The URL can be used to link to this page

Desk Items George Schroeder From: J and JJ_3 [kite@orimp.com] Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2014 3:34 PM To: George Schroeder Subject: proposed residential/office mixed use project on Foothiil (Mr. Schroeder: Please forward this message to the Planning Commission.) ----------------- Re: DP-2014-02, Z-2014-01, ASA-2014-02, TM-2014-01, and TR-2014-08 We live at 22386 Cupertino Road, approximately 700 ft. to the southeast of this project (on the other side of Foothill Blvd.) . As we are beyond the 300 ft. notification radius, we only became aware of this project when our neighbor, David Doyle, mentioned the sign board posted on the property this past week. Though this project has no immediate impact on our property and we certainly have no desire to see the site remain abandoned, we do have concerns about its compatibility with the neighborhood, in particular with respect to the on-site parking plan, and the density, height, and building mass relative to adjacent residential properties. These considerations lead us to believe the proposed project has too many units for the site. We also have some questions about the live/work aspects of the project. 1. Density The project is located in a mixed commercial/multi-family zone within a larger area of predominantly detached single-family homes. The immediately surrounding multi-family residences include many single-story structures resulting in a relative low density. The proposal calls for six "residential lots" (Initial Study, pg. 3), five of which are two fully detached structures. The net lot size is .66 acres, for a density of 9 units per acre (approx. 7 units/acre if gross lot size is used). That is significantly greater than the density of the surrounding detached residences, and likely exceeds the density of the immediately surrounding multi-family structures. It is our belief that a lower density development of perhaps four units would be more in keeping with the neighborhood. If that is economically impractical, five units in a single structure (zero lot line) as opposed to fully detached structures might be an alternative. Such an arrangement would also allow more generous setbacks, particularly on the south and west sides of the property. 2. Building mass and height The conceptual building elevations and heights shown in Figure 4.1-1 portray a bit of artful selective representation. Of the surrounding structures, only buildings D, F and G are shown. Building F is the only immediately adjacent two story building, and both it and buildings D and G, which are single story, are located on a higher grade. (The roof peak level of buildings A and C are indicated, but the buildings themselves are not shown.) 1 Buildings D and F are also set back considerably further from the proposed project than are buildings C and G. Unlike the surrounding structures, the proposed structures use very shallow roof angles. Thus, the buildings' apparent mass is greater than would be the case with, for example, a more steeply raked hip roof of the same total height. The development will likely appear quite massive when viewed from Foothill Blvd., as the proposed buidldings are closer to the roadway than are buildings C, D, and G. We have particular concerns with unit 6. This unit abuts building C, a single story building, with only about 28' between the two structures. Building C would like lose a considerable amount of morning sunshine. The second floor windows of unit 6 would also be located well above the top of the wall separating the properties, leading to privacy concerns. Including fewer units in the project would allow some of these concerns to be mitigated. Using a single structure might also help, as setbacks could be increased. 3. Parking 3-A. Inadequate on-site parking Cupertino generally requires detached single-fmaily residences to have two covered and two uncovered parking spaces on site. This recognizes that garages are frequently used for storing items other than cars, and that many households own more than two cars. The proposed project provides 22 on-site parking locations, 12 of which are in garages. The proposed residences are not small (2200 sq. ft. exclusive of the garage) and not oriented to retired residential living, so it is reasonable to asaume that essentially all will own at least two vehicles and some may own 3 or more vehicles. Similarly, it is likely that at least 6 of the 12 garage spaces will be used for purposes other than housing a vehicle. That leaves 16 on-site parking spaces for 15 non-transient vehicles, leaving a single on-site spoce for guest parking (most likely the single handicapped space) . As a result, the five off-site parking spaces on the south side of Silver Oak are likely to be occupied much of the time. Parking is not permitted along Foothill Blvd., and it would be impractical to to permit it. Parking is permitted on the north side of Silver Oak adjacent to the site, but the presence of three large driveways limits available spaces to just 2. Hence, overflow parking would be pushed further west on Silver Oak, around a tight turn, invading the surrounding multi-family neighborhood; not an ideal arrangement. Reducing the number of units to 5 would allow room for 26 on-site parking spaces, which comes closer to fulfilling likely demand. Reducing to 4 units would make parking a non-issue. 3-B. Location of parking spaces The proposal places on-site uncoverd parking spaces at the southwest corner of the parcel, requiring guests to drive past the residence garages on an adequate but none too wide driveway. We believe it better to locate the guest spaces to the north of the parcel, to minimize traffic past the residences and increase safety for any children playing outside the garage areas. 2 If all 6 units are retained, this would shift unit #6 to the southwest corner of the parcel, which has the added advantage that it would no longer overlook the (single story) home C, and would afford better neighborhood compatibility as building F is a 2-story structure. 4. Other comments: While we find the live/work concept attractive (indeed, we run out software consulting firm out of our home), its goal of reducing commuting is achieved only if the work areas of the proposed project are used by the occupants of the homes. If, for example, the home owner chose to rent out the work area to a third party, little is achieved. We understand that the courts have ruled many restrictions on the ability to rent out homes or rooms within homes to be unenforceable, so there may be little the city can do to prevent such an arrangement. Perhaps staff can provide comments regarding what restrictions, if any, the city can/plans to place on the ability of third parties to use the proposed work spaces. ----------------------------------------- 7an Stoeckenius & 7ulia Tien, P 0 Box 1807, Cupertino, CA 95015-1807 tel: 1 408 996 7467 (office) fax: 1 408 996 2064 email: kite@orimp.com 3 George Schroeder From: Deane Gardner[deane.gardner@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 10:21 PM To: George Schroeder Subject: 10121 Foothill Blvd project Hi George, I live at the corner of Cupertino Rd and Hillcrest Rd, near the proposed project at 10121 Foothill Blvd. Though I would be happy to see the old gas station go, the proposed project seems to be out of character with the adjacent structures and rather foreign to the current appearance of the west side of Foothill Blvd. Also, at certain times of day, there is a fair amount of heavy 18-wheel gravel truck traffic past the proposed project site. Tractor-trailer rigs often proceed three-in-line to the quarry on Stevens Canyon Rd from the 280 freeway and back. It might be worthwhile to check if the reported sound level measurement was made during the heavy truck "rush hour". I know that I would not want to live at the proposed site with the existing quarry traffic, diesel exhaust, and ainount of quarry stone dust that collects into the curbs. Regards, Deane Gardner 22321 Cupertino Rd i George Schroeder Subject: FW: Cupertino: 10121 N. Foothill Blvd From: Paul Brophy [mailto:pauldbrophy@yahoo.com] �� Sent:Thursday, April 17, 2014 2:17 PM To: George Schroeder Subject: Fw: Cupertino: 10121 N. Foothill Blvd On Thursday, April 17, 2014 2:13 PM, William Fisher<�vfisher .alz.orq> wrote: Dear Mr. Brophy, I write to you as a 28 year Cupertino resident and President of the Board of Directors for the Westridge Homeowners Association, a community of 135 townhomes near the corner of Foothill and Steven's Creek. I want to support the proposed development at 10121 Foothill Blvd, the corner of Foothill and Silver Oak. I've seen the corner be used as a gas station, a would-be auto repair shop and recently a vacant eyesore for more than a year now. I understand the City's concerns re: uses that produce tax revenues, but I strongly encourage you to approve this proposal. Simply, it will be good for the neighborhood, good for local property values, and wifl provide much needed housing in our community. I have no business or investment relationship w/this project; I just want to improve our neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration. Bill Fisher 22631 Queesn Oak Court Cupertino, CA 95014 408.255.9988 1 George Schroeder From: Ron Tate [ron@tatedevelopment.com] Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 9:27 AM To: Jeff Ploshay(ploshay@comcast.net) (ploshay@comcast.net) Cc: George Schroeder; book.sun@gmail.com; pauldbrophy@yahoo.com; winnieleedds@yahoo.com; AIan.Takahashi@cobham.com; margiegong@icloud.com Subject: Jeff Ploshay concerns 10121 N. Foothill Blvd and Silver Oak Way Rezoning Application Hearing April 22, 2014 Attachments: 02 Updated Line of Site Study.pdf; 10121 N Foothill Pruning Specifications (3).pdf Dear Jeff I hope you and your family enjoyed your Easter Sunday. Please find attached below the April 20, 2014 arborist report from Richard Gessner - Consulting Arborist from Monarch Consulting Arborists, I commissioned to inspect and analyze our ability to be able to safely prune your trees back that have (encroached over the party wall fencing) onto the 10121 N. Foothill property that is the subject of the proposed rezoning application that will be head by the Cupertino Planning Commission April 22, 2014. Hopefully, this report will put your mind at ease now knowing that your concerns about our inability to be able to safely prune the branches of your trees (that have encroached over the privacy fence onto our property) were unfounded. As you can see from the Monarch Consulting Arborists report attached we can safely prune back your tree branches so as not to damage your trees in making way for our desire to plant year round evergreen (non-deciduous) foliage on our side of the property. We have modified our original landscaping plan at great expense in hope of removing your concerns about our proposed development diminishing the value of your property by screening your view with landscaping from our proposed new homes. We believe the record should clearly demonstrate to all that we have taken your concerns very seriously about your feelings that any line of site of any portion of our proposed new homes would destroy the value of your property as we will be going to great expense if our project is approved to screen your view. Please also see the attached below the "Line Of Site Illustration of the proposed landscaping that hopefully quells any of your concern of the diminishment of some of the value of your property. We are further hopeful that that if our proposed application for rezoning is approved that the removal of the long term neighborhood eyesore (closed former gas station) and replacing it with the 6 new proposed homes might enhance the value of your property rather than diminish it. Jeff can you imagine If every new development was conditioned by every municipalities Planning Commission and City Council so that a neighbor could not see any portion of a new development, there would virtually be no new developments not only in Cupertino but in any other community. Hopefully, you will view us as having the highest degree of good neighbor policies in our working diligently with you to address your concerns with our proposed landscaping screening. Warmest Regards � Ron Tate President Tate Diversified Development, Inc. 22 South Santa Cruz Ave. Second Floor Los Gatos, CA. 95030 (408) 399-4950 ext 1 (office) (408) 499-5302 (cell) (408) 399-4960 (fax) Ron@Tatedevelopment.com 2 1 ' �I,q� I I LWEOFSTUDYSECTIONC � 3I I LWEOFSTUDYSECTIONB I2I � LaI ° I/f= i'.Q' I/�'_ ��P / SIIVER(lAK W/�Y (.`'..`-'C � �� , c�°� z �---, � c_ p��A � �_±�'l�� °' � ��-r -'�-�i uJ `o �,�� B"t' ; .�`�� '�'-' � KEY PLAN �:: \� p -_�__._ -- � �� . .... ._— ._` IIIII��I�fll��y� ��: li f �.: , � r ,.�l I LINE OF STUDY SECTION A � 1� �/�e-- ia tive ��,_, �a+a+.�, b 93 Sina r�+a,[A 9�an5 �:110.5}6.�1)fi !:�Ac(a.FMab�e< ♦'.�n �1101lCiM0 1101� roorwiu eivo ruo ioia�r+F��ma a.n. c�mM�MO.c.vsni. CTmnr'fonlFi�M�In Servit�e A Deloi CM'�rnia c�� lFY �,�� ° _ Qo � L�—� �R '.:s oaii.i�werstosunMnui �':01.��.1�FORMAt1UBMIfiK . ?x�c�sconuor �..re.n.� ensEOSiuor 'os.1.� e�sc siuor ��o�.is.ia i r+csnor sessioN suernm•i SCAI! D�1! ASSHOWN �I9ll� IINE OF SIGHT STUDY 10121 N. Foothill Blvd. -Tree Pruning Specifications April 20,2014 Apri120, 2014 � Ron Tate Tate Diversified Develo ment Inc. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC p � P.o.BoX,rno 22 S. Santa Cruz Avenue Felton,CA 95018 831.331.8982 Los Gatos, CA 95030 Dear Mr. Tate, I inspected the trees located adjacent to 10121 N. Foothill Boulevard with regards to the neighbor's trees encroaching over the privacy wall. There is one deodar cedar(Cedrus deoda��a) on 22576 Silver Oak Way that has a long low lateral limb growing over the wall that would inhibit the proposed privacy plantings near that location. The other two trees growing along the boundary, which are one Canary island pine (Piizus car�ariensis) also located on 22576 Silver Oak Way and another deodar cedar located on 22586 Silver Oak Way. Pruning the lowest lateral branches on all three of these trees as necessary could accomplish appropriate clearance for new planting while not compromising the structure or health of the trees. I am recommending reducing the lowest lateral branches back to the property boundary. Unless the property owner will agree to allowing a contractor to enter the trees and their property to make cuts in appropriate locations beyond the property boundary all pruning should be performed from 10121 N. Foothill Boulevard with an aerial lift trunk. Enclosed are my pruning recommendations and specifications. Please contact me with any questions or concerns. Richard J. Gessner f� �.!i,� �? f, �i�`2%'r'--�- �� f;`"- ;<�___.�_�-t.h%---�-� I f �<'-��.:` � � ASCA- Registered Consulting Arborist RO #496 ISA- Board Certified Master ArboristOO WE-4341B ISA-Tree Risk Assessor Qualified Rick Gessner,A4onarch ConsultingArborists LLC,83i.33i.8q8z,rick@monarcharborist.com ISA Board Certified Master Arborist�WE-4341B/ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist'x #496 wwwmonarcharborist.com 10121 N. Foothill Bivd. -Tree Pruning Specifications April 20, 2014 Tree Pruning Specifications Objective - Provide clearance for new plantings Method (Type)—Raise and/or Reduce Location of cuts - lower 30 feet on the east sides of the trees Density or amount of foliage removed (Quantified percentages) - less than 10 percent Size (Range of branch diameter to be cut) branches between 1 and 5 inches Scope: Prune two deodar cedar and one Canary Island pine tree located on . Pruning shall maintain eighty percent (90%) of existing foliar density. Objective: Provide clearance from 10121 N. Foothill Boulevard to allow for new privacy plantings. Specifications: All pruning shall be completed in accordance with ISA Best Management Practices: Tree Pruning, 2008 andANSI Z-133.1 safety standards. • Raise and/or Reduce lowest branches along the east sides of the trees that will be interfering with the proposed plantings. Pruning is to occur on the lower east sides of the trees and not to exceed 30 feet above grade. Reduce branches in length rather than completely removing them to the parent stem to avoid trespassing onto the neighboring property. Cuts shall be made at appropriate branch attachments that are at least fifty percent (50%) of the diameter of the parent branch where possible. Tree pruning will need to be performed with an aerial lift truck(bucket truck) to avoid encroachment onto the tree owner's property. Climbing the trees is to be avoided unless there is written pernlission from the tree owner. All tree pruning or removals should be perfornled by a qualified arborist with a C-61/D-49 or G27 California Contractors License. Tree pruning or reinoval should be according to ANSI A-300A pruning standards and adhere to ANSI Z133.1 safety standards. Rick Gessner,Monarch ConsultingArborists LLC,83i.33i.8982,rickC�monarcharborist.com ISA Board Certified Master Arborist��X�E-43��B/ASCA Registered Consulting ArboristOO #496 www monarcharborist.com 10121 N. Foothill Blvd. -Tree Pruning Specifications April 20, 2014 Site Sketch Site Sketch 22576 and 22586 Silver Oak��a�� `�. �� #'Z , � #1 �� Trees �� , � � �� 4ft. 3ft. 3ft. Wal( Trench 10121 �ti. Foothilt Baulevard ,�- • '� �' �' � � � � � _N � �, „ � -f„4'_ d 'I � �,�:" " • �� .3,y T . ,. ,� 3 E� .� 6 .. � ' � . . .� p.✓,-.� » �� j�.,sJ;..y��J'' q� �,�, �, �e.('��q�3t/n.7}� faY,z-i� tr��i , ��{ e1� }� x�,w:.sm- `� *„�' ;��'.k� c''� ��t a � �r � , ��"�;� , �° ��.��'c "�' * 't B,�" ��`" a:,y . �� r �f � � � �� x�� _ r -- � k ��!� � � ,�a �� , . . � � �,�, �}�#��"� � � � ,z � " �,a;"w.. �, ?.S"�, rx . . . e. m ° `� �*��.L",„4....� ,.6`��' � � � ,,"�,` �+ , m�,�.. ��3.a� s a � ��° ,��°`� ��' '�. ��a��,,^ . � ��-.a fi�'� a,.,,�ii''�{ �r P � {$ ��f�� ,,. . a3�f. � $� i { .Y i �, �Ta`,'�^�t �a"?�� F ��.r#�!� Y �� u�y ��, �. . b .,y=� � . a"- �, g,r ht .:,g �"�6�� . . �,,..+..�1[. •�L.� 1 �`� $g 0'� ^'t� �� :�.: •A .d A y.f �;d't}�"�i l�` �.��'3"° r°4''�.�' �; �.. F � s � � y}k� � �� ,� ��c r �� * � � '.„,i � � �f 1. �� „ � � <.�� s '`7. ^.-k.c,�"�:: _ry. � '' �^... ��,'� {� �.^�.2 �". . , yt� �'4P' "`,� � 1� » a7's'�tr �# � �a b;' - `�'��'`;.i �i�'��a \�£*� �„ M , . ��' ., x��r ,a�� •�'�._Sy5 . � P��y ,", ,,. , � �`"� •,��' ,�..� �...._�,,,��. ��.`.��.s�._>. a .�rma� Rick Gessner,I��onarch ConsultingArborists LLC,83i.33i.898z,rickCmonarcharborist.com ISA Board Certified Alaster Arborist�WE-43�rB/ASCA Registered Consulting ArboristOO #496 www monarcharborist.com 10121 N. Foothill Blvd. -Tree Pruning Specifications April 20,2014 Qualifications, Assumptions, and Limiting Conditions Any legal description provided to the consultant is assumed to be correct. Any titles or ownership of properties are assumed to be good and marketable. All properiy is appraised or evaluated as though free and clear, under responsible ownership and competent management. All property is presumed to be in conformance with applicable codes, ordinances, statutes, or other regulations. Care has been taken to obtain infonnation from reliable sources. However, the consultant cannot be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others. The consultant shall not be required to give testimony or attend meetings, hearings, conferences, mediations, arbitration, or trials by reason of this report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for such services. This report and any appraisal value expressed herein represent the opinion of the consultant, and the consultant's fee is not contingent upon the reporting of a specified appraisal value, a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event. Sketches, drawings, and photographs in this report are intended for use as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale, and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or surveys. The reproduction of information generated by architects, engineers, or other consultants on any sketches, drawings, or photographs is only for coordination and ease of reference. Inclusion of said infonnation with any drawings or other documents does not constitute a representation as to the sufficiency or accuracy of said information. Unless otherwise expressed: a) this report covers only examined items and their condition at the time of inspection; and b) the inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing, or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that structural problems or deficiencies of plants or property inay not arise in the future. Rick Gessner,1�Zonarch ConsultingArborists LLC,83i.33i.898z,rickCmonarcharborist.com ISA Board Certified Master Arborist�WE-4341B/ASCA Registered Consulting ArboristOO #496 wwwmonarcharborist.com 10121 N. Foothill Blvd. -Tree Pruning Specifications April 20,2014 Certification of Performance I Richard Gessner, Certify: That I have personally inspected the tree(s) and/or the property referred to in this report, and have stated my findings accurately. The extent of the evaluation and/or appraisal is stated in the attached report and Terms of Assignment; That I have no current or prospective interest in the vegetation or the property that is the subject of this report, and I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved; That the analysis, opinions and conclusions stated herein are my own; That my analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed and this report has been prepared according to commonly accepted Arboricultural practices; That no one provided significant professional assistance to the consultant, except as indicated within the report. That my compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined conclusion that favors the cause of the client or any other party, nor upon the results of the assessment, the attainment of stipulated results, ar the occurrence of any other subsequent events; I further certify that I am a Registered Consulting Arborist RO with the American Society of Consulting Arborists, and that I acknowledge, accept and adhere to the ASCA Standards of Professional Practice. I am an Intenlational Society of Arboriculture Board Certified Master ArboristOO and Tree Risk Assessor Qualified. I have been involved with the practice of Arboriculture and the care and study of trees since 1998. Copyright �O Copyright 2014,Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC. Other than specific exception granted for copies made by the client for the express uses stated in this report,no parts of this publication may be reproduced,stored in a retrieval system,or transmitted in any fornl or by any means,electronic,mechanical,recording,or otherwise without the express,written perniission of the author. Rick Gessner,Monarch ConsultingArborists LLC,831•33T.8982,rickC�monarcharborist.com ISA Board Certified Master Arborist�WE-4341B/ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist�#496 www monarcharborist.com George Schroeder From: Gayla Page [gayla-page@att.net] Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 4:32 PM To: book.sun@gmail.com; pauldbrophy@yahoo.com;winnieleedds@yahoo.com; AIan.Takahashi@cobham.com; margiegong@icloud.com Cc: ron@tatedevelopment.com;jeff-I-page@att.net; George Schroeder Subject: Fw: Responses to your Responses to Foothill Blvd Live/Work Development Dear Cupertino Planning Commissioners, Per Ron Tate's request, we are forwarding our conversation regarding the Foothill Blvd/Live Work Development. We are very glad that Tate Development is going forward with this project. They have been very considerate of our concerns and the development looks like a big improvement to the neighborhood. George Schroeder has also been great to work with as well. We wish the best for success with this project Jeff and Gayla Page We wish the best for success with this. Jeff and Gayla Page ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Ron Tate <ron@tatedevelopment.com> To: Gayla Page <gayla-page@att.net> Sent:Wednesday, April 16, 2014 2:44 PM Subject: RE: Responses to your Responses to Foothill Blvd Live/Work Development Gayla Thanlc you for your kind words. I would appreciate you passing them on to the planning commissioners Ron Tate President Tate Diversified Developinent,Inc. 22 South Santa Cruz Ave. Second Floor Los Gatos, CA. 95030 (408)399-4950 ext 1 (office) (408)499-5302(cell) (408)399-4960(fax) Ron�uTatedevelopment.com From: Gayla Page [mailto:gayla-page@att.net] Sent: Wednesday,April 16,2014 12:26 PM To: Ron Tate Cc: George Schroeder;Jesus Fernandez(jfernandez@modative.com); Christian D.Navar" (cnavar@modative.com); miriam@rainvilledesign.com; lance@urbanwest.com;jeff-l-page@att.net Subject: Re:Responses to your Responses to Footlull Blvd Live/Work Development 1 Hello Ron and Company and George, Appreciate all the answers to our questions in all the subsequent messages. Everything sounds great! Appreciate Miriam correcting the name of the Acer r. 'October Glory'. We have one of those in the backyard at another property we own in Sunnyvale. It is doing very well. We also have another Acer r. on that property called ' Red Sunset'. It is also doing very well. The City of Sunnyvale planted the Red Sunset for us in the park strip area. The Red Sunset seems to have a more graceful form and gets its leaves earlier than the October Glory. The Red Sunset already has all its leaves and the October Glory is barely showing its leaf buds. We have attached current pictures of both just so you can see how they do in this climate. Best regards, Jeff and Gayla Page From: Ron Tate<ron(a�tatedevelopment.com> To: "Gayla Page(gayla-paee(a�att.net)"<�avla-paee(a�att.net> Cc: George Schroeder<Geor eS ,cupertino.or�>; "Jesus Fernandez(ifernandez(d;modative.com)" <jfernandez��modative.com>; "Christian D.Navar" (cnavar@modative.com)" <cnavar(ci�modative.com>; "miriam(a�rainvilledesign.com" <miriam(�a,rainvilledesien.com>; "lance(cr�,urbanwest.com" <lance a,,urbanwest.com> Sent: Tuesday,April 15,2014 1:26 AM Subject: Responses to your Responses to Foothill Blvd Live/Work Development Dear Gavla Please see beloFV in RED the respaiises fi�on� ��irian� our landsca�e areliitect. Again thank yau far 3�our i�itex•est in our propased rede��eloPment of the claseci fo�•�ner gas station Hi Ron, Lance, Christian, Mariam, and George, Thank you both Ron and Mariain for your responses to our questions and concerns. I did include George in iny original message as well. Appreciate you including the landscape plans. Just to clarify, our property borders the sound wall to the left side of your development and according to your plans you are going to plant California Bay Laurels on that side. This looks great with them being at around 15 feet tall. We notice that your plans call for soine Liquid Amber trees to be installed. We would recommend that you change thein to Red Leaf Maples (October Sky). These are just as pretty without the liability that Liquid Amber trees cause due to the spiked fruit that they produce. The City of Sunnyvale, one of our bordering cities, has a major program to remove Liquid Amber trees due to their liability and disease issues. I have included the linlc to their site. http://sunnyvale.ca.�ov/Departments/PublicWorks/StreetTrees/LiquidambarRemovalProgram.aspx The Acer Rubrum 'Octobei•Glory' is a great option. We ��ill definitely consider this. Tllaiik you for the suggestion. In regards to the new street lights. If at all possible, could the city put some kind of coating on the back side of the street lights so that they don't shine into homes at night? We know firsthand how aiuloying the street lights can be at night when they are shining right into your windows. T11e above and belo«� concei-�ZS may be more for George Schroeder as ��-e do not l�ave an}J control over these concerns. We are not sure where exactly these pedestrian lights that are mentioned in the plans are going in on Foothill? We hope that you aren't considei-ing keeping that cross walk in the middle of the road as that has already caused z one death. Having a speed limit of 40 miles an hour and expecting cars and semi-trucks to stop on a dime in front of a cross-walk is still a bad idea. We were hoping that you would remove the bus stop and crosswalk. There is already one if front of the gas station just a stroll down on the corner of Steven Creek &Foothill for the same bus route. Nowhere else on Foothill Blvd/Expressway is there a crosswalk in the middle of a road. They are all on corners with stoplights. Thank you for your consideration and look forward to hearing back from you. Best regards, Jeff and Gayla Page �'lease let ine l:no�� if��ou have aEiy fu�•tE�e1• concerns Ron Tate President Tate Diversified Development,Inc. 22 South Santa Cruz Ave. Second Floor Los Gatos,CA. 95030 (408)399-4950 ext 1 (office) (408)499-5302(cell) (408)399-4960(fax) Ron(�a,Tatedevelopment.com From: Gayla Page [mailto:�a�page(c�att.net] Sent: Monday,April 14,2014 2:41 PM To: Ron Tate; lance(�a,urbanwest.com; cnavar(�a,modative.com;george Schroeder;mailto:miriain�rainvilledesian.com Cc:jeff-l-pa�(a)att.net Subject: Responses to your Responses to Foothill Blvd LivelWork Development Hi Ron, Lance, Christian, Mariam, and George, Thank you both Ron and Mariam for your responses to our questions and concerns. I did include George in my original inessage as well. Appreciate you including the landscape plans. Just to clarify, our property borders the sound wall to the left side of your developinent and according to your plans you are going to plant California Bay Laurels on that side. This looks great with them being at around 15 feet tall. We notice that your plans call for some Liquid Amber trees to be installed. We would recommend that you change them to Red Leaf Maples (October Sky). These are just as pretty without the liability that Liquid Amber trees cause due to the spiked fruit that they produce. The City of Sunnyvale, one of our bordering cities, has a major program to reinove Liquid Ainber trees due to their liability and disease issues. I have included the linlc to their site. http://sutulyvale.ca.�ov/Departments/PublicWorks/StreetTrees/LiquidambarRemovalProgram aspx In regards to the new street lights. If at all possible, could the city put some kind of coating on the back side of the street lights so that they don't shine into hoines at ni�;ht? We know firsthand how annoying the street lights can be at night when they are shining right into your windows. This last concern inay be inore for George Schroeder: We are not sure where exactly these pedestrian lights that are inentioned in the plans are going in on Foothill? We hope that you aren't considering keeping that cross ��alk in the middle of the road as that has already caused one death. Having a speed liinit of 40 miles an hour and expecting cars and semi-trucks to stop on a diine in front of a cross-walk is still a bad idea. We were hoping that you would remove the bus stop and crosswalk. 3 There is already one if front of the gas station just a stroll down on the corner of Steven Creek & Foothill for the same bus route. Nowhere else on Foothill Blvd/Expressway is there a crosswalk in the middle of a road. They are all on corners with stoplights. Tllank you for your consideration and look forward to hearing back from you. Best regards, Jeff and Gayla Page 4