Loading...
Desk Items 09-26-2017:D)esi -tems DD 0 i - a n n Comm 0 55 0 on e e � I : �. 1 ll �'C) L To: Cupertino Planning Commission From: H. W. Woodward and neighbors Re: Application leo. U-2017-06 I Page 1 of 2 6 011A (4o8) 252-6199 XDN #326®20®048 We, the residents living adjacent to the Starbucks, are opposed to their request to begin operation at 5.o0AM. There is not now, nor has there ever been a business in this area that has begun operation before 7:OOAM. Even the workmen, constructing the building, are not allowed to start before 7:OOAM. At 5:OOAM everything is silent. There is but an occasional vehicle passing by on Stevens Creek. The residents are asleep. Because of the stillness, sounds carry. A car door, an inadvertant car alarm, even voices sound much closer than they actually are. The employees will be arriving even earlier than the proposed S:OOAM. A city is not a giant strip -mall for the benefit of commerce, but a place where people live. Three of the families most impacted have lived here for more than sixty years each. We suggest that an opening of 7:OOAM is more consistant to the character of our neighborhood and that the applicants request for exception be denied® Thankyou for your consideration. Page 2 of 2 We support the petition to deny Starbucks application to open for business at 5:OOAM. 2 aUa,'LzkV\a,v 2 Ave. � 'wo I c4cM4- 'lot) a A J, \v, tA C���uf Q - 10 C6 AJV1 C&IO YuP, f00 16'101 60(-rio-n 7 AV2 CA/pe 712�4fi® Tim 10toAAr Yu farive ve- Cqerri l fto 8 MY /-/C n 9 a ve 10 6) I ./i dr -L 14 1 H j LA 6 A 4Y'Amc;,A/-e- 12 A2 e, f3 LeRYD (00 Aj�IGt�� o 15 16 Ov 44, 17 v U- AV.(( 1 8 LZ2 Al" C" Beth Ebben From: John James <johnejames@mac.com> Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 9:51 PM f�G To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Gian Martire Cc: John James; Arzeno Sara Subject: Fwd: Strong Opposition to the development of a 9000 square foot home on Lindy Lane, pis confirm receipt Begin forwarded message: From: John James <johnejames[cD-mac.com> Subject: Fwd: Strong Opposition to the development of a 9000 square foot home on Lindy Lane, pis confirm receipt Date: September 22, 2017 at 8:58:47 PM PDT To: srzeno(@-gmail.com Cc: John James <iohneiames -mac.com> Sara, Do you have contact information for our Cupertino Govt. members? John James Dear Neighbors, The hearing for the 9000 sq ft home is Tues Sept 26. Would any of you be willing to send a letter of opposition or even use parts of the one we sent - just to make your voices heard? I know we've been through this before and we are all weary, but even an email letter would help. Sending love and blessings to you all! Begin forwarded message: : "City of Cupertino Planning Dept." <planninggcupertino.or-g>, Gian Martire <GianI\4gcupertino.org> Subject: Strong Opposition to the development of a 9000 square foot home on Lindy Lane, pls confirm receipt rJease don't approve this awful HUGE home on Lindy Lane I lost my llndy lane home in 1983-84 in a mud slide 21852 Lindy Lane s Dear Cupertino Planning Department and Gian, 1 Thank you for the opportunity to express our strong opposition to the proposed building of a 9000 sq ft home on Lindy Lane and to share our thoughts from current residents' point of view on what this proposal means to our lives and our neighborhood. Lindy Lane history includes at least one catastrophic hillside at 21852 subsequent to construction of pool on the hill. Additionally our neighborhood roads and hillsides experience chronic flooding every year when the rains come. Building yet another excessively large home on a hillside will only exacerbate this danger. Zoning/building laws for hillsides/slopes have been designed and enacted precisely to avoid future damage and destruction to the hillside communities. There is no justification to provide exceptions that would endanger the hillside residents and their homes, especially in an area with a demonstrated precedent for devastating slides. Why would someone purchase property with the expectation of bypassing zoning requirements via exceptions? We, the long-time residents of Lindy Lane would for once like to see some support form the City on our behalf - we are the community members that have made Cupertino what it is, supported our schools and raised our children here with respect for our neighbors, the community and the environment. We would like to encourage city council members and planning department members to "walk a mile in our shoes" and to represent our interests fairly in what has become a very pro -development city atmosphere. Shouldn't preservation of the fundamental character and environmental safety of a long- time community be implicit in any planning process? We imagine city engineers will be examining the destructive environmental impact of this building proposal and city planners will be evaluating the potential risks and, in the event of future negative environmental issues, the City will be held responsible. Living in a hillside community requires respect for the environmentally sensitive geography and for the community and its residents. It is hard to imagine that the desire of one person to build an unreasonably and excessively large home on a small piece of hillside property could possibly trump the safety and preservation of an entire community of long-time residents. The Cupertino city mission statement includes the following phrase "Trust leads to community engagement." Unfortunately the trust of our neighborhood in our city officials and processes has been severely eroded time and time again during the past years as we have witnessed pocket zoning, subdivisions and rezoning petitions (increasing allowance of 3000 sq ft homes to 9000 sq ft homes!) approved by the City in our neighborhood, an area that we were all originally told could never be developed due to the hillside zoning ordinances. The "YES" (Youth, Environment, Seniors) slogan of our current mayor suggests that she is an advocate of responsible environmental growth; certainly approving the plans for building a 9000 sq ft home on a small hillside lot is in direct opposition to responsible environmental growth. 2 The proposed square footage is excessive and far beyond that of current homes - and we understand plans were based on flat lot not hillside. We propose decreasing house size and re- examining plans to comply with hillside building conventions. We understand current plans also include parking for six cars which suggests this will be a multi- family dwelling. What arrangements will City and owner make to ensure that Lindy Lane will not become the base camp and operational staging ground for what may be several years of upheaval, noise and congestion on a narrow, curvy street with no sidewalks? Lindy Lane has a history of drainage and flooding problems during storms, how have the owners and planning department incorporated contingency plans for this? Below are questions that were raised at the ERC meeting. We are grateful to the City Planning department for taking the concerns of the older long-time residents of this neighborhood. Questions for the ERC: How many trees (total number) and what species will the developer cut down on this property? How many heritage oaks currently exist on the property? Has the environmental committee ensured no endangered wildlife will be affected? Will nesting birds be disturbed? Has the environmental committee evaluated the affects of increased traffic and exhaust on the delicate hillside environment? Has the environmental committee/planning department required appropriate plans to accommodate increased parking requirements on the new owner's property vs spillover on Lindy Lane which is a curving narrow road with no sidewalks and limited lighting? Has the environmental committee fully evaluated the impact of heavy machinery, excessive noise, use of building chemicals and materials on the environment, wildlife and health of current residents? What steps has the ERC recommended to minimize these effects? Has the committee proposed a timeline - how long will the entire neighborhood be held hostage to the destructive and invasive process of building? What has the committee done to ensure that the building process will be contained at the building site so the neighborhood does not suffer the consequences of unbridled construction noise, disruption, road blockages, illegal parking and abandonment of trailers, heavy machinery, trucks etc? Will the code enforcement folks work with the neighborhood to ensure our rights are being upheld and enforced? Has the City Attorney weighed in on these plans and recommendations? Once again, we appreciate the opportunity to voice our concerns and opposition and we look forward to receiving detailed answers to our above questions. Kindly confirm of receipt of this message. Respectfully, Arzeno family 21902 lindy lane Cupertino, CA Total Control Panel To: planning_a,cupertino.org From: johnejames@mac.com Message Score: 20 My Spam Blocking Level: High Block this sender Block mac.com This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. High (60): 1'ass Medium (75): f'ass Low (90): Pass Login Beth Ebben From: s.arzeno@gmail.com Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 1:56 PM To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Gian Martire Subject: Strong Opposition to the development of a 9000 square foot home on Lindy Lane, pls confirm receipt (PIs excuse typos courtesy of Whone) Dear Cupertino Planning Department and Gian, Thank you for the opportunity to express our strong opposition to the proposed building of a 9000 sq ft home on Lindy Lane and to share our thoughts from current residents' point of view on what this proposal means to our lives and our neighborhood. Lindy Lane history includes at least one catastrophic hillside at 21852 subsequent to construction of pool on the hill. Additionally our neighborhood roads and hillsides experience chronic flooding every year when the rains come. Building yet another excessively large home on a hillside will only exacerbate this danger. Zoning/building laws for hillsides/slopes have been designed and enacted precisely to avoid future damage and destruction to the hillside communities. There is no justification to provide exceptions that would endanger the hillside residents and their homes, especially in an area with a demonstrated precedent for devastating slides. Why would someone purchase property with the expectation of bypassing zoning requirements via exceptions? We, the long-time residents of Lindy Lane would for once like to see some support form the City on our behalf - we are the community members that have made Cupertino what it is, supported our schools and raised our children here with respect for our neighbors, the community and the environment. We would like to encourage city council members and planning department members to "walk a mile in our shoes" and to represent our interests fairly in what has become a very pro -development city atmosphere. Shouldn't preservation of the fundamental character and environmental safety of a long-time community be implicit in any planning process? We imagine city engineers will be examining the destructive environmental impact of this building proposal and city planners will be evaluating the potential risks and, in the event of future negative environmental issues, the City will be held responsible. Living in a hillside community requires respect for the environmentally sensitive geography and for the community and its residents. It is hard to imagine that the desire of one person to build an unreasonably and excessively large home on a small piece of hillside property could possibly trump the safety and preservation of an entire community of long-time residents. The Cupertino city mission statement includes the following phrase "Trust leads to community engagement." Unfortunately the trust of our neighborhood in our city officials and processes has been severely eroded time and time again during the past years as we have witnessed pocket zoning, subdivisions and rezoning petitions (increasing allowance of 3000 sq ft homes to 9000 sq ft homes!) approved by the City in our neighborhood, an area that we were all originally told could never be developed due to the hillside zoning ordinances. The "YES" (Youth, Environment, Seniors) slogan of our current mayor suggests that she is an advocate of responsible environmental growth; certainly approving the plans for building a 9000 sq ft home on a small hillside lot is in direct opposition to responsible environmental growth. The proposed square footage is excessive and far beyond that of current homes - and we understand plans were based on flat lot not hillside. We propose decreasing house size and re-examining plans to comply with hillside building conventions. We understand current plans also include parking for six cars which suggests this will be a multi- family dwelling. What arrangements will City and owner make to ensure that Lindy Lane will not become the base camp and operational staging ground for what may be several years of upheaval, noise and congestion on a narrow, curvy street with no sidewalks? Lindy Lane has a history of drainage and flooding problems during storms, how have the owners and planning department incorporated contingency plans for this? Below are questions that were raised at the ERC meeting. We are grateful to the City Planning department for taking the concerns of the older long-time residents of this neighborhood. Questions for the ERC: How many trees (total number) and what species will the developer cut down on this property? How many heritage oaks currently exist on the property? Has the environmental committee ensured no endangered wildlife will be affected? Will nesting birds be disturbed? Has the environmental committee evaluated the affects of increased traffic and exhaust on the delicate hillside environment? Has the environmental committee/planning department required appropriate plans to accommodate increased parking requirements on the new owner's property vs spillover on Lindy Lane which is a curving narrow road with no sidewalks and limited lighting? Has the environmental committee fully evaluated the impact of heavy machinery, excessive noise, use of building chemicals and materials on the environment, wildlife and health of current residents? What steps has the ERC recommended to minimize these effects? Has the committee proposed a timeline - how long will the entire neighborhood be held hostage to the destructive and invasive process of building? What has the committee done to ensure that the building process will be contained at the building site so the neighborhood does not suffer the consequences of unbridled construction noise, disruption, road blockages, illegal parking and abandonment of trailers, heavy machinery, trucks etc? Will the code enforcement folks work with the neighborhood to ensure our rights are being upheld and enforced? Has the City Attorney weighed in on these plans and recommendations? Once again, we appreciate the opportunity to voice our concerns and opposition and we look forward to receiving detailed answers to our above questions. Kindly confirm of receipt of this message. Respectfully, Arzeno family 21902 lindy lane Cupertino, CA Total Control Panel To: planning c ,cupertino.or From: s.arzeno@gmail.com Message Score: 20 My Spam Blocking Level: High Block this sender Block gmail.com This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. 3 High (60): Pass Medium (75): 'ass Low (90): lass Login Beth Ebben From: Mark Smith <mark625s@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2017 2:02 PM To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Gian Martire Cc: Sara Arzeno Subject: Opposition to Proposed Development on Lindy Lane Attachments: VIDEO0013 (1).mp4 Dear Cupertino City Planning Commission We are writing to voice our opposition to the proposed nearly 10,000 sq ft house being built on Lindy Lane. We've lived on Lindy Lane for about seven years. It was around the time we moved in that Dr. Sun was asking neighbors to support his plan to subdivide his property. As it was explained to us, the plan was just a formality, to ensure that in the distant future his children would have the option to build a house of their own there. We were unaware that the situation had changed until we received the letter in the mail from the Planning Commission. We feel that such a large and overbearing house will not fit in with the character of the other homes in the neighborhood. But more importantly we question how granting exceptions to the hillsize zoning rules will affect the stability of the hillside and the drainage. We understand that our neighbors' house (at 21852 Lindy) was destroyed by a landslide in the 1980's. We have had constant and ongoing problems with water, mud and rock flowing down from the hill and being deposited in front of our house. Storm drains were installed, but there is still a lot of runoff. I'll attach a video. Certainly cutting down all the trees will only exacerbate the problem. We ask that the Planning Commission refuse to allow such a monster house to be built with such an impact on our street. Sincerely, Mark Smith/ Jennifer Chen 21862 Lindy Lane Total Control Panel Loein Beth Ebben 11n From: ctaysi@comcast.net Sent: Monday, September 25, 2017 8:41 AM To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Gian Martire Subject: Objection to the permit for the house on North side of Lindy Lane To Cupertino City Planning Commission We lived on Lindy Lane for over 40 years and witnessed the arbitrary changes on the hillside destroying the initial landscaping and beauty. Now we are witnessing an attempt for construction of a house with close to 10,000 sq ft. area. This monster house in question will really change the landscape of the Lindy Lane hill and will look out of place. Few years ago Lindy Lane residents met at the City Hall with the previous City Managers. At the time Mr. Sun who owned the property applied and was granted to subdivide his property so that in the future he may build a small house for his children on the flat part of the lot preserving the hill. Mr. Sun's petition was approved by the City and accepted by Lindy lane residents with clear understanding that the hill which is part of the lot will be protected. We now understand the property was sold recently and the new owners want to build a monster house, for sure destroying the hill in violation of the slope requirement. What we do not understand is how and why the City Managers are changing the rules for the hills every times a developer pressures them. This monster house does not belong on that property. It will require a major concrete retaining wall to be built turning the hill upside down. In addition if approved this construction is going to cause enormous noise, traffic, congestion on our quiet street for a long time where so many long time older residents live. There is absolutely no reasonable explanation to this. The City had issued allowing even a smaller house on this lot only about ten years ago and then now succumb to pressure and allows a monster home be built on the lot in question.. We urge the City Managers to refuse to give a permit for this house and only allow construction of a house with a reasonable floor size so that we save the hill and have a house in our neighborhood compatible with the rest of the neighborhood homes. We urge you not allow the oak trees be cut down. Sincerely, Candan and Uner Taysi 21952 Lindy Lane Total Control panel To: planning_ncupertino.or From: ctaysi@comcast.net Message Score: 1 My Spam Blocking Level: High Block this sender 1 High (60):.Pass Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Login Beth Ebben From: Julia Arzeno <jarzeno@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2017 6:21 PM To: Gian Martire; City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Subject: Objection to Lindy Lane Single Family Home 456-25-032 Good Afternoon, I am writing to express my objection to the proposed construction on Lindy Lane. The housing development violates the hillside zoning rules that have been in place for years and violates previous agreements on the allowed square footage. Multiple constructions on Lindy Lane have already changed the neighborhood. When my family moved into our home nearly 20 years ago we were promised that the land across from our house could never be developed because of the hillside zoning and the presence of live oaks. The construction we have already experienced with other homes causes noise pollution and disrupts the neighborhood for years. In a city like Cupertino that supposedly protects the environment, development projects like this should be denied. The proposed construction violates the rights of many of the current residents of Lindy Lane and will only benefit the owner of the property. I ask the city of Cupertino to stand by its long time residents and the promises that were previously made to them, instead of allowing one person to benefit and disrupting the lives and neighborhood and many others. Thank you, Julia Arzeno Total Control Panel To: planning(a_cupertino.ora From: jarzeno@gmail.com Message Score: 10 My Spam Blocking Level: High Block this sender Block gmail.com This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. High (60): Pass Medium (75): I'ass Low (90): Pass Lo in Beth Ebben From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: To the planning commission, Humberto <harzeno@comcast.net> Sunday, September 24, 2017 12:24 PM City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Lindy Ln project imageljpeg; ATT00001.txt I I am writing to you about the construction of a monster home on Lindy Ln. Cupertino citizens voted for rational development and against monster projects. Against common sense, this Cupertino hill is already over built. The construction of an over 9000 sq ft home in a larger than 30% slop violates the city regulations and the attempts to obtain waivers to the restrictions goes against common sense, regulations and rational development. I am hoping to obtain your support to stop this development and keep Cupertino great Sincerely, Humberto Arzeno 21902 Lindy Cupertino Total Vontrol Panel To: planning@cupertino.org Message Score: 1 From: harzeno@comcast.net My Spam Blocking Level: High Block this sender Block comcast.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. 1 High (60): Pass Medium (75): Pas-.; Low (90): Puss Login Beth Ebben From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Mark Smith <mark625s@gmail.com> Saturday, September 23, 2017 3:26 PM John James City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Gian Martire; Arzeno Sara Re: Strong Opposition to the development of a 9000 square foot home on Lindy Lane, pls confirm receipt So what can we do to stop them? Mark and Jennifer (21862) On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 9:50 PM, John James <johne-amesgmac.com> wrote: Begin forwarded message: From: John James <iohneiames _mac.com> Subject: Fwd: Strong Opposition to the development of a 9000 square foot home on Lindy Lane, pis confirm receipt Date: September 22, 2017 at 8:58:47 PM PDT To: srzeno(D-gmail.com Cc: John James <johnemames(a)-mac.com> Sara, Do you have contact information for our Cupertino Govt. members? John James Dear N hbors, The hearin or the 9000 sq ft home is Tues Sept 26. Would any o u be willing to send a letter of oppositio r even use parts of the one we sent - just to make your voices hear I know we've been t ugh this before and we ar weary, but even an email letter would help. Sending love and blessin to you all! Begin forwarded message: "City of Cupertino Planning pt." <13 in cu ertino.or >, Gian Martire <GianMgcupertino.org> Subject: Strong position to the lopment of a 9000 square foot home on Lindy Lane, pls confirm r eipt Pie don't approve this awful E home on Lindy Lane -home in • #- - Beth Ebben From: susan moore <suemmo@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2017 4:20 PM To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Gian Martire Subject: Please do not allow Hillside Exemption for 9,000 sq ft - 21987 Lindy Lane Dear Members and Staff of the Cupertino Planning Commission, I am writing to express my objection to the building of yet another huge home on Lindy Lane. I thought the reasons for placing sensible restrictions on hillside development were to ensure the safety and stabilization of our foothills and promote the habitats of our native flora and fauna. If exceptions are always made to zoning, then what is the point of having those restrictions. Our curvy, narrow, sidewalk -less street is really no match for months and months of construction to put in massive retaining walls. Thank you for listening. Sincerely, Susan Moore Lindy lane Sent from my iPad Total Control :Panel To: planning(lccupertino.or From: suemmo@comcast.net Message Score: 1 My Spam Blocking Level: High Block this sender Block comcast.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. 1 High (60): Pass Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Lop -in Beth Ebben All q/0, /, From: Jonathan Arzeno <jonatharz@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2017 5:11 PM To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Gian Martire Subject: Opposition to the Proposed Development on 21987 Lindy Lane Attachments: opposition_Itr.pdf Hello, Enclosed is a letter expressing my strong opposition to the proposed development on 21987 Lindy Lane. I urge the Cupertino Planning commission to take the time to read my letter, as I firmly believe it demonstrates that the proposed development directly violates the rules, regulations, and morals that Cupertino's elected officials have sworn to uphold. Please act in the best interest of lifelong Cupertino residents such as myself and my neighbors, rather than in the interest of an elite minority. Sincerely, Jonathan Arzeno Total Vontrol Panel To: planning(a-,cupertino.org From: jonatharz@gmail.com Message Score: 1 My Spam Blocking Level: High Block this sender Block gmail.com This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. 1 High (60): flass Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Login To Whom It May Concern: My name is Jonathan Arzeno and I am a lifelong resident of Cupertino, CA. I was born in 1994, and have lived my entire life as an active member of the community. Throughout middle school and high school, I spent my summers volunteering at City Hall in the Emergency Services Department and working as a Lifeguard for the City of Cupertino. I was an active member of Rolling Hills 4-H throughout my youth, where I served as a Junior Leader and taught beekeeping fundamentals to younger students at McLellan Ranch park, and in my free time I enjoy hiking through Open Space. I am deeply passionate about Cupertino and the natural beauty that our city possesses, and I am writing this letter to express my vehement opposition to the proposed development on 21987 Lindy Lane. The purpose of the meeting on Thursday, July 201h is to discuss the environmental impact of a development on 21987 Lindy Lane, and the City Commissioners cannot in good faith assert that this development will not have a significant and negative impact on the environment. I have grown up across the street, and every single day I observe deer that actually live on that property, countless native birds, rabbits, as well as > 15 protected California Oak trees. Have the City Commissioners, in their report, accounted for the impact that this development will have on the native deer that actually reside on that property? Furthermore, and closest to my heart, what about the large number of beautiful and irreplaceable native oak trees that have been growing on that property for decades, if not longer? Below, I will introduce several excerpts from the City of Cupertino Municipal code that I will use as evidence for my arguments against the proposed development on 21987 Lindy Lane. Section 14.18.010 of the Cupertino Municipal code states the following: "the City of Cupertino recognizes the substantial economic, environmental and aesthetic importance of its tree population. Protected trees are considered a valuable asset to the community. The protection of such trees in all zoning districts is intended to preserve this valuable asset. The City finds that the preservation of protected trees, and the protection of all trees during construction, is necessary for the best interests of the City and of the citizens and public thereof, in order to: A. Protect property values; B. Assure the continuance of quality development; C. Protect aesthetic and scenic beauty; D. Assist in the absorption of rainwaters, thereby preventing erosion of topsoil, protecting against flood hazards and the risk of landslides; E. Counteract air pollutants by protecting the known capacity of trees to produce pure oxygen from carbon dioxide; F. Maintain the climatic balance (e.g., provide shade); G. Help decrease potential damage from wind velocities;" I would like to specifically highlight the excerpt from this section that states, "The City finds that the preservation of protected trees, and the protection of all trees during construction, is necessary for the best interests of the City and of the citizens and public thereof. " Please note the use of the word ALL in this statement, If construction is to occur on this property, I fully expect the City of Cupertino to adhere to its own standards and ensure that ALL trees on this property are protected, in order to follow its promise and commitment that the City itself states is in the best interest of the citizens and the public of Cupertino. Section 14.18.030 of the Cupertino Municipal code states the following: "It is unlawful to deliberately act in a manner that shall cause any protected tree to be irreversibly damaged or to die. " Again, the City continues to express its commitment to safeguarding protected trees, and I expect the City to uphold this commitment in considering this proposal for development. I would also like to introduce further evidence into this letter that supports my opposition to this development. • In the Exhibit 1 [see schedule of exhibits], taken from Frank Sun's application No. TM — 2005-05, which was what ultimately allowed this lot to be subdivided in the first place, you can clearly see that one of the main assertions upon which the entire proposal passed was that "The applicant has no intention to build on the newly created lots over the short term" Will you hold Mr. Sun accountable for his promise to the community? A promise that ultimately serves as the basis for this subdivision that the Planning Commission approved, or will you allow him to go back on his word and develop this land? In Exhibit 2 [see schedule of exhibits], taken from Frank Sun's application No. TM — 2005-05, the City of Cupertino Commissioners limit the building size to 3,200 and 3,660 square feet on the two lots respectively. This promise, again, one of the fundamentals upon which this proposal was passed, already serves as an example of a broken promise to the community. The fact that the City of Cupertino has gone back on its word and is now considering allowing a development close to three times the size of the original restriction that the planning commission promised to hold is dishonest and shameful. • In Exhibit 2 [see schedule of exhibits], taken from Frank Sun's application No. TM — 2005-05„ the Planning Commission requires a covenant on the property, as well as a tree bond prior to a building permit approval. I am formally requesting to see the covenant as well as the tree bond at this point in time. In Exhibit 3 [see schedule of exhibits], I have included an excerpt from Appendix F of the City of Cupertino Slope Density Report. A direct quote from this report states that, "The slope -density formulas do not represent by themselves a complete safe- guard against development detrimental to the environment; but, together with other conservation measures, they are considered a valuable planning device. " In this Appendix, the city itself addresses the large and negative impact that the development of sloped areas will have on the environment. I am formally requesting that the City of Cupertino provide me with an in-depth report on the slope of the property of 21897 Lindy Lane, as well as the environmental impact that developing a property on this slope will have, in accordance with Appendix F of the Cupertino Slope Density Report as quoted in Exhibit 3. If it were not for the fact that I work full time and cannot take time off this Thursday, I would definitely be in -attendance to express my opposition in person. Due to the fact that this meeting is scheduled during a working day, I request that you grant me my right as a member of this community to let my opinion be heard, and share my sentiments with the attendees of the meeting. I am a lifelong resident Cupertino, an active community member, and someone who deeply cares about what is in the best interest for our City. As demonstrated by my arguments and provided evidence in this letter, a development at 21987 Lindy Lane is not only misaligned with the mission statement of the City of Cupertino, but directly opposed to the City Municipal code as well as the Cupertino Slope Density Report. On the basis of this, I urge the City commissioners to reject the proposal for development at 21987 Lindy Lane. SCHEDULE OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT 1: Nre 2_ � ... .......... T%s project was originally scheduled to be heard on October 11, 2005, but was subseq:uently postponed hvice by the applicant to the November $kh hearing date. During the postponements, the applicant contacted neighbors about his project and he submitted a petition of support frorn numerous neighbors. Other neighbors contacted staff and individual Planning Commissioners is es -nail to express their opposition and concerns with the project and the ongoing construction along Indy Vie. The petition and ernails are attached to the Planning Cornmisslan staff r"rt. At the public hearing, the following cornments, concerns and issues, were raised: ftficant Comm, ents The -subdivision is consistent with the general plan. and zoning cvf the area. • The project has already been reduced in scope from four lots to three tots and is less dense than two previously approved Lindy Lane subdivisions: Mc*de.y and Knopp, where 20,000 square foot lots were approved. A geologist has studied the site and his evaluation has been reviewed by the City Geologist who has determined that the 3 -lot subdivision isgeotecluically 0 The land is being. subdivided to preserve its economic value; applicant has no intention to build on. the newly created lots over the short term. * As many trees as possible will be preserved. when development is proposed. New trees will be planted to screen the residences. The driveway on. Lot #1 will bedesigned to save the large trees and Tninimize the visual impact. EXHIBIT 2: Planning Commission Comnxnfs A majority of the Commissioners approved the tentative map with three lots, adding numerous conditions of approval to mitigate potential concerns and impacts. • A restriction was added to the Commission approval limiting the building area on Lot #1 to no more than 3,200 square feet. Per the R-1 ordinance, the potential maximum was 3,660 square feet. • A restriction was added to the Commission approval that prohibits further subdivision of the property beyond the three lots. • A restriction was added to the Comn-iission approval modifying the slope easement condition allowing a house on Lot #1 and a yet -to -be -located W A restriction was added to the Commission approval requiring a covenant on the property, notifying the property owner(s) of all. protected specimen trees.. * A restriction was added to the Commission approval requiring a tree bond prior to building permit approval. EXHIBIT 3: Percent of description of Slope; Slope Problems' 0-5% Relatively level land. Little or no development problems due to steepness of slope. 5-15% Minimum slope problems increasing to significant slope problems at 15%.15% is the maximum grade often considered desirable on subdivision streets. Above 15%, roads must run diagonally to, rather than at right angles to contours increas- ing the amount of cut and fill. For example, the lower segment of San Juan Road in the Cupertino foothills averages 20% in grade, 15-30% Slope becomes a very significant factor in development at this steepness. Development of level building sites requires extensive cut and fill in this slope category and the design of individual houses to fit terrain becomes important. 30-50% Slope is extremely critical in this range. Allowable steepness of cut and rill slopes approach or coincide with natural slopes resulting in very large cuts and fills under conventional development. In some cases, fill will not hold on these slopes unless special retaining devices are used. Because of the grading problems associated with this category, individual homes should be placed on natural building sites where they occur, or buildings should be designed to fit the particular site. 50%+ Almost any development can result in extreme disturbances in this slope category. Except in the most stable native material special retaining devices may be needed.