.02 TM-2007-03 Jitka Cymbal
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application:
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Property Location:
TM-2007-03
Jitka Cymbal
Sue-Jane Han
21871 Dolores Avenue
Agenda Date: May 22, 2007
Application Summary:
TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide a .46 acre lot into two parcels of square feet and 8,375
square feet to 9,374 square feet, respectively in a Rl-7.5 zoning district.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the tentative map exception
in accordance with the model resolution.
Project Data:
General Plan Designation:
Zoning Designation:
Total Acreage (gross):
Net Acreage per parcel:
Density:
Low Density Residential, 1-5 DU j gr. acre
Rl-7.5
.46
Lot 1- 8,375 sq. ft., Lot 2- 9,374 sq. ft.
4.3 duj gr. acre.
Project Consistency with: General Plan:
Zoning:
Environmental Assessment:
Yes
Yes
Categorically exempt.
BACKGROUND:
The project site is located on the north side of Dolores Avenue between Byrne Avenue
and Orange A venue. A main residence, two detached cottages and a detached shed
currently exist on the parcel. Single-family residential parcels surround the subject
parcel. The applicant proposes to demolish all of the structures on the property,
subdivide into two lots and build two single family homes.
On January 23, 2007, the Planning Commission reviewed and denied the applicant's
prior application (TM-2006-12, V-2007-01, EXC-2006-14) to subdivide the property into
two side-by-side lots. Several adjacent neighbors expressed concerns that the side-by-
side lots with the reduced side yard setbacks proposed at the time would result in
negative privacy impacts, and they re"quested a flag lot design. The Commission also
felt that a flag lot design would be more compatible with the immediate neighborhood
and would avoid substandard lot widths proposed (see attached Planning Commission
meeting minutes). The applicant appealed the Planning Commission decision to the
City Council. On February 20, 2007, the City Council denied the applicant's appeal and
;2-1
TM-2007-03
Page 2
May 22, 2007
upheld the Planning Commission's decision. A petition of reconsideration was later
filed and denied by the Council on May I, 2007.
The applicant is now submitting a new application with a flag lot design.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed flag lot design is compatible with the immediate neighboring lot pattern.
The orientation of the flag lot minimizes tree removal (see diagram below).
Although the General Plan discourages flag lots, staff supports the proposal since it is
consistent with the Planning Commission's direction. No exceptions or variances are
being requested as part of this map approval. Since this is only a subdivision request,
the placement of the homes and landscaping concepts are not shown on the map. The
architecture and site review of the actual homes will be at a later date via the Director's
Two-Story Permit process, where story poles/notice boards will be erected and
neighbors will have the opportunity to provide further input on the details of the two
homes.
2- :?
TM-2007-03
Page 3
May 22, 2007
Tree Removal and Retention:
Ten trees are located on the subject property, three of which are significant (Deodar
Cedars #1 & #2 and Coast Redwood #5). Only the two Deodar Cedars are protected by
the Tree Ordinance. According to the applicant, the Coast Redwood #5 has already
been removed due to its poor condition. Staff recommends that the two Cedar trees be
preserved as part of this approval and that one 36-inch box Redwood be planted to
replace the removed redwood. As for the other trees on the property, the applicant has
the option of removing them since they are not protected. Staff recommends a
condition of approval that requires the existing trees be retained to the maximum extent
possible and that the applicant work with the Director of Community Development to
make the final decision on the retention of these trees at the design review stage. The
applicant is also required to record a covenant on the property that ensures the
preservation and maintenance of the new replacement trees and any trees that are
required to be preserved as part of this approval.
Prepared by: Gary Chao, Senior Planner ~
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developm~
Enclosures: Model Resolution for TM-2007-03
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 23, 2007
City Council Meeting Minutes February 20, 2007 & May 1, 2007
Tree Survey & Arborist Report
Plan Set
C:\Documents and Settings\ garyc.CUPERTINO\ Desktop\ TM-2007-03.doc
ol~3
TM-2007-03
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO.
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A
TENT A TIVE MAP TO SUBDIVIDE A .46 ACRE LOT INTO TWO PARCELS OF 8,375
(NET) SQUARE FEET AND 9,374 (NET) SQUARE FEET, RESPECTIVELY IN A Rl-7.5
ZONING DISTRICT, AT 21871 DOLORES AVENUE
SECTION I: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application
for a Tentative Subdivision Map, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the
Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held
one or more public hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said
application; and has satisfied the following requirements:
1) That the proposed subdivision map is consistent with the City of Cupertino
General Plan.
2) That the design and improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent
with the General Plan.
3) That the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of development
contemplated under the approved subdivision.
4) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not
likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and
unavoidable injure fi?h and wildlife or their habitat.
5) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements associated
there with is not likely to cause serious public health problems.
6) That the design of the subdivision and its associated improvements will not
conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or
use of property within the proposed subdivision.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the application for Tentative Subdivision Map is hereby
approved, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning
on Page 2 thereof; and
J-L/
Resolution No.
Page 2
TM - 2007 -03
May 22, 2007
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this
resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application
No. TM-2007-03 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of May
22,2007, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
TM-2007-03
Jitka Cymbal
21871 Dolores Avenue
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
This approval is based on the Plan Set titled, "Tentative Map, Lands of Hsu and
Han, 21871 Dolores Avenue, Cupertino, California", dated February 2007 (one
page), except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution.
2. TREE PRESERVATION
All existing trees shall be retained to the maximum extent possible. The applicant
shall work with the Director of Community Development to make the final decision
on the retention of these trees at the design review stage. Revised landscaping plan
shall be reviewed and approved by the Director prior to issuance of building
permits.
3. COVENANT
The two Cedar (#1 & #2) trees shall be preserved as part 'of this approval and one 36
inch box Redwood tree shall be planted to replace the removed redwood (#5). Prior
recordation of final map, the applicant shall record a covenant on the property that
, ensures the preservation and maintenance of the above stated trees.
SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS
DEP ARTMENT.
4. STREET WIDENING
Street widening and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City
Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer.
5. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS
Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed In
accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer.
;2-5
Resolution No.
Page 3
TM - 2007 -03
May 22, 2007
6. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION
Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer.
Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of
visual interference to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the
maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located.
7. FIRE HYDRANT
Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City and Santa Clara County Fire
as needed.
8. GRADING
Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance
with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404
permits maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/ or Regional
Water Quality Control Board as appropriate.
9. DRAINAGE
Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
10. FIRE PROTECTION
Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the
City as needed.
11. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities
Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of
Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of
underground utility devices. The developer shall submit detailed plans showing
utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the
affected Utility provider and the City Engineer.
12. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of
Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking
and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for under
grounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of
construction permits.
Fees:
a. Checking & Inspection Fees:
$2,194.00 minimum
b. Grading Permit:
$ 5% of Off-Site Improvement Cost or
c. Development Maintenance Deposit:
$ 6 % of Site Improvement Cost or
$2,060.00 minimum
$ 2,000.00
J--fo
Resolution No.
Page 4
TM - 2007 -03
May 22, 2007
d. Storm Drainage Fee:
e. Power Cost:
f. Map Checking Fees:
g. Park Fees:
h. Street Tree
$ 593.40
N/A
$3,348.00
$15,750.00
By Developer
Bonds:
a. Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site
Improvements
b. Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvement
c. On-site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements.
-The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule
adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified
at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the
event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then
current fee schedule.
13. TRANSFORMERS
Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment
enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground
such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas.
14. AMENDED DEVELOPMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP)
REQUIREMENTS
a. Permanent Stormwater Quality BMPs Required
In accordance with chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and
Watershed Protection, of the City Code, all development and redevelopment
projects shall include permanent BMPs in order to reduce the water quality
impacts of stormwater runoff from the entire site for the life of the project.
b. Stormwater Management Plan Required
The applicant shall submit a Stormwater Management Plan for this project.
The permanent storm water quality best management practices (BMPs)
included in this plan shall be selected and designed in accordance with chapter
9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the City
Code.
c. BMP Agreements
The applicant and the City shall enter into a recorded agreement and covenant
running with the land for perpetual.BMP maintenance by the property
owners(s). In addition, the owner(s) and the City shall enter into a recorded
:l--7
Resolution No.
Page 5
TM-2007-03
Ma y 22, 2007
easement agreement and covenant running with the land allowing City access
at the site for BMP inspection.
d. Hydromodification Plan (HMP) Required
The applicant must provide a comprehensive plan to control any combination
of on-site, off-site and in-stream control measures incorporated into specific
redevelopment projects in order to reduce stormwater runoff so as to not
increase the erosion potential of the receiving watercourse over the pre-project
condition.
15. MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
The applicant will be required to maintain all items, which are non-standard
within the City's right of way. The applicant and the City must enter into a
recorded agreement for this aforementioned work.
16. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN
The developer must submit a traffic control plan by a Registered Traffic Engineer
to be approved by the City. The plan shall include a temporary traffic control plan
for work in the right of way as well as a routing plan for all vehicles used during
construction. All traffic control signs must be reviewed and approved by the City
prior to commencement of work.
The City has adopted Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)
standards for all signage and striping work throughout the City.
17. REFUSE TRUCK ACCESS
The developer must obtain clearance from the Environmental Programs
Department in regards to refuse truck access for the proposed development.
CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF
ENGINEERING/SURVEYING CONDITIONS
(Section 66474.18 of the California Government Code)
I hereby certify that the engineering and surveying conditions specified in Section IV.
Of this resolution conform to generally accepted engineering practices
Ralph Qualls, Director of Public Works
City Engineer CA License 22046
,,2~
Cupertino Planning Commission
3
January 23,2007
Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com.
February 27, 2007 Planning Commission
absent)
the
. -0-0; Com. Saadati
PUBLIC HEARING
1.
EXC-2006-14, TM-2006-12,
V-2007-01; Jitka Cymbal
(Westfall Engineers)
21871 Dolores Ave.
Exception to allow a 5-foot side yard setback.
Tentative Map to subdivide a .46-acre parcel into two
parcels of 9,685 sq. ft. and 9,686 sq. ft., respectively.
Variance to allow a 50-foot lot width, instead ofthe
required 60-foot width, for two proposed parcels.
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed.
Postponed from the January 9, 2007 Planning
Commission meeting.
Gary Chao, Associate Planner, presented the staff report:
. Reviewed the application for tentative map, variance and exception to allow 5-foot yard
setbacks on two parcels located on 21871 Dolores Avenue in a RI-7.5 zoning district, as
outlined in the staff report.
. He reviewed the two major discussion points which include conformance with the Rl
Ordinance for substandard lot widths and 5-foot side yard setbacks, and tree removal and
retention.
. Relative to the lot width, staff supports the variance request and feels that the variance findings
for the lot width can be made. Staff also supports the side yard exception request. Relative to
building interface issues, the applicant would be required to apply through the design review
process to ensure that the position of the house, articulation and recess are maximized to
minimize any potential interface issues with adjacent neighbors.
. Staff recommends that the two Deodor Cedar trees be preserved and one 36 inch box Redwood
be planted to replace the removed redwood tree. Staff is also requiring that the applicant work
to with staff in preserving as many trees as possible.
. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the tentative map, variance and
exception applications in accordance with the model resolutions.
. He answered Commissioners' questions relative to the history of flag lots.
. Explained the rationale behind requesting the applicant to replace the removed redwood tree
with another tree. He said it was standard practice to replace fairly large trees that are not
specimen trees, to keep up the urban forest. Through the subdivision process there are
examples of where the city has required them to protect and record trees that are not on that list
of protected trees, but they may have other attributes that are important.
Ciddy Wordell:
. Said they did not normally encumber a subdivision with requirements for a residential
development, it should be related to the subdivision, and could be done through the design
review.
Jitka Cymbal, Westfall Engineers:
. Said they considered both side by side lots and the flag lot.
. Besides the issues which are strictly planning issues relating to length of driveway for a flag
02.--10
Cupertino Planning Commission
4
January 23,2007
lot, we were looking at potentially creating a greater impervious surface area and there are
some drainage issues because the lot slopes away from the street. Putting the house all the way
in the back with the long driveway, not only would create greater impervious surfaces because
the driveway is very long, and has to have a turnaround, but we are draining it to the back
unless we fill the lot. That was another factor that went into the design and actual request for
the side by side.
Com. Miller:
· Said that whether it is side by side or flag lot, the drainage issue still has to be addressed.
Jitka Cymbal:
· Said with side by side lots, the homes are closer to the street; they can be raised enough to have
the front of the homes and most of the roofs draining onto the street which is not impacting the
people in the back. It also provides a large area in the backyard for onsite retention. It creates
possibilities which the flag lot does provide; it is not impossible, but is more difficult.
Chairperson Giefer opened the public hearing.
Cindy Hsu, Dolores Avenue:
· Supports the side by side split for safety reasons; said the lot in the back is very dangerous.
· Said that the fire department prefers side by side lots, not flag lots.
· Supports the application.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
· Said the lot should be flag lot and a 60 foot side lot; there are a number of issues. When there
are two 50-foot wide lots you are creating substandard lots in a residential community.
Unfortunately when you do this, the resulting lots begin to look like a planned development
area with high density housing. This is not a planned development area, it is a suburban
residential area.
· Five foot side yard setbacks are not appropriate in this area; the homes should be made smaller
if you do have two 50-foot wide lots.
· How many of these potential lot splits can occur in Monta Vista; are we setting a dangerous
precedent of having the creation of substandard lots. Also, if doing 50/50 side by side, require
submittal of plans for the potential homes to see what they look like. Los Gatos requires this
when the house is going down; you have one year to build and you have to submit plans.
Shu-Jen Liau, Cupertino resident:
. Opposes the application.
· Resides on a flag lot in the front house.
· Concurred with Jennifer Griffin that safety was not the main concern; the neighborhood is safe.
The concern is the lack of privacy with a 5 foot setback as the homes are too close together.
· Prefers flag lot configuration, not side by side.
Johnny Wang, Cupertino resident:
· Opposes the application.
. Resides on a flag lot in the back lot.
. Emphasized the neighbors' concern about privacy.
· Said he would like to see consistency of the flag lots in the neighborhood.
· Asked the Planning Commission to continue to enforce Rl ordinance.
:l,-t I
Cupertino Planning Commission
5
January 23,2007
Tracy Hsu, Dolores Avenue (Owner of proposed homes)
· Said the reasons they chose the side by side division was twofold: drainage because the rear
lot entry is a lot lower than the front and fire safety because the fire trucks would have
difficulty to reach the rear lot.
· Said she previously resided at 21869 Dolores Avenue which is the adj acent neighbor and is
aware of the problems with the flag lots.
· Asked the Planning Commission to approve the side by side configuration.
· The house size would be about 3600 square feet plus the two car garage.
· Supports the application.
Rafael Gomez, Dolores Avenue:
· Resides across the street opposite the 21871 address.
· Suggested a difference look for the neighborhood as the builder has built five large identical
big houses, one in front of the other.
· Supports application for side by side configuration for aesthetic reasons.
Rhoda Fry, Cupertino resident:
· Opposes application.
· Said that Cupertino's annexation of Monta Vista has blighted Monta Vista.
· It sounds like splitting the lots down the middle is not a good solution, nor are flag lots.
Anybody think of not doing it??
· Prior to it being a rental unit, it was occupied for a long time by the owner.
Sue Jane Han, co-owner of parcel:
· Said that in the past she resided in the back lot of a flag lot and it was very difficult turning the
cars around because of limited space of the garage; and on occasion if there were other cars in
the area, her father hit the fence.
Chair Giefer closed the public hearing.
Gary Chao:
· Relative to the fire department's position on flag lots, they don't necessarily have to access the
site to fight fires in the back area; they can drag their lines out. They would prefer to have easy
access to the properties.
Gary Chao:
· Said the fire department reviewed the proposal, and supports the project.
Com. Chien:
· In the General Plan, Policy 2-23 under one of the strategies for this policy, it says "create flag
lots in proposed subdivisions when they are the only reasonable alternative". He suggested
that it state "discourage flag lots". He said that Cupertino is a city that encourages
neighborhood compatibility and integration. He asked staff to elaborate on how the city or
staff interprets the policy.
Ciddy Wordell:
· Said the intent was to make it stronger, to see fewer flag lots. It is created only in unusual
circumstances, when there is not a reasonable alternative.
c2--f~
Cupertino Planning Commission
6
January 23, 2007
Gary Chao:
. If doing a flag lot configuration, the lot is 100 feet wide, usually the panhandle portion would
be 20 feet, so the remainder would be 80 feet in terms of the width of the smaller lot in front.
Com. Miller:
. My concern is that these are very large lots, 193 feet long by 50 feet wide; if we do it this way,
and on those lots you can build a house in excess of 4,000 square feet on each of them, and we
are proposing to build these fairly significant sized houses which will be long and narrow and
in fact impact the neighbors. They will have an impact on the neighbors from a potential
privacy standpoint.
. If we go with the flag lot configuration, the lots lose some width; the flag is not considered in
the calculation; the eventual houses will be smaller and the separation between the houses and
the neighbors will be larger.
. I understand the issue about drainage, we didn't clarify what the grade is from front to back;
but I also believe there are solutions to this unless there is a very severe grade, and even if
there was, there are still solutions.
. (staff response: 365 elevations at the streets as opposed to 363 at the rear property line, so
about 2 or 3 feet variance)
. I assume the grade difference is the same for the neighboring houses as well.
. My feeling is because of the large size of the house that the applicant can put on each of the
subdivided lots, I would rather see the flag lot configuration and I don't think that the drainage
issue is that significant to address.
Com. Wong:
. Supports the tentative map; but not the variance. I agree that the lot is big enough to be
subdivided, and the reasoning at the time we went through the Rl to allow the exception for
the five feet was mainly for an existing parcel that was substandard and had under 60 feet.
Here we have an opportunity to subdivide a lot, but we are subdividing the lot into a
substandard lot and that concerns me.
. I see the exception to be used in special cases where in Rancho Rinconada where we have
small lot and we only have a few in Monta Vista, but on this particular lot, you do have a way
to have a standard lot by doing a flag lot.
. Relative to safety concerns and concerns about small children, there are already five or six flag
lots on that block, and many other flag lots in the neighborhood.
. What makes Monta Vista special is the single family Rl lots, and if we can keep the
neighborhood in tact, to have a standard lot, I prefer to go that way. On some of the lots you
camiot, because they were already long and narrow, but on this particular I feel this is
important for the compatibility to be consistent, not to have substandard. I am concerned about
that 50% that it will be a burden on the property owner to have pavers included.
. I agree with the neighbors regarding the density; I think that privacy has been a strong concern
with the neighborhood and I also think that Monta Vista is known for single family homes and
to respect the 15 feet on both sides, maybe 5 or 10 or the equivalent of 15 feet together.
. He said he would also like further discussion on Policy 2-23 and clarification on where staff is
coming from.
. Said he supported a flag lot configuration.
Com. Chien:
. Thanked the speakers for their valuable input; in such an application there are always two sides
to that debate, and the city had to look at what is in the public interest.
. Said the policy on flag lots, while the intent may be clear, is poorly written because the first
words regarding flag lots written in the General. Plan are "create flag lots when they are
;l-J3
Cupertino Planning Commission
7
January 23, 2007
reasonably compatible" They are in this case, .and compatibility is an issue that has been
discussed when looking at single family homes and has been an issue of contention; and many
of the Planning Commissioners have worked to try to take compatibility out because it is very
subjective.
· Where the public interest is concerned, the city is always interested in neighborhood
compatibility. The Commissioners are asked to weigh that public interest vs. private interest,
and he felt in this case the private interests of the right of an owner to build on their property
outweighs that of neighborhood compatibility.
· Said he supported the application as the 50/50 split.
Chair Giefer:
· Said the lots meet the criteria for subdivision which she did not have an issue with; but
questioned how to subdivide it.
· I think that we have solved drainage issues in this neighborhood in other ways with dry wells
and other swales and pavers to help with runoff and absorption.
· The dominant configuration for the area of Dolores Avenue is the flag lot configuration. She
said she supported a subdivision for a flag configuration because it also has the least
requirements in terms of variances.
Jitka Cymbal:
· Said the owner would prefer not to have flag lots.
Chair Giefer:
· Clarified for the applicant that there was verbal consensus that the preference was for flag lot
configuration; that the Commission could deny the tentative map, take a vote and have the
decision appealed to the City Councilor continue the item to a later date.
Jitka Cymbal:
· Said there were two variance requests; one for the lot width and one for the setback which
creates the privacy issue. Asked if there would be a chance of getting the lot width without
getting the setback.
Chair Giefer:
· Said that based upon what was heard, it was not likely that it is going to pass.
Ciddy W ordeIl:
· Said it is physically possible, but would be up to you whether you want it that way.
Chair Giefer:
· We could say you could have a 50 foot width; we could give you a substandard lot size and
then enforce our standard side setbacks, if there were members of the Planning Commission
who agreed to that.
Jitka CymbaII:
· Said that is what the owners would prefer.
Com. Wong:
· Said he would prefer a continuance, since he needed to see the plan and could not make a final
decision this evening.
~-I'f
Cupertino Planning Commission
8
January 23,2007
Chair Giefer:
· Said that the applicant would prefer to come back with 50/50 side by side substandard with
smaller house.
Com. Wong:
· Said he was concerned about substandard.
Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Wong, to deny Application
TM-2006-12, V-2007-01, and EXC-2006-14 (Vote: 3-1-0; Com. Ch'
Saadati absent)
2.
MCA-2006-02
City of Cupertino
Citywide Location
Municipal Code Amendme
and Specimen Trees) Co
2006 Planning Com
Council Date: Febr
Chapter 14.18 (Heritage
ed from the December 12,
on meeting, Tentative City
20,2007 .
Ciddy Wordell:
· Noted that the decision could be appealed to the City Council within
AId Honda Snelling, Senior Planner, presented the sta port:
· Reviewed the background of the item which w continuation of the Municipal Code
Amendment of Chapter 14.18 (Heritage and Spec . Trees) and reviewed the discussion held
by the Planning Commission as outlined in the report.
· At the December 12, 2006 meeting the Plan' Commission recommended a draft ordinance
be provided incorporating staffs recomme ions for simplifying the ordinance by allowing
the Director of Community Developme make determinations on tree removals when not
associated with a development appl' on and by providing prescriptive measures for
replacing trees in conjunction with tr movals. Staff also recommended that retroactive tree
removal permits be handled by the munity Development Director to simplify the process.
· She reviewed the model ordina which incorporated staff s recommendations relative to
approval authority, noticing, pies, tree replacements, protected tree size, specimen tree
list, rear yard tree removals, anagement plan, and general clean up/clarification items, as
outlined in the staff report.
· Staff recommends that the
staff recommended dra
retroactive tree remova
ning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the
odel ordinance and recommend establishment of the specific
Com. Chien:
· Asked for an expl
IOn of the logic behind exempting backyard trees.
AId Snelling:
· Said it was a.4 ommendation by the Planning Commission at the last meeting to take into
consideratio at the trees in the rear yard may not have the visible significance that a tree in
the front may have, so that some ability may be given to allow the removal of protected
trees in rear yard that may not be very significant to the community. Also some rear yard
trees infringe upon some of the adjacent neighbors, the canopy of the trees might, the root
syst' they may become over-burdensome that it may not allow for some property owners to
p gardens in the rear yard; it may create too much shading.
. Chien:
One of the ways a tree becomes protected in addition to being a protected species is if they
cJ-15
February 20, 2007
Cupertino City Council
Page 4
Cymbal (Westfall Engineers), 21871 Dolores Avenue, APN 357-14-026. The appellant is
Jitka Cymbal.
Director of Community Development Steve Piasecki noted that the applicant had
withdrawn the appeal for the exception portion of the application, EXC-2006-l4.
Applicant Jitka Cymbal reviewed the project.
The public hearing was opened at 7:50 p.m.
Johnny Wang said he was concerned about the loss of privacy with a flag lot due to the
many windows that would face his house from the side.
Rhoda Fry said that she was not in favor of variances and was concerned about the
drainage issue. She said that the lots should be compared to others on the street for
compatibility, rather than the overall neighborhood, and she did not think side-by-side
lots would be compatible in this case. She said she would like to see some big trees
planted in Monta Vista.
Jennifer Griffin said she is familiar with the problems of small lots, noting that she can
hear her neighbor's conversations from her window. She said she was concerned about
creating two substandard lots and that homes built side by side would look like mobile
homes. She thought flag lots were a better idea in this situation, and she also urged
Council to preserve the trees.
Victoria Gomez said she lives across the street from the property in question. She noted
that the applicant had already built two houses elsewhere and that they are beautiful. She
said she would like to see diversity in the neighborhood and urged Council to uphold the
appeal to build the houses side by side.
Cindy Hsu, owner, said that Cupertino is the only city where she has seen flag lots. She
said they are not safe because fire department vehicles have difficulty reaching the
houses. She asked Council to uphold the appeal.
Tracy Hsu, owner, said she was told by City staff to avoid flag lots. She noted that the
Planning Commission failed to give clear guidelines to City staff and to the applicant, and
that the City should stay with its policy of avoiding flag lots.
Suejane Han distributed a petition in support of upholding the appeal. She said she
counted 76 side-by-side houses vs. 26 flag lots in the Monta Vista area. She believed that
that side~by-side lots are safer, and building flag lots is an old practice.
The public hearing was closed at 8: 12 p.m.
02..,/"
February 20, 2007
Cupertino City Council
Page 5
Mahoney/Sandoval moved and seconded to continue the item to March 20 and to have
the applicant bring back plans of what the lot would look like as a side by side. The
motion failed with Patrick Kwok and Kris Wang voting no, Orrin Mahoney and Dolly
Sandoval voting yes, and Richard Lowenthal absent.
Mahoney/Sandoval moved and seconded to uphold the appeal and grant the variance. The
motion failed with Patrick Kwok and Kris Wang voting no, Orrin Mahoney and Dolly
Sandoval voting yes, and Richard Lowenthal absent. The appeal is denied and the
Planning 'Commission decision is upheld.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
12. Consider a Community Development Director's referral of a minor mo
approve the final front plaza design and gateway feature for Oak Park V' e along N.
De Anza Boulevard required by a previously approved use pennit ap hon (U-2004-
09), Application No. DIR-2007-06, Chuck Bommarito, 10745 N. nza Blvd, APN
326-10-064.
Jennifer Griffin said that the project looked nice on paper, e resulting housing is too
high and too dense, and creates an oddly shaped rooflin ong Highway 280. She urged
Council to add lots of trees to the project and noted < any artwork put there should be
around 5-feet tall and have muted colors in order t p it looking like a wooded area.
SandovallKwok moved and
plaza design and gateway
Lowenthal absent.
/,' ve the minor modification to the front
otion carried unanimously with Richard
Council recessed from 8:55 p.m. to 9:00 p
)::0
!.i
13. Recei ve staff recommendati~/
a) The evaluation of fie safet issues in the tri-school area including Monta Vista
High, Kemledy' adle, and Lincoln elementary schools
b) on of the reopening the Scenic Circle gate into Blackberry Fann as a
d that the City should put money into pedestrian safety, especially in the
area.
Dav," Greenstein talked about traffic around the schools and said the best solution is to
arent participation and to educate the public about using alternative transportation to
their children to and from school.
cJ-t 1
M<<-y , I d- 001
COl.t.t\C.\ \ ^.A~e--K ~
15. Consider a Petition for Reconsideration of the City Council's decision to deny a
Tentative Map to subdivide a .46-acre parcel into two parcels of9,685 square feet
and 9,686 square feet, respectively, and to deny a variance to allow a 50-foot lot
width, instead of the required 60-foot width, for two proposed parcels,
Application Nos. EXC-2006-14, TM-2006-12, V-2007-01, Jitka Cymbal
(Westfall Engineers), 21871 Dolores Avenue, APN 357-14-026. The petitioners
are Tracy Hsu and Suejane Han. Adopt a resolution to either:
a) Deny the rehearing, Resolution No. 07-075; or
b) Grant the rehearing, Resolution No. 07-076; or
c) Approve the application if rehearing is granted, Resolution No. 07-077
Jitka Cymbal, representing the petitioners, commented on the previous discussion
concerning flag lots and side-by-side lots and stated that side-by-side lots were
more prevalent in the neighborhood than flag lots. She also noted that there were
only three lots in the neighborhood that were of a similar size with similar
development opportunities.
Cindy Hsu and Rachel Chang stated their support of side-by-side lots.
Jennifer Griffin stated her support in this case of a flag lot rather than the creation
of two substandard width lots, potentially 30 feet wide and 125 feet long with
minimal side setbacks. If side-by-side homes were approved she recommended
the house sizes be constrained.
Suejane Han and Tracy Hsu, co-owners of the parcel, commented that a majority
of the adjacent neighbors were in favor of side- by-side homes for this subdivision.
They further noted that most of the lots in this neighborhood were narrow and
their design plans included protection of the trees on the property.
Council discussed the request before them and the City Attorney's report on the
findings required for reconsideration. The basic question was whether or not any
new evidence had been presented at this meeting.
Mahoney/Kwok moved and seconded to adopt Resolution No. 07-075, to deny the
rehearing. The motion carried 3-2, with Sandoval and Lowenthal voting no.
02-1'0
HSU/HAN PROPERTY, 218"1 DOLORES AVENUE CUPERTINO
Assignment
. On October 2nd, 2006, I met Mrs. Sue Han at the property to prepare an analysis of the
trees on the property.
The plan used for this analysis is by Westfall Engineers, Inc., titled 'Tentative Map;
Lands ofHsu and Han' dated September 2006.
At this time we do not have the plans that show the proposed new structures so it is not
possible to provide specific recommendations for tree preservation during construction,
but the enclosed notes titled "Tree Protection Before, During, and After Construction"
should be used as guidelines for tree protection.
It will be necessary to install fences to protect at least the two Deodara Cedar trees before
any demolition or construction activity begins,
The suggested fence locations are drawn into the map I was provided. If those
recommended fence locations conflict with proposed construction we should review the
construction plans with tree preservation detail in mind.
Summary
The site has 4 trees on it of a size large enough to be controlled by City Ordinance.
The most important ones are two Deodar Cedars (Cedrus deodara) which are near the
south side near the front of the property.
The majority of the other trees are ofless important species such as Black Locust
(Robinia pseudoacacia). There is one Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) in rather
poor condition along the east property line.
The Deodara Cedar trees have been severely pruned and over thinned causing them to be
very stubbed looking at this point and being of much lesser value than they might have
been otherwise.
These trees (#1 and # 2) are both healthy but have been damaged by the severe stub-
cutting of each of the limbs. It will be necessary over a period of time to re-prune these
trees as they respond to the severe pruning they received.
PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORIST
OCTOBER 2ND, 2006
t2-:lO
HSU/HAN PROPERTY, 210,1 DOLORES AVENUE CUPERTINO
Conclusion
2
There are nine trees on the property and one on the adjacent property to the west in this
survey. Of these, only the two Deodara Cedars, one Coast Redwood are significant trees.
The three Black Locusts species are brittle and the specimens are poorly formed and of
little importance. The rest of the trees are smaller than the size commonly covered by
City regulations but are included in this report because they were shown on the plan
provided.
BDC/phlg
Enclosures: Assumptions & Limiting Conditions
Tree Protection Notes
Photographs .
Map
PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COA TE, CONSULTING ARBORIST
Respectfully submitted,
~,f}.~
Barrie D. Coate
OCTOBER 2ND, 2006
e:L~ J
.,
BARRIE D. COATE.
and ASSOCIATES
Horticutural Consultants
23535 Summit Road
Los Gatos, 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 ct)aracter nor is any opinion rendered as to
the quality of any title.
2. The appraiser/consultant can neither guarantee nor be responsible for accuracy of
information provided by others.
3. The appraiser/consultant shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason
of this appraisal unless subsequent written arrangements are made, including payment of an
additional fee for services.
4. Loss or removal of any part of this report invalidates the entire appraisal/evaluation.
5. Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any
purpose by any other than the person(s) to whom it is addressed without written consent of
this appraiser/consultant.
6. This report and the values expressed herein represent the opinion of the .
appraiser/consultant, and the appraiser's/consultant's fee is in no way contingent upon the
reporting of a specified value nor upon any finding to be reported.
7. Sketches, diagrams, graphs, photos, etc., in this report, being intended as visual aids, are
not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering reports or surveys.
8. This report has been made in conformity with acceptable appraisal/evaluation/diagnostic
reporting techniques and procedures, as recommended by the International Society of
Arboriculture.
9. When applying any pesticide, fungicide, or herbicide, always follow label instructions.
1 a.No tree described in this report was climbed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take
responsibility for any defects which could only have been discovered by climbing. A full root
collar inspection, consisting of excavating the soil around the tree to uncover the root collar
and major buttress roots, was not performed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take
responsibility for any root defects which could only have been discovered by such an
inspection.
CONSULTING ARBORIST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training, and experience to
examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to
reduce risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations
of the arborist, or to seek additional advice.
Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree.
Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often
hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or
safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments,
like medicine, cannot be guaranteed.
Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some
degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate all trees.
cOtVdUe -tP ~
Barrie D. Coate
ISA Certified Arborist
Horticultural Consultant
c2-~~
BARRIE D. CuATE AND ASSOCIATES
Horticultural Consultants
(408) 353-1052
FaK (408) 353-1238
23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos. CA 95033
TREE PROTECTION BEFORE, DURING, AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION
These are general recommendations
And may be superseded by site-specific instructions
BEFORE
Plan location oftrenching to avoid all possible cuts beneath tree canopies. This includes trenches
for utilities, irrigation lines, cable TV and roof drains.
Plan construction period fence locations which will prevent equipment travel or material storage
beneath tree canopies.
Install fences before any construction related equipment is allowed on site. This includes pickup
trucks.
Inform subcontractors in writing that they must read this document. Require return of signed
copies to demonstrate that they have read the document.
Prune any tree parts, which conflict with construction between August and January. Except for
pines which may be pnmed between October-January. Only an ISA certified arborist, using
ISA pnming instructions may be used for his work. If limbs are in conflict with the
construction equipment before the certified arborist is on-site, carpenters may cut off
offending parts of 6" diameter or less, leaving an 18" long stub, which should be re-cut later
by the arborist.
Under no circumstances may any party remove more than 30% of a trees foliage, or pnme so
that an unbalanced canopy is created.
DURING
Avoid use of any wheeled equipment beneath tree canopies.
Maintain fences at original location in vertical, undamaged condition until all contractors and
subcontractors, including painters are gone.
Clear root collars of retained trees enough to leave 5-6 buttress roots bases visible at 12" from
the tnmk.
Irrigate trees adjacent to construction activity during hot months (June-October). Apply 10
gallons of water per 1" of trunk diameter (measured at 4 Yz') once per 2 week period by
soaker hose. Apply water at the drip line, or adjacent to construction not around the tnmk.
Apply mulch to make a 3" deep layer in all areas beneath tree canopies and inside fences. Any
organic material which is non toxic may be used.
AFTER
Irrigate monthly with 10 gallons of water per 1" oftnmk diameter with a soaker hose, placed just
inside the drip line. Continue until 8" of rain has fallen.
Avoid cutting irrigation trenches beneath tree canopies.
A void rototilling beneath tree canopies since that will destroy the small surface roots which
absorb water.
A void installation of turf or other frequently irrigated plants beneath tree canopies.
;t-:l3
~
MEASUREMENTS
CONDITION
D1SPOSmON
NOTES
I I I I ~ ~'
II I ~ I ~I I ~I ~ ml ~
I ~ !i:lo ~I mien ~I ffi
I iO w 01 w I 01 t'- W,,;I _
I I W _I ~ 0 W 0::"" """
I I I ~ (/J ~ W.I < I 1 I 0:: I ffi W 0. I g .....; I ~
I -,<< 0 $, 0 I 'a. I , 0
! ~I ~ IIi 0:: 0101 I 10 :511- 0 ~ ~I ~ 01 10
, ~, ::> I"": 0 Z I Z I ! 0 I -J., ~ ~ W W W z I ' 0::
I J: I ... I J: 0 WI u.; I en I W I, ~, 00 IS:O 0 :::J I:::J ~ I 1 01
1-1011- W >-1 W 1-, en >' I en W 01{ (Q (Q '(/J
-J,::> s:: 0.. > -J 01 <I ~II-' 0 I- t:: <( <( ~l w,
10::,:> 0.. I W' uJ 01 woo:: t:: t::, 1-1
trree # ~ 1 t; I 0 0 i1i I ~ I ~! !Q I o! W 0:: W ::> I::> ~ ! 0 1
1 Deodara Cedar 20 ill I 40 30 1, 3 i 4 I I I I I ,
----- C;;;;;;o;~;;--------- --n--r-lT-- ,-T--r f,--T--r,---r-
, , I " I I' I I I I I ' t I
--?-_.LQ.~g_C!!.f!lJ~~..c!~.!'____________ 24tl _L-1._-145-L~.?. _Lt~...1.t_ -H---L---L--..._-l-- ___ __l__J__
I I I I I' I I I I I ' I ,
CedruSn~~"'8f8 '" I" " I I , , I
I..Jf:1UUl III I I I. I .. I
l I I I " , I I I , I I' , I' "
--~--- ~J!.~t~~!:l.!L_______________ -111...-1---I---t' ~~ 20_ ~t-?- _'L~____ -i-+---i---I--+---~-- --l---t' ---t-4-B..~-- ' 4--
. . I I I' I. I I I I I . I' I
Roblma eudoacaCla I 1 ' I I I I I I I I , , ' I
I ' , I I I I I I' "" I 1 I '
--i._.L~J!I_~_~P..~!:l.!L________._____ _1L-L_L_ll.5-l_~Q -L-+___L_L_J..__J.._ --l_J___l...J_B-L____ ---t--L-J-
, · I , I 'I I I. I I , I . I I
Robinia eudoacacia I I I I I I I, 1 I I I I I
I, " , , '" I I
___L&12!1st ~e~oo9__________ J4-t--I--I-!(!t-1.?. .!I-H' I-!.t' --i-P--~---- -H--~-
Se uo/a sem rvlrens ! Iii I ,! I! !
_~__LLQ~IJ!ie ~~!lL_____________ JJ-LL_LJ 10 L~ l.J___LJ__ -L--L.i1J!l1__1___ --L_LJ__
I I I I I I I I I I. 1 " I
Calocec:lrus decurrens I I' I I I , I I' , 1 ' I
I . I I '2 I I 1 I I I
__L__ .~.!!.C?QtJ!~~.._..___...._.....__.__.. JLf._~--+--~~-p-- .L~_:L~..l_.__ ---+---+---~----t' - ---I--i----~--
P. 1 ' · I' " I I I ' I
runus armemaca . , I " , I
I . I I I ,
, , I I I I I I 'I I ' , , I I I
~1...J__.._....12.L!~ J.T'-~-1'--4..~---- -L----~----Lll ---l-__ --L-tl--LJ----L-- Frost .Q~.m.~9!-
I , I I 1 " I " I I I I I 'I'
'I' I I , I I' I I I
I I I I I . I I, , I , I
9 13''';110' ,30120 I, ': I
-+--~---~----1---.---- ---f--+---1--+- ---+-
eudoacacfa 1 I ' I 1 I I :
, I I' 'I I '" I " '" " 'I
--.tQ__l~C!1t~_J!..~~_____________________ -P..l.--ll----l--.JJ..~l--f!.. -l-L?.~--~-L- --l---l---L-l---L__-1_ ---.l.---L-l.--L--L__ I
, I I I 'I' I I , , I I " I I I I I
Brachychlton popufneus I, I ,I I ,: 1 I I I " 1 I I I I ,
BARRIE D. COATE
ind ASSOCIATES
(4OI)3S3-1m2
235355.1111..
IMGaI~,~ 9m1
~
~
~
The Lands of Hsu/Han
21871 Dolores Avenue
Cupertino
* CD WIIB = CODOMINANT LEADERS WITH INCLUDED BARK
** RECOMMENDED + P = PRESERVE; T=TRANSPLANT; R=REMOVE
1 = Best. 5 + Worst
10-06-204l0ctober 2nd, 2006
HSUIHAN PROPERTY, 2] 871 DOLORES AVENUE CUPERTINO
\
fI
a:
u
. "'". '}1' v"
:' ~ ~,t _ .
c..~r ~..,... 0
,,,",,,,\.2i!l;i~ ._
!. H fS' .,~ r
""'CI ~, ~~ ....
L:= ~,
;.:'. .~... -~....
-~'r;~~_.. ... ~:~
<5\!J>1l. . ~~~' ,~_~
.V' "...~ '
L~~ ~~ _ ~... ~ .~~. (. :,-;-'
- ~';-'^..,^,,~ ~
,'. '~:!=",,::-,J~>;~~
':,:;~'J bl1'~'(~~'~'
c. " - ,.-..:f .... ___L~"'-~_:::'_
:. ...;;:......--.-:a ~ ,_. ~ '_"'----y
.,;.
'I
I
..,. .t.
i...-....~>:"c. ~
It:
....
,
~1
:'~
.........
. j
;0.
, i
I e.
. '
~ ~ -......"... -
'.f~!":"
.
,--t-
~
~~..
- ~
t~~
-'
L
2. Trees #1 & #2.
.~
PREPARED BY BARRIE D, COATE, CONSULTING ARBORIST
~
.,
+- 1. Tree # 1.
'1
~.
I
"
I
'"
, ;'I
.... r ~
_ It.. ~
-' "'... 1~ ).
: ""~i' l-
'IIli~~,r
-_.....~
lltr. ~~
;;.
'='
,.~
'r;!
","" "
~ ~ ~ :;. I I ...._~ -= ~
;.r.:. L-" ""('~ '~~ I (.'
~ . ~:;. {,
~ 'r ~" (';
~' , ~ -=, ~ r, ~~...f r::!
."- :; ,-...~ f- ~
l - . .';.. ~ \0 ,.
. ~ I""""' ...-.... - ...,.~: ";'., /~'.::":I..Jt.~
i'.-y.... I 11 ~~
:~. '.' .. .",- l...~ '" l
'1' " r . v.;&~> '. I,:c~
~ ~.:~. ~ '....; ;' '.1 '. r", P \' f\r~ .,'t~~ l~~;'~ .
!-.""::-~ ~ :;'';;' - e;; 'j. J .i: J} . ~ :7., .-
L'~ ~ c ~'" '-' _ ~ [J~,
,1.1 ," '. _ .' ~ '" 'i:~:.1~~' d~
[" - ;1~,!taoJ.'~'" 'If' ~'f' "';~l~;' .,
: '" ,.,,).,,"i~. .' "l:.'il". "/1
r ~ '...~..~~...~~. ~fI, .:-~:~~.~: J:~
'. 11 r: .......'t'.~--~~~.
-- ,;~ ~ t:: "IS < b<' ~\.~~;, l~""=- .--..-:..." "'k~
..............:.~ !.~
...
;.,
I
,~
.~: j
~'l
=1
I
I
I
..
OCTOBER 2ND, 2006
;2-.:2/5
HSU/HAN PROPERTY, 21871 DOLORES AVENUE CUPERTINO
J,
...
j
!
. I
J
I
.fl. ' j
;.:. ,~'"
-..-
I
,~
,'---
- \. "
.,;::'....
~1:
... .
..J~
~1 1
, ~ 'i
,
, I..
"'l.-"'.o~
irm;:
.. ..
...... -
.
W:[ ''<,.,~
'j'~ b
~ ,~
r I
- ..,". '':, \ "
~ '"t:l. ("h.... '" " ~, ,!
, "\ .:... ~~. \ \~.
'\", ri"\. . 1.... ""-; -.....t-t _
, -~~~...: - .' ... ''''
L - . f .. ,.. -,
I ~ - r~ _.~
I ;,;::' - ,. ..:~~ ~
."
...
t-
~/J
~ 3. Tree #3 (note dead branches).
.\ "'~,.
k. ~ , .
. "'. ." .~".
I . ';'~.'.':~~i.~~
l . ""~"A .J. t .,..,
l--:.:::.~~:>;.~.t'_. --~=-:~~~ .-
;, '.. , 0;' ) (
" ..I
,..1:,
.... -
....,.'
,. .-""- -.,
....
;; ~- '-
,. f
,-.'~ J -
H':__J
'- -.:J
,;.
-
...;. "'W~--....
~ --~-
~.
~l''= ------ /':
. p'"
......-' ',,~
t.:..~~ J::..-::.I
t:.
-~ _ t
; ;;
-, .".
~~ . -f
4. Tree #5. ~
"'",-,. ..,.
,~ \.
. ..J,
{ ~fi,~r ..
PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORIST
OCTOBER 2ND, 2006
c2 -:tip
HSU/HAN PROPERTY, 21871 DOLORES AVENUE CUPERTINO
,4
r~~\t:': ~ J.. ~.
".;
.~'."
...l.'....
_ __ ..: %.._ _ -.-=1_...
8. Tree # 8.
~
PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COA IE, CONSULTING ARBORIST
.'
".,.J
0::" ,
j
+- 7. A neighboring tree which
should not be affected.
To.
t
'ro t
\',1
~ ~ ~,
l:l ... ~\ ..~.." "
." ~ ;~.~...l
"
;j
'\\
~ ""lII
.
Jr.:+- ~;! ~ ~
" ..
::.
': ~ .t~f.;
~ rj;;',,~~ d ~~,l ~ ;~,' f.1'.,
';''::wt~.~\~ 1::r,.... ~~l ~..
~. .. 1. ~ ~ i'rl~;
~,.. ':J' -1!\lI ~~ II .~.lr~ ,;' w....
.~ . ~ ~ ~fl;;;J", ".!'.I ". . ·
! I~j t~~ Ie ~ r I'~ ,',
.3 " .!J (~;Il) tc.:"bP r. L? t .... " ~.
;' c" , ~'l. ~~, .' t, ~ .J \:10 ~-h," ..... ...~ ..;o;~-:
.~ JIS" ;. ,". ill .;,., i...._~~ . r
[',';' f J~i. ~,..., L<.1 Ill':~ '~~ '
~~ '}'...i',:, ,\" IJ ~ ..r\J,; ~~':'
,::~:.~ :~~~~~;,?~'.i~::;> :. ',~ :.. "~ ~~(~~_::~:.,.
~:. . . 1 '''''''.!';.' ~.& ..' .f' ' ""' 'l' ;;t ~ r..
u:;'" ~I~__-'.P .~~t".." ~ If\." -.,.
. . ~ -,foY '. ',' iI "t ":~"',,, ... I;) . ~ .
r "~:~i~l.~#,::;~,J)~:::.'.'..~r~.~t>.; ~~:.~: ~ ~ L~ ~ .it-
1 "-' ~ ';;'.i\ :i~{j ,"" .;t~ ,,~.. r, ...: ~ t'"~
I "1") -~,R. f ,.,~." '~~~iC'. .^\ ' , .. ....'. :.......,...<.;,:;;~-
r ' '>~' ,'fh,,,,Pf . ...
'to Jf' ~:II r f~ 'a.:..ti~ v
~ ~ ,r\t ...". ; r-' ... ~~~'...
I Cl' ~.~~ '~~ '; ~~ r.~_ . ""':~"..';<iI~4.
f1 ~, .:% ~'''~II _~ ....::::. .!.,. .t.. l'!',. '1i';~". ': ',,~,.,
" .. '- . . ....,4. ,""r., r
-- -.' -- . '" . ..,. ..".........'r'~,A.. .
~..t.l, -~ ~ _ ~f ':.fi;~tii'.. '
~-,-~... .:.... .- - ~-.p'. '- .-=-:" <l'~.r ,~~rrr ...~ :. J
ilr=~:;-;~.; ..~:.! ~_ ~
_~ .?' o'
~
OCTOBER 2ND, 2006
c2-.2'6
HSUIHAN PROPERTY, 21"871 DOLORES A VENUE CUPERTINO
,
I
I::'~ ,
.,."". ~ ---'-
I, ') . ~~.
IJ IJ .,
it I I
, . ,-
~~ 00- ,. - "'- t'__J r' f. "
"-r,
1--- ~ .' I 'I
~, IJ .i
" 't . " , I
~;c:. l.,-. ' I. IA"<
f"'c:" III 1~
"'S ..i i;;.,
1
I
-,
/!t~ .\ - -~ __~ ,
lq ..,--~~- '... ' :."' ~~, r .-.....
I,~ --..." ~ - "'>y..:~~i~. '':: .~~.~, :,(, .
f~, " _ '"" -.- _"~'" ~"'~'" ......(.
~., i ....t,,;;~.., ","; ,~ .' .', -'l "
", 1/.. " _~" -~,~ ,.. 'I'~ '. . ~.
'-;-<",~'i~' '~}. "c.'. '. ~.
I I
.'
,
. '/
t . .
- - . ~
; ,~-.t -.... --~~
, ,- .::.~- -.." ,
l!
_I
: ~....)
.,,,~ ...~
~. ~ .,....
i 9. Cypress along neighbor's property line.
PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORIST
"
;1 I.; _
-'""~--....~..
~l~ ~.~;#
I I ,.,
, t.h('
....4'
'- ,
. .
f' ; ~ ~ ~..
;;,
i ~' ,
~t;.<
OCTOBER 2ND, 2006
dl.,.2Q
LEGEND
EXISTrNG
c:::=J
BULDING
MONUMENT
CURB INLET
AREA DRAIN
POLE
SANITARY SEIJER MANHOLE
S TDRM DRAIN MANHOLE
FIRE HYDRANT
\.lATER VALVE
STREET LIGHT
CLEANOUT
BOUNDARY
LOT LINE
CENTERLINE
LlM]T nr [,~SrMrNl
CURB
CURB AND GUTTER
EDGE OF PAVEMENT
CONTOUR
r ENCE
rLOIJ LINE
SANIT ARY SEIJER
STORM DRAIN
ELECTRICAL
GAS
IJA TER
"
o
o
o
@
0:
@
~
o
<(
o
Cl::
z
<(
....J
....J
W
....J
U
U
:::!i
IMPERIAL AVENUE
VICINITY MAP
NO. I BY I DATE
REVISION
PROPOSED
c:=J
.
.
.
.
.
@
Ii::
.
~
-D-SlI-tD-:''::;,;~
SITE
W
:J
Z
~
<(
a:::
<(
N
<(
U
...J
<(
:>
I
:>
I
:>
: I
,:>
: I
I I:>
i i I
:>
]
i
:>
I
:>
t~
:>
I
:>
I
~:>
I ! I
I I:>
1 ,
I ' I
' I
j:>
: I
:1
!I
':>
: I
,:>
, I
;:>
I
~I
:>
I I
I :.
I \
I :.
! I
:.
I
I
I
I
\
I
I
I
\
I
I
I
wi
:::l :'
zl
w~
I
>"
<1:"
I
C/) :.:
. L.l.J!.
~'I'
J;::J :
"''2] I
D..
~I
I
I
I
I
I
. ~:t;.'; ,:.\
:::r):: ';:'~
. 3:1')1 -;~
, ; I
~ JJ:;. ::~
:.
I
:.
I
~':-;: .:.,,',
:.
BY I DATE
DA TE' FBRUARY 2007
SCALE' HOR. 1'=10'
VERT,
DES I GNED, JC
CHECKED, KC
PROJ. ENGR. JC
W"':,!, ,""...
..,.........r.
: .... ~...
! .-:~ ~
I
"':d.C.I..,
.~~-,
;;:,::
inl'N
~ ([)
o m
o ....
::"}.-
.w
o
o
~I
(J)
~I
. :~::::: :.-:.
.;.~
~o
o
," I~
'r
"
[' g, ',";;nmm
BY' KAREL CYMBAL, RCE 34534
DATE'
Owner 8Dd Subdivider: rdO)' Hsu ODd Suejane HaD
2.871 doJorcs Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Tal ~4-S030
&gin=. WC<t&l1 EogiDcen, In<:.
145M3 Big Bal.in Way
SlftlOBJl, CA 95070
reL 861-1124<1
fa< 867-6261
Notes:
SiU: a= 0.46 acn:s
Building acca (cUring)
I!xistiDg use ' residential
Proposed u&e . rec;dential
Hs:isting '7.Oning - R-I-7SOO
Prupoooed '",mng . R.I. 7500
Genc:raJ plan designation. residrntinl
CHEN
104.82'
EX. HOUSE
r.
'. ~
;.,
PARCEL 1
8,375 sq. It.
d.
. .h~. "~
NOO'OO'OO"W.104.62'
..;~"
".J
4
_ _ _ _ "oo.oo.at
19l!.4L-
EX. COTTAGE
.:-i:',8. ~~'
.~~~..:; ~!~
it>
6
CO
!.J
o
o
~
in
CO
z
,.~')
,:<,<'c'f.:ioO'OO:OO"E 198.42'
<,,,-
RADHAKRISHNA
WESTFALL ENGINEERSJ INC.
14583 BIG BASIN IIAY, SARATOGA, CA 95070 (408)867-0244
.;~,-~. 7;~
, :)::. .~, ~ (,
EX, HOUSE
WANG
93.60'
,L' ~ - - - --;
PARCEL 2
, 11,470 sq. It.
(9.374 sq. It net)
EX.con AGE
~:~:
""~
hnn n___ ,'__m ~ ~,~'2.. :.::..:
.~<,(
''c,;'
'~
rm
!
EX. HOUSE
SCALE
TENTATIVE
LANDS DF HSU
EX.SHED
1 H = 1 A'
lIL /.
RECEIVED
FEB 2 2 2007
BY .._.__.._.____"'
~~
.
;:..2 ":.J
:;'-.1
I
II'
I~
!~
t-.
~
0,
II~
'I
II
z
<(
~
<
Z
<(
"
Z
<
a:::
EX. HOUSE
.~...~ '"
PARSAY
"]
I
MAP
AND
JOB NO,
2006-133
SHEET
1
OF 1
21871 DOLORES AVENUE, aJPERTlNO
HAN