The URL can be used to link to this page

R-2006-08b CUPERTINO Jeff, This letter is in response to the investigation of the Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) at 21180 Grenola Dr. Case # 10-001192. It is my opinion as a certified arborist that there has been an excessive amount of live growth removed from this tree. You were concerned if there was enough removed from this tree to consider this tree removed. I believe not. I would thou estimate the live growth ratio of this tree to be 40% to 50%. This ratio in oaks should be around 70% to 80%, as coast live oaks are healthiest with dense canopies. It would be in this trees best interest if it was not trimmed at all for the next 2 years. If there is anything else I can help you with do not hesitate contacting me. Sincerely, Jonathan Ferrante Public Works Supervisor (408)777-3343 Jun 25 07 05:07)0 homa moj~ani 4082557729 p. 1 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CUPERTINO CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE. CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3223. FAX: (408) 777-3366 May 21,2007 Homa & Menroad Mojgani 22370 Palm Ave Cupertino, Ca 95014 Re: Consider a Petition for Reconsideration of the City Council's decision to deny the proposed balcony on the west side of the rear elevation, Application Nos: R-2006-08, RM-2006-13, Cliff Cowles (Moigani residence), 21180 Grenola Avenue, APN 326-28-057, Resolution No. 07-089 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Mojgani: At its May 15, 2007 meeting, the Cupertino City Council adopted Resolution No. 07-089 denying the petition for reconsideration. Please call the City Attorney's office at (408) 777-3403 if you have any questions. The decision by the City Council above described isfinal effective May 15,2007. The time within which judicial review must be sought is governed by &1096.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure which is 90 days following the above effective date. d Grace Schmidt Deputy City Clerk ends. Resolution No. 07-089 cc: City Attorney Planning Dept. Cliff Cowles Elena Herrera & Subir Sengupta Jessica Rose & John Tracy RESOLUTION NO. 07-089 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DENYING THE PETITION OF MEHRDAD AND HOMA MOJGANI SEEKING COUNCIL RECONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION R-2006-08 AND RM-2006-13, A RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW AND MINOR RESIDENTIAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A NEW, TWO-STORY RESIDENCE WITH TWO SECOND-STORY REAR YARD BALCONIES Whereas, application R-2006-08 and RM-2006-13, a Residential Design Review and Minor Residential Permit to construct a new, two-story residence with two second-story rear yard balconies was approved by the Planning Commission on October 10, 2006; and Whereas, the Planning Commission decision was appealed by John Tracy & Jessica Rose and Elena Herrera & Subir Sengupta to the City Council on March 20, 2007 where the appeal was sustained; and Whereas, applicants Mehrdad and Homa Mojgani have requested that the City Council reconsider its decision under the provisions of section 2.08.096 of the City's ordinance code; and Whereas, the City Council has considered all relevant evidence presented by the parties at all hearings, including evidence presented at the May 15, 2007 reconsideration hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The petitioner's Reconsideration Petition is defective on its face in that it does not offer proof of facts as required by Municipal Code section 2.08.096. 2. The petitioner has made no offer of new relevant evidence that, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced atany earlier city hearing. (See Municipal Code 92.08.096B(1).) 3. The City Council did not exclude any evidence presented by the petitioners at any prior city hearing. (See Municipal Code 92.08.096B(2).) 4. The City Council has proceeded entirely within its jurisdiction regarding the application for a use permit. (See Municipal Code 92.08.096B(3).) 5. The petitioner has failed to present any evidence that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing. (See Municipal Code 9 2.08.096B(4).) 6. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion regarding the application. (See Municipal Code 9 2.08.096B(5).) Specifically, the City Council determines that: a. The City Council proceeded in a manner required by law. b. The City Council's decision is supported by findings of fact. c. The findings of fact related to the City Council's decision were supported by substantial evidence in the record of proceedings. Resolution No. 07-089 2 7. The specific allegations contained in the petition for reconsideration are refuted by specific City Council findings, as follows: PETITION AND FINDINGS PETITION FINDING 1. "Despite our many requests (email, Petitioners were given clear direction from phone calls), the City Council and Planning the planning staff and the City Council that office did not provide us the guidance for adverse visual impacts on adjoining the height of the balcony barrier which was properties must be reasonably mitigated. suggested as a solution in prior City's With the plans, as presented, the Council meetings. They also refused to meet us to could not make that finding. answer our questions to know what to do. They never responded why the latest revised design invaded the privacy of the appellants so we could correct the deficiencies. " 2. "Instead of focusing on the privacy invasion that the neighbors claimed, the hearing was covering irrelevant comments and personal preferences of appellants, and their supports, including the City Council members. The City Council accused us that we want to have the balcony just to see our neighbors back yard. People who live in a multi million dolor homes should have better ways of enjoying their time than picking to neighbor's house. Inconsistence time allocation during hearing for us (applicants) vs. appellants. This statement is not based on fact. Discussion has centered on privacy intrusion since the plans first came forwarded. The City Council made no such accusation. This statement is irrelevant and based on opinion onlt. Time was allocated fairly. In the appeal hearing the two appellants shared eleven minutes and 46 seconds. The applicant was given ten minutes and 38 seconds. 3. "The City Council and Planning office have not yet provided an objective reason that what in our design violated the "R 1 " ordinance. And why with appropriate privacy plan, we could not have the balcony similar to the other Cupertino citizens who have balconies. Petitioner makes no offer of facts to support the allegation. The Council has repeatedly said that with an appropriate privacy plan petitioners' balconies could be allowed. However, the plans are vague and non-specific. The City Council has stated that the petitioner can come back later with a more specific plan and request the west balcony. The Council agreed to approve the project without the balcony so as to Resolution No. 07-089 3 allow the project to proceed. Rl Ordinance: 'The goal of the permit requirement is not to require complete visual protection but to address privacy protection to the greatest extent while still allowing the construction and use of an outdoor deck. This section applies to second-story decks, patios, balconies.' The City not being able to decide because of lack of supporting material and the case being prolong is not a good reason for denying a permit which is our right. The only planning office point that had listed in the report was that someone can still look over the 4.5' Stucco wall on the west side of the balcony but both planning and City council failed to tell us: 1. Why Balcony with 4.5' stucco wall is different from any side windows which are installed in the height ranging from 3 '2" to 3' 10"? 2. What height is acceptable to make the west side balcony wall acceptable? 3. What is so special about our neighbor that the city can bend the ordinance for them? Should the participation in annexing give more rights for our neighbor to waive an ordinance. 4. Why they continued to say having a balcony is a privilege when it is well documented in the Rl ordinance that people have a right to have it if they meet a reasonable privacy mitigation plan? 5. While most of the new Cupertino houses are built with balconies why our house is an exception? What is the difference between our house and the house within 100' of our house at 21135 Hazelbrook Dr.? What is difference between our house and the rest of the new houses with balconies which are built/building in Cupertino under same ordinance. 6. Why the planning office ignored our This is true. However, the Council must be able to make the finding that adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonably mitigated. With the plans, as presented, the Council could not make that finding. This statement is unintelligible. However, there is no "right" to a second story balcony. The Council must make specific findings to permit it, which, in this case, they could not make. These questions are irrelevant. The Planning Department and the City Council do not design the projects that come before them. They have informed applicant of the standards that must be met, including reasonable mitigation of the adverse visual impacts on the neighbors. As presented, the plans do not meet the standards. Resolution No. 07-089 4 requests to provide their input to our privacy landscape and design change? And why in the City council meeting planning office dictated the City Council what they should put in their motion? 8. The petitioner's Petition for Reconsideration of the City Council's determination of March 20, 2007 is DENIED PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 15th day of May 2007, by the following vote: Vote Members of the Citv Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Wang, Kwok, Lowenthal, Mahoney, Sandoval None None None ATTEST APPROVED: Is/Kimberly Smith /s/Kris Wang City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino Community Development Department 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Telephone (408) 777-3313 Fax (408) 777-3333 ITV OF CUPEIUINO Homa and Mehrdad Mojgani 22370 Palm Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 May 7, 2007 RE: Privacy Protection Landscape Plan in conjunction with R-2006-08 and RM-2006-13 (21180 Grenola Avenue) Dear Homa and Mehrdad: The Director of Community Development has reviewed your revised privacy protection landscape plan in conjunction with the above-referenced applications and has approved the plan with the additional red line corrections that the Pittosporum Crassifolium shrubs be added along the entire rear (south) property line and that the pittosporum shrubs and Southern Magnolia trees shall be minimum 24-inch box sizes and 8 feet in height at planting time, per the City Council approval of these applications. With approval of this privacy protection landscape plan, you may proceed with the process to construct your residence in compliance with the conditions of approval of your project as approved by the City Council on March 20, 2007. The approved landscape plan must be submitted with your building (construction) plans to be submitted to the Building Department for building permits. The privacy protection landscaping will be required to be installed prior to issuance of the occupancy permit for the residence. Should you wish to vary from this approved plan, you will need to re-apply for a modification of this approval that will require a public hearing through the Planning Commission and City Council, and noticing to all property owners within a 500 foot radius of your property. Should you have any further questions regarding the above-referenced information and approved privacy protection landscape plan, please feel free to contact me in the Community Development Department at (408) 777-3313 SincerelY;d>"o/a~[ ft~/ Aki Hon~a~nefilng, AICPj Senior Planner . CC: Cliff Cowles Elena Herrera & Subir Sengupta, 21150 Grenola Dr Jessica Rose & John Tracy, 10410 Ann Arbor Ave Jennifer Chen, 10372 Ann Arbor Ave Lester & Betty Bowers, 21181 Hazelbrook Dr Lee Xu & Michelle Wi, 21164 Grenola Avenue Printed on Recycled Paper o \. \. ..\ '. '\ ~~ . jJ .;",. -' :1" ..... ..: ,: ",'.' ..... ...1'-...... . F '- j !. ittrQSpOftl m .....- ------....-. I . . . .I 1~:;;t~~:1-::~3..... -"'- -.. ..!...~ :J~i:O- . ".~T-r.t-j"f",,~_--y-,=..,.....t-:~ ._ .."'~~.- .' ~~..... l'.~~~~..~ :-r -~"-'-'r:"""-"''''''''''''-- ..... ......... . ... .f",. "'--'~-j 1.. tr I .~_::~S'\:l~'F::' :'." ~;':. ~,:) :~.; ::f;~:~:,,~,,~t=~~i~~~l~(' -----\ I i' -,- I I I 1- -r-:= ~ ! , , ,j I ~lJn!'!n Urz;;;.rifi1fu-:n ~: .25 feet Spread: 1.$-29 fe::t fipnrmll:: Sitd: Soui f1(:' Ii M.a~gl1()Br;.: Ht;: lith!: ao- S,n(:ad: -'3{r St1CllCiUC,: 20' 24 inc', bO:!4: ., leigh1'1: pfr.:':Hiltts ~r: li.ts. noma MoJgnnl P:n.i,=d Grcmola Drive, Cupertinn -~~~~~. -~-.~..~ Ih=r.n BJ" D.r=r.infi. Joe Andolina ~. 365 of" n~ll;.gn.. Build.. COal;tfl1Cti"n Cuttl1m ll\nd~J'W Op.<;;Ion ..mrl Cnnururtinn '~~.~C"!l:::..~~.~ol:'tc: <W-k::l:tt:I~."..::-t:1r"n:1~:.. ~ ~ ~~.. e::JG) 'r.1ttu~-e-1 408 - 925 . 0180 vMw.fproL1ntfu;t,p11\g.t.1Om Ht.~nt:erUQ\.lrrnl5ID. &mOO>- fiStlRtD- Uo::me,MJar. >""'-<""-~~~~~~....w~~~"~~'''''''''ii'''' "":~-t<'-!:'-.wtll:''t~:';'"''''''>!';;''''''''' ,-- '<''''''.>>''';;;:''ffiJ:_~~x'';t..,' ~- ", ,~i'''''' , . Corre<< ""'0 S h~ht M pI4lnf1~ R-d.DO~ "06 1M -dOo(P-/3 DIRECTOR'S APPROVAL: DATE: ?-7?l!t. ~ .~ SIGNATUF)~: _:.d.. ;?h/./1~ - T' ~Orv1MUNI- Y DEV. Dt ~ .... City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3223 FAX: (408) 777-3366 CUPEIUINO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK March 23, 2007 Cliff Cowles P.O. Box 223201 Carmel, CA 93922 Re: Consider two appeals of the Planning Commission's decision to deny an appeal of a Residential Design Review approval and a Minor Residential Permit to construct a new, two-story 4,219 square foot residence with two-second story rear yard decks, Application Nos. R-2006-08 and RM-2006-13, Cliff Cowles (Mojgani residence), 21180 Grenola Avenue, APN 326-28-057. (Continued from March 6). The appellants are: a) Jessica Rose and John Tracy b) Elena Herrera and Subir Sengupta Dear Mr. Cowles: At its meeting of March 20, the City Council denied the appeal and approved a residential design review and minor residential permit to allow construction of a two-story residence including a second story balcony on the east side of the rear elevation, upheld the appeal regarding eliminating the master bedroom balcony on the west side of the elevation, and amended the landscaping plan to assure that the magnolias and the pittosporums are 24-inch, 8-foot tall, and that the spacing on the pittosporums be approved by staff as appropriate for those plants. If you have any questions, please contact the Community Development department at 777-3308. The Residential Design Review conditions are as follows: SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED PROJECT This approval is based on a plan set entitled, "A New Two-Story Residence for Homa & Mehrdad Mojgani," consisting of seven sheets dated March 20, 2006, including a site plan, first and second floor plans, elevations, roof plan and section, and a privacy protection landscape plan and revised master bedroom balcony plan with reduced balcony, except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution. . 2. REVISED BALCONY Prior to issuance of building permit(s), the applicant shall reduce the size of the master bedroom balcony to a maximum six-foot depth and 60 square feet as shown in the revised master bedroom balcony plan. R-2006-08 March 23, 2007 3. TREE PROTECTION The applicant shall be required to maintain the existing 3l-inch diameter Coast Live Oak tree on the subject property in a healthy manner in accordance with the tree protection recommendations outlined in the tree evaluation prepared for this property on April 27, 2006 by Michael L. Bench of Barrie D. Coate and Associates. 2 4. PRN ACY PROTECTION COVENANT The property owner shall record a covenant on this property to inform future property owners of the privacy protection measures and tree protection requirements consistent with the R-l Ordinance for all windows and second story balconies with views into neighboring yards and with a sill height that is 5 feet or less from the second story finished floor. The precise language will be subject to approval by the Director of Community Development. Proof of recordation must be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to final occupancy of the residence. 5. PRN ACY PROTECTION PLAN Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a complete privacy protection landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission that shall include a site plan of the project, the 30-degree cones of vision from each second story window jamb and balconies, and the location, species and canopy diameter of existing and proposed trees and shrubs to satisfy the privacy protection landscaping measures for the project. The City Arborist has confirmed that the existing Coast Live Oak tree is appropriate for screening purposes in terms of species, size and health. The Coast Live Oak tree shall be recorded on the property as a protected tree along with the new privacy trees and shrubs to be planted on the property. 6. FRONT YARD TREE A new 24-inch box tree shall be planted in the front yard to meet landscaping requirements. The type and size of tree shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works and Community Development Departments. 7. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS The applican~ is responsible to consult with other. departments and/or agencies with regard to the proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Any misrepresentation of any submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Development Department. 8. NOTICE OF FEES. DEDICATIONS. RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020( d) (I), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications; reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. R-2006-08 3 March 23, 2007 The Minor Residential permit conditions are as follows: SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED PROJECT This approval is based on a plan set entitled, "A New Two-Story Residence for Homa & Mehrdad Mojgani," consisting of seven sheets dated March 20, 2006, including a site plan, first and second floor plans, elevations, roof plan and section, and a privacy protection landscape plan and revised master bedroom balcony plan with reduced balcony, except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution. 2. REVISED BALCONY Prior to issuance of building permit(s), the applicant shall reduce the size of the master bedroom balcony to a maximum six-foot depth and 60 square feet as shown in the revised master bedroom balcony plan. 3. TREE PROTECTION The applicant shall be required to maintain the existing 31-inch diameter Coast Live Oak tree on. the subject property in a healthy manner in accordance with the tree protection recommendations outlined in the tree evaluation prepared for this property on April 27, 2006 by Michael L. Bench of Barrie D. Coate and Associates. 4. PRIVACY PROTECTION COVENANT The property owner shall record a covenant on this property to inform future property owners of the privacy protection measures and tree protection requirements consistent with the R-I Ordinance for all windows and second story balconies with views into neighboring yards and with a sill height that is 5 feet or less from the second story finished floor. The precise language will be subject to approval by the Director of Community Development. Proof of recordation must be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to final occupancy of the residence. 5. PRIVACY PROTECTION PLAN Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a complete privacy protection landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission that shall include a site plan of the project, the 30-degree cones of vision from each second story window jamb and balconies, and the location, species and canopy diameter of existing and proposed trees and shrubs to satisfy the privacy protection landscaping measures for the project. The City Arborist has confirmed that the existing Coast Live Oak tree is appropriate for screening purposes in terms of species, size and health. The Coast Live Oak tree shall be recorded on the property as a protected tree along with the new privacy trees and shrubs to be planted on the property. 6. FRONT YARD TREE A new 24-inch box tree shall be planted in the front yard to meet landscaping requirements. The type and size of tree shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works and Community Development Departments. R-2006-08 4 March 23, 2007 7. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/or agencies with regard to the proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Any misrepresentation of any submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Development Department. 8. NOTICE OF FEES. DEDICATIONS. RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute. written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. Please review conditions carefully. If you have any questions regarding the conditions of approval, please contact the Department of Community Development at 408-777-3308 for clarification. Failure to incorporate conditions into your plan set will result in delays at the plan checking stage. If development conditions require tree preservations, do not clear the site until required tree protection devices are installed. The conditions of project approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d)(1), these conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to me a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. Any interested person, including the applicant, prior to seeking judicial review of the city council's decision in this matter, must first file a petition for reconsideration with the city clerk within ten days after the council's decision. Any petition so filed must comply with municipal ordinance code 92.08.096. Sincerely, ~UtCU- Grace Schmidt Deputy City Clerk cc: Planning Dept. and Mr. & Mrs. Mojgani CQ) c:: .Q ......- .Q ca co 15 . u 0 Q) I 6. Recommendations included in the Geotechnical Report, datedDec. 27, 2005, by American _ <.> -a.... <<:l ~ ~oil Testing, Inc., San Jose, CA, (406-559-6400), shall be incorporated in the grading plan.s and 0- = ~ :{-"'=ti=. C1.. <C ..... CO ",',; <C ~ ~ c::. . No organic material shall be permitted i~~s-eiree1>t-a<HE>ps<>iHtsed-fer-surlaee plant ~r-ewth """2'::~- 0::: cr: <c en i;;u~:"hich does not exceed 4 inches in depth. ,',. -------- 8. Rock over t;;e1v~es in its maximum. dimension may not be used in a fill. ----- 9. Only materials meeting indilstt::z:'tandards shall be used. See Structural Engineering lor material specilicatiot\S. ------,----- G 1 D I? Dust !~om grading operations must be ::~-;Olled~;:ovide eqnipment to dampen grading ~ en. 0 a r . SItes to aVOId dust. -----~_______ I. ~10,OO' ",>" _...s 20064,{ ~ ------~, N96ooo'OO"E ---- \ -----~ '~-----. \ ~ "' \ ~~' ;~ ~. \"-.Sl '~ a Qc:~ I ~ Edmo"I(lnAvf! ~ Jr '5 L.IlS~""lJf i ~ l~ Q lc~.._ FOf'ri~:''':J..y. r.\1C;'~"'IMrl'WOJV 'JOOH La Grewl", 01 MiJ~If!lleE: PI I'Mleslead. Rd E HOnH1!'l1f.:Md Rrl WHomestead R.. ..s' 9 ~ l' - - 15'-0" M~'rtt!Ct ~ ~ V;.N"/~-:""'-"~'-~ :,. n NQllhytLlrn :':iu ~ Zt'I/:<;.IC CII_ ,VIe 3,r'l ~~~~II~~U\lC $1.1 'f.ffiif;~;:'~r-'::'==:;,~~:"-"'-':':L~~~:~~h<~:':~~~~ ,,")I,JI'~~, VallllfY Glel!n Q, i ~ ! ~ 9 ~ .~ MI'~tlll\'; GfnI11~1I! Or ~ ~ "'!Hord ~! Grencl:&Dr Dunbllr Dr Z f;lll/oD, ~ ~ HanrIJIIlDr'~ ~"l;I 9i'~ I 1 ~.~ :!? 0- 9. Dear Yard Se.tba.ck I / I N90000'OO''E nee corner 205i95 65 fenz~cg6'er WOOD FENCE .~'1 l\lS.e~ '. '0 ~ ~ ~ Q Z ~ 1'1 G.ld~n...tl''''L.n AI\I~~ 0: I 2'5" I I / I Oa.....iewLn (.)rJl:naoeA<tt' ,SleV~'1S Crt'ck Blvd '" ,(f> ,j (I) Cupertino , ii'''' 2? ~ . !]! .. RotJ/l{jun A\I~ ~ " 20 67l1r - ....-f..~'f--4~ ~ S-.;ohtlldlJr ~ S\Uvlt~ Or o "\& - --------;----- / 204.~~nce t'- ~ ~ \ \'() '" i g 11 ~ b o b o o o Z 15'-0" 100.0' 2nd Story Deck Setback 'rr ~I ~ SO b '" 0 'tI 0 - 0 t"' 0 Z II ,? " "" ~ '~ " 0" 1--- i"~..:w... ~...;'::..;"Y':--,....-.J__. ,..~~< Q... ;"~c.,..-,1id (fo,_ '?4 "-r-If r~,,<. tomor ~C4.3\ " (E.) l-Story SFD EX, BUILDI.,,.,109.0' "fiat Roo' ~ 1. AU disturbed lIurfaces resulting from grading lIhall be lIeeded and mulched as needed before winter rains, being prepared and maintained to contl'n1 erosion by effective plantlrlg wch .... rye grass, barley or some other fast germinating lIeed. I. Driveway runoft on site by sheet now to vegetative surfaces. II. Concentrated runoft to be directed away from structure min. I'll> slope for a minimum of 6 feet. Roof Drainage by Gutters Typ. oft roof through 4" solid PVC pipe into existing concrete storm water drainaige swale at street. ~------ - . ......- -~ 4. A copy of all compaction tests and final grading report shall be submitted to the City prior to scheduling any inspections. Prior to the contractor requesting a foundatin. inspection, the Soils Engineer shall advise the Building Official in writing that: 1) the Building Footing exeavations and building pad were prepared in accordance with the soil report recommendations, 2) The fOU1\dation forming and grading comply with the soil report and approved plans, 'and 3) the drainage system is in accordance with the soil report. -- ~/ ..,./'//./ ---------------- -~- o _IIFrooJYard ~ Se.tb,<'c,1, GRAVEL -- ;' --------------- .,--- ---.g~- 5. All Construction & Materials per Structural Engineering sheets provided by MS Engineering, Campbell, CA (408.377.6504). 7fiC' PIL 00.5' E.G. to~~olh N90000'OQ''E GRAVEL ;:~e' ~; :\ ~o S _I tl tQ b "l B .(11.")< n ~L-:' Cto..llll ^ n D 1\ Ie 21180 Grenola Dr. APN # 326-28-057 Lot 57, Tract 631 Garden Gate Village Lot: 9,375 sf Prooosed: Two-Story SFD: 4,219 sf 1st Floor: 2,910 sf Living: 2,271 sf Two.Car Garage: 638 sf 2nd Floor: 1.309 sf 45% FAR 45% 1st Fir. Entry Porch: Proposed Balconies: 57 sf 160 sf Lot Coverage: 2,973 sf FAR: (45% max.) 4,219 sf 3L 70% 45.00% Heit!:hts: Existing Finish Grade: Proposed SFD F.F.: 100.0' Main: 10L5' Upper: ll1.5' Maximum Ridge Height: (26'-6" from E.G.) 126.5' Grading: Excavate and Recompact Existing Septic Tank Forestry: One 42" Sycamore To Be Removed Scope of Work: 1. Demo existing 1,235 sf SFD 114.5' Ridge 2. Excavate and recompact existil Septic Tank 100' 3. Build New SFD plus Garage pir Plan Plans to he in Compliance with CA Building and Codes (2001) lOS.IS " EX. BUILDING Job Copies of Building Fire System Plans and Permits must be onsite during Inspections. 114.5' Ilidge 2001..91 " . Z()&.9~:-: ~ Dcc. Class: R-3 Build. Const.: Type V- Fire Rating: Sprinkler, TABLE OF CONTENTS A-I SITE PLAN A.2 MAIN FLOOR PLAN A.3 2nd FLOOR PLAN/Privacy Planting A-4 FRONTIREAR ELEVATIONS A.5 SIDE ELEVATIONS A-6 ROOF PLAN A.7 SECTIONS A-8 LANDSCAPING A.9 ELECTRICAL A.10 T.24 CERTIFICATES 5-1.0 SPECIFICATIONS 5-11 SHEATHING/NAILING 5.L2 TYPICAL DETAILS S.13 SHEAR DETAILS S.2.0 FOUNDATION PLAN 5-2.1 2ND FLOOR FRAMING S.2.2 UPPER ROOF FRAMING SITE PLAN Scale 1/8" = 1'- 0" ~ :t ~ CD ~ ~ ~ ... ~ 00 It) ilIl ~ C&5 ~ ~ < ~ aU .-l .-l ~....~~ o 61 00 CC! . ~ ~ Q., c... U t/J ~ _Ill ~ ... ~. O'S ~U~ l\-;-1Jl ~-i O!i ~_/-", ~ -7~ = ..... ... uQ., k c:: ~ <<l ~ ~g ~:~ "'61 ~~ . \"'4 d = td CII 'QI) ~ · '""" 10 o "l:I'1O ~ ~~ <; ="l:I' i.: -* <( ~ o loti U.... ....., 10 {\I O''i ~ .aoo ~ .. CII .... ~cD ..-. .. CII fll ~ g.tO Q:l~U6 >> rZ a ;..0; U;~ ~< .~~>> o 0.. ~ td c:: c:: ~ E .~~ fll 0 Q;" Z IIIp4 S2 d <..... .... CI) . CII I w ~ ~ t/J o - I ';' 0. iQ ... ... \ tQ IQ f!M - :1()O~ "'13 A 7jr.... rC\~ ',' IJ.," 1'\010 ~ d6 r,.. &}~~,+...... ~ r\'...~..,~U /'i':~~t~~'"' ~W~~1:: F;,<:~" "'." r,.,.",.,"",:;"" /j/-/ ./~O~ .. ~'." ".>,.,,,~,, ~._~,..~......'. Il......'. '-1'- :~a!: ~. ~ .. 3....."0 01 , , ., 4 ." ~ . J' ~.. . (;Ill... ". ,_ ... ,-,v.. I .. ..___-..__ S::~:.j~l~r~ R Application ;2 --;){'.()(:, ~ l\V RM Application Kfr1 - d (NX., -/3 Approval Date f) -,';l 3 ~ot: Signature LLfL l 'lj~)1 /l i - (Case Manage~ a; ;., 5040 HS (Norm.) '\' .., ... ~, " 3040 HS (Norm,) 3040 HS (Norm.' "? o ... t t 59'-0" 11'~4'1 46'-8" 1 < - 60710 Sliding Glass Door w 26710 Fixed&Awnin.e. both. sides(Temo.) 5040 HS (Norm.) ~ . .. .. <fl 16'.2" T to 11. t!...l~1 ."8,,, :'.:.::'-:.:':.:: . .'...::...:........' :.......... .....:.. .....:...............~,:............,.,...~...':..c...:. ',"':<,", ::'.':'<"'::--', . ~ _':::;.:0: ':' t- ... Great Room Bedroom 4 Closet I Workshop Study 11'-1" Ir:; U~8\ Laundr v ~ ~ ~ ~:l.... Utilities ( 20'-3" ,.,,' -r'II" (,I i \ ~ t,/ _~., -1 t~ ~ ....- .~. ,-- lh __ .' " '---", ... " Iff' ... -- -~r:i i r~' f~'! 12'-4" .,.t~-, Office ~ !; ~ ~ -'~~'!.~ io ~ 2060-4 OXXO with. 202Q.4 Awning Above (Norm.) b^ 16080 Garage Door Arclud Trellis Accent SECTION- "8" "" 59'-0" SECTION "c" <::j 5060-3 Fl><ed (Tem.1 6. ~ Noo 13'-10' kitchen [.;.-0" x 16'.0" JQ I Dble. """" 51-3" 31..0" 2878 Pocket 131.8" Pantry L Dining Room 'lO1 +-_L Living Room ."""""L ,.;:-:..:,:'~ ::: : t..~:.:<:, :,:;.::~...:._ ' ~' .,.........................,.-."......' ~ I ; m%(~:?:{A~:\ ! :,.,;.:.;. '.,:.",,' 9'.0' 15'...5" . !::. ll' '6 L',' Covered 'Porch ^ 2660DH-6060Fixe.d-2660DH wi 12050 ArchllC~.d Above (Tem.p.) r, rd PROPOSED 1st FLOORPLAN Scale 1/4" =' 1'- 0" 1 'I'....nll ~ 1860-2 Casement (Temp.) 1866-2 Casement (Temp.) -4 -+ io ~ ~ ~ en S ~ en ~ ... CII ~ CICI ~ CII en ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ oll3l3 0:; ~ u 11) Cl) (II -.... ~ 'a ~. 0 tl (b~r\&:l. ~~_. "'\wi ~ (c~) ,.K.. .... (lid ~.:;,... .... <d' -'~,-j~ := 0: U >. .a ~ ~ (II ~g ....ii/ 0.. r:.!~ ~= <r <0 ... o ';' iQ IQ . .... d 0) fd c-I 'OJ ~ .,.... to o '11 to ~ ~~ 0)0 o:r t:...... <( to=' .E !oJ UtO (l) fd o~ ~ "'Cj .S ~ (l) "" 1:: c6 ~.d ~c-I (l) ~ Q.tI:l O:~d6 >> rZ 8 '"'~ iii~~< o '0 >> ~fd;~ ~ E ~~ (l) 00'"' z.. ~d <(..... ;i CIJ r:I SECTION "A" ~ Z~ 1-4~ <= ~8 ~ ~ A-2 r--'--- >0 _._~.- .--.-. . ..-.. ._-- ~~~ S5! ::0 ~cc -0 --)> 3:::::lI --.. -""'C:) !!l~...... -.....-.. ""-......-0 .......' ~s; P3 -c o' CD - -- m 00....- s:u e o' --+- -.. -. <DO~ :::lI ~ir} ~:':'I ~,.~ 'l~~ ,~ I ; "."~ ":'. "-... .~ '-'- ; 1~ r \ _, 1\\;. , !~ .......... 'Q i_ ,~ ~ l-J... ~ ~I;'-> ~; rt- r i I~ . .~ ,:.~ ';;~ I 1.'10 ~ .:~o 1:1, ~ ~ Ie;:) , ~\J:r B ... ... ~Cn 1::2S @~ :0.."", 0-.." g,!!:. t;;I ... tit ." ~ . " t~'l.l.. ~ Q r ~ , '" \ n, .w:;. n ~ ~ 13'-1" TlCrn ;w, Iii ~ ~~ ~ H~' L~ ~., /~. - ..~ I co 'I"~ ]~~ ~ ~ ~\ f{i\~ \~! ~i l\r '"; n ~ 0.: ~ :P.. b.! ~ e. ,J~co ~!-~ I' JJ/ ~Nf II . 5'-6' . ~-~" - .~ =r.l C~ -- ^~ .... ^ II/l . Ii ~ .!l ~ o ,- ~ q ~ tIl ,- q g ~ 'l:. t;I:I (9 Colrt o a l...............,( " ... - ~ "'f ~ o ~ 8'..3" C/J ~ t:!Q -- ... o ~ 2: ~ V CIlt;l:l~ S.1l' ~ 1t:;'1t .. /~ Jo '!> I"" .,.. .\ 1- :'lJ ;~~ ~ ~ ~O ~ ~ON 0 ~~6.C5 ~ ~ fJJ 9 > M'j z 0 '" .Y;;s GO I ~~~ ~rtll' o III o It ;:l .. ~ .;:. ::: ~ ,~ b!!: ~. 51 $'<< Illf ! po Ii # IA ki:l: 16'-2" 5'-0' 1',. , 15'-2" 5'..6" 17'-0" ~- '(,.,," ":1:1"'0 ~t~ i.~ Q. 6'..2tl < C/J =~ ~:..s -- ~ CI! . ~ - )> . C)l UPPER FLOORPLAN A Ne.w Two-Story Ile.side.nee. for: Homa 8l. Mehrdad Mojgani 21180 Gre.nota Dr., Cupte.rtino, CA 95014 SCiara Cnty AP.No.326.28-057, 408.255.7729 Drawn by: P. O. Box 223201 Carmel, CA 93922 831626.8219 Fax.831659.5161 ::=:5 Cliff Cowles Plans 81. Permits P 126.5' llid 15'...on Accent r~ '--...r~-'-'-- - <r o .. 'r o ... 5'-6" 10'-0" 101.0' Garalle 1".1". 100.0' E.G. Finish Schedule: Exterior: &Coat Stucco - "Pa.lamino" (Lt Yellow/Tan) Roof: Concrete S.Tilelite- "Ca_ Grande Blend" Trim & Fascia.: Painted Wood Trim Surrounds - "Nude" (White) Windows & Doors: Eagle Vinyl Clad Ultra Windows - "White" Garage & Front Door- Painted Wood. "Antique" Deck Railing: Painted Articulated Wrought Iron - "White" Balcony: Slate Tile NORTH (FRONT) ELEVATION Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0" am -=:::l5 12 126.5' Ilidlle '1' <D a.l ffl'df)()6 -/3 An;J:->nv~f. /J, ~..()~ ~ ~ ,,\ .\.. J, l~.,l ..l5:..-.~i ;:;'liU.1"'!:i.c. t~,;~~, 51::::=:... 12 D[] 100.0' E.G. 10.5' Plate "...!,.",. ,', _ ,-...._.,_.l." ", II_I' L_^/ ..-..,:, ,..,:i ~.:J ~,r.:~".~~.:"t'.~~.(,,;;i _ "'r ~ (-~..~, r....~:J :~\.-:.? ~)~Jc 3,,;{() - 0 7 t:.l~lJ' S ~gr.a; me ral F'. PAL ~ ~ en ... I en ~ ~ I ~ ~ : : i >ol -< CIl II:! , o U (D (D I I:Q ,..l,..l I I oc:l3l3 I s l\ I ~; ~ I! u UJ ~ -:l ~ 's (~ 0 (:;y ~ .. ~> -(J ~ '~ Q. (:, 0 !(:,~._ Cll "~=.-:;-: ~ en .~, _ c: .... t1l .. U ~ } c:: rJl ~ ~g Q '0 ~ CIl'~ ... ~ \1:)0: . - - 5'-0" 'r o .. ,~ d Q) ~ a-.. '01 ~ ,-"' '0 o 'lit '0 ~ ~~ .c; Q) Q 'lit i; -' <(...: oS \J U'O OJ ~ ~o V O-r c:l"a~~ OJ $.4 "" rob ~.d 2a-.. OJ e.) g. lO Q:l~ao >> rZ a ""C; cii~~< o "0 ~ ~ ~ ~ c:l ~ E ~~ OJ 0 Q "" Z ..... as 0 0(..... ~ (fJ ~ . . ) ~ ~ , - Oil ~ f-t=e Z<~ O~> e w d A-41i ~:~ I -." b...~ !~ \-:, ir ,'-J ~ l~ ~ ~-t~ '~~~ tr[~ I J ~b.o / J [i..., ~ ~" ! ~ ~ ~~ / , ,\J '/ ~() 5./12 1 ,j lQ ~ ::1 ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~~to ~ ~~ :J;/. to l<l ~ 1/ /I 19'.()" Plate I , ~~ (1015' F'_F'\ 9'.0" Plate 'E~ ~ , ~ -c') en :J> ::D ::D Pi -' -0 '==-" (il(Q -0 =-:J> ~::::l -. ::t>-c ~ a 0 -0 "'2__ ,~c: <: -0 .-- -.s:u_C'? =- ('0 - 0" ~- Oac:':)" a 0" ;:-.:> CD:::::J o ~ ~ . t'l C!1 ~ @ ... :C"'lC/l0 0- "'l 0 e.!!:. t:l~ .... 01 ~ ~ 1"\ / 9'.()" Plate (F'.F'. 101.0') 9'.0" Plate '" ~ ~ ~ ~ <:A .... to a~ ie .. .... WJ <:< ~~ -3 ~ i< (JJ tJj =~ ~t-j -- ^~ /5/12 <:A_' :~~/~ ... , (101.0' F'.I") ~ .I, (101.5'F'.F') /.ulX · ",-, ~ 7"'- ~i '~~ ~ '" ~ ~ / 19' \\ // 7(' 2~ ra It;~", '- , : ~ ," 1~'()" Plate J. ... :;JG . ~ . ....'0 '::1> ..,.. ....;:.~ I I 1 101.0' F'.F'\ (101.5' F'.F') / /~. ~ 19''()" Plate <:A - ~ 5/12 ",~to 'plate Plate Cfl tJj ~~ -- o z 5112 - ~I~ 'T 1 e lJl. ~~ ~ ~ '0 e .... CI.l :->J ::2 <:A - =' IDl l<l .- ~ 0 - tie I:ll = ='" 0 ~ n ~Ul lot I:ll > .... Q'l. o t/J ~- ~ I:ll ~ ~ e;; ;:s CO '1 ::s ~ I:ll n 'CC/J o l:l lot t-jO _ Q. (l) ~ Q. '"'" <<'C S' (l) (l) 1'(l) ao. ~.C(J r- ~ " ~i't-j p.. .... << -;" )> 'C -- " ~ I 2 1~ '.()" Plate , 5112 :" .... to "'eft" """h I I I <~ ~~ -- o '2 i") w'o ~-' ;, h. :~ " :.: ~ c::: r:l > .::< ...., .:~l ~) .."..~ :> ~ <:A - l<l 6 -2..L.L. 'f. ~ ~ ~7 ..."'~~ .......y/ ~ "" ^ .." j '" ca '0 I> ~ 5112 ace> "'c <:A . J~ v := ... ; !Po CI.! ClJ i2 :0 ;s: ~ t ~ )> . 0) A New Two-Story Residence for: Homa &. Mehrdad Mojgani 21180 Grenola Dr.. Cuptertino,CA95014 SCIara Cnty AP.No, 326-28-057, 408.255,7729 ROOF PLAN 3/20/06 Revisions ffJ~- ~M ,', \ )0. 1l-<':r.,Ei ~J:I" Cliff Cowles P. O. Box 223201 Carmel, CA 93922 831626.8219 Fax.831659.5161 Drawn by: Plans 81. Permits 127.'j' Ri<1.<!e Class A Concrete Flat Tile Typo over 40 lb. Felt over 3/4" plywood with clips nO.N. - (24" Angle to Flat Ceiling) Fover 'r IBed :5 '" 1/2" CeIli~Roard or 5/8" Gypswn rywall Typical All Ceilings d Walls ~ '" .. (:, c;, I Workshop (:, c:, I Study Living Utilities Foyer 99.9' 100.0' EG @ Bid e 16" o,c. ami. e 16'" 0.' min. era wi Soace _Crawl Soace SECTION "A" Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0" .- Foyer :1/2" CeiHo.g BoaZ"d or 5/1r' Gypsum Drywall Typical All Ce.ili~s and 'Walls 'r '" 6'.6" 'r '" .. 'r ... .. Entry Hall (:, c;, I Dining Nook SECTION "B" Scale 1/4" = 1'_ 0" 111.5' 1".1". R'A I'" K .,. 'i......j/-,'\ J . pp I("CiiIUi!~ -:,:;(oofc, - {fh RM Application K /vI ~ ,J(ln /" ~ (~ Approval Date f3 - d 3 .-() /,~ Signature ()~('.jjn'vi/~ (Case Manage~ ~ 101.5' 1".1", 100.0' E.G, iO r: .. Structura.l Beams per Enl!ineerina 2<6 @ 16" OC All \If all. U.O.N, '? ... .. Insulatioo. Ceilinl!,S D..30 Walls R.tS Floors Jl-29 Exterior 3. coat Stucco Walls to have 3 V2" weep screed a.t pIa.telin.e, mil\., 4" above gra.de Typo 100.0' E.G. 2.6 @ 16" OC All Wall. U.O,N, Insulatioll Ceili,nts Jl.30 'WaJlsR.19 f"IoarsR.29 Exterior 3- coat Stucco Wa.lls to h.a.ve a; 112" weep screed at plate Iio.e. mirL 4" above grade Typ. l!!llL 100.0' E.G. o c;" Bed2 Great Room Cr '" II .\ I 1 , APPROVAL - ---- - ~()()6 -/3 l:;DO~ -- () ~ Jo,~~l:.tt:". ; ~I\a;";t Pi;',',T,::"" (''''[E,'H';''''~\''I' 11-/ / L_(J I ~., ~ __....::, Ioi... .:-"'..-1,.' ..~ T '" ~b:. ChJ~ Ca~-;tc';:11 .3 -~o -0 7 l,.:, ~ SignalUre... 1~': ...., . ' 'r" p 'c. e.'. ..\ . ,': _ Class A Concrete Flat Tile Typ. over 40 lb. Felt over 3/4" plywood with clips UO;N. oist: Hall Bath 2 2,,6 co 161'-OC All 'l.;.T ...tIs U.O.N. Insulation. Ceiline.s. II.SO Walls R.19 Floors R.25 Bed 3 o.c. e in Laundry II Util. Garage 'r '" 101.5' 1".1". , EG @ Bldg. SECTION "C" Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0" 5 ~ Q) ... G'ol Q) Cil ~ a ~ : : >< <( G'ol It) ~ u ~ ~ Oej"~~ ~ ~ ~ U (I) Cl) -:1 , ~ 's (~r~ ct \~ "wi 01:1 i--,:/j _ Ul -..' ~] -Q, U j c: ~ <<l o Ul ~g .....ii! ih ....Ql ~c:z: . .... d Q) fd a-I can ~ ...... 10 o "lt1O ~ ~i <; Q) ''It ]'Tj~&; Cll fd 6q ~'Tj~gs Cll "'" $" = 1.d i?d 0: ~ ;l" ~u 0 >> rZ S $,,0; iii~Q< . "'Q .$ >> o 0.. ~ fd C:c: ~ E ~~ Cll 0 0 $" Z..... ~ ,0 <( _ ;i(l) (/) Z o ..... E- U W fIJ A-7 - Aooft>, 13 if Jro!e ~ '1.!'7"'.""\"!' "" '" ... At:. h '.:' ~ r~, i" _ h::r~t:!l~~l1l~tlli:D~:' P..l, Of"~"~ ... ,." _"",1_.,~." 11-/!f::CJI .~':.~:".~5:;~~ '.....-'!.;...;.~..<.""...J ..~'" 11.1. C'~~.~.? (;-:;~'],~.;c!l__ ~ -dO - () 1 ,j.... R Application K-,;)Ct'lfc' ~()9.; RM Application K/I-j- ~Do6 ,-/3 Approval Date ~ __ tf3 ";),"3- D fn Signature attciikJvU~l~' (Case Manager) 120.5' PI,,: cr ~ 110.1\.1 DU Trellis Accent 100.0' Finish Schedule: Exterior: 3-Coat Stucco. "Palamino" (Lt, Yellow/Tan) Roof: Concrete S-Tilelite- ''Casa Grande Blend" Trim & Fascia: Painted Wood Trim Surrounds. "Nude" (White) Windows & Doors: Eagle Vinyl Clad Ultra Windows - "White" Garage & Front Door. Painted Wood. "Antique" Deck Railing: Painted Articulated Wrought Iron . "White" Balcony: Slate Tile ~5 12 ~ <c OJ I -1 WEST (RIGHT) ELEVATION Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0" [[]] o EAST (LEFT) ELEVATION Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0" m 51::::::.. 12 D ... ~ ~ ~ CD l"3 ~ co 1;; ~ al lIS = ~ < ~ ~ ,8 ~ .-l .-l ....l"3l"3 d ClI co co . ~ ~ ~ to "" ~ CI} (j) fIl :;:.... ~ 's o .. ~U& I~ &j '~K fIl \~.....--'/ -!l =-<...._7 " 11-1 ~ . ;.:: Q. U } s:: ~ .:!S fIl ~g .... '13 ~.== ....ClI l"3t:l: .... d = ~ ~ ~ ~ ..... If.) o ~If.) ~ ~~ =! ~ t: ~ o(~ .E ..., u If.) Cl ~ O'q ~~ .=~ Cl ;... t:: c6 ~..d ~~ Cl 6) lJ. tQ 0l~-a6 >> "Z S $.,a; iii~~< o o,e- ~ ~ s:: s:: ~ S ~~ Cl 0 Q $., z..... $ 0 0( I0Io4 ;i CI} 1114.0' Plate 'rellis Accent CI) Z o UJ~ QE- ~< I ~~ I ;01 F.F'. A.a City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3223 FAX: (408) 777-3366 CI CUPEIQ"INO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK March 23, 2007 Elena Herrera & Subir Sengupta 21150 Grenola Dr. Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Consider two appeals of the Planning Commission's decision to deny an appeal of a Residential Design Review approval and a Minor Residential Permit to construct a new, two-story 4,219 square foot residence with two-second story rear yard decks, Application Nos. R-2006-08 and RM-2006-13, Cliff Cowles (Mojgani residence), 21180 Grenola Avenue, APN 326-28-057. (Continued from March 6). The appellants are: a) Jessica Rose and John Tracy b) Elena Herrera and Subir Sengupta Dear Ms. Herrera and Mr. Sengupta: At its meeting of March 20, the City Council denied your appeal and approved a residential design review and minor residential permit to allow construction of a two-story residence including a second story balcony on the east side of the rear elevation, upheld your appeal regarding eliminating the master bedroom balcony on the west side of the elevation, and amended the landscaping plan to assure that the magnolias and the pittosporums are 24-inch, 8- foot tall, and that the spacing on the pittosporums be approved by staff as appropriate for those plants. If you have any questions, please contact the Community Development department at 777-3308. Any interested person, including the applicant, prior to seeking judicial review of the city council's decision in this matter, must first file a petition for reconsideration with the city clerk within ten days after the council's decision. Any petition so filed must comply with municipal ordinance code 92.08.096. Sincerely, 6S~oJ- Grace Schmidt Deputy City Clerk cc: Planning Dept. City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3223 FAX: (408) 777-3366 I CUPEIQ'INO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK March 23, 2007 Homa & Menroad Mojgani 22370 Palm Ave Cupertino, Ca 95014 Re: Consider two appeals of the Planning Commission's decision to deny an appeal of a Residential Design Review approval and a Minor Residential Permit to construct anew, two-story 4,219 square foot residence with two-second story rear yard decks, Application Nos. R-2006-08 and RM-2006-13, Cliff Cowles (Mojgani residence), 21180 Grenola Avenue, APN 326-28-057. (Continued from March 6). The appellants are: a) Jessica Rose and John Tracy b) Elena Herrera and Subir Sengupta Dear Mr. and Mrs. Mojgani: At its meeting of March 20, the City Council denied the appeal and approved a residential design review and minor residential permit to allow construction of a two-story residence including a second story balcony on the east side of the rear elevation, upheld the appeal regarding eliminating the master bedroom balcony on the west side of the elevation, and amended the landscaping plan to assure that the magnolias and the pittosporums are 24-inch, 8-foot tall, and that the spacing on the pittosporums be approved by staff as appropriate for those plants. If you have any questions, please contact the Community Development department at 777-3308. Any interested person, including the applicant, prior to seeking judicial review of the city council's decision in this matter, must first file a petition for reconsideration with the city clerk within ten days after the council's decision. Any petition so filed must comply with municipal ordinance code 92.08.096. Sincerely, GS4JJ- Grace Schmidt Deputy City Clerk cc: Planning Dept. City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3223 FAX: (408) 777-3366 CU PEJ(fINO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK March 7, 2007 Jessica Rose & John Tracy 10410 Ann Arbor Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Consider two appeals of the Planning Commission's decision to deny an appeal of a Residential Design Review approval and a Minor Residential Permit to construct a new, two-story 4,219 square foot residence with two-second story rear yard decks, Application Nos. R-2006-08 and RM-2006-13, Cliff Cowles (Mojgani residence), 21180 Greno1a Avenue, APN 326-28-057. (Continued from February 6). The appellants are: a) Jessica Rose and John Tracy b) Elena Herrera and Subir Sengupta Dear Ms. Rose & Mr. Tracy: At its meeting of March 6, the City Council continued the appeal to March 20. If you have any questions, please contact the Community Development department at 777-3308. Sincerely, cSShiJJ- Grace Schmidt Deputy City Clerk cc: Planning Dept. City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3223 FAX: (408) 777-3366 CUPEIQ"INO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK March 7, 2007 Elena Herrera & Subir Sengupta 21150 Grenola Dr. Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Consider two appeals of the Planning Commission's decision to deny an appeal of a Residential Design Review approval and a Minor Residential Permit to construct a new, two-story 4,219 square foot residence with two-second story rear yard decks, Application Nos. R-2006-08 and RM-2006-13, Cliff Cowles (Moigani residence), 21180 Grenola Avenue, APN 326-28-057. (Continued from February 6). The appellants are: a) Jessica Rose and John Tracy b) Elena Herrera and Subir Sengupta Dear Ms.Herrera & Mr. Sengupta: At its meeting of March 6, the City Council continued the appeal to March 20. If you have any questions, please contact the Community Development department at 777-3308. Sincerely, G3~'ckf- Grace Schmidt Deputy City Clerk cc: Planning Dept. City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3223 FAX: (408) 777-3366 CUPEIQ"INO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK March 7, 2007 Cliff Cowles P.O. Box 223201 Carmel, CA 93922 Re: Consider two appeals of the Planning Commission's decision to deny an appeal of a Residential Design Review approval and a Minor Residential Permit to construct a new, two-story 4,219 square foot residence with two-second story rear yard decks, Application Nos. R-2006-08 and RM-2006-13, Cliff Cowles (Moigani residence), 21180 Grenola Avenue, APN 326-28-057. (Continued from February 6). The appellants are: a) Jessica Rose and John Tracy b) Elena Herrera and Subir Sengupta Dear Mr. Cowles: At its meeting of March 6, the City Council continued the appeal to March 20. If you have any questions, please contact the Community Development department at 777-3308. Sincerely, ~~yj- Grace Schmidt Deputy City Clerk cc: Planning Dept. City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3223 FAX: (408)777-3366 CUPEIQ"INO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK March 7, 2007 Homa & Menroad Mojgani 22370 Palm Ave Cupertino, Ca 95014 Re: Consider two appeals of the Planning Commission's decision to deny an appeal of a Residential Design Review approval and a Minor Residential Permit to construct a new, two-story 4,219 square foot residence with two-second story rear yard decks, Application Nos. R-2006-08 and RM-2006-13, Cliff Cowles (Mojgani residence), 21180 Grenola Avenue, APN 326-28-057. (Continued from February 6). The appellants are: a) Jessica Rose and John Tracy b) Elena Herrera and Subir Sengupta Dear Mr. and Mrs. Mojgani: At its meeting of March 6, the City Council continued the appeal to March 20. If you have any questions, please contact the Community Development department at 777-3308. Sincerely, ~~~;jJ- Grace Schmidt Deputy City Clerk cc: Planning Dept. City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3223 FAX: (408) 777-3366 CUPEIQ"INO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK February 7,2007 Homa & Menroad Mojgani 22370 Palm Ave Cupertino, Ca 95014 Re: Consider two appeals of the Planning Commission's decision to deny an appeal of a Residential Design Review approval and a Minor Residential Permit to construct a new, two-story 4,219 square foot residence with two-second story rear yard decks, Application Nos. R-2006-08 and RM-2006-13, Cliff Cowles (Mojgani residence), 21180 Grenola Avenue, APN 326-28-057. (Continued from January 16). The appellants are: a) Jessica Rose and John Tracy b) Elena Herrera and Subir Sengupta Dear Mr. and Mrs. Mojgani: At its meeting of February 6, the City Council continued the appeal to March 6. If you have any questions, please contact the Community Development department at 777-3308. Sincerely, ~;;:t Grace Schmidt Deputy City Clerk cc: Planning Dept. City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3223 FAX: (408)777-3366 I F ClJPElQ"lNO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK February 7, 2007 Cliff Cowles P.O. Box 223201 Carmel, CA 93922 Re: Consider two appeals of the P1ann,ing Commission's decision to deny an appeal of a Residential Design Review approval and a Minor Residential Permit to construct anew, two-story 4,219 square foot residence with two-second story rear yard decks, Application Nos. R-2006-08 and RM-2006-13, Cliff Cowles (Mojgani residence), 21180 Greno1a Avenue, APN 326-28-057. (Continued from January 16). The appellants are: a) Jessica Rose and John Tracy b) Elena Herrera and Subir Sengupta Dear Mr. Cowles: At its meeting of February 6, the City Council continued the appeal to March 6. If you have any questions, please contact the Community Development department at 777-3308. Sincerely, Grace Schmidt Deputy City Clerk cc: Planning Dept. City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3223 FAX: (408)777-3366 CUPEIQ'INO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK February 7,2007 Jessica Rose & John Tracy 10410 Ann Arbor Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Consider two appeals of the Planning Commission's decision to deny an appeal of a Residential Design Review approval and a Minor Residential Permit to construct anew, two-story 4,219 square foot residence with two-second story rear yard decks, Application Nos. R-2006-08 and RM-2006-13, Cliff Cowles (Mojgani residence), 21180 Grenola Avenue, APN 326-28-057. (Continued from January 16). The appellants are: a) Jessica Rose and John Tracy b) Elena Herrera and Subir Sengupta Dear Ms. Rose & Mr. Tracy: At its meeting of February 6, the City Council continued the appeal to March 6. If you have any questions, please contact the Community Development department at 777-3308. Sincerely, ~g~()f Grace Schmidt Deputy City Clerk cc: Planning Dept. CUPEI{fINO February 7,2007 Elena Herrera & Subir Sengupta 21150 Grenola Dr. Cupertino, CA 95014 City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3223 FAX: (408)777-3366 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK Re: Consider two appeals of the Planning Commission's decision to deny an appeal of a Residential Design Review approval and a Minor Residential Permit to construct a new, two-story 4,219 square foot residence with two-second story rear yard decks, Application Nos. R-2006-08 and RM-2006-13, Cliff Cowles (Mojgani residence), 21180 Grenola Avenue, APN 326-28-057. (Continued from January 16). The appellants are: a) Jessica Rose and John Tracy b) Elena Herrera and Subir Sengupta Dear Ms.Herrera & Mr. Sengupta: At its meeting of February 6, the City Council continued the appeal to March 6. If you have any questions, please contact the Community Development department at 777-3308. Sincerely, ~~{kf Grace Schmidt Deputy City Clerk cc: Planning Dept. City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3223 FAX: (408) 777-3366 CITY OF CUPEIQ"INO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK January 3, 2007 Homa & Menroad Mojgani 22370 Palm Ave Cupertino, Ca 95014 Re: Appeal of the Planning Commission decision regarding Application Nos. RM-2006-08 & RM-2006-13 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Mojgani: Your request for a continuance of the above stated item to February 6 has been acknowledged. If you have any questions, please contact the Community Development department at 777-3308. Sincerely, Gv-J~():f- Grace Schmidt Deputy City Clerk cc: Planning Dept. Printed on Recycled Paper City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3223 FAX: (408) 777-3366 CiTY OF CUPEIQ"INO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK January 3,2007 Cliff Cowles P.O. Box 223201 Cannel, CA 93922 Re: Appeal of the Planning Commission decision regarding Application Nos. RM-2006-08 & RM-2006-13 Dear Mr. Cowles: Your request for a continuance of the above stated item to February 6 has been acknowledged. If you have any questions, please contact the Community Development department at 777-3308. Sincerely, ~n- Grace Schmidt Deputy City Clerk cc: Planning Dept. Printed on Recycled Paper City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3223 FAX: (408) 777-3366 CITY OF CUPEIQ"INO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK January 3,2007 Elena Herrera & Subir Sengupta 21150 Grenola Dr. Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Appeal of the Planning Commission decision regarding Application Nos. RM-2006-08 & RM-2006-13 Dear MS.Herrera & Mr. Sengupta: The applicant has requested a continuance of the above stated item to February 6, due to a death in the family. If you have any questions, please contact the Community Development department at 777-3308. Sincerely, ~~ ./I.J- 'd ~CM Grace Schm! t Deputy City Clerk cc: Planning Dept. Printed on Recycled Paper City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3223 FAX: (408) 777-3366 CITY OF CUPEIQ"INO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK January 3,2007 Jessica Rose & John Tracy 10410 Ann Arbor Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Appeal of the Planning Commission decision regarding Application Nos. RM-2006-08 & RM-2006-13 Dear MS.Rose & Mr. Tracy: The applicant has requested a continuance of the above stated item to February 6, due to a death in the family. If you have any questions, please contact the Community Development department at 777-3308. Sincerely, ~Jt Grace Schmidt Deputy City Clerk cc: Planning Dept. Printed on Recycled Paper City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3223 FAX: (408) 777-3366 CITY OF CUPERJINO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK December 4, 2006 Jessica Rose & John Tracy 10410 Ann Arbor Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Appeal of the Planning Commission decision regarding Application Nos. RM-2006-08 & RM-2006-13 Dear Ms.Rose & Mr. Tracy: The above stated item is scheduled for the January 16, 2007 City Council meeting. Council meets at 6:45 p.m., Council Chamber, Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California. Interested parties are invited to attend and be heard. Council will receive written information from staff. Any printed material you would like Council members to receive prior to the meeting should be submitted to this office no later than Tuesday, January 9. We will duplicate and deliver it to Council members. If you have any questions regarding the process, please feel free to call our office at 777-3223. If you wish to challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Cupertino City Hall at, or prior to, the public hearing. Sincerely, ~~~~ Grace Schmidt Deputy City Clerk cc: Planning Dept. Printed on Recycled Paper City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3223 FAX: (408) 777-3366 CITY OF CUPEIUINO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK December 4, 2006 Elena Herrera & Subir Sengupta 21150 Greno1a Dr. Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Appeal ofthe Planning Commission decision regarding Application Nos. RM-2006-08 & RM-2006-13 Dear MS.Herrera & Mr. Sengupta: The above stated item is scheduled for the January 16,2007 City Council meeting. Council meets at 6:45 p.m., Council Chamber, Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California. Interested parties are invited to attend and be heard. Council will receive written information from staff. Any printed material you would like Council members to receive prior to the meeting should be submitted to this office no later than Tuesday, January 9. We will duplicate and deliver it to Council members. If you have any questions regarding the process, please feel free to call our office at 777-3223. If you wish to challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Cupertino City Hall at, or prior to, the public hearing. Sincerely, ~'clf- Grace Schmidt Deputy City Clerk cc: Planning Dept. Printed on RecycledPaper City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3223 FAX: (408) 777-3366 CITY OF CUPEIUINO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK December 4, 2006 Homa & Menroad Mojgani 22370 Palm Ave Cupertino, Ca 95014 Re: Appeal of the Planning Commission decision regarding Application Nos. RM-2006-08 & RM-2006-13 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Mojgani: Elena Herrera & Subir Sengupta and Jessica Rose & John Tracy have filed an appeal of the above stated item. Copies of the appeal letters are enclosed. The above stated item is scheduled for the January 16, 2007 City Council meeting. Council meets at 6:45 p.m., Council Chamber, Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California. Interested parties are invited to attend and be heard. Council will receive written information from staff. Any printed material you would like Council members to receive prior to the meeting should be submitted to this office no later than Tuesday, January 9. We will duplicate and deliver it to Council members. If you have any questions regarding the process, please feel free to call our office at 777-3223. If you wish to challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Cupertino City Hall at, or prior to, the public hearing. Sincerely, ~dt/LAJff Grace Schmidt Deputy City Clerk cc: Planning Dept. Printed on Recycled Paper City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3223 FAX: (408) 777-3366 CITY OF CUPEIUINO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK December 4,2006 Cliff Cowles P.O. Box 223201 Carmel, Ca. 93922 Re: Appeal of the Planning Commission decision regarding Application Nos. RM-2006-08 & RM-2006-13 Dear Mr. Cowles: Elena Herrera & Subir Sengupta and Jessica Rose & John Tracy have filed an appeal of the above stated item. Copies of the appeal letters are enclosed. The above stated item is scheduled for the January 16, 2007 City Council meeting. Council meets at 6:45 p.m., Council Chamber, Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California. Interested parties are invited to attend and be heard. Council will receive written information from staff. Any printed material you would like Council members to receive prior to the meeting should be submitted to this office no later than Tuesday, January 9. We will duplicate and deliver it to Council members. If you have any questions regarding the process, please feel free to call our office at 777-3223. If you wish to challenge the CitY Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Cupertino City Hall at, or prior to, the public hearing. Sincerely, ~Sdtu~ 'oZf Grace Schmidt Deputy City Clerk cc: Planning Dept. Printed on Recycled Paper CUPEIUINO 1. Application No. 2. Applicant(s) Name: 3. Appellant(s) Name: Address Phone Number Email City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3223 10) fE LG fE ~ \Y1 fE rnI lnl NOV 3 0 2006 lW CUPERTINO CITY CLERK APPEAL Ryy) -70ab~ 02 ~ KM 2-ooCo~\3 \-)omCA. i- M~hrclod /J:dCll~r;. ~Cowl~ I J:ess Ie0\- R.ose- ~\ -Sahn ICOL(j , 0 11 (0 A () f\ A" bo~ PI \j--e.n \J-e.., dSS-Sl0~ r 0 So e.-\--ttA c'{ -3 t2 s b c.. <:J La bC'\ \ \l-L-t 4. Please check one: A eal a decision of Director of Community Development v( Appeal a decision of Planning Commission 5. Date of determination of Director or mailing of notice of City decision: 6. Basis of appeal: S~AYroG~ J- ~u~ p~ i) Se c..on 0\. s J-o,~ re..CA- c- b0-.1 c.;.:;n \-e~ CY\..L \ il \J 0- S I v-t. ..\-0 00\ p\\::> (pU~ ' '0] lov'")J5~p')n2J Cex-"no+ succ..-eS'S~\\d ml h'~q k pi J0-C"';j \:S5ves. Signature(s) Please complete orm, include appeal fee of$149.00, and return to the attention of the City Clerk, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, (408) 777-3223. John R. Tracy Jessica T. Rose 10410 Ann Arbor Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 408-255-5126 rosetracy3@sbcglobal.net To: City Council of Cupertino November 30, 2006 This letter and submitted fee are to Appeal the approval of the Minor Residential Permit for the residence at 21180 Grenola Drive, Cupertino. We reside on the western adjoining property. Our Appeal is based on two counts: 1) The second story rear balconies are invasive to our property and violate our right to privacy. The layout of these two properties does not allow adequate spacing to protect our house from the adverse visual impact of a rear balcony. 2) Landscaping cannot successfully mitigate privacy concerns pertaining to this situation. The most current landscaping plan (approx. revision #6) is substandard and has yet to meet minimum ordinance requirements. Second StOry Rear Balconies: The purpose of the Minor Residential Permit in the R-1 Ordinance is to allow the appeal process to judge disputed balconies. We are appealing the approval of the Minor Residential Permit for this balcony to the City Council because the existence of this balcony on this lot size and location will violate our right to privacy and cannot be mitigated by privacy landscaping. The purpose of the Minor Residential Permit requirement for all 2nd story balconies is to protect the privacy of adjoining properties and provide affected neighbors with the opportunity to comment on how new development will impact their property. City planners created this separate permit for balconies to address the reality that an ordinance cannot approve or deny all balconies without exception. The R-1 ordinance was designed to allow rear yard decks expecting that if a a balcony was perceived as invasive, the appeal process is available for protest. Our planners recognized that Cupertino real estate offers a large variation in lot size and terrain for development. A balcony which might offer a lovely enhancement to a foothill property with reasonable acreage might be intrusive and intrusive in a neighborhood set on flat land with smaller lot size. In our neighborhood, the proposed balconies will violate our right to privacy in our house and yard, and will affect our quality of life and the value of our property. Any person using the master balcony will be looking down directly into our main living room, patio, master bedroom window and entire back yard areas. And any person in our house or yard can look directly up at the balcony's occupant. Privacy Protection Planl Landscaoina The R-1 ordinance states that the intent of landscaping requirement is to provide substantial visual screening "from the privacy impacts and visual mass and bulk of a two story home..." within three years of planting. A balcony has a significantly more invasive presence than a 2nd story window. A solid landscaping plan should be a critical element of any proposed second story house in Cupertino, especially one with balconies. Since July 11, 2006 we have received 3 plan approval notification letters from the City Planning department on this property. 1 Each letter stated approval of Minor Residential Permit for the rear balcony, and yet the enclosed landscaping plan in each mailing failed to meet even the minimum ordinance requirements. We question how the planning department can determine if a balcony is justifiable without requiring a landscaping plan that meets ordinance requirements. In our appeal to the Planning Commission, the many deficiencies in the landscaping plan were cited by every member of the Planning Commission and drew unanimous concern about its incomplete status. The "Faux balcony" solution supported by several planning commissioners makes good sense. A faux design could include the large sliding glass doors for fresh air, natural light, and direct views into the backyard while limiting views into neighboring yards. The railing would be cosmetic and offer the look and feel of a balcony as an architectural feature, without providing a 60 square foot patio perched above neighboring yards and houses. There is just not enough space between the two houses to mitigate the privacy violation from a balcony as required by the R-1 ordinance. We led a core group of residents that annexed our Garden Gate neighborhood six years ago. The City must remember that the primary argument in support of annexation was to have protection from the excessively large two-story homes that were thoughtless planned due to weak County ordinances. We saw our annexation into the City as protection that our property value and quality of life would no longer be compromised when a new home is built. We wanted a change from the "just because the ordinance reads...then you may have" mentality experienced under County jurisdiction. We need a City government to guide our neighborhood growth in a fair and reasonable manner. For the first time, we are testing the process we worked so hard to have available to us. We want the City to recognize that an existing homeowner has the right to expect a maintained level of privacy during development of a neighboring home, just as a new property owner has the right to build a new home. Your attention to this matter is especially important to our many Garden Gate neighbors who are concerned about maintaining our privacy and quality of life as the inevitable new growth occurs around us. We invite any interested party to arrange for a site visit and come onto our property. Stand in our kitchen to view up at the orange story poles outlining the proposed balcony and walk around our back yard to see if you can find a spot in which your presence would not be viewed by a balcony occupant. It is important that those making such powerful decisions see first hand how severely this proposed balcony affects both our quality of life and the property value of our newly remodeled house. r 2 I CUPEIUINO 1. Application No. 2. Applicant(s) Name: 3. Appellant(s) Name: Address Phone Number Email City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3223 10). lE (~ 1 '\ UUl : Ci ~ U ~p 0 ~\ ~ \!J 1~ ! I' : \ t 11 11' : I I: II ;. i i! 3 C LeC \0 · CUPERTINO CITY CLERK APPEAL IZ fY1- ;1()OCr{) f j5 {( fVl UJO~ -/ 3 #0 h114 J ,11 r /k) fl-D/ CiA ~ UJ IVU:::---<; flfA# !-kjcti-M- :6 (~ut)e SW6u~m ..211 s-z> 0/-EJJOJ-,A- ~ ro! d-:);:L tJs7t/ elentt~ 1&r~r4 ~y ctM-o. &!J 1/).1 4. Please check one: Appeal a decision of Director of Community Development f-Appeal a decision of Planning Commission 5. Date of determination of Director or mailing of notice of City decision: ;/b<f /&{ ?JJO~ 6. Basis of appeal: p~;j-u-r /,~ 7i7-ft t-1-- ~U-751 () z.... ~ {;,U I DtLf vB OY , p C^'G /(r17+-CtIt2D o t2lJ I ;J.A4U lAY '. c) t:- c Signature(s) t11qJ~ Please complete form, include appeal fee of$149.00, and return to the attention of the City Clerk, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, (408) 777-3223. ELENA HERRERA SUBIR SENGUPTA 21150 GRENOLA DRIVE CUPERTINO, CA 95014 408.252.0504 To the City Council of Cupertino With this letter, I am requesting that the City Council of Cupertino reevaluate the denial of my appeal of the Project Planning Commission, Appeal of application # RM-2006-08 and # RM- 2006-13. My original appeal of the Planning Commissions approval of this project, consisted of several points: Item 1: Project is not consistent with existing neighborhood look and feel Item 2: Balconies Item 3: Temperature(Heat) and Glare Item 4: Privacy Screening Item 5: Heritage Oak Item I - . Section 19.28.0 10 states that the RI ordinance is intended to create, preserve, and enhance areas suitable for detached dwellings in order to: A. Enhance the identity of residential neighborhoods B. Ensure provision of light, air, and a reasonable level of privacy to individual residential parcels C. Ensure a reasonable level of compatibility in scale of structures within residential neighborhoods D. Reinforce the predominately low intensity setting in the community With regard to A: Please refer to photos I, 2, & 3 attached. Photos I & 2 represent the two most recently completed homes that are comparable to the project under review. The project's color rendering (attached) clearly illustrates the reality of what will be placed into the neighborhood, and shows that the massive, blockish look, while meeting the setback requirements, does not emulate a style that will not be highly intrusive into the neighborhood it will reside in. Photo 3 is also a fairly recent addition to the neighborhood, but it represents a home that, while only 3 homes away from the project, cannot possibly be construed as comparable for 3 reasons: 1) This home at 2 I 140 Grenola itself was out of compliance of the ordinance and had to go through the Design Review process; 2) The home sits on a more than 13,000 square foot lot; one could successfully argue that although within the required maximum coverage area of the lot, the 5300 sq ft home remains outside of the boundaries of what could be seen as compatible with the scale, look, and feel of the neighborhood; 3) One could successfully demonstrate that the house is not a single family residence at all, but a 2 full-family residence. With only the interior placement of one door, there would be a kitchen, family room, full bath and bedroom, and a 2- car garage separate from the remaining 4 bedroom, 2 car garage home attached, and with space available for laundry facilities and a spa. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 PAGE10F5 ELENA HERRERA SUBIR SENGUPTA 21150 GRENOLA DRIVE CUPERTINO, CA 95014 408.252.0504 . Section 19.28.060 - C-a states that the mass and bulk ofthe design shall be reasonably compatible with the predominant neighborhood pattern. New construction shall not be disproportionately larger than, or out of scale with, the neighborhood pattern in terms of building forms, roof pitches, eave heights, ridge heights, and entry feature heights. To the points of roof pitches, eave heights, ridge heights, and entry feature heights, this home is in no way compatible within a 3 block radIus with the exception of the homes built under County guidelines. and is certainly out of scale with its immediate neighbors. With regard to Photos 7 & 8, one can see that 3 blocks away, across Stelling, and arguably outside of our neighborhood but within the greater "Garden Gate" district, these same-day comparison photos illustrate that Greenleaf Drive has completely been modified from one style to another. I maintain that our neighborhood immediately adjacent to Garden Gate school still retains a look and feel that is still wooded, spacious, and inviting in comparison. We are in danger of losing all of that if we don't carefully work with builders now to present ideas that are consistent with the look and feel of our highly valued and treasured neighborhood, and to diligently work to avoid the cookie-cutter approach to home development. Item 2 - Balconies I submit that the Minor Residential Permit for 2 rear balconies is simply that: A permit - a request for an evaluation - and is therefore subject to approval or denial. If not, what purpose does the permit have? If they will always be approved, why have the permit process? Indeed, the formulation of the permit was developed so that neighbors could appeal if they felt it was outside of the reasonable scope of development. While I agree that we should be able to build balconies if we wish, and to enjoy that feature, I hold that it is incumbent upon the planning commission to: . ensure that the balconies are appropriate to the neighborhood such as the larger lots on the hills above Regnart Road, . that placement of the balconies is not intrusive into a neighboring property, . and in addition that landscaping and neighbor concurrence is required. With regard to placement, these 2 balconies, while appropriate to the current floor plan, would have been far less intrusive to adjacent properties had they been brought in from the corners or sides of the house. Although one can argue that standing in front of a window gives one the same view as that from a balcony, the implication to a balcony environment is that one deliberately steps out upon it to enjoy the ambiance and views of the adjacent areas, while the window, while it can also be used for gazing, is more frequently used for light rather than "living upon" - in other words, a window is a part ofthe daily living space, is frequently covered by shades and draperies, and is walked past more often that it is deliberately used THuRsDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 PAGE20F5 ELENA HERRERA SUBIR SENGUPTA 21150 GRENOLA DRIVE CUPERTINO, CA 95014 408.252.0504 for the outside living experience that a balcony invites. A visit to the site and the adjacent sites is invited and would prove useful, fm sure. Item 3 - Temperature (Heat) and Glare Having lived now for more than a year across the street from a similar home to the project in terms of scale and design components, and having walked innumerable times in the neighborhood across Stelling I referred to earlier, I know that with further documented studies I will be able to illustrate the negative impact to the community and environment of the predominately concrete homes that have been built. I feel the planning commission, if not able to specifically state that the ordinance requires a mix of textures, materials, color schemes to mitigate a predominate theme from changing a neighborhood, then the commission has at least the responsibility of enforcing a landscape plan that will temper the impact of such a large structure. Item 4 - Privacy Screening To date I have not seen a landscaping plan that minimally meets the ordinance with regard to privacy screening. In particular, while the immediate neighbor to the east of the property signed a waiver of interest due to his not having any windows on that side of his house, the ordinance was developed for the perspective of the field of vision from the proposed house. If the City Council were to review the meeting minutes, and took the time to review the commissions deliberations, I believe the council would fmd that the commission was unanimous on the point that the landscaping plan was and remains deficient. Item 5 - Heritage Oak To this date, I have not seen any documentation that illustrates the plans to preserve the oak. In the commissions deliberations there was discussion of procedures that are customary to ensure that the building process ensured things such ground cover and boundaries set to keep traffic and equipment away from the tree and its root system, but the original project evaluation called for a minimum distance ofthe foundation to the tree of 15 ft - - I submit that that determination was truly minimal giving the age of the tree and it's current size and spread. That the perimeter of the house is now at 14 ft 2 inches which was somehow determined as "should be okay" is highly questionable and that a second independent arborist opinion should be obtained. With regard to my original appeal, several things were very easy to see as reasonable requests, and some changes were made by the applicant: . The bay window in the upper story was deemed asymmetrical and out of character with the style and architecture of the home, so it was removed. . The round turret noted above the entry is still in place, and was determined to be in keeping with the style ofthe house. While I agree that it is within the style of the house, the overall design of the house cannot be construed as within the predominant look and feel of the neighborhood. . Landscaping has been modified, but neither to the planning commissions satisfaction nor to the requirements of the ordinance. THuRsDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 PAGE30F5 ELENA HERRERA SUBIR SENGUPTA 21150 GRENOLA DRIVE CUPERTINO, CA 95014 408.252.0504 . The entry feature was deemed to be too high. While the technical specifications of the maximum 14 ft entry height were met, the record (video) of the meeting shows that the obscure critical point of the "face plate" , what it is, and the whether the measurement is at the top, middle, or the bottom of the plate, is still not clear to either the general public. Summary The homes that are of a similar look and feel to the proposed project in the neighborhood were - without exception - built within the tenure of the county guidelines and are one of the main reasons that the neighborhood voted to be annexed into the City of Cupertino. The planning commission recommendations were consistent with our appeal at the meeting of October 1 O.The reason for the denial on November 14 is unclear. We request the City Council . reverse the decision of the planning commission, . recommend a Design Review process that is structured and with and outcome that is agreeable to all parties, . that, due to documented failures in the notification process, the neighborhood be re- notified so that misconceptions regarding the size and scope of the house and project can be clarified, i.e., the house is not a 3,500 square foot home, but rather a 4,200 square foot structure, as erroneously represented to several neighbors, . and that the impact of a 14 ft entry feature can fully be illustrated. So many at the meeting - and in the neighborhood - are unfamiliar with face plates, and indeed thought that the full feature was what was being considered. Theoretically, a very high structure could be built above the face plate measurement, negating the value of the specification. We very much appreciate your attention. z~~~ Elena Herrera and Subir Sengupta THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 PAGE40F5 50f ~ Two recent projects, one on Hazelbrook (above) one on Greenleaf (west of Stelling) that are more compatible with the current neighborhood look, feel, and size. '" :....- t~~..:~ =' " ;.;r;'".' ,:..~'- .:::; "':", ....""".,~. ~/~~ ~~<:':... ~~., ;'~. !f~i t- Vhol-o.1- p~.~ Re 21180 Grenola Two projects referenced with balconies, both in immediate neighborhood to 21180 Grenola. 21150 Grenola Current Hazelbrook project (21135 Hazelbrook) Re 21180 Grenola ?loi-D. J ~ hvb4 4 6 1~fv- Views from neighbor on Ann Arbor, under the mistaken impression that he would not be affected by the project. He was notified per the mailing, however the reference map was misleading and indicated that the project was 2 blocks away and so he did not comment. fho~.~ Re 21180 Grenola Fits with current look and feel? (Pictures taken on same day) Before: 1J0ro1 After: \7\w\n ~ Re 21180 Grenola 10300 T orre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 FAX (408) 777-3333 Community D€'v€lopm€nt D€partm€nt CITY OF CUPEIUINO ~ovember16,2006 Cliff Cowles P.O. Box 223201 Carmel, Ca. 93922 SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION LETTER - R-2006-08, RM-2006-13 This letter confirms the decision of the Planning Commission, given at the meeting of ~ovember 14, 2006, denying the appeal of an approved Residential Design Review for a new 4,219 square foot residence and a Minor Residential Permit to construct two second story rear yard decks on the new residence, located at 21180 Grenola Avenue, according to Planning Commission Resolutions ~umbered 6429 and 6430. Also, please note that an appeal of this decision can be made within 14 calendar days from the date of this letter. If this happens, you will be notified of a public hearing, which will be scheduled before the City Council. Sincerely, {Jh~.~ Aki Honda Snelling Senior Planner Enclosure: Resolutions 6429 & 6430 Cc: Homa & Menroad Mojgani, 22370 Palm Ave, Cupertino, CA 95014 John Tracy & Jessica Rose, 10410 Ann Arbor Ave, Cupertino CA 95014 Elena HelTera & Subir Sengupta, 21150 Grenols Ave, Cupertino CA 95014 Printed on Recycled Paper R-2006-08 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6429 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DENYING AN APPEAL OF A RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW APPROV AL TO CONSTRUCT A NEW, TWO STORY 4,219 SQUARE FCXJT RESIDENCE WITH TWO SECOND-STORY REAR YARD DECKS LOCATED AT 21180 GRENOLA DRIVE SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received two appeals of a Residential Design Review approval (R-2006-08), as described in Section II of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the appellants have not met the burden of proof required to support said appeals; and have not demonstrated that the Residential Design Review approval meets the following findings for denial: 1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; 2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner that is not in accord with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of this title. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for R-2006-08 is hereby approved, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. R-2006-08 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of November 14, 2006 and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. Resolution No. 6429 Page 2 R-2006-08 November 14, 2006 SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: R-2006-08 Cliff Cowles (Mojgani Residence) 21180 Grenola Drive SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED PROTECT This approval is based on a plan set entitled, 1/ A New Two-Story Residence for Homa & Mehrdad Mojgani," consisting of seven sheets dated March 20, 2006, including a site plan, first and second floor plans, elevations, roof plan and section, and a privacy protection landscape plan and revised master bedroom balcony plan with reduced balcony, except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution. 2. REVISED BALCONY Prior to issuance of building permit(s), the applicant shall reduce the size of the master bedroom balcony to a maximum six-foot depth and 60 square feet as shown in the revised master bedroom balcony plan. 3. TREE PROTECTION The applicant shall be required to maintain the existing 31-inch diameter Coast Live Oak tree on the subject property in a healthy manner in accordance with the tree protection recommendations outlined in the tree evaluation prepared for this property on April 27, 2006 by Michael L. Bench of Barrie D. Coate and Associates. 4. PRIVACY PROTECTION COVENANT The property owner shall record a covenant on this property to inform future property owners of the privacy protection measures and tree protection requirements consistent with the R-1 Ordinance for all windows and second story balconies with views into neighboring yards and with a sill height that is 5 feet or less from the second story finished floor. The precise language will be subject to approval by the Director of Community Development. Proof of recordation must be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to final occupancy of the residence. .5. PRIV ACY PROTECTION PLAN Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a complete privacy , protection landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission that shall include a site plan of the project, the 30-degree cones of vision from each second story window jamb and balconies, and the location, species and canopy diameter of existing and proposed trees and shrubs to satisfy the privacy protection landscaping measures for the project. Resolution No. 6429 R-2006-08 November 14,2006 Page 3 The City Arborist has confirmed that the existing Coast Live Oak tree is appropriate for screening purposes in terms of species, size and health. The Coast Live Oak tree shall be recorded on the property as a protected tree along with the new privacy trees and shrubs to be planted on the property. 6. FRONT YARD TREE A new 24-inch box tree shall be planted in the front yard to meet landscaping requirements. The type and size of tree shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works and Community Development Departments. 7. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/ or agencies with regard to the proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Any misrepresentation of any submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Development Department. 8. NOTICE OF FEES. DEDICATIONS. RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of November 2006, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Miller, Saadati, Wong COMMISSIONERS: Vice Chair Giefer, Chien COMMISSIONERS: none COMMISSIONERS: none ATTEST: APPROVED: / s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development / s / Marty Miller Marty Miller, Chair Planning Commission g: j planning/ pdreportj res j R-2006-08 RM-2006-13 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6430 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DENYING AN APPEAL OF A MINOR RESIDENTIAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT TWO SECOND STORY REAR YARD DECKS ON A NEW, TWO STORY 4,219 SQUARE FOOT RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 21180 GRENOLA DRIVE SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received two appeals of a Minor Residential Permit approval (RM-2006-13), as described in Section II of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the appellants have not met the burden of proof required to support said appeals; and have not demonstrated that the Minor Residential Permit approval meets the following findings for denial: 1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; 2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner that is not in accord with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of this title. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for RM-2006-13 is hereby approved, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof; and That the subconc1usions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. RM-2006-13 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of November 14, 2006 and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. Resolution No. 6430 Page 2 RM-2006-13 November 14, 2006 SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: RM-2006-13 Cliff Cowles (Mojgani Residence) 21180 Grenola Drive SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED PROTECT This approval is based on a plan set entitled, /I A New Two-Story Residence for Homa & Mehrdad Mojgani," consisting of seven sheets dated March 20, 2006, including a site plan, first and second floor plans, elevations, roof plan and section, and a privacy protection landscape plan and revised master bedroom balcony plan with reduced balcony, except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution. 2. REVISED BALCONY Prior to issuance of building permit(s), the applicant shall reduce the size of the master bedroom balcony to a maximum six-foot depth and 60 square feet as shown in the revised master bedroom balcony plan. 3. TREE PROTECTION The applicant shall be required to maintain the existing 31-inch diameter Coast Live Oak tree on the subject property in a healthy manner in accordance with the tree protection recommendations outlined in the tree evaluation prepared for this property on April 27, 2006 by Michael L. Bench of Barrie D. Coate and Associates. 4. PRIV ACY PROTECTION COVENANT The property owner shall record a covenant on this property to inform future property owners of the privacy protection measures and tree protection requirements consistent with the R-1 Ordinance for all windows and second story balconies with views into neighboring yards and with a sill height that is 5 feet or less from the second story finished floor. The precise language will be subject to approval by the Director of Community Development. Proof of recordation must be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to final occupancy of the residence. 5. PRIV ACY PROTECTION PLAN Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a complete privacy protection landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission that shall include a site plan of the project, the 30-degree cones of vision from each second story window jamb and balconies, and the location, species and canopy diameter of existing and proposed trees and shrubs to satisfy the privacy protection landscaping measures for the project. Resolution No. 6430 RM-2006-13 November 14,2006 Page 3 The City Arborist has confirmed that the existing Coast Live Oak tree is appropriate for screening purposes in terms of species, size and health. The Coast Live Oak tree shall be recorded on the property as a protected tree along with the new privacy trees and shrubs to be planted on the property. 6. FRONT YARD TREE A new 24-inch box tree shall be planted in the front yard to meet landscaping requirements. The type and size of tree shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works and Community Development Departments. 7. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/ or agencies with regard to the proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Any misrepresentation of any submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Development Department. 8. NOTICE OF FEES. DEDICATIONS. RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020( d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of November 2006, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Miller, Saadati, Wong COMMISSIONERS: Vice Chair Giefer, Chien COMMISSIONERS: none COMMISSIONERS: none ATTEST: APPROVED: / s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development / s / Marty Miller Marty Miller, Chair Planning Commission g:/ planning/ pdreport/ res/RM-2006-13 c c-O Q) oia cs... Q.. 0 C:tS c.. <C - <C::!: c.. cr:: a: ~ CJj~ ..J < > o ~ c. c:. <. :: ~ -;; ~ ... :: ... a r.;l) ~ .~ ~ ~ ~i (E.) 1-5tory SFD EX. BUllDI~C:S.o' IHIIU1 I. All ~ ....... ,..... hm ~ IIhaII be ....... ud awkllIe4 ulllleded.lMIonl wiater...... belIIC ........... ud ...........lAM till ...... ...... bJ' dectIw .......... .... u ..,...... butq or eo_ otIIer fut ~..... J. DImnra;r....... _ .... bJ' ....Ilow till ftIIeIaUft ....r..-. I. eo-au.d.-ll till be dIredIId ..~ from atracIara mla. .,. ..... for .. mIalaam aI. .... Roof DniaaaI8 bJ' GaItan TrIa. 011 moI,,-, 4' eolId we pipe IatD aIatIaC ---- ..... ....... ......... ..... at...... 4. A copy of all compaction tests and Iinal gradlng report sbal1 be submitted to the City prior to scbedallng aDY iMpections. Prior to the contractor requesting a founclati1\ iMpecticm. the Soils El\llineer sball advise the Building Official in writing that: 1) the 8ullding Footing excavatiODS and building pad were prepared in accordance with the soil report recOl".....ndAtions, 2) The foundation forming and grading comply with the soil report and approved p........ and 31 the draiDage system is in accordance with the soil report. 5. AU CoDStnlction 81. Mnterla1s per Structural El\gineeriAg sheets provided by MS Engineering, Campbell, CA (408.377.85041. 6. Recommelldl\tiol\S included in the GeotechtUca1 Report, datedDec. 27. 2005, by Amerlcal\ >it Testing, Inc., San .Jose, CA. (408-559.64001. sbal1 be incorporated in the grading plau and lcations. . No Dr\llUIic materia! shall be permitted .' d which does not exceed 4 inches in d~ sta1\dards sbal1 be used. See Structural Engineering for 10. Dust from gradlng operatiol\S must be contr<> sites to avoid dust. fenz~er WOOD FENCE N90000'OO"E nee corner 2051€l5 65 204'1 I I 1'0 I .' 1_ Yard 1 i Sotback I t I t \ / ", / / / / 2C6.~)< " 204l66711r - ~ 204.~~nce 11 \ o~k 36-40 / / / I 2~oi / ,/ ~,Ex "I ------------- ; .. .. 15-0" II~ b o b o o o o Z ! ~ ,-,- lCH.31 " 5-6 2l>>.15 " 15'-0" .",--""'.....--- tel "' 20'1.!Jl " --- ",- ,'" ------------------ --- GRAVEL ,.,,"T-............, ------------------- -....~..... IIlI8 E.G. GRAVEL ~~~x jl SITE PLAN 101.14)< " ~OC:I\If"\1 ^ nOI\ It: 114.5' 100' EX. BUILDING l1U' AldQe SIDEWALK 2U8O Grenola Dr. Lot 57, Tract 8& Garden Gate ViIlqe APN' # U8-2&067 Lot: 9,376 sf Prooosed: Tw0-5tory SFD: 4,219 sf 45% FAR 1st Floor: 2,910 sf Liviq: 2,271. sf Two-Car Garace: 638 sf 2nd Floor: 1309 sf 45% 1st FIr. Entry Porch: 57 sf Proposed Balconies: 160 sf Lot Coverace: 2,973 sf 3170% FAD: (45% max.) 4,219 sf 45.00% H~itfhts: ExistiRtl Finish Grade: Proposed SFD F.F.: 100.0' .Main: 101.6' Upper: 111.5' Maximum Ri~e H~t: (28'-6" from EoG.) 126.5' Gradillf: Excavate and Recompact EmstiBC Septic Tank Forestry: One 42" Sycamore To Be Removed Scope of Work: 1. Demo existing 1,236 sf SFD 2. Excavate and recompact exis.' Septic Tank 3. Build New SID plus Garage Plans to be in CompU with CA Building a.nd Codes (2001) Job Copies of Building flre System Plans and Permits must be onsite during Inspections. . 2D6.Il<IX ~ Oce. Class: R-3 Build. Const.: Type V- flre Rating: Sprinkle: TABLE OF CONTENTS A.I SITE PLAN A.2 MAIN FLOOR PLAN A-3 2nd FLOOR PLANlPrivacy Plan~ A-4 FIlON'TIREAR ELEVATION'S A-6 SIDE ELEVATION'S A-8 ROOF PLAN A.7 SECTION'S A-8 LANDSCAPING A-9 ELECTRICAL A.IO T.24 CERTIFICATES SoLO SPECIFICATIONS Soli SHEATHlNGlNAlLING SOU TYPICAL DETAILS SOU SHEAR DETAILS So2.0 FOONDATION PLAN So2.1 2ND FLOOR FRAMING So2.2 UPPER ROOF FRAMING Scale 1/8" = 1'- 0" i A ~ Ii II fa Iii J ~ g I d'ili ~ ~ ] ] ~l ~U~ -~{ = j ,.~ Co S; ~ .a c:l ~ a !g ..... il'; iiS& ~ E- ..... f/J \ } ~i I - .. oS .s .. :: = a ~ :: ... ~ -a :: c e~ _l:I. en ~ ..... cp ~ _115 (Norm.) &. b ... ~I I ~ 'I ':'1__ o li:l (Norm.) ... ... I ~ I I 'l - _m (-....' R Application J2. ~~a>~ -oe RM Application k1-~ (Job -/3 Approval Date -J,-:;;--:- Signature {}it, .' Y7 (Ca98 ManageI) fc c; Ot 39'.0" ~ t 11'-4" t t _ HS (Norm.) fF J < .n: 1!'71O.~l'" ~~ .-.. "!"_ 18710 16'.2" T Workshop fc tl'..Ii:. Great Room . ... . I' ... 8edroom 4 r7 T' Launctrl-II Study ; 11'.1" e. 11\ ~ ....'''....1. b .ott~ OIIice 12'.4" D L ......I~ ~ - .......-- '- ;, I' _oxxo willl -"=.t- - Garo&o Door .<kd Trellia Acceat 461..8" ~Ml~ 6. 01 Noo] 13'.10' ~ 8'..01 ~o 51:8 \ .; . L3. {J.' (59'.0" SECTlor "B" "" SECTION ltc' <d T ~ _ kv (Temp.) --+--+- ; sw. 13'.9" T tutchen ~I'" Jl: 18'-Cr 3'~6" ~ 31-3" DininQ Room -+- -- -., oxxxo IT.....p.) IlI8N ea..emeat (T".....) LiYinQ Room ur.(5" IlI8N c..-t (T"mp.) 'D,. 6,' -+ Covered <Porcfl ^ -- wI_ AreUd Aboft (Temp) 'n ; I' PROPOSED 1st FLOORPLAN Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0" ~!U .a U ... Ii ...dl] ~ S ~ ii ~~i U~ ;;. ,.Q j ID~ ~.~ ih: tad! o ~ ... o ... ~ ..... i ~ o i~ ~ ~- j WO ~t; ~.s Ii :a~ Ii ~~ ~~ ~ilJ a~ 6 ~ ~ ~ < Q:! -E;- ::D ::D mcc "C S::::J:> I ~ - ::J:>-C !:a.O-c""O C~"C= m c:;.. = ~ O~!::t:. s:>> _ 0 --- -. :::s coO ~ g: -(") ~:i ^~ R.M ~ ~()O/p -13 APPROVAL R -~()(jp.-()B AprIi<._ ....... Plnmrlng Commisslolf 1/" /if 7Jt, It... Signature ",~, A 0/ ~ Ni 'M - ,,'-0" L ~ ':17-' I -n ~I /;j ~/~~\ T~~rf '11 .\ l~ "" ........, ipti IW :x-t:2.1\ i i ~ ~ ~ il i I~ -;. : 1 ~... ... U!..-,.., . ~ ~ ~ ~!i'" jii , ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ 6'-11" ;> ,. .........~. ~ " _f! -fj~ II - .. Cl! ~ J, q :1' .- ~ ~f ~~ - ~ ~ V . "'..... ~ ~ wO ~ ;.O~O ~.~ = ~ II~Q..O ~ t-4 en ~ > ni o z ... Cl) I ~ .'l., ~. ---, 8'-3" #It .. !!!:>J 5-0 ~ r;J ......... l' 15-11" l 5-6" 17-0" .,. 1 < ~~ -.... ~ Cl) I ~ > . ~ UPPER FLOORPLAN A New Two-Story Aesidell~ for. Homa 8l. Mehrdad Mojgani ft180 Grellola Dr.. CuptertiAo, CA 96014 SCiara Cllty A.P.No. 326-28-057, 408..255.7719 11-101' -6 -I ~ ~.~: ;: .r.. .. Cl ,- .. ~ ~ J6fI'II ~f~ . . i .. ~ ~ .. ~ . 1 ~ -J1~ 01 ~ ~tJ' V ., ~ , ~I .. G! ~<< ~ I" I ~ J.iII! ~ , ff[ -i ,[~ 8'-11" 1 Drawn by: ~ ~~ 3/20/()6 Cliff Cowles Revisions PIa4s II. Permits P. 0. Box D3201 Carmel, CA N912 U1.a6.a19 Fax.831869.6181 ~ ~~ l ~ { ~21 r 1 ') l t - ~~t .a c ~ - :: :: a ~ - :: ~ Q.. ..J < > o ~ c:.. c:.. < Fi"i..h s...h",nule: ExteriQr. 3-Coat Stucco. "Pal&mino" (Lt. Yellow/Tan) Roof: Cancrete 5-Tile&te.- "Casa Grande Blead" Trim III. Fascia: Painted Wood Trim Surrouads . "Nude" (White) Windowsill. Door. Eat&Je Vinyl Cad Ultra Wiadows . "White" Garllt&e 8l Front Door. Painted Wood . "Antique" Deck Ralliat&:. Painted Articulated WrouCht Iron . "White" Balcony: Slate Tile w := C; g, in 15-0" b . l) .. p, 1lIlI.5'-' b . l) .. NORTH (FRONTl ELEVATION Scale 1/4" = 1'. 0" urn ~ tlI 1lIlI.5' 100.0' E.G. 5 t:::::... ~ III . lD IN DO R Application R -dlJO~ - Da RM Application /b4 - ~(y)~ -/.3 Approval DateZ1 .[;~' Signature 'iL(' (('Ai Manager) SOUTH (REAR} ELEVATION Scale 1/4" = 1'.0" p, i II ~ ; i1lrq J~I~I o @ ~ d f&. ~ -:I ~ '! ~...t( d: ~~\J ~ ~~ -j r~'" j ..., f:l ! ~ ~ if~ ~ iO& 5-0" b . l) .. '2 <<J ~ ~ ~ t'oi 0... ~~ ~ ~ ~t; ... <<J c5' ! g ~ :81 ~ ~ ..~ :S.d 1= ~ ~ :s . =~ ~~ ie; ! ~ ~ifJ ~t' II <<J .! Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~= ~~ f/j ~ Z E-=S z<~ ~~> "" ~ d A.4 ~ ,c;:P ~~~J <;) 1 i~1 ~. ..J < > o Cl: c. c. < ~, ~~ ~. ,,~ -.. :: oS: ~ - :: - :: a te - s Ji Q.; II) = ... iti B>> C:ii R Application ~ -:)oob -()9J RM Application RM - ;lOOe -I :~ ApProvaJ D9J.~~ Signature ' (Case Manage!) uu " ~ ... , ,a~;j 61 ~ a ~ ~ ~!l ~ 's ~..Q & - \Jaw ~~( !3 i u ~ i:l ... ~ ,Q ! ~ !g ..... i'~ iOdJ o DD .... d <~ ~2j ~~ ~~ 6 ob' ~ <<I _! d ~ S \,1 III :~ I~ FiniAh ~h.~ule: Exterior: 3-Coat Stuc:c:o - ''Palamino'' (Lt. Yellow/Tan) Roof: Concrete 5-Tilelite- "Casa Grande Blend" Trim II. Fascia: Painted Wood Trim Surrounds. "Nude" (White) Wl1ldows II. Doors: Eat&1e Vinyl Clad Ultra Windows. "White" Gar. II. Front Door. Painted Wood . "Antique" Deck Rai1iAt&: Painted Articulated WroUCht Iron - ''White'' Balcony. Slate Tile WEST (RIGHT} ELEVATION Scale 1/4" = 1'. 0" -=:::15 UI 51::::==... UI 1 I I Plate D o[[]] m relIis Acceat Co . ill 01 tI) ~ "-Ie E= tI)< ~ EAST (LEFT) ELEVATION Scale 1/4" = 1'.0" A-5 ~ ,/ W.{)" Plate 9'-0" PlAte ~ (f' P. 101.0') ~ f CIl !! f - ~ ~." g; -:! :;jlJll 5/12 Aidlle ~ d~ ~"i /~ /'" ; ~ If I I ~~j j ^ -- ,/ 1010' f' P I -11010' FP ^~ 11"- (1016 f'P) (1016 f'p) 1f1.{)" Plate / CK ~r , ; /~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ./~ ~ f (f'.F. /1. I / /~ ~ 5/12 l:; ~ ~ ~~~ I~ IPtate ~ "i ~ \\ ~ ,/ - PlAte g; / ~ ~J7 ~~ '\. I CIl J.U!. to) - -- ~ Ll fO" Plate ~ ~ o 5/12 .~ ~~ 5112 I 1I: V fr If ... :!i V cf ~ ....""'" J " ~ ~ " = tJ '.()" PlAte CIl V '\. , - ~ CIl I; ~ 0 -10 PlAt~ J~ ~ - -f: 0 5112 i i i> C; J "i f If .." ~ 1/ ~ ~~ i ;I' ~=Q / 71 !~~ " ~ ~, . ~ ~ 1101.S f'.f'l W.{)" PIA-. tJ'ffJ ~ . ~ " lr ,/ I " ~ g.2 ~ =~ )- = It < CIJ . ~ ~ -E;- :x:J :D lice -0 :S::-E;- I~ ~ :8"-0. ~ e..=~ O~ d". a~g (DO :::J s. CIl ~- i; ~i 'P R-M ~~lOlo -/3 APPROVAL f( -~()DIA ...06 ................. Plallldng Com",lsslon J 1-1 J/ ~~ -- I --- ~ ~ o ... rE~! Signature ... ~ ~ :2 ~a ~ ::t ! ~ OJ I i ~ )- . ~ Drawn by: 6~ ~p 3/20106 Cliff Cowles Revisions Plana Ill. Permits P. 0. 80][ 223201 Carmel, CA 93922 831.U6.8219 FaJL831.659.6161 ROOF PLAN A New Two-Story Residence for: Homa 8l Mehrdad Mojgani 21180 Grenola Dr.. Cuptertino, CA 96014 SCJa.ra Cnty A.P.No. 326-28-057,408.2SS.7729 U'l8 ~ ~ Ilil Struct....... Beam. per &p.eeriq .... 0.. OC AU W..n. 0.0.1'1. _ti"" CoiI~ R.ao W..na Rolli I'Ioon R" ~ I Workshop b ~ 1 Study b . ... .. E.xterior ~ coat Stucco Wall. to...."".vr__ ..t plate Ii..... mill. ... &bo"" ..... Typ. Utilities Foyer Living ~($) ~ '~ ~~ ~I g 1 ~ J - ~ \ I :: .s ~ - ..: S ::: < a > 0 ~ ::I ~ .;;: -a c. - c:: c. ij en < a: en 100.0' E.G. SECTION "A" Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0" HaD ~ n:_~_.. = 1 .......... Nook Eatvior ... C'O&t Stucco Walls tok.."".Vr__ ..t plate Ii..... mia. 4" &bo"" Fao<Ie Typ. SECTION "B" Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0" <r =1 Bed2 FP. RApplication ,:z -dfJoh - ~ RM Application R+t - ~()() IL> -/.:3 Approval Date ~-O(, Signature {iJd4m (Cai Manage/) b ~ Great Room HaD &th2 Laundry II Uti! Garage <r = SECTION "C" Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0" _O"OC All Walls UO.N. JaaulatiCll Celll"'_ _ w..na RoI9 Floors _ EO . BId!&- 'III ~~I' d ! ~d fa. J ~i ~U_ ~ !aJ j Ul). f:l ! ~ ~ i:i ~ ;oj .... ~ i ~~ I Oi ~~ 5~ ~~ ....... 't.) 8 tV c5'~ ~i ~I 1.d ti &~ ad t'c; i2; ~~ .!l~ ~ o~ . ... Cl Cl ~ tV _t IJ . E ~ tIS :! ~ iA <.... ;; ~ t/J Z o .... 1- U ltJ t/J A-7 - City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3223 CUPEr(fINO -- - ~jE ~ IE D W IE ~ SEP 6 2006 I I CUPERTINO CITY CLERK APPEAL 1. Application No. ~-~6'-ot W kYv'\ - J...0-01o-/'5 2. Applicant(s) Name: CJ I' t3 c.iJW(...QS 3. Appellant(s) Name: JDhn \' c-o-cv';j ~ ~ e..sS') co.. Kos~ Address 10 L\ t C) (inn A, bo, A~ L\O~ . 1.-S 5 - 5 )~b ros~~c~ 3 ~ 5b0j\\)bO\ \. Yl~-\: Phone Number Email 4. Please check one: . ~peal a decision of Director of Community Development Appeal a decision of Planning Commission 5. Date of determination of Director or mailing of notice of City decision: 3JD lOb 6. Basis of appeal: -5 e:.-e q HtJ\c hev( A5 ~ II e ;'jho~<I~ P'0 f>-e\~ vvJ... Ci'-f~ h..t..- Q,feCl)V 01.\ o-t- tlJ. (Y)l~O" fe.s\~ ~'k\ ~~ k k oeovv bD\. )Wn ~ ~" i()"(J\~ 0 li< e.-)(Ish\')~ fX1'>iOlC'(r ~~o\. oeqso,:", , We. tA.N- 0\ /.5 0 Go () U/VfV2.-b'l Co\. b ~ ~ Iv.- () ~ 'i(L-- tl CL.- Ie ~ ~ (flO ~~ . Signature(S)p_~ Please complete form, include appeal fee of$149.00, and return to the attention ofthe City Clerk, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, (408) 777-3223. --- John R. Tracy Jessica T. Rose 10410 Ann Arbor Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 408-255-5126 rosetracy3@sbcglobal.net September 6, 2006 To: The City Of Cupertino Planning Department This letter and submitted fee is to appeal the approval of the residence at 21180 Grenola Drive, Cupertino. We live next door to this property and our appeal is based on two counts: Second StOry Master Bedroom Balcony: The existence of this balcony violates our right to privacy in our house and yard, affects the quality of life we enjoy and will affect the value of our property. Any person using this balcony will have a full view into our main living room, patio, master bedroom window and entire back yard areas. And any person in our house or in our backyard, will have full and unobstructed view of the balcony and anyone using it. The City must recognize that Garden Gate neighborhood is mixed with single and two-story homes. We were part of a core group that annexed our neighborhood into the City of Cupertino six years ago primarily to have protection from the overwhelmingly large two-story homes that were thoughtless constructed around existing single-story residences due to weak and misguided county ordinances. We expect the City to recognize that an existing homeowner has the right to expect a maintained level of privacy during development of a neighboring home. We question how this home can be considered "compatible" with homes in the neighborhood. First, there are no homes with rear facing balconies that we are aware of in Garden Gate. Second, the existing privacy in a neighboring property should not be compromised by new construction. Do we have to accept that there will be a large and imposing Mediterranean style house next to our newly renovated "cottage/craftsman" style home? Do we have to accept that it is twice the size of our home, complete with a large and uninviting columned front door? We cannot accept the approval of a balcony that views into our house and into our entire back yard. We look to the City to protect our existing privacy to the greatest extent. The proposed home will be surrounded by three single-story homes. How can the rear-balconies proposed on this home be justified when it will allow the user to view down into three homes? Why is this considered a permissible and acceptable design form? It is an unnerving experience to look up from 1 our back yard (or out our house window) to a balcony that stands that view over our property as currently depicted by the story poles. The purpose of a balcony is to provide a large window, fresh air, natural light and a place to sit and relax. We question the "view" that this balcony will provide. What is the purpose of a "view" that can only be enjoyed at the expense of the existing neighbor's privacy? It must be acknowledged that this neighborhood is not in the hills of Cupertino, but rather the flat lands. This balcony will view directly into our house, our entire backyard and into the large Heritage Oak tree located on the Grenola property. Any views beyond that will be include neighboring properties. We encourage you to do a site visit and discover the ''views'' this balcony would have. We invited the property owner to our home to see first hand our concerns and in an effort to resolve this issue with us, they suggested we put curtains on our windows and they promised to "go inside" if ever we are using our backyard for entertaining. This implicitly implies that the balcony would allow them an invasive presence on our property. Should we then go inside when they are using their balcony? And what guarantee do we have that any future resident would agree to this behavior and second, why should either of our behaviors be dependent upon each other? We proposed the property owner consider a "faux" balcony. It would include the large sliding glass door for fresh air, natural light, and limited views into their backyard. The railing would be cosmetic and offer the look and feel of a balcony without the intrusive exterior 60 square foot patio sits above neighboring yards and houses. It seems logical that a landscaping plan would mitigate the impact of this balcony on our yard. Aside from what it has taken from us to get the City to require the property owner to present a landscaping plan that meets the minimal ordinance requirements for a two- story house, (three attempts so far) we do not believe that within three years a landscaping plan could protect us from the impact of this balcony "to the greatest extent". Consider that the floor of the balcony sits at approximately 11 feet. To effectively screen our yard from a 6 foot person enjoying the ''view'' we would need approximately 17 feet of landscape screening within three years. The current requirement for landscaping along this existing 6 foot property fence is a 6 foot plant (s). Unless that plant is replacing its size annually, the protection from a landscaping screen that should protect our privacy to the greatest extent within three years, is impossible. We also question how these plants and trees vital to our protect privacy rights will grow with the large oak tree canopy so close. Protection Plan for the Oak Tree The City of Cupertino has not followed the recommendation of their arborist to take the minimum required measures to assure survivability of the major oak tree in the Grenola property. The referenced report discusses two key assessments for the tree. First, whether the tree can be expected to survive based on the location of the proposed structure relative to the tree location. This assessment is at best inconclusive based upon a number of factors. To list a few: 2 a. The arborists' recommends the closest wall be at least 15 feet from the trunk of the tree. The plan shows it being less than 14'2" (kitchen nook estimated to be 12') b. The arborists' recommends a follow-up assessment to be made after the installation of story poles to accurately estimate the canopy and root system loss. No such follow up reports provided. c. The arborist states that the tree would not be expected to survive if the combination of the canopy and root system were reduced more the 25%. The arOOrist also states that if a foundation is placed at 15 feet from the tree trunk ,that it would equate to 25% loss in root mass. Therefore, any additional loss to the canopy by trimming to make room for the structure would surely threaten the tree's chance of surviving. And, the arborists' sketch of the tree relative to the house shows overlap suggesting some canopy trimming is necessary. The story poles visibly verify this overlap as well. Second, the minimum steps to be followed to protect the tree during construction. The assessment is very detailed and thorough. But, as the arborist states "...a moot point"..if the plans do not meet his previously stated minimum requirements for tree survivability based on the location of the proposed structure. We would also like the arborists report to include the impact of the proposed privacy landscaping plan on the oak. Oaks are often noted as being difficult to plant around, and due to the size of this oak in the backyard, we question if the oak might hinder the expected growth of the privacy screening plants and trees. It is the City of Cupertino's responsibility to ensure that the health and beauty of this tree remains intact. We have been aware for a year that the property owner intended to "remove" or "relocate" the tree. We also noticed it was labeled a "sycamore tree to be removed" on the house plans submitted for approval by the City. Not only is this oak tree a fantastic example of a species native to California landscape, and a reminder of the rural roots of Cupertino and the Garden Gate tract, but it provides all of us in single~story homes who surround this two-story, 4,219 square foot home an existing landscaping feature that greatly buffers us from the visual impact of the large home to be constructed. Weare aware that the City has protected it, but we read this arborists report as preliminary at best and the City has no right to consider it conclusive and worthy of approval without further follow up action with the arOOrist. In closing, we are looking to the "planners" of the City to review this situation with fresh eyes and an understanding that a cookie cutter approach to home development in a community with such diverse neighborhood settings as Cupertino is not realistic. And as property values continue to climb, maintaining our home as the asset that it is, has become of utmost concern to us. Judging by the number of sympathetic comments we are receiving from the neighbors and our house visitors when viewing the story poles that 100m over the back side of our property, we can safely assume that any potential property buyer of our home would be deterred by the impact of the balcony structure. 3 City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3223 fB)leCleB\'Qle~ 1f11 SEP 6 2006 {YJ CUPERJINO CUPERTINO CITY CLERK APPEAL 1. Application No. 1<.. - Q-rJO~ - 09 J RtJ\ - UJcy- 15 2. Applicant(s) Name: CJ; 0f C1J We-(S 3. Appellant(s) Name: ttVrtJA ili~UNl 1 Jl-t//)itZ YrtJl~ufftt- Address 0L11 t) D ~ ~() I Jt ~ I: Phone Number 4 tX ;Y') R 0 <;01 Email - 4. Please check one: V Appeal a decision of Director of Community Development Appeal a decision of Planning Commission 5. Date of determination of Director or mailing of notice of City decision: rY'-2] -()(p 6. Basis of appeal: :;~ ~cJs.J. Signature( s) ~adMLt~ /LJ? DO Please complete form, include appeal fee of $-l-4:;:(10, and return to the attention of the City Clerk, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, (408) 777-3223. ELENA HERRERA - SUBIR SENGUPTA - 21150 GRENOLA DRIVE CUPERTINO, CA 95014 408.252.0504 To the City of Cupertino With this letter and fee, we are appealing the approval of the home building permit for 21180 Grenola Drive. Much of this letter is similar in content to our original e-mail expressing concern dated 02 August, 2006. Item 2 - Balconies has been added as a concern upon further review of the project. Item I - Consistent with existing neighborhood look and feel In the cover letter sent by the city, dated July II 2006, the intent to approve the project is stated along with the sentiment that the look and feel of the home fits in with the existing neighborhood. We take great exception to this, in that the size, look, and style neither fits in with the neighborhood, nor can it be seen to compliment the neighborhood. Although there are homes in the neighborhood that are similar in look in feel: . The great majority of the homes of this style were built, in this sub-set of Garden Gate, prior to the annexation of this county pocket into the city. . This home is much larger than the average home in this 3-4 block area. 1 Although there is a great re-building of the neighborhood, the city - as a guardian of the community - has the responsibility to maintain the quality of life, the integrity of the neighborhood life-style, and the values of community living. By continuing to perpetuate a trend in massive, block-like, cement structures, we instead invite a turn to solitary living within the four, huge walls. As a small example, the city ordinance "encourage porches" - directly supporting this community living. This home does not emulate the spirit of the ordinance. . These larger homes cover so much of the width of the lot, are so close to the front of the lot, and are so large that they are intrusive not only into the neighboring homes, but also have a palpable intrusive feel into anyone walking by. To be sure, they may fit within the current rules for width and size, and there may be precedent, but it is our contention that the current rules are not sufficient to maintain our "quality of life" and to perpetuate this style and size of homes will surely destroy it. Please walk the neighborhood to understand this point, including the area east of Stelling, for a stark and contrasting example of the turnover in the neighborhood rather than the preservation of it. . The plans for this home show a turret - or a rounded "bay window" - above the entry that greatly contributes to the massive and block-ish look and feel. Again, this is a feature far more suited to a much larger lot, in a neighborhood full of much larger lots. To preserve the look and feel of our neighborhood, this would be a major design change to be sure, but had the planning department taken the guidelines to heart, this should not have been approved. . This home replicates a style pervasive on Green Leaf Dr. (and other GG blocks) east of Stelling where older ranch homes have mostly disappeared to be replaced by the Mediterranean style. I do not object to the style, only to the fact that now the majority are of this theme, it cannot be said to be a "mix"; the neighborhood feel has completely changed over to an impersonal, blaringly bright, and hot environment. I Although we are part of the greater Garden Gate Neighborhood, when a person drives through the area it can easily be seen to have distinct parts that have their own look and feel. This is important to the reference of "Green Leaf Dr., east of Stelling having turned over to completely new 'look and feel' ". WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 06, 2006 PAGEI0F3 ELENA HERRERA- SUBIR SENGUPTA - 21150 GRENOLA DRIVE CUPERTINO, CA 95014 408.252.0504 . Building a grandiose home does not guarantee a positive impact to the neighborhood when re-selling. Although we do not expect the city to ensure this, we do expect the city to be a guardian of the intelligent and well-though out growth of the community. To be sure, a very large home, completely out of scale with the neighborhood remained on the market for months during the time of the multiple-offer, "bidding war" frenzy in the summer of2005. This particular home: is over 5,000 sq. ft., far exceeding the relative size, look, and feel of its neighbors, has a four-car garage, three balconies overlooking neighborhood properties, and many more amenities that are far more suitable to a neighborhood such as Linda VistalRegnart Road. Item 2: Balconies Only one home in the neighborhood has balconies, 21140 Grenola - the large out-of-scale property noted above. To use this as a precedent for further growth and development in this direction is wrong. We contend that the city was negligent in the planning process of both 21140 and 21180 Grenola, and expect the city to correct this oversight immediately by ensuring that balconies, if at all allowed, are minimal in size and are not sighted near the intersection of a neighboring lot. To place a balcony near a comer of the home, to build a balcony that can hold more than two people, and - in and of itself - to build a balcony at all says to the community "I wish to survey my kingdom" not "enjoy my own backyard". Standing upon such a balcony, one does not "enjoy their own yard" as is the common contention, instead one enjoys the vista beyond the home, and therefore intrudes into the neighboring yards. Again, please visit the balconies of 21140 for a first-hand illustration of this oversight. Item 3: Temperature(Heat) and Glare When purchasing our home, moving from a neighborhood even closer to Memorial Park, we directed our realtor to ''NOT search on 'these' streets (east of Stelling) and illustrated to her the heat, glare, and noise factors when driving through these streets. By removing so many trees outside the protections of the ordinance, and by building larger homes on the lots, the loss of ambience and the gain of heat and glare is tangible. I (E. H.) drove my realtor through the three neighborhoods (our former, our current, and east of Stelling) to illustrate the effects by noting the temperature gauge in the car, the presence or lack of any breeze or tree-rustling, and the noise level increase or reduction as we stood outside at three different times of the day. We strongly believe that we will greatly feel the negative effects of the mass of concrete that will radiate heat into the neighborhood. As an example, we live directly across from such a home, built prior to city annexation. This home radiates so much heat and glare that the imposition is palpable, annoying, and directly compromises our health and comfort during the majority of the year, this being the temperate climate that the valley provides. With further regard to the heat and glare issues, I provide 2 examples of homes recently built that, although Mediterranean in style, are of a darker paint tone and have a darker roof material that would a) provide a less intrusive roof line and b) provide a softer, less imposing look to the facade of such a large home. Please visit 21180 Grenola and 21090 Hazelbrook for illustrations of this concept. WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 06, 2006 PAGEZOF 3 ELENA HERRERA - SUBIR SENGUPTA - 21150 GRENOLA DRIVE CUPERTINO, CA 95014 408.252.0504 Item 4: Privacy Screening The privacy screening-plantings along the side nearest our home are either non-existent or insufficient. Apparently, the city holds that only the adiacent property owner needs to relinquish rights to the concern of privacy landscaping. We request that the privacy screening landscaping requirements be reinstated on the east side of the property line. Item 5: Heritage Oak The beautiful heritage oak on the property needs to be protected. I have seen only a preliminary arborists report in the approval package of the project. There are many points in the report that indicate more information was needed before a judgment on the impact to the tree could be rendered. . The report outlines specific plans for protecting the root zone during construction that conflict with the building plans. For example, the current plans show the trunk of the tree being less than 15ft. from the perimeter ofthe foundation. This 15ft. is a minimal guideline per this arborist that, if held to, would minimally affect the tree, and is no guarantee that the tree would survive. If it is even 15 feet, how can the building of the foundation not be intrusive and damaging to the root system? . It is noted in the report that further root exploration be done, two methods are given, to be able to give a reasonable estimate as to the viability of the project. . It is noted in the report that the story poles should be in place before coming to any conclusions: the story poles were not up at the time of the arborists report. . The report states that schematics/plans for utility lines and plumbing/sewer lines be presented before coming to any conclusions. We hold the city accountable for the well-being of this tree, a determination that may take years to realize. So many trees have been taken down, against city ordinances and guidelines, or even outside the current guidelines, that we cannot risk a further deterioration of the treasure that this old, green, wooded neighborhood is. We fully expect to see further documentation by this arborist, and request the city apply due diligence in requiring a second arborist opinion. We base this request on having had our own arborist take a look at the site and state that he felt that plans to build a large home on that lot would be "detrimental to the health of the tree." Summary We feel that these issues are a testament to the lack of oversight ofthe planning department with regard to the city's own guidelines, and feel that further development along these lines follow a trend that this neighborhood can't afford. Indeed, the residents of this neighborhood specifically campaigned for annexation into Cupertino for the protections, guidelines, and vested interest of the city in maintaining and preserving the quality of life with regard to the neighborhood and it's eventual renewal and growth. We will be pursuing the matter with great interest. Thank you, Elena Herrera and Subir Sengupta 21150 Grenola Dr., Cupertino, CA 95014 WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 06, 2006 PAGE30F3 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 Telephone: (408) 777-3308 FAX: (408) 777-3333 CITY OF CUPEIUINO CO~UNITYDEVELOPMENT August 23, 2006 Cliff Cowles P.O. Box 223201 Carmel, California 93922 SUBJECT: RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW ACTION LETTER - Applications R-2006-08 and RM-2006-13: This letter confirms the decision of the Director of Community Development, given on August 21, 2006, approving a residential design review for a new two-story, 4,219 square foot residence, and a Minor Residential permit to allow the construction of two balconies on the new residence on property located at 21180 Grenola Drive, with the following conditions: 1. APPROVED PROTECT This approval is based on a plan set entitled, "A New Two-Story Residence for Homa & Mehrdad Mojgani," consisting of seven sheets dated March 20, 2006, including a site plan, first and second floor plans, elevations, roof plan and section, and a privacy protection landscape plan and revised master bedroom balcony plan with reduced balcony, except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution. 2. REVISED BALCONY Prior to issuance of building permit(s), the applicant shall reduce the size of the master bedroom balcony to a maximum six-foot depth and 60 square feet as shown in the revised master bedroom balcony plan. 3. TREE PROTECTION The applicant shall be required to maintain the existing 31-inch diameter Coast Live Oak tree on the subject property in a healthy manner in accordance with the tree protection recommendations outlined in the tree evaluation prepared for this property on April 27, 2006 by Michael L. Bench of Barrie D. Coate and Associates. 4. PRIV ACY PROTECTION COVENANT The property owner shall record a covenant on this property to inform future property owners of the privacy protection measures and tree protection requirements consistent with the R-1 Ordinance for all windows and second story balconies with views into neighboring yards and with a sill height that is 5 Printed on Recycled Paper R-2006-08, RM-2006-13 Page 2 feet or less from the second story finished floor. The precise language will be subject to approval by the Director of Community Development. Proof of recordation must be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to final occupancy of the residence. 5. PRIV ACY PROTECTION PLAN Prior to issuance of building permit(s), the applicant shall provide a revised privacy protection landscape plan that additionally provides for a total of three (3) 15-gallon, minimum six-foot high Pittosporum non-deciduous shrubs (of a species listed in the City's approved landscape mitigation measures planting list) in addition to the two (2) 15-gallon, minimum six-foot high Pittosporum non- deciduous shrubs along the west property line to provide the required privacy protection from the second floor window of the proposed master bedroom. The privacy protection plan shall also include two (2) deodar cedar trees along the south east side of the property, five (5) magnolia trees along the south (rear) property line, and two (2) deodar cedar trees along the south west side of the property, unless alternative privacy trees/ shrubs have been agreed upon by the property owner and adjacent neighbor(s). The revised privacy protection plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of building permit(s). The City Arborist has confirmed that the existing Coast Live Oak tree is appropriate for screening purposes in terms of species, size and health. The Coast Live Oak tree shall be recorded on the property as a protected tree along with the new privacy trees and shrubs to be planted on the property. 6. FRONT YARD TREE A new 24-inch box tree shall be planted in the front yard to meet landscaping requirements. The type and size of tree shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works and Community Development Departments. 7. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/ or agencies with regard to the proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Any misrepresentation of any submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Development Department. 8. NOTICE OF FEES. DEDICATIONS. RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 2 R-2006-08, RM-2006-13 Page 3 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. Please be aware that if this permit is not used within one year, it shall expire on August 23, 2007. Staff received comments from numerous neighbors expressing concerns about the project. The City received emails and letters from adjacent neighbors expressing concerns about privacy impacts onto their adjacent properties due to the second story windows and balconies and the health and retaining of the existing mature oak tree. In response to these concerns, the applicant has reduced the size of the second story master bedroom balcony to 60 square feet and has added privacy protection landscaping. Additionally, it was brought to staff's attention by one of the adjacent property owners that the privacy protection proposed along the west property line did not sufficiently meet the City's privacy protection measures. As a result, staff has added a condition of approval that requires that additional privacy protection shrubs be planted to satisfy this requirement. Staff also received comments from other property owners within the neighborhood expressing concerns about the project. These include concerns about the massing and size of the proposed residence, compatibility with the neighborhood, privacy protection and preservation of the oak tree. Additionally, a concern was raised about the color of the proposed residence and the amount of heat that could be radiated due to the proposed color scheme. Upon review of these comments and concerns, staff has determined that the proposed project is in compliance with the development standards for the Rl-7.5 zoning district in which the property is located, and that the Mediterranean style and color of the home are consistent with other homes within the neighborhood. Further, the applicant will be required to revise the privacy protection plan to comply with the City's privacy protection requirements. The existing Coast Live Oak tree will also be preserved in conjunction with these applications and conditions of approval are required to ensure the protection of this tree. Regarding the color of the home, the proposed color scheme is in character with other Mediterranean style homes within the neighborhood and the proposed architectural style of the home. The City currently has no requirements to' prohibit certain color schemes due to the possibility that certain colors may reflect heat/light within the neighborhood. Therefore, staff is not recommending a change in the proposed color scheme. Staff has made all the findings that are required for approval of a Minor Residential Permit as required by the of Cupertino's Municipal Code, Chapter 19.28.090 (B) and 19.28.100 (D). 3 R-2006-08, RM-2006-13 Page 4 Please note that an appeal of this decision can be made within 14 calendar days from the date of this letter. If this happens, you will be notified of a public hearing, which will be scheduled before the Planning Commission. Sincerely, /.~ / W4 '\c:#liVUi~ Aki Honda Senior Planner City of Cupertino Enclosures: Approved Plan Set Tree Evaluation by the City Arborist Cc: Homa & Mehrdad Mojgani, 22370 Palm Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 . Jessica Rose & John Tracy, 10410 Ann Arbor Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 Lester Bowers, 21181 Hazelbrook Court, Cupertino, CA 95014 Elena Herrera & Subir Sengupta, 21150 Grenola Drive, Cupertino, CA 95014 Tibor Polgar, 10373 Ann Arbor Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 Kathy & Bob Berger, 10439 Ann Arbor Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 Lee Xu, 21164 Grenola Drive, Cupertino, CA 95014 G: \ Planning \ Minor Residential \ Rl Approvals \ R-2006-08 Actionletter.doc 4 Old Balcony A cecA. _-----_ S\' y-e(/\.v- ,"'.." - - -.. 'Oil \Cl'f' if -to 19o sf. , , 1fIf 41'-0" 10'-6" 3'-2" C> 16'-6" ~ .' ~ I~ [[ --+ ,J~.c. rLr I 60710 Slidinl.! Glass Door w 26710 Fixed8lA~ both sides(Temp.) LL !? Master ((g co Bath Suite ~ all ' / oyer) , Master Bedroom 0.- I CD ... 15'-6" - 878 sc .5'F" l' 2878 \ SC 9'-~ '7 .-" \. 11 :::r ] I"- ~ P" ,... ~ I F~~~ 0.- I Co Q I t.. ... " CD I it,) 4- 0.- , ." 5'.0" V SE~3~ON c:: -0 c:: -- 1ti .Q 1ti - ......... <..> '--" co -- - Q:)_ <..>-<<S-~ __ 0...:> :::::3 ~ a. 0... 0 1ti ~ 0... <C Ci. c:: :::e <::::!: 0... _ C> ~ u:: a:: < en Q. (f. \V ~ ~~ . . . J c . . . f , , )'..0" : :....'~O. .stde. " ,I "'Jl.r'd \(o.th.'\c I "..~=-r=~~#~ ~..2.~..1L,~~~o.OO'OO"E ,* . 11C ~ -~t :: , ~'I~---r""""'" .' . . iD....' '.'l: \ c;.,\.:.'.i' ./ '. ~. t~.E. s"__~~'il~~ / III '<'i' ; ~," .,..1" / I.. " ' ..,. y , >i..,. I I ~ neAr v....t\/ /' y /' . , <.. -......r.('-..,'~~~~.~...>,. ./ / . ,:-Y ~ ~7f..;'OC,. " //00 I --'-, \ " I 2p I I I .I ':;<'.t'li"\ck iac 204.~qIlCD \ ~:;~lo o<\k 36-40 , - "\ \~ \ . " . ill .; ... I .I' .. /' " .... ~ ~ b ~ g " ? t=l 0 "".'~~i ~ 5'..8 l _._.,,"~rr- ,....,....,...- ~. \ ::0. -.sDC- -~ ""..-' ..-.'" .1...-......... ..... ; - 8Il.5" E.G. .._..--v.......~_ . c= ---ell!l:. ........... ... ,".. ,. .. - R Application RM Application Approval Date Signature 0 )J1 !Case Manager) Privacy Landscape - 21180 Grenola Dr. Cupertino A B C D E F G H I J K L M Type Cedrus Deodara Cedrus Deodara S.Magnolia S.Magnolia S.Magnolia S.Magnolia S.Magnolia Cedrus Deodara Cedrus Deodara Pittosporum Pittosporum Birch Mary Magnolia Height 80' 80' 80' 80' 80' 80' 80' 80' 80' 40' 40' Spread 40' 40' 40' 40' 40' 40' 40' 40' 40' 20' 20' 20' 20' Planting distance max 20' 20' 20' 20' 20' 20' 20' 20' 20' 5' 5' 10' 10' 7f; All fy-CC's. (Yll~. uti boy: ~ IYlln. hfl"~+ ~/ klij tL pl~. .~ A-M Sh.-r4s YVJ I n Ie; 1t'f 1/ W1 Z VVt I n fa" h,"1~ rl.qyt+e). H Application R~:;)lJOb -06 RM Application m - /) wlo -/3 Approval Date ~-:J~b Signature ()ltl.tJ1/lt? ~ase Manager) BARRIE D. CO _-E and ASSOCIATES Horticutural Consultants 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, CA 95033 4081353-1052 RECEIVED MAY 1 8 2006 EVALUATION OF TREES AT THE COWLES PROPERTY 21180 GRENOLA DRIVE CUPERTINO Prepared at the request of: Aki Honda City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Prepared by: Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist April 27th, 2006 Job # 04-06-088 R Application ~ -doOb ~ ~ RM Application ~M - dOOb ~ ;':3 Approval Date . € ;'3-0'" Signature (j CIA 'cj,k LR-- (Case Manager) EV ALVA nON OF TREES AT THE COWLES RESIDENCE, 21180 GRENOLA DRIVE, CUPERTINO 1 Table of Contents Assignment Page 2 Summary Page 2 Observations Page 2 M~~s ~2 Comments about Specific Trees Page 3 Protected Trees Page 3 Risks to trees by Proposed Construction Page 3 Recommendations Page 4 Enclosures Page 7 R Application ~ - ~oOb -oR RM Application i?M -d(oOfp -/.3 Approval Date ~~/n Signature (}jLA' '1k { (Case Manager) Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist April 2ih, 2006 EVALUATION OF TREES AT THE COWLES RESIDENCE, 21180 GRENOLA DRIVE, CUPERTINO 2 Assignment I was asked by Aki Honda, Planner, City of Cupertino, to evaluate the existing trees located at 21180 Grenola Drive, Cupertino. The plans provided for this evaluation are the Construction Plans prepared by Cliff Cowles, Carmel, Sheets AI-A8, dated 2-28-06. Summary There are 2 trees included in this inventory that may be damaged by proposed construction. One tree is located on this property, and one is located on the adjacent property toward the south. The 2 trees are identified here and given a condition rating. Some characteristics concerning these trees are briefly described. Both Trees # 1 and 2 are protected by city regulation. It appears that Tree # 1 could be preserved, but this may require revisions to the plans, or relocation of the foot print, and mitigation procedures to be diligently implemented. A reasonably accurate estimate of the potential canopy loss to Tree # 1 is not possible with only the plans provided. Options are suggested. Observations There are 2 trees included in this evaluation. Tree # 1 is located on this site, and Tree # 2 is located on the neighboring property toward the south near the southwest comer of this property. The attached map shows the locations ofthese 2 trees and their approximate canopy dimensions. The 2 trees are classified and given an overall condition rating as follows: Tree # 1 - Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) in excellent condition Tree # 2 - Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) in excellent condition The particulars of these 2 trees (species, trunk diameter, height, spread, and structure) are included in the attachments that follow this text. Please note on these data sheets that the health and structure of each specimen is rated on a scale of 1-5 (Excellent - Extremely poor), which provides the basis for the overall condition rating of each tree, stated above. The condition ratings are ranked using the following range: (1) Excellent, (2) Good, (3) Fair, (4) Poor, (5) Extremely Poor. Methods The trunk measurement of Tree # 1 has been taken using a diameter tape at 4 'l'2 feet above soil grade. This is referred to as DBH (Diameter at Breast Height). The diameter of Tree # 2 is c: CD ~ .estimated by visual observation at a distance of about 10 feet. I stepped off the canopy spread of .5 -:.8 ~ Tree # 1 from north to south and from east to west. The height and canopy spread of Tree # 2 is ~ .~ ca ~ j:timated using visual references only. These trees have been added to the Site Plan, of which a . a..~ ~ ~ duced version is included in the attachments. Q... - - c: 4: ~ 8:.Q>~ c:: c:: 4: cn~ Prepared by: Michael L Bench, Consulting Arborist April 2ih, 2006 EV ALVA TION OF lREES AT THE COWLES RESIDENCE, 21180 GRENOLA DRIVE, CUPERTINO 3 Comments about Specific Trees The lowest limb of Tree # 1, facing northwest and approximately 12 inches in diameter, has been removed. The perimeter of the wound had been cut with a saw, but the interior wood of this limb has broken off (Photo in attachments). The removal of this limb appears to have reduced the screening value of this tree in the lower 6-10 feet of the canopy. However, this tree provides an effective screen, especially toward the southeast. As the proposed new residence is to be a two- story, Tree # 1 would immediately screen portions of the second story for the neighboring residents facing south. Tree # 1 has a trunk diameter of 31.2 inches at 4 Y2 feet above grade. Its canopy spread is approximately 55 feet north to south and east to west, but the canopy is not symmetrical or equal on all sides. There is a greater quantity of canopy on the east side of the trunk than the west side, and there is a slightly greater canopy on the south side than the north side, but only by a few feet. The canopy is shown on the attached map. Protected Trees The City of Cupertino (Chapter 14.18 "finds that the preservation of specimen and heritage trees on private and public property, and the protection of all trees during construction, is necessary for the best interests of the City and of the citizens and the public thereof." The City "finds it is in the public interest to enact regulations controlling the care and removal of specimen and heritage trees.. . " A "Heritage Tree" means "any tree or grove of trees which, because of factors, but not limited to, its historic value, unique quality, girth, height or species, has been found by the Architectural and Site Approval Committee to have a special significance to the community." A "Specimen tree" means any of the following: Risks to Trees by Proposed Construction The plan proposes to remove Tree # I, and notes on the plan that this tree is a sycamore. The new residence is shown to be located 12 feet from the trunk. This would not be a sufficient distance to expect the survival of Tree # 1. og ~ ~ ~ . If Tree # I is to be preserved, both the root loss and the canopy loss must be limited to a maximum ........ c:.> ~ oa.."'Ca ~ ~of25% total. These (root loss and canopy loss) are not separate unrelated events. They are parts of .a..~ e ~ :a a single living entity. Thus, both canopy loss and root loss must be considered as a whole. ~:::::E: ~og,~ Concerning Tree # I, if the trenching for the footing or for perimeter drainage would result in an a: a: <c en__ Species Measurement from Single Trunk Multi-Trunk Natural Grade Diameter/Circumference Diameter/Circumference Oak trees; 4 Y2 feet 10 inches (31 inches C ) 20 inches D (63 inches C) California Buckeye Big Leaf Maole; 4 Vz feet 12 inches (38 inches C ) 25 inches D (79 inches C) Deodar Cedar; Blue Atlas Cedar Both Trees # I and 2 are protected by City of Cupertino regulation. Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist April2ih, 2006 EV ALUA TION OF TREES AT THE COWLES RESIDENCE, 21180 GRENOLA DRIVE, CUPERTINO 4 estimated root loss of 25%, there must be no significant canopy loss. Also, bear in mind that the recovery period for a major loss (root, canopy, or both) is 2 years. We consider 25%-30% total loss to be a major loss. ' Concerning root loss of Tree # 1, there must be no trenching or excavation within 15 feet of the trunk. This distance of 15 feet would be the minimum distance and would result in approximately 20%-25% root loss at this location. In this event, the canopy loss must be minimal. Whether or not there would be minimal canopy loss, using the plan alone, is not possible to estimate. In my opinion, story poles for the south side of the new residence would be required to more accurately estimate the canopy loss. Bear in mind that the root loss estimate is based on experience with coast live oak species and on the typical plant morphology of a large oak tree. An alternative method of estimating the potential root loss would be to excavate the soil using an air spade or a water jet spade at the location of the proposed footing. We usually consider this method to be more accurate. An air spade or water jet spade simply removes the soil without damaging the roots. Then the trench could be inspected to estimate the root loss. Of course, there is no guarantee that this method would yield a positive result for the owner. Another important element is that the plans provided are incomplete with regard to Tree # 1. The plans do not show any backyard hardscape or landscaping. Nor do the plans show drainage or utilities. Without these elements provided in the plans, the potential impact to Tree # 1 cannot be fully assessed. It does not appear that any grading, excavation, or construction would occur adjacent to the back fence. If there is no grading or soil work in the area within 10 feet of the back fence nearest Tree # 2, the potential damage to Tree # 2 would be insignificant. The trees at this site would likely be at risk of damage by construction or construction procedures that are common to most construction sites. These procedures may include the dumping or the stockpiling of materials over root systems, may include the trenching across the root zones for utilities or for landscape irrigation, or may include construction traffic across the root system resulting in soil compaction and root die back. If any underground utilities are replaced or upgraded, it would be essential that the location of trenches be planned prior to construction, and those locations shown on plans, and that the trenches be located at the exact locations shown on the plans. Recommendations If Tree # 1 is to be preserved, both the root loss and the canopy loss must be limited as previously described. a<D c: -- 10 .Q 10 0 ......... c:..> ,.... ttS -- - ...... =' c:..> - co '"- Q> .- c...:> =:J I -a Q.. 0 10 Q.. <t: '"- c: <t: ~ 8: _Q">~ a:: a:: 4: en_ 1. Concerning potential canopy loss, I recommend that story poles be installed for the south side of the residence in order to more accurately assess the impact. In my opinion this must be done first. The quantity of canopy loss must not exceed 25% of the total canopy. If this cannot be achieved after evaluation, the location of the footing, which would result in root Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist April 2i\ 2006 c: ~ o <1> ""~ c: -..0=:; 1:a "..J .0 ~Cl .~ = -a <1>--=-1 .__ 0...::> =' -o...~o1:a <:::::1- -- - c: <c -== 0... c:n~ ......::::; 0...-- a:: ex:: <C en_. EV ALVA TION OF 1REES AT THE COWLES RESIDENCE, 21180 GRENOLA DRIVE, CUPERTINO 5 loss, would be a mute point. 2. With regard to potential root loss, I recommend 2 options: . Relocate the footprint a minimum of 15 feet from the trunk of Tree # 1, or . Excavate the intended location of the footing using an air spade or a water jet spade. The exposed roots must be inspected by the city arborist. The size and quantities of roots exposed by this excavation would determine whether or not it would be feasible to construct a standard spread footing, or a pier and on-grade beam footing. However, this would be a mute point, if the quantity of canopy loss would exceed 25% of the total. Companies that provide air-spade service include Urban Tree Service (650-321-0202) and Arborwell (888-969-8733). Depending on the outcome of Recommendations # 1 and 2, Tree # 1 may be preserved. In this event, the following mitigation procedures typically required at most construction sites would be required. 3. I recommend that protective fencing be provided during the construction period to protect those trees that are planned to be preserved. This fencing must protect a sufficient portion of the root zone to be effective. In most cases, it would be essential to locate the fencing a minimum radius distance of 10 times the trunk diameter in all directions from the trunk. For example, a tree with a trunk diameter of 15 inches dbh (Diameter at Breast Height = 54 inches above grade) would require that protective fencing be erected 13 feet minimum from the trunk. Ifhardscape (i.e., curbing, paving, etc.) exists inside this 13 foot radius, the protective fencing is usually recommended to be erected at the edge of the hardscape feature and be located at least 13 feet from the trunk minimum on all other sides. Occasionally it may be essential to have a certified arborist make decisions about the location(s) of protective fencing at the project site. I recommend that protective fencing must: . Consist of chain link fencing and having a minimum height of 6 feet. . Be mounted on steel posts driven approximately 2 feet into the soil. . Fencing posts must be located a maximum of 10 feet on center. . Protective fencing must be installed prior to the arrival of materials, vehicles, or equipment. . Protective fencing must not be moved, even temporarily, and must remain in place until all construction is completed. Note: In my experience, less substantial fencing is not respected by contractors. 4. Because it would not be practical to protect the root zone near the new residence with protective fencing, a root buffer would be essential. A root buffer allows work to be done over the root system without significant root loss. However, this root buffer is intended to bare the weight only for workers with hand equipment, and is not intended for tractors or lift equipment. Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist April zih, 2006 BCD c:: .- 1ti .S? 1ti 0 - 0 ....... co .- - ......- c.>-as-~ ._ c...::> ~ go -a.. <cc... 0 rti ~ c... Ci. c: :2: <C:::E c....2> il a: a: <c cn2- EV ALVA nON OF TREES AT THE COWLES RESIDENCE, 2] ] 80 GRENOLA DRIVE, CUPERTINO 6 I recommend a root buffer as follows: . A 6 inch layer of course wood chips . Topped with full sheets of 1-12 inch plywood tied together. . The wood chips must be course (approximately % inch in diameter or larger) to be effective (shredded redwood is not acceptable for this purpose due to its compressibility). . The wood chips must be spread by hand over the existing soil grade to a minimwn depth of 6 inches over the specific area to be protected. . The plywood must be secured to prevent slippage. . This root buffer must be installed in conjunction with protective fencing and must remain in place until all construction is completed. 5. There must be no grading, trenching, or surface scraping inside the driplines of protected trees, unless specifically described in another section of this report. 6. Trenches for any utilities (gas, electricity, water, phone, TV cable, etc.) must be located outside the driplines of protected trees, unless approved by a certified arborist. 7. I recommend that Trees # 1 must be irrigated throughout the entire construction period during the dry months (any month receiving less than 1 inch of rainfall). Irrigate a minimwn of 10 gallons of water for each inch of trunk diameter every two weeks. A soaker hose or a drip line is preferred for this purpose. 8. I recommend that the entire area inside the dripline of Trees # 1 must be mulched to the extent feasible. Mulching consists of a protective material (wood chips, gravel) being spread over the root zone inside the dripline. This material must be 4 inches in depth after spreading, which must be done by hand. I prefer course wood chips because it is organic, and degrades naturally over time. Wood chips must be ~ to % inch in diameter primarily. One supplier is Reuser, Inc., 370 Santana Dr., Cloverdale, CA 95425, (707)894-4224. 9. If any old irrigation lines, drain lines, sewer lines, or any other underground features exist inside the driplines of protected trees, but would not be used, I recommend that they be cut off approximately at soil grade and left in the ground. 10. Materials must not be stored, stockpiled, dumped, or buried inside the driplines of protected trees. 11. Excavated soil must not be piled or dumped, even temporarily, inside the driplines of protected trees. 12. Any pruning must be done by an arborist certified by the ISA (International Society of Arboriculture) and according to ISA, Western Chapter Standards, 1998. 13. Any pathways or other hardscape inside the driplines of protected trees must be constructed completely on top of the existing soil grade without excavation. Fill soil may be added to the edge of finished hardscape for a maximum distance of approximately 2 feet from the Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist April 27111, 2006 EVALUATION OF TREES AT THE COWLES RESIDENCE, 21180 GRENOLA DRIVE, CUPERTINO 7 edges to integrate the new hardscape to the natural grade. 14. The sprinkler irrigation must not be done within 20 feet of the trunk of Tree # 1. 15. Landscape irrigation trenches must be a minimum distance of 10 times the trunk diameter from the trunks of protected trees. 16. Landscape materials (cobbles, decorative bark, stones, fencing, etc.) must not be installed directly in contact with the bark of trees because of the risk of serious disease infection. 17. The plants that are planted inside the driplines of oak trees must be of species that are compatible with the environmental and cultural requirements of oaks trees. A publication about plants compatible with California native oaks can be obtained from the California Oak Foundation, 1212 Broadway, Suite 810, Oakland, 94612. Respectfi -......... Michael L. Bench, Associate ~a;&r~ MLB/sh Enclosures: Assumptions and Limiting Conditions Photo Map Tree Chart R Application R - ~fX)b - tJ~ RM Application f!t11- t!)()olP -/3 Approval Date e -;"3 -o/, Signature fit<.1Jru .v-- (Case Manager) Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist April 2ih, 2006 R Application ~ - ;?oolo -DB RM Application Ru - ~()()b _I.~ Approval Date ~:./, Signature dh - , (Case Manager) HORTICULTURAL CONSULTANTS CONSULTING ARBORISTS ~ BARRIE D. COATE , and ASSOCIATES (406) 353-1052 23535 Summ~ Road Los Gal.., CA 95030 Prepared by: Michael L Bench, Consulting Arborist Date: April 27th, 2006 I Job # 04-06-088 This logo is attached to a plan done by another professional. The presence of this logo is not for the purpose of claiming credit for the plan but merely to add horticultural or arboricultural infonnation to a Ian prepared by others. l. 1 '~. ~' .. .~ ,.! ~' II> ~ ,::t, o ~ ~ "~, ., . 1IO'.J;T Ie .str.., CIL Evaluation of trees at the Cowles property 21180 Grenola Drive, Cupertino Requested by: Aki Horda 1 - t I t~ -r Tree numbers correspond to evaluation charts. All dimensions and tree locations are approximate. ~ . F.~ Ji,;~ ~!. 1:. ~ i? ! I ~_.- :~.. .. I~ I I I I I I Ka.o' 'Ii f- .~ i I~ "" \1" I .j I .. - ,~ \ --.\w. , ----------..---- ~ ~ " \~l~ \ BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES (400) 353-1052 23535 Summit Road Los Galos, CA 95030 Plant Name Measurements I- W Wi I- 0 LL I 0 I W W N' W I- -- ' W I- .,....' LL <( ..t!~ <( ~ @'W N ~ i= :1- @ i= en a::::(/) a::: en W W:>- W I-,en W I- 0 W" l- I <( ~:i= W <9 W '.....I I I ~ a::: <(::J CD CD <( W a.. O:~ 0 0 0 I en I I I I I 31.2: : : : : 40: 55 ______~___L___~___~____L___~___ I . I I I I I J I I I I I I I I I I 18 i ! ! : :75:30 ------~---r---~---'----r---T--- I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . I I I I I ______~___L___~___~____L___~___ I I I . I I I f I I I I I I I . I I I I . I I I' I I ------~---~---~---1----~---.--- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . I I I I I ------i---~---_r---i----~---t--- I I . I I , I I I I I I I I ~ I I I I I I ------~---~---~---1----~---.--- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ------i---~---_r---i----~---t--- I I I I I I I I I I I . I I ~ I I I I . I ------4---~---~---~----~---+--- I I I I I I I . I I I I I I . I I I . . . . . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ------i---~---_r---i----~---t--- I I I I I . I I I I I . ~ I ~ I I I , , , I , I I I . I I I ------~---~---~---~----~---+--- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Job Name: Cowles property, 21180 Grenola Drive, Cupertino Job #: 04-06-088 Date: April 27th, 2006 condltlo~ Pruning/Cabling Needs I , I I I I 1 s: I LO ..- I I ,1- Z :1- , ~:~ a .,.... I - <9 , i= <9 >- -iZ ~ C> <9 <( '#: I- 101- <9 Z Z a::: <9 ~ 0 a::: , I I- a W """'<( Z Z Z Z I 0 0 ;;' a::: i= <( Z I- en 0 LO w en W a::: , a::: Z <( .....I I W <( Z W a.. .,.... :J a a::: 0 I- a::: a::: w Z - <9 I I- i= 0 w en ~ ~ ~ ~ > Z I- 0 0 a::: a W .....I :J ~ .....I Z <( a::: Z a a a a ~ CD :J W I- a a::: a::: a::: a::: w <( a::: I en 0 I 0 0 0 0 a::: 0 a.. 1 : 2 ---~---~---~--- I I I I I I I I I 1 ! 1 I I ---y---~---~--- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ---~---~---~--- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ---y---~---1--- I I I I I I I I I ...... I I I I I I I ---t---1r---i--- I I I I I I I , I I I ---.---~---~--- I I I I I I I I I ...... I I I I I I I ---t---1r---i--- I I I I I I I I I I I ---.---~---..--- I I I I 1 I I I I ...... , I I I I I 1 ---t----r---i--- I I I I I I I I I -- I 1 I , , , I ---.---~---.--- I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I ---~----~---~---~---~---~--- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . . _ - I I I I I I ---~----r---~---y---_r---,--- I . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . I I I I . I . I ___~____~___~___~____L___~___ I I I I I I I I I I I I I . I I I I I I . _ _ I I I I I I ---~----r---~---~---~---1--- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . I I _ _ _ I I I I I I ---~----~---1r---t----~---~--- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . _ _ I I I I I I ___1____~---~---~---~---1--- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I f I I . I I I I I I f I I I I I I I ---i----~---1r---t---_t---i--- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _ . _ I I f I I I ___1____~---~---+---~---1--- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .. . I I I I I I I I _ I I I I . I ---i----~---~---t----~---t--- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -- I I I I I I _ _ - ---~----~---~---+---~---~- . I I I I I I I I I . I I . I I I I Pest/Disease Problems Recommend I Status , I , , , I , I I , , _, I , I 10: , 1 I I --.1 1 I I I 1O I 10 I ..- , I , I , - -I I ..- I , I .....I M w: I ~ ..- I I I 0 ~ I c:t .... en: , 1 , W W , > - <(' I a:: en I 0 ~ I I W -I W <( _, a::: ~ ('-. en -Ill?: > w L9:w 0:: w 0 tr? : :s: a en w ('-. w 5 "SI N D:: 0 w a::: :s:>- u a::: :J 0:: W LOi~ 0 <( a:: a:: w i= 0 a::: l- ': 0 :s :s I- z 0.. I- 0 0:a a w ~ a::: w ..J w en: a::: ~ 0 ...J ...J W ~ c:t W I- a a LL <9 1-:0 ~ u u ~ > <( 0 o:w 0 Z en en 0 0 I- W l- I- 0 0 I- WIW <( :J a a w w 0 ~ a::: a en: a::: w a::: a a w w w w w a::: z:1- 0 I- a:: a:: Z Z D:: 0:: I a.. -----~---~----~---j------~---- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I I -----~---~----r---~------~---- ---~----r---~--- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _____~___~____L___~______~____ ___~____L___~___ I I I I I I I I I I I I , I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I . I I -----~---1----r---1------1---- I I I' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -----1r---i----~---i------t---- I I I' I I I I I I I I I I I ---...----r---....----..... ....~....u. I I I I , I I I I . I I I I I ---~----~---~---- I I I I I I Tree # ---~~~?_~~!-jy~-~-~~---------------- Quercus agrifolia ____~____~~~?-~~~~5!~~~5!--------------- Sequoia sempervirens I I ~ I I I I I _____~-_-1----~---1------1---- I I I I I I I I' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I f I -----_r---i----~---i------i---- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ---...----~---~--- I , I I , I I I I . I I I I I ---i----~---~---- I I I I I I I I I , I ---~----~---~---- I I I I , I I , I ...... I I I I ---~----t---~---- I 1 I I , I I I I , I , I I I ---~----~---~--- I , 1 I I , I , , 1 = Best, 5 = Worst Page 1 of 1 EVALUATION OF TREES AT THE COWLES RESIDENCE, 2\ 180 GRENOLA DRIVE, CUPERTINO Photo of Partially Cut, Partially Broken Limb facing Northwest Y-'.';.~" ~::iic~ . . "'.' ~'7I't....,'t- - _ ':~":;~"~' . : ~ . "'~ Photo of Same Tree from Northeast . ~~,-"'$*\'W~:'; ..i. ",', "j.: :~'-">~ '"''~'''''''1f''' ":"",' :'. .......... . ~:~ -,,'" - !...._-:~~ R Application R-d,l!>Ob -0'0 RM Application ~ -- dDOlP ~ 1;S Approval Date rJ;;:l;;1" Signature ()tu '_ (Case Manage~ Pn"n:lrpn h,/' Mi"h:lpl T 'Rpn"h rr\n~ll1t;nO' Arhr\r;ct ^ ...."'..:1 '1'7tl1 "1f\i1t:: ., BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES Horti cut ural Consultants 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos. CA 95033 408135:> 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 character nor is any opinion rendered as to the quality of any title. 2. The appraiser/consultant can neither guarantee nor be responsible for accuracy of 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. OJaM.ie ~ ~ Barrie D. Coate ISA Certified Arborist Horticultural Consultant R Ap~i;cati:i:! j( ~ d(!)O fL> - of,S RM Application fr!jif -;)oOb -13 Approval Date ~}.! r. Signature --1l Jd (Case Manag~ (E) l..story SFD EX. BUILDI~c:e.O' l'fODlih I. All dlataItMd ~ NII1IltIaC from jradIq abaJI be ...ad aDd maIcUd .. ....... beIoft wiater raIDa, beIaC pNpU'ed aDd ...a........... to eaDtrol ~-lIJ' dectIw pIaadbaC .... .. ..,. ..... butq or _ atller faat ~tIaII"'" .. DdnwaF raaft aallltle bp 8lwet law to ftIIeta,tlftl ....ra-. S. eo-trated -'I to be dIrecfled aWIIT fromlltradllra mla. .,. aIope lor a mIalmam 01. .... RoaI DniDaaIe lIJ' Outten TrIa. 011 roof ~ 4" Hlld pve pipe iIdD a1atlall ClQ8CI'Ide atDna water draIaaIIIe __ at atreet. 4. A copy 01 all compaction tests and Ii.na1 grading report sba11 be submitted to the City prior to scbeduling any inspections. Prior to the col\tractor requesting a loandatin inspection. the Soils E.,gineer sba11 advise the Building Ofticial in writing that: 1) the Building Footing excavations and building pad were prepared in accordance with the soil report recommendations. 2) The loundation forming and grading comply with the soil report &1\d approved plafts. and III the drai...ge system. is in accordance with the soil report. 3. AU Constraction II Materials per Stractura1 Engineering sheets provided by MS Engineering. CamPbe1t. CA (408.1177.63041. 6. Recom.m.e1\dations included in the Geotech1\ica1 Report, datedDec. 27. 20M, by AmerlC&1\ ,il Testing, 11\c., S&1\ Jose, CA, (408439-6400), sba11 be incorporated in the grading plans and .pecffications. fenz~er WOOD FENCE N90000'OO"E 20.1.71 ) I '<<f.' /. / ~ 1-" Yard I I)l Sctbadl I l- I t \ 204l667!1r - 204.~nce '11 I I I I l::~ I ./ nee corner 205ie5 65 I .,.. I I I I 15'-0" ~ _ Story 0 Dock b Sctbadl 0 0 8 I Z 114.5' " ! ~ l'en<ooomv Z04.3\ " 13'-0" .,."...........--- tE) .....- ,..... ..",.".,...T.........'........ CrIFraatYa.rd o Sct~ I)l --------------- GRAVEL ------------------- 75.C'\>, N90000'OO"E lIU' t:.G. GRAVEL No organic material sball be permitted .!MJs "",,,eat... la_eil used lor SUlfa"" JtlMIt l!rewth "'H \ .d which does nat exceed 4 inches in d~\>th. ';&l."~, 9. OI\Iy materials meeting . material specmcati01\S. 10. Dust from grading opera.ti01\S must ~~vide equipme1\t to dampen grading sites to avoid dust. _____ ~ 201.14)( " ~Ot:tl.If"\1 ^ nCI\/t: 20!>.T~ " "' 204.9\ " --.... --- ----eoa:...... I1j $ SIDEWALK 100' EX. BUILDING 114.5' Rid", 21l8O Grenola Dr. Lot 57, Tract 831 Garden Gate Villlllle APN It 326-28-057 Lot: 9,376 sf Prooosed: Two-Story SFD: 4,219 sf 1st Floor: 2,910 sf Livinl&: 2,271 sf Two-Ca.r Garlllle: 638 sf 46% FAR 2nd Floor: 1.309 sf 46% 1st FIr. Entry Porch: 57 sf Proposed Balconies: 160 sf Lot Cover&1le: 2JY13 sf 3170% FAR: (46% max.) 4,219 sf 45.00% HeUlhts: Existintl Finish Grade: Proposed SFD F.F.: 100.0' Main: 101S Upper: 11L5' Maximum Ridtle Heieht: (28'.6" from E.,G.) 126.5' Gradi~: Excavate and Recompact ExistiBC Septic Tank Forestry: One 42" Sycamore To Be Removed Scope of Work: 1. Demo existing 1,236 sf SFD 2. Excavate and recompact exis" Septic Tank 3. Build New SFD plus Garage Plans to be in CompU with CA 8uilding and Codes (2001) Job Copies of 8uilding Flre System Plans and Permits must be onsite during Inspections. " 2()ll.O<lX " Oce. Class: R-3 8uild. Const.: Type V- Flre Rating: Sprinkle: TABLE OF CONTENTS A.1 SITE PLAN A.2 MAIN FLOOR PLAN A-3 2nd FLOOR PLAN/Privacy Plantintl A-4 FRONTIREAR ELEVATIONS A-5 SIDE ELEVATIONS A-6 ROOF PLAN A.7 SECTIONS A-8 LANDSCAPING A-9 ELECTRICAL A.10 T.24 CERTIFICATES 5-10 SPECIFICATIONS 5-U SHEATHlNGlNAlLING 5-U TYPICAL DETAILS 5-13 SHEAR DET AU..S 5-2.0 FOUNDATION PLAN 5-2J. 2ND FLOOR FRAMING 5-202 UPPER ROOF FRAMING SITE PLAN Scale 1/8" = 1'- 0" ~;u ~.~ ~ i d @ = ~ l::l "" tI) ~ ~~ r~~~ U@ 'I~ 8: rC~ . "" \~_ J .... -7~ -:! -. - oS U~ j = td ~ ~= e.~ i'~ iiS& .... ~ ~ ~~""I Oi ~~ L: ~ ...: oWO V't.) i~H :a.d t= ~ ~ ::s . =~ ~~ He; l5 ~ ~~ ~ tl ~ t1S ~Q f-o e Cl Cl ~ 0 i~ <::C ii ~ ~ ..... t/) ..... , ~ _HS (Norm.) &. .; ... ~p b "' ';'III04OHS Q Ii) (Norm.) ... ... ~ R Application J2 -.:?m~ -09 RM Application m -~()ob -/3 Approval Date J, -;; I(!I. Signature {JlYt, Y1 j- (Case Manager) II04OH! (Norm.' ~ b iH t t 11'-4" 1 < ~'-O" _ as (Norm.) I~~~~~~ c;:t=.. ~~'110 Workshop Study 11'...1" ~ olJ~ 11'-1?' Bedroom 4 Laundr v ~tilitielll 20'.3" rJll _. "\ =- o o L '- - It1Ol1O Gar,.. Doer ""<bed Trelli. AcceAt SECTlO~ "e' "li",J 16'-2" 1 Great Room . .. t=. .. b ';' 01 il> ... ~ -c~' Office 12'...4" .....l~ ~ ; f., IOlIOo4 OXXO wit!. -.. = Above Ia^ ~ 46'..8" ~eJIl~ _ Bay (Temp.) Noo, lS'-10' " SiN< lS'.9" iitchen 11.0" s: 18'-r 51-S" lI87II Pocket 13'...8" 5'-0" p-~ Diniq Room ~ .~ s.... -.. -.. '"",",""a &001 ...... w1ttUa. Opfaer J'1oar ~ ~ ......d -~.. ~ ~ tD LivinQ Room . ~ 13'.5" ... . 6. lJ.' """ .' "". Covered -Porcfl . __f'i-...s8llDfi _1_ Archod Aboft (T....."') ^" rl 39'.0" SECTlor ''B'' ........ t -P' ---'jo--'I<- S'~6" Ilblo. Oooa L- ~j --'I ; 01 ... -- - OXXXO (T...."') c 18IIN ea-at (Temp) 18IIN Caoemeat (Temp) - ; f., PROPOSED 1st FLOORPLAN Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0" III ~ J~il d-;~] ~ ~ '" J ~j ~.. t( A! ~~V_ ,~; = j f\ Co ~ ..., ,.Q ! ~ !8 ... 'II !~ b .c ... b ... ~ .... it ~ .0 i~ ~ ~i j~ ~~ ~~ I- :a..t:: !~ & ta) goB !~~~ b~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c=.... ~ e S~ ~:cl~ ~ SECTION "A" ~ ~~ ~~ "" A-2 Finish Schedule: ExteriQl': 3-Coa.t Stucco - "Palamino" (Lt YenowlTan) Roof: Concrete So Tileli~ "Casa Grande Blen.d" Trim 8l Fascia: Pain.ted Wood Trim Sun-ounds . "Nude" (White) Windows 8l Doors Eac1e Vinyl Clad Ultra Windows. "White" GaraQe 81. Front Door. Painted Wood . "Antique" Deck ~ Painted Articulated Wroucht Iron. . "White" Balcony: Slate Tile HS'.O" ~ c; .. p, ~ c; .. NORTH (FRONTl ELEVATION Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0" I [[]I] ..c:::::I5 tlI 1211.5' 5 t:::::... 12 ill cD CN R Application R - :l1JO~ - Da RM Application /Jt1- t1trJ~ -/.3 Approval DateZ1 J:i:' Signature 'lu' (Case MaI8J8Il SOUTH (REAR) ELEVATION Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0" 10'.0" 100.0' B.G. 110.5' Plate 100.0' E.G. uu ~ V .-l :;:! JI05 0. @ ~ j:!, ~ '" .; ~i ~u~ ~~ ~ --:.7/ - ~ J = j Qj:!, p, >. ..a ! ~ !8 .....11I i.~ iO& 5'.0" ~ c; .. '2 cd ~ -..:a o ....:1 ~ ~i ~ "'0 ~ Ii ... cd o~ ~ "'0 :! I ~ ... "'c! :a.d II " ~ a 0 i~ ~~ ~&J ~ ~ ~ cd ~a E- ~ ~ ~ ~:cU ilJ ~ f-t=S z<~ g~> {t.. ~ ~ A.4 R Application ~-:J(}()'~r()9, RM Application RM - ;!fJob ~ /3 Approval Dat~;!! Signature ' , (Case Manager) 1lIO.6' PIa' ~ , rr.. .. TreDis Accent DD 100.6' F'mish Sd....dule: Exterior: 30C0at Stucco. "Palamino" (Lt. Yellow/Tan) Roof: Concrete S-Tilelite- ''Caaa Grande Blead" Trim 8/. Fascia: Painted Wood Trim Surrotmds - ''Nude'' (White) Windows 8/. Doors: ~e Vinyl Clad Ultra WiIldows . ''White'' Gar. 8/. Froat Door. Painted Wood . "Antique" Deck Raili~ Painted Articulated WroUflht Iroo. - ''White'' BalCOll)'l Slate Tile ~ 12 , &l 01 D D WEST (RIGHT} ELEVATION Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0" [[]] m 01 EAST (LEFTl ELEVATION Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0" 51::::=... 12 ! IU .a ~ ~ ~ ....1i5 ~ ~ ~ ] ~i ~U~ =-C~/ - ~ J ~ j (jQ. ~ ,Q ! a ~(/J Qg ....111 i'~ '0& .... ~ II :i4 I~ os ~I ~ '0 ~~ - <~ ~~ s~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ < ::c ::c ScC":g :s:-€;" Ii.a~~ It;;: -< -c -. _ ~_o CD =- -- ~ c ~ !::::r. a~g CDO ::::J > . 0) ~ t'5~ -.... ^~ !. CA e;.- e;l; "UJ ~{ '9 l; ~ - -= n~ a _ > ~ ~~ 3: = Q fo .0. ~ . ~ ~ t1JC(J lr ~ g.2 "" =~ J" = fJ' . ; C2 ~ o ... r.?:?1((l~ u:.~~ .. q ~ C!!" , , 9'.0" Plate (f'.f'. 1010') ~ ~ 9'.o"P....te 01 10 ~ ~ !! """" :!:! CI v 5 I 12 Aidlle /- ~/ (1010'F.f'I : v:~) I / V "''\ ~ V r.o"~ ~ 5~ ;i~ ~L ~ - llJ \\ /~ .f(/:' ~ ~ 17"\1 01" ~ - ~ ...,. .,.....~ b \' .~ = 101 r ~ ~ Plate' \.- o o .." ~ r-e > :2 (totS 1'.1') 9'.0" Plate ~, "ijCIQ ~q ~f Ii ~7 "M '" ; , :?I I I 101.4)' 1'.1') (1016' F.f') I ^ 19'.0" Plate / /~ ~ ., to ~ 10 t... ..... RUA_ ..JO 5/12 I ==....'f' " J ti"~ ,~/ .~./) S/12 jCIQ I lIlq /)/ '"' 3:( v ~.= ~ ~ SlUt .. ~ . l to SlUt , " J..I' 19'.0" Plate , I ~ lll\J'\. "-I <UJ ~~ -.... ~ l::t ! .,. OJ r iO s: . (t Drawn by: !~~ ~p ::::. Cliff Cowles Plans Bl Permits P. 0. Box 22U01 Cannel, CA 839m! 831.626.82l9 Fax.8IJ1.659.6161 ROOF PLAN A New Two-Story Residence for: Homa 8l. Mehrdad Mojgani 21180 Grenola Dr.. Cuptertino, CA 95014 SCIara Cllty A.P.No. 326-28-057, 408.255.7729 117.5' ~ ~ .. StructurAl Beams per ~eeriAll 1...018" OC AU Wall. (l.O.PI. _t1.... Cell_ R-lIO Walls R-18 :f1oara R-a : I Workshop Co ~ I Study ~ ;., ... EneriOl' a.. coat Stucco Walls to ....Ye II vr _ oc:reed ..t plate lilW, mil\. .." """Ye .....de Typ. Foyer Utilities Living 100.0' EoG. SECTION "A" Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0" .- Foyer vr Celli._ or 5/11' Gfpoum Drywall Typical All Ce.iti.. -.ad wan. ~ CIl 6'-6" Co . CIl ... Co ~ ... ltdI 0 18" oc All w.n. (l.QK _ CalI_ Rolle Wall. R-19 Floors Jl.2I Entry Han ~ I Dining Nook Eatvior .. CQ&t Stucco Walls to ....Ye 1I vr __ oc:reed at pate li~ mia. 41t abow Fade Typ. SECTION "B" Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0" 9 CIlI Bed2 RApp/ication R -dooh - ~ RM Application R# - ~/)()~ -/3 Approval Date . ~-()l. Signature ~ l~ (Case Managerj ~ CIl Great Room HaD 100.0' E.G. Laundry II Util. Garage 9 CIl SECTION "C" Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0" _018"OC AD Wall. UOON. 1aauJatI.... CelIlOl!' _ w..us R.1lI Fl"""" _ 1016 f'.I'. EG . B1d1l- UU J~iS d GJ ~ ~ ~ "" ]:1 ~l ~.U& \!.. iiilI ~{ !3 j QQ. >. ..a ! ~ ~2 e.a ih: ia& .... = i ~ ~ o i~ ~ ~, ~....o(~ .... \wi (J 'I) ~~ li :a.d ti & 6) ;:l 0 i~ i~ ~~ ~~ ~ td .~ ~ ~ e \.:1 III ~ 0 SA o(::r: ;; ~ f/) Z o ..... E- U ltJ f/) A-7 ~cn > ::0 ::0 mc5"~ s:: I ::::J ~ ::J> ~ el.C)~-c:;:::I c= ~~ =-= Ci3 =-=@ o~::::!":. el.::::!:.g CD C) ::::J ... Cl1 I ~ .." ,.>.....~ " ''\''Il" ~ =~ ('}~ -- ^~ .. ~ ~ I ~ q [J .~ ~, r .II \ '. ; AfY i' fly,..... .;;, r ~ N~ I f;i,,,"-,,, , I - 8 .. 11'.0' " "" q iil L~ ~ ..- /~I -6 .,.-~. ...rnIilIt 13'-1' ~ l ~.l ^ rft~ .. Q .- .. ~ ,- ~ -I ~ fI'II 8'-3" . ," <(l.O,-;/t .1,'9 (/) =~ ~:J .. 9 ~ ..&, "i V lII'~(\\ "/ I'-..JIII' 'J , JI rj~ ~rf IJ~ i;i " '~. ,,""J\ ~!J ~. l~ ~ ~ i ~.Jt>'!GI ~ I' ~~ ~ I7l' _~ 'f 6'-2' .. Q ~ .. ~ , ~ -~. 01 1t ~ Jt; V lit ., ~ 11 ~ ~ ~O .~ ;'OINO ~~ = ~ i~Q.O ,. t'""'l en == > l"Ii Z 10 CQ ~I t ~n =1 gI ~I=: ~12 0<< .. a> ~ 5-0 IJ II ~ ;, 1'- 15'-2' l 5'-6" "I 17'-0' ~ i'r~ EH .. 8'-2" < ~ ~n -.... ~ Cl1 I ~ > . ~ Drawn by: l~ ,,~>? ::::8 Cliff Cowles Plans I/. Permits P. 0. Box 2Z3201 Carmel, CA 939D 8lI1.626.Ul9 Fax.831.659.6161 UPPED FLOODPLAN A New Two-Story Residence for: Moma III Mehrdad Mojgani 21180 Grenola Dr.. Cuptertino, CA 95014 SCIara. Cnty A.P.No. 316-28-057,408.J55.7719