Loading...
CC 05-15-2018 Exhibit Item No. 12 Scenic Blvd - Written Communications1 Lauren Sapudar From:Joe Cleaver <joepacleaver@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, May 14, 2018 12:42 PM To:City Council Cc:Joe Cleaver Subject:Development of 10234 Scenic Blvd Attachments:1.pdf; 2.pdf; 3.pdf Re: Presentation on May 15, 2018 subject: 10234 Scenic Boulevard Development Proposal.  My name is Joe Cleaver. I have lived in Cupertino for 33 years. Our home abuts the Orchard and the Steven’s Creek Trail at the bottom of the hill from the Scenic Blvd site in question.   I’m speaking tonight because I feel the city of Cupertino could be facing a serious liability issue if the development proceeds as planned in face of the history of embankment erosion. The hillside is steep under parcels 4 and 5, and reaches over 35% at lower sections. The surface is not over bedrock but is composed of porous ruble fill that absorbs rainfall. Sturdy tree root-balls help hold the hillside together. But, even the sturdiest tree is giving way. (Show picture) Here is a picture of the oak that is located in the center of parcel 5, (the curved driveway). The picture tells the tale. The root ball is giving way, pressured by the hillside’s erosion.  City planners anticipated such a situation after the Loma Prieta earthquake. They updated the General Plan under “Geologic and Seismic Hazards”. I know you are well aware of this, but I’ll show it for the record. On page E-4.   1.Landslides present the greatest geologic hazards to the foothills and low mountains in the planning area. 2.Landslides are expected along the high steep embankments that bound the Stevens Creek flood plane, confined to local sites along the stream channel alignment extending from the hillsides across the valley floor. This hazard can be reduced significantly by restrictive building at the base and top of the embankments. Figure E-1, from the general plan, describes the geologic fault zones, (show map) Here we see the geologic fault lines the San Andreas, the Berrocal, and the Monta Vista. To orient you, here is Stevens Creek Blvd, Foothill Blvd, McClellen Road, and Bubb Road.  The pink areas represent Landslide-prone areas. At the top they identify the Stevens Creek, bordered on each side by steep hillsides. The property in question is right here, (Show site) directly above the Blackberry Farm picnic Area.  Someone will be held liable should the embankment collapse either during construction of the retaining walls, or in the distant future. Most probably, the contractor will have moved on. So it will be the City and the development’s HOA that would be held liable. For that reason I’m opposed to parcel 4 construction on the steepest hillside.  CC05-15-2018 Item No. 12 2   Joseph Cleaver  22105 Dean Court  Cupertino, CA 95014  408-446-1818  Total Control Panel Login To: citycouncil@cupertino.org From: joepacleaver@gmail.com Message Score: 1 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: High Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block this sender Block gmail.com This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. 1 Lauren Sapudar From:Geoff Paulsen Sent:Sunday, May 13, 2018 8:51 PM To:Darcy Paul; Rod Sinks; Savita Vaidhyanathan; Barry Chang; Steven Scharf Cc:benjaninf@cupertino.org; erics@cupertino.org Subject:Brief summary of why the Planning Commission vorted against the Scenic Blv. proposal Honorable Mayor and Council Members:     Since I received a recent inquiry from a Council Member about the proposed Scenic Boulevard  development, I thought it might help you to have a brief summary of some points that were made at  the Planning Commission meeting of April 10, 2018 , where we voted 3‐2 to against the developer's  proposal.     Here's why we voted against it:     ‐ There was extremely poor public outreach. For example, the developer sent an email to the neighbors  on a Saturday evening, inviting them to a meeting with him the next morning.     ‐ The proposal would cause ongoing resentment in the community, because the neighbors had been  told for years that only three houses would be built.      ‐ A proposed fourth house would be on a steep, unstable slope ‐ the city engineer told me the crest of  that slope has receded 15 feet since the early 1900s.     ‐ That same house would visually intrude into Blackberry Farm.     ‐ The developer has already butchered large oaks on the property, including one noteworthy specimen  adjacent to a neighbor's home.  2 ‐ Although the developer said he would try to save a magnificent 32‐inch diameter heritage oak on the  property, he refused to guarantee this with a bond. In fact, he did not even understand what a bond  was.        Feel free to contact me at any time if you have questions.     Regards, Geoff        Geoff Paulsen  Chair, Cupertino Planning Commission     (408) 480‐7509  To: City Council, Cupertino.  Subject: Objection to proposed construction plan at 10234 Scenic Blvd, Cupertino, CA  From: Vishu and Nikita Gupta, 10270 Scenic Blvd, Cupertino, CA    We are to the south of the proposed construction site. We are really worried about this  construction because of some really fundamental issues. We want development in the area, but  the current plan will lead to safety and legal issues for the neighbors, future owners of the  houses, and the City of Cupertino.    Slope Instability  We share the steep slope backing into blackberry farm with the lot proposed for construction.  The natural slope does not care about parcel boundaries. Irrespective of the slope stability plan  for the proposed development, we know for sure that activity on that slope and act of  construction will increase slope instability unless the developer or the city works on stabilizing  our slope in addition to the construction area. Considering only slope stability of the parcel and  not of adjoining parcel is irresponsible. The slope stability for the land and adjoining slope to  the parcel should be fixed before any construction, and there should not be any construction  activity on parcel 4 of the proposed plan.    Liability Issue    Liability for the ongoing and future embankment erosion in the proposed development and  adjoining parcels should be determined prior to proceeding any further with the proposed  development plan. The City and the developer should engage with an engineering firm(s) to  explore embankment stabilization options at the earliest possible date. Embankment  stabilization for the parcel and adjoining lands should be Phase I of the development. Who pays  for the work would have to be worked out between the City and the developer. The developer  will move on, and in the end, it would be the City and/or the development's HOA that would be  held liable for any issues due to embankment erosion in the proposed lot and adjoining lands.    Tree stability  The boundary between our house and proposed site had beautiful oak trees, and the  developers cut the huge branches on their side brutally in order to create space for the houses.  Pictures attached of a tree branch cut brutally from close to main trunk, and tree leaning  towards one side (our side).      As a result, the trees are leaning heavily on our side making the trees unstable and posing  imminent risk to us and our property. Attached picture below of all the boundary trees leaning  towards one side (our side).      If not completely fixed now, this is a hazard for our house and we are worried that it will be a  conflict between us and future neighbors once the developer moves on after selling the  property. The arborist report says that "Removal and replacement would be the expected  outcome of Trees # 29, 31, 33, and 34." This essentially means that the developer cut these  branches knowing fully well that this will kill the protected trees! The developer should:  (1) Immediately balance the trees completely so that this risk is removed  (2) If the only way to rebalance is to significantly trim or cut these trees, the developer  should plant lot of trees on the boundary to make sure privacy cover is good.    Privacy  Our house shares the boundary south of the lot. The developer is building multiple 2‐story  houses there and close to the boundary. The developer should set the houses farther back from  our property, and not just the bare minimum, and no windows should look towards the south.  The developer will be somehow flattening portions of the steep slope to build these houses.  The developer should put up story poles for the planned houses so that we can see what the  impact to our privacy would be given it is impossible to visualize everything. Especially  depending on the extent of slope leveling required, house positioning could be dramatically  different from what people imagine it to be. This is what happened with the construction on  10290 Scenic Blvd, Cupertino couple of years back, and led to serious dispute between  neighbors once the construction started after plan approvals, and the real magnitude of the  construction became visible.  22221 McClellan Road, Cupertino, CA 95014 Phone: (408) 252-3748 * Fax: (408) 252-2850 email: scvas@scvas.org * www.scvas.org April 9, 2018 Planning Commission City of Cupertino 10350 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Item 3, 10234 Scenic Boulevard, on the April 10, 2018 agenda Dear Chair Paulsen and Cupertino Planning Commissioners, The Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society submits these comments on the proposed development at 10234 Scenic Boulevard (Project) in Cupertino. Our organization has been headquartered at McClellan Ranch for over 25 years and we consider Cupertino our home. Many of our members frequent Blackberry Farm to enjoy bird watching and wildlife viewing, and care deeply about preserving the ecological integrity of the Stevens Creek Corridor. We hope you will recommend these suggested changes to the proposal: 1. Reduce the Project footprint The Easternmost portion of the property slopes steeply downwards before dropping off into a cliff just above the picnic area at Blackberry Farm. As evidence by numerous animal droppings found on site and sightings by neighbors, the Project site serves as foraging habitat for local wildlife moving along the Stevens Creek Corridor. Additionally, the site contains a number of native coast live oak trees that provide habitat for birds. For these reasons, the Project footprint should be reduced in order to preserve open space and native trees along the Stevens Creek Corridor, and to retain the stability of the cliff above Blackberry Farm. In particular, the large cost live oak in the center of the proposed driveway (Tree 39) should be preserved. 2. Replace the proposed Pittosporum trees with native species The Project proposes to plant 59 Pittosporum crassifolium trees as privacy trees between the lots. Pittosporum is a non-native species and should not be planted so close to a riparian corridor. Instead, we recommend planting native species with a moderate canopy, such as strawberry trees. Santa Clara ValleyAudubon SocietyEstablished 1926 22221 McClellan Road, Cupertino, CA 95014 Phone: (408) 252-3748 * Fax: (408) 252-2850 email: scvas@scvas.org * www.scvas.org Finally, we wish to highlight the issue of unpermitted tree removal on this site. Several large, native trees were removed or trimmed significantly without permit (above). To ameliorate this issue, we hope the City will require that the applicant replace these trees with native species at a 3:1 ratio along the Stevens Creek Corridor. This will demonstrate the applicant’s good faith and will contribute to riparian habitat. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Mackenzie Mossing Environmental Advocacy Associate Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society Cell: (408) 394-0330 1 Lauren Sapudar From:Rich Abdalah <rabdalah@abdalahlaw.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 15, 2018 11:34 AM To:Darcy Paul; Savita Vaidhyanathan; Barry Chang; rsinks@cupertino.orgr; Steven Scharf Subject:10234 Scenic Drive Tonight's Agenda Attachments:Xie-Map.pdf; Xie-Final Judgment.pdf; Xie-Maintenance Agreement.pdf Mayor and Council Members: I will be one of several speakers in favor of the project on tonight’s Agenda regarding property located at 10234 Scenic Drive, Cupertino. The Applicant is seeking a tentative map to allow the creation of 4 parcels for homes and 1 parcel for access to the rear lots. The staff report does not mention that the applicant was asked by the City staff to file a quiet title action for a section of land that is identified in the attached map and titled “AREA DESCRIBED.” For one reason or another, this parcel was not included in the property deeded to the City for Blackberry Farm Recreation Center. It was not part of the existing parcel that the Applicant is seeking to develop. In short, the property belonged to nobody. This in turn created uncertainty as to who was legally required to maintain the slope. When the application for development was initially filed, the City requested the Applicant, at Applicant’s sole expense, to file an action to quiet title to the parcel in Applicant’s name and to enter into an agreement with the City to maintain the slope. I was asked to file the quiet title action by the Applicant, which I did. The final judgement which included the maintenance agreement was filed on November 29, 2016, roughly 18 months ago. A copy of the “face page” of the judgement is attached, because the judgment itself is 79 pages. I am also attaching a copy of the maintenance agreement that was incorporated into the judgement. The Applicant solved an ownership and maintenance issue that eliminated uncertainty affecting City property and insured that the burden and cost of maintaining the slope belonged to the Applicant. Thank you for your time and attention Richard K. Abdalah, Esq. ABDALAH LAW OFFICES 10455 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Tel: 408.252.5211 Fax: 408.996.2004 rabdalah@abdalahlaw.com http://www.abdalahlaw.com This email and any attachments are confidential, intended only for the named recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged attorney-client communications, attorney work product, or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient(s) you are notified that the dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. Receipt by anyone other than the named recipient(s) is not a waiver of any applicable privilege.   Total Control Panel Login To: bchang@cupertino.org From: rabdalah@abdalahlaw.com Message Score: 50 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: High Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass 2 Block this sender Block abdalahlaw.com This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. 1 Lauren Sapudar From:Erick Serrano Sent:Tuesday, May 15, 2018 1:16 PM To:City Clerk Subject:FW: Item 12 on the 5/15/18 Agenda Attachments:Council letter for 10234 Scenic.docx For your reference.     Erick Serrano  Associate Planner  City of Cupertino  ericks@cupertino.org  (408) 777‐3205    From: Vishu Gupta [mailto:gupta.vishu@gmail.com]   Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2018 8:17 PM  To: Darcy Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org>; Rod Sinks <RSinks@cupertino.org>; Savita Vaidhyanathan  <svaidhyanathan@cupertino.org>; Barry Chang <BChang@cupertino.org>; Steven Scharf <SScharf@cupertino.org>  Cc: Erick Serrano <ErickS@cupertino.org>; nikita gupta <nikitagupta81@yahoo.com>  Subject: Item 12 on the 5/15/18 Agenda  Dear Mayor Paul and Cupertino City Council members, Please find attached the list of concerns that I intend to present at the city council meeting on Tuesday regarding the development proposal for 10234 Scenic Boulevard. I hope it is ok to submit them in this fashion rather than distribute paper copies. This proposal will be discussed as Item 12 during the May 15th City Council meeting. I would like to request that the Council concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to deny the Project as proposed. Many neighbors agree with the Planning Commission that this plan is not suitable. Also cc'ing Erick from the city planning department. Thank you, Vishu Total Control Panel Login To: ericks@cupertino.org From: gupta.vishu@gmail.com Remove this sender from my allow list You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. To: City Council, Cupertino.  Subject: Objection to proposed construction plan at 10234 Scenic Blvd, Cupertino, CA  From: Vishu and Nikita Gupta, 10270 Scenic Blvd, Cupertino, CA    We are to the south of the proposed construction site. We are really worried about this  construction because of some really fundamental issues. We want development in the area, but  the current plan will lead to safety and legal issues for the neighbors, future owners of the  houses, and the City of Cupertino.    Slope Instability  We share the steep slope backing into blackberry farm with the lot proposed for construction.  The natural slope does not care about parcel boundaries. Irrespective of the slope stability plan  for the proposed development, we know for sure that activity on that slope and act of  construction will increase slope instability unless the developer or the city works on stabilizing  our slope in addition to the construction area. Considering only slope stability of the parcel and  not of adjoining parcel is irresponsible. The slope stability for the land and adjoining slope to  the parcel should be fixed before any construction, and there should not be any construction  activity on parcel 4 of the proposed plan.    Liability Issue    Liability for the ongoing and future embankment erosion in the proposed development and  adjoining parcels should be determined prior to proceeding any further with the proposed  development plan. The City and the developer should engage with an engineering firm(s) to  explore embankment stabilization options at the earliest possible date. Embankment  stabilization for the parcel and adjoining lands should be Phase I of the development. Who pays  for the work would have to be worked out between the City and the developer. The developer  will move on, and in the end, it would be the City and/or the development's HOA that would be  held liable for any issues due to embankment erosion in the proposed lot and adjoining lands.    Tree stability  The boundary between our house and proposed site had beautiful oak trees, and the  developers cut the huge branches on their side brutally in order to create space for the houses.  Pictures attached of a tree branch cut brutally from close to main trunk, and tree leaning  towards one side (our side).      As a result, the trees are leaning heavily on our side making the trees unstable and posing  imminent risk to us and our property. Attached picture below of all the boundary trees leaning  towards one side (our side).      If not completely fixed now, this is a hazard for our house and we are worried that it will be a  conflict between us and future neighbors once the developer moves on after selling the  property. The arborist report says that "Removal and replacement would be the expected  outcome of Trees # 29, 31, 33, and 34." This essentially means that the developer cut these  branches knowing fully well that this will kill the protected trees! The developer should:  (1) Immediately balance the trees completely so that this risk is removed  (2) If the only way to rebalance is to significantly trim or cut these trees, the developer  should plant lot of trees on the boundary to make sure privacy cover is good.    Privacy  Our house shares the boundary south of the lot. The developer is building multiple 2‐story  houses there and close to the boundary. The developer should set the houses farther back from  our property, and not just the bare minimum, and no windows should look towards the south.  The developer will be somehow flattening portions of the steep slope to build these houses.  The developer should put up story poles for the planned houses so that we can see what the  impact to our privacy would be given it is impossible to visualize everything. Especially  depending on the extent of slope leveling required, house positioning could be dramatically  different from what people imagine it to be. This is what happened with the construction on  10290 Scenic Blvd, Cupertino couple of years back, and led to serious dispute between  neighbors once the construction started after plan approvals, and the real magnitude of the  construction became visible.