DIR-2008-13b
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CUPERTINO
CITY HALL .
10300 TORRE AVENUE. CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3223 . FAX: (408) 777-3366
August 21, 2008
Re: Consider an appeal of a Design Review Committee denial of a Director's Minor
Modification to add a 200-square foot sunroom to the south side of an existing single-family
residence in a Planned Development area, Application No. DIR-2008-13, Jay Swartz (Luo
residence), 11535 Murano Ct. APN 366-58-015
At its August 19, 2008 meeting, the Cupertino City Council upheld the appeal and approved the
application to install a sunroom. It is my understanding that all fees have been reimbursed. If you
have any questions please contact the community development department at (408) 777-3308.
The conditions of the project are as follows:
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPT.
1. APPROVED EXHIDITS
Approval is based on the plan set submitted by American Brands Construction
consisting of 4 pages attached to the staff report, except as may be amended by
conditions in this resolution.
2. EXTERIOR MATERIALS
The exterior siding material, and roofing of the sunroom shall match the existing
residence in color, material, texture, dimensions and style. Final exterior materials shall
be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance
of building permits.
3 . PRIVACY PROTECTION LANDSCAPING
The existing privacy protection landscaping shall be preserved. In the event that these
plantings die, the owner shall replace each planting with similar species sized to match
the replaced planting at the time of death, subject to approval of the City of Cupertino.
4. OAK TREE PRESERVATION
The Oak tree located along the southeast comer of the property shall be preserved, and the
following conditions shall be applied during construction, and
a) The downspout for the sunroom should be placed on the opposite side of its proposed location
(i.e. moved from the southeast comer to the southwest comer). Another option is to ensure
water from the downspout is discharged beyond the tree's canopy.
b) Any existing, unused lines within 15 feet from the tree's trunk shall be abandoned and cut off at
existing soil grade (rather than being dug up and causing subsequent root damage).
c) Any trenching, compaction, soil cuts or fill shall not extend beyond 12 inches from the proposed
foundation. Vertical excavation for the footing should not exceed 12 inches below grade.
d) Small tractors or heavy equipment shall not operate beneath the tree's canopy. As such, all work
shall be manually performed (foot-traffic only).
e) Beginning now, and continuing every two weeks thru October of this year (assuming
construction begins in the next month or two), water should be supplied to the unpaved areas of
the tree's root zone within 15 feet from the trunk (north side ofthe property fence). In doing so,
I recommend applying approximately 100 gallons of water via a deep-root feeder that is
connected to a hose and probed 1.5 to 2 feet below the soil surface. The valve to the probe
should be opened to allow water to flow until it begins to pour out of the top of the hole, then a
new hole probed three feet away and the process repeated. There is no need to supply water to
the section of root zone where the foundation is proposed, or within one-foot of the trunk.
f) All excavation for the entire foundation shall be manually dug using shovels. Roots encountered
during the process with diameters one-inch and greater shall be cleanly severed (such as by
loppers or a handsaw) against the soil cut, which shall not exceed beyond the proposed
foundation by more than 12 inches. For roots with diameters two inches and greater, I
rec.ommend a clear plastic sandwich bag is sealed around the cut end and tightly secured with a
rubber band immediately after being cut.
g) Spoils created during excavation shall not be spread within 15 feet of the trunk. Spoils can be
temporarily placed within this distance, but should be moved prior to project completion.
h) Materials should not be piled within 5 to 10 feet of the tree's trunk.
i) The existing irrigation system should be assessed to ensure that water is not being applied
within 10 feet of the tree's trunk. Also, any plant material within this distance and requires
regular watering should be substituted with drought-tolerant plant material. A source for
id~ntifying suitable drought-tolerant plant material is
www.califomiaoaks.org/ExtAssets/CompatiblePlants U ndet&AroundOaks. pdf.
j) The removal of existing vegetation shall be carefully performed, by hand, in a manner does not
excavate soil or roots during the process.
k) The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited beneath
canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage beneath canopies. Herbicides should not be
used beneath the tree's canopy; where used on site, it should be labeled for safe use near trees.
5. NOTICE OF FEES. DEDICATIONS. RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication
requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code
Section 66020( d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of
such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are
hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees,
dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a),
has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the
requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such
exactions.
Please review conditions carefully. If you have any questions regarding the conditions of
approval, please contact the Department of Community Development at 408-777-3308 for
clarification. Failure to incorporate conditions into your plan set will result in delays at the
plan checking stage. If development conditions require tree preservations, do not clear the
site until required tree protection devices are installed.
The conditions of project approval set forth herein may include .certain fees, dedication
requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code
Section 66020(d)(1), these conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of
such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are
hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees,
dedications, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If
you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of
Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions.
Any interested person, including the applicant, prior to seeking judicial review of the city
council's decision in this matter, mustfirstfile a petition/or reconsideration with the city clerk
within ten days after the council's decision. Any petition so filed must comply with municipal
ordinance code 92.08.096.
Sincerely,
~~Jj-
Grace Schmidt
Deputy City Clerk
cc: Perry Luo
11535 Murano Cir.
Cupertino, CA 95014
American Brands Construction
1029 Blossom Hill Rd.
San Jose, CA 95123
Community Development
29'
~
Co
U'l
V\
-.
....
t'D
-c
-
Q)
::J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L-__ .__
Fence
..-----
------..
Garage
Single Family Residence
Bath
"';1
r.....
-v
Kitchen
Bath
Nook
Entry
f'j
Living Room
":'
F~nce
/
r.....
? ::~- 6'-6" ~/~ 3'-3" --7-
- 8'-3" --
/
/ "
4'-4"
~
OQ
------..J
~
z-~
\~-~/
~
N
~:~~ -~J-----
---- 18' - ----.
j2t-----~- ------------
..n..._~.. _ _-.'u. _ . ~-----
. .'. "." -----~_..._._._._--
=:I., ,~~. _n -------~
r::.r-
--T'- 3'-3" ,==Z,-=;-,:::-c---ccc="'::''''::::s''.:4T.' -=----C=-H:~?--
D
(N) Patio Room
ICC ER-4590P on
(N) concrete slab
r~~
("
~ ~)
>~
'o"t~
<~-:-;
t "
PI ~.'..' \
~ i t
~Ir ;~n I
i
Parking Area
16'
~
'"
r=-.
o
'7
N
~
"';1
":'
t
i-;-
;.-,
!o
~.~~
'.: "
:-.:~
:. :(,')
..~
i
I
I
I
._------,~
":'
8'
.. .-.....
I
I
I
I
i
i
t
I
I
t
I
i
I
.
I
~'.
".1
. ,
::'
i I
-
tN
~
~- 8'-4" ---~---~-- 10' ----~- -
/ 3'-3" ----/-- Z' -/
----------------.--------)
17'
.~ n___
Suhl1llttnl hy:
American BGlllds Constrnctlon
2;.17;.1 Prune .\\'C_ . \', l'lTI1H>1l1, (:.\ ()'l'-l)<)
P\1"IlC ') 1 O_,I.I()f)W)O I-:t;; '1111.,I()().I):JS)
(::-;1 JW'I~()2()i
Luo H(~Sldcncc
I ,'))'::, f\Iural1l) (:irclc
(:lIpcrll11O, (:,\ ()')() 14
(4()l')) ()% 7l'))2
1\ PN: :\5-SHO 15
I
I
I ":'
t nl-c ~ r--...~~~~~....-...-...-2:~--~=- ..~~~1
I I ~~ ..-----
I ~~ _____ ..----- I
I I ~--. -----
I ..-----/~-----------..------..~~ I
L_~/
16'
I,Ill 2,12()
( ;ross 1101ls(' I '-l)"
( ; ,Jragc ,I '))
(N) Palio j ,oolll :2()()
Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0"
05/19/2008
I Drawn By
Page I
6'
t
Exhibit I
(..;o!) ;'1 :~.
(~J ~, :. ~
~ f", ~ ::.1
t: i~: :.~. .1
., ". .;~:: :')
n
r', \" .t'~"
~ .,,1 :.1>
I .'"
~ ~: "
iCS) ... J2
n . "f'
? ! , "
>1('b
'f ,- '., ;~
~ " .,t:) I
r. ! , t t
., i
... !~ \
, i
~ " .,~
t
, I ,
, !
I i_
! OJ
)>
x
o
::J
o
3
'"
~ ~
m
[ ~
o'
:l
~__~... ......H'..Q..
I. -'L.. .l
. V'\
C
:l
..,
." 0
0
a 0
m :::j 3
m
< "l
!!:.
0 -0
::J
OJ '" -
OQ OJ ';i
ro ::J "l
j,
'"
~
m
m
<
!!:.
o
::J
o
li
SUhlll1tlnlln:
Amcri ' I~'
. (;111)1";'0(\" C
2X7H p. .> _,on~;trllc(iofl
lUllc,\n' '\' I
Pll'lI](' ,; I OA'10 l)"C ' 'n'nl' 'Ill, ( . \ (),IS )'1
_ - () ,() 1"1 '11 (
(:Sl.Bli )xc,:)!)"?' . " 1,'1')1 ) ()::,r)c,
Luo HcsidCllCl'
I.' C)).c, I\lurat1n (:irclt-
(llpnflt1n, ( ,,\ (IS() 1.1
(,lOX) ')1)(,- iX P
1\ P N' . . Lo
. . .,S.58 0 I!)
I., )12l2()
( ;n l<'" II
.", nusI'
( ;aragc ,IS',
(1'1) PatIn I{'lfllll
r
nl-
_ _ ___ _____10'....."
ii~ ...-
Ll
~
~I
=
r+
a \J)
3ii.
.w 3'
r+lQ.
n ,
.:J
~ b
iJi' a
rt- :::t"\
-. :::J
~lQ.
...,. .w
III :::J
~. D-
D-
III :;i
:::J -.
n .3
rn
1'1 Y\
05/19/2008
I Drawn By
Page
2()O
,... ...,
..~ If >-
",1 <C' a,=,
C.1 t'''l '" ':l
:;I <:l -. ;~J
;~'V - ::.::>
c: ,~ l~
,) ~~. p <~
n~ :--...
\ ......11 ~ .-
.
~ ".'-4
\-': >~
~ \~ ~} 1:
r.
='" , :.:: f: 1 ,
r -\ "~
~ ~~~I\ ~~
...
,
\J-I
1EH3B.---~. il
lGff8J
_~__ -~-_==L_
~ ,-C.
~._..
~_. u________ ~
[ ~--]
[i
-,,-.------.. - "
~ ,,'
- c::JC
- ---
- -- -- -.-- -
-.-- -
-~ --
----~=--=--=--=~ ','.
L~ ".
.-.-------------
~-- ..---. .--.
--".~c ,_. c.c.
-=~,~J~,Jr;:
----..---.------"-.-.--
.I:'::~~__. -- _.___~~:"'.l.L
-.----------------.----, ----
[----..--.~.....- cut]]1
____~JIITJITJJI__.
~-----_.__._--
:-;1111111lllnll>\
1\ IllcriC;l n IhalHh Con:, I rucllon
'H7H "!'lll11' \n'. '.\', "r('IlH>lIf, ( \ Ill', )11
1'11,"](' SI()!,I()'JH',(l ht" ',Ill I')()(}~'~f,
(:-;I.IW \H()2(lf
=
m
m
'==--~=
LII(l I~csidcnn
II L.,)') ,\Iuranl' ('lrck
(:llpntlll(l, (: \ I]C)"I,!
(I();;) 1)% 7H ),)
A 1'1',1. 3~SRO IS
8=+E
~ -- ---- --.
Fff8
I
, I
__L
i I
I.
I" II 117()
( d', ''is II(luse
( ;arag(' .1\\
(N) 1',111(l l{(l(llll
I [) n
05/19/2008
I Drawn By
Page I
2( )( I
C:"l
C"}
:;;
E
c:
-,
n
~
~
..
""
~
r.
"
....
~
..-.rt~
n :;j" ::J
COO
6T "0 -.
r-t' r-t'
~ -. :;j"
OJ 0 -.
,<~n
< ~
-. -1"1 OJ
moO"
~ 0
'-"!:!:~
::J"O
lC n'
OJ
~ ~
~~' ~. ~
c." :.: "<~,
':i' ::" :";J
'.. 6~ ;.:)
~. ~~ ;;
I: ~ i}
[ t~ l;~
r ~ {\ i!
o
"0
,..,.
o'
::>
!!!.
~
o
,..,.
3'
10
~
1-- ------l -1-1 ~
~~-- -~__==~~__=_- _1 __ ~~___
._-_._~
Gl
~
co
::EVl
;ij" m
3~
[Jl ~.
::r0'
@rt
O'lco
=c-
o!!!.
. 01
nO'
m
~
Vl
c:
::>
8
3
."
iii
Vl
/~
'" ~fm- m
"
Vl
c:
::J
a
o
3
:J:
co
oli'
::r
,..,.
--'-
--'-
01
(".)
01 Z ''0,
.
s: 0 "
"
.... C 11 "
.....111
~ '.." 0 ~:I
OJ 0
:J DIm
- S:~ Vl
;~ 0 c:
:J ::J
n -. a
otO :r~
3:1 0
3
""" ID ::I. ::iE
0 ~ ~
-. ....10 0:
ro Dlo ,..,.
~... ::r
---
i3'R lD
::>
i~ 10
,..,.
::r
~ID
IDS'
iil:
~
0')>
o
(f)()c:!:;:;:
""'O:JrD
rn:J~3
-n,..,.(J)
@Ctio~
""'n-'
)>rDOO
(f)@:J3
-fNO'(J)
3:U1-tc:
)>030-
0'l0,..,.:!:n
...."0 0 0
U1 ~. n 0
o -,
g-g
~lIhl1liltt'd hI:
Alllcricall B,;Hld:; COll:;\nrc'IOII
')-\7)-\ PrUlle \\l'.' \', "IT1111>111. (1,1).1.'", "1)
1'1l1'1I1 ',lll.ll(),'J:-)',() 1-;1\ ,',IP,II)I)II")',
( >ilW ')}((,.)(!
~ '"'
:E@.l>>
!RoO}....
-. - ----
::>CON
g 3 =
......O'~
g ~~
::>3-
c-coiil
01::>0'
gr-t"e:
::>
1.110 HcsHkncc
1 1";)'1 ;\ I mall I I ( : lie k
( .1!j1Cl'IIIH I, ( , \ ')'){) II
(.IO~\) ()%m L'
,\ PN; y,!)f{Ob
Gl
iil
<
!Ro
,..."
::;;
::J
co
m
::"?,
"-I
:s::
.....
r
<
01
"0
Q
I ,Ill :~,1.~(,
( ;rll,;:-, 11"1I"e
I
I
,
I
f
&'
.,
.,
~.
o
~ ~
@ C-
o
g;: ~
c-@-
2 N 5'
., .l>> 10
co = 5'
~9g
::>n......
10" 0
1il 5
!2P g.
.g g:
~ ::J
( ,arage I'))
(N) I';lil" 1{/l111l1
I
~
g
::>
n
iil
nr
Vl
fil
0'
I') ',)
05/19/2008
I Drawn By
Page I
) ~ )( I
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CUPERTINO
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE. CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3223. FAX: (408) 777-3366
July 30, 2008
Re: Consider an appeal of a Design Review Committee denial of a Director's Minor
Modification to add a 200-square foot sunroom to the south side of an existing single-family
residence in a Planned Development area, Application No. DIR-2008-13, Jay Swartz CLuo
residence), 11535 Murano Ct. APN 366-58-015.
The above stated item is scheduled for the August 19 City Council meeting. Council meets at 6:45
p.m., Cupertino Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California.
Interested parties are invited to attend and be heard.
Enclosed is a copy of the appeal. If you have any questions regarding the process, please feel free to
call our office at 777-3223.
If you wish to challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those
issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of Cupertino City Hall at, or prior to, the public hearing.
Sincerely,
~~{Jt-
Grace Schmidt
Deputy City Clerk
cc: Community Development
Perry Luo
11535 Murano Cir.
Cupertino, CA 95014
American Brands Construction
1029 Blossom Hill Rd.
San Jose, CA 95123
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino,CA 95014
(408) 777-3223
ij~~~~\YI~rR\
trU JUl ~ 4 2008 l1U
CUPERTINO
CUPERTINO CITY CLERK
APPEAL
1.
Application No.
PI R - 16tJt - , 3
fer f 7 tv, () ( A /r-f/ i (41 PYa1J) Co",')t[v,( ~t{tl 'I
SrVYJ€-
(/ t; -:/; jv7 CA I'cJiII 0 G Ife) 0 /1 () 2t1 f!J (;' '>'>0/V1
If o~ r10 7.:;y / Lf()4 -Z' e; 9000
(
iff I; Q/
5J ~9l!?
2.
Applicant(s) Name:
3.
Appellant(s) Name:
Address
Phone Number
4.
D~ f r {"Q 6J Yf~d:>. WA1 L 'U'[Qc.j r/2J,o-&,c"i. (<>A-
I I
Please ch~ one:
~peal a decision of Director of Community Development
Appeal a decision of Director of Public Works
Appeal a decision of Planning Commission
Email
5.
Date of determination of Director or mailing of notice of City decision:
11 ~!I 200,/
Basis of appeal:
froj~(.t tJ?S Av,;ec/Ioi/5ftl Ovr ~ r'tf12c; 1::hr-rL fk e~ >40"/[( s-qJ -6
/~s !/Ij/!/Ju( tlj/~~t b A~,;'b/~ t /0' ~L{
~ {e.i!. f ft"+: '-. f, 90Q;/ foWfI1~.. b . Prv-,Od'L ~I y (e<-1 e "I
4{l1.b1 S~l/, CjrtU~t>. otJ<r olj<'ct'M~ ,"J<-,1;'l //;'1/4'1
wqt d;)C4S~1 ?t 7:A. /hUb~
cWit ""S df<'/r1 (h4t ;Vii/41 ,j
If of: '41
Please complete form, inc ude appeal fee of$156.00 pursuant to Resolution No. 07-056 ('>'}v.t.
($150.00 for massage application appeals), and return to the attention of the City Clerk, l.Je ~
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, (408) 777-3223. ('<V-~t -fhtrt.~
1lL ~(~~~ 1:J/.-f4;~
. try; rj ~o/&()
De~~ k t?tn41c1.&f b
lir I.v)" /J/ul-/J -/-i...<. ftJr6 i p, "
6.
Signature(s)
'i~ln
::::::::J
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
Telephone: (408) 777-3308
FAX: (408) 777-3333
CITY OF
CUPEIQ"INO
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
July 21, 2008
Jay Swartz
1029 Blossom Hill Rd.
San Jose, Ca. 95123
SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTION LETTER - Application DIR-2008-13
This letter confirms the decision of the Design Review Committee, given at the meeting
of July 17, 2008, denying a Director's Minor Modification to approve the construction of
a sunroom ten feet from the rear property line, located at 11535 Murano Court,
according to Resolution No. 278.
Also, please note that an appeal of this decision can be made within 14 calendar days
from the date of this letter. If this happens, you will be notified of a public hearing,
which will be scheduled before the City Council.
Sincerely,
~~
..,
Leslie Gross
Assistant Planner
Enclosures:
Resolution Nos. 278 (denial)
Cc: Perry Luo, 11535 Murano Ct, Cupertino, CA 95014
g:planning/DRC Committee/action letter DIR-2008-13
Printed on Recycled Paper
DIR-2008-13
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 278 (denial)
OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
DENYING A DIRECTOR'S MINOR MODIFICATION TO APPROVE THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A SUNROOM TEN FEET FROM THE REAR
PROPERTY LINE
SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
DIR-2008-13
Jay Swartz (Luo residence)
11535 Murano Court
SECTION II: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee of the City of Cupertino received an
application for a Director's Minor Modification, as described in this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the
Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Design Review Committee has
held one or more public hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support said
application; and has not satisfied the following requirements:
1. The proposal is consistent with the original intent of the Use Permit (U-2003- 02).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the application no. DIR-2008-13, is hereby denied; and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this
Resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application
DIR-2008-13 as set forth in the Minutes of the Design Review Committee Meeting of
July 17, 2008 are incorporated by reference herein.
敒潳畬楴湯丠㈠㠷⠠敤楮污ഩ倊条ലഊ䐊剉㈭〰ⴸ㌱畊祬ㄠⰷ㈠〰സഊ倊十䕓⁄乁⁄䑁偏䕔⁄桴獩ㄠ琷慤⁹景䨠汵⁹〲㠰瑡愠删来汵牡䴠敥楴杮漠桴敄楳湧敒楶睥䌠浯業瑴敥漠桴楃祴漠畃数瑲湩Ɐ匠慴整漠慃楬潦湲慩祢琠敨映汯潬楷杮爠汯൬挊污潶整ഺഊ䄊䕙㩓低卅ഺ䄊卂䅔义ഺ䄊卂久㩔佃䵍卉䥓乏剅㩓䌠慨物数獲湯䜠敩敦Ⱳ删獯䌊䵏䥍卓佉䕎卒›潮敮佃䵍卉䥓乏剅㩓渠湯䌊䵏䥍卓佉䕎卒›潮敮呁䕔呓ഺഊ䄊偐佒䕖㩄⁉⽳瑓癥楐獡捥楫瑓癥楐獡捥楫楄敲瑣牯潃浭湵瑩⁹敄敶潬浰湥⁴敄慰瑲敭瑮⁉⽳獕楇晥牥獕楇晥牥桃楡൲䐊獥杩敒楶睥䌠浯業瑴敥
Facts regarding New Addition at 11535 Murano Court (File
number DIR-2008-13)
By Jiandong Cao and Yalan Mao, the neighbors
In 2003, Murano developer bought apartment complex to start the
planning for building new homes. City council had hearings from the
neighborhood. The Council Kris Wang was also at the meeting that
time. Some of other City Council might also be at the meeting that
time. At the meeting, the developer, neighborhood and City council have
reached agreement that the new buildings will be 20 feet away from
the board of neighborhood of Wildflower Court, Flower Court, Poppy
Way and Rainbow Drive. This agreement has served as the community
rules for the homes in Murano and its neighborhood.
11535 Murano Court (File number DIR-2008-13) currently has living area
1533 square feet with lot size of 2178 square feet. The living area to lot
size ratio is 70.38% without new addition.
With new addition of 200 square feet more living space, 11535 Murano
Court will have 1733 square feet living space. With lot size of 2178
square feet, the living area to lot size ratio will be 79.57%, approximately
80%.
4. What is the city rule for living area to lot size ratio in Cupertino? The
living area to lot size ratio of 80% sounds too much in Cupertino.
5. Our home's privacy will be violated with the new addition. The privacy
includes sight, sound and smell. We have noticed that their daughter was
astonished in their backyard when we closed our window. This just says
how the sound affects the privacy of lives. The more close it gets, the
more severe it affects the privacy. The new addition builds closer to our
house. It will affect the privacy of my home with no question. Therefore,
the new addition will violate our home's privacy. That is why we are
strongly against the new addition.
CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
408 -777 -CITY
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Design Review Committee of the City of Cupertino will
hold a public hearing on the matter described below. The public is encouraged to attend and
speak.
APPLICATION NO.:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
DESCRIPTION:
HEARING DATE:
ADDRESS:
DIR-2008-13
Jay Swartz (Luo residence)
11535 Murano Ct. APN: 366-58-015
Director's referral for approval of a minor Modification to
add a 200 square foot sunroom to the south side of an
existing single family residence
July 17, 2008 beginning at 12:30 p.m.
Conference Room A, City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue
If you challenge the action of the Design Review Committee in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this
notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Cupertino at, or prior to, the public
hearing. Please note that Design Review Committee policy is to allow an applicant and groups
to speak for 10 minutes and individuals to speak for 3 minutes.
The agenda for this application will be available on the Friday afternoon preceding the meeting.
The file and plans are available for viewing/preview during normal hours of operation.
Questions concerning the application should be directed to Leslie Gross, Project Manager at
(408) 777-1356.
NOTE: Agenda may be subject to change. If interested in an item, or have questions, please call
the Planning Department at 408-777-3308 prior to the meeting date to verify that the item is still
on the agenda. The time this item will be heard on the agenda cannot be predicted.
NOTE TO OWNERS OF RECORD: This notice is sent to owners of real property as shown on the last
tax assessment roll. Tenants are not necessarily notified.
Steve Piasecki
Community Development Department
Page 2 of 2
served as rules for the homes in Murano. It is community rule.
The 11535 Murano Court was built at exact 20 feet away from the board line. The applied
new addition will be built between the 11535 Murano Court and the board line.
The new additioin at 11535 Murano Court (File number DIR-2008-13) will clearly violate
this community rule. Therefore the new addition should not be approved by the City.
The City Goverment is from the people, by the people and for the people. The community
rule of keeping the building 20 feet away from the neighborhood were agreed by the
people. For the people, the city goverment should standard by this community rule.
If the City Goverment has changed the community rule agreed by Murano developer,
neighborhood and City Council, we should be notified and have the voice heard.
Our house is directly the neighbor of 11535 Murano Court. The new addition will reduce
the value of our house and violate our privacy. We are urging the City Planning Division
and the Director of Community Development to please stand by us and stand by the
community rule that we have agreed before. Please reject the new addition at 11535
Murano Court.
We are looking forward to your reply.
Sincerely yours,
Jiandong Cao and Yalan Mao
6/19/2008
366 18 041 366 18 042 366 19 060
WUTHRICH ANNELIES TRUSTEE & ET SCOTT VERA C TRUSTEE & ET AL MAO YALAN AND CAO JIANDONG
1322 FLOWER CT 1320 FLOWER CT 11620 WILDFLOWER CT
CUPERTINO CA 95014-5302 CUPERTINO CA 95014-5302 CUPERTINO CA 95014-5338
366 58 013
IRRINKI NARSIMHA AND SUMA TRUS
11536 MURANO CL
CUPERTINO CA 95014
366 58 014
KAU KENNETH D AND CHU SHAO MEI
11530 MURANO CL
CUPERTINO CA 95014
366 58 015
LUO PERRY AND WANG JING TRUSTE
11535 MURANO CL
CUPERTINO CA 95014
366 58 016 366 58 018 366 58 019
LIN LIU TYNG ET AL CHAN JOHN AND CORAL CHANG JAMES CHEWEN AND LIRU ZH
11529 MURANO CL 11532 BIANCHINI LN 11528 BIANCHINI LN
CUPERTINO CA 95014 CUPERTINO CA 95014 CUPERTINO CA 95014
Basemap Labels
Abc Street Names
Address
- Freeway
Basemap
--- Easements
Street Centerline
County Freeways
County Major Roads
Right -of -Way
Parcels
0 City Boundary
C.,.y of Cuper'Ono
SCALE 1 :801
50 0 50 100 150
FEET
http://gissvr/cupertinointranet/home/mapFile.aspx Tuesday, June 17, 2008 9:03 AM
CITY OF
CUPEkTINO
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Telephone: (408) 777-3308
Fax: (408) 777-3333
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Arborist Transmittal Form
Date Submitted: 05/ a 011v Date Due:. 0 6IO 9ll%
Applicant Name: 3 ��J
S,,,J�rtz
Project Address/ APN: 11 S 3 .J` ," � t, v tio o ��-
Project Description: New w 01 cd d rh o✓1 rV ey - P -14e_ 7 -W +rte
Consultant's Scope of Work: 1,61 tl Sw-e ,,c%(i h, tV7 r,,i" Y /) opi kw -f Z;mW lc
Other:
Arborist Deposit Receipt #:
r, S 0000011 g 3
Transmitted by: L 5 I I'P CY0 C,
Phone No. 1-71- 1 3 5 6
c)
Amount: 5 UU CJS
CUPERTINO
May 22, 2008
Senfi v, U e -►m eI i l 0 S�aa�G
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
(408) 777-3212 • FAX (408) 777-3366
RE: Residential Addition at 11535 Murano Circle, Cupertino, CA 95014
Dear Mr. Swartz,
This letter is to inform you that we received the application and are deeming it incomplete. The
item will be agendized to be heard at the Design Review Committee when the following items
have been completed:
1. An arborist deposit ($500.00) will be provided for our City Arborist to review and
provide recommendations on the protected tree located along the southern border of the
property to ensure that the proposed addition will not endanger the health of the tree (see
original comment letter #2 dated March 25, 2008). When the arborist report is complete,
and Staff has received the comments, a hearing date will be set.
2. Include all the existing landscaping on the site plan. Indicate the species, canopy spread,
and trunk diameter measured 4'-6" above grade. This will be provided to the City
Arborist.
3. The addition will need to match the existing residence in materials (type, style, color and
design). This includes the siding, roofing, and trim materials. Indicate the type of
materials on the elevations for the residence and the addition (see original comment letter
#4 dated March 25, 2008).
Should you have any questions regarding the enclosed information, please do not hesitate to
contact me in the Community Development Department at (408) 777-1356.
Sincerely,
OG�.~!.u. CJi,'W�
Leslie Gross
Assistant Planner
CUPERTINO
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
(408) 777-3212 • FAX (408) 777-3366
Date: March 25, 2008
Applicant: Luo Residence
Project: Residential Addition
Address: 11535 Murano Circle
Cupertino, CA 95014
Planning Comments: Staff reviewed the drawings, and the past development history of
the area, and has the following comments:
At the time of the original planned development, the surrounding neighbors strongly
opposed the project, especially along the southern border where this project site is
located. A series of neighborhood meetings were held, which resulted in numerous
design and layout changes being made by the developer. Additional landscaping was
provided to ensure privacy protection, including the tree located along the southern
border of the property. The perimeter sites were set back as far a possible from
neighboring properties, including the subject site. The final design of this development
was not intended to be modified, as the lots are already considered "maxed out" in
height, size, and layout.
If you would like to move forward with the addition, the following would be required:
1. Any modification to the original Use Permit (U-2003-02) would require a Directors
Minor Modification to be heard at the Design Review Committee (DRC).
2. An arborist deposit would be required to ensure that the tree near the addition
would survive the construction.
3_ Increase the southern setback from 8'-4" to 10'-0". Although the addition is at the
side of the residence, the area is considered private yard space, and acts as a
buffer space between neighboring properties and this development. Also, the
minimum allowable encroachment into rear yards for residential zones is 10'-0".
4. The addition (sunroom) would need to match the existing materials in type, style,
color and design. This includes the siding, roofing, and trim materials.
5. Staff strongly recommends informing surrounding neighbors of the proposed
addition. Although notification is sent out, neighbors would appreciate being
informed as early as possible.
If you have any questions, please contact Leslie Gross at (408) 777-1356.
November 6, 2007
Mr. Perry Luo
11535 Murano Circle
Cupertino, California 95104
Dear Mr. Luo,
MURANO
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
P.O. Box 190, Pleasanton, CA 94566
925-426-1508; fax 925-426-1494
Your recent request for architectural approval to install a sun room has been granted by
the Board of Directors, subject to the following conditions:
1. All necessary permits from public agencies must be applied for and granted. All City
setback requirements must be met.
2. Drainage as originally installed by the developer is not to be changed or altered, and
must drain to the street as originally designed.
3. Construction is in accordance with the plans submitted for rear yard improvements.
4. Improvements are maintained so as not to be unsightly or invasive to your
neighbors.
5. Structure must be in compliance with the requirements of the CC&R's and the City of
Cupertino.
6. Structure must be painted to match home.
Thank you for submitting your request for architectural approval. Feel free to contact
me with any questions.
Sincerely,
pt4l
Jayf e W IIs
Assocl i n Manager
cc: Board of Directors
LF
Z:\MS Office\MS Word\MuranoWchitecturaRPA 11535 Murano rear yard improvements rev2.doc
CUPERTINO
� � F
�,K-120
PIlIyFV "OWES
CITY HALL 02 1A008
0004358612
10300 TORRE AVENUE MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 9501 4
CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
D� --- �
hIZ'X:T1=: 951 Dc 1 OQ Dell lZo/09
RETURN TO SENDER
INS UFFICZENT ADDRESS
UNAEBLE TO r- OR BARD
DC: 9SO1432SS99 *O%3�E-Dat'iO3- l9 .7
The attached text was mailed to the following property owners:
ZHAO ALLEN AND HUANG MELINDA
1283 POPPY WY
CUPERTINO
CA
95014
A.P.N.
366-18-020
AU WING KEI
P 0 BOX 4783
SANTA CLARA CA
95056
A.P.N.
366-18-021
EISENBAUM ALBERT D TRUSTEE
16244 OAKHURST DR
MONTE SERENO CA
95030
A.P.N.
366-18-022
YEH CHUNG AND SULIN C
11837 UPLAND WY
CUPERTINO
CA
95014
A.P.N.
366-18-023
YU DENNIS AND KUNG SIU H
1319 POPPY WY
CUPERTINO
CA
95014
A.P.N.
366-18-024
TSAO CHUN-CHENG AND LIU TSUI-YUN
1327 POPPY WY
CUPERTINO
CA
95014
A.P.N.
366-18-025
SANJIDEH KOOROS AND PARVIN
1330 FLOWER CT
CUPERTINO
CA
95014
A.P.N.
366-18-038
CHANG ANDREW CHI -TAO TRUSTEE & E
1328 FLOWER CT
CUPERTINO
CA
95014
A.P.N.
366-18-039
ZANDBERGS JEFFREY G AND MONIREH
1324 FLOWER CT
CUPERTINO
CA
95014
A.P.N.
366-18-040
WUTHRICH ANNELIES TRUSTEE
1322 FLOWER CT
CUPERTINO
CA
95014
A.P.N.
366-18-041
SCOTT VERA C TRUSTEE & ET AL
1320 FLOWER CT
CUPERTINO
CA
95014
A.P.N.
366-18-042
LAMARCHE KENNETH J TRUSTEE & ET
827 S KNICKERBOCKER DR
SUNNYVALE
CA
94087
A.P.N.
366-18-043
CHANG JAMES CHEWEN AND LIRU ZHOU
11528 BIANCHINI LN
CUPERTINO
CA
95014
A.P.N.
366-19-015
NELSON KENNETH N TRUSTEE & ET AL
CAMBRIDGE MANAGEMENT COMPANY
2975 SCOTT BL STE 200
SANTA CLARA CA
95054
A.P.N.
366-19-016
NELSO KENNETH N TRUSTEE & ET AL
CAMBRIDGE MANAGEMENT COMPANY
2975 SCOTT BL STE 200
SANTA CLARA CA
95054
A.P.N.
366-19-017
ORION EQUITY LLC
PO BOX 21493
SAN JOSE
CA
95151
A.P.N.
366-19-018
REYES JULITO AND ESTRELLA
1800 PINEHURST CT
MILPITAS
CA
95035
A.P.N.
366-19-019
EBERHARDT NOEL H AND HORTENCIA C
21407 KRZICH PL
CUPERTINO
CA
95014
A.P.N.
366-19-020
THE BEEDLE FAMILY, LLC
WILLIAM AND SARAH BEEDLE
1832 VILLARITA DR
CAMPBELL
CA
95008
A.P.N.
366-19-021
NG CARL L AND INA L
1262 POPPY WY
CUPERTINO
CA
95014
A.P.N.
366-19-042
CHANG EMILY M
1272 POPPY WY
CUPERTINO
CA
95014
A.P.N.
366-19-043
BOREL BANK & TRUST COMPANY
160 BOVET RD
SAN MATEO
CA
94402
A.P.N.
366-19-047
COLEMAN RICHARD C AND SACHIKO TR
11650 WILDFLOWER CT
CUPERTINO
CA
95014
A.P.N.
366-19-057
SHAIKH KHUSHROOBANU I
11640 WILDFLOWER CT
CUPERTINO
CA
95014
A.P.N.
366-19-058
CHANG HUIFANG S AND LOW MING S
11630 WILDFLOWER CT
CUPERTINO
CA
95014
A.P.N.
366-19-059
MAO YALAN AND CAO JIANDONG
11620 WILDFLOWER CT
CUPERTINO
CA
95014
A.P.N.
366-19-060
KING ROSA R ET AL
CCC ASSOCIATES
PO BOX 2955
SAN RAMON
CA
94583
A.P.N.
366-19-061
WANG LOIS TRUSTEE
425 MARKET ST STE 2200
SAN FRANCISCO
CA
94105
A.P.N.
366-19-062
KING ROSA R ET AL
CCC ASSOCIATES
PO BOX 2955
SAN RAMON
CA
94583
A.P.N.
366-19-063
KING ROSA R ET AL
CCC ASSOCIATES
PO BOX 2955
SAN RAMON
CA
94583
A.P.N.
366-19-064
ROSA R KING & ALEXANDER S KING R
1184 ST ANTHONY CT
LOS ALTOS
CA
94024
A.P.N.
366-19-065
KING ROSA R ET AL
CCC ASSOCIATES
PO BOX 2955
SAN RAMON
CA
94583
A.P.N.
366-19-066
CHIN AUGUSTIN YEH-HAO AND JA -MEI
11685 WILDFLOWER CT
CUPERTINO
CA
95014
A.P.N.
366-19-067
SAWHNEY SONAL AND HEMANT
1282 POPPY WY
CUPERTINO
CA
95014
A.P.N.
366-58-001
JAIN YUKARI T AND SHALABH
1292 POPPY WY
CUPERTINO
CA
95014
A.P.N.
366-58-002
VU QUOC-BAO AND LOH AMANDER
7320 RAINBOW DR
CUPERTINO
CA
95014
A.P.N.
366-58-003
LEE KYUNG AND BAN KA EUN
7318 RAINBOW DR
CUPERTINO
CA
95014
A.P.N.
366-58-004
NGUYEN KIM
7316 RAINBOW DR
CUPERTINO
CA
95014
A.P.N.
366-58-005
LANCASTER TERRY R
11529 MURANO CL
CUPERTINO
CA
95014
A.P.N.
366-58-006
HENRI HEATHER COHEN AND BRIAN D
7310 RAINBOW DR
CUPERTINO
CA
95014
A.P.N.
366-58-007
TO KATHY THANH
20586 MURANO CL
CUPERTINO
CA
95014
A.P.N.
366-58-008
HUANG DAISY DING JIE ET AL
20588 MURANO CL
CUPERTINO
CA
95014
A.P.N.
366-58-009
CHU MICHAEL K AND YILING J
20592 MURANO CL
CUPERTINO
CA
95014
A.P.N.
366-58-010
CHEN CHUN-PING AND KAI
20596 MURANO CL
CUPERTINO
CA
95014
A.P.N.
366-58-011
SI CHESSY Q AND LU JIAN
20600 MURANO CL
CUPERTINO
CA
95014
A.P.N.
366-58-012
IRRINKI NARSIMHA AND SUMA
11536 MURANO CL
CUPERTINO
CA
95014
A.P.N.
366-58-013
KAU KENNETH D AND CHU SHAD MEI
11530 MURANO CL
CUPERTINO
CA
95014
A.P.N.
366-58-014
LUO PERRY AND WANG JING TRUSTEE
11535 MURANO CL
CUPERTINO
CA
95014
A.P.N.
366-58-015
LIN LIU TYNG ET AL
11529 MURANO CL
CUPERTINO
CA
95014
A.P.N.
366-58-016
YOON TONY AND MICHELLE
11525 MURANO CL
CUPERTINO
CA
95014
A.P.N.
366-58-017
CHAN JOHN AND CORAL
11532 BIANCHINI LN
CUPERTINO
CA
95014
A.P.N.
366-58-018
CHANG JAMES CHEWEN AND LIRU ZHOU
11528 BIANCHINI LN
CUPERTINO
CA
95014
A.P.N.
366-58-019
WAI TING TING H AND SIK KWONG
11526 BIANCHINI LN
CUPERTINO
CA
95014
A.P.N.
366-58-020
KO ROBERT JE CHIUN
11533 BIANCHINI LN
CUPERTINO
CA
95014
A.P.N.
366-58-021
HAQUE IMTIYAZ
11531 BIANCHINI LN
CUPERTINO
CA
95014
A.P.N.
366-58-022
JUNG MIRANDA MI-YING TRUSTEE
11527 BIANCHINI LN
CUPERTINO
CA
95014
A.P.N.
366-58-023
LI YIHUA AND LIU YINGHONG
11523 BIANCHINI LN
CUPERTINO
CA
95014
A.P.N.
366-58-024
LI PING AND ZHENG WENHAI
11521 BIANCHINI LN
CUPERTINO
CA
95014
A.P.N.
366-58-025
J
TINO
TO KATHY THANH
20586 MURANO CL 85014
CUPERTINO CA
City Hall
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
;TING
l o
I�
CHEN CHUNG-SONG AND /IAN-PYNG TR
11517 BIANCHINI LN 85014
CUPERTINO CA
LEGAL NOTICES
N7 .9&1 PF_ .1 .00 07./;1.15/.00
__RETURN To SENDER
ADDR
NOT Lz_UPIS
NRrcADLM
6'FflR173ARD£S3cD
sc :: 19S�O�1432BS9�9 �* IS4 G- 1 9476- D7- Ai
.T H7 L13.75.j'7.111.1) TJ tJ b.jT, F1.J t 1 1 S 17.1.1 T
City Hall
100, 10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
'INO
k
LEGAL NOTICES
• .:r.;�"-' �i!�!!!�!1!ifi!!!!el��!�!!iFi!1!!!i�!!1�11!1!i!!!!{�i!i!ii!!i!
•1:s.'-' dJ��$t•4@9$!913
r= W D
W QUOC-BAO AND LOH AMANDER
7320 RAINBOW DR
0T7PF.RTTN0 CA 95014
w LEGAL NOTICES
FWDv
CITY OF
CUPEkTINO
SUMMARY
Agenda Item No.
Application: DIR-2008-13
Applicant: Jay Swartz
Owner: Perry Luo
Location: 11535 Murano Court
APPLICATION SUMMARY
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
Fax: (408) 777-3333
Community Development
Department
Agenda Date: August 19, 2008
Consider an appeal of the Design Review Committee denial of a Director's Minor
Modification to add a 200 square foot to the south side of an existing single-family
residence in a Planned Development.
RECOMMENDATION
The Council has the options to either:
a) Uphold the Design Review Committee's decision; or
b) Uphold the appeal; or
C) Uphold the appeal with modifications.
BACKGROUND
On July 7, 2003, the City Council approved Use Permit (U-2003-02) to construct 55
single-family residences on a 4.03 -acre parcel. Comments received during
neighborhood outreach meetings prompted site development changes by the
developer. One of those changes included increasing the setbacks to 20'-0"and
providing privacy protection landscaping for three of the homes abutting the existing
residential properties along the southern border. The intent was focused on minimizing
visual and privacy impacts from the proposed second floor. Consequently, these three
homes have larger useable rear yard area compared to the rest of the homes in the
development.
The owner of 11535 Murano Ct. (one of the three homes with 20'-0" rear yard) is
proposing the construction of a 200 square foot single story attached sunroom within
their useable rear yard area. The sunroom will match the existing residence in material
and color and the existing privacy protection landscaping and 8'-0" privacy fence
File No: DIR-2008-13
Paze 2
August 19, 2008
would remain. The Murano Homeowners Association has reviewed and approved the
project.
Typically the Director has the discretion to approval such request, however it was
forwarded to the Design Review Committee due to expressed concerns received from
the adjacent neighbor.
On July 17, 2008, the Design Review Committee denied the proposed project with a 2-0
vote. The Design Review Committee's decision is being challenged by owner (Perry
Luo). Although the Committee could not identify any privacy impacts created by the
sunroom, the Committee felt that the project was not consistent with the original intent
of the Use Permit (U-2003-02).
PROJECT LOCATION
The project site is located on the west side of Murano Court along the southern boundary
of the development. A two-story residence currently exists on the parcel. Single-family
residential parcels surround the subject site.
File No: DIR-2008-13
Pav-e 3
DISCUSSION:
August 19, 2008
Appellant
The applicant is appealing the Design Review Committee's decision based on the
following reason:
1. The original setbacks were established by the developer to minimize visual and
privacy impacts from the proposed second floor. Because the proposed sunroom
is single -story and does not create new visual or privacy impacts, the previous
agreement should be reevaluated based on the type, location, and size of the
addition.
Community Comments
The neighbor immediately abutting the subject property to the south contacted staff
with concerns that the sunroom would create privacy, noise and odor impacts. In
addition, the neighbor requested that the existing 20'-0" setback be retained, due to the
original agreement by the developer to setback the residence 20'-0" to minimize privacy
concerns at that time.
File No: DIR-2008-13
Paye 4
August 19, 2008
Staff
Staff previously supported the proposed sunroom at the Design Review Committee for
the following reasons:
1. Significant privacy impacts are not evident because the proposed sunroom is
single story, starting at 8'-4" high slop roof, not exceeding 11'-0" at the point of
attachment to the residence, privacy landscaping would be preserved, and the
adjoining privacy fence is 8'-0" high. The height of the sunroom windows do not
offer views into the adjoining property, and the sunroom would be used as
gathering space for the homeowners, which would not create any additional
noise or odors other then those typical of residential activities.
2. The original use permit for the development did not have any provisions that
prohibit the addition of a sunroom. In addition, the applicant has obtained
approval from the Home Owners Association.
3. The design of the sunroom will be consistent with the main residence in
material(s) and color.
Enclosures
Exhibit A: Appeal Form
Exhibit B: DIR-2008-13 Design Review Committee Staff Report, July 17, 2008
Exhibit C: Design Review Committee Minutes, July 17, 2008
Exhibit D: Arborist Report, June 11, 2008
Exhibit E: Letter from Murano Homeowners Association, November 6, 2007
Exhibit F: City Council Minutes, July 7, 2003
Exhibit G: Planning Commission Resolution No. 6188
Exhibit H: Planning Commission Minutes, May 27, 2003
Exhibit I: Plan Set
Prepare by: Leslie Gross, Assistant Planner
Submit d b�—�
Steve Piasecki
Director, Community Development
Approved by:
W)L
David W. Knapp
City Manager
�ST.1 gst`
1. Application No.
2. Applicant(s) Name:
3. Appellant(s) Name:
Address
Phone Number
Email
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3223
APPEAL
—PI R'– 2W — 13
5fv'�'IL7-
Exhibit A
RD EC E OWE
JUL � 41008 0
CUPERTINO CITY CLERK
A Z(. �- 700v
/ ��'Ioc" (0 _ (OL' -
4. Please ch
'501 one:
Appeal a decision of Director of Community Development
Appeal a decision of Director of Public Works
Appeal a decision of Planning Commission
5. Date of determination of Director or mailing of notice of City decision:
Jj(tel 2-,()o 1
6. Basis of appeal:
42
oj2c C✓Gs Aid bGsP� o�, -�L GAG -t-�aW- f
Gtl�fed� Pel ,Od(,L'ail e�'ew
�
Signature(s) adl
Please complete form, inc ude appeal fee of $156.00 pursuant to Resolution No. 07-056
($150.00 for massage application appeals), and return to the attention of the City Clerk, (le
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, (408) 777-3223. r
est {
t �e-
CUPERTINO
July 30, 2008
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3223 • FAX: (408) 777-3366
Re: Consider an appeal of a Design Review Committee denial of a Director's Minor
-Modification to add a 200 -square foot sunroom to the south side of an existing single-family
residence in a Planned Development area, Application No. DIR-2008-13, Jay Swartz (Luo
residence), 11535 Murano Ct. APN 366-58-015.
The above stated item is scheduled for the August 19 City Council meeting. Council meets at 6:45
p.m., Cupertino Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California.
Interested parties are invited to attend and be heard.
Enclosed is a copy of the appeal. If you have any questions regarding the process, please feel free to
call our office at 777-3223.
If you wish to challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those
issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of Cupertino City Hall at, or prior to, the public hearing.
Sincerely,
Grace Schmidt
Deputy City Clerk
cc: Community Development
Perry Luo
11535 Murano Cir.
Cupertino, CA 95014
American Brands Construction
1029 Blossom Hill Rd.
San Jose, CA 95123
EXHIBIT B
To: Design Review Committee Date: July 17, 2008
From: Leslie Gross, Assistant Planner
Subject: Application: DIR-2008-13
Location: 11535 Murano Court
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Director's Minor Modification to a Use Permit (U-2003-02) to construct a sunroom 10'-
0" from the rear property line.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee:
1. Approve the Director's Minor Modification to allow the cons` ruction of a
sunroom 10'-0" from the rear property line.
BACKGROUND:
On July 7, 2003, the City Council approved a use permit (U-2003-02) to construct 55
single-family residences on a 4.03 -acre parcel. Comments received during
neighborhood outreach meetings prompted site development changes by the developer.
One of those changes included increasing the setbacks to 20'-0"and providing privacy
protection landscaping for three of the homes abutting the existing residential
properties along 'the southern border. The intent was focused on minimizing visual and
privacy impacts from the proposed second floor. Consequently, these three homes have
larger useable rear yard area compared to the rest of the homes in the development.
SouWem boundan• of development
FbTr7,ffig$JV1.M
July 17, 2008
Page 2
The owner of 11535 Murano Ct. (one of the three homes with 20'-0" rear yard) is
proposing the construction of a 200 square foot single story attached sunroom within
their useable rear yard. The sunroom will match the existing residence in material and
color and the existing privacy protection landscaping and W-0" privacy fence would
remain. The Murano Homeowners Association has reviewed and approved the project.
Typically the Director has the discretion to approval such request, however it is being
forwarded to the Design Review Committee due to expressed concerns received from
the adjacent neighbor.
DISCUSSION:
An existing Oak tree, located in the rear yard area
along the southern boundary, was preserved as part
of the original development because of the species
type, and to preserve the existing screening. An
arborist report was prepared by the City Arborist,
stating that the preferred minimum setback be 6'-5"
from the trunk to achieve a reasonable assurance of
the tree's survival. The specific mitigation measures
prescribed by the City Arborist have been
incorporated as conditions of the project.
Community Cominerzts
The neighbor immediately abutting the subject
property to the south contacted staff with concerns
that the sunroom would create privacy, noise and
odor impacts. In addition, the neighbor requested
that the existing 20'-0" setback be retained, due to the original agreement by
developer to setback the residence 20'-0" to minimize privacy concerns at that time.
the
DIR-2008-13 July 17, 2008 Pa -e 3
Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee allow the construction of the
proposed sunroom 10'-0" from the rear property line for the following reasons:
1. Significant privacy impacts are not evident because the proposed sunroom is
single story, starting at 8'-4" high slop roof, not exceeding 11'-0" at the point of
attachment to the residence, privacy landscaping would be preserved, and the
adjoining privacy fence is 8'-0" high. The height of the sunroom windows do not
offer views into the adjoining property, and the sunroom would be used as
gathering space for the homeowners, which would not create any additional
noise or odors other then those typical of residential activities.
2. The original use permit for the development did not have any provisions that
prohibit the addition of a sunroom. In addition, the applicant has obtained
approval from the Home Owners Association.
3. The design of the sunroom will be consistent with the main residence in
material(s) and color.
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director, Community Developme
Prepared by: Leslie Gross, Assistant Planner
Enclosures:
Model Resolution
Arborist Report, June 11, 2008
Letter from Murano Homeowners Association, November 6, 2007
City Council Minutes, July 7, 2003
Planning Commission Resolution No. 6188
Planning Commission Minutes, May 27, 2003
Plan Set
DIR-2008-13
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO.
OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
APPROVING A DIRECTOR'S MINOR MODIFICATION TO APPROVE
THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SUNROOM TEN FEET FROM THE REAR
PROPERTY LINE.
SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: DIR-2008-13
Applicant: Jay Swartz
Location: 11535 Murano Court
SECTION IL• FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee of the City of Cupertino received an
application for a Director's Minor Modification, as described in this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the
Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Design Review Committee 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. The proposal, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to
property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, general welfare or convenience:
2. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of this chapter, the General Plan
and zoning ordinance;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts; exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the application no. DIR-2008-13, is hereby approved; and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this
Resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application
DIR-2008-13 as set forth in the Minutes of the Design Review Committee Meeting .of
July 17, 2008 are incorporated by reference herein.
Resolution No. DIR-2008-13 July 17, 2008
Page 2
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on the plan set submitted by American Brands Construction
consisting of 4 pages attached to the staff report, except as may be amended by
conditions in this resolution.
2. EXTERIOR MATERIALS
The exterior siding material, and roofing of the sunroom shall match the existing
residence in color, material, texture, dimensions and style. Final exterior materials
shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior
to issuance of building permits.
3. PRIVACY PROTECTION LANDSCAPING
The existing privacy protection landscaping shall be preserved.. In the event that
these plantings die, the owner shall replace each planting with similar species sized
to match the replaced planting at the time of death, subject to approval of the City
of Cupertino.
4. OAK TREE PRESERVATION
The Oak tree located along the southeast corner of the property shall be preserved,
and the following conditions shall be applied during construction, and
a) The downspout for the sunroom should be placed on the opposite side of its
proposed location (i.e. moved from the southeast corner to the southwest
corner). Another option is to ensure water from the downspout is discharged
beyond the tree's canopy.
b) Any existing, unused lines within 15 feet from the tree's trunk shall be
abandoned and cut off at existing soil grade (rather than being dug up and
causing subsequent root damage).
c) Any trenching, compaction, soil cuts or fill shall not extend beyond 12 inches
from the proposed foundation. Vertical excavation for the footing should not
exceed 12 inches below grade.
d) Small tractors or heavy equipment shall not operate beneath the tree's canopy.
As such, all work shall be manually performed (foot -traffic only).
e) Beginning now, and continuing every two weeks thru October of this year
(assuming construction begins in the next month or two), water should be
supplied to the unpaved areas of the tree's root zone within 15 feet from the
trunk (north side of the property fence). In doing so, I recommend applying
approximately 100 gallons of water via a deep -root feeder that is connected to a
hose and probed 1.5 to 2 feet below the soil surface. The valve to the probe
should be opened to allow water to flow until it begins to pour out of the top of
the hole, then a new hole probed three feet away and the process repeated.
There is no need to supply water to the section of root zone where the
foundation is proposed, or within one -foot of the trunk.
Resolution No.
Page 3
DIR-2008-13 July 17, 2008
f) All excavation for the entire foundation shall be manually dug using shovels.
Roots encountered during the process with diameters one -inch and greater
shall be cleanly severed (such as by Toppers or a handsaw) against the soil cut,
which shall not exceed beyond the proposed foundation by more than 12
inches. For roots with diameters two inches and greater, I recommend a clear
plastic sandwich bag is sealed around the cut end and tightly secured with a
rubber band immediately after being cut.
g) Spoils created during excavation shall not be spread within 15 feet of the trunk.
Spoils can be temporarily placed within this distance, but should be moved
prior to project completion.
h) Materials should not be piled within 5 to 10 feet of the tree's trunk.
i) The existing irrigation system should be assessed to ensure that water is not
being applied within 10 feet of the tree's trunk. Also, any plant material within
this distance and requires regular watering should be substituted with
drought -tolerant plant material. A source for identifying suitable drought -
tolerant plant material is
www.californiaoaks.org/ ExtAssets / CompatiblePlantsUnder&AroundOaks.l2df.
j) The removal of existing vegetation shall be carefully performed, by hand, in a
manner does not excavate soil or roots during the process.
k) The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is
prohibited beneath canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage beneath
canopies. Herbicides should not be used beneath the tree's canopy; where used
on site, it should be labeled for safe use near trees.
5. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees,
dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant
to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written
notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the
dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that
the 90 -day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications,
reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a),
has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90 -day period complying with all
of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later
challenging such exactions.
Resolution No. DIR-2008-13 July 17, 2008
Page 4
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of July 2008, at a Regular Meeting of the Design
Review Committee of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll
call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
/s/
Steve Piasecki, Director
Community Development Department
APPROVED:
Lisa Giefer, Chair
Design Review Committee
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
Design Review Committee
July 17, 2008
Exhibit C
APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW
COMMITTEE HELD ON July 17, 2008
ROLL CALL
Committee Members present:
Committee Members absent:
Staff present:
Staff absent:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Lisa Giefer, Chairperson
Jessica Rose, Commissioner
none
Elizabeth Pettis
Leslie Gross
Gary Chao
None
July 3, 2008
Minutes of the July 3, 2008 Design Review Committee meeting were approved
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
None
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR:
2. ASA -2008-04, Brian Replinger, Homestead & Wolfe Rd (Villa Serra Apts)
Request postponement to the August 7, 2008 meeting was approved
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
A resident, Jennifer Griffin, stated her concern regarding the upcoming proposed changes to the
R1 Ordinance. She and her neighbors feel that the look of their neighborhood is in danger if
changes are made to this Ordinance.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
None
PUBLIC HEARING:
Application Nol.-,k ASA -2008-03
Applicant: ike Ducote
Location: 20 Homestead Rd (Villa Serra Apts)
Architectural and Site approval o landscape tree improvement plans and final details
of the Green Building measures accor g to the conditions of approval as directed by
the City Council at their meeting of July 3, 7
Design Review Committee decision final unless appealed.
2 Design Review Committee
July 17, 2008
This application is being heard by the Committee to finalize the landscaping and Green
Build' aspects of their approved development project as conditioned by the City Council.
Staff me ber Pettis went over the applicant's proposed tree plantings, streetscape plan and
"green bu ing" solutions. Staff supports the application and approves of the tree options and
the "green ilding" measures the applicant has suggested. Commissioner Rose asked for
clarification on e solar requirement. It was explained that the Planning Commission added the
condition to the evelopment approval to install a system that had a 10 -year cost payback.
Chairperson Giefe asked about planting native specie trees. The applicant stated that he is
willing to plant wha ver plant type will work best for the Planning, Public Works and their
site. Commissioner Ros asked about the alternatives to a solar system. The applicant explained
that their consultant hadne a study and determined that a photovoltaic system would not be
fiscally reasonable (with a co buy back of 18 years), so they are proposing to install a recycled
metal roof, will be using rec led and low emission paints, high efficiency water heaters,
Energy Star appliances and low ow plumbing fixtures. Chairperson Giefer asked about the
study methodology. The applicant id he was not familiar with all the other system options
and the particulars of the study. He wo d be willing to get more information, but hat the study
showed the company would not qualify or the Federal tax credits nor would leasing their
meters and having the leasing company pa the cost savings back due to the specific meter
types they were required to have by PG & E. company is in favor of solar systems and has
installed them at some of their other properties. T would like to be able to install a system at
Villa Serra if feasible. Chairperson Giefer offered su estions for tree planting. Since they are
being asked to plant native trees in the park area, she w ld like to see more native specie trees
planted around the perimeter to provide continuity. Co 'ssioner Rose was disappointed by
the lack of a solar system. She would like the applicant to btain additional information in
order to find a way that will make the installation of such a s tem work for the project. She
motioned to approve the project with Staff's recommendations an he additional conditions to
plant a Madrone tree instead of a Magnolia, a California Buckeye inste d of a London Plane and
to have a review of the solar options back to the Committee at the first eeting of October for
final approval on that aspect of the project (in time to incorporate a new otovoltaic system
into the building plans if deemed feasible).
MOTION: Co nmissioner Rose moved to approve ASA -2008-03 with the above mentioned
SECOND: Chairpe on Giefer
ABSENT: none
ABSTAIN: none
VOTE: 2-0
3. Application No. (s): EXC-20 -13
Applicant: Breanna C
Location: 21124 Green]
Residential Design Exception for a portion o 910 square foot single story addition to
encroach into the required front yard setback
Design Review Committee decision final unless appealed.
3 Design Review Committee
July 17, 2008
Staff mem\Giefer
ettis explained that the applicant is requesting the exception due to the
triangular of the lot. A portion of the proposed addition would encroach into the front
yard setbasetback is currently 13 feet. The addition would reduce a portion of the
setback to t. e overall FAR of the site would be 36%, which is well under the allowed
45% FAR. uppo the application. Commissioner Rose asked for clarification on what the
proposed sks woul be for the addition. Staff member Pettis stated that is would be 11-12
feet from operty line. The applicant clarified that the property line is setback from the
curb alrea13 feet. He they added that all of the neighboring homes are much larger
than what proposing. He ought several pictures to demonstrate this visually for the
Committeebers. He also ha tatements from four of his neighbors in support of the
project. Cerson Giefer asked if sidewalk dedication would be required with this new
constructioaff member Pettis sai she hadn't checked with Public Works on that
requirement. Staff member Chao said that Public Works department will require a sidewalk
and a new driveway entrance. It does not nee to be added to the Design Review Committee
resolution, as this is a public works requirement, ey will ensure that this condition is met or
mitigated. Commissioner Rose agreed that the lot w a challenging one and could understand
why that applicant needed more floor space.
MOTION: Commissioner Rose moved to approve EXC-
SECOND: Chairperson Giefer
ABSENT: none
ABSTAIN: none
VOTE: 2-0
4. Application No.(s): DIR-2008-13
Applicant: Jay Swartz (Luo residence)
Location: 11535 Murano Court
Director's referral to the Design Review Committee for approval of a 200 square foot
sunroom addition to the south side of an existing single family residence
Design Review Committee decision final unless appealed.
Staff member Gross explained that the applicant is proposing to enclose a 200' sunroom. The
sunroom will be 10' from the rear property line. In 2003, the City Council approved a
development application for 55 homes to be built. During the development application process,
the developer modified three lots' setbacks (increased) to 20' feet to accommodate privacy
concerns from the existing surrounding neighbors. The enclosure will be constructed to be of
the same building materials as the house. The homeowners association has reviewed the
application. The Director has referred the application to the Committee due to the volume of
concerns expressed about the project by the neighbors. There is a large Oak tree on the site,
which will be preserved. Neighbors are concerned about the 10' setback exception. Staff
supports the application since there is sufficient privacy screening in place as well as tall
fencing. Commissioner Rose asked for clarification about how sunrooms are classified and
confirmed that the three lots had 20' setbacks as part of the original development approval.
Chairperson Giefer wanted to know if there had been any other Director approvals in Planned
Development areas. Staff member Gross stated that sunroom addition were classified just like
any other addition and that the original approval called for these three lots to have 20' setbacks
to mitigate privacy concerns for the existing neighbors. Other sunrooms have been approved in
Planned Developments, however, the difference is that in the other areas additions can be done
4 Design Review Committee
July 17, 2008
at any of the lots. They do not have the 20' setback constraint. The sunroom installation
company, Four Seasons Sunrooms, explained that the sunroom addition will have a solid roof,
tinted windows and offer soundproofing. The highest wall height is 8'4", so neighbors will not
be able to see into the sunroom since the property line fence is 8' high. Three neighbors spoke
against the addition claiming negative privacy impacts, the houses are already too close
together and that if the development was approved with 20' setbacks, then the City has an
obligation to uphold the 20' requirement. Another resident shared this sentiment. The property
owner, Mr. Luo, addressed the comments made by his neighbors. He felt that privacy was not
an issue with the addition. He has a tall fence and his living area is already smaller than other
homes on Murano Court. Chairperson Giefer said she would not support approval of the
application. The intent of the 20' setback should be honored to protect the privacy of the
surrounding neighbors. The development agreement called for 20' setbacks and the City should
uphold that requirement. Commissioner Rose agreed with Chairperson Giefer. She felt that this
addition would not have an impact on neighboring privacy, but that the original development
was approved with 20' setbacks on these lots. For this reason, she also did not support approval
of the application.
MOTION: Commissioner Rose moved to deny DIR-2008-13
SECOND: Chairperson Giefer
ABSENT: none
ABSTAIN: none
VOTE: 2-0
OLD BUSINESS:
None
NEW BUSINESS:
None
Respectfully submitted:
/ s / Beth Ebben
Beth Ebben
Administrative Clerk
g.planning/DRC CommitteelMinutes071308
Exhibit D
ARBOR RESOURCES
profe55ional consulting arbori5t5 and tree care
A REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED ADDITION
NEAR ONE COAST LIVE OAK AT
11535 MURANO CIRCLE
CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Submitted to:
Community Development Department
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
Prepared by:
David L. Babby
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #399
Board -Certified Master Arborist #WE -4001B
June 11, 2008
p.o. box 25295, San mateo, cahfornia 94402 ■ email: arborre5ource5@comca5t.net
phone: 650.654.335 I ■ fax: 650.240.0777 ■ hcen5ed contractor #796763
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist June 11, 2008
1.0 INTRODUCTION
I have been retained by the City of Cupertino Community Development Department to
review the tree -related impacts associated with a proposal to construct a sunroom addition
to the rear of the existing home at 11535 Murano Circle, Cupertino. I visited the site on
June 10, 2008, and this report presents my observations and recommendations.
2.0 OBSERVATIONS
The tree in question is situated in the backyard along the southern property boundary, and
is beneath high-voltage electrical wires. It is approximately 25 feet all, and has trunk has a
diameter of 25.5 inches. Below shows a map (from the Site Plan by American Brands
Construction) of the tree's location, as well as a photograph.
Canopy dimension
Oek
1 Tiler
IIJ) Pam ¢ow.
"' ICC QH590� ,
(A9 mna�1�
11535 Murano Circle, Cupertino Page 1 of 4
City of Cupertino Community Development Department
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist June 11, 2008
The canopy is extremely asymmetrical and misshapen due having been severely pruned at
its top and sides; I measured the canopy to extend 15 feet towards the north (towards the
existing home), 8 feet south, 20 feet east, and 7 feet south (see map on the previous page
for a delineation of the canopy spread). A tree of this size would typically have a canopy
spread of 45 plus feet across.
The severity of the pruning is partly due to overhead clearance from high-voltage wires,
and partly due to a substantial loss of canopy predominantly from its north, south and west
sides. Due to the extent of pruning, the work does not conform to Cupertino's Municipal
Code or professional industry standards set forth by ANSI A300-2001 (Pruning).
The tree's foliage appears viable, although what the majority of what has grown seems to
be sprouts that are weakly attached and prone to breaking if they become too large.
3.0 REVIEW OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS
The addition is proposed 6.5 feet from the tree's trunk within a substantial portion of its
northwest root zone. At this distance, large roots would be encountered during excavation
for the foundation.
Preferably, the minimum setback should be 10.5 plus feet from the trunk. In my opinion
the 6.5 -foot distance for this particular situation would not seem to impose significant
impacts when considering the tree's extremely poor structural form, as well as only one
quadrant of the root area will be impacted. However, it is essential that the mitigation
measures presented in the next section are carefully followed to achieve a reasonable
assurance of the tree's survival.
11535 Murano Circle, Cupertino Page 2 of 4
City of Cupertino Community Development Department
David L. Bobby, Registered Consulting Arborist June 11, 2008
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations presented within this section are based on the plans reviewed, and serve
as guidelines for mitigating impacts to the oak. They should be carefully followed and
incorporated into the project plans. Please note that they are subject to revision upon
reviewing any additional or revised plans.
1. The downspout for the sunroom should be placed on the opposite side of its proposed
location (i.e. moved from the southeast comer to the southwest corner). Another
option is to ensure water from the downspout is discharged beyond the tree's canopy.
2. Any existing, unused lines within 15 feet from the tree's trunk shall be abandoned and
cut off at existing soil grade (rather than being dug up and causing subsequent root
damage).
I Any trenching, compaction, soil cuts or fill shall not extend beyond 12 inches from the
proposed foundation. Vertical excavation for the footing should not exceed 12 inches
below grade.
4. Small tractors or heavy equipment shall not operate beneath the tree's canopy. As
such, all work shall be manually performed (foot -traffic only).
5. Beginning now, and continuing every two weeks thru October of this year (assuming
construction begins in the next month or two), water should be supplied to the unpaved
areas of the tree's root zone within 15 feet from the trunk (north side of the property
fence). In doing so, I recommend applying approximately 100 gallons of water via a
deep -root feeder that is connected to a hose and probed 1.5 to 2 feet below the soil
surface. The valve to the probe should be opened to allow water to flow until it begins
to pour out of the top of the hole, then a new hole probed three feet away and the
process repeated. There is no need to supply water to the section of root zone where
the foundation is proposed, or within one -foot of the trunk.
11535 Murano Circle, Cupertino Page 3 of 4
City of Cupertino Community Development Department
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist June 11, 2008
6. All excavation for the entire foundation shall be manually dug using shovels. Roots
encountered during the process with diameters one -inch and greater shall be cleanly
severed (such as by loppers or a handsaw) against the soil cut, which shall not exceed
beyond the proposed foundation by more than 12 inches. For roots with diameters two
inches and greater, I recommend a clear plastic sandwich bag is sealed around the cut
end and tightly secured with a rubber band immediately after being cut.
7. Spoils created during excavation shall not be spread within 15 feet of the trunk. Spoils
can be temporarily placed within this distance, but should be moved prior to project
completion.
8. Materials should not be piled within 5 to 10 feet of the tree's trunk.
9. The existing irrigation system should be assessed to ensure that water is not being
applied within 10 feet of the tree's trunk. Also, any plant material within this distance
and requires regular watering should be substituted with drought -tolerant plant
material. A source for identifying suitable drought -tolerant plant material is
www califomiaoaks org/ExtAssets/CoMpatiblePlantsUnder&AroundOaks.pdf.
10. The removal of existing vegetation shall be carefully performed, by hand, in a manner
does not excavate soil or roots during the process.
11. The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited
beneath canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage beneath canopies.
Herbicides should not be used beneath the tree's canopy; where used on site, it should
be labeled for safe use near trees.
Prepared B : AM Date: June 11, 2008
P Y
David L. Babby
Registered Consulting Arborist #399
Board -Certified Master Arborist #WE -4001 B
11535 Murano Circle, Cupertino Page 4 of 4
City of Cupertino Community Development Department
November 6, 2007
Mr. Perry Luo
11535 Murano Circle
Cupertino, California 95104
Dear Mr. Luo,
MURANO EXHIBIT E
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
P.O. Box 190, Pleasanton, CA 94566
925-426-1508; fax 925-426-1494
Your recent request for architectural approval to install a sun room has been granted by
the Board of Directors, subject to the following conditions:
1. All necessary permits from public agencies must be applied for and granted. All City
setback requirements must be met.
2. Drainage as originally installed by the developer is not to be changed or altered, and
must drain to the street as originally designed.
3. Construction is in accordance with the plans submitted for rear yard improvements.
4. Improvements are maintained so as not to be unsightly or invasive to your
neighbors.
5. Structure must be in compliance with the requirements of the CC&R's and the City of
Cupertino.
6. Structure must be painted to match home.
Thank you for submitting your request for architectural approval. Feel free to contact
me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Jaye W IIs
Assocll n Manager
cc: Board of Directors
LF
Z.\MS Office\MS word\Murano\Architectural\PA 11535 Murano rear yard improvements rev2.doc
July 7, 2003
Cupertino City Council
Exhibit F
Page 3
13X Adopt a resolution authorizing execution of an improvement agreement for Chiping Yang
\ and Bee Choo Yang, 10660 Santa Lucia Road, APN 342-16-034, Resolution No. 03-136.
14. Ac pt city projects performed under contract. (No documentation in packet):
a) Tomas Aquino -Saratoga Creek Trail -Reach 5 Improvement Pect, Project
No. 002-9116 (GradeTech, Inc.)
b) Wolfe\oad/1-280 Interchange Improvements, Project No. 9528 (Republic
Electric) \
C) Civic Center d Library Project, Phase 1, demolitionsalvage, recycling and site
preparation, Pro} t 2002-9222 (Ferma Corporation
15. Accept municipal improve nts (grading, curb and gutter) for YR Development, 10675
Santa Lucia Road, APN 347-1 ,-055. (No documentation in packet).
16. Adopt a resolution declaring the il�tention to pfder the vacation of a 10 ft. public service
easement, 11477 Lindy Place, APN X56-24-004, Resolution No. 03-137.
17. Adopt a resolution approving a grant �f easement (10 ft. public service easement) for
11477 Lindy Place, APN 356-24-004;�Resolution No. 03-138.
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CO?�SENT C4ENDAR (above)
3. Approve the minutes from�he June 16 City Coun6i1 meeting.
The City Clerk noted that Richard Lowenthal had been,absent at the June 16 meeting, and
she would correct o pages that showed him as pres*t. City Manager David Knapp
suggested alterna 've wording for page 8, second to last p\aragraph, last sentence, to read
"The City m ager said that staff will work with the Rtary Club and the library
fundraising ganization to find a solution as to how the fi.m s, will be recorded that is
satisfacto to the Cupertino Library Committee and to the Rotary Club."
Low thal/James moved and seconded to approve the minutes as ame*d. Vote: Ayes:
C ang, James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval. Noes: None. Absent: None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
18. Consider application(s): Z-2003-01; TM -2003-01; U-2003-02; and EA -2003-03 for Saron
Gardens, LLC located at 7310 Rainbow Drive, A-E, APN(s): 366-19-075; 366-19-076;
and 366-19-048. (This item was continued from 6/16/03):
a) Grant a negative declaration
b) Approve a tentative map to subdivide a 4.03 -acre parcel into 55 residential parcels
and one common parcel
July 7, 2003 Cupertino City Council Page 4
C) Approve the rezoning of a 4.03 -acre parcel from P (R3) to P (Res)
d) Approve a use permit to construct 55 single-family residences and site
improvements on a 4.03 -acre parcel
e) Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 1920: "An Ordinance of the City
Council of the City of Cupertino rezoning three parcels totaling 3.92 gross acres
parcel from P (R3) or Planned Development with multi -family residential uses
and RI or Single Family Residential to R (Res) or Planned Development with
residential uses
Assistant Planner Gary Chou made the presentation, and said this application was a use
permit to demolish 39 existing apartment units in 9 buildings and 1 single-family
residence, and to construct a residential development consisting of 55 single-family
homes. He said that the key issues discussed at Planning Commission meetings included
below -market -rate (BMR) units, relocation assistance, and impacts on students. Chou
reviewed these issues in greater detail, and said that 3 of the 15 net additional units must
be BMR units, which is a 50% increase in the number of BMR units required. Chou said
that the Relocation Assistance Program that was recommended by the Housing
Commission was approved by the Saron Gardens Residents Association and would be for
a lump sum payment in the amount of three times the monthly rent. He explained that
students attending Regnart Elementary and Monta Vista High School seniors would be
allowed to finish out the academic year if they reside at Saran Gardens after December
2003.
Jon Moss, representing Prometheus, said that they are not currently the property owners
but are under contract to purchase the property. He explained the series of meetings that
were held with the neighborhood, the renters, and city staff, and discussed the changes
that were made to the project as a result of this input, which included reducing some
building heights, controlling noise and dust, implementing mitigation measures to protect
privacy, and increasing some setbacks. He said that the surrounding neighborhood
residents preferred. to have for -sale housing in this area, and were in favor of the
architectural design and quality as well as the site layout plan. He said that, although the
residents will be given 60 -day written notice, they do not anticipate starting construction
for at least 6 months.
Architect David Johnson showed slides and discussed the architectural style and
amenities of the project.
Tom Dragosavac, 7308H Rainbow Drive, said it has been a good experience to live at
Saron Gardens. He said the Saron Garden residents appreciate the consideration given by
Prometheus in the relocation plan, but the still wish they did not have to move. He
expressed concern about how the BMR units are handled by the Planning Commission
and that the city's policies give credit for loss of rental units instead of encouraging more.
July 7, 2003 Cupertino City Council Page 5
Council member Kwok read an excerpt of the General Plan, Section 24, regarding a rental
housing retention policy, and noted that this project meets only one of the three
guidelines.
Council member Sandoval asked if the BMR units could be the first ones to be built, and
Jon Moss said he believed Prometheus could do that. She also asked that bicycle racks be
placed in the central common area.
Discussion followed regarding the rental housing preservation policy. Kwok suggested
that the applicant provide one additional BMR unit since their project does not meet the
General Plan guidelines for rental retention. Moss noted that the General Plan refers to a
rental housing retention plan that is to be created, and said that Prometheus was already
providing one more BMR unit than is required at a cost of $500,000 each. Kwok
withdrew his suggestion.
Kwok/Sandoval moved and seconded to grant the Negative Declaration, approve the
tentative map, approve the rezoning, and approve the use permit. Vote: Ayes: Chang,
James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval. Noes: None. Absent: None.
The City Clerk read the title of the ordinance. Lowenthal/James moved and seconded to
read the ordinance by title only, and that the City Clerk's reading would constitute the
first reading thereof. Vote: Ayes: Chang James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval. Noes:
None, Absent: None.
The Council members concurred that staff should begin preparation of the rental housing
retention policy, and any other applicants that may be considering the removal of rental
housing should be notified that the requirements would be changing.
Mayor Chang reordered the agenda to consider Item No. 21 next.
BUSINESS
21. Adoptp cy and procedures regarding the naming of City cilities and recognition of
financial don S.
/
Mayor Chang listed the committee membe� who worked on the policy under
consideration, gave a of background, d reiterated that the policy would give
recognition to community embers o donated money, but facilities would not be
named after donors. �
uncil's attention to editing changes suggested by
City Attorney Charles Kilian directed
Council member SandoyA. He summan ;qd the main features of the policy, which
included the following'
i . Before facility is named for any reason there mould be a noticed public hearing;
2. X/The policy applies to any portion of a facility
Mine
CITE' OF
CUPEkTING
To: Kiersa
From: Grace Jolulson
Subject: Z-2003-01, TM -2003-01, U-2003-02 (Saron Gardens)
Date: September 16, 2003
Exhibit G
City Hall
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
Telephone: (408) 777-3223
FAX: (408) 777-3366
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
No action letter was written to the applicant. The Council action is as follows:
Council Granted the Negative Declaration; approved the tentative map, the rezoning, and the
use permit; conducted the first reading of the ordinance; concurred that staff should begin
preparation of the rental housing retention policy, and any applicants that may be considering
removal of rental housing should be notified that the requirements would be changing
G4�
Grace Johnson
Printed on Recycled Paper
U-2003-02
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 6188
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT 55 SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCES AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS ON A 4.03 -ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT 7310
RAINBOW DRIVE A-E AND 7308 RAINBOW DRIVE 9-14 and A.
SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No(s).: U-2003-02 (EA -2003-03)
Applicant: Prometheus
Location: 7310 Rainbow Drive A-E and 7308 Rainbow Drive 9-14 and A .
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR USE PERMIT
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a
Use Permit, 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) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to
property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to -the public health,
safety, general welfare, or convenience;
2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the
Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of this title.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the application for Use Permit and Exception are hereby
recommended for approval, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution
beginning on Page 2 thereof; and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution
are based are contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No(s). U-2003-02
Resolution No. 6188 U-2003-02
Page 2
May 27, 2003
(EA -2003-03), as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of May 27,
2003, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPT.
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
The recommendation of approval is based on the exhibits labeled Saron Gardens dated
June 6, 2003 including sheets A0, L0.0, C1 -C8, T1, L1.1-1-4.1, Al, A.A1-A.A3, A.131 -A.132,
A.Cl-A.C2, A.D1-A.D3, A.N1-A.N2, A.P1-A.P3, except as may be amended by the
Conditions contained in this resolution.
2. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication
requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government
Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of
the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other
exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90 -day approval period in which you
may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to
Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90 -
day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally
barred from later challenging such exactions.
3. FENCING & LIGHTING PLAN:
The applicant shall submit a fence and lighting plan (including fencing details of the
transformer along Rainbow Drive) to the Design Review Committee for review and
approval prior to issuance of building permits. In order to replace the perimeter fences,
proof of consent or authorization from the adjoining neighbors must be submitted to the
City prior to approval.
4. DECORATIVE PAVERS:
The style and type of the decorative pavers are not approved as part of this project. A
revised site plan indicating the specific type and style of pavers must be submitted to
the Design Review Committee for review and approval prior to final approval of the
project. Pavers shall be specified as interlocking pavers or other pavement materials
that looks like interlocking pavers with some water permeability.
5. CURB & PARKWAY ALIGNMENT ON POPPY WAY:
A supplemental arborist report with specific tree preservation recommendations must
be submitted to the City for review and approval in order to finalize the sidewalk/ curb
design along Poppy Way prior to the approval of the final map. The arborist report
shall consider the existing tree canopy size, grade levels and sufficient setback from the
proposed sidewalk in order to ensure complete preservations of these trees. The
sidewalk/ parkway will be required to meander or bulb around trees #60-62 along
Poppy Way and then come back in to match the existing sidewalk/ parkway patterns. In
the event that the two R-1 lot sizes are affected by the approved curb/parkway
Resolution No. 6188 U-2003-02
Page 3
May 27, 2003
alignment, the proposed homes must be reduced in size according to the R-1
development standards. Revised plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Design
Review Committee.
6. LANDSCAPING PLAN:
A revised landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Design Review Committee for
review and approval indicating the preservation of tree #58 on the site plan.
7. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS (CC&R's)
A copy of the CC& R's for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Attorney prior to approval of the final map. A legal description of the side/rear yard
easements proposed between homes must also be submitted to the City Attorney's
Office for review and approval prior to the final map approval.
8. PARKING RATIO:
Parking ratio for the property shall be 2.83 spaces per unit (156 stalls). Two spaces per
unit shall be covered. In addition, the parking ratio for the two R-1 single-family homes
shall be 4 spaces per unit (8 stalls). Two spaces per unit shall be covered.
9. SITE PLAN:
A revised site plan reflecting the proposed fence recess between each homes as shown
on the landscaping plan sheet L2.1 shall be submitted to the Planning Department for
review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.
10. INTERIOR GARAGE DIMENSION:
The interior garage clearance shall be 20 feet by 20 feet (measured from inside walls).
11. STOOP HEIGHTS OF UNIT TYPE D (Dl & D2):
As proposed, the entry landing leading to the front door of D units (D1 & D2) is
approximately elevated 6 feet above grade that does not present a very desirable
pedestrian experience. The applicant shall explore options to reduce the height of the
entry stoops by breaking up the main entry stairs by adding a couple of steps at the
entrance of the front yard or re-evaluate the grading plan for the project so that the
ground floor/ garage could be set lower in elevation in order to reduce the scale of the
front stoops. Revised plans for all of the D units shall be submitted to the Design
Review Committee for review and approval prior to issuance of the Final Map.
12. TRANSFORMER:
The transformer proposed along Rainbow Drive shall be screened completely out of the
public view by a combination of fencing and landscaping. The fence design shall be
reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee. Alternatively, the
transformer may be underground if screening from fencing and landscaping are
determined inadequate.
Resolution No. 6188 U-2003-02
Page 4
May 27, 2003
13. BELOW MARKET RATE UNITS:
The project will be increasing the total number of housing units by 15 units on the
project site. However, 39 apartment units will be demolished. As a mitigation measure,
20% (3 units) of the 15 additional units must be below market rate units consistent with
the City's Housing Mitigation Policy.
14. RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM:
The project will be subjected to the approved relocation assistance program dated May
22, 2003 except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this resolution.
Prometheus shall do everything within reason to accommodate residents with children
attending schools so that they can continue to live in the same school district.
15. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN:
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a construction
management plan to the Planning Department for review and approval. The plan shall
provide provisions for the following:
a. Construction Vehicle Routing Plan: All construction velnicles shall enter the
project site from Rainbow Drive off of De Anza Blvd. and exit onto Rainbow Drive
to De Anza Blvd.
b. Construction Equipment Staging Plan: The construction equipment -staging plan
shall clearly indicate where the equipments will be staged during construction to
the satisfaction of the Community Development Department.
c. Dust Control: The project shall utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as
required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity,
which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be included in the grading and street
improvement plans. Erosion and or sediment control plan shall be provided.
Identify all Pre -and Post development BMPs that will be installed on-site.
SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
1. STREET WIDENING
Street widening, improvements and dedications shall be provided in accordance with
City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer. The Public
Works Department must approve all on and off-site improvements prior to gaining
approval, which includes storm drain improvements, sidewalk design, curb and gutter
design and dedications along Poppy Way.
2. 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. The Public Works Department
must approve all on and off-site improvements prior to gaining approval, which
includes storm drain improvements, sidewalk design, curb and gutter design and
dedications along Poppy Way.
Resolution No. 6188 U-2003-02
Page 5
May 27, 2003
3. 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.
4. FIRE HYDRANT
Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City.
5. TRAFFIC SIGNS
Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City.
6. STREET TREES
Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way and shall be of a type
approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125.
7. 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.
8. DRAINAGE
Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Pre and Post -
development calculations must be provided to identify whether new storm drain
facilities will be required, existing systems may need to be upgraded, or storm drainage
can be maintained the same.
9. FIRE PROTECTION
Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the City.
10. 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.
11. 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
Resolution No. 6188 U-2003-02 May 27, 2003
Page 6
inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for undergrounding of
utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits.
Fees:
a. Checking & Inspection Fees:
b. Grading Permit:
c. Development Maintenance Deposit:
d. Storm Drainage Fee:
e. Power Cost:
f. Map Checking Fees:
g. Park Fees:
$ 6 % of Off -Site Improvement Cost or $2,268.00 minimum
$ 6% of Site Improvement Cost
$ 3,000.00
$ 5,198.70
$1,097.75
$ 97,200.00
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.
** Developer is required for one-year power cost for streetlights
12. 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.
13. DEDICATION OF WATERLINES
The developer shall dedicate to the City all waterlines and appurtenances installed to
City Standards and shall reach an agreement with San Jose Water for water service to
the subject development.
14. WORK SCHEDULE
A work schedule shall be provided to the City to show the timetable necessary for
completion of on and off site unprovements.
15. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water Resources
Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be
included in your grading and street improvement plans. Erosion and or sediment
control plan shall be provided.
Resolution No. 6188 U-2003-02 May 27, 2003
Page 7
16. NOI/NPDES PERMIT
The developer shall determine if a NOI/ NPDES permit will be required for their site.
Please see attached.
CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE OF
ACCEPTANCE OF ENGINEERING/ SURVEYING CONDITIONS
(Section 66474.18 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.
/s/ Ralph Qualls
Ralph Qualls, Director of Public Works
City Engineer CA License 22046
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of May, 2003, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Corr, Miller, Wong and Chairperson Chen
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Saadati
ATTEST:
/ s / Steve Piasecki
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
G:\Planning\PDREPORT\RES\ U-2003-02res.doc
APPROVED:
/ s / Angela Chen
Angela Chen, Chairperson
Cupertino Planning Commission
Exhibit H
Planning Commission Minutes 3 May 27, 2003
PUBLIC HEARING
Chair'S�en moved the agenda to Item 5.
5. App ' ation Nos.: CP -2003-01, EA -2003-02
Applic City of Cupertino (Capital Improvement Plan)
Location: Citywide
Capital Improvement Pl , consistency with the General Plan
Planning Commission decisi nal unless appealed
Continued from Planning Com sion meeting of May 12, 2003
Staff presentation: Mr. Ralph Qualls, ublic Works Director aid that the capital improvement
plan for 2003-04 consists mostly of proj is under constru on, such as the library, civic center
and completing the modifications of the spo center civic park at the corner of DeAnza and
Stevens Creek Boulevards. He reported that the api improvement is about $3 million of which
$1.2 million is general fund money, the remain being grants or special funds. Of the $1.2
million, approximately $1 million is payment ag ent -program which is listed under 9400
streets which is the annual overlays and sl seals don on city streets each year. It has been
maintained because it covers what is ede d during the ear, and more importantly it is a
maintenance of effort that qualifies th city to apply for T21 ds and other types of payment
management funds that would give city essentially 1.5 times the' ability to do that work.
Chair Chen opened the meetin or public input. There was no one prese who wished to speak.
MOTION: Com. C moved that Applications CP -2003-01 and EA 003-02 were in
confo 'ty with the General Plan for five year Capital Improveme Program
FY 003-04 to 2007-08
SECOND: onWong
ABSENT: Com Saadati
VOTE: Passed 4-0-0
Chair Chen moved the agenda back to Item 4.
4. Application Nos.: TM -2003-01, U-2003-02, Z-2003-01, EA -2003-03
Applicant: Saron Gardens, LLC
Location: 7310 Rainbow Drive, A-E
Tentative Map to subdivide a 4.03 acre parcel into 55 residential parcels and one common parcel.
Use Permit to construct 55 single family residences and site improvements on a 4.03 acre parcel
Zoning to rezone a 4.03 parcel from (PR3) to P(Res)
Continued from Planning Commission meeting of May 12, 2003
Tentative City Council date: June 16, 2003
Staff presentation: Mr. Gary Chao, Assistant Planner, reviewed the background of the application
and said that relative to the relocation program, staff received a letter and a revised relocation plan
from the Saron Gardens resident association, stating that the residents did not support the
relocation program presented to them at the residents' meeting on May 22°d. Mr. Chao reviewed
the major changes in the revised relocation plan which was distributed. He reported that
Planning Commission Minutes 4 May 27, 2003
Prometheus will now provide a garbage dumpster to facilitate the disposal of residents' debris
from their property; and the relocation allowance has been increased to a lump sum for each
resident equal to three times the monthly rent being paid at the time of relocation. Staff has
reviewed the revised relocation plan and recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the
revised relocation plan dated May 22d as part of the project. Relative to the concerns about the
setbacks, the applicant has revised the site plan to allow two of the end units to have 20 feet side
yard setbacks instead of 10 feet originally proposed. Mr. Chao reviewed the revised site plan;
school impacts and meetings with the school districts; and pedestrian path as outlined in the staff
report.
Mr. Chao clarified that the school districts could only accommodate students that live in Saron
Gardens past December 2003, and only applies to elementary students and high school seniors; not
Kennedy Jr. High students because it is over capacity at present. He said that the tenants will
receive a refund of their deposit and the three months rent at the time they check their keys out.
Com. Corr suggested that the residents be given the names of contact persons in both school
districts to contact relative to the school attendance issues.
Mr. John Moss, Prometheus, said that they revised the relocation plan in response to the residents'
- -input.- He reviewed the changes in the relocation- plan- One --change was the removal of the
condition that the tenant would have to relocate within the County of Santa Clara; now the tenant
can move anywhere and still have the ,benefit. Prometheus also removed the condition that the
tenant could only receive the assistance if they moved to another rental property where the rent
was greater than the present rent; the tenant can now move to a lower rent and still get relocation
assistance. The monetary assistance was originally going to be' spread over several months; that
has been changed to one lump sum at the time the tenant moves out of the apartment. The 60 day
notice provision has also been eliminated; as soon as Prometheus becomes the owner of the
property, the residents would be entitled to the benefits at any time they would move out. Relative
to the school issue, Mr. Moss said that the applicants had been proactive to set up a meeting with
both school districts, their preference was to be able to grandfather in the schools that the
residents' children are attending now throughout their tenure; however, the school districts clearly
communicated their position on the subject. Mr. Moss said that was understandable. from his
viewpoint, given the fact that they have people coming to them on a daily basis with the same type
of request. He said they provided a list of available. apartments with a list of schools associated
with each rental property. He reiterated that all the schools in Cupertino were excellent schools.
He said relative to the parking issue, they looked at trying to create as much parking as possible,
resulting in a net increase of 2 parking stalls by eliminating the road shown before; noting that the
only reason the road was there before was the assumption it was needed for fire access; and after
meeting with the fire department, it is not an absolute requirement of the fire department. Relative
to the setback issue, Mr. Moss said they met with the neighbor most impacted, and the change was
favorably received by the neighbor. The pedestrian path was discussed before, and given the
concerns stated in the staff report, the pedestrian path is an acceptable part of the application. Mr.
Moss said he felt they had reasonably addressed all of the issues. The neighbors they met with
over the last 8 months have created a number of changes shared previously, and he said he still felt
the majority of the neighbors were either neutral regarding the project or were in favor of the
proj ect.
Mr. Moss said that the new tenants would be informed what the plans for the redevelopment are,
and would not be eligible for the relocation program. The prospective tenant would make the
decision as to whether they would want to move in under those circumstances.
Planning Commission Minutes 5 May 27, 2003
Com. Wong referred to Page 4-7, stoop height of unit type D, and asked for feedback on the
concern of the design issue. Mr. Chao said that Unit Type D, as it appears, is higher than other
unit types, and if one is standing at grade level, it is at head level; therefore staff is suggesting a
condition that the applicant revisit the design of those units and in particular all the Unit Type Ds
to see if they can lower it to a more pedestrian friendly height, so that the first thing seen is not
like the top of the landing on the entry landing. Mr. Piasecki said that the applicant believes they
can accommodate that.
Mr. David Johnson, Christian Johnson Architects, said that the height was set at 6 feet for some
internal planning reasons, but there is no practical obstruction to lowering the height to be more in
keeping with the other units and they would work with staff to find a height they are comfortable
with.
Chair Chen opened the meeting for public input.
Mr. Dennis Whitaker, 20622 Clieryl Drive, asked if the heights were still 36 feet from the base,
and what the per -acre density was. Mr. Piasecki said the density was 13.6. Mr. Whitaker said the
biggest concern he had was not with the developers and the plans, but with the Planning
Commission and City Council -and their quest -to retain as -much BMR as possible: -He said he felt
that the primary reason for the families with children living in that area is to stay within the
specific school system they selected. He said he hoped that the city government would show the
concerns and consistencies with all the developments and the BMRs by giving decent
considerations prior to displacing the families and make certain that those families desiring to stay
in the specific elementary middle school and high schools would be able to. He said those not
concerning themselves with staying in the specific areas should not face financial burdens now or
in the future for being forced to relocate. He said he felt the developers had done a good job in
offering the financial assistance. Relative to the BMR program, he questioned if people in the
future are forced to relocate from a development, would they be able to become a top priority on
the waiting list for BMR housing, to specifically stay in the school districts where they are at. He
reiterated that all five schools in the high school district were top schools, but noted that some had
a higher ratio of students going on to college. He urged the efforts to continue toward allowing
the students to stay in the school they are attending.
Ms. Trudy Wallick, 7390 Rainbow Dr., #1, reiterated Mr. Whitaker's remarks. She questioned the
grading as she resided behind the apartments, so that the people behind won't get swamped with
more water. She encouraged more dialogue with the school districts about displacing the children
since the residents were being forced to move out of their apartments.
Mr. Piasecki said that the speaker could talk with the applicant's architect regarding the grading.
He said they would have to meet all the normal standards, and would not be able to drain across
the.neighbor's property.
Mr. Tom Dragosavac, 7308 Rainbow Drive, #A, said he was speaking on behalf of the resident
association, and thanked Prometheus for responding to the residents' revised relocation plan they
submitted for consideration. He commented that since there was no letterhead or signature on the
printout from Prometheus, the residents questioned what guarantee they had. He said he has
assured those concerned that he would make certain that the version of the plan included as a
condition of the permits is identical to the version the residents had in their possession. Mr.
Dragosavac said there was also concern about the date that the property would change hands; Mr.
Moss indicated that the property would change hands 30 days after City Council approval.
Planning Commission Minutes 6 May 27, 2003
Regarding the schools, he said he was hopeful that the Planning Commission and City Council
level of concern would be strong on the residents' behalf with the school districts, since the school
districts would respond to high levels of concern expressed by their fellow institutions. He said
on his own behalf he was expressing concern about a comment made weeks earlier about the
Planning Commission's remarks that they were grateful to Prometheus for providing owner
occupied housing in order to displace rental housing. He said all the people living in rental
housing in Cupertino should be informed if it is a policy to eliminate their residences in the long
term and invite developers to eliminate rental housing in favor of owner occupied. He said it
becomes a political question, and when the demolition of owner occupied housing is used as an
excuse to no longer build the BMRs that someone said should be built, it compounds the problem
of affordable housing. He said it did not make sense that affordable housing is being eliminated
and less affordable housing is being provided, because the affordable housing is being eliminated.
Ms. Rae Stevenson Norris, 7314 Rainbow Dr., #C, requested assurance as a condition of issuing
building permits to Prometheus that the City Council certify that Prometheus has fulfilled all of
the conditions listed in their relocation plan. She said that relative to the district agreements for
Regnart and Kennedy students, during the next school year the Saron Gardens complex in
Cupertino in the Regnart and Kennedy school area is being torn down to make way for
-- - --construction of houses on the -property.. The-residents-of-Saron-Gardens are -being forced to move
out. She said it is very difficult to find a new apartment in the Regnart/Kennedy area; not many
complexes exist and these have very low vacancy rates. There are 13 children in this apartment
complex attending Regnart Elementary School, ranging from the first to the fifth grade, and three
children that attend Kennedy middle school and plan to attend Monta Vista in the next year. She
said they are asking that their families be given passes and continue to attend those schools; as
well as the four children in the complex who attend Monta Vista and three children who attend
currently Kennedy Middle School and plan to attend Monta Vista in the next year if they rent an
apartment anywhere in the two districts. She asked for the support of the city officials for this
request and said she hoped to meet on this matter with the city and the district officials in the very
near future.
Ms. Tatiana Azarenok, 7310 Rainbow Dr., #D, said that many concerns had been discussed at the
city hall meeting two weeks ago about new relocation plans, school problems, etc. She said she
had planned to stay in the complex because of the excellent schools. She said the complex was
well maintained and well managed, and 16 units have garages which are hard.to find. She said she
felt the property was not a good location for 55 new homes because of the high density, and she
felt that destroying the buildings and forcing 40 families to move out was not a well thought out
plan. She said Cupertino had a lot of empty spaces that remain undeveloped for many years. She
invited those present to find time to visit Saron Gardens and then consider if it is a good idea, and
is it really necessary for the city or for adjacent neighborhoods.
Ms. Khushroo Shaikh, 11640 Wildflower Ct., said she lived next to the development and said she
was most impacted by the development. She said she discussed her privacy concerns with
Prometheus and she was pleased with their approach and that they were willing to work with her
on the problems. They have revised the plans to allow privacy in her bedroom and not have the
house so close to hers. She said the plan was a good plan and would be an asset to the
neighborhood and to Cupertino. She said she had a concern about allowing a pathway through the
property and said if it was necessary to have a gate at the pathway so that people are not lingering
in the area.
Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2003
Chair Chen asked staff for clarification on the request for the relocation plan being part of the
permit.
Mr. Piasecki said that the applicant has to demonstrate that they met the conditions of approval
that must be met prior to the issuance of building permits, and the relocation plan would be one of
those conditions staff would evaluate. He said it is possible that they may be in a situation where
they are requesting permits and they have one or two remaining tenants who have set dates when
they will be relocating, and staff would hold those permits until they have successfully relocated
those tenants or paid the three times rent that has been discussed. The city will follow through on
the conditions of approval. He said the building permit process is a public process and the public
can review the records.
In response to Com. Corr's and Com. Wong's questions, Mr. Piasecki noted that the date referred
to in Condition 14 should be changed to May 22 and would be reflected in the model resolution.
He said that the names of the contact persons at the school districts would be made available to the
residents. Mr. Piasecki said that the pathway would be lighted. Mr. Chao noted that the lighting
of the pathway issue is part of the condition of approval.
Mr' Moss clarified that the contract with the owner of the property allows the applicant to -close -30
days after the approval should there be approval by the City Council. Mr. Piasecki clarified that
there was a rezoning action taking place which calls for a second reading by the City Council and
then the rezoning doesn't become effective for 30 days after that. Depending on how their
contract is worded or what level of assurance they have from the first reading, second reading and
the 30 days, they want to start that clock at a different time period. Mr. Moss said that the
relocation plan would become effective when Prometheus takes possession and ownership of the
property, potentially 30 days and 2 weeks (for second reading) after the City Council meeting of
June 16th.
In response to Com. Miller's request for clarification on the BMR program, Mr. Piasecki said
there was no provision currently in the BMR program manual that would make an exception for
the case. He said they could pass the comment to the Housing Commission the next time they
address the BMR program and can relay it to the City Council when this item comes up to them.
Should the Council wish to consider such a change, there is a waiting list for the BMR housing
and that would have to be considered.
Relative to the school district issue, Com. Miller said that there would be a time lag between when
the residents move out and when units are available for new residents and new children to move in
and replace them in the school district, and it would be up to a year or 18 months. Perhaps the
school district might have some flexibility given the fact that they are not going to be
overburdened by additional children by allowing the present children to continue to stay for some
period of time, until the new units at a minimum are filled. Com. Miller referred to the earlier
comment from a speaker that the Planning Commission had stated a preference for units for sale
vs. rental units. He said that he did not make such a comment, and felt that the city needs a good
combination of rental units and for sale units and he said he felt there was not an intent to get rid
of rental units and add for sale units. He said it was important that the city has an appropriate mix
of both rental and for sale units.
Com. Miller said he was pleased and impressed with the level of community outreach that the
applicant has accomplished. The community and the stakeholders have participated at a
professional level and come to a reasonable solution given circumstances and everyone's position.
Planning Commission Minutes s May 27, 2003
He said he felt the project was a good project and would be an asset to the city; and said the loss
of some rental units was unfortunate, but those issues happen as a function of the marketplace
more than a function of direction by the City Council, Planning Commission or staff.
Mr. Chao referred to Condition 4, relative to decorative pavers. He said that the applicant was
concerned with the interlocking paver requirement for economic impact reasons. The interlocking
pavers are more environmentally friendly, and it is the city's objective to maximize onsite storm
drainage retention. If appropriate and approved by the Planning Commission, the condition could
be revised to state that either interlocking pavers or other special pavement materials that looks
like or feels like pavers with water permeability shall be used and to be approved by the Design
Review Committee. Mr. Piasecki said that the issues were the aesthetic issue, wherein the
interlocking pavers have texture not available withstamped concrete; what the staff is interested in
is the aesthetic issue and the permeability issue. It is problematic to put pavers on sand on
driveways because the first heavy truck that goes over it impacts it and it cannot be compacted
enough. Staff feels that stamped concrete could be utilized, but some level of water permeability is
needed, such as drains or holes drilled into the structure. Staff suggests the wording in the last
line "...interlocking pavers, or other material that looks like interlocking pavers, with water
permeability."
Com. Wong said that he supported the project. Relative to the comment about rental vs. for sale
units, he said in his nearly one year on the Planning Commission the project has been one of the
hardest decisions he has made, since it will displace 39 residents. Regarding rental units, being a
property manager, he said it was private property and they own the piece of property which- the
residents are renting. He said he has been to Saron Gardens many times and feels that it is a rough
jewel in Cupertino that needs a lot of work; and said for the age of the building the tenants are
paying market rate rent for that type of building; and it is located in a nice neighborhood. Com.
Wong said he felt that the applicant worked hard with the residents to provide a good relocation
package; and did a fine job in removing many of the clauses and also working with the letter given
two weeks ago. He said Prometheus gave a lot and satisfied many of his concerns. Relative to the
school issue, he said he requested the grandfathering of the children and the applicant made a
good effort with staff to talk with both CUSD and FUHSD. He reiterated that all of the city's
schools were excellent and it is the parent's choice that they want a particular school; if the
tenants are relocated the applicant with do their best to see if the children can be relocated in the
schools as well. Regarding the parking issue, he said he appreciated staff and the applicant trying
to get two more spaces. He said his previous comments regarding the pathway remained the same;
he said he was in favor of lighting on the pathway to address the safety and security issues.
Relative to design, he said for a tight space they had a lower density compared to what they could
have proposed. They could have also put in for rent and for sale apartments and increased the
density. He said he would like to see the letter as a condition of approval to guarantee it.
Com. Miller said he supported the project as his previous comments indicated.
Com. Corr said that there were four issues remaining from previous meetings: the relocation plan,
the setbacks, the school impacts and the pedestrian path. He said he was pleased that the issues
were resolved and the application was presented back to the Commission within the two week
time period. He said he wished there was a better resolution to the school issue; everybody really
gets involved in the schools their children attend, and they want to stay there which is
understandable; however, it is not in the purview of the city to make that decision. By working
with Prometheus and getting the names of the people in the districts to talk to, hopefully it may
help with the issue. Relative to the issue of the for sale and rental units, he said a number of rental
Planning Commission Minutes 9 May 27, 2003
properties have come through lately, and the Planning Commission is then questioned about
approving all the rental units, and asked why not have more for sale units. From that standpoint,
the Planning Commission is pleased to see one come through, but it was not from the standpoint of
saying they do not want to have rental housing in Cupertino, as it is crucial to Cupertino.
Chair Chen said she concurred with the other commissioners that the project was a very well
planned project; and was pleased that all the issues were resolved in such a short period. She said
she concurred with the change staff proposed to give flexibility to the applicants when it is time to
build the project. Chair Chen said she strongly supported Com. Corr's suggestion to provide the
school contact persons to the tenants; and also to change the date to May 22nd on Condition 14 for
the tenant relocation program.
MOTION: Com. Miller moved approval of Application U-2003-02,
Z-2003-01, EA -2003-03 and TM -2003-01 in accordance with
the model resolution and the suggested changes.
SECOND: Com. Corr
ABSENT: Com. Saadati
VOTE: Passed 4-0-0
6. \an
on Nos.: EXC-2003-01, EA -2003-04
: Li-Sheng Fu
APN 342-22-045 Mercedes Road
Hillsito construct a 4,245 square foot residence on slopes ter than 30% and a
parkinfo tandem parking
Plannsion cisionfinal unless appealed
Postplanning ommission meeting of May 12, 2003
Staff presentation: Mr. Colin g, Senior Planner, revi ed the background of the application
for the hillside exception to allo construction of a 10 square foot residence on an existin
vacant lot, as outlined in the sta
Preservation of the rural character of t
building and roof forms, colors; re
Geologic conditions; (5) Parking; (6)
activities on a narrow road. He review
plan. Staff recommends approval oftl
g
report. He eviewed the following project issues: (1)
Xmitigate
esign of the project, including setbacks, simple
heights; (3) Privacy landscaping needs; (4)
Tr
tion; (7) Storm drainage; and (8) Construction
lan, second floor plan, elevations and landscape
egative declaration and the hillside exception.
Com. Corr noted that the cond' on relative to no bloc e of Mercedes Road during construction
was not included. He also ted that drainage was not veree . Mr. Jung said that there was a
condition about not imp ing Mercedes Road. Relative t the drainage issue, he said that a
possible solution was install a french drain at the base o e driveway, which captures the
flows and would lea to a drainage inlet that could convey it out the designated drainage swale.
He noted that Pa 6-10, Condition 10, contained verbiage stating at emergency access along
Mercedes Roa shall not be impeded.
Com. M' er referred to the drainage, and said it was his understandinthat drainage before
constp ction was the same as after construction. Ms. Wordell said that it was not yet a legal
requirement.
To: Design Review Committee Date: July 17, 2008
From: Leslie Gross, Assistant Planner
Subject: Application: DIR-2008-13
Location: 11535 Murano Court
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Director's Minor Modification to a Use Permit (U-2003-02) to construct a sunroom 10'-
0" from the rear property line.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee:
1. Approve the Director's Minor Modification to allow the consTruction of a
sunroom 10'-0" from the rear property line.
BACKGROUND:
On July 7, 2003, the City Council approved a use permit (U-2003-02) to construct 55
single-family residences on a 4.03 -acre parcel. Comments received during
neighborhood outreach meetings prompted site development changes by the developer.
One of those changes included increasing the setbacks to 20'-0"and providing privacy
protection landscaping for three of the homes abutting the existing residential
properties along the southern border. The intent was focused on minimizing visual and
privacy impacts from the proposed second floor. Consequently, these three homes have
larger useable rear yard area compared to the rest of the homes in the development.
Southern boundary of development
DIR-2008-13 July 17, 2008 Page 2
The owner of 11535 Murano Ct. (one of the three homes with 20'-0" rear yard) is
proposing the construction of a 200 square foot single story attached sunroom within
their useable rear yard. The sunroom will match the existing residence in material and
color and the existing privacy protection landscaping and 8'-0" privacy fence would
remain. The Murano Homeowners Association has reviewed and approved the project.
Typically the Director has the discretion to approval such request, however it is being
forwarded to the Design Review Committee due to expressed concerns received from
the adjacent neighbor.
DISCUSSION:
An existing Oak tree, located in the rear yard area
along the southern boundary, was preserved as part
of the original development because of the species
type, and to preserve the existing screening. An
arborist report was prepared by the City Arborist,
stating that the preferred minimum setback be 6'-5"
from the trunk to achieve a reasonable assurance of
the tree's survival. The specific mitigation measures
prescribed by the City Arborist have been
incorporated as conditions of the project.
Community Comments
The neighbor immediately abutting the subject
property to the south contacted staff with concerns
that the sunroom would create privacy, noise and
odor impacts. In addition, the neighbor requested
that the existing 20'-0" setback be retained, due to the original agreement by the
developer to setback the residence 20'-0" to minimize privacy concerns at that time.
DIR-2008-13 July 17, 2008 Page 3
Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee allow the construction of the
proposed sunroom 10'-0" from the rear property line for the following reasons:
1. Significant privacy impacts are not evident because the proposed sunroom is
single story, starting at 8'-4" high slop roof, not exceeding 11'-0" at the point of
attachment to the residence, privacy landscaping would be preserved, and the
adjoining privacy fence is 8'-0" high. The height of the sunroom windows do not
offer views into the adjoining property, and the sunroom would be used as
gathering space for the homeowners, which would not create any additional
noise or odors other then those typical of residential activities.
2. The original use permit for the development did not have any provisions that
prohibit the addition of a sunroom. In addition, the applicant has obtained
approval from the Home Owners Association.
3. The design of the sunroom will be consistent with the main residence in
material(s) and color.
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director, Community Developme
Prepared by: Leslie Gross, Assistant Planner
Enclosures:
Model Resolution
Arborist Report, June 11, 2008
Letter from Murano Homeowners Association, November 6, 2007
City Council Minutes, July 7, 2003
Planning Commission Resolution No. 6188
Planning Commission Minutes, May 27, 2003
Plan Set
DIR-2008-13
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO.
OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
APPROVING A DIRECTOR'S MINOR MODIFICATION TO APPROVE
THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SUNROOM TEN FEET FROM THE REAR
PROPERTY LINE.
SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: DIR-2008-13
Applicant: Jay Swartz
Location: 11535 Murano Court
SECTION II: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee of the City of Cupertino received an
application for a Director's Minor Modification, as described in this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the
Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Design Review Committee 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. The proposal, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to
property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, general welfare or convenience:
2. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of this chapter, the General Plan
and zoning ordinance;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the application no. DIR-2008-13, is hereby approved; and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this
Resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application
DIR-2008-13 as set forth in the Minutes of the Design Review Committee Meeting of
July 17, 2008 are incorporated by reference herein.
Resolution No.
Page 2
DIR-2008-13 July 17, 2008
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on the plan set submitted by American Brands Construction
consisting of 4 pages attached to the staff report, except as may be amended by
conditions in this resolution.
2. EXTERIOR MATERIALS
The exterior siding material, and roofing of the sunroom shall match the existing
residence in color, material, texture, dimensions and style. Final exterior materials
shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior
to issuance of building permits.
3. PRIVACY PROTECTION LANDSCAPING
The existing privacy protection landscaping shall be preserved.. In the event that
these plantings die, the owner shall replace each planting with similar species sized
to match the replaced planting at the time of death, subject to approval of the City
of Cupertino.
4. OAK TREE PRESERVATION
The Oak tree located along the southeast corner of the property shall be preserved,
and the following conditions shall be applied during construction, and
a) The downspout for the sunroom should be placed on the opposite side of its
proposed location (i.e. moved from the southeast corner to the southwest
corner). Another option is to ensure water from the downspout is discharged
beyond the tree's canopy.
b) Any existing, unused lines within 15 feet from the tree's trunk shall be
abandoned and cut off at existing soil grade (rather than being dug up and
causing subsequent root damage).
c) Any trenching, compaction, soil cuts or fill shall not extend beyond 12 inches
from the proposed foundation. Vertical excavation for the footing should not
exceed 12 inches below grade.
d) Small tractors or heavy equipment shall not operate beneath the trees canopy.
As such, all work shall be manually performed (foot -traffic only).
e) Beginning now, and continuing every two weeks thru October of this year
(assuming construction begins in the next month or two), water should be
supplied to the unpaved areas of the tree's root zone within 15 feet from the
trunk (north side of the property fence). In doing so, I recommend applying
approximately 100 gallons of water via a deep -root feeder that is connected to a
hose and probed 1.5 to 2 feet below the soil surface. The valve to the probe
should be opened to allow water to flow until it begins to pour out of the top of
the hole, then a new hole probed three feet away and the process repeated.
There is no need to supply water to the section of root zone where the
foundation is proposed, or within one -foot of the trunk.
Resolution No.
Page 3
DIR-2008-13 July 17, 2008
f) All excavation for the entire foundation shall be manually dug using shovels.
Roots encountered during the process with diameters one -inch and greater
shall be cleanly severed (such as by loppers or a handsaw) against the soil cut,
which shall not exceed beyond the proposed foundation by more than 12
inches. For roots with diameters two inches and greater, I recommend a clear
plastic sandwich bag is sealed around the cut end and tightly secured with a
rubber band immediately after being cut.
g) Spoils created during excavation shall not be spread within 15 feet of the trunk.
Spoils can be temporarily placed within this distance, but should be moved
prior to project completion.
h) Materials should not be piled within 5 to 10 feet of the tree's trunk.
i) The existing irrigation system should be assessed to ensure that water is not
being applied within 10 feet of the tree's trunk. Also, any plant material within
this distance and requires regular watering should be substituted with
drought -tolerant plant material. A source for identifying suitable drought -
tolerant plant material is
www. californiaoaks.org/ ExtAssets / Coml2atiblePlantsUnder&Aroundoaks.pdf.
j) The removal of existing vegetation shall be carefully performed, by hand, in a
manner does not excavate soil or roots during the process.
k) The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is
prohibited beneath canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage beneath
canopies. Herbicides should not be used beneath the tree's canopy; where used
on site, it should be labeled for safe use near trees.
5. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees,
dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant
to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written
notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the
dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that
the 90 -day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications,
reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a),
has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90 -day period complying with all
of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later
challenging such exactions.
Resolution No. DIR-2008-13 July 17, 2008
Page 4
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of July 2008, at a Regular Meeting of the Design
Review Committee of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll
call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:
/s/
Steve Piasecki, Director
Community Development Department
APPROVED:
Lisa Giefer, Chair
Design Review Committee
4wARBOR RESOURCES
profe55ional consulting arbori5t5 and tree care
A REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED ADDITION
NEAR ONE COAST LIVE OAK AT
11535 MURANO CIRCLE
CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Submitted to:
Community Development Department
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
Prepared by:
David L. Babby
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #399
Board -Certified Master Arborist #WE -4001B
June 11, 2008
p.o. box 25295, San mateo, california 94402 email: arborresource5@comca5t.net
phone: 650.654.335 1 0 fax: 650.240.0777 ■ licen5ed contractor #796763
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist June 11, 2008
1.0 INTRODUCTION
I have been retained by the City of Cupertino Community Development Department to
review the tree -related impacts associated with a proposal to construct a sunroom addition
to the rear of the existing home at 11535 Murano Circle, Cupertino. I visited the site on
June 10, 2008, and this report presents my observations and recommendations.
2.0 OBSERVATIONS
The tree in question is situated in the backyard along the southern property boundary, and
is beneath high-voltage electrical wires. It is approximately 25 feet all, and has trunk has a
diameter of 25.5 inches. Below shows a map (from the Site Plan by American Brands
Construction) of the tree's location, as well as a photograph.
Canopy dimension
Z-4
i
TA
r ! : T"`
11535 Murano Circle, Cupertino
City of Cupertino Community Development Department
Page 1 of 4
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist June 11, 2008
The canopy is extremely asymmetrical and misshapen due having been severely pruned at
its top and sides; I measured the canopy to extend 15 feet towards the north (towards the
existing home), 8 feet south, 20 feet east, and 7 feet south (see map on the previous page
for a delineation of the canopy spread). A tree of this size would typically have a canopy
spread of 45 plus feet across.
The severity of the pruning is partly due to overhead clearance from high-voltage wires,
and partly due to a substantial loss of canopy predominantly from its north, south and west
sides. Due to the extent of pruning, the work does not conform to Cupertino's Municipal
Code or professional industry standards set forth by ANSI A300-2001 (Pruning).
The tree's foliage appears viable, although what the majority of what has grown seems to
be sprouts that are weakly attached and prone to breaking if they become too large.
3.0 REVIEW OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS
The addition is proposed 6.5 feet from the tree's trunk within a substantial portion of its
northwest root zone. At this distance, large roots would be encountered during excavation
for the foundation.
Preferably, the minimum setback should be 10.5 plus feet from the trunk. In my opinion
the 6.5 -foot distance for this particular situation would not seem to impose significant
impacts when considering the tree's extremely poor structural form, as well as only one
quadrant of the root area will be impacted. However, it is essential that the mitigation
measures presented in the next section are carefully followed to achieve a reasonable
assurance of the tree's survival.
11535 Murano Circle, Cupertino Page 2 of 4
City of Cupertino Community Development Department
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist June 11, 2008
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations presented within this section are based on the plans reviewed, and serve
as guidelines for mitigating impacts to the oak. They should be carefully followed and
incorporated into the project plans. Please note that they are subject to revision upon
reviewing any additional or revised plans.
1. The downspout for the sunroom should be placed on the opposite side of its proposed
location (i.e. moved from the southeast comer to the southwest corner). Another
option is to ensure water from the downspout is discharged beyond the tree's canopy.
2. Any existing, unused lines within 15 feet from the tree's trunk shall be abandoned and
cut off at existing soil grade (rather than being dug up and causing subsequent root
damage).
I Any trenching, compaction, soil cuts or fill shall not extend beyond 12 inches from the
proposed foundation. Vertical excavation for the footing should not exceed 12 inches
below grade.
4. Small tractors or heavy equipment shall not operate beneath the tree's canopy. As
such, all work shall be manually performed (foot -traffic only).
5. Beginning now, and continuing every two weeks thru October of this year (assuming
construction begins in the next month or two), water should be supplied to the unpaved
areas of the tree's root zone within 15 feet from the trunk (north side of the property
fence). In doing so, I recommend applying approximately 100 gallons of water via a
deep -root feeder that is connected to a hose and probed 1.5 to 2 feet below the soil
surface. The valve to the probe should be opened to allow water to flow until it begins
to pour out of the top of the hole, then a new hole probed three feet away and the
process repeated. There is no need to supply water to the section of root zone where
the foundation is proposed, or within one -foot of the trunk.
11535 Murano Circle, Cupertino Page 3 of 4
City of Cupertino Community Development Department
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist June 11, 2008
6. All excavation for the entire foundation shall be manually dug using shovels. Roots
encountered during the process with diameters one -inch and greater shall be cleanly
severed (such as by loppers or a handsaw) against the soil cut, which shall not exceed
beyond the proposed foundation by more than 12 inches. For roots with diameters two
inches and greater, I recommend a clear plastic sandwich bag is sealed around the cut
end and tightly secured with a rubber band immediately after being cut.
7. Spoils created during excavation shall not be spread within 15 feet of the trunk. Spoils
can be temporarily placed within this distance, but should be moved prior to project
completion.
8. Materials should not be piled within 5 to 10 feet of the tree's trunk.
9. The existing irrigation system should be assessed to ensure that water is not being
applied within 10 feet of the tree's trunk. Also, any plant material within this distance
and requires regular watering should be substituted with drought -tolerant plant
material. A source for identifying suitable drought -tolerant plant material is
www.califomiaoaks.org/ExtAssets/CompatiblePlantsUnder&AroundOaks.pdf.
10. The removal of existing vegetation shall be carefully performed, by hand, in a manner
does not excavate soil or roots during the process.
11. The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited
beneath canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage beneath canopies.
Herbicides should not be used beneath the tree's canopy; where used on site, it should
be labeled for safe use near trees.
Pre pared B : l m V • Date: June 11 2008
P Y_�Ly
David L. Babby
Registered Consulting Arborist #399
Board -Certified Master Arborist #WE -4001 B
11535 Murano Circle, Cupertino Page 4 of 4
City of Cupertino Community Development Department
July 7, 2003 Cupertino City Council Page 3
13.\ Adopt a resolution authorizing execution of an improvement agreement for Chiping Yang
and Bee Choo Yang, 10660 Santa Lucia Road, APN 342-16-034, Resolution No. 03-13¢'
14. Ac'cppt city projects performed under contract. (No documentation in packet):
a) Tomas Aquino -Saratoga Creek Trail -Reach 5 Improvement PAect, Project
No. 002-9116 (GradeTech, Inc.)
b) Wolfe \ Road/1-280 Interchange Improvements, Project o. 9528 (Republic
Electric)
C) Civic Center d Library Project, Phase 1, demolitio/,salvage, recycling and site
preparation, Proj t 2002-9222 (Ferma Corporatio
15. Accept municipal improve nts (grading, curb and Iter) for YR Development, 10675
Santa Lucia Road, APN 347-1 -055. (No docume tion in packet).
16. Adopt a resolution declaring thXitention toXder the vacation of a 10 ft. public service
easement, 11477 Lindy Place, A56 -24(x'04, Resolution No. 03-137.
17. Adopt a resolution approving a grant f easement (10 ft. public service easement) for
11477 Lindy Place, APN 356-24-00 , Relution No. 03-138.
S REMOVED FROM THE CO3 SENT C\ENDAR (above)
ITEM
3. Approve the minutes from ffie June 16 City Coun'c�l meeting.
The City Clerk noted at Richard Lowenthal had been absent at the June 16 meeting, and
she would correct o pages that showed him as pres t. City Manager David Knapp
suggested alterna Ne wording for page 8, second to last p agraph, last sentence, to read
"The City m ager said that staff will work with the R tary Club and the library
fundraising ganization to find a solution as to how the funs will be recorded that is
satisfacto to the Cupertino Library Committee and to the Rotary ub."
hal/James moved and seconded to approve the minutes as ameh4ed. Vote: Ayes:
James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval. Noes: None. Absent: None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
18. Consider application(s): Z-2003-01; TM -2003-01; U-2003-02; and EA -2003-03 for Saron
Gardens, LLC located at 7310 Rainbow Drive, A-E, APN(s): 366-19-075; 366-19-076;
and 366-19-048. (This item was continued from 6/16/03):
a) Grant a negative declaration
b) Approve a tentative map to subdivide a 4.03 -acre parcel into 55 residential parcels
and one common parcel
July 7, 2003 Cupertino City Council Page 4
C) Approve the rezoning of a 4.03 -acre parcel from P (R.3) to P (Res)
d) Approve a use permit to construct 55 single-family residences and site
improvements on a 4.03 -acre parcel
e) Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 1920: "An Ordinance of the City
Council of the City of Cupertino rezoning three parcels totaling 3.92 gross acres
parcel from P (R3) or Planned Development with multi -family residential uses
and RI or Single Family Residential to R (Res) or Planned Development with
residential uses
Assistant Planner Gary Chou made the presentation, and said this application was a use
permit to demolish 39 existing apartment units in 9 buildings and 1 single-family
residence, and to construct a residential development consisting of 55 single-family
homes. He said that the key issues discussed at Planning Commission meetings included
below -market -rate (BMR) units, relocation assistance, and impacts on students. Chou
reviewed these issues in greater detail, and said that 3 of the 15 net additional units must
be BMR units, which is a 50% increase in the number of BMR units required. Chou said
that the Relocation Assistance Program that was recommended by the Housing
Commission was approved by the Saron Gardens Residents Association and would be for
a lump sum payment in the amount of three times the monthly rent. He explained that
students attending Regnart Elementary and Monta Vista High School seniors would be
allowed to finish out the academic year if they reside at Saron Gardens after December
2003.
Jon Moss, representing Prometheus, said that they are not currently the property owners
but are under contract to purchase the property. He explained the series of meetings that
were held with the neighborhood, the renters, and city staff, and discussed the changes
that were made to the project as a result of this input, which included reducing some
building heights, controlling noise and dust, implementing mitigation measures to protect
privacy, and increasing some setbacks. He said that the surrounding neighborhood
residents preferred. to have for -sale housing in this area, and were in favor of the
architectural design and quality as well as the site layout plan. He said that, although the
residents will be given 60 -day written notice, they do not anticipate starting construction
for at least 6 months.
Architect David Johnson showed slides and discussed the architectural style and
amenities of the project.
Tom Dragosavac, 7308H Rainbow Drive, said it has been a good experience to live at
Saron Gardens. He said the Saron Garden residents appreciate the consideration given by
Prometheus in the relocation plan, but the still wish they did not have to move. He
expressed concern about how the BMR units are handled by the Planning Commission
and that the city's policies give credit for loss of rental units instead of encouraging more.
July 7, 2003 Cupertino City Council Page 5
Council member Kwok read an excerpt of the General Plan, Section 24, regarding a rental
housing retention policy, and noted that this project meets only one of the three
guidelines.
Council member Sandoval asked if the BMR units could be the first ones to be built, and
Jon Moss said he believed Prometheus could do that. She also asked that bicycle racks be
placed in the central common area.
Discussion followed regarding the rental housing preservation policy. Kwok suggested
that the applicant provide one additional BMR unit since their project does not meet the
General Plan guidelines for rental retention. Moss noted that the General Plan refers to a
rental housing retention plan that is to be created, and said that Prometheus was already
providing one more BMR unit than is required at a cost of $500,000 each. Kwok
withdrew his suggestion.
Kwok/Sandoval moved and seconded to grant the Negative Declaration, approve the
tentative map, approve the rezoning, and approve the use permit. Vote: Ayes: Chang,
James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval. Noes: None. Absent: None.
The City Clerk read the title of the ordinance. Lowenthal/James moved and seconded to
read the ordinance by title only, and that the City Clerk's reading would constitute the
first reading thereof. Vote: Ayes: Chang James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval. Noes:
None. Absent: None.
The Council members concurred that staff should begin preparation of the rental housing
retention policy, and any other applicants that may be considering the removal of rental
housing should be notified that the requirements would be changing.
Mayor Chang reordered the agenda to consider Item No. 21 next.
BUSINESS
21. Adopt p cy and procedures regarding the naming of City cilities and recognition of
financial don s.
Mayor Chang list the committee memb who worked on the policy under
consideration, gave a lief background, d reiterated that the policy would give
recognition to community embers o donated money, but facilities would not be
named after donors.
IU
attention to editing changes suggested by
City Attorney Charles Kilim®rrected
Council member Sandoyffl. He summan25qd the main features of the policy, which
included the followinn
I . BeforetZfacility is named for any reason there' o Id be a noticed public hearing;
2. he policy applies to any portion of a facility
November 6, 2007
Mr. Perry Luo
11535 Murano Circle
Cupertino, California 95104
Dear Mr. Luo,
MURAN O
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
P.O. Box 190, Pleasanton, CA 94566
925-426-1508; fax 925-426-1494
Your recent request for architectural approval to install a sun room has been granted by
the Board of Directors, subject to the following conditions:
1. All necessary permits from public agencies must be applied for and granted. All City
setback requirements must be met.
2. Drainage as originally installed by the developer is not to be changed or altered, and
must drain to the street as originally designed.
3. Construction is in accordance with the plans submitted for rear yard improvements.
4. Improvements are maintained so as not to be unsightly or invasive to your
neighbors.
5. Structure must be in compliance with the requirements of the CC&R's and the City of
Cupertino.
6. Structure must be painted to match home.
Thank you for submitting your request for architectural approval. Feel free to contact
me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Jay�e W lls
Assocl ' n Manager
cc: Board of Directors
LF
Z:\MS Office\MS Word\Murano\Architecturai\PA 11535 Murano rear yard improvements rev2.doc
D� -0
CITY OF
CUPEkTINO
To: Kiersa
From: Grace Johnson
Subject: Z-2003-01, TM -2003-01, U-2003-02 (Saron Gardens)
Date: September 16, 2003
City Hall
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
Telephone: (408) 777-3223
FAX: (408) 777-3366
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
No action letter was written to the applicant. The Council action is as follows:
Council Granted the Negative Declaration; approved the tentative map, the rezoning, and the
use perinit; conducted the first reading of the ordinance; concurred that staff should begin
preparation of the rental housing retention policy, and any applicants that may be considering
removal of rental housing should be notified that the requirements would be changing
Grace Johnson
Printed on Recycled Paper
U-2003-02
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 6188
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT 55 SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCES AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS ON A 4.03 -ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT 7310
RAINBOW DRIVE A-E AND 7308 RAINBOW DRIVE 9-14 and A.
SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No(s).: U-2003-02 (EA -2003-03)
Applicant: Prometheus
Location: 7310 Rainbow Drive A-E and 7308 Rainbow Drive 9-14 and A.
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR USE PERMIT
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a
Use Permit, 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) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to
property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to -the public health,
safety, general welfare, or convenience;
2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the
Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of this title.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the application for Use Permit and Exception are hereby
recommended for approval, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution
beginning on Page 2 thereof, and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution
are based are contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No(s). U-2003-02
Resolution No. 6188 U-2003-02
Page 2
May 27, 2003
(EA -2003-03), as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of May 27,
2003, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPT.
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
The recommendation of approval is based on the exhibits labeled Saron Gardens dated
June 6, 2003 including sheets A0, L0.0, C1 -C8, T1, L1.1 -L4.1, Al, A.A1-A.A3, A.B1-A.132,
A.C1-A.C2, A.D1-A.D3, A.N1-A.N2, A.P1-A.P3, except as may be amended by the
Conditions contained in this resolution.
2. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication
requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government
Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of
the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other
exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90 -day approval period in which you
may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to
Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90 -
day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally
barred from later challenging such exactions.
3. FENCING & LIGHTING PLAN:
The applicant shall submit a fence and lighting plan (including fencing details of the
transformer along Rainbow Drive) to the Design Review Committee for review and
approval prior to issuance of building permits. In order to replace the perimeter fences,
proof of consent or authorization from the adjoining neighbors must be submitted to the
City prior to approval.
4. DECORATIVE PAVERS:
The style and type of the decorative pavers are not approved as part of this project. A
revised site plan indicating the specific type and style of pavers must be submitted to
the Design Review Committee for review and approval prior to final approval of the
project. Pavers shall be specified as interlocking pavers or other pavement materials
that looks like interlocking pavers with some water permeability.
5. CURB & PARKWAY ALIGNMENT ON POPPY WAY:
A supplemental arborist report with specific tree preservation recommendations must
be submitted to the City for review and approval in order to finalize the sidewalk/curb
design along Poppy Way prior to the approval of the final map. The arborist report
shall consider the existing tree canopy size, grade levels and sufficient setback from the
proposed sidewalk in order to ensure complete preservations of these trees. The
sidewalk/ parkway will be required to meander or bulb around trees #60-62 along
Poppy Way and then come back in to match the existing sidewalk/ parkway patterns. In
the event that the two R-1 lot sizes are affected by the approved curb/parkway
Resolution No. 6188 U-2003-02
Page 3
May 27, 2003
alignment, the proposed homes must be reduced in size according to the R-1
development standards. Revised plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Design
Review Committee.
6. LANDSCAPING PLAN:
A revised landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Design Review Committee for
review and approval indicating the preservation of tree #58 on the site plan.
7. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS (CC&R's)
A copy of the CC& R's for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Attorney prior to approval of the final map. A legal description of the side/rear yard
easements proposed between homes must also be submitted to the City Attorney's
Office for review and approval prior to the final map approval.
8. PARKING RATIO:
Parking ratio for the property shall be 2.83 spaces per unit (156 stalls). Two spaces per
unit shall be covered. In addition, the parking ratio for the two R-1 single-family homes
shall be 4 spaces per unit (8 stalls). Two spaces per unit shall be covered.
9. SITE PLAN:
A revised site plan reflecting the proposed fence recess between each homes as shown
on the landscaping plan sheet L2.1 shall be submitted to the Planning Department for
review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.
10. INTERIOR GARAGE DIMENSION:
The interior garage clearance shall be 20 feet by 20 feet (measured from inside walls).
11. STOOP HEIGHTS OF UNIT TYPE D (D1 & D2):
As proposed, the entry landing leading to the front door of D units (D1 & D2) is
approximately elevated 6 feet above grade that does not present a very desirable
pedestrian experience. The applicant shall explore options to reduce the height of the
entry stoops by breaking up the main entry stairs by adding a couple of steps at the
entrance of the front yard or re-evaluate the grading plan for the project so that the
ground floor/garage could be set lower in elevation in order to reduce the scale of the
front stoops. Revised plans for all of the D units shall be submitted to the Design
Review Committee for review and approval prior to issuance of the Final Map.
12. TRANSFORMER:
The transformer proposed along Rainbow Drive shall be screened completely out of the
public view by a combination of fencing and landscaping. The fence design shall be
reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee. Alternatively, the
transformer may be underground if screening from fencing and landscaping are
determined inadequate.
Resolution No. 6188 U-2003-02 May 27, 2003
Page 4
13. BELOW MARKET RATE UNITS:
The project will be increasing the total number of housing units by 15 units on the
project site. However, 39 apartment units will be demolished. As a mitigation measure,
20% (3 units) of the 15 additional units must be below market rate units consistent with
the City's Housing Mitigation Policy.
14. RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM:
The project will be subjected to the approved relocation assistance program dated May
22, 2003 except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this resolution.
Prometheus shall do everything within reason to accommodate residents with children
attending schools so that they can continue to live in the same school district.
15. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN:
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a construction
management plan to the Planning Department for review and approval. The plan shall
provide provisions for the following:
a. Construction Vehicle Routing Plan: All construction vehicles shall enter the
project site from Rainbow Drive off of De Anza Blvd. and exit onto Rainbow Drive
to De Anza Blvd.
b. Construction Equipment Staging Plan: The construction equipment -staging plan
shall clearly indicate where the equipments will be staged during construction to
the satisfaction of the Community Development Department.
c. Dust Control: The project shall utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as
required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity,
which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be included in the grading and street
improvement plans. Erosion and or sediment control plan shall be provided.
Identify all Pre -and Post development BMPs that will be installed on-site.
SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
1. STREET WIDENING
Street widening, improvements and dedications shall be provided in accordance with
City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer. The Public
Works Department must approve all on and off-site improvements prior to gaining
approval, which includes storm drain improvements, sidewalk design, curb and gutter
design and dedications along Poppy Way.
2. 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. The Public Works Department
must approve all on and off-site improvements prior to gaining approval, which
includes storm drain improvements, sidewalk design, curb and gutter design and
dedications along Poppy Way.
Resolution No. 6188 U-2003-02 May 27, 2003
Page 5
3. 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.
4. FIRE HYDRANT
Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City.
5. TRAFFIC SIGNS
Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City.
6. STREET TREES
Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way and shall be of a type
approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125.
7. 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.
8. DRAINAGE
Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Pre and Post -
development calculations must be provided to identify whether new storm drain
facilities will be required, existing systems may need to be upgraded, or storm drainage
can be maintained the same.
9. FIRE PROTECTION
Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the City.
10. 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.
11. 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
Resolution No. 6188 U-2003-02 May 27, 2003
Page 6
inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for undergrounding of
utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits.
Fees:
a. Checking & Inspection Fees:
b. Grading Permit:
c. Development Maintenance Deposit:
d. Storm Drainage Fee:
e. Power Cost:
f. Map Checking Fees:
g. Park Fees:
$ 6% of Off -Site Improvement Cost or $2,268.00 minimum
$ 6% of Site Improvement Cost
$ 3,000.00
$ 5,198.70
$1,097.75
$ 97,200.00
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.
** Developer is required for one-year power cost for streetlights
12. 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.
13. DEDICATION OF WATERLINES
The developer shall dedicate to the City all waterlines and appurtenances installed to
City Standards and shall reach an agreement with San Jose Water for water service to
the subject development.
14. WORK SCHEDULE
A work schedule shall be provided to the City to show the timetable necessary for
completion of on and off site improvements.
15. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water Resources
Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be
included in your grading and street improvement plans. Erosion and or sediment
control plan shall be provided.
Resolution No. 6188 U-2003-02 May 27, 2003
Page 7
16. NOI/NPDES PERMIT
The developer shall determine if a NOI/ NPDES permit will be required for their site.
Please see attached.
CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE OF
ACCEPTANCE OF ENGINEERING/ SURVEYING CONDITIONS
(Section 66474.18 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.
/s/ Ralph Qualls
Ralph Qualls, Director of Public Works
City Engineer CA License 22046
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of May, 2003, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Corr, Miller, Wong and Chairperson Chen
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Saadati
ATTEST:
/s/ Steve Piasecki
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
G:\Planning\PDREPORT\RES\U-2003-02res.doc
APPROVED:
/s/ Angela Chen
Angela Chen, Chairperson
Cupertino Planning Conunission
Planning Commission Minutes 3 May 27, 2003
PUBLIC HEARING
Chair�ien moved the agenda to Item 5.
5. AppNation ation Nos.: CP -2003-01, EA -2003-02
App ica City of Cupertino (Capital Improvement Plan)
Location: Citywide
Capital Improvement Pl ,,consistency with the General Plan
Planning Commission decisW41final unless appealed
Continued from Planning Com . sion meeting of May 12, 2003
Staff presentation: Mr. Ralph Qualls, ublic Works Director aid that the capital improvement
plan for 2003-04 consists mostly of proj is under cons on, such as the library, civic center
and completing the modifications of the spo center a civic park at the corner of DeAnza and
Stevens Creek Boulevards. He reported that the api improvement is about $3 million of which
$1.2 million is general fund money, the remain being grants or special funds. Of the $1.2
million, approximately $1 million is payment nag ent program which is listed under 9400
streets which is the annual overlays and sl seals don on city streets each year. It has been
maintained because it covers what is eded during the ear, and more importantly it is a
maintenance of effort that qualifies th city to apply for T21 ds and other types of payment
management funds that would give city essentially 1.5 times th ' ability to do that work.
Chair Chen opened the meetin or public input. There was no one pres:E\A
who wished to speak.
MOTION: Com. C moved that Applications CP -2003-01 a 003-02 were in
confo 'ty with the General Plan for five year Capital Iovem Program
FY 003-04 to 2007-08
SECOND:/Passed
om. Wong
ABSENT:om. Saadati
VOTE: 4-0-0
Chair Chen moved the agenda back to Item 4.
4. Application Nos.: TM -2003-01, U-2003-02, Z-2003-01, EA -2003-03
Applicant: Saron Gardens, LLC
Location: 7310 Rainbow Drive, A-E
Tentative Map to subdivide a 4.03 acre parcel into 55 residential parcels and one common parcel.
Use Permit to construct 55 single family residences and site improvements on a 4.03 acre parcel
Zoning to rezone a 4.03 parcel from (PR3) to P(Res)
Continued from Planning Commission meeting of May 12, 2003
Tentative City Council date: June 16, 2003
Staff presentation: Mr. Gary Chao, Assistant Planner, reviewed the background of the application
and said that relative to the relocation program, staff received a letter and a revised relocation plan
from the Saron Gardens resident association, stating that the residents did not support the
relocation program presented to them at the residents' meeting on May 22nd. Mr. Chao reviewed
the major changes in the revised relocation plan which was distributed. He reported that
Planning Commission Minutes 4 May 27, 2003
Prometheus will now provide a garbage dumpster to facilitate the disposal of residents' debris
from their property; and the relocation allowance has been increased to a lump sum for each
resident equal to three times the monthly rent being paid at the time of relocation. Staff has
reviewed the revised relocation plan and recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the
revised relocation plan dated May 22nd as part of the project. Relative to the concerns about the
setbacks, the applicant has revised the site plan to allow two of the end units to have 20 feet side
yard setbacks instead of 10 feet originally proposed. Mr. Chao reviewed the revised site plan;
school impacts and meetings with the school districts; and pedestrian path as outlined in the staff
report.
Mr. Chao clarified that the school districts could only accommodate students that live in Saron
Gardens past December 2003, and only applies to elementary students and high school seniors; not
Kennedy Jr. High students because it is over capacity at present. He said that the tenants will
receive a refund of their deposit and the three months rent at the time they check their keys out.
Com. Corr suggested that the residents be given the names of contact persons in both school
districts to contact relative to the school attendance issues.
Mr. John Moss, Prometheus, said that they revised the relocation plan in response to the residents'
input. He reviewed the changes in the relocation plan. One change was the removal of the
condition that the tenant would have to relocate within the County of Santa Clara; now the tenant
can move anywhere and still have the benefit. Prometheus also removed the condition that the
tenant could only receive the assistance if they moved to another rental property where the rent
was greater than the present rent; the tenant can now move to a lower rent and still get relocation
assistance. The monetary assistance was originally going to be spread over several months; that
has been changed to one lump sum at the time the tenant moves out of the apartment. The 60 day
notice provision has also been eliminated; as soon as Prometheus becomes the owner of the
property, the residents would be entitled to the benefits at any time they would move out. Relative
to the school issue, Mr. Moss said that the applicants had been proactive to set up a meeting with
both school districts, their preference was to be able to grandfather in the schools that the
residents' children are attending now throughout their tenure; however, the school districts clearly
communicated their position on the subject. Mr. Moss said that was understandable. from his
viewpoint, given the fact that they have people coming to them on a daily basis with the same type
of request. He said they provided a list of available apartments with a list of schools associated
with each rental property. He reiterated that all the schools in Cupertino were excellent schools.
He said relative to the parking issue, they looked at trying to create as much parking as possible,
resulting in a net increase of 2 parking stalls by eliminating the road shown before; noting that the
only reason the road was there before was the assumption it was needed for fire access; and after
meeting with the fire department, it is not an absolute requirement of the fire department. Relative
to the setback issue, Mr. Moss said they met with the neighbor most impacted, and the change was
favorably received by the neighbor. The pedestrian path was discussed before, and given the
concerns stated in the staff report, the pedestrian path is an acceptable part of the application. Mr.
Moss said he felt they had reasonably addressed all of the issues. The neighbors they met with
over the last 8 months have created a number of changes shared previously, and he said he still felt
the majority of the neighbors were either neutral regarding the project or were in favor of the
proj ect.
Mr. Moss said that the new tenants would be informed what the plans for the redevelopment are,
and would not be eligible for the relocation program. The prospective tenant would make the
decision as to whether they would want to move in under those circumstances.
Planning Commission Minutes 5 May 27, 2003
Com. Wong referred to Page 4-7, stoop height of unit type D, and asked for feedback on the
concern of the design issue. Mr. Chao said that Unit Type D, as it appears, is higher than other
unit types, and if one is standing at grade level, it is at head level; therefore staff is suggesting a
condition that the applicant revisit the design of those units and in particular all the Unit Type Ds
to see if they can lower it to a more pedestrian friendly height, so that the first thing seen is not
like the top of the landing on the entry landing. Mr. Piasecki said that the applicant believes they
can accommodate that.
Mr. David Johnson, Christiani Johnson Architects, said that the height was set at 6 feet for some
internal planning reasons, but there is no practical obstruction to lowering the height to be more in
keeping with the other units and they would work with staff to find a height they are comfortable
with.
Chair Chen opened the meeting for public input.
Mr. Dennis Whitaker, 20622 Cheryl Drive, asked if the heights were still 36 feet from the base,
and what the per -acre density was. Mr. Piasecki said the density was 13.6. Mr. Whitaker said the
biggest concern he had was not with the developers and the plans, but with the Planning
Commission and City Council and their quest to retain as much BMR as possible. He said he felt
that the primary reason for the families with children living in that area is to stay within the
specific school system they selected. He said he hoped that the city government would show the
concerns and consistencies with all the developments and the BMRs by giving decent
considerations prior to displacing the families and make certain that those families desiring to stay
in the specific elementary middle school and high schools would be able to. He said those not
concerning themselves with staying in the specific areas should not face financial burdens now or
in the future for being forced to relocate. He said he felt the developers had done a good job in
offering the financial assistance. Relative to the BMR program, he questioned if people in the
future are forced to relocate from a development, would they be able to become a top priority on
the waiting list for BMR housing, to specifically stay in the school districts where they are at. He
reiterated that all five schools in the high school district were top schools, but noted that some had
a higher ratio of students going on to college. He urged the efforts to continue toward allowing
the students to stay in the school they are attending.
Ms. Trudy Wallick, 7390 Rainbow Dr., #1, reiterated Mr. Whitaker's remarks. She questioned the
grading as she resided behind the apartments, so that the people behind won't get swamped with
more water. She encouraged more dialogue with the school districts about displacing the children
since the residents were being forced to move out of their apartments.
Mr. Piasecki said that the speaker could talk with the applicant's architect regarding the grading.
He said they would have to meet all the normal standards, and would not be able to drain across
the neighbor's property.
Mr. Tom Dragosavac, 7308 Rainbow Drive, #A, said he was speaking on behalf of the resident
association, and thanked Prometheus for responding to the residents' revised relocation plan they
submitted for consideration. He commented that since there was no letterhead or signature on the
printout from Prometheus, the residents questioned what guarantee they had. He said he has
assured those concerned that he would make certain that the version of the plan included as a
condition of the permits is identical to the version the residents had in their possession. Mr.
Dragosavac said there was also concern about the date that the property would change hands; Mr.
Moss indicated that the property would change hands 30 days after City Council approval.
Planning Commission Minutes 6 May 27, 2003
Regarding the schools, he said he was hopeful that the Planning Commission and City Council
level of concern would be strong on the residents' behalf with the school districts, since the school
districts would respond to high levels of concern expressed by their fellow institutions. He said
on his own behalf he was expressing concern about a comment made weeks earlier about the
Planning Commission's remarks that they were grateful to Prometheus for providing owner
occupied housing in order to displace rental housing. He said all the people living in rental
housing in Cupertino should be informed if it is a policy to eliminate their residences in the long
term and invite developers to eliminate rental housing in favor of owner occupied. He said it
becomes a political question, and when the demolition of owner occupied housing is used as an
excuse to no longer build the BMRs that someone said should be built, it compounds the problem
of affordable housing. He said it did not make sense that affordable housing is being eliminated
and less affordable housing is being provided, because the affordable housing is being eliminated.
Ms. Rae Stevenson Norris, 7314 Rainbow Dr., #C, requested assurance as a condition of issuing
building permits to Prometheus that the City Council certify that Prometheus has fulfilled all of
the conditions listed in their relocation plan. She said that relative to the district agreements for
Regnart and Kennedy students, during the next school year the Saron Gardens complex in
Cupertino in the Regnart and Kennedy school area is being torn down to make way for
construction of houses on the property. The residents of Saron Gardens are being forced to move
out. She said it is very difficult to find a new apartment in the Regnart/Kennedy area; not many
complexes exist and these have very low vacancy rates. There are 13 children in this apartment
complex attending Regnart Elementary School, ranging from the first to the fifth grade, and three
children that attend Kennedy middle school and plan to attend Monta Vista in the next year. She
said they are asking that their families be given passes and continue to attend those schools; as
well as the four children in the complex who attend Monta Vista and three children who attend
currently Kennedy Middle School and plan to attend Monta Vista in the next year if they rent an
apartment anywhere in the two districts. She asked for the support of the city officials for this
request and said she hoped to meet on this matter with the city and the district officials in the very
near future.
Ms. Tatiana Azarenok, 7310 Rainbow Dr., #D, said that many concerns had been discussed at the
city hall meeting two weeks ago about new relocation plans, school problems, etc. She said she
had planned to stay in the complex because of the excellent schools. She said the complex was
well maintained and well managed, and 16 units have garages which are hard. to find. She said she
felt the property was not a good location for 55 new homes because of the high density, and she
felt that destroying the buildings and forcing 40 families to move out was not a well thought out
plan. She said Cupertino had a lot of empty spaces that remain undeveloped for many years. She
invited those present to find time to visit Saron Gardens and then consider if it is a good idea, and
is it really necessary for the city or for adjacent neighborhoods.
Ms. Khushroo Shaikh, 11640 Wildflower Ct., said she lived next to the development and said she
was most impacted by the development. She said she discussed her privacy concerns with
Prometheus and she was pleased with their approach and that they were willing to work with her
on the problems.. They have revised the plans to allow privacy in her bedroom and not have the
house so close to hers. She said the plan was a good plan and would be an asset to the
neighborhood and to Cupertino. She said she had a concern about allowing a pathway through the
property and said if it was necessary to have a gate at the pathway so that people are not lingering
in the area.
Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2003
Chair Chen asked staff for clarification on the request for the relocation plan being part of the
permit.
Mr. Piasecki said that the applicant has to demonstrate that they met the conditions of approval
that must be met prior to the issuance of building permits, and the relocation plan would be one of
those conditions staff would evaluate. He said it is possible that they may be in a situation where
they are requesting permits and they have one or two remaining tenants who have set dates when
they will be relocating, and staff would hold those permits until they have successfully relocated
those tenants or paid the three times rent that has been discussed. The city will follow through on
the conditions of approval. He said the building permit process is a public process and the public
can review the records.
In response to Com. Corr's and Com. Wong's questions, Mr. Piasecki noted that the date referred
to in Condition 14 should be changed to May 22 and would be reflected in the model resolution.
He said that the names of the contact persons at the school districts would be made available to the
residents. Mr. Piasecki said that the pathway would be lighted. Mr. Chao noted that the lighting
of the pathway issue is part of the condition of approval.
Mr. Moss clarified that the contract with the owner of the property allows the applicant to close 30
days after the approval should there be approval by the City Council. Mr. Piasecki clarified that
there was a rezoning action taking place which calls for a second reading by the City Council and
then the rezoning doesn't become effective for 30 days after that. Depending on how their
contract is worded or what level of assurance they have from the first reading, second reading and
the 30 days, they want to start that clock at a different time period. Mr. Moss said that the
relocation plan would become effective when Prometheus takes possession and ownership of the
property, potentially 30 days and 2 weeks (for second reading) after the City Council meeting of
June 16`h.
In response to Com. Miller's request for clarification on the BMR program, Mr. Piasecki said
there was no provision currently in the BMR program manual that would make an exception for
the case. He said they could pass the comment to the Housing Commission the next time they
address the BMR program and can relay it to the City Council when this item comes up to them.
Should the Council wish to consider such a change, there is a waiting list for the BMR housing
and that would have to be considered.
Relative to the school district issue, Com. Miller said that there would be a time lag between when
the residents move out and when units are available for new residents and new children to move in
and replace them in the school district, and it would be up to a year or 18 months. Perhaps the
school district might have some flexibility given the fact that they are not going to be
overburdened by additional children by allowing the present children to continue to stay for some
period of time, until the new units at a minimum are filled. Com. Miller referred to the earlier
comment from a speaker that the Planning Commission had stated a preference for units for sale
vs. rental units. He said that he did not make such a comment, and felt that the city needs a good
combination of rental units and for sale units and he said he felt there was not an intent to get rid
of rental units and add for sale units. He said it was important that the city has an appropriate mix
of both rental and for sale units.
Com. Miller said he was pleased and impressed with the level of community outreach that the
applicant has accomplished. The community and the stakeholders have participated at a
professional level and come to a reasonable solution given circumstances and everyone's position.
Planning Commission Minutes 8 May 27, 2003
He said he felt the project was a good project and would be an asset to the city; and said the loss
of some rental units was unfortunate, but those issues happen as a function of the marketplace
more than a function of direction by the City Council, Planning Commission or staff.
Mr. Chao referred to Condition 4, relative to decorative pavers. He said that the applicant was
concerned with the interlocking paver requirement for economic impact reasons. The interlocking
pavers are more environmentally friendly, and it is the city's objective to maximize onsite storm
drainage retention. If appropriate and approved by the Planning Commission, the condition could
be revised to state that either interlocking pavers or other special pavement materials that looks
like or feels like pavers with water permeability shall be used and to be approved by the Design
Review Committee. Mr. Piasecki said that the issues were the aesthetic issue, wherein the
interlocking pavers have texture not available with stamped concrete; what the staff is interested in
is the aesthetic issue and the permeability issue. It is problematic to put pavers on sand on
driveways because the first heavy truck that goes over it impacts it and it cannot be compacted
enough. Staff feels that stamped concrete could be utilized, but some level of water permeability is
needed, such as drains or holes drilled into the structure. Staff suggests the wording in the last
line "...interlocking pavers, or other material that looks like interlocking pavers, with water
permeability."
Com. Wong said that he supported the project. Relative to the comment about rental vs. for sale
units, he said in his nearly one year on the Planning Commission the project has been one of the
hardest decisions he has made, since it will displace 39 residents. Regarding rental units, being a
property manager, he said it was private property and they own the piece of property which the
residents are renting. He said he has been to Saron Gardens many times and feels that it is a rough
jewel in Cupertino that needs a lot of work; and said for the age of the building the tenants are
paying market rate rent for that type of building; and it is located in a nice neighborhood. Com.
Wong said he felt that the applicant worked hard with the residents to provide a good relocation
package; and did a fine job in removing many of the clauses and also working with the letter given
two weeks ago. He said Prometheus gave a lot and satisfied many of his concerns. Relative to the
school issue, he said he requested the grandfathering of the children and the applicant made a
good effort with staff to talk with both CUSD and FUHSD. He reiterated that all of the city's
schools were excellent and it is the parent's choice that they want a particular school; if the
tenants are relocated the applicant with do their best to see if the children can be relocated in the
schools as well. Regarding the parking issue, he said he appreciated staff and the applicant trying
to get two more spaces. He said his previous comments regarding the pathway remained the same;
he said he was in favor of lighting on the pathway to address the safety and security issues.
Relative to design, he said for a tight space they had a lower density compared to what they could
have proposed. They could have also put in for rent and for sale apartments and increased the
density. He said he would like to see the letter as a condition of approval to guarantee it.
Com. Miller said he supported the project as his previous comments indicated.
Com. Corr said that there were four issues remaining from previous meetings: the relocation plan,
the setbacks, the school impacts and the pedestrian path. He said he was pleased that the issues
were resolved and the application was presented back to the Commission within the two week
time period. He said he wished there was a better resolution to the school issue; everybody really
gets involved in the schools their children attend, and they want to stay there which is
understandable; however, it is not in the purview of the city to make that decision. By working
with Prometheus and getting the names of the people in the districts to talk to, hopefully it may
help with the issue. Relative to the issue of the for sale and rental units, he said a number of rental
Planning Commission Minutes 9 May 27, 2003
properties have come through lately, and the Planning Commission is then questioned about
approving all the rental units, and asked why not have more for sale units. From that standpoint,
the Planning Commission is pleased to see one come through, but it was not from the standpoint of
saying they do not want to have rental housing in Cupertino, as it is crucial to Cupertino.
Chair Chen said she concurred with the other commissioners that the project was a very well
planned project; and was pleased that all the issues were resolved in such a short period. She said
she concurred with the change staff proposed to give flexibility to the applicants when it is time to
build the project. Chair Chen said she strongly supported Com. Corr's suggestion to provide the
school contact persons to the tenants; and also to change the date to May 22nd on Condition 14 for
the tenant relocation program.
MOTION: Com. Miller moved approval of Application U-2003-02,
Z-2003-01, EA -2003-03 and TM -2003-01 in accordance with
the model resolution and the suggested changes.
SECOND: Com. Corr
ABSENT: Com. Saadati
VOTE: Passed 4-0-0
6. Application Nos.: EXC-2003-01, EA -2003-04
plicant: Li-Sheng Fu
Lo tion: APN 342-22-045 Mercedes Road
Hillside exceptio to construct a 4,245 square foot residence on slopes ter than 30% and a
parking exception fo tandem parking
Planning Commission cision final unless appealed
Postponed from Planning ommission meeting of May 12, 2003
Staff presentation: Mr. Colin g, Senior Planner, revi ed the background of the application
for the hillside exception to allo construction of a,3,,110 square foot residence on an existing
vacant lot, as outlined in the sta report. Hereviewed the following project issues: (1)
Preservation of the rural character of th area
building and roof forms, colors; retain' g
Geologic conditions; (5) Parking; (6) Tre
activities on a narrow road. He review the
plan. Staff recommends approval of e mitil
esign of the project, including setbacks, simple
heights; (3) Privacy landscaping needs; (4)
on; (7) Storm drainage; and (8) Construction
in, second floor plan, elevations and landscape
-gative declaration and the hillside exception.
Com. Corr noted that the Gond' on relative to no bloc a of Mercedes Road during construction
was not included. He. also ted that drainage was not vered. Mr. Jung said that there was a
condition about not imp ing Mercedes Road. Relative t the drainage issue, he said that a
possible solution was install a french drain at the base o e driveway, which captures the
flows and would lea to a drainage inlet that could convey it out the designated drainage swale.
He noted that Pa 6-10, Condition 10, contained verbiage stating at emergency access along
Mercedes Roa shall not be impeded.
Com. 2`iol
r referred to the drainage, and said it was his understanding\ that drainage before
cons n was the same as after construction. Ms. Wordell said that it was not yet a legal
requirement.
CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
408 -777 -CITY (www.cupertino.org)
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE_IS_ HEREBY GIVEN that the Cupertino City Council will hold a public hearing__
on the matter described below. The public is encouraged to attend and speak.
APPLICATION NO.: DIR-2008-1-3
APPLICANT: Jay Swartz (Luo residence)
LOCATION: 11535 Murano Ct, APN 366-58-015
DESCRIPTION: Appeal of a Design Review Committee denial of a
Director's Minor Modification to add a 200 -square foot
sunroom to the south side of an existing single-family
residence in a Planned Development area
HEARING DATE: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 beginning at 6:45 p.m.
ADDRESS: Council Chamber, Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue
Agenda may be subject to change. If you are interested in an item or have questions,
please call the City Clerk's Office at 408-777-3223 prior to the meeting date to verify
that the item is still on the agenda. The time this item will be heard on the agenda cannot
be predicted.
For more information, agendas and packets are available for review on the. Thursday
afternoon prior to the meeting, and are also on the Internet at www.cupertino.org/a eg nda.
NOTE TO OWNERS OF RECORD: This notice is sent to owners of real property as
shown on the last tax assessment roll. Tenants are not necessarily notified.
Kimberly. Smith
City Clerk
VU QUOC-BAO AND LOH AMANDER
7320 RAINBOW DR
CUPERTINO CA 95014
A.P.N.: 366-58-003
�4
6D
in
H
r+
m
"C
16'
c--i_.--.—_a i_. 11 ,,.. T.nt = 749A 05/19/2008
Axonometry
Left Elevation
Plan
Sunroom Page
Front Elevation
Siding, Roofing and Trim
to match existing residence.
Right Elevation
FE L=
LI-Lju
IN�m�m�ni
SSUE
IM i
NMlMml
OEM
mlmMml
MORE
Steel reinforced slab
wire mesh @ 6" O.C.
Sunroom Height
12"
4" Monolithic slab typical
- - -til- - -- . . - - -I f'- -i- - --
rete Slab
4 dowelling into foundation
@24" O.C.
I @ 30 degree angle & epoxy
)or Barrier
Design Review Committee
July 17, 2008
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF•THE DESIGN REVIEW
COMMITTEE HELD ON July 17, 2008
ROLL CALL
Committee Members present: Lisa Giefer, Chairperson
Jessica Rose, Commissioner
Committee Members absent: none
Staff present:
Staff absent:
Elizabeth Pettis
Leslie Gross
Gary Chao
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
July 3, 2008
Minutes of the July 3, 2008 Design Review Committee meeting were approved
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
None
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR:
2. ASA -2008-04, Brian Replinger, Homestead & Wolfe Rd (Villa Serra Apts)
Request postponement to t1w August 7, 2008 meeting was approved
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
A resident, Jennifer Griffin, stated her concern regarding the upcoming proposed changes to the
R1 Ordinance. She and her neighbors feel that the look of their neighborhood is in danger if
changes are made to this Ordinance.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
None
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. Application No. ASA -2008-03
Applicant: e Ducote
Location: 20 Homestead Rd (Villa Serra Apts)
Architectural and Site approval o landscape tree improvement plans and final details
of the Green Building measures accor ' g to the conditions of approval as directed by
the City Council at their meeting of July 3,
Design Review Committee decision final unless appealed.
2 Design Review Committee
v July 17, 2008
This application is being heard by the Committee to finalize the landscaping and Green
Build' ' aspects of their approved development project as conditioned by the City Council.
Staff me ber of
went over the applicant's proposed tree plantings, streetscape plan and
"green bu ing" solutions. Staff supports the application and approves of the tree options and
the "green ilding" measures the applicant has suggested. Commissioner Rose asked for
clarification on e solar requirement. It was explained that the Planning Commission added the
condition to the evelopment approval to install a system that had a 10 -year cost payback.
Chairperson Giefe asked about planting native specie trees. The applicant stated that he is
willing to plant wha ver plant type will work best for the Planning, Public Works and their
site. Commissioner Ros asked about the alternatives to a solar system. The applicant explained
that their consultant had ne a study and determined that a photovoltaic system would not be
fiscally reasonable (with a co buy back of 18 years), so they are proposing to install a recycled
metal roof, will be using rec led and low emission paints, high efficiency water heaters,
Energy Star appliances and low ow plumbing fixtures. Chairperson Giefer asked about the
study methodology. The applicant id he was not familiar with all the other system options
and the particulars of the study. He wo d be willing to get more information, but hat the study
showed the company would not qualif or the Federal tax credits nor would leasing their
meters and having the leasing company pa the cost savings back due to the specific meter
types they were required to have by PG & E. company is in favor of solar systems and has
installed them at some of their other properties. would like to be able to install a system at
Villa Serra if feasible. Chairperson Giefer offered su estions for tree planting. Since they are
being asked to plant native trees in the park area, she w uld like to see more native specie trees
planted around the perimeter to provide continuity. Co 'ssioner Rose was disappointed by
the lack of a solar system. She would like the applicant to btain additional information in
order to find a way that will make the installation of such a s tem work for the project. She
motioned to approve the project with Staff's recommendations an he additional conditions to
plant a Madrone tree instead of a Magnolia, a California Buckeye inste d of a London Plane and
to have a review of the solar options back to the Committee at the first eeting of October for
final approval on that aspect of the project (in time to incorporate a new otovoltaic system
into the building plans if deemed feasible).
MOTION: Co�runissioner Rose moved to approve ASA -2008-03 with the above mentioned
SECOND: Chairpe on Giefer
ABSENT: none
ABSTAIN: none
VOTE: 2-0
3. Application No. (s): EXC-20 -13
Applicant: Breanna C berlin
Location: 21124 Greenle Driv
Residential Design Exception for a portion o&sa 910 square foot single story addition to
encroach into the required front yard setback
Design Reviezv Committee decision final unless appealed.
3 Design Review Committee
July 17, 2008
Staff member Pettis explained that the applicant is requesting the exception due to the
triangular shape of the lot. A portion of the proposed addition would encroach into the front
yard setback. The setback is currently 13 feet. The addition would reduce aoon of the
ack to 11 feet. The overall FAR of the site would be 36%, which iseariffication
'Under the allowed
45% R. Staff supports the application. Commissioner Rose asked f . on what the
propose etbacks would be for the addition. Staff member Pe stated that is would be 11-12
feet from th rcperty line. The applicant clarified that th roperty line is setback from the
curb already by feet. He further added that all of e neighboring homes are much larger
than what he is pro sing. He brought several RiffiWres to demonstrate this visually for the
Committee members. iso had statementsorom four of his neighbors in support of the
project. Chairperson Giefer . ed if a si walk dedication would be required with this new
construction. Staff member Pe she hadn't checked with Public Works on that
requirement. Staff member Chao the Public Works department will require a sidewalk
and a new driveway entranc t does not d to be added to the Design Review Committee
resolution, as this is a p c works requirement, will ensure that this condition is met or
mitigated. Commisser Rose agreed that the lot was a llenging one and could understand
why that applic , needed more floor space.
'Commissioner Rose moved to approve EXC-2008-13
Chairperson Giefer
XtsbuiN i: none
ABSTAIN: none
VOTE: 2-0
4. Application No. (s): DIR-2008-13
Applicant: Jay Swartz (Luo residence)
Location: 11535 Murano Court
Director's referral to the Design Review Committee for approval of a 200 square foot
sunroom addition to the south side of an existing single family residence
Design Reviezv Committee decision final unless appealed.
Staff member Gross explained that the applicant is proposing to enclose a 200' sunroom. The
sunroom will be 10' from the rear property line. In 2003, the City Council approved a
development application for 55 homes to be built. During the development application process,
the developer modified three lots' setbacks (increased) to 20' feet to accommodate privacy
concerns from the existing surrounding neighbors. The enclosure will be constructed to be of
the same building materials as the house. The homeowners association has reviewed the
application. The Director has referred the application to the Committee due to the volume of
concerns expressed about the project by the neighbors. There is a large Oak tree on the site,
which will be preserved. Neighbors are concerned about the 10' setback exception. Staff
supports the application since there is sufficient privacy screening in place as well as tall
fencing. Commissioner Rose asked for clarification about how sunrooms are classified and
confirmed that the three lots had 20' setbacks as part of the original development approval.
Chairperson Giefer wanted to know if there had been any other Director approvals in Planned
Development areas. Staff member Gross stated that sunroom addition were classified just like
any other addition and that the original approval called for these three lots to have 20' setbacks
to mitigate privacy concerns for the existing neighbors. Other sunrooms have been approved irl
Planned Developments, however, the difference is that in the other areas additions can be done
4 Design Review Committee
July 17, 2008
at any of the lots. They do not have the 20setback constraint. The sunroom installation
company, Four Seasons Sunrooms, explained that the sunroom addition will have a solid roof,
tinted windows and offer soundproofing. The highest wall height is 8'4", so neighbors will not
be able to see into the sunroom since the property line fence is 8' high. Three neighbors spoke
against the addition claiming negative privacy impacts, the houses are already too close
together and that if the development was approved with 20' setbacks, then the City has an
obligation to uphold the 20' requirement. Another resident shared this sentiment. The property
owner, Mr. Luo, addressed the comments made by his neighbors. He felt that privacy was not
an issue with the addition. He has a tall fence and his living area is already smaller than other
homes on Murano Court. Chairperson Giefer said she would not support approval of the
application. The intent of the 20' setback should be honored to protect the privacy of the
surrounding neighbors. The development agreement called for 20' setbacks and the City should
uphold that requirement. Commissioner Rose agreed with Chairperson Giefer. She felt that this
addition would not have an impact on neighboring privacy, but that the original development
was approved with 20' setbacks on these lots. For this reason, she also did not support approval
of the application.
MOTION: Commissioner Rose moved to deny DIR-2008-13
SECOND: Chairperson Giefer
ABSENT: none
ABSTAIN: none
VOTE: 2-0
OLD BUSINESS:
None
NEW BUSINESS:
None
Respectfully submitted:
/s/Beth Ebben
Beth Ebben
Administrative Clerk
g:planning/DRC Comn itteelMinutes071308