DIR-2008-27b
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
Telephone: (408) 777-3308
FAX: (408) 777-3333
CITY F
CUPEIUINO
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
September 19, 2008
Neal Yung
10292 Terry Way, LLC
1290 24th Avenue
SanFrancisco, Ca. 94122
SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTION LETTER - Application DIR-2008-27
This letter confirms the decision of the Design Review Committee, given at the meeting
of September 18, 2008; approving a Director's Minor Modification referral of a minor
modification to allow minor landscape and fence improvements to an existing
apartment building, located at 10292 Terry Way, according to Resolution No. 282.
Please be aware that if this permit is not used within two years, it shall expire on
September 18, 2010.
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 Planning Commission.
~Pk
Elizabeth Pettis
Assistant Planner
Enclosures:
Resolution No. 282
g:planning/DRC Committee/action letter DIR-2008-27
Printed on Recycled Paper
DIR-2008-27
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 282
OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
APPROVING A DIRECTOR'S REFERRAL OF A MINOR
MODIFICATION TO ALLOW MINOR LANDSCAPE AND FENCE
IMPROVEMENTS TO AN EXISTING APARTMENT BUILDING
SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
DIR-2008-27
Neal Y ung, Owner
10292 Terry Way
SECTION II: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee of the City of Cupertino received an
application for Architectural and Site Approval, 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-2008-27, 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-2008-27 as set forth in the Minutes of the Design Review Committee Meeting of
September 18, 2008 are incorporated by reference herein.
Resolution No. 282
Page 2
DIR-2008-27
Septernber18,2008
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on the plan set submitted by Neal Yung titled "Plans for
Landscaping Repair, 10292 Terry Way", dated" August 24, 2008" and consisting of
five pages, the first unlabeled and subsequent pages labeled 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 2.3, except
as may be amended by conditions in this resolution.
2. FENCING
The proposed fence shall not exceed a height of three (3) feet. The design of the
fence shall be open representing a picket style fence. The applicant is required to
research and potentially use fencing material consisting of recycled material. The
final design of the fence shall be subject to approval by the City prior to issuance of
building permits. If the fence is located on a shared property line, the applicant
shall obtain consent from the adjacent property owner prior to the erection of the
fence.
The applicant is required to incorporate at least one opening in the fence located
across the courtyard running in an east-west direction (along the side property
line). This opening shall provide a pathway between the two courtyard sections
and shall be paved with stone or other approved material by the Director of
Community Development.
3. FENCE OPTION
The applicant is required to wait 30 days before installing the fence along the side
property line that runs east-west down the center of the courtyard. During this
period, if the applicant comes to an agreement with the adjacent property owner at
10282 Terry Way to renovate the entire courtyard and landscaping fronting both
complexes, the applicant has the option of not installing the fence at this location
without additional review and approval by the Design Review Committee. The
applicant does not need to wait 30 days for the fence along the front property line
and along the side property line next to the property at 10302 Terry Way.
4. LANDSCAPE
All new trees and shrubs shall be either native or water-wise plants. A revised
landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development
Director prior to issuance of building permits.
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
Resolution No. 282
Page 3
DIR-2008-27
September 18, 2008
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.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of September 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:
ABST AIN:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Giefer, Rose
COMMISSIONERS: none
COMMISSIONERS: none
COMMISSIONERS: none
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
/ s/Steve Piasecki
Steve Piasecki, Director
Community Development Department
/ s/Lisa Giefer
Lisa Giefer, Chair
Design Review Committee
(1)
e;"
:'J
!:J
E
CD
o
::0
o
)>
\J
-u
:n
()
<
):>
r-
~ I
...,
0)>
30..
0..
V) -.
_. r-t
0.. -.
ro 0
I :J
-<0
OJ~
""w
0.. _
'O::r
a~
'O::r
ro~
;:+ro
-<:J
n
=ro
:J V)
rn c
......... .,
.,
o
C
:J
0..
:J
~
"'C
...,
o
'0
ro
;:+
-<
r
,.
I
I t7
I )>-
r\ :g ~
'~f,; I
I flJ
~ ~. 6>
;,; 1--0.\ 0
;~ ~ :'.
i \ 2 <:s
i.~ :J 'S.
~ g \
"'~
-.l
........
V)
ro
r-t
C"
OJ
n
^
~
f
L
h
r
t
'\.~~;..e.,t..i..."
v..........._,...,-....,.,...,......... ,'..;'
Ul
r-t
ro
'1J
::r
o
r-t
o
V) I
0;0
.?-ro
S20~
'0""
OJ 0
:J~
r-to..
:J OJ
lC3
OJ OJ
...,lC
ro ro
OJ 0..
.........
OJ
:J
0..
V)
n
OJ
'0
:J
lC
........
...,
ro
'0
OJ
n
ro
3
ro
:J
r-t
o
~
0..
OJ
3
OJ
lC
ro
0..
18
iC
ro
o
~
NNNNI-LI-LI-L
.......
WNI-LONI-LO
--i
OJ
C"
ro
o
~
()
o
:J
r-t
ro
:J
r-t
V)
:E
o
...,
^
'1J'1J'1J'1Jmmm
..., ..., ..., ..., >< >< ><
o 0 0 0
'0'0'0'0 V) V) V)
oooo!:!:r-tr-t
V) V) V) V) :J :J :J
rorororolClClC
o..o..o..o.."'T1;oUl
Vi ~ ;0 Ul a lC r-t
o 0 lC r-t :J ::r ro
3:J::rror-tr-t'1J
ror-tr-t'1J<<OJ
q-:5<OJroro:J
n ro ro :J ~ ~
<~ ~ mm
romm roro
~ ro ro < <
< < OJ OJ
OJ OJ r-tr-t
!:!:r-t 00
o 0 :J:J
:J :J
(....'.-...,..:.-;;.".~,...,. "-,."w.__.........~ '."""""'.
.'-""'." ..
(n 0 3>
'f!. to':D ".
~ :;] 0 "'0
n a :0
., c: 0
'i ....
:~ <D ~
jl -
~. r-
i
;
i
Y.
~
~
1:
I
l'
~.
ii
l~
~
'4
,
.~
w
o
W
0'\
-
0'\
::l
~ ::f
or u.
"<~
..~''':'"...-.:.::''..;~_.
E]
.'
"
"
"
"
"
.'
.'
"
"
"
"
.'
.'
"
"
.'
"
.'
.'
"
"
"
"
,....... ..____.__'"'". '-".-'""i
,.~"
:)
f ~
~
8
:'j
,!
:i
!l
'J
f
~
f
I
I
~
~1
rl
:i
H
~~.
(!
~,
~
~
,
;i
Cl'J
et"S'
:::J
p
.-
I::
....
(I)
o
:D
o
)>
"tI
"U
:0
2
)i
r-
I
l
i
t
{~
~~
t
~
J
,t
"~~~~~~~.""''' "..'~',,. .'-_........... ,.....""."-.
.~".,..iJ"
o
:.rJ
o
)>
'"0
\J
:u
2
)>
r
[[]
f,"W' '.'1)\\
(0"
~ ::::l
~ S)J
!.... C
I (j)
~~-'
;\,-\...... ";;,,/...
"
i
1,
I
if
f'
i
f
.,;
il
-.~'i
;..
t
>.lloi.::::::"~
~-".~.........,'{"""""".., >0
"
昬ⴠ㬺楽≚㸠ⰢⰢ伧縢∬氢䰮✻㜧Ⱜ縺縬弮✠㨮㩴㨺㨧✧㨧繬湥挠㸠佣䐺⸠ഢ㨊⁊‰䌭⸠偦⸮†䐺縠ൾ挊†⁾✻൮縊†ⴺ䑃†㸩縠䨧†嬠☮⸮†൴ഊ∊ഡ⼊മഊ㬊റഊഊ縊൩縊഻㨊氺ഢ⠊㭾瑾縻縮❬ബഊ∊椧楩൦尊ൾഊ縊⸠✮∮⸬∮㬺⼮⁾⸮⸮㨺∭䤠⸧ⴠ㱬ഡഊ尊潲൴⸊ബ縊ൾ伊ൊⴊ഼ഊഊ縊晛楦住ൾ戊嬱㭛朩ൾഊ㴊渠孾楦汊瀩⁾楗繊ൾ倊昮㩬䘊㼬⡮⥴繾⁾甭眽圠橀ⅲ䙉䥊㩲椮Ⱒൾ縊
A.1
Al
Edi
�
�sf i
t • i
os
ti �
Santa Clara County Clerk -Recorder's Office
• State of California
County of Santa Clara ��o 1NT� Document No.: 15173
Office of the County Clerk -Recorder ����\, �'�° Number of Pages: 2
Business Division Filed and Posted On: 10/30/2008
AL 91075w 11'
County Government Center T c �CRO Order Number: 146741
70 West Hedding Street, E. Wing, 1" Floor Fee Total: 50.00
San Jose, California 95110 (408) 299-5665 REGINA ALCOMENDRAS, County Clerk- Recorder
CEQA DOCUMENT DECLARATION by Veronica Aguirre, Deputy Clerk- Recorder,
ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE RECEIPT
PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING:
1. LEAD AGENCY: City of Cupertino
2. PROJECT TITLE: DIR-2008-27
3. APPLICANT NAME: Nell Yung PHONE: 408.777.3308
4. APPLICANT ADDRESS: 10292 TerryWay
5. PROJECT APPLICANT IS A: ❑ Local Public Agency ❑ School District ❑ Other Special District ❑ State Agency O Private Entity
6. NOTICE TO BE POSTED FOR 30 DAYS.
7. CLASSIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
a. PROJECT THAT IS SUBJECT TO DFG FEES
❑ 1. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE §21152) $ 2,606.75 $ 0.00
❑ 2. NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE §21080(C) $ 1,876.75 $ 0.00
❑ 3. APPLICATION FEE WATER DIVERSION (STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD ONLY) $ 886.25 $ 0.00
❑ 4. PROJECTS SUBJECT TO CERTIFIED REGULATORY PROGRAMS $ 886.25 $ 0.00
❑ 5. COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE FEE (REQUIRED FOR as=1 THROUGH a_4 ABOVE) $ 50.00 $ 0.00
Fish & Game Code §711.4(e)
b. PROJECT THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DFG FEES
ral 1. NOTICE OF EXEMPTION ($50.00 COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE FEE REQUIRED) $ 50.00 $ 50.00
❑ 2. A COMPLETED "CEQA FILING FEE NO EFFECT DETERMINATION FORM" FROM THE DEPARTMENT
OF FISH & GAME, DOCUMENTING THE DFG'S DETERMINATION THAT THE PROJECT WILL HAVE NO
EFFECT ON FISH, WILDLIFE AND HABITAT, OR AN OFFICIAL, DATED RECEIPT I PROOF OF PAYMENT
SHOWING PREVIOUS PAYMENT OF THE DFG FILING FEE FOR THE `SAME PROJECT IS ATTACHED
($50.00 COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE FEE REQUIRED)
DOCUMENT TYPE: ❑ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ❑ NEGATIVE DECLARATION. $ 50.00 $ 0.00
c. FILING THAT IS NOT SUBJECT TO DFG OR COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE FEES
• ❑ NOTICE OF PREPARATION
S. OTHER: FEE (IF APPLICABLE): $
8. TOTAL RECEIVED......................................................................................................................................... $ 50.00
'NOTE: "SAME PROJECT" MEANS NO CHANGES. IF THE DOCUMENT SUBMITTED IS NOT THE SAME (OTHER THAN DATES), A "NO EFFECT
DETERMINATION" LETTER FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME FOR THE SUBSEQUENT FILING OR THE APPROPRIATE FEES ARE
REQUIRED.
THIS FORM MUST BE COMPLETED AND ATTACHED TO THE FRONT OF ALL CEQA DOCUMENTS LISTED ABOVE (INCLUDING COPIES)
SUBMITTED FOR FILING. WE WILL NEED AN ORIGINAL (WET SIGNATURE) AND TWO COPIES. INCLUDE A THIRD COPY IF YOU REQUIRE
AN ENDORSED COPY FOR YOUR RECORDS.
CHECKS FOR ALL FEES SHOULD BE MADE PAYABLE TO: SANTA CLARA COUNTY CLERK -RECORDER
PLEASE NOTE: FEES ARE ANNUALLY ADJUSTED (Fish & Game Code§711.4(b); PLEASE CHECK WITH THIS OFFICE AND THE DEPARTMENT
OF FISH AND GAME FOR THE LATEST FEE INFORMATION.
. NO PROJECT SHALL BE OPERATIVE, VESTED, OR FINAL, NOR SHALL LOCAL GOVERNMENT PERMITS FOR THE PROJECT BE VALID,
UNTIL THE FILING FEES REQUIRED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION ARE PAID." Fish & Game Code §711.4(c)(3)
0809-2008
Filek 15173 10/30/2008
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Notice of Exemption
To: County Clerk -Recorder
70 W. Hedding Street, Vt Floor
East Wing—Business Division
San Jose, CA 95110
Project Title: DIR-2008-27
Project Location - (be specific): 10292 Terry Drive
Project Location - (City): Cupertino Project Location - (County): Santa Clara
Description of Project: Director's Referral of a Minor Modification to allow minor landscape
and fence improvements to an existing apartment building.
Name of Public Agency approving project: City of Cupertino
Name of Person or Agency carrying out project: Neal Yung
Exempt Status: (check one)
—Ministerial (Sec. 21080(b)(1); 15268);
— Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080(b)(3); 15269(a));
— Emergency Project (Sec. 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c));
x Categorical Exemption. State type and section number: 15301
_Statutory Exemption. State code number:
Reasons why project is exempt: Existing Facilities.
Lead Agency
Contact Person Elizabeth Pettis Area code/telephone number (408) 777-3319
Signature: Date: October 16, 2008 Title: Assistant Planner
G: IPlanninglERClExemptl2008exemptl dir200827. doc
Juan Brieto
Juan's Gardening
1403 Crucero Ct San Jose 95122
408-234-5595
August 7, 2008
Dear Juan,
This is a contract between Juan Brieto ("Contractor") and the owner of 10282 Terry Way ("Owner") for re-
roofing work to be done at 10282 Terry Way ("Site"). The total contract amount is $6,800. See "Site Plan Diagram"
to refer to areas where improvements will occur.
Scope of Work:
1) Demolition
a. Removal of existing sod/grass from front yard (Area A) and side front -yard (Area B)
b. Removal of existing irrigation
c. Removal of excess soil in front planting strip area (Area D) parallel to road
d. Trimming of rear trees/bushes (Area C)
2) New Sod
a. New grass/sod and necessary soil will be placed in Area A
b. New grass/sod and necessary soil will be placed in side Area B
3) New Irrigation
a. New irrigation will be installed for Area C
b. Irrigation will be sufficient to water the entire sod and planting area effectively
c. Irrigation will be controlled by automatic timers
4) Planting
a. Area C will extend from the rear of the garage to 22-25' towards Terry Way
b. This area will be enhanced with flowers, plants, bushes, and trees to be determined by discussion
between Owner and Contractor
c. Area E will be enhanced by trimming existing planting and adding some flowers or small plants
l� ` ✓
General Conditions:
- Any change order will be for cost of materials and labor
- Contractor will be responsible for arranging and passing any inspections required by the City of Cupertino
- The Contractor will provide copies of license and keep working permit and drawings on-site during
construction
- Contractor is protected by Workers' Compensation Insurance
- Contractor to provide insurance to cover Owner for work performed
- Contractor agrees to indemnify Owner for any liability caused by work performed by the Contractor
- Contractor is responsible for any liability that may occur on Site during construction
- Any dispute that may arise between Contractor and Owner will be settled through arbitration, prevailing
party will be entitled to recovery of reasonable legal fees
Payment Schedule:
V J' 1 o o V V
- $2,Q�-u{�rm-coe„eer�+�ofrovork—
-3 VrC,ti
-
$+804 on completion of work to the satisfaction of the Owner (and sign -off of any inspections if
required)
Timeline:
10
- Work to be completed in '$-clays
- If work is not completed within 5 -days Contract will provide a 1% discount per day
Site Plan Diagram:
Building
Area E
Building
Area C
Area A
To: Design Review Committee:
I have concern regarding to the application number: DIR-2008-27. The major concern is: SAFETY.
I am the tenant of the 10282 TERRY WAY. 10282 and 10292 share the same grass ground.
According to the application description, there will be a "fence improvements". After saw the proposed
view, found it is not an improvement but a new fence setup. A totally new fence will be setup
surrounding the grass ground.
Safety concern:
1. The fence will be set in the middle of the grass ground. The grass ground is the place all our
neighbor will play on. A fence in the middle of the grass ground may have the chance to cause
body injury when kids or even adults play any games.
2. The fence will also be set between the house and TERRY WAY. We have a lot of kids here, and
they like to play tri -cycles and scooters, and the side walk way is the place all those traffic go.
Now with a fence setup on one side, it will be unsafe for those traffics together with normal
passenger traffic.
Regards,
Yong
M family and I liv in 10282 Ter Way, which is right across from 10292.
Y Y Terry
We also share the same piece of grass in front of our homes. Many children
from the neighborhood love that piece of grass, and like to play on it everyday.
It is very inconvenient to have a fence cutting through the middle. It will look
very awkward to have a fence running through a piece of grass like that. It is
not only that it would not look pretty; it might also be dangerous for the children.
The fence is designed to be 3 feet tall, that is exactly the height children like to
try to climb over. We don't any children to get hurt. Our neighborhood has
been very peaceful and nice; we don't want this unnecessary fence to ruin
everything.
��- '
�SZ.i9ss
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-2008-27
Neal Yung
10292 Terry Way
APN: 359-17-013
Director's referral for approval of a Minor Modification to
allow minor landscape and fence improvements to an
existing apartment building
September 18, 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 Elizabeth Pettis, Project Manager
at (408) 777-3319.
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
359 15 010 359 17 002 359 17 003
CHIU CHING CHI AND YU HSUEH HU SALERA DANTE TRUSTEE 10311 S DE ANZA LLC
20608 SHELLY DR 14706 6TH ST 20865 PEPPER TREE LN
CUPERTINO CA 95014-2924 SARATOGA CA 95070 CUPERTINO CA 95014
359 17 004
10311 S DE ANZA LLC
20865 PEPPER TREE LN
CUPERTINO CA 95014-2969
359 17 014
JUNG WING G AND JOE KIT FONG T
10347 TULA LN
CUPERTINO CA 95014-2934
359 17 012
LIAO CHUNG H AND BEI -WEN TRUST
113 TERESITA WY
LOS GATOS CA 95032-6041
359 17 013
10292 TERRY WAY LLC
1578 ALBATROSS DR #2
SUNNYVALE CA 94087
Basemap Labels
Abc Street Names
Address
Freeway
Basemap
Easements
Street Centerline
County Freeways
County Major Roads
Right -of -Way
Parcels
City Boundary
City of Cupertfno
SCALE 1 : 1,619
100 0 100 200 300
FEET
http://gissvr/cupertinointranet/home/mapFile.aspx
/1
Monday, September 08, 2008 8:48 AM
t —
10292 TERRY WAY, LLC
1583 Quebec Ct #3
Sunnyvale, CA 94087
650-468-6411
August 25, 2008
Neighbor Communications / History Log:
July 11th 2008 - Contacted neighbor about our intentions for our landscaping plans (which at the
time was a 6' high privacy fence per municipal guidelines and landscaping improvements). Setup
meeting with neighbor on July 14th 2008). Decided to hold off on landscaping
repairs/improvements until after talking with "neighbor" (10282 Terry Way)
July 14th 2008 - Met with neighbor, Kit (partial owner of 10282 Terry Way). At this time she made it
clear that she did not want to see a fence erected at our property lines and claimed I needed to
get approval from planning to proceed. My previous understanding and discussions with Cupertino
Planning had led me to believe planning approval was not needed for landscaping and fence
were within municipal code guidelines
July 14th 2008 - After meeting with 10282 Neighbor, I went to the planning dept to confirm my
understanding that I did not need planning approval for the proposed landscaping work, talked
with Assistant Planner Elizabeth P. who confirmed my understanding that I did not need planning
approval for landscaping work as well as my interpretation of the guidelines for the proposed
fence was correct. Elizabeth P. also confirmed this understanding with planner Gary Chao.
July 15th or 16th 2008 - Received call from Elizabeth who discussed my situation with planer Colin
Jung, who said that the R-3 zoning, if strictly interpreted, states that landscaping improvements
require planning approval. Elizabeth informed me the approval could be handled by a Director's
minor modification but the timing could be 2 wks to 3 months, depending on if our 10282 neighbor
appealed any planning decision
July 16th to August 6th 2008 - I decided that instead of trying to go through a lengthy planning
process I would eliminate the fence so that the 10282 Neighbor would not protest our
modifications. I contacted our neighbor and informed her we would not pursue the fence, at
which time she was much more amiable and we discussed the possibilities of working together to
improve the landscaping of our properties. I redesigned the landscaping, and got pricing from
landscape contractors, including her landscaping contractor. I decided to use her landscaping
contractor and we had verbal agreements with our neighbor that we would replace our grass and
she would do the same using her landscape contractor
August 7th 2008 - I met with our neighbor and the landscape contractor. I prepared two contracts,
one that was a contract between our 10282 neighbor and the landscape contractor for her work,
and another for our landscaping work with the contractor. We signed the contracts (she did not
sign hers, the contractor signed her contract and she said she would sign it later since it was her
copy). We were prepared to do the work on the wknd of Aug 9th
August 8th 2008 - 10282 Neighbor contacted me and told me she wanted a new contract signed
and complained that there was no mention of my property on her contract with the landscaper, I
tried to inform her I had created two different contracts one for her and one for me, but to no
avail. She wanted me to communicate with her landscape contractor. I revised my contract (to
correct some minor errors) with the landscape contractor and met him and we signed the new
contract. I voided the old contract and gave him a copy to give to her. The new, revised contract
was contingent upon her doing her landscaping work as well.
August 8th 2008 - Later that day I got a call from the landscape contractor informing me she no
longer wanted to do the work and is insisting we get planning approval for our work. Landscape
contractor complained he tried to convince her to do the work and explain the contract situation
but she refused to hear it. At this point I decided that I had no guarantee she would make her
improvements if we did our side, and without her making her improvements, any improvements we
made would be negated by the condition of her property.
August 20"' 2008 - I met with planner Gary Chao to discuss my situation and after a bit of discussion
and confirmation with planner Colin Jung, he informed me that if I wanted a fence I would need a
director's minor modification, but if I did not want to have the fence I could proceed without
planning approval and planning would treat the landscaping as repairs to the existing
landscaping.
August 22^d 2008 - I made one last call to my neighbor to inform her that Cupertino planning would
be ok with me making landscaping repair/improvements without needing approval (if no fencing)
and I wanted to see if I did that, would she also do her improvements, as we had previously
agreed upon. She did not answer so I left a voicemail and did not receive a call back. At this point
I decided that in order to make landscaping improvements that would have the necessary positive
impact on my property, the neighborhood, and for my residents that I would move forward with
the landscaping plans that included the fence. I decided to limit it to a 3' high fence to try an
accommodate some of my neighbor's concerns and desires not to have a fence obstruct her
property's view.
PLEASE NOTE:
A pre -application conference is required prior to submittal on all
applications. The purpose of the pre -application conference is to
determine if the application is ready for submittal.
Please call your project manager to schedule a time for the review of
your application materials. We suggest you allow enough time prior
to the application deadline to prepare additional information or make
changes in case any are needed.
Please bring this form to the pre -application meeting for a signature.
�-A C41'1-1-�-�f
Include this form in your application submittal.
Application Request:
i/
Comments:
i
Signed (planner) _ '� Date ar �ro
v
As a part of the application review process, City of Cupertino employees may visit your site in order to take
photographs, slides and/or videotape. These materials may be shown at a city meeting.
Sheet I of 10
PRE -APPLICATION FORM
Community Development Department
10300 Torre Avenue (408) 777-3308 / Fax (408) 777-3333
CUPERTINO
Cupertino, CA 95014 planning®cupertino.org
I http://www.cupertino.org/planning
PLEASE NOTE:
A pre -application conference is required prior to submittal on all
applications. The purpose of the pre -application conference is to
determine if the application is ready for submittal.
Please call your project manager to schedule a time for the review of
your application materials. We suggest you allow enough time prior
to the application deadline to prepare additional information or make
changes in case any are needed.
Please bring this form to the pre -application meeting for a signature.
�-A C41'1-1-�-�f
Include this form in your application submittal.
Application Request:
i/
Comments:
i
Signed (planner) _ '� Date ar �ro
v
As a part of the application review process, City of Cupertino employees may visit your site in order to take
photographs, slides and/or videotape. These materials may be shown at a city meeting.
Sheet I of 10
i
F
7
ala
.... _ .. � .4� ..., ,_'�� °" ✓- �f ., :. � .. -
c
70
p
E
f
�...'+,yam 9 +$^. ., " �-
i
ii
To: Design Review Committee Date: September 18, 2008
From: Elizabeth Pettis, Assistant Planner
Subject: Application: DIR-2008-27
Location: 10292 Terry Way
Project Description:
Director's Referral of a Minor Modification to allow minor landscape and fence
improvements to an existing apartment building.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of DIR-2008-27, based on the model resolution.
BACKGROUND:
The project site is located in a multiple -family zoning district (R3) on the east side of
Terry Way south of Rodriguez Avenue (see diagram below). The project site consists of
an apartment complex with four units. In January 2007, the applicant received approval
to make minor exterior changes to replace the exterior stairwell, add privacy fences
between the units, entry .doors, and a portion of the walkway. The applicant is
requesting additional minor landscaping and fencing enhancements.
September 18, 2008 DIR-2008-27 2
According to the ordinance, site and landscaping modifications to a property located in
the multiple -family (R3) zone require Design Review Committee approval.
DISCUSSION
Proposed Enhancements
The proposed enhancements are summarized as follows:
• Replace existing damaged landscape and expanding the planting area
• Install new sod/ grass along the front property line and courtyard
• Install a 3 foot high fence around the perimeter (—)
• New entry gate (ft )
Staff supports the proposed fence and landscaping improvements.
Adjacent Neighbor Concerns
The adjacent neighbor north of the project site at 10282 Terry Way has expressed the
following concerns:
• The proposed fence improvements will preclude the adjacent apartment
occupants from accessing the project's useable front yard
• The proposed site modifications are inconsistent to the adjacent properties
September 18, 2008 DIR-2008-27 3
According to the applicant, even though currently the front area is open to the adjacent
apartment complex, there is no recorded reciprocal access easement between the
properties. Staff recommends that the applicant work with the adjacent property owner
to provide either an opening or a gate that allows for residential access, if appropriate.
Staff believes that the proposed landscape and fence improvements will enhance the
exterior area of the project, and will not create any compatibility issues.
Enclosures:
Model Resolution
Exhibit A (Project Description)
Plan Set
Prepared by: Elizabeth Pettis, Assistant Planner
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Community Development Dire
GAPIanning\DRC\staff rep\2008\DIR-2008-27 SR.doc
DIR-2008-27
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
10we) 081Ke) af0lei
OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
APPROVING A DIRECTOR'S REFERRAL OF A MINOR
MODIFICATION TO ALLOW MINOR LANDSCAPE AND FENCE
IMPROVEMENTS TO AN EXISTING APARTMENT BUILDING
SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: DIR-2008-27
Applicant: Neal Yung, Owner
Location: 10292 Terry Way
SECTION II: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee of the City of Cupertino received an
application for Architectural and Site Approval, 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-2008-27, 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-2008-27 as set forth in the Minutes of the Design Review Committee Meeting of
September 18, 2008 are incorporated by reference herein.
Resolution No.
DIR-2008-27 September 18, 2008
Page 2
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on the plan set submitted by Neal Yung titled "Plans for
Landscaping Repair, 10292 Terry Way", dated 8/24/08 and consisting of five
pages, the first unlabeled and subsequent pages labeled 1.0,1.1,1.2, 2.3, except as
may be amended by conditions in this resolution.
2. FENCING
The proposed fence shall not exceed a height of three (3) feet. The final design of
the fence shall be subject to approval by the Community Development Director. If
the fence is located on a shared property line, the applicant shall obtain consent
from the adjacent property owner prior to the erection of the fence.
3. 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.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 181h day of September 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: Chairperson Giefer, Rose
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: none
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: none
ATTEST:
s/Steve Piasecki
Steve Piasecki, Director
Community Development Department
APPROVED:
/s/ Lisa Giefer -
Lisa Giefer, Chair
Design Review Committee
ala
10292 TERRY WAY, LLC ' 24c� 2``T" Ave
Sr , nm gkrz?_
650-468-6411
August 25, 2008
City of Cupertino
Planning Department
Dear Cupertino Planning,
We are proposing to make landscaping repairs to our property (a 4-plex) and would appreciate
your input. The attached drawings show the existing conditions as well as the proposed repairs. The
landscaping within the fencing consists of new sod/grass as Well as the expansion of the existing
planting area. The exact layout of the sod/planting and types of plants used will be determined
upon installation, but the intention is represented in the attached drawings.
Existing Conditions:
- Extremely poor condition of existing sod/grass areas
- Neighbor's landscaping is in equally poor condition
Proposed Repairs:
- 3' high wood fence surrounding the property (setback 4" from side -yard property lines)
- New entrance gate
- New sod
- New planting area (bushes, flowers, trees)
Purpose of Improvements:
- The main purpose is to repair the damaged landscaping to provide the residents with a
desirable outdoor space and improve the property's curb appeal
- The purpose of the fencing is two -fold: a) to give residents a designated outdoor space
belonging to the property; b) to improve the property's curb appeal and provide
separation for the neighbors whose landscaping. is in various states of disrepair
- We are proposing only a 3' high fence as opposed to a 6' high privacy fence in an
attempt to appease the neighbor's wishes to not have a fence obstructing their view, but
still provide the separation that we desire
We would very much appreciate your input and we believe our repairs improvements are within
the guidelines of the City's municipal code and feel the improvements will improve the
neighborhood as well as provide a more pleasant environment for our residents.
Sincerely,
i6
Manager of 10292 Terry Way, LLC
(owner of 10292 Terry Way)
Design Review Committee
September 18, 2008
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW
COMMITTEE HELD ON September 18, 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
Aki Honda -Snelling
None
September 4, 2008 1
Minutes of the September 4, 2008 Design Review Committee meeting were approved
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
Correspondence from Yung Chen, expressing concern regarding the proposed fence
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR:.
None
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
None
CONSENT CALENDAR:
None
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. Application No.. (s): DIR-2008-27
Applicant: Neal Yung
Location: 10292 Terry Way
Director's Referral of a Minor Modification to allow minor landscape and fence
improvements to an existing apartment building
Design Review Committee decision final unless appealed.
2 Design Review Committee
September 18, 2008
Staff member Pettis explained that at the site, there are 8 condominium units facing
each other, four on each side with a shared courtyard in the middle. The Applicant is
proposing to install a 3' high fence (4" away from the property line on his side), an
entry gate and do landscaping improvements. This will effectively separate his four
units from the adjacent facing units. Staff has received concerns from the neighbor
regarding how the fence will reduce the size of the courtyard for their tenants, potential
safety hazards for the children playing in the courtyard and that other condominium
units in the area with the same configuration do. not have a fence so this fence would
not be compatible with the neighborhood. Staff supports the proposed application and
hopes that the Applicant and the neighbor can work a compromise regarding the use of
the courtyard space. Chairperson Giefer asked why the application was being heard by
the Design Review Committee to approve. Staff member Pettis explained that the R3
Zoning Ordinance requires any landscaping changes be approved by the Design
Review Committee.
The Applicant addressed the Committee to explain his landscaping plan. He was
working with his neighbor to improve all of the landscaping on the site. His initial plan
was for a 6' fence, but agreed to lower it to a 3' fence. Then negotiations fell through. He
wants to make a nice area for his tenants, but feels that there needs to be a separation
since there are no assurances that the other side would be improved. Commissioner
Rose asked the Applicant how his tenants felt about the proposed landscaping. He
stated that they did not object. Chairperson Giefer asked about the number of children
on site and if the sprinkler system would be improved and what kinds of trees was the
applicant proposing to plant on site. The applicant stated that the landscaper would
advise him on appropriate native, water -wise trees and he would be installing a timed
sprinkler system. The adjacent Property Owner spoke to the Committee explaining that
she did not object to landscaping but felt that the fence would be hazardous to the
children that play in the grassy area between the property lines. Two tenants spoke
against the fence as well. They thought the fence would ruin the aesthetics and the
"neighborly" feeling of the area. Commissioner Rose asked the neighboring property
owner if she was willing to re -landscape the entire area with the applicant. She stated
that she didn't want the fence, but was only willing to re -do the grass at this time.
Commissioner Rose encouraged the property owners to work together to improve the
entire site. It is the right of the Applicant to improve his property and to protect his
landscaping investment from encroaching weeds. She did suggest a softer fence line,
perhaps a picket style instead of the solid redwood with a couple of openings to the
other property side to encourage the "neighborly" feelings. Chairperson Giefer agreed
that the fence in the middle is hard since the children from all the units play on the
grass, but since the property owners cannot agree to a shared landscaping plan, the
Applicant has the right to develop his property as proposed to the Committee. She did
like Commissioner Rose's idea of a picket fence with openings. She would like the
Applicant to plant native species and use recycled materials for the fence construction.
Commissioner Rose move to approve the application with the additional conditions
that the landscaping pants must be native or water -wise. The fence shall be constructed
in a picket style with at least one opening to the adjacent property and is encouraged to
be constructed from recycled materials.
3 Design Review Committee
September 18, 2008
MOTION: Commissioner Rose moved to approve DIR-2008-27 with the above
mentioned conditions
SECOND: Chairperson Giefer noted that if the Applicant and the neighboring Property
Owner could agree on a landscaping plan for the entire site within 30 days,
then the picket style fence in the middle of the grassy area could be omitted
without further Committee approval.
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 Committee/MinutesO91808