ~...
. J-" .J / '..
".J.
_' :J_....
~-)~,...
~ \",
..~
(~~J
r ~ -'\ - .r
. I _
I:.... ~ ~
" .. I", . .., ,
- -; '~'ff:... '" " r;
t~. ,.l._:",,::? ",'~1l!-~
I _ . :~-V~;.-
!J.-l. :~~.~
{n ~ ' "'..~~
--.....-
...1
.l-
I
r;
PREPARED BY BARRlE D, COA TE, CONSULTING ARBORlST
~ 1. Tree #1.
~
,'; ~~4)'~"
.,:.~, ~
.t;
.....~I~/I.
- :;0;""11
..; ';l?' 'if
-:=. ",~r
.~, ~'.:',," .\
" r - (~ :'t .~:
'-~ :)~~~ ~~~~.
" ~~~~l ;.-':
"C'
...,...
.", ~..
~
.:'
~~ 1
...~~..+
,. ~'r.
,. I'" ..1
., :J.
MP ....:J
. ~
..-!
~ <II _
. ~:
." ~ I
.,'~l
, ~
J
"If'
OCTOBER 2ND, 2006
HSUIHAN PROPERTY, 21871 DOLORES AVENUE CUPERTINO
J,
/
1
.1
~ -~ i
I
j
~.......
:.,I",
. f
. 'f" . :or- ,,::. .."" ~':....:~ ;~"I;._
';{.~~l~>~ ,..:~X/~;~~. '-.
>1~~:~~~~iir~i:.;t~~J~J ' -~ 'f}{, 1
" '\ .... ',;-, "j
. ':... "."1 .., r'~... ~ ..\~... , :1. "./"'1.... .... .,
1 ~ ~~, ~~. ;. .. (I'
V ~ · , - -<\\ '., .;\, i\.. J .
''i~~(\. iF ~ .:... ~"".., '~ ~,~ "" , 'I
';' :S~l~~~~~:-t' ,,~ . '-
'4:.: ~ ~~ J: J' --
~. "'... ~-3~;~! _<?,__" ~__-- -J~ ~
- - ~ _ ~~ ~~~:.l:, ':';~-.';l'- _.
: ~ .~ -:i .....
- ~ J ~-..; ~,,---_, ~
~ 3. Tree #3 (note dead branches).
."
"it t
- ----- -
~
~ ~
'~+'i. - - ~,,1 f~r'. 1.
~~ t.!~,....
... -
'.",.:- . , .
f~~
-:,
.;:
4. Tree #5. ---7
i' I .
f! ;' t; '.\ . .,' . .~ ...-.....
. - . p ... . .) .' .
~... ~.......: . .. . . _ t..
-..~
.. ~"1l
:.' :..~..(.:;~.
PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COA TE, CONSULTING ARBORIST
OCTOBER 2ND, 2006
HSUIHAN PROPERTY, 21871 DOLORES AVENUE CUPERTINO
---rr- ~.-
:; r
~ ,
')~~ ;
~.~:~~ ...
-i:\~~}~~~~
r~ ~il }t,
f~.
~ 5. Tree #6.
~.~ :~:;;:?~:
.' 'f,':.,
..
~),-; .
~. :--- -~~.
!I.f..".. 1#
~"-~"""-:-... ~-:. ..,.---J_>-_--=----
! 6. Tree #7.
'1 I ~
.,.
, ~ ~
'."J
_f:tf"
:;,
I~
. " ~c: ~ J ~..
'~~.
"'.,~
"
~~
.- ~~r~3
. . i
.fi\,:" · I
'~:'~-~in ~-~
; . ~ . :~:j~: ~.'J
If.~."r'. ~
.....". .,' 'II ~. ~ ~
".,. · ~ -. . . ,:.,,~. '1,
.t'~h ~'l
..:
: 1..;: ,_
...,fIt ..
. ,.
.... :;........--...... -~...
'-' ..". ~
L
PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORIST
OCTOBER 2l>.TD, 2006
HSU/HAN PROPERTY~ 21871 DOLORES AVENUE CUPERTINO
. ..1:...:- ~:~-I
"
. <.
p
.'
. a:-J
r
'. - ~
': ,~~~,. ~
-j
+- 7. A neighboring tree which
should not be affected.
T
:~~~~ :.;(';~~ .
" ( . i
, \ J
., ~, ~r;:1
.;;: :lI
~ ~
~ -
1 ,~..
~ _~...-:-..__ _~ oJ
;y~~{~; .'~
-';~ f." _ '
, '.. I ~~ l'I.,\.;r; ,
, l.~ iL'f ' _ _~ ~.: "l .........
..:) !:..F.:}J I" t ~ t ,. ~;. '. . '\ ~ <<j'} .
il~ ~'tt\.,-;,.'1,;':;I '1. ',.. ~. ..J. r. 501 r- .I
~. ~~~~." ,~:~" '~'.;r JI ~ -,: ~ ",
e- '~~};f~-:(ll O. 1 ~::. -' / fi, i.- 'I ~ . '. .
<~1: -'~,~f:~ ,: :'....~o'{.;~, '.:'~' 'eo, 0 ',' 0
\ q,~ _ . \itil.~t.t ~...l" ... -, 'I \..~ .. I _ -.. . - . 11"'0 l' ~ II..
""" . ~~, '~t.~ ~'''~5 or ,,' :~. ;l=.tA, .~ -::- ,
\. .~~~.:t ':~Y~J"~:' .~:;,i ~~~~ . : \ ..~~'~~l~~;:~ ~~~~. ,
T ~.' "~"'" ~ j,fl')!.: 'f,lf !, \ ~ 4' ;1 '. .. r.J I'':;' ~ ~.J . . a ~- "'
r~ ,,~, iL . :.f4::' M?i~'~ ~ ,:'~:: 'H",,'F ~j'" ,..... J' ..
)"~> . . .~,....,...~!.-I " .,;~ 2: _:.w - ..
,
,
I t~, F'
· . ". ~,.L -
;:l ;. ~', . .,~ ".. ;:'.1. ,.. ,or; !~~ " f L-:.t ,r -; J'
t.. .. to:l>._ ' .~. \;; r\. J" '~""1 ~.~l '1~ . -<
. . '#~;'k :. l ",',t. ::.L~":lI": '';
~.i_. "~:~:~::~ ~~' ,~. -," .,._..."
F.~~~: ~~ ~~-~ ~),~.~-~~:~~ -
- ~~~
:'
,.
.....- "....0;"__
I ,r.l
r.;
8. Tree # 8.
---?
,,~ .
PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORIST
OCTOBER 2ND, 2006
tISU/HAN PROPERTY: 21871 DOLORES AVENUE CUPERTINO
~
t 'Li~ ~
i · ;~ .
[' ~.*" :~
-- .
I
.~' U
t~1?i ~
I
--,
...--.
of co...:.....
- --...
..\IJ
'~t."~
~;:~'S I (" _
., ;.---.;.:;
r~~~ :,,~~;'2' , i~ f! 'J'"
-', ~ c'. . '... ' !... :..io..: :;7.::d".~' i':: 1:
>'
L-
-:1.
_J
~
i
..... ....... f '?
,j;, ". .
tH !. ... _ _~
.....:;
.",':i~ -
; A'
l ~ _",
'. ~~,;:Tt~ j.
" '; - " .,~...~ "-
:~~:.
~ ;,~. ~ 1- ..1
; ~'.
'.........
t 9. Cypress along neighbor's property line.
PREPARED BY BARRIE D. tOA TE, CONSULTING ARBORlST
OCTOBER 21'.lJJ, 2006
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., Cupertino. 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 26 houses are flag lots, and 77 houses are
substandard 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? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's
economy) at Yahoo! Games.
http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow
1
May 1, 2007
Cupertino City Council
Page 7
Sandoval/Lowenthal moved and seconded to t",'hlf'" ;"iilllll 1 L HIt: mOTIDn camedr
unanimou~lv
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 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-2007-01, Jitka Cvmbal (Westfall Engineers), 21871" Dolores Avenue, APN
357-14-026. The petitioners are Tracy Hsu and Suejane Han. Adopt a resolution to either:
a) Deny the rehearing, Resolution No. 07-075; or
b) 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
conceming flag lots and side-by-side lots and stated that side-by-side lots were more
prevalent in -the neighborhood than flag lots. She also noted that there were only 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.
Jennifer Griffin stated her support in this case of a flag lot rather than the creation of two
substandard width 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 tIns neighborhood were narrow and their design plans
included protection of the trees on the property.
Council discussed the request before them and the City Attorney's report on the fll1dings
required for reconsideration. The basic question was whether or not any mivv evidence
had been presented at tlns meeting.
Malloney/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 armg
Officer's decision to deny an a eal b J a Kamdar r I:> e issuance of. a
Revocable Encroachment Permit by the Drrec IC Works for the installation of a
. , esolution No. 07-078.
stributed an email dated April 26 from Jay Kamdar withdrawing his
May 1, 2007
Cupertino City Council
Page 8
During Postponements, KwokIMahoney moved 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 (Rl) Regarding Buildings Proposed on Properties witP an Average
Slope Equal to ,or Greater than Fifteen Percent, Application No. MCA-2006-01."
(Continued from April'I7).
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 hlgh1ighted them and their possible ramifications.
Mark Santoro (speaking also 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 beseparated from the rest of the city; 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 there 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%: 1) allowable floor area be reduced by 1 % for each percentage of slope over 15%
within the building footprint. The maximum floor area reduction shall be 50%. and 2) in
order to reduce the footprint of buildings 011 hillsides the size of the second floor of atwo
story building may exceed the 45% R1limit 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 CI and C2 from
theRl Ordinance. However, they were willing ~o 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
~"'~Q.rq.inance.
Bob Rodert questioned what the problem was with the current ordinances. He could not
support changes that were not directed at solving specific community-wide problems. He
recoIl1ll1ended maintaining the current ordinances~
-"
February 20, 2007
Cupertino City Council
Page 3
the Superior Court website to obtain applications and receive further information can be fo on
the Cupertino website at www.cupertino.org.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ort for the year ending June 30,2006.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Sandoval/Kwok moved and seconded to approve the items on the Consent
recolllille1).ded, with the exception of item No.8, which was pulled for discussi
Mahoney, Sandoval, and Wang. Noes: None. Absent:. Richard Lowenthal.
5. . Approve the minutes from the February 6 City Council meeting.
6. Adopt resolutions accepting Accounts Payable for January , February 2, and February
9, Resolution Nos. 07-030 to 07-032.
7. Adopt a resolution accepting Payro.ll for February 9,
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CAL
8.
Sandoval/Mahoney moved and secon to continue this item to March 6. Ayes: Kwok,
Mahoney, Sandoval, and Wang. No . None. Absent: Richard Lowenthal.
9. C011sider approving a bin 0 ennit renewal from De Anza Force Soccer. (Continued from
February 6).
K wok/Mallon moved and seconded to approve the bingo pennit renewal 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 Planning Commission's decision to modify the use pennit for
offee to allow' an opening time of 5:30 a.m., Applkation No. M-2006-07, Laura
Th as (peet's Coffee), 20807 Stevens Creek -Blvd., APN 326-32-051. The appellant is
uncil member Richard Lowenthal.
Under postponements, tins item was continued to March 6 as requested by the applicant.
11. Consider an appeal cifthe 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 pro-eels 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-2007-01, Jitka
February 20, 2007
Cupertino City Council
. Page 4
~.
Cvinbal (Westfall Engineers), 21871 Dolores Avenue, APN 357-14-026. The appellant is
Jitka 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 Cymbal reviewed the project.
The public hearing was opened at 7:50 p.m.
J olumy Wang 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 concelned 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 Monta Vista.
Jennifer 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 concelned about
creating two substandard lots and that homes built side by side would look like mobile
homes. She thought flag lots were a better idea in tillS situation, and she also urged
Council to preserve the trees.
Victoria Gomez said she lives across tile 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 tile neighborhood and 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 department vehicles have difficulty reaching the
houses. She asked Council to uphold the appeal.
Tracy Hsu, owner, said she was told by CitY staff to avoid flag lots. She noted that the
Planning Commission failed to give clear guidelines tq City staff and to the applicant, and
that the City should stay with it$ policy of avoiding flag lots.
Suejane Han distributed a petition in Slipport of upholding the appeal. She said she
counted 76 side-by-side houses vs. 26 flag lots in the Monta Vista area. She believed tIlat
that side-by-side lots are safer, and building flag lots is an old practice.
, .
The public hearing was closed at 8:12 p.m.
February 20, 2007
Cupertino City Council
Page 5
Mahoney/Sandoval moved and seconded to continue 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 Wang voting no, Orrin Mahoney and Dolly
Sandoval voting yes, and Richard Lowenthal ';tbsent.
Malloney/S andoval moved and seconded to uphold the appeal and grant the variance. The
motion failed with Patrick Kwok and Kris Wang voting no, Orrin Mahoney and Dolly
Sandoval voting yes, and Richard Lowenthal absent. The appeal is denied and the
Planning'Commission 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 a e along N.
De Allza Boulevard required by a previously approved use pennit iCation (U-2004-
09), Application No. DIR-2007-06, Chuck Bommarito, 10745 e Anza Blvd, APN
326-10-064.
Jennifer Griffin said that the project looked nice on pap , ut the resulting housing is too
high and too dense, and creates an oddly shaped ro ne along Highway 280. She urged
Council to add lots of tr-ees 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 minor modification to the front
plaza design and gateway feature. le motion carried unanimously with Richard
Lowenthal absent.
a) The evaluati of traffic safety issues in the tri-school area including Monta Vista.
o.y Middle, and Lincoln elementary schools
Council recessed from 8:55 p.m. to 9:
13 . Receive staff reCOlmllen
b) Defer scussion of the reopening the Scenic Circle gate into Blackberry Fann as a
te item
Rhod ry said that the City should put money into pedestrian safety, especially in the
Mo a Vista area.
avid Greenstein talked about traffic around the schools and said the best solution is to
get parent participation and to educate the public about using altemative transportation to
get their children to and from school.
February 20, 2007
Cupertino City Council
Page 6
Joe Walton, member .of Bicycle Pedestrian Commission, suggested that the gate access
into Monta Vista High School be ope~ed 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. He 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 traffic congestion around the schools.
Norm Donovan 'said that the Scenic Circle gate should be opened to allow bicycle and
pedestrian access to school.
Jennifer Griffin and Louise 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 (VT A), and to have
Mayor Wang go to Sacramento to look into a grant. The Council also discussed having
the Bicycle Pedestrian and Public Safety Commissions continue to work with staff on the
traffic issue regarding safer routes to school.
Mahoney/Kwok moved' and seconded to' accept. staffs 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. (Continued from Febluary 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 wlder Status, and suike the conunents regarding the 13 7
Valleo condominiums adding instead, "awaiting application from Valleo"
.
On page 2, delete the HP Site wlder Project Goal, Status, and Comments
.
On page 2, change the Capital Improvements and Plans fromnunlber 1 tctnwnber
2, and strike the comments for the Mary A venue Pedestrian Footbridge'o~
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"
.
LEGEND
>
I
>
I
>
I I
I I >
II I
I I > r.:::
-=- - II I :;
_ II > .~ i.1
I ' """ I . /(,
,I .,.,.:::: ,/ I
__ ! I >-, ""'" j ,,' /: i I ~
'_ , / ' II
_..____ I I '"" ,/ ' ,
-ss > '" ,-~ ' ,
_ SD _ lad.. I I 3" 0, ,', $"0 LIGHT
-0JP Os ~
_ I I : U,' 3.. O~ 3"
G -G _ >:::: ' ifP - - -
-V-v- II I ' I - - - -
II > I ~ I
I I .~ I I
I > I 'I i ""os.o I
I I I:::: ! I$'
II > I ,3'5. 5' '~' I
i
I I I:::: i 13.5. J5
. I
II> I '~j b
II, I' Ii ~I~"
II. > I '-" ~
I I '-,J v)\ ZI I
: 'k:::: ,," 1\ ::
I, > ", I .':,0' '" I -- -.,.--vt '
~ I '.,1. ,/ : 1:('" 'I'~
F I ",_/ I i'- \ '.
> '" Ir '.
II I .3..... "'t' \
I " ..,;'" .' " I "
II wi ! ,.' ~CI:"' /
> ::) :::: I \{ r;: ~---J'1/
I I I Z I '" I.'j wi) --"v\i7
I I '-~ ~.,
I I > W '" i '~~, ' I, ~r
> '" ,I v"-,v
!I 1<1:1 -; I _~ :(~
I I > : . ,.
I I '.CI) :::: ; L, ~ '-,.
II l W'l, .f"~' i -- 0_... - '"
, > Oe:" __ , -.:c---...
,I 10" ' ..
'~':J I -" I
II > i i \3""
'D. "
I q:::: .~ i
I > I \
I I I ~ .
! I > I
U2.2 I :;
> I
I '"
I I
> "
I
-"1
EXISTING
c:=:J
.
o
o
PROPOSED
c:=:J
.
.
.
.
.
@
<<
~
.
------
BULDING
MONUMENT
CURB INLET
AREA DRAIN
POLE
SANIT ARY SEI./ER MANflOLE
STORM DRAIN MANHOlE
F'IRE HYDRANT
I./ATER VALVE
STREET LIGHT
CLEANOUT
BOUNDARY
LOT LINE
CENTERLINE
LIMIT OF' EASEMENT
CURB
CURB AND GUTTER
EDGE OF' PAVEMENT
CONTOUR
rENCE
rLOl./ LINE
SANIT ARY SEVER
STORM DRAIN
ELECTRICAL
GAS
YATER
Owba-1IDd Subdnidtr
T_ Hsu ODd s~ Iho
21.71 dolom: AvtmIC
Copcn;.o, CA 9S014
Tel 464.5030
Wear.n En,.ioecn., IDe..
] 4583 Big BasiD WI!)'
Sorologa, CA 9S070
Tel. a67~244
Fa 867--626J
SCALE
1"=10'
o
o
@
a:
@
~
Engineer:
EX. HOUSE
~
L
N....
SiIc a'eI 0.46 at:ZIS
iBuiktina... (cxislm&)
E.-mting use - rcsidcatial
!PmPosed DSC - raideDtiJll
~1"""'.R.I.7S00
IPmposed ZOIIiua. R.I.7500
lGalcral pia dcrigutiOIl - TClideutial
i EX. HOUSE I
L__________.J
CHEN
-' FUNG
r-
I
,
WANG
li.OO"QQ:2Q'E_1123,~' _
i---l
I I
1----,
i I
I EX. COTTAGE
I REMOVE
!
,-i,r-< I~"'~"~'Y-''(-';-,
363. 72 .._~ i-')_.~
- G - G .--
Q4~ CEDAR
..
.~>
-1./-\,/-
~------I
..
~ I
I II
I i I
I EX. HOUSE I I
REMOVE 'I
, I I
_...J
I
i
I
;...... I EX.SHED
1." REMOVE
.l.j
)
, 3. 41 ~~!\
~, " \. c:r.- AC'. 1:
i(~----' . ;-1., ,--r~'Y{ 1: i
',. II I ,.-< lL.. _ _ _ ...J".....
' . .5'FO. TRq " ~. "<s" I
III L .J :-j',( ~t y'" '''>i .
I ......f . J-' (@o'Torr .~i ~"'
\ ~ " _':r--<:.o~'-~'Y~ r
. (' , f=----l j..J
i . '''r,__< ......,_.,._.' )_J , R
. 36'.7' 1'lU0'OO'OO"E '93.42 ! I . . 1:;
i I I I ~
'-['"'-', ; I I II
/'~Q'); I I ; II
~ ~~ \
r ~ ~_} 363 57 I EX.COTTAGE
'-(~,,\_,,_.-,.,L) I REMOVE
I
1'-:'-
!~
1
9,6B5 sq. It
L _ _' _ -;-- --13&3.91
SITE
"'I;'"
~O
gg
;...
o
ci
"'
!
363. 58
I
I
I
i--.J
I
r--.(--i""rrr,-
t' I...
! r'o
~ ; l ~-i.
_ i -,
... I I L,~
01)?:ACA1
ill' ,'=
~
w
=>
Z
~
<(
o
<(
o
a::
..:.
z
<(
..J
..J
W
.J
U
U
~
IMPERIAL A VENUE
I
36-4.76
a::
<(
N
<(
U
..J
<(
z
<(
~
<(
Z
<(
Cl
Z
<(
a::
r-.
.
.3b....71
1
I EX, HOUSE
"'.
-<
)
0->'" .C'
""'6.
9<
2
9,686 sq. ft.
VICINITY MAP
~I
--.:.::~ ----
. 3~'3. ~6
II
I'
I
I
I
L__ _
r
~ ------
r3~, R~OO.OO'OO.U 93.42'
i !
~~ _ _ _ _ .-J361 30
-f?t1
,
r13f.3. 42
I
:=113&2
~.
~"o
~v
.~
~Os
"ir..?~
PARSAY
RADHAKRISHNA
. '3~2. ';'~
I
I
i
I
II
I
,'--------------,
, I
I
EX. HOUSE
'"
'"
! i
II
'"
NIl I BY I DATE
REVISION
BY I DATE
DATE, NOVEMBER 2006
SCALE. HOR, I' =10'
VERT.
DES I GNED. JC
CHECKED. KC
PROJ. ENGR. JC
4
JOB NO.
.. 2006-133
TENTATIVE
LANDS OF HSU
MAP
AND
WESTFALL ENGINEERS) INC.
HAN
SHEET
1
or2
BY, KAREL CYMBAL. RCE 34534
DATE.
14583 BIG BASIN WAY, ,ARATOGA. CA 95070 (408) 867-0244
21871 DOLORE~ AVENUE, CUPERTINO