Loading...
.04 R-2006-08 Cliff Cowles CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: Appeal of R-2006-08 Agenda Date: October 10, 2006 and RM-2006-13 Appellant: John Tracy & Jessica Rose Elena Herrera & Subir Sengupta Property Location: 21180 Grenola Drive Application Summary: Appeal of a Residential Design Review and Minor Residential Permit to construct a new, two-story 4,219 square foot residence with two second-story rear yard decks. Recommendation: The Planning Commission has the option of making either recommendation to the City Council: 1. Deny the appeal(s) and uphold the Director of Community Development's decision, or 2. Uphold the appeal(s) and Director of Community Development's decision, or 3. Uphold the appeal(s) and modify the Director of Community Development's decision Project Data: General Plan Designation: Low Density (1-5 DU 1 gross acre) Zoning Designation: RI-I0 Lot Area: 9,375 square feet (.21 acres) Proposed Residence First Floor Living SF: Second Floor Living SF: Garage SF: Total Building SF: Floor Area Ratio: First Floor FAR/2nd Floor FAR: Lot Coverage: Master Bedroom Balcony: Bedroom 2 Balcony: . Parking: StoriesjHeight: 2,272 square feet 1,309 square feet 638 square feet 4,219 square feet .45 .45 31% 60 square feet 53 square feet 2 enclosed/2 uncovered 2 stories 126 feet 6 inches 'f-l Appeal ofR-2006-08 & RM-2006-13 October 10, 2006 Page 2 Setbacks: Front (Grenola Dr. side) Rear (south) East Side West Side Balconies First Story 20 feet 45 feet 5 feet 10 feet N/A Second Story 33 feet 46 feet 18 feet 14 feet 6 inches 20 feet ( east side) 17 feet (west side) Project Consistency with: General Plan Yes Zoning Yes Environmental Assessment: Categorically Exempt Background: In April of 2006, the applicants, Mehrdad and Homa Mojgani, applied for a two-story residential permit and minor residential permit to construct a 4,219 square foot, two- story single family residence with two-story decks on their property located at 21180 Grenola Drive. Based on concerns expressed by neighbors that an existing oak tree was to be removed on the property, staff conducted an inspection of the property and discovered that the applicants had mislabeled the existing oak tree on the property as a sycamore tree that they were proposing to remove. As a result, staff notified the applicant that oak trees are protected trees and that the application could not be processed until a tree evaluation could be conducted by the City's Arborist. A tree evaluation (See Exhibit D) was conducted by Barrie D. Coate & Associates on April 27th, who identified the tree as a coast live oak in excellent condition. The City Arborist also provided several measures to ensure protection of the tree during construction if the tree is to be preserved. The applicant's designer also resubmitted a revised site plan, indicating that the oak tree was actually 14 feet 2 inches from the proposed new home, rather than the 12-foot distance as previously shown. As a result, the City Arborist stated that trenching could occur 14 feet 2 inches from the trunk diameter, rather than the 15-foot distance as recommended in the tree report. Due to this information, the applicants decided to retain the tree since the tree report indicated that it could be preserved. Further, the City Arborist stated that the pruning required to construct the new residence would result in a fairly minor canopy loss and that the tree should be able to tolerate the canopy loss if the pruning is done by a certified arborist and meets the ISA Western Chapter standards. Staff determined that the proposed residence met all development regulations for a two-story residence with two-story decks and consequently sent a letter to neighbors notifying them of the application and requesting comments by July 25th. The City received comments from the surrounding residents who expressed concern about the proposed two-story residence and asked that the story poles be installed to accurately reflect the location of the two-story decks to be constructed on the residence. Staff subsequently requested the applicant to install the story poles showing the location of tf-~ Appeal ofR-2006-08 & RM-2006-13 October 10, 2006 Page 3 the decks and extended the comment period to August 16th. A letter was sent on August 23, 2006, notifying the applicants and surrounding residents that the two-story residential permit and minor residential permit were approved on August 21st. On September 6, 2006, the City received two appeals on this project. One appeal was filed by John Tracy and Jessica Rose. The other appeal was filed by Elena Herrera and Subir Sengupta. Discussion: John Tracy and Jessica Rose, adjacent residential neighbors who reside at 10410 Ann Arbor Avenue, submitted an appeal (See Exhibit A) of the minor residential permit approving the second story balcony to the master bedroom of the proposed residence and voiced their concerns about protection of the existing oak tree on the property. The appeal letter provided the following concerns and comments: Second Story Master Bedroom Balcony The balcony will have a full view into their backyard, living room, patio, and master bedroom window affecting their privacy and quality of life. They question the compatibility of the proposed Mediterranean residence with the neighborhood and believe there are no homes with rear facing balconies in the Garden Gate neighborhood. The proposed two-story home is surrounded by three single-family homes and will allow the homeowner to view into these surrounding homes. . They question the proposed .home owners' purpose to construct a balcony that will view into their yard and has no surrounding hillside views. They propose a faux balcony in lieu of a true balcony for the master bedroom. . They do not believe the landscaping plan for privacy protection will adequately mitigate privacy impacts and that the plants will not grow tall enough within three years to provide privacy mitigation. Protection Plan for the Oak Tree . They question the ability of the oak tree to survive if the arborist report recommends maintaining a 15 foot distance from the tree when the plan indicates the proposed house will be 14 feet 2 inches from the tree. There is no follow-up that the arborist has estimated the proposed canopy and root system loss with the installation of the story poles. They believe there would be a 25 % root loss if the foundation of the home is placed at 15 feet from the tree trunk and would threaten the tree's chance of surviving. . They would like to know the impact of the privacy landscaping on the existing oak tree as they state oaks are difficult to plant around. if'S Appeal ofR-2006-08 & RM-2006-13 October 10, 2006 Page 4 An appeal (See Exhibit B) was also submitted by Elena Herrera and Subir Sengupta of 21150 Grenola Drive, who reside two houses down from the subject property. They provided the following concerns and comments: Proposed Residence The size, look and style of the proposed residence neither fits nor compliments the neighborhood. They realize that there are similar homes within the Garden Gate neighborhood to the proposed residence, bu t tha t these larger homes were approved when these properties were within the Santa Clara County's jurisdiction. There is a proliferation of large homes within their neighborhood, and they believe it affects the quality of life in the neighborhood. They request a major design change to the proposed residence and feel the proposed turret contributes to the "massive and block-ish look and feel" of the home. The home replicates the Mediterranean style homes that are pervasive on Green Leaf Drive. · The home is out of scale with the neighborhood. Balconies · Only one home on Grenola has a balconies. They request that the balconies be minimal in size for the proposed residence and do not view into a neighboring lot. Temperature and Glare . The proposed home will radiate heat and glare into the neighborhood and will compromise their health and comfort in the neighborhood. . Darker tone homes with darker roof materials will provide a less intrusive roof line and provide a softening of the fa<;ade of the home. Privacy Screening Although the adjacent property to the east signed a privacy protection waiver, they request that the privacy landscaping requirements be reinstated on the east side of the property to address their concerns. Oak Tree . The existing oak tree on the property should be protected. . They would like further clarification on how the tree is to be protected if the arborist recommends a minimum 15-foot distance between the tree and the home, and the proposed home will have a lesser setback. . The arborist's recommendCitions on root exploration, story pole placement and review of utility line locations should be addressed. tf-'-f Appeal ofR-2006-08 & RM-2006-13 October 10, 2006 Page 5 Staff Response The proposed residence meets all development standards for a two-story residence, including the setbacks, lot coverage, FAR, parking and height. Additionally, it exceeds the minimum second story setbacks along the front, rear and side yards. Further, the design of the residence as a Mediterranean style home with red tile roofing and stucco exterior is consistent with other Mediterranean style homes that are present within the Garden Gate neighborhood. As a result, staff approved the residential design review and minor residential permit. Balconies The proposed balconies meet the requirements to allow second story balconies in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. As a result, staff approved the minor residential permit for the balconies that include requirements for privacy protection landscaping. The proposed balconies are 53 square feet (bedroom 2) and 60 square feet (master bedroom) with a 20-foot setback along the east property line and a I7-foot setback along the west property line. Additionally, the balconies have a 47-foot setback from the rear property line. These setbacks exceed the minimum setbacks of I5-feet from the side yard and 20-feet from the rear yard for two-story balconies. The appellants have stated their concerns that the balconies will create privacy impacts onto their properties and that balconies are not prevalent within the neighborhood. However, the Zoning Ordinance states: "The goal of the permit 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." Staff believes that the applicants have addressed the privacy protection to the greatest extent with the privacy protection landscape plan and by exceeding the setback requirements. Additionally, the applicant has already reduced the master bedroom balcony to 60 square feet from their initial proposal (that also met the two-story balcony requirements) in response to their neighbor's request during the review period for the application. Regarding prevalence of balconies in a neighborhood, the ordinance does not prohibit second story balconies from being proposed or approved where balconies may not be prevalent within a neighborhood. However, staff has found that there are homes on Grenola Drive, Hazelbrook and Greenleaf Drive within the Garden Gate neighborhood that do have second story, rear yard facing balconies. Privacy Landscaping The applicant has provided a landscape privacy protection plan (See Exhibit D) that meets the privacy protection landscape requirements in accordance with the RI ordinance with the additional condition to supplement landscaping on the west side of the property. The condition requires the applicant to plant two additional IS-gallon, minimum 6-foot high Pittosporum shrubs along the west property line to provide the 4-,5 Appeal ofR-2006-08 & RM-2006-l3 October 10, 2006 Page 6 required privacy protection for the second story window and the balcony of the proposed residence. The applicant is agreeable to these conditions. The applicant has chosen landscaping that is listed on the City's privacy protection planting list. Staff finds this landscape plan sufficient to meet the intent of the ordinance requirements. Oak Tree The City Arborist has provided supplemental information (See Exhibit C) to the original arborist report stating that the trenching for the proposed residence be no more than 14 feet 2 inches from the trunk of the oak tree, as opposed to the 15 foot distance previously stated, during construction of the residence to preserve the tree. This would allow the home to be constructed per the approved plan with a 14 foot 2 inch setback from the trunk of the tree. Additionally, the City Arborist states that the story poles have been reviewed and that the pruning required to construct the building would result in fairly minor canopy loss. The City Arborist also states that the tree should easily tolerate the canopy loss if the pruning is done by a certified arborist and the pruning meets the ISA Western Chapter standards. Staff also confirmed with the City Arborist that it appears the tree can be retained with the proposed residential development on site as long as the tree protection measures that the City Arborist recommends are met. A condition of approval to the applications requires that the tree protection recommendations in the arborist report be met. Temperature and Glare The Zoning Ordinance does not require a study of temperature and glare for approval of a residential design review. The proposed residence will provide a red tile roofing and peach colored stucco exterior that are consistent with Mediterranean style homes that are found within the Garden Gate neighborhood. Therefore, staff has no criteria to request the applicant to change the design, color and materials on the residence based upon the possible temperature and glare impacts a residence may create within a neighbhood. Submitted by: Aki Honda, Senior Planner Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development ~--1Ar-G eW-Kr:.k / ~ Enclosures: Exhibit A: Appeal submitted by John Tracy and Jessica Rose Exhibit B: Appeal submitted by Elena Herrera and Subir Sengupta Exhibit C: City Arborist supplemental information Exhibit D: Approval letter with conditions of approval and Plan Set g :jplanning/pdreportj AppealsjR - 2006-08. doc If -l, Exhibit A <::11VO CUPErQ"INO City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3223 CUPERTINO CITY CLERK APPEAL 1. Application No, '~J k- r C> (r ,~ ; J .j'.,J" '-i,,!J'\ --r'<\ 2, Applicant(s) Name: CJ (' tc c c-wI.JL5 3. Appellant(s) Name:JDhr) "T l'Ci..CV',:, b\ '-S c.,SS) co... '\<-0<) L Phone Number \ 0 L\ l \:;, r~ n t\ r-=i" bor (~ v--L-- l\O~' -2-SS- 5 f0b Address Email rose }YG"- C ~3 'E? .s G0} \) be, \ ' Y1 ..:2. ~ 4. Please check one: '/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: 0/23/06 6. Basis of appeal: -S'<:,:e C:::\. H?\chfCL Jq5 0,- f) e I CJl)O;l('\.~ p'-'0lPCC-.f--""'(r l'-'~L.. (i'-'.fSX<C'.ll. \'L(. C<. e(~Y::-C'\; C\ '\ G-~_ ~L (() )if) Q ,- f cs'; clJ:'(\ l-ii;\J flEe (l~k .,:kr,- 1\"-l" If e. eVe bu\. \ C()\--, ",~~ Il,......!'\ '" .il" ( 0 v" e.. v '-5 h'('\ '\ on '..s c~c I.-'v ~r~dl (/ eel.. so ,ri . .'VC~0LL-~ ~. 0 U Q a - , . L.J c- C'\.,....L 0\ )S 0 c~, n CV[J\.c..<,,-.C c'" J:) cri.-,,,/l- hA_ /0-'~ h,-~v c C<./ k t'r~ rr..z./ rPlO ~X.(-+0 . Signature(s) ~-~c;'~::~L ~ U 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. 4--7 John R. Tracy Jessica T. Rose 10410 Ann Arbor Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 408-255-5126 rosetracy3 @sbcglobal.net September 6, 2006 To: The City Of Cupertino Planning Department This letter and submitted fee 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 oflife 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 I 4-"~ 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 ofthe 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 Grcnola 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 tfrOj a. The arborists' recommends the closest wall be at least 15 feet from the trunk of the tree. The plan shows it being less than 14'2" (kitchen nook estimated to be 12') b. The arborists' recommends a follow-up assessment to be made after the installation of story poles to accurately estimate the canopy and root system loss. No such follow up reports provided. c. The arborist states that the tree would not be expected to survive if the combination of the canopy and root system were reduced more the 25%. The arborist also states that if a foundation is placed at 15 feet from the tree trunk ,that it would equate to 25% loss in root mass. Therefore, any additional loss to the canopy by trimming to make room for the structure would surely threaten the tree's chance of surviving. And, the arborists' sketch ofthe 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 ofthe 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 arborist. In closing, we are looking to the "planners" of the City to review this situation with fresh eyes and an understanding that a cookie cutter approach to home development in a community with such diverse neighborhood settings as Cupertino is not realistic. And as property values continue to climb, maintaining our home as the asset that it is, has become of utmost concern to us. Judging by the number of sympathetic comments we are receiving from the neighbors and our house visitors when viewing the story poles that loom over the back side of our property, we can safely assume that any potential property buyer of our home would be deterred by the impact ?f the balcony structure. 3 *,,0 Exhibit B fB)~cr:reUW[Erm lfll S EP 6 2006 I.W I CUPEIUINO City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3223 CUPERTINO CITY CLERK APPEAL 1. Application No. )\ J.uDL;. Lf} I~lv\- )CC&. I) 2. Applicant(s) Name: f)_ . i u') cUe\c') 3. Appellant(s) Name: Address /)1' II~ i'l ,:?,- '> I / / II" -'"1'1\' 'I' /) !CAC "Vi..) I eft -I' D1L Phone Number .J ("". . l L't '1.~ /) .--1 . ,7-- o Sli1- 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: t-2]-()& 6. Basis of appeal: S:~j~ ~cJ~ Signature(s) ~"", d / / /~.{JL..r I '-i.MJ0::,------, ( , ' ILJ1. bO Please complete form, include appeal fee of $-145"iJ0, and return to the attention of the City Clerk, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, (408) 777-3223. t}-tl 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 concem upon further review aftile project. Item 1 - Consistent with existing neighborhood look and feel In the cover letter sent by the city, dated July 11 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. 1 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 PAGEloF3 1-1 ~ 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 tour-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 PAGE20F3 tf--/6 ELENA HERRERA SUBIR SENGUPTA 2115(} GRENOLA DRIVE CUPERTINO, CA 95(}14 4(}8.252.(}504 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 ofthe tree being less than 15ft. from the perimeter of the 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 of the planning department with regard to the city's own guidelines, and feel that further development along these lines follow a trend that this neighborhood can't afford. Indeed, the residents 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 PAGE 3 OF 3 4-- ( 4 JUN-23-2006 09:35R FROM:8RRRIE CORTE 4[1:3 3531238 BARRI~ D. COATI; AtJD ~OCIAT~ Exhibit C Horticultural CoMultallh: PHO~~ (4-0'?) gSg.10SZ r:AX (4-0'6).g5g.tZg<? ZgSg5 ~umrn1t Road, Lo!: GatM, CA 950gg A ~ A X TO; ki H0Vld CL rax It; 7 77~ 357:? rROM: Battis D. CMte DA 11: b ~ <.Z "3 -(!) G ______ Rl: ~r,5)(tJ (;; r-f_~O\ CL D ~ I ~UM8[;R OR PAG~ f C-C C I N:-t:cCJ tV I e~ rz3 f- G60/ -67 G I COMMENTS: M r--S ~H(bCLd~, . I >fl9 ~ fab CC-r-p r.ol'v\C>> -+he, U{ 0 \- VI \ L.f g a. h <0 <-L t- 4 t-e ~ c k t>1g -ftO \- "" -Po "- 't ct.J [", '1 Vt eo r- (;Jet k +-ye~!4f-1 . w~ ~: ~ ;[~c<tl'~d t-iAaJ -h--f'U6~f.~ b P VI (T) r (c() 5 ' f S ( f r() 1M i ~ e f (--/lUll ~ w~ (\ (eK {'-, C~UJ[t:}~ v{ IJ W {'('lAd 5'; 1- CUA__ + fCtcp ~('j-<< aJ +r--e uC0 WiDe{ r cf C1a {/P cf--(TJ b e /4/ Zl/ ~ ~ ro vU ~ Gte t (-f'UJ1 K- p 'IVI e d iff\:q-E? t1 c~ 9 ~(]) C-L (j IA e f b-e Set IA r(;~ ('OcU--{J dill J S' htOodd b f' cow s: /J Q[-(l J a('('~r1-~Me 5/Cvt(0\'-~( V . " dd!rft~ 4-15 Exhibit C AkiHonda From: Ciddy Wordell Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 2:57 PM To: Aki Honda Subject: FW: email from Michael Bench -----Original Message--m From: BARRIE D COATE [mailto:bccoate@verizon.net] Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 12:19 PM To: Ciddy Wordell Subject: email from Michael Bench Re: Cowles Residence, 21180 Genola Drive I have looked at the story poles in relation to the large Coast Live Oak and the pruning required to construct the building would be fairly minor canopy loss and therefore I find it quite acceptable. The tree should easily tolerate the canopy loss. It would be essential that the pruning be done by a certified arborist and that the pruning meet the ISA Western Chapter standards. I find this acceptable if the pruning is done properly. dictated by Mick, 9/15/06 9/2012006 4--/ (, Exhibit 0 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 Telephone: (408) 777-3308 FAX: (408) 777-3333 CITY F CUPEIUINO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT August 23, 2006 Cliff Cowles 1)0 130x 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 ACf 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 tf-( 1 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. PRIVACY PROTECTION PLAN Prior to issuance of building permit(s), the applicant shall provide a revised privacy protection landscape plan that additionally provides for a total of three (3) IS-gallon, minimum six-foot high Pittosporum non-deciduous shrubs (of a species listed in the City's approved landscape n,itigatior, mcasurc'~ pLmting I isl) in addition to the two (2) IS-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) (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 2 4'-1 e, 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 cuncerns abuut pnvacy irnpads nnto their adjacent properties d LH,' l() the second stnn 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 R1-7.5 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 t-f-lq 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, /.' . . / I (tiel \t:;{iff(j/ut_-~ A ki Honda SenlOr FlanIler 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 Residen tial \ Rl Approvals \ R-2006-08 Actionletter.doc 4 tt-2D 41'.0" 10'.6" 3'.2" l> ~ .A" ~ ~ ~7r - I 17< ---,I ,_,1 tLJ ,LVI 'l':T ,,-----r Old Balcony 60710 Slidink G1h.ss Door w 26710 Fixed8/Awnfng both sides(Temp.) iN I CD ~ ........ t-: I Master Co Bath Suite '"0''''''''''' ',:. "'.'. '.: ':. :::. ':.:: :.... .:.', .:..:..:.." .:,'.;:.:;.:. ::::::;EI:':::;)\:':-:::-:-:\ .:..:...::::.::::.::::.:.... \..:::::.....::....::::.: .:::.::::.:::.....::.::::.: ':::.:':' ,',.::::.::'.:'0: :.....:.:::::.:::.::::.:::.: :::.::::,::::.::::,::::,::::.: ~ 878 SC ::::r J. ~~ "\ "~ mUF' Master Bedroom 15'.6" ~878 SC 9'.6 .J_ ~-- /l-l,.l,-l,l-,-l L,-Y T -,-Y- ~ , Co "7 '7 o , t-. ~ CD , rolt) + C\l , i.. 5'..0" V SE~3~ON c -0 - 5+=:;tti ~~O ttS .- - CD-c:- o-ctSL-Q> _ _ 0..:> ::::s g> -a.. <eo.. e tti ffi 0.. c: ::;;: ~:::E 2:_c>~ ;;::c 0:: <C (f) Q. Ci \ -:r @ ~ . . . J C . . . t ~ " ~f:€81e;f"-"'c'~--'~'--r-'*' _.-,-,--~'--:; ~i / '''''~ :~Jk /.L) 11/:- 1i-"--'25. ~ ;~O+!>?W.~ . .Ii.!. <1"-' l;""::::~~'_-,". ". \: ' "-"'" , " (f-..-2~:~~~-~ .~I90D~o'oonE ~h -,'----'v- :1/\1000 FENCE ,,,~=..-..-~-.i'lnCl: cornel ] 20Si9S ! 65 . I \ J.,C r( I~' ........ . -f'- ,L____ i i I. I - J' lnc.'\~ Y,u'd . - . / CCiJl s.,l~~~ j,. r ~ .-J--- ---.....- ;y -'- .'/''''I) \ '-'- ~ Il3 '.. ~ \---_.,. \ ~ _____ ~l!bl~I.Q<lL.--. ..-------~~---. " '. . ~'nc H:..lfi': Jr l' /' ........4< 7. 0 {) '-i H I ~ 2p5" /'1' .I ,;' ~ / I I " l,l/ 1'1 \ i,;: C ~-'-' ", J / ..r' ,/ '~", \t "'1:..: -:. t"'- :';-':'-~..~ < , \ ,J O~~6-40 "- ---. \ \ i I ,. i :. r.... I r~\ L - .,~,:t: ~~:;.i?'h;:.d; I i i R Application i i ! 1 ! f Iii .: . <:Jl"l /" ~ ' -J5'~O".tt = : '\ ----=--~. _ _ J-----l , - U-o r ' ... / - '? ...r.' r. '_I ____'~ 2nd StQ.v I' 0 ! " //.,>- ,'. ~ '. J 100.6' h ned\'. J b . j77' ~_~. '. " .',' '.' .' ~' '..:::1'&~:rH 3d!,,,"'" t,.. 0 .- -..""., _ .'. ..../ ,,~. .~_ __-0-::-.J.-~,.\ .~_,... .. 0 . >-/ ' .' . __ <"7.._-~,;7,.t - I'~ _:;t:Cl:"tTl ' ,'!.crT- ......1" . f, r 0 ~'. ./ :.:1: ". ;,~" ~ ~~' ? ~~.~.~~~~ .'r~~'~:'-':/",<../"..":/"(-, r ! ;~ < ./( "/.li- .:J_ //./././ / / /../ // / >~..'.n I; . ~#~L --1; :~I~&~i;:(::~ /:~::"'~:~f{;V:;:4;~~/;f/'<<~;<).T~I-~-- 14'-.~~: 1< .. ~sr./r". /' ~ ~,.g~iJ ~If ,/ ./ /,,- /"""'il?~C.L "",/ .,./ / I '3 ~ ." :-:h , 'j' /.' ;...? '1]11/'<;;' F;;y' " .' / b&l}'WW-G't'.~/ / / / .j I .,~ :J.j"1si,J:< '(. <'", .u/_;' - ..' ./ /q,=" n/~../ ~i", / ../ / ,. 1 ' !-61 1 u f(<>1c1 .:17' - -1-- .-:,~_~._.----,--.-'-___1Jt!...>., :o.lJ~fL<..'B..<:.-~:".:l:; f ' .; I .~ ';;~'i1;1"}" it/ / ~/ // / ,i'~;,;fis. ' ..'/ c.,:! '--I. ~[\r~~M ! '..:;r~Jr; 'f ' i ~~IJ.".. ~.';:~~~90~~~~{~;';>:/... , I " ./ ,'FF;t"o01 ~L,.;ID5!26./ ... ,// '. .rf: 10'.0,,,.,,1 ij , .1 ' ! ./ / // ,/ t>OIL.OII)IG"" r . . -:d ,;"'~:il !;~ .' . \ r...; ~.// /(",/ // /' :iy." //...../ // .....//. // ,t~./ ""~~b;:'~ ' ,- , '" ,.... _&\./ .'_ / ,. , ,;,.", r(~~~;':i:'::-l.d I,: ,i , j ;1./ / />' '/(r~<;:tl'.' . I; "CL~: 1.l..["r:1jk~~};iii~~C~~;~. .c :,:. .... ~. I,wm) i I I r / / //~~~~w~_----_.- ---- ___",_-'Y",,~.-" r' 11 " j " -,' -'" .ra' -'~'''f''-''':P- 'r'i-70r~':;'~",'<"~' ,~ I j .". . ...... ,'.ill ,I __-=-='-------. '_' ..--- -- L: .'/{~_.~. ?!t.~ l'.r-!!i' \ --- -!.--. !\ - Con . "b.: \ '. 1/'<1 \ '" --;/ ------ j t ele l'" _."i ,il"rcal ,!,a.-.il GRAVEL .'.---../ rll----l'.nL- t---..... ExIs c. iSs:tb~/ 1 .... ~ ;riV!!" ~. _, r,l !-----'::..-~-------- \ ~--l' I - ----j 1--- -------ll---S9!E..... ..",..on.. _"''''_'~__.__". I mo<: ..... __~,J~_.__._ ," ~, 6"'.'0 r.... ~ -.... '.... ,~.. , 'k ~a~ _06"""onNnN'C" i RM Application f4t1 -~ rob ~ / 3 Approval Date :iii:tOh SIgnature {i}/1" ~u'- !Case Manage~ 205,3 6f 'Y' ./ ,...ii /::.:..:> . , : . ~ r' , , ,/ o r -----~.,'. w ... b f:: 0 <e! b o '11 0 ? g 1",- n....~' ,..t/: }" l ,... 6' ~ v.- r-' ~ ! l!>'..o. 'r~:.!::~ ~.c~ h~':.c' " ....~.-... if-~~ 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' ;f All tv-ces. fVJlfI, 741( bD't< ~ ,rYlln he(~~+ <0/ ~,~k pk1A1kd', ,* MA Sh.-rtA.hs WIt n [e; 1t'i 116Y1 ~ /tVl1 n [,10:"9h p/.qY/+e.J. R Application R- :){)()p -06 RM Application RI4 -:;(0010 -/3 Approval Date . ~ ~~b Signature !lIteth/;!l L/" (Case Manager) Lf, ;,23 EV ALUATION 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 A1-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 corner of this property. The attached map shows the locations ofthese 2 trees and their approximate canopy dimensions. The 2 trees are classified and given an overall condition rating as follows: Tree # 1 - Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) in excellent condition Tree # 2 - Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) in excellent condition The particulars of these 2 trees (species, trunk diameter, height, spread, and structure) are included in the attachments that follow this text. Please note on these data sheets that the health and 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 1/2 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 . g .~ ~ Tree # 1 from north to south and from east to west. The height and canopy spread of Tree # 2 is ~ ~ Cd ~ ~stimated using visual references only. These trees have been added to the Site Plan, of which a . o..~ e ~ {educed version is included in the attachments. 2-::a: 8:.Q>1 a: cc <:c en g. Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist April 2ih, 2006 Lf-:21 EV ALUA TION OF TREES AT THE COWLES RESIDENCE, 21180 GRENOLA DRIVE, CUPERTJNO 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 bea 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 l;i 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: Species Measurement from Single Trunk Multi- Trunk Natural Grade Diameter/Circumference Diameter/Circumference Oak trees; 4 Yz feet 10 inches (31 inches C ) 20 inches D (63 inches C) California Buckeye Big Leaf Maple; 4 ~ feet 12 inches (38 inches C ) 25 inches D (79 inches C) Deodar Cedar; Blue Atlas Cedar Both Trees # 1 and 2 are protected by City of Cupertino regulation. ,.~ gC1>~ _ 25 1a ~ "-3 If Tree # 1 is to be preserved, both the root loss and the canopy loss must be limited to a maximum __ c..> 0-.0 ~ . c... ca ~ aiof25% total. These (root loss and canopy loss) are not separate unrelated events. They are parts of - c...~ e ~ fa single living entity. Thus, both canopy loss and root loss must be considered as a whole. ~:::::2: 2:.a,~ Concerning Tree # 1, if the trenching for the footing or for perimeter drainage would result in an a:: a:: <t: en 2- Risks to Trees by Proposed Construction The plan proposes to remove Tree # 1, and notes on the plan that this tree is a sycamore. The new residence is shown to be located 12 feet from the trunk. This would not be a sufficient distance to expect the survival of Tree # 1. Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist April 2ih, 2006 H"r2€> EV ALUA TrON OF TREES AT THE COWLES RESIDENCE, 21180 GRENOLA DRIVE, CUPER TINa 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 lllorC accuratcly 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. 5Q) C '-1a .Q ca Cl ca .!:::2 _ Q)-.=: o-ct:s-'" ._ 0...::> ~ ~ -a 0... 0 1a <a CL. <C 0.. c:::;;; <:J:::2E 0... . Q'> ~ c:: a: <:J: Cf) 2. 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 27th, 2006 if ';}.j CSJ ~ I --..c ~ c -.8 ~~ .12 ~Cl ttS .9 _ 0>-.::- o-ctS-... ~:::: 0...:> .a ar 0.. 0... 0 ~ ~ !:::l-..c:x:: 0- c:::;E <C ~ 0....Q>~ o::CCc.:::C.cn~ EVALUATION OF TREES AT THE COWLES RESIDENCE, 2] 180 GRENOLA DRlVE, 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 2500) 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 2i\ 2006 tf <30 BCD c: .- ca .Q 15 0 15 .2 _ CD_ u-ro-s ._ c..::> :=J g> C5.. c.. 0 ~ c: c:::C _ ...... a5 0- c... c::::;: c:::C ~ 0...2>; a: a: c:::C en Q. EV ALUA nON OF TREES AT THE COWLES RESIDENCE, 21180 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. fj, The plywood must be secured to prevent sli ppage. . This root buffer must be installed in conjunction with protective fencing and must remain in place until all construction is completed. 5. There must be no grading, trenching, or surface scraping inside the driplines of protected trees, unless specifically described in another section ofthis report. 6. Trenches for any utilities (gas, electricity, water, phone, TV cable, etc.) must be located outside the driplines of protected trees, unless approved by a certified arborist. 7. I recommend that Trees # 1 must be irrigated throughout the entire construction period during the dry months (any month receiving less than 1 inch of rainfall). Irrigate a minimum of 10 gallons of water for each inch oftrunk 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 ofa 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 '14 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 27th, 2006 4~3( EV ALVA TION OF TREES AT THE COWLES RESIDENCE, 2 I I80 GRENOLA DRIVE, CUPERTWO 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. ~es~t~1 ,,'-6... Michael 1. Bench, Associate ~!dr~ MLB/sh Enclosures: Assumptions and Limiting Conditions Photo Map Tree Chart R Application R - ~cob - o~ RM Application f2fl1 - d oolP -/3 Approval Date {; -:23-oh Signature {tIu . 417/1 b--- (Case Manage~ Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist April 2ih, 2006 t{- -3d FI Application ~ - ;1.0010 -OR RM Application I2q - ~()()b -I.~ Approval Date J;;J:./, Signature ala - ,~ (Case Manager) HUK II1.UL I UKI-IL IJVI'l0UL I 1"11' I v CONSULTING ARBORISTS ~ BARRIE D. COATE 'and ASSOCIATES (408) 353-1052 23535 Summ~ Road L., c.l0!, CA 95030 Eva!uation of trees at the Cowles property 1n l .- t I t;: -5 ;!~~ ~. ... r ;;. ~ :. ~.I~ 1ii1. It> ('J .t'. o ..... ~ ...... . . ~ ' t-t . W',q to ~, C1l. 1 ! 1fJ)~, -\ 11~ \}J \}J 21180 Grenola Drive, Cupertino Requested by: Aki Horda Tree numbers correspond to evaluation charts, All dimensions and tree locations are approximate, Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist Date: April 27~h, 2006 I Job # 04-06-088 This logo is attached to a plan done by another professional. The presence of th's logo is not for the purpose of claiming credit for the plan but merely to add horticultural or arboricultural information to a f)lan prepared by others. p. I , ~-.-I-:---l .--..,..--.. I 1 -, "./ i I 1 I I \ I l ~ j? ! I ~,..,- I" r I I I ! I II!O'.O' V'.. fl ~.( ~ i-' I "-. ~ - ,~ ltJ\~ l \ \ \\\'\ . \" I __.-------\'. ,-J i' \ 1 I I I I __--J N '" ~. \ -~.~-i.r, I , ~ ----------..---- , ' \~ \ <l ~ ~ J L <- ) 0 0 )" () () =l:t: Z > 0 0) , ~ :3 , I ~ 0 J (J) 0 -.J 6 y 0 co ::E J co CD :::> (J) :::> '"0 j) --, 0 '"0 m ::1- ':< to CD 0 G) --, m :J 0 0) 0 --, <' .m 0 c '"0 m ::1- S' 0 c cO 015 1a .0 Q 0- . "'_ 0.. --;.- 0.. ;5:<e "<e ~ i:C a: <e .->. II CD m "1J ?1 :D 01 (CJ II Cll ~ 0 0 ...... --, ~ 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 :N I m I' I' " " I' 1'->' m , I I 1 I I I I , , I I I 'It: S>- I I I I I I : I I I I I , I I I I C/) '0 ;:) '0 I I I CD :0 lo I , I c:: I I .Q 10) CD 10) I I c:: !;a. (j :~ I I I I 0 I I or ';0 c:: 'r ~ c:::I , , CIl ,_, I I CIl CD ,< ::l :> I I C. Q) lCD -0 I CD c.. ~ ::E (,Q :0 i:il Ii" '-' :3 :J, ~ z: :> c: 0 ;1 f." ~ '0 0 0- :0) (J') I"'l"I CD C. ~ ,;>;" Z -~ ~ "'" (J') I = 0 ~ , 0) ~ '" ~ 0 I I ~. 1 ~' I :3 .., 0 l"l l"l I I "" '" I :J I CD 8 ~ '-' ;;: 0 I I I CIl I 0 I I ~ :> I I I"'l"I ~ I I (J') I I I I"'l"I I I , I I I I , I , , , , , . ..::.....~-,,:~ I I I I I :w I I I I :....... I I I I I 1'->' I I I I I I :co " DIAMETER@ 4-1/2 FEET I I , I I I :N I I I I I , I ---.1.--- ___...L___ --- --- --...&.._-- ---~--- ---~--- --_.&_-- ___L___ ___.J___ ___L___ --------------------------------------- I I I I I I I I I I MULTI-SYSTEM s: , I , , I I I , , I I 1 I I I I I I I I --------------------------------------- ~ ---T--- ---,---- ---T--- --T--- ---'T--- ---.....--- ---.,.--- ---.....--- ---,--- ---r---- I I I , I I 1 I I I III I I I I I I 1 I , I DBH l/I I , I , I , I I I I r:: ---f--- , ---f--- ---1---- ---f-u _ul-___ u-f--- u-l-___ ---fu- ---1---- --------------------------------------- ---1--- .., I I I I I I I I I I DBH ~ I I I I I I I , 1 I 3 I I I I I I , I I I ___J.___ ----'---- ___.1.___ ---'---- ---.1.--- ___1...___ ___.1___ ___L___ ___.1___ ___L.___ --------------------------------------- I I I I 1 I I I I I ~ I 1 I , I I I, I I I DIAMETER @2 FEET ;j I I I I , I I I I I - I I I I I I , 1 I I ---T--- ---"1--- ---T--- --.,..--- ---T--- ---,..--- ---'T--- ---...--- ---,--- ---...--- l/I I , I I I I I I '-.J '.j:>. HEIGHT ESTIMATED I I I I I I I I :en :0 I , I I I I I I ---~--- ---.....--- ---+--- --....--- ---+--- ---~--- ---..--- ---to--- ---..--- ---..--- --------------------------------------- I I , I I I I I lw :en SPREAD ESTIMATED I I I I I I I I I I I I I , , , 10 I en : I I : I I I I :.->. :....... HEAL TH (1-5) 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 0 I I I I , I I I :....... IN STRUCTURE ( 1-5) I I I , I I I I ;j ---f--- I ---f--- ---1---- ---f--- I ---f--- ---1---- ---f--- ---1---- --------------------------------------- 0. ---,--- ---r--- I , I I I I I , I I CONDITION RATING (2-10) a: I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I I I I 0 ---~--- ---......--- ---.&.--- --.......--- ---",--- --.....--- ---..--- ---1---- ---..1--- ---1---- --------------------------------------- ;j I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I I I I I I HAZARD RA TI NG (4-12) ! I ! I I ! ! ! I ! I I I I , I I I , I CROWN CLEANING I I I I I I I I , I "'C I I ., I , I I I I I ___L___ ___....L-___ ---~--- ---1..--- ---~--- ---....--- ___.l___ ___L___ ___.l___ ___L___ --------------------------------------- .., , 1 I I I I I I I I r:: 1 I I I I I I I I I CROWN THINNING , I I I I , I I I I ;j , I I I I I I I I I --------------------------------------- :s- --...--- ---~--- ---...--- --""1""--- ---1'--- ---,...--- ---.,--- ---t---- ---.,--- ---~--- I , I I I I I I I I CROWN RESTORATION (Q , , I I I I I I , I I I I I I I I I I I () --f - ---+--- ---t--- --+--- ---t--- ---1---- ---i--- ---1---- ---i--- ---1---- --------------------------------------- I I I I I I I I I , CROWN RAISING III I I I I I I I I I I !2: I I I , I I I I I I --+ - ---.......--- ---+--- --~--- ---+--- ---....--- ---~--- ---....--- ---~--- ---..--- --------------------------------------- 5" I I I I , I I I I I I I I , , I I I , I REMOVE END-WEIGHT (Q I I I I I I I I I , ~ I -- I I I ---~--- I ---f--- I ---f--- ---1---- --------------------------------------- z --T ---oy---- n-T--- --,--- ---r--- ---,..--- I I I I I I I , I I CABLES NEEDED # ~ -.) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I I ~ --~ - ___...L.___ ___A.___ --.......--- ___.L___ ___L.___ ---.&--- ---1---- ---~--- ___L.___ --------------------------------------- C. J!. ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PRUNING PRIORITY (1-5) t/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 "'C I I I I I I I I I INSECTS (1-5) ~ I I I I I I I , I -- ---+.--- ---f--- ---1---- ---f--- ---1---- ---i--- ---1---- ---f--- ---1---- --------------------------------------- l/I - I I I I I I I I I TREE CROVVN DISEASE (1-5) a , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I -~-~ -- ___...L.___ ---~--- --.......--- ---..--- --....--- ---..1--- ---1---- ---...--- ---1---- -------------------------------------- iii ~ I I , I , I I I I , I I I I , I I I DEAD WOOD (1-5) ~ ~ I I I I I I I I I III I , I I I I I , I Q) n ---"'T"--- ---T--- ---r---- ---'T--- ---r---- ---'T--- ---r--- ---,--- ---r--- -----------------------------~--------- t/I I I , , I , I I , ~ 1a I I I I I I I I I TRUNK DECAY(1-5) I I I I I I I I I "'C --- n ----1..--- ---~--- __-1....__ ___..1.___ __-1.___ ___..1___ ___L___ ---..1--- ___L___ --------------------------------------- I I I , I , I I I I .... ~:--;:::-- I I I I I I I I I 0 ro I , I I I I I , I C" :=I'CI> I I I I I I , I I :> I C> I , I I I I I I I ROOT COLLAR COVERED (1-5) (j) 0 +-1"" I I I I I I I I I .cu+ {Ii- ---~--- ---..--- --~--- ---..--- ---~--- ---~--- ---1---- ---..1--- ---~--- --------------------------------------- 3 g C 1::E 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 ROOT COLLAR DISEASE (1-5) I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I , , , I I NEEDS WATER(i-5) I I I I I I I I I I ;0 I I I I I I I I I I ___.L___ ___...L..___ ___.L___ __...L..___ ___.l___ ___L___ ___.l___ ___L.___ ___..1___ ___L___ --------------------------------------- ~ I I I I I , I I I I (1 I I I I I I I I I I NEEDS FERTILIZER 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --------------------------------------- 3 ---...--- ----r--- ---...--- ---r--- ---'f--- ---r--- ---.,--- ---1"'--- ---,--- ---1"'--- I I I I I I I I I I RECOMMEND REMOVAL 3 I I I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ ___.1.___ ___-1..___ ---~--- __-I.._n ---~--- ___L___ ___J___ ---)---- ___J___ ___L_n --------------------------------------- I I I I I I I I I ;j I I I I I I I I I I REMOVAL PRIORITY (1-3) 0. I I I I I I I , I I I I I I I I I 1 I I HERITAGE TREE? en - III - PROTECTED TREE? r:: l/I *--'39- ., BARRI E D. COATE and ASSOCIATES Horti cutural Consultants 23535 Summit Road Los Gat05, CA 95033 4081353-1052 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS 1. Any legal description provided to the appraiser/consultant is assumed to be correct. No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character nor is any opinion rendered as to the quality of any title. 2. The appraiser/consultant can neither guarantee nor be responsible for accuracy of 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. oJahhie ~ ~ Barrie D. Coate ISA Certified Arborist Horticultural Consultant RAp'li,',nf"1 K '1 t--lil....V.'.iUi: ~ ~(QO to - ofS RM Application K;l4 - d f!)Db ~ I 3 Approval Date ~;23-0b Signature {liu' .L~ (Case Manageq J-{---3& (E)I-Story SFD EX. BUILDIM,..,109! ''F1a.t KOO~ ~ 1. All dIatarbed. sarface8 .....ultlDg In>m grading shall be seeded aDd malched as needed before wiater ralaa. beiDg prepared aDd maiIltalned to CODtro1 erosion by eIIective plaDtiDg such as rye grus. bade,' Dr some otber last ~ seed. J. Drlvewa;r runoIf on site by sheet flow to veCeta.tive surla.c:es. S. CoIlCelltral2d nmoll to be directed aWll7 In>m structure min. J'16 slope lor a mb>lm1un 01 6 teet. Roof Drainage by Gutters 1)p. 011 rooltbroagh 4" solid PVC pipe into existing ccm_ ~J storm water drainafIIe swaIe at street. :-v 4. A copy 01 aJ1 compaction tests and final grading report shall be submitted to the City prior to scheduling any inspections. Prior to the contractor requesting a loundatin inspection, the Soils E.ngineer shall advise the Building Official in writing that: 1) the Building Footing ex<:avations and building pad were prepared in accordance with the soil report recommendations, 2) The loundation lorming and grading comply with the soil report and approved plans, and 3) the drainage system is in accordance with the soil report. 5. All Construction BI. Materials per Structural Engineering sheets provided by MS Engineering, Campbell, CA (408.377.6504). c: --<:) Q) ..... -- ........ .Q C6 CO ca .2 ~ Q) I 6. Recommendations included in the Geotechnical Report, datedDec. 27, 2005, by American .2 -a.. CO 3 ~i1 Testing, Inc., San Jose, CA, (408-559-6400), shall be incorporated in the grading plans and Ci.. 0.. :> ...... a... <t: e CO <C :2E 8:~' No organic material shall be permitted iM. CJ:: c:r:: <t: c75'~~d which does not exceed 4 inches in dePth- 1'". 9. Only materials meeting in~ standards shall be used. See Structural Engineering lor material specifications. ~___ 10. Dust Irom grading operations must be ~vide equipment to dampen grading sites to avoid dust. ---.. ------------- I / / PlL N90000'OO''E nee corner 205195 65 fe"2~8'er I 2p I / I I WOOD FENCE 2041367!l1r - 204.sqnce \ \ 205.3r~ I .-------71 ----- I / / / 16;:0' I ./ 15'-0" ~ b o b o o o o Z 2nd Stor'Y Deck Setbaclt iO P> ~ 'tI ? 20-1." " 15'-0' ~.".,..-- - '.lI'(E) ......... --- -- ,- ---------------- --- GRAVEL -- / ----------------- ---aac.__ 75!~' PIL 89.5' E.G. N90000'OO''E GRAVEL ~. .~~ lDO..O~ '); lQ\.I()( " ~OCt\.If'"\1 ^ nOI\/c lOS_IS .. 20i..!l1 .. 114.5' Rid!!e 100' EX. BUILDING 114.5' Rid!!e SIDEWALK 21180 Grenola Dr. Lot 57, Tract 631 Garden Gate Village APN 11 326-28-057 Lot: 9,375 sf ProDosed: Two-Story SFD: 4,219 sf 1st Floor: 2,910 sf Living: 2,271 sf Two-Car Garage: 638 sf 45% FAR 2nd Floor: 1.309 sf 45% 1st FIr. En try Porch: 57 sf Proposed Balconies: 160 sf Lot Coverage: 2,973 sf 3L70% FAR: (45% max.) 4,219 sf 45.00010 Heie:hts: Existing Finish Grade: Proposed SFD F.F.: 100.0' Main: 10LS Upper: 111.5' Maximum Ridge Heigh.t: (26'-6" from E.G.) 126.5' Gradin~: Excavate and Recompa.ct Existing Septic Tank Forestry: One 42" Sycamore To Be Removed Scope of Work: 1. Demo existing 1,235 sf SFD 2. Excavate and recompact exis" Septic Tank 3. Build New SFD plus Garage per Plan Plans to be in Compli with CA Building and Codes (2001) Job Copies of Building Fire System Plans and Permits must be onsite during Inspections. . ~~~>: " Oce. Class: R-3 Build. Const.: Type V- Fire Rating: Sprink1er, TABLE OF CONTENTS A.l SITE PLAN A.2 .MAIN FLOOR PLAN A-3 2nd FLOOR PLANlPriva.cy Planting A-4 FRONTIREAR ELEVATIONS A-5 SIDE ELEVATIONS A-6 ROOF PLAN A.' SECTIONS A-8 LANDSCAPING A.9 ELECTRICAL A.I0 T.24 CERTIFICATES 5010 SPECIFICATIONS 5-11 SHEATHlNGlNAlLING 5-L2 TYPICAL DETAILS 5-1.3 SHEAR DETAILS 502.0 FOUNDATION PLAN 5-2.1 2ND FLOOR FRAMING 502.2 UPPER ROOF FRAMING SITE PLAN Scale 1/8" = 1'- 0" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0( o U lC J . ~ ~ ~ ~ i co I/) ~ ai cc ~ ,.4 ~ ~ co = l<.. lfJ Cl) III -.... ~ 'S ~ O~ i(~ 'UQd '~ ", III t~7__/ == = -"',J := is: U! Vl' (lJ c:: i 00. -'il ~h -aj 1/:)0: >. ..0. c: ~ lIS ~ _.-4 d ~ td f.:! ~ ~ -;It ~ to o SOl! ~. to! < ~~ .. < ~ a~ U~ - td o~ ~ ~ :!~ <ll $.c "cb i.d t:: <ll 0) ::s . a~ u 0 >> ri2; '" "13. o Q~ ci)~~"'l, '~ob' ~ ., ~ c:: f-o tV 0 ~ ~ ~ i~ Z..... = U <~ ~ ~ E- .... tI) e:- =1 ~ ';' .. iQ 10 R Application 12 ~~Q)~ - 06 RM Application /.ti -;l (Job -/3 Approval Dale -j;-,f,lliX Signature Ck' .' Y1 j- ~ (CaSe~ +--,--~ ~ ... 5040 HS (Norm.) 'l' if.> .. ~; 3040 HS (Norm.) 3040 Ho! (Norm. ~ o at Workshop Study 11'.1" t t 5040 HS (Norm.) &droom 4 ~ aoset v ~~r .1 ." . ! i \ '1/ I Ilt~ il-- iltr-i L_l I..- Y~J 59'.0" 11'-4" 46'..8" T < 60710 Slidio.g, Glass Door' W 26710 rixed&'AwNJ\R. botn s.ides{Te.mp,) ~ > .. .. tIl 16'-2' - ,- <0 tl'..l~ Great Room ~ [-.. .. Laundr ~I Utilities ~ , 20'-3" Wf (~- V:""-J ~ b .. .' at .. 2OflO.4 OXXl with 1020-4 ~ Above Office 12'..4" -+ '''-. ~b^ e r.: 16080 Gar.. Doer L- Arched Trellis AcceAt 508().3 ~ (Tern.1 , b f"oo.... Noo 13'.10' kitchen r.;..()" x 16'..()" 6040 Bay (Tempo) Rf7.. ......._-~.. =:;r<.......>':-.--:'-:.:-::-::-:... gJl'~ Sink 13'-9' ~ ,- 3'-0' II 13'-8' 51-3' P...try /. r-r 9'-0' ~~ 6 .. .~r. Covered Porcll A ^d 59'-0' SECTIorl "B" h.... SECTION "c" <:j Dining Room ?"i\ Living Room 3'~6' DbIo. 0.... .- .~ft.~,~:,., 1 :;-,...~.....'... - ~~p;:~~;, .. PROPOSED 1st FLOORPLAN Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0" 15'..5" 28IlODH-6080P'bred-II660DH w/12OSO .AJoched Above (Tempo) I .'..n" --+4 <r <0 .. 1- ~. -+ 9880 Bow IOflO.!i oxxxo (Tempo) o .. ~ 10 1880.2 ea..eme..t (Te_l 1880.2 ea..eme..t (Tempo) ---'I<- ill r.: o ~ al S ~ al a::; ... ~1O=lQ ~al~~ >< < ,,. Cl) ~ u ::i .a d ~ ~ = . e ~ 0. III '" U II) ~ 01 -... ~ a ~ o~ ( . -::::--.., \ 0. ((. '~Iill ~ II ~ /.- - ~ ~'~.7.-;" .....~_ -, ,,;:;; 0. U >, .a ;:: ~ ~ <II <:JJ c 00 ..... '0 ~'> ....01 10= FI SECTION "A" ,.-4 d ~ tel l' :94 ~ o :t0l ~ ~~ ;:.....,. 0(...: .E \J (.) IC (ll tel 0' c:r ~"C:8~ (ll $04 f"c6 1.d i~ .... ~ ;s . ~~(.)O ~ rZ f" f,,' ~~ Q~ .~ ~~ o 0.., ~ tel d d ~ S ~~ (ll 0 = f" z..esd 0( 1olo4 ; (/) Z <C ~E ~~ o ~ "" A-2 ~ r- , " \J"ii1 .w ~ iI n:V !C' 13'-1" n: ~ lei ~~f ~H!~ "li tIJ a f[:'1 L ~~ ;f7~ -n ;;t;~ I ,.. /~~ .. -g '! ,/!. 'L"~l ~~ s ..-- .... Gj ~~ ... I'J! ~ ;j' ~0'~ 16'-2" -E en :I> ::0 ::0 -. "'C :::::-0 cc "'C =- ~ i~ ~ >"'0 --"'C""I:::.I c ~ "'C == a c:;.. = ~ c~::::!':. 5aQ>:.g coO :::J .- CI] I ~ ~\'\~ ~ =("') <1~ -- ^~ '" I J' .. 11'_0" . " q ~ ~ s ~f 't ~ a '" -~ ~:J .. o c;'! =z: ~ V -tJl;ol:;" ,1 :J/' \ 'j , I , '? I ~ ~ e~ 5'..0' "Tj ~ r:-c ~ wO 0 ~ON ~ ~~ = 0 II~~ ':= r:-c Cfj ~ > tTI Z 0 <I) ~~ L..- 1'-5' 15'-2" 5...6" < ~ =(":) -- ~ I -I--- ~r~ ~at 0'" a !l 17' -0" 1:1I ,. ~ > . .~ UPPER FLOORPLAN A New Two-Sto17Y Desidence for:" Homa 8l. Mehrdad Mojgani 21180 Grenola Dr., Cuptertino, CA 96014 SCJara Cnty A.P.No. 326-28-057, 408.255.7729 '-6 '3'-fl" ~ "-- .~ '" : ~.. r;. . i ::ii!;l ~::- ~i!;1 . , .<< - ^ .. ~ .. '" r~ ::; ." "l ... ~ ~ ~ -fl- ';! t:l!o ~ ~ "V Il.. ~ .. ." ~ ~ '" ~n o 1.0 ]A '-- ~~ L;} "f~o ~!l 6'-2" Drawn by: 3/20/06 Revisions L 1 I~ ~~~)> Cliff Cowles Plans 8l Permits P. O. Box 223201 Carmel, CA 93922 831626.8219 Fax.631669.5161 15'-0" 126.5' Rid ~ ~ l>l p, 9 b .. 9 b .. 5'..611 Finish Schedule: Exterior: ~t Stucco. ''Palamino'' (Lt. Yellow/Tan) Roof: ConcC'ete So Tilelite- ''Casa Grande Blend" Trim 8l Fascia: Painted Wood Trim SurC'ounds . "Nude" (White) Windows 8l DooC's: Eagle Vinyl Clad Ultra Windows. ''White'' Garage 8l FC'ont noo... Painted Wood. "Antique" Deck Railing: Painted Ar-ticu1ated Wrought Iron . ''White'' Balcony: Slate Tile NORTH (FRONT) ELEVATION Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0" [[]]]:] ~ 12 126.5' J1j, s I:::::=- 12 ~ = 01 [J]D []D 100.0' EO @ B R Application R - ~IJO& - lOa RM Application au - r1(Y){P -/, 3 Approval Date zj ~'7:' Signature 'iu.' (CaSe Managerj SOUTH (REAR) ELEV ATION Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0" 10'.0" 100.0' E.G. 0.5' PlAt" 100.0' E.G. ... "l al ~"lii!e ~ el co ~ ~ al ~ 85 ~ <( ~ ~ o tJ ,..l ,..l lQ ..... I/) I/) . al co co o s ~ a; ~ ~ tJ U) ~ _ III ~:a ru~ ~Cll '~~:S: :::: ~ .... III U~ P >. .,0 ~ ~ 1Il Q r./; CD c:: 00 ~:~ "'01 1/)= "-... 5'-0" ~ o .. .... d ~ td ~ ~ ~ o :!: 01 ~ ~~ t:...... < ~ oS \J U'I) ~ td O'cr ~"a:B1 ~ ~ ""1:6 ';..d ! 01 ~ 0) g..o Ql~uo ~, r2: "" ""a: .sQfJQ< rI) 1Il . - ~ o 0..... ~ td r:: r:: ~ S ~~ ~ 0 <:> "" Z..... ee d <..... ;i (/) fIJ ~ Z ~~~ O~< ==> r. ~ d A.4 R Application R-:/OO(trof(, RM Application f!J,1 - ;/fJ()b -/3 Approval Daj~'3-0~ Signature ' i r-- (Case Manage!) 5 Q(I ~ ... Q(I ~ it ~ ~ ~ co II) Q(I ~ ~ cri ~ < CD ~ ~ c.I ,..l :: .... ~ p. d Qjcoco ~ ~ ~ Trellis Accent (I) ~ " -... ~ 's o .. ~r\~ i~ '-# &J @~ - ~ s:c;~ _ ~ -, == 15: CJ 120.5' PIA >, .0 c:: ~ ~ rrrfITIl ~ VI <.C <:: 00 .....il ~h ....Ql ~o: DU DD .'l"4 d 0) ~ ~ 'Q8 ~ .... lO o ~CN ~ $! c; 0) 'It ~ \OPt <~ _ 'J UlO Cll ~ O'cr ~ ~ :8= Cll ~ ,",'c6 ~..d ~CN Cll 0) g.~ Ol~UO >. rZ '"' '"'0: .s~Q< rI} ~ .!l o ob' ~ ., c:l c:l f-o tV ~U ~ e ~ tlS Cll 0 c::>'"' Z..... sg d < tJ-4 ;; rI} 100.0' Finish Schedule: Exterior: 3-Coa.t Stucco. ''Palam.ino'' (Lt Yellow/Tan) Roof: Concrete S-Tilelite.- ''Casa Grande Blend" Trim 81. Fascia: Painted Wood Trim Surrounds. ''Nude'' (White) Windows 81. Doors: Eagle Vinyl Clad Ultra Windows. "White" Garage 81. Front Door. Painted Wood . "Antique" Deck Railing: Painted Articulated Wrought Iron . "White" :Balcony: Slate Tile WEST (RIGHT) ELEVATION Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0" .....:::::::15 ~ ~ _ ~ ~ 5~ ~ '" I ~ I l"'lo.... L III 1M- f]ll_ IT ... I T 11 ~_~:" iIiIIliJ _ ' ,....... ~ I ~~ ~. 5"-- n I D IU ~' [l] [l]-~ tour F.F. ".,,,.. .. ,., In' .....y. ~ <= 01 fJ) ~ We. f: fJ)~ w ~ EAST (LEFT) ELEV ATION Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0" A-5 C' I"- ./ / 9'-0" Plate 9'..0' Plate ~ (F.F.I0LO? '" ~ f -,' !! 'l en ." - ~ 10 "'''' I "'''' I ~ ",l.lJ Ridge ~~. # Ii /12 ~ (5~ ~q /~ /, ~" I ~. i~ .,.",~ -- " .f (101.0' F.F) I I (10LO' F..F) ~~ ~ ^~ l.I " (tOLli' F.F) (10Lli' F.F) 19'..0' Plate / ^ ~ '!! ~. 1\ :>J '\ ~ ~ /~ ::J I " ! ~ 11~ ' I '" /~ bX i<i ~ ,- (F.F. LO') "l " / (~ lOA 0"" n,..~_ .. ~ ~~ 7 "" I J .. I l; r,ttr j)("~ q ~ 19' Plate \\ /l/ r ~ Plate ~ ~ t1 t!~ "- en ~; "" 1Ql~ - 5/12 - -- 1lI ~ Plate I i<i 0 t.. -'" 2: ~~ ~ ~l!i 5/12 T V Ut. I? --:; 3i V !1.~ ,,~ -r--, I) ~lt en ~ i 'l(. - , [QJ 10 ~ I :0 1 '-0" Plate en i ~ \ - 10 en 0 ' Plat~ t- 5/12 ~ ; ~ -20 ff .-"'" = -Zl 0 Ii /12 ~ Q ~> :: ~ :g "~ f7 o rn .." ~ ~ ",q ""w .1 $! 1lI~ 1..1 =' G(::t .. Ie. ~ ~~n / 71 o ~ ~ Ii< "l "- f o.~ ~ ~~ . (l) (l) {10LS' F.Fl 9'..0' Plate go. .~ V' t- II''''' Dl... " ~::ta / I I '-f '< ~(l) > 'P - = ~ < VJ . lY' en ::J> ::c ::c mcS'-o 3::J> :::J "'C "'C I~ a~-s?.. s= <: "'C -- _ n.._o co =- -- s;Q o &3 0-. ..... __ 0 =- -- :=:s coO :::J ~. Ch ~..... e;r; "OVJ ~f 'P ; l"l C2 ~ @ ... :tl:;lCll~ 01>> ." 0 g, .. l:l~ ... ~ <=l 2 tJj =(") ~:i o 2 ~ t OJ ! !9. I:l. ': ('l Drawn by: > . 0) ROOF PLAN A New Two-Story Residence for: Homa 8l. Mehrdad Mojgani 21180 Grenola Dr.. Cuptertino, CA 95014 SCiara Cnty A.P.No. 326-28-057, 408.255.7729 ;fh~'- \$ <1,' EJ fIl '<.~ , ~ u Cliff Cowles P. O. Box 223201 Carmel, CA 93922 831.626.8219 Fax.831659.5161 3/20/06 Revisions Plans Bl PermIts 127.5 llid.l!" Q c;, I Workshop <:> .;, I Study Utilities min. CrawlSI .- Foyer VI!' Celli... lloud or 5/B" Gyps_ Drywall TypiC&! All Ceiliaes and Wa.lls 6'-6" Cr Co ... ~ to ... Entry ';> ;.. ... j"_'>uJati()1l CeiJil'le' p.;i,q WaJJs R.U} Floor's R.29 Foyer Living Exterior 3- coat Stucco WaJls to have :s ur weep screed a.t plateHne,. m.i~ 4"' above: era.de Typo " 100.0' E.G. SECTION "A" Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0" It Co Open HaU InsuJa.tion Cei1lnts R-SO Walls 11-19 Floors Jl~29 HaU <r Co I Dining Nook Exterior 3- coat Stucco Wa.1ls to ha.ve a: lJr weep screed at pla.te: tinE; miA. 4" aboft trade Typ. I~ 100.0' BoG. 111.5' F.F. o c;,1 Red2 SECTION "B" Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0" RAppHcation IC -doofo - OR RM Application ;(# - ~/)()~ ~/,~ Approval Date ~_QI. Signature U' ..~ (Case ManageIj Great Room cr Co Class A Concrete Flat Tile Typ- over 40 Jb. Felt over 11/4" plywood with clips UOoN. HaD 100.0' E..G. Rath2 Red 3 luu1&tioa CeiliD4!a R-3O ....&11& R.. f'Ioors R-2lI Laundry Garage Or = UtiL 101.5' F.f'. E.G @ BJdll. SECTION "C" Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0" 2 ~ '" ~ ~ ~ J ~ " ] Q; ~ t.l ~ ... N ;e CICI Ie cIS ~ ~ ~ ... ... l3 l3 ~ II) 0) III -... ~ 's o ~ ~:r \ Q, r.. "" Oil o III ~/ == ~ .J == s: U >, .a l::: ~ ,:s ~g -'01 ~'> - III "'t:l: .- d C) ~ ~ :i4 ~ o ~ao ~ ~.. O)! ~ i:...... 0( too"' .E \J Uao ~ ~ d'C? c= ~ :81 ~ lo4 f..= :-a.d ! 01 ~ ~ =tt,) g:~ U . >. rr2. i.o" f.. a: ~~ Q.( . ~ ~ >. o 0.... ~ ~ ~d ~ S d td ~ 0 = f.. z..... ~ d 0(..... c:i fI) f.f) Z o ~ E- u W f.f) A-7