The URL can be used to link to this page

11. Jitka Cymbal appeal City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 Fax: (408) 777-3333 CI CUPERJINO Community Development Department Summary Agenda Item N o.lL Agenda Date: February 20,2007 Application: TM-2006-12, EXC-2006-14, V-2006-0l Applicant: Jitka Cymbal (Westfall Engineers) Owner: Sue-Jane Han Location: 21871 Dolores Avenue Application Summary: TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide a .46 acre lot into two parcels of 9,685 square feet and 9,686 square feet, respectively in a R1-7.5 zoning district. EXECPTION to allow 5-foot side yard setbacks, instead of the required combined 15 feet. V ARIANCE to allow a 50-foot lot width, instead of the required 60-foot width, for the two proposed parcels. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council has the following options: 1. Deny the appeal, uphold the Planning Commission's decision; or 2. Uphold the appeal and overturn the Planning Commission's denial; or 3. Uphold the appeal with modifications. Project Data: General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: Total Acreage (gross): Net Acreage per parcel: Density: Low Density Residential, 1-5 DUjgr. acre R1-7.5 .46 Lot 1- 9,685 sq. ft., Lot 2- 9,686 sq. ft. 4.3 duj gr. acre. 11- ( Applications: TM-2006-12, EXC-2006-14, V-2006-01 Page 2 Project Consistency with: General Plan: Zoning: Environmental Assessment: Yes, Policy 2-23 Yes Categorically exempt. BACKGROUND At its meeting of January 23, 2007, the Planning Commission voted (4-1) to deny the proposed project. The Commission was concerned about the proposed side by side subdivision design and felt that the project should match the predominate flag lot pattern of the immediate neighborhood. The applicant was given the option of redesigning the project but decided to take the denial instead. Several members of the public expressed concerns on the proposed 5 foot side yard setback in terms of potential privacy impacts and matching the neighboring flag lot pattern in the neighborhood. One member of the public supported the proposed traditional (side-by-side) subdivision design and did not want another new flag lot on the street. The applicant is appealing the decision of the Planning Commission. DISCUSSION There are two major discussion points for this subdivision: flag lots vs. traditional lots and the proposed 5-foot side yard setbacks. Flag lots vs. traditional lots The proposed project parcel is approximately 100 feet wide and 190 feet deep. The project lot is not wide enough for two minimum 60-foot wide lots as required by the Rl Ordinance. The site can be subdivided into two lots with a flag lot in the rear and a smaller conventional lot in the front similar to the adjacent properties (see aerial diagram below). Alternatively, the property could be divided down the middle creating two conventional lots resulting in lot widths narrower than the required 60 feet. General Plan: The General Plan (Policy 2-23) specifies that flag lots should be created only when there is no reasonable alternative that integrates with the lot pattern in the neighborhood. This policy discourages new flag lots in the interest of promoting better house to street relationships in residential neighborhoods. Planning Commission: The Planning Commission recently approved a similar variance request (TM-2005-14, 21988 McClellan Road) allowing the subdivision of conventional lots with substandard lot widths (less than 60 feet) in the interest of better integrating the future residence into the neighborhood. However in the case of Dolores Avenue, the Commission felt that a flag lot design is more appropriate and consistent with the immediate pattern of the neighborhood. Commission Chen supported the traditional lot split down the middle. {(-L Applications: TM-2006-12, EXC-2006-14, V-2006-0l Page 3 . Staff Recommendation: There are numerous existing traditional lot patterns with similar lot widths in the project neighborhood (please diagram below) so the proposed project is compatible with the neighborhood. The City has previously approved similar requests in order to be consistent with the General Plan. Staff supports the variance request and the side- by- side lot design in the interest of allowing better home to street interface along Dolores Avenue and promoting a more desirable living environment for the new homes. The narrower lot width promotes houses with a smaller fa<;ade that is consistent with the predominant cottage style homes in the Monta Vista neighborhood. Side Yard Setbacks In general, the R1 Ordinance requires ground floor side yard setbacks be a combination of 15 feet with a minimum of five feet on one side. Only Rl-5 zoned lots are allowed to have five foot side yard setbacks. The intent of this rule is to permit less side yard setbacks on narrower lots (50 feet wide or less) in order to provide greater flexibility to construct a reasonable and balanced floor plan. The applicant is requesting an exception to allow five foot side yard setbacks. Planning Commission: The Commission denied the request to allow for the five foot side yard setbacks because it may create negative visual impacts to the adjacent neighbors. The Commission preferred to see a traditional side yard setback arrangement that will be accomplished by a flag lot design. Staff Recommendation: The project is located in the Monta Vista area, which has a variety of lot and setback patterns. A survey of the immediate neighborhood indicates that there are approximately 34 lots with similar lot widths and side yard setbacks (see diagram right). The City has previously approved exceptions to allow five foot side yards setbacks on lots that are located outside of Rl-5 zoning districts when the lot width is less than 60 feet. In addition, further R1 design control at the design review process for the new homes will ensure that the buildings are design to minimize undesirable building interface issues to the adjacent neighbors. Staff supports I Project lot I . Property with similar , . lot width and setbacks A__.,- ......... _, .._ '_~__'""'._""" _"...,.or ,_-,'" __ 0'<"..... r 11- J Applications: TM-2006-12, EXC-2006-14, V -2006-01 Page 4 the side yard setback exception if the side-by-side patter is approved APPLICANT'S APPEAL The applicant is appealing the decision of the Planning Commission based on the following reasons: · The Commission's decision was not consistent with the city's policy that flag lots are created only when there is no alternative. · The applicant has followed the city's suggestion to avoid flag lots and worked with city planning staff to design the tentative map. · Although the 50 foot lot width is substandard, it is not uncommon in the Monta Vista area. There are numerous houses with 50 foot lot widths in the neighborhood. · Safety and appearance are better in the side by side approach. It creates more value to the project and to the neighborhood. · Neighborhood compatibility is subjective and the owner's interest should not be ignored. ENCLOSURES Planning Commission Resolutions Nos. 6444, 6445, 6446 Exhibit A-I: Staff Report to Planning Commission dated January 23, 2007 Appeal request from the applicant dated January 26, 2007 Planning Commission meeting minutes January 23, 2007 Prepared by: Gary Chao, Associate Planner Approved by: ,/ ~ David W. Knapp City Manager St Piasecki Director, Community Development (I_l( EXC-2006-14 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 (Denial) RESOLUTION NO. 6444 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO TO DENY THE REQUEST OF 5-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACKS, INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED COMBINED 15 FEET AT 21871 DOLORES AVENUE SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: EXC-2006-14 Jitka Cymbal 21871 DOLORES AVENUE SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for 5-foot side yard setbacks, as described in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds the following with regards to this application: 1. Literal Enforcement of the provisions of this chapter will result in restrictions inconsistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter 2. The granting of the exception will result in a condition which is materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare 3. The proposed exception will result in significant visual impact as viewed from abutting properties 4. That the exceptions to be granted are not ones that will require the least modification of the prescribed regulations and the minimum variance that will accomplish the purpose. That the subconclusions upon which the findings specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application EXC-2006-14, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of January 23, 2007 and are incorporated by reference herein. (I-) Resolution No. 6444 Page 2 EXC-2006-14 January 23, 2007 PASSED AND DENIED this 23rd day of January 2007, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chair person Giefer, Miller, Wong COMMISSIONERS: Vice Chair Chien COMMISSIONERS: none COMMISSIONERS: none ATTEST: APPROVED: / s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development / s/Lisa Giefer Lisa Geifer, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission f \~& TM-20Q6-12 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 (Denial) RESOLUTION NO. 6445 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DENYING A TENTATIVE MAP TO SUBDIVIDE A.46 ACRE LOT INTO TWO PARCELS OF 9,685 SQUARE FEET AND 9,686 SQUARE FEET, RESPECTIVELY IN A Rl-7.5 ZONING DISTRICT, AT 21871 DOLORES AVENUE SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Tentative Subdivision Map, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has not satisfied the following requirements: 1) That the proposed subdivision map is consistent with the City of Cupertino General Plan. 2) That the design and improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the General Plan. 3) That the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of development contemplated under the approved subdivision. 4) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and unavoidable injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. 5) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements associated there with is not likely to cause serious public health problems. 6) That the design of the subdivision and its associated improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Tentative Subdivision Map is hereby denied. I\~ 7 Resolution No. 6445 Page 2 TM-2006-12 January 23, 2007 That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. TM-2006-12 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of January 23, 2007, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: TM-2006-12 Jitka Cymbal 21871 Dolores Avenue PASSED AND DENIED this 23rd day of January 2007, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Giefer, Miller, Wong COMMISSIONERS: Vice Chair Chien COMMISSIONERS: none COMMISSIONERS: none ATTEST: APPROVED: I s I Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki, Director Community Development Department I s/Lisa Giefer Lisa Geifer, Chairperson Planning Commission I \-f V -2007 -01 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 (Denial) RESOLUTION NO. 6446 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DENYING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 50-FOOT LOT WIDTH, INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 60-FOOT WIDTH, FOT THE TWO PROPOSED PARCE AT 21871 DOLORES AVENUE. SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino has received an application for a Variance, 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 at least one Public Hearing on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support the application, and has not satisfied the following criteria: 1) That there are extraordinary or exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to . the property involved that do not apply generally to properties in the same district . 2) That granting of the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship. 3) That granting the Variance will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare, or convenience, and to secure the purpose of the title. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, testimony, exhibits and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Variance is hereby denied by the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the subconc1usions upon which the findings specified in this Resolution are based are contained in the public hearing record concerning Application V-2007-01, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of January 23 2007, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. (I ,- C[ Resolution No. 6446 Page -2- V -2007-01 January 23,2007 SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: V -2007-01 Jitka Cymbal 21871 Dolores Avenue PASSED AND DENIED this 23rd day of January, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Giefer, Miller, Wong COMMISSIONERS: Vice Chair Chien COMMISSIONERS: none COMMISSIONERS: none ATTEST: APPROVED: I s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development I s/Lisa Giefer Lisa Geifer, Chair Cupertino Planning Commission II ,-ID SD- !'r ;;: s.r :;;S' d-6 ~ / S- CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: TM-2006-12, V-2007-01, EXC-2006-14 Jitka Cymbal Sue-Jane Han 21871 Dolores Avenue Agenda Date: January 23, 2007 Applicant: Property Owner: Property Location: Application Summary: TENT A TIVE MAP to subdivide a .46 acre lot into two parcels of 9,685 square feet and 9,686 square feet, respectively in a RI-7.5 zoning district. V ARIANCE to allow a 50-foot lot width, instead of the required 60-foot width, for the two proposed parcels. EXECPTION to allow 5-foot side yard setbacks, instead of the required combined 15 feet. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the tentative map, the variance and the exception in accordance with the model resolutions. Project Data: Generai Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: Total Acreage (gross): Net Acreage per parcel: Density: Low Density Residentiat 1-5 DU I gr. acre RI-7.5 .46 Lot 1- 9,685 sq. ft., Lot 2- 9,686 sq. ft. 4.3 dul gr. acre. Environmental Assessment: Yes, Policy 2-23 Yes Categorically exempt. Project Consistency with: General Plan: Zoning: BACKGROUND: The project site is located on the north side of Dolores Avenue between Byrne A venue and Orange Avenue. A main residence, two detached cottages and a detached shed currently exist on the parcel. Single-family residential parcels surround the subject parcel. The project proposes to demolish all of the structures on the property, subdivide into two lots and build two new single family homes. (1 -II TM-2006-12, V-2007-01, EXC-.<;.u06-14 Page 2. January 9, 2007 DISCUSSION: There are two major discussion points for this subdivision: conformance with the Rl Ordinance (substandard lot widths & 5-foot side yard setbacks) and tree removal and retention. Rl Ordinance Conformance: Lot Width The proposed project parcel is approximately 100 feet wide and 190 feet deep. The project lot is not wide enough for two minimum 60-foot wide lots as required by the Rl Ordinance. The site can be subdivided into two lots with a flag lot in the rear and a smaller conventional lot in the front similar to the adjacent properties (see aerial diagram below). Alternatively, the property could be divided down the middle creating two conventional lots resulting in lot widths narrower than the required 60 feet. The General Plan discourages the creation of new flag lots unless if they are the only reasonable alternative that integrates with the lot patterns in the neighborhood. The Planning Commission recently approved a similar variance (TM-2005-14, 21988 McClellan Road) allowing the subdivision of conventional lots with lot widths narrower than the required 60 feet in the interest of better integrating the future residence into the neighborhood. The project site is located in the Monta Vista neighborhood that consist of a variety of different lot patterns, including numerous conventional lots with substandard widths (50 feet) and flag lots (see diagram above). Staff supports the variance request and believes that the variance findings for the lot width can be made: 1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions apply to the property involved that do not apply generally to the property in the same district. In order for this property to subdivide with conventional lots, a variance is needed for narrower lot width. The property could be subdivided with a flag lot that does not require a variance, and the exceptional circumstance is that conventional lots are desired so that residences can face the street and be better integrated the homes into the neighborhood. /1__( 2- TM-2006-12, V-2007-01, EXC-,,dJ06-14 Page 3 January 9, 2007 2. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship. The proposed lots conform to the General Plan, zoning and the lot sizes in the surrounding area, thereby allowing the property owner to achieve property rights similar to others in the area. 3. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare, or convenience, and to secure the purpose of the title. The subdivision will not be detrimental to the vicinity. Side Yard Setbacks In general, the R1 Ordinance requires ground floor side yard setbacks be a combination of 15 feet with a minimum of five feet on one side. Only Rl-5 zoned lots are allowed to have five foot side yard setbacks. The intent of this rule is to permit less side yard setbacks on narrower lots (50 feet wide or less) in order to provide greater flexibility to construct a reasonable and balanced floor plan. The City has previously approved exceptions to allow five foot side yards setbacks on lots that are located outside of Rl-5 zoning districts if the following fundamental principles are met: 1. The setback pattern is consistent with the neighborhood; and 2. The project lot width is substandard (less than 60 wide); and 3. The five foot setbacks will not cause building interface issues. The applicant is requesting an exception to allow five foot side yard setbacks. The project is located in the Monta Vista area which has a variety of lot and setback patterns. A survey of the immediate neighborhood indicates that there are approximately 34 lots with similar lot widths and side yard setbacks (see diagram below). In addition, further R1 design control at the design review process for the new homes will ensure that the buildings are design to minimize undesirable building interface issues to the adjacent neighbors. 1'(-{ J TM-2006-12, V-2007-01, EXC-,dl06-14 Page 4 January 9, 2007 Project lot . Property with similar _____ lot w19~~nd 1l~tb~c~~._. Staff supports the side yard exception request and believes that the variance findings for the lot width can be made: 1. Literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter will result in restrictions inconsistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter. The proposed project is consistent with the intent of the ordinance and will not impact the neighborhood. The five-foot side yard setback is appropriate in order to allow for a functional floor plan and a balanced front elevation on a narrow lot. The substandard lot width and a literal enforcement of the ordinance will not allow enough design flexibility. 2. The granting of the exception will not result in a condition which is materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. The proposed setbacks are consistent with the neighborhood pattern and will not create public health, safety or welfare issues. 3. The proposed exception will not result in significant visual impact as viewed from abutting properties. The proposed setback will not result in significant visual impacts for the neighboring properties since the Rl design review approval process for the two new homes will ensure that the buildings are designed to minimize negative visual impacts. f(~~ TM-2006-12, V-2007-01, EXC-L006-14 Page 5 January 9, 2007 4. That the exceptions to be granted are ones that will require the least modification of the prescribed regulations and the minimum exception that will accomplish the purpose The proposed side yard setback exception is consistent with the intent of the Ordinance in that the project lots consist of substandard lot widths and the five foot side yard setbacks provide greater design flexibility to allow reasonable and balanced floor plans. The side yard setback exception is the minimum exception necessary to achieve these goals. Tree Removal and Retention: Ten trees are located on the subject property, three of which are significant (Deodar Cedars #1 & #2 and Coast Redwood #5). Only the two Deodar Cedars are protected by the Tree Ordinance. According to the applicant, the Coast Redwood #5 has already been removed due to its poor condition. Staff recommends that the two Cedar trees be preserved as part of this approval and that one 36 inch box Redwood be planted to replace the removed redwood. As for the other trees on the property, the applicant has the option of removing them since they are not protected. Staff recommends a condition of approval that requires the existing trees be retained to the maximum extent possible and that the applicant work with the Director of Community Development to make the final decision on the retention of these trees at the design review stage. The applicant is also required to record a covenant on the property that ensures the preservation and maintenance of the new replacement trees and any trees that are required to be preserved as part of this approval. Prepared by: Gary Chao, Associate Planner ~ Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developm~ Enclosures: Model Resolution for TM-2006-12 Model Resolution for V-2006-03 Model Resolution for EXC-2006-0 Plan Set Exhibit A: Tree Survey & Arborist Report (( -{ S- TM-2006-12 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A TENT A TIVE MAP TO SUBDIVIDE A .46 ACRE LOT INTO TWO PARCELS OF 9,685 SQUARE FEET AND 9,686 SQUARE FEET, RESPECTIVELY IN A R1-7.5 ZONING DISTRICT, AT 21871 DOLORES AVENUE SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Tentative Subdivision Map, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1) That the proposed subdivision map is consistent with the City of Cupertino General Plan. 2) That the design and improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the General Plan. 3) That the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of development contemplated under the approved subdivision. 4) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and unavoidable injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. 5) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements associated there with is not likely to cause serious public health problems. 6) That the design of the subdivision and its associated improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Tentative Subdivision Map is hereby recommended for approval, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof; and (( ~ rC Resolution No. Page 2 TM-2006-12 January 23, 2007 That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. TM-2006-12 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of January 23,2007, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: TM-2006-12 Jitka Cymbal 21871 Dolores Avenue SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS The recommendation of approval is based on the Plan Set titled, "Tentative Map, Lands of Hsu and Han, 21871 Dolores Avenue, Cupertino, California", dated November 2006 (two pages), except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution. 2. TREE PRESERVATION All existing trees must be retained to the maximum extent possible. The applicant must work with the Director of Community Development to make the final decision on the retention of these trees at the design review stage. Revised landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Director prior to issuance of building permits. 3. COVENANT The two Cedar (#1 & #2) trees shall be preserved as part of this approval and that one 36 inch box Redwood be planted to replace the removed redwood (#5). Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant is required to record a covenant on the property that ensures the preservation and maintenance of the new replacement trees and any trees that are required to be preserved as part of this approval. 4. VISUAL IMPACT The applicant shall make every effort to work with staff at the R1 Design Review Approval Process to minimize any negative visual or building interface impacts to the adjacent neighbors. SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. fl---I, Resolution No. Page 3 TM-2006-12 January 23, 2007 5. STREET WIDENING Street widening and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. FIRE HYDRANT Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City and Santa Clara County Fire as needed. 9. 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. 10. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 11. FIRE PROTECTION Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the City as needed. 12. 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. 13. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for under {\,-(f Resolution No. Page 4 TM-2006-12 January 23, 2007 grounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed pnor to issuance of construction permits. Fees: a. Checking & Inspection Fees: $2,194.00 minimum b. Grading Permit: c. Development Maintenance Deposit: d. Storm Drainage Fee: e. Power Cost: f. Map Checking Fees: g. Park Fees: h. Street Tree $ 5% of Off-Site Improvement Cost or $ 6% of Site Improvement Cost or $2,060.00 minimum $ 2,000.00 $ 593.40 N/A $3,348.00 $15,750.00 By Developer Bonds: a. Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements b. Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvement c. On-site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements. -The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule. 14. 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. 15. AMENDED DEVELOPMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP) REQUIREMENTS a. Permanent Stormwater Quality BMPs Required In accordance with chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the City Code, all development and redevelopment projects shall include permanent BMPs in order to reduce the water quality impacts of stormwater runoff from the entire site for the life of the project. b. Stormwater Management Plan Required The applicant shall submit a Stormwater Management Plan for this project. The permanent storm water quality best management practices (BMPs) f I-{ 1 Resolution No. Page 5 TM-2006-12 January 23, 2007 included in this plan shall be selected and designed in accordance with chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the City Code. c. BMP Agreements The applicant and the City shall enter into a recorded agreement and covenant running with the land for perpetual BMP maintenance by the property owners(s). In addition, the owner(s) and the City shall enter into a recorded easement agreement and covenant running with the land allowing City access at the site for BMP inspection. d. Hydromodification Plan (HMP) Required The applicant must provide a comprehensive plan to control any combination of on-site, off-site and in-stream control measures incorporated into specific redevelopment projects in order to reduce stormwater runoff so as to not increase the erosion potential of the receiving watercourse over the pre-project condition. 16. MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT The applicant will be required to maintain all items, which are non-standard within the City's right of way. The applicant and the City must enter into a recorded agreement for this aforementioned work. 17. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN The developer must submit a traffic control plan by a Registered Traffic Engineer to be approved by the City. The plan shall include a temporary traffic control plan for work in the right of way as well as a routing plan for all vehicles used during construction. All traffic control signs must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to commencement of work. The City has adopted Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards for all signage and striping work throughout the City. 18. REFUSE TRUCK ACCESS The developer must obtain clearance from the Environmental Programs Department in regards to refuse truck access for the proposed development. CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF ENGINEERING/SURVEYING CONDITIONS (Section 66474.18 of the California Government Code) (1- LD Resolution No. Page 6 TM-2006-12 January 23, 2007 I hereby certify that the engineering and surveying conditions specified in Section IV. Of this resolution conform to generally accepted engineering practices Ralph Qualls, Director of Public Works City Engineer CA License 22046 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of January 2007, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki, Director Community Development Department Lisa Geifer, Chairperson Planning Commission (1-- L { V-2007-01 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 50-FOOT LOT WIDTH, INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 60-FOOT WIDTH, FOT THE TWO PROPOSED PARCE AT 21871 DOLORES AVENUE. SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino has received an application for a Variance, 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 at least one Public Hearing on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has meet the burden of proof required to support the application, and has satisfied the following criteria: 1) That there are extraordinary or exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to properties in the same district. 2) That granting of the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship. 3) That granting the Variance will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare, or convenience, and to secure the purpose of the title. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, testimony, exhibits and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Variance is hereby approved by the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the subconclusions upon which the findings specified in this Resolution are based are contained in the public hearing record concerning Application V-2007-01, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of January 23 2007, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. ( 1-- 2- Z- Resolution No. Page -2- V -2007 -01 January 23, 2007 SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: V -2007 -01 Jitka Cymbal 21871 Dolores Avenue SECTION III: CONDITIONS OF APPROV AL 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approved is based on the tentative map entitled "TENT A TIVE MAP, LANDS OF HSU AND HAN, 21871 DOLORES AVENUE, CUPERTINO" by Westfall Engineers, Inc., dated November 2006, and consisting of two sheets labeled pages 1 and 2, except as may be amended by the conditions contained in this resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of January, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABST AIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Lisa Geifer, Chair Cupertino Planning Commission (1'-lJ EXC-2006-14 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO TO ALLOW 5-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACKS, INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED COMBINED 15 FEET AT 21871 DOLORES AVENUE SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: EXC-2006-14 Jitka Cymbal 21871 DOLORES A VENUE SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for an exception to the Sign Code, as described in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds the following with regards to this application: 1. Literal Enforcement of the provisions of this chapter will result in restrictions inconsistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter 2. The granting of the exception will not result in a condition which is materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare 3. The proposed exception will not result in significant visual impact as viewed from abutting properties 4. That the exceptions to be granted are ones that will require the least modification of the prescribed regulations and the minimum variance that will accomplish the purpose. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the exception to the sign ordinance for an exposed neon ground sign border is hereby approved subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution; and (1.-2-( Resolution No. Page 2 EXC-2006-14 January 23, 2007 SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on a plan set titled: "Tentative Map, Lands of Hsu and Han, 21871 Dolores Avenue, Cupertino, California" consisting of two pages, except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution. 2. TREE PRESERVATION All existing trees must be retained to the maximum extent possible. The applicant must work with the Director of Community Development to make the final decision on the retention of these trees at the design review stage. Revised landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Director prior to issuance of building permits. 3. COVENANT The two Cedar (#1 & #2) trees shall be preserved as part of this approval and that one 36 inch box Redwood be planted to replace the removed redwood (#5). Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant is required to record a covenant on the property that ensures the preservation and maintenance of the new replacement trees and any trees that are required to be preserved as part of this approval. 4. VISUAL IMPACT The applicant shall make every effort to work with staff at the R1 Design Review. Approval Process to minimize any negative visual or building interface impacts to the adjacent neighbors. 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. That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application EXC-2006-14, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of January 23, 2007 and are incorporated by reference herein. {('-l5 Resolution No. Page 3 EXC-2006-14 January 23, 2007 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of January 2007, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Lisa Geifer, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission II ~ l~ BARRI E D. COA," i:. and ASSOCIATES Horticutural Consultants 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos. CA 95033 4081353-1052 A REVIEW OF THE TREES AT THE LANDS OF HSU/HAN 21871 DOLORES AVENUE CUPERTINO Prepared at the request of: Piu Ghosh City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Prepared by: Barrie D. Coate Consulting Arborist October 2nd, 2006 Job# 10-06-204 RECEIVED nr:r 1 7 Z'GQ6 {(-27 HSU/HAN PROPERTY, 218', J DOLORES AVENUE CUPERTINO Assignment On October 2nd, 2006, I met Mrs. Sue Han at the property to prepare an analysis ofthe trees on the property. The plan used for this analysis is by Westfall Engineers, Inc., titled 'Tentative Map; Lands ofHsu and Ran' dated September 2006. At this time we do not have the plans that show the proposed new structures so it is not possible to provide specific recommendations for tree preservation during construction, but the enclosed notes titled "Tree Protection Before, During, and After Construction" should be used as guidelines for tree protection. It will.be necessary to install fences to protect at least the two Deodara Cedar trees before any demolition or construction activity begins, The suggested fence locations are drawn into the map I was provided. If those recommended fence locations conflict with proposed construction we should review the construction plans with tree preservation detail in mind. Summary The site has 4 trees on it of a size large enough to be controlled by City Ordinance. The most important ones are two Deodar Cedars (Cedrus deodara) which are near the south side near the front of the property. The majority of the other trees are ofless important species such as Black Locust (Robinia pseudoacacia). There is one Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) in rather poor condition along the east property line. The Deodara Cedar trees have been severely pruned and over thinned causing them to be very stubbed looking at this point and being of much lesser value than they might have been otherwise. These trees (#1 and # 2) are both healthy but have been damaged by the severe stub- cutting of each of the limbs. It will be necessary over a period of time to re-prune these trees as they respond to the severe pruning they received. " PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORIST OCTOBER 2ND, 2006 (\ __ 1--r HSU/HAN PROPERTY, 21b, J DOLORES AVENUE CUPERTINO 2 Conclusion There are nine trees on the property and one on the adjacent property to the west in this survey. Of these, only the two Deodara Cedars, one Coast Redwood are significant trees. The three Black Locusts species are brittle and the specimens are poorly formed and of little importance. The rest of the trees are smaller than the size commonly covered by City regulations but are included in this report because they were shown on the plan provided. Respectfully submitted, ~,f)~ Barrie D. Coate BDC/phlg Enclosures: Assumptions & Limiting Conditions Tree Protection Notes Photographs Map PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORIST OCTOBER 2ND, 2006 (I - l. 1 ., BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES Horticutural Consultants 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, CA 95033 4081353-1052 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS 1. Any legal description provided to the appraiser/consultant is assumed to be correct. No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in ct)aracter nor is any opinion rendered as to the quality of any title. 2.. The appraiser/consultant can neither guarantee nor be responsible for accuracy of information provided by others. 3. The appraiser/consultant shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this appraisal unless subsequent written arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for services. 4. Loss or removal of any part of this report invalidates the entire appraisal/evaluation. 5. Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any other than the person(s) to whom it is addressed without written consent of this appraiser/consultant. 6. This report and the values expressed herein represent the opinion of the appraiser/consultant, and the appraiser's/consultant's fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value nor upon any finding to be reported. 7. Sketches, diagrams, graphs, photos, etc., in this report, being intended as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering reports or surveys. 8. This report has been made in conformity with acceptable appraisal/evaluation/diagnostic reporting techniques and procedures, as recommended by the International Society of Arboriculture. 9. When applying any pesticide, fungicide, or herbicide, always follow label instructions. 1 a.No tree described in this report was climbed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take responsibility for any defects which could only have been discovered by climbing. A full root collar inspection, consisting of excavating the soil around the tree to uncover the root collar and major buttress roots, was not performed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take responsibility for any root defects which could only have been discovered by such an inspection. CONSULTING ARBORIST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training, and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist, or to seek additional advice. Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments, like medicine, cannot be guaranteed. Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate all trees. ~ahkZe tJ- ~ Barrie D. Coate ISA Certified Arborist Horticultural Consultant ((-JD BARRIE D. CvA TE AND ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 Fax (408) 353-1238 23535 Summit Rd. Los GatosJ CA 95033 TREE PROTECTION BEFORE, DURING, AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION These are general recommendations And may be superseded by site-specific instructions BEFORE Plan location of trenching to avoid all possible cuts beneath tree canopies. This includes trenches for utilities, irrigation lines, cable TV and roof drains. Plan construction period fence locations which will prevent equipment travel or material storage beneath tree canopies, Install fences before any construction related equipment is allowed on site. This includes pickup trucks. Inform subcontractors in writing that they must read this document. Require return of signed copies to demonstrate that they have read the document. Prune any tree parts, which conflict with construction between August and January. Except for pines which may be pruned between October-January. Only an ISA certified arborist, using ISA pruning instructions may be used for his work. If limbs are in conflict with the construction equipment before the certified arborist is on-site, carpenters may cut off offending parts of 6" diameter or less, leaving an 18" long stub, which should be re-cut later by the arborist. Under no circumstances may any party remove more than 30% of a trees foliage, or prune so that an unbalanced canopy is created. DURING A void use of any wheeled equipment beneath tree canopies. Maintain fences at original location in vertical, undamaged condition until all contractors and subcontractors, including painters are gone, Clear root collars of retained trees enough to leave 5-6 buttress roots bases visible at 12" from the trunk. Irrigate trees adjacent to construction activity during hot months (June-October). Apply 10 gallons of water per I" of trunk diameter (measured at 4 Yz') once per 2 week period by soaker hose. Apply water at the dripline, or adjacent to construction not around the trunk. Apply mulch to make a 3" deep layer in all areas beneath tree canopies and inside fences. Any organic material which is non toxic may be used. AFTER Irrigate monthly with 10 gallons of water per 1" of trunk diameter with a soaker hose, placed just inside the dripline. Continue until 8" of rain has fallen. Avoid cutting irrigation trenches beneath tree canopies. A void rototilling beneath tree canopies since that will destroy the small surface roots which absorb water. Avoid installation of turf or other frequently irrigated plants beneath tree canopies. (,- '3 { 31 ~ @ ~ ~ ~ lu ~ a::: a::: Q. wI W ..... S: ~ W(I)U) ~ I I :d, ~ ~ ~ 8 lU ; gl ~, ~ @ I G/ li ~, ~ c C c ~ ~ ~ ~ 121 f!1 ~I m I m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I @ ~I; ~jld ~I ~ ~ ~ i ~I ~I ~ :I: :I: :e ~ ~ ~ ~ I R: < al ~ ~ 9 8 W 0 a::: !:; -l 0 !Tree # i5 ~ ~ ~ :I: (I) :I: (I) R, 0 ~ 1i Z i5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _L_ De~~.ra ~L___ 20 40 30 1 3 ~ _ - 1 -!f-- P, Cedrus Deodara ' I i I I -1__ Deodara ~edar__________ 241-1_ 145 35 1 I 3 4 I -L.T __I -- - -!-LGT -Ti j P Cedrus Deodara I 1 ,i I _1_ ~!t~tlo~!:I.!L_________ J 1 I -L---+25t 20 ~~-?- _-t~_ --1- 11- -+-,:t !_-t-~,_R I Robinia 1JS8udoacacia 1 I i I I I I 1 I I "" , -~- ~lackl~!:I!L__________ _11! i2~T-~ ~'-~_L~..L I _-L~-L-Li -Ll___LJJtL_ L__-t! I i --- 'i '----', I I, I ' 1 i', '--" 1 Robinia pseudoacacla __L.. Coast Redwoo<L_ 17 i 3~ 15 1-1.. -?_ ~+_ _+ ---t.. I - -~-t-e-~--- -+_ Seouola sempervlrens 1 , , I , I , I I _~ InC;!!!se Ced!lL________ 8 I lJQL 8 1 1 1 2 I 1--1- i +-1 i -1 I , I -- --i~T. I -~ 1"-'- I --", --+-- - -T-j '----10,---- 1--- - --1- Calocedrus decurrens I I , ,; I 7 ~ T!~Jj!_____....___. 6 I Llll-L~ I-Ll.J.. ~J- ~_ __ --J--- -.!-~--l- Prunus annenlsea ' i I i I i I ! I ' -!- ~~J!!!._______ 9 +! 151~ I-t.i-~ I-A..l__ ~1- -L-~ t--L- --Ll-U--- Brachychlton populneus I I I I 1 I I I -r--r I ! ! ! ! 9 Black_~~~!1....__________ 13 ~ -!P-i-- _ 30 I-~ 1-.1_1. _~.+_ __ __ _~_ _ I-- _ _!t-t~-1 R Robinia t:>S8udoacacla I I I i I I , I _jJL Bottle I.~_________________ ~--~. --ill.t-~ 1-4-?1~+_- -r+--~---4--- f---l-. ---rl -4---t--~--~- Brachvchlton DOoulneus I:' I i I I, I: I I I I I I I MEASUREMENTS CONDITION DISPOSITION BARRIE D. COATI and ASSOCIA TIS (0)3S3-1m2 DS3Ss.dtNII 1M G11G1, CA 95lOO ~ The Lands of Hsu/Han 21871 Dolores Avenue ~ Cupertino . CD WIIB = CODOMINANT LEADERS WITH INCLUDED BARK .. RECOMMENDED + P = PRESERVE; T=TRANSPLANT; R=REMOVE 10-~204l~ober2nd.2006 NOTES (I) !z W :::Iii :::Iii o o a::: o m I- I~ i --t I I I I I -- Frost.Q!m!GL I , , I I 1 = Best, 5 + Worst HSUIHAN PROPERTY, 21871 DOLORES AVENUE CUPERTINO 2. Trees #1 & #2. . ~ PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORIST +- 1. Tree # 1. OCTOBER 2ND, 2006 I \ '- '] '1 HSUIHAN PROPERTY, 21871 DOLORES AVENUE CUPERTINO ~ 3. Tree #3 (note dead branches). -_.~------. "0-; 4. Tree #5. -+ ~~ ~.~ PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORIST OCTOBER 2ND, 2006 ( ( -3 ~ HSUIHAN PROPERTY, 21871 DOLORES AVENUE CUPERTINO +- 5. Tree #6. 1 6. Tree #7. PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORIST OCTOBER 2ND, 2006 (( - 1)' HSUIHAN PROPERTY, 21871 DOLORES AVENUE CUPERTINO ", ' +- 7. A neighboring tree which should not be affected. 8. Tree # 8. ~ :: '.- . ,,:-- - ..... -, _..~- ~ PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORIST OCTOBER 2ND, 2006 r I - 3 b HSUIHAN PROPERTY, 21871 DOLORES AVENUE CUPERTINO i 9. Cypress along neighbor's property line. PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORIST OCTOBER 2ND, 2006 II - ) 7 02/04/2005 04:12 14088731335 HAN FAMILY PAGE 02/03 I I I I I City of Cupertino ~0300 Torre A venue-- C~I pertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3223 APPEAL f5) [E (G [E ~ W [E rF\) 1 lJl) JAN 2 62007 ~ " flY'" CUPERJINO CUPERTINO CITY CLERK 1. Application No. __._b:i.e.- Zoo6-1Lt. TtVI-2oob-/z.. 2. Applicant(s) Name: J!r t J<:A [ym bp\./ (lJf~t~/J bn1"l1eers) 3., Appellan1{s} Name: Email ~l ~71 . Do j 0 r::es' A}v6 4tJjJ - f 6'1)' - 02-4-4- , ii/Jet (i?J i(/(.5// ('()Hl Address Phone Number 4. Please check one: Appeal a decision of Director of Conmmnity Development VAppeal a decision t>f Planning. Com1J1;ssion 5. Date of detennination of Director or mailing of notice of City decision: 6. J ~23-2007 Basis of appeal: See. '(ill (1cl h1 ~t-. . ,I ,/' .' , ' ',/ /i ,: ,../;/ " '{G' " / '... ///' (,/ ~ ," ' ,'.:'-___, / \./ """,.' to' Plell~e compl~te form, include appeal lee of $149.00, and return to the attention of the City Clerk, 10Jm/Torre Avenue, Cupertino, (408) 771-3'i:-~3. --I ;/1 ~ //, // I ;' . ,'/.' ,1/, ' .' ,// /~( //1 fL~, Signature(s) {(-J3 1. The decision is against the city's policy that flag lot is created only when there is no alternative. The applicant has followed the city's suggestion to avoid flag lot and worked with city planning staff to propose a tentative map, two parcels with a 50 foot lot width. Although the 50 foot lot width is substandard, this lot width is not uncommon in Monta Vista area. There are numerous houses with 50 foot lot in the neighborhood. During the meeting, the city staff also brought up that neighborhood compatibility is not the precedent of city's policy. Safety and appearance are better in side-by-side approach. At the same time, it creates more value for the house and the neighborhood. 2. We agree that commissioner Chien's comments. The neighborhood compatibility is subjective. The owner's interest should not be ignored. 11-39 Cupertino Planning Commission 3 January 23, 2007 Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. February 27, 2007 Planning Commissio absent) the Com. Saadati one CONSEN PUBLIC HEARING 1. EXC-2006-14, TM-2006-12, V-2007-01; Jitka Cymbal (Westfall Engineers) 21871 Dolores Ave. Exception to allow a 5-foot side yard setback. Tentative Map to subdivide a .46-acre parcel into two parcels of 9,685 sq. ft. and 9,686 sq. ft., respectively. Variance to allow a 50-foot lot width, instead of the required 60-foot width, for two proposed parcels. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Postponed from the January 9, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. Gary Chao, Associate Planner, presented the staff report: · Reviewed the application for tentative map, variance and exception to allow 5-foot yard setbacks on two parcels located on 21871 Dolores Avenue in a RI-7.5 zoning district, as outlined in the staff report. · He reviewed the two major discussion points which include conformance with the' Rl Ordinance for substandard lot widths and 5-foot side yard setbacks, and tree removal and retention. · Relative to the lot width, staff supports the variance request and feels that the variance findings for the lot width can be made. Staff also supports the side yard exception request. Relative to building interface issues, the applicant would be required to apply through the design review process to ensure that the position of the house, articulation and recess are maximized to minimize any potential interface issues with adjacent neighbors. · Staff recommends that the two Deodor Cedar trees be preserved and one 36 inch box Redwood be planted to replace the removed redwood tree. Staff is also requiring that the applicant work to with staff in preserving as many trees as possible. · Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the tentative map, variance and exception applications in accordance with the model resolutions. · He answered Commissioners' questions relative to the history of flag lots. · Explained the rationale behind requesting the applicant to replace the removed redwood tree with another tree. He said it was standard practice to replace fairly large trees that are not specimen trees, to keep up the urban forest. Through the subdivision process there are examples of where the city has required them to protect and record trees that are not on that list of protected trees, but they may have other attributes that are important. Ciddy Wordell: · Said they did not normally encumber a subdivision with requirements for a residential development, it should be related to the subdivision, and could be done through the design reVIew. Jitka Cymbal, Westfall Engineers: · Said they considered both side by side lots and the flag lot. ((--Vo Cupertino Planning Commission 4 January 23, 2007 · Besides the issues which are strictly planning issues relating to length of driveway for a flag lot, we were looking at potentially creating a greater impervious surface area and there are some drainage issues because the lot slopes away from the street. Putting the house all the way in the back with the long driveway, not only would create greater impervious surfaces because the driveway is very long, and has to have a turnaround, but we are draining it to the back unless we fill the lot. That was another factor that went into the design and actual request for the side by side. Com. Miller: · Said that whether it is side by side or flag lot, the drainage issue still has to be addressed. Jitka Cymbal: · Said with side by side lots, the homes are closer to the street; they can be raised enough to have the front of the homes and most of the roofs draining onto the street which is not impacting the people in the back. It also provides a large area in the backyard for onsite retention. It creates possibilities which the flag lot does provide; it is not impossible, but is more difficult. Chairperson Giefer opened the public hearing. Cindy Hsu, Dolores Avenue: · Supports the side by side split for safety reasons; said the lot in the back is very dangerous. · Said that the fire department prefers side by side lots, not flag lots. · Supports the application. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: · Said the lot should be flag lot and a 60 foot side lot; there are a number of issues. When there are two 50-foot wide lots you are creating substandard lots in a residential community. Unfortunately when you do this, the resulting lots begin to look like a planned development area with high density housing. This is not a planned development area, it is a suburban residential area. · Five foot side yard setbacks are not appropriate in this area; the homes should be made smaller if you do have two 50-foot wide lots. · How many of these potential lot splits can occur in Monta Vista; are we setting a dangerous precedent of having the creation of substandard lots. Also, if doing 50/50 side by side, require submittal of plans for the potential homes to see what they look like. Los Gatos requires this when the house is going down; you have one year to build and you have to submit plans. Shu-Jen Liau, Cupertino resident: · Opposes the application. · Resides on a flag lot in the front house. · Concurred with Jennifer Griffin that safety was not the main concern; the neighborhood is safe. The concern is the lack of privacy with a 5 foot setback as the homes are too close together. · Prefers flag lot configuration, not side by side. Johnny Wang, Cupertino resident: · Oppose's the application. · Resides on a flag lot in the back lot. · Emphasized the neighbors' concern about privacy. · Said he would like to see consistency of the flag lots in the neighborhood. · Asked the Planning Commission to continue to enforce Rl ordinance. rf ,- L1 ( Cupertino Planning Commission 5 January 23,2007 Tracy Hsu, Dolores Avenue (Owner of proposed homes) . Said the reasons they chose the side by side division was twofold: drainage because the rear lot entry is a lot lower than the front and fire safety because the fire trucks would have difficulty to reach the rear lot. . Said she previously resided at 21869 Dolores Avenue which is the adjacent neighbor and is aware of the problems with the flag lots. . Asked the Planning Commission to approve the side by side configuration. . The house size would be about 3600 square feet plus the two car garage. . Supports the application. Rafael Gomez, Dolores Avenue: . Resides across the street opposite the 21871 address. . Suggested a difference look for the neighborhood as the builder has built five large identical big houses, one in front of the other. . Supports application for side by side configuration for aesthetic reasons. Rhoda Fry, Cupertino resident: . Opposes application. . Said that Cupertino's annexation of Monta Vista has blighted Monta Vista. . It sounds like splitting the lots down the middle is not a good solution, nor are flag lots. Anybody think of not doing it?? . Prior to it being a rental unit, it was occupied for a long time by the owner. Sue Jane Han, co-owner of parcel: . Said that in the past she resided in the back lot of a flag lot and it was very difficult turning the cars around because of limited space of the garage; and on occasion if there were other cars in the area, her father hit the fence. Chair Giefer closed the public hearing. Gary Chao: . Relative to the fire department's position on flag lots, they don't necessarily have to access the site to fight fires in the back area; they can drag their lines out. They would prefer to have easy access to the properties. Gary Chao: . Said the fire department reviewed the proposal, and supports the proj ect. Com. Chien: . In the General Plan, Policy 2-23 under one of the strategies for this policy, it says "create flag lots in proposed subdivisions when they are the only reasonable alternative". He suggested that it state "discourage flag lots". He said that Cupertino is a city that encourages neighborhood compatibility and integration. He asked staff to elaborate on how the city or staff interprets the policy. Ciddy Wordell: . Said the intent was to make it stronger, to see fewer flag lots. It is created only in unusual circumstances, when there is not a reasonable alternative. ((-l(:L Cupertino Planning Commission 6 January 23, 2007 Gary Chao: · If doing a flag lot configuration, the lot is 100 feet wide, usually the panhandle portion would be 20 feet, so the remainder would be 80 feet in terms of the width of the smaller lot in front. Com. Miller: · My concern is that these are very large lots, 193 feet long by 50 feet wide; if we do it this way, and on those lots you can build a house in excess of 4,000 square feet on each of them, and we are proposing to build these fairly significant sized houses which will be long and narrow and in fact impact the neighbors. They will have an impact on the neighbors from a potential privacy standpoint. · If we go with the flag lot configuration, the lots lose some width; the flag is not considered in the calculation; the eventual houses will be smaller and the separation between the houses and the neighbors will be larger. · I understand the issue about drainage, we didn't clarify what the grade is from front to back; but I also believe there are solutions to this unless there is a very severe grade, and even if there was, there are still solutions. · (staff response: 365 elevations at the streets as opposed to 363 at the rear property line, so about 2 or 3 feet variance) · I assume the grade difference is the same for the neighboring houses as well. · My feeling is because of the large size of the house that the applicant can put on each of the subdivided lots, I would rather see the flag lot configuration and I don't think that the drainage issue is that significant to address. Com. Wong: · Supports the tentative map; but not the variance. . I agree that the lot is big enough to pe subdivided, and the reasoning at the time we went through the Rl to allow the exception for the five feet was mainly for an existing parcel that was substandard and had under 60 feet. Here we have an opportunity to subdivide a lot, but we are subdividing the lot into a substandard lot and that concerns me. · I see the exception to be used in special cases where in Rancho Rinconada where we have small lot and we only have a few in Monta Vista, but on this particular lot, you do have a way to have a standard lot by doing a flag lot. · Relative to safety concerns and concerns about small children, there are already five or six flag lots on that block, and many other flag lots in the neighborhood. · What makes Monta Vista special is the single family Rl lots, and if we can keep the neighborhood in tact, to have a standard lot, I prefer to go that way. On some of the lots you cannot, because they were already long and narrow, but on this particular I feel this is important for the compatibility to be consistent, not to have substandard. I am concerned about that 50% that it will be a burden on the property owner to have pavers included. · I agree with the neighbors regarding the density; I think that privacy has been a strong concern with the neighborhood and I also think that Monta Vista is known for single family homes and to respect the 15 feet on both sides, maybe 5 or 10 or the equivalent of 15 feet together. · He said he would also like further discussion on Policy 2-23 and clarification on where staff is coming from. · Said he supported a flag lot configuration. Com. Chien: · Thanked the speakers for their valuable input; in such an application there are always two sides to that debate, and the city had to look at what is in the public interest. · Said the policy on flag lots, while the intent may be clear, is poorly written because the first words regarding flag lots written in the General Plan are "create flag lots when they are (I.-\{ 3 Cupertino Planning Commission 7 January 23, 2007 reasonably compatible" They are in this case, and compatibility is an issue that has been discussed when looking at single family homes and has been an issue of contention; and many of the Planning Commissioners have worked to try to take compatibility out because it is very subjective. . Where the public interest is concerned, the city is always interested in neighborhood compatibility. The Commissioners are asked to weigh that public interest vs. private interest, and he felt in this case the private interests of the right of an owner to build on their property outweighs that of neighborhood compatibility. . Said he supported the application as the 50/50 split. Chair Giefer: . Said the lots meet the criteria for subdivision which she did not have an issue with; but questioned how to subdivide it. . I think that we have solved drainage issues in this neighborhood in other ways with dry wells and other swales and pavers to help with runoff and absorption. . The dominant configuration for the area of Dolores Avenue is the flag lot configuration. She said she supported a subdivision for a flag configuration because it also has the least requirements in terms of variances. Jitka Cymbal: . Said the owner would prefer not to have flag lots. Chair Giefer: . Clarified for the applicant that there was verbal consensus that the preference was for flag lot configuration; that the Commission could deny the tentative map, take a vote and have the decision appealed to the City Councilor continue the item to a later date. Jitka Cymbal: . Said there were two variance requests; one for the lot width and one for the setback which creates the privacy issue. Asked if there would be a chance of getting the lot width without getting the setback. Chair Giefer: . Said that based upon what was heard, it was not likely that it is going to pass. Ciddy Wordell: . Said it is physically possible, but would be up to you whether you want it that way. Chair Giefer: . We could say you could have a 50 foot width; we could give you a substandard lot size and then enforce our standard side setbacks, if there were members of the Planning Commission who agreed to that. Jitka Cymball: . Said that is what the owners would prefer. Com. Wong: . Said he would prefer a continuance, since he needed to see the plan and could not make a final decision this evening. (I-l( ~ Cupertino Planning Commission 8 January 23, 2007 Chair Giefer: . Said that the applicant would prefer to come back with 50/50 side by side substandard with smaller house. Com. Wong: . Said he was concerned about substandard. Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Wong, to deny Application TM-2006-12, V-2007-01, and EXC-2006-14 (Vote: 3-1-0; Com. Chien No; Com. Saadati absent) Ciddy Wordell: . Noted that the decision could be appealed to the City Council within 10 calendar days. MCA-2006-02 City of Cupertino Citywide Location Municipal Code Amendment of Chapter 14.18 (Heritage and Specimen Trees) Continuedfrom the December 12, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. Tentative City Council Date: February 20, 2007 AId Hon nelling, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: . Review the background of the item which was a continuation of the Municipal Code Amendm fChapter 14.18 (Heritage and Specimen Trees) and reviewed the discussion held, by the PIa Commission as outlined in the staff report. . At the Decem 12, 2006 meeting the Planning Commission recommended a draft ordiru'mce be provided inc orating staffs recommendations for simplifying the ordinance by allowing the Director of unity Development to make determinations on tree removals when not associated with a velopment application and by providing prescriptive measures for replacing trees in con ction with tree removals. Staff also recommended that retroactive tree ' removal permits be han d by the Community Development Director to simplify the process. . She reviewed the mode dinance which incorporated staffs recommendations relative to approval authority, notici enalties, tree replacements, protected tree size, specimen tree list, rear yard tree removals, management plan, and general clean up/clarification items, as outlined in the staff report. . Staff recommends that the Plann staff recommended draft model retroactive tree removal fee. Com. Chien: . Asked for an explanation of the logic behin Commission recommend that the City Council approve the inance and recommend establishment of the specific AId Snelling: . Said it was a recommendation by the Planning Co consideration that the trees in the rear yard may not ha the front yard may have, so that some ability may be give trees in the rear yard that may not be very significant to the c trees may infringe upon some of the adjacent neighbors, the cano systems they may become over-burdensome that it may not allow for plant gardens in the rear yard; it may create too much shading. . ssion at the last meeting to take into e visible significance that a tree in allow the removal of protected unity. Also some rear yard the trees might, the root property owners to Com. Chien: . One of the ways a tree becomes protected in addition to being a protected species is. hey ([ -Lf f LEGEr,D [XJSTlNG PRtlPOSEL CI BULDING c:::::J . MONJMEN~ . 0 C'JRBlNLET . 0 Aiif.ADRAIN . P::JLE . I 0 $MlTA!<Y SE'~EP MANHlJU:: @ STOJ;M;)RAINMANHiJLE @ a. .;REHYDI<ANT tc ! I > . ...ATD. Vp,L'/E . I ~ STREETLIGHT ~ I i r:,;;.>Il' CLEANClUT I > '('" ---- BDL.NDM1:'f -..---- , I ., - LOT LINE CENTEPLlNE > ----- LIMlTOF" Eo'ISEMENT ------ I c"', - i ------- CLlRB MID GUTTER , EDGE C.f PAVEMENT 1 I CDNTOl:R ----- FEf.lCE ~._-~ : 1 FLDII' lINE ~~:= 1,1, > SANITARY SEVER I STDI<HDRAIN ~ElJPIIS~ ELECTR]CAL '" -G-G- i I ""ATEC( -'0/-\1- SlTE " "" " '" '" ::> ~ "" ~ :::I u u ::> RANGE z "" 8 :I: '" ;:5 "" ~ "" , Iw~ >::J " 121 1 >~~ i 1<1: i "1~f, i I 1 i >OC " i ~~F 1 '0 i I~~ I ' I I' I I ! ' , IJ. ~" I , "..<' ~'i I , I I~PERIAL AVENUE VICINITY MAP NO BY DATE iin,"oe.~ U~060..Jo~~ - - - - - t "p : I Q;~:[DA" I f- I ~s:I;O ,$ I I 1",<, i "'I" ~:fi o ~IJO'; l~ ~I ' .[ T ,-',- ,- t -~ -I '; I I, '-l~ , '~_ ,r,"_'Y( t>(. ~I '- ,,- I I -' , A I;,..-=_,r 0l~CA '6<&< L -~ ~ o I 1,03"' ';';.,1;' j' I r -_-:-_~ " BY DAn: DATE NOVEMBER 2.OC6 SCALE HeR 1'-IQ' VERT. UESIGNEll,,;C BY,K<'.l1ELCYMBA.. RCE34534 CHECKEr_ ~C DATE PROJ.EklGR' JC T.Kl}H....dSu.j..<lI... lI111doloro<A",",", ~T:~;~: 9~QJ' -~ Wootfal1 fnJI"'''''', loc 14SI3Bi.!;BarirlWI) S:nlOga, CA 91070 Tel 167-0244 FoxSbl-t>101 Sito.....0.46-=o; ,suildmg.....(OXf$O.<IgJ E._ingu...~.idc>ltiaI r~....-rmdoDtial 'u_g"",,"g.R_I_7~OO ;P/llPOSCdallli.s.R-I-7S00 G.....-alpl...dcrlsutlOJI.n:Slde.1llt CHEN D.HI);SE: REAlOVE --I I i-I I I rJ ~J i ,~ -. - _ 136.. l~ .3'>0/1 --- ~ --~~---- 4 tiJOIQ]Q"E _ E~RE~OO~~I\GE ~ _ _ _ _ ---'30; ~I ~, ., "',J, ~'1~"1 1'2317' - - - - 1 9,565sq_ft ~O'OO'OO.E19J-4l' . J"", ~7 2 9.656~.l\ ;f::~~.. '-- ~.02.:2.0"U93~ WESTFALL ENGINEERS, INC. 14583 BIG BASIN ~A' ::ARATDGA. Co\. '35070 (4iJ8)B67-o244 RADHAKRISHNA 1 L_______ WANG .:x.3.7? O"'th~: "".-- ,-~- 6'i~"R;:[ r'-' r~---l i EX_CJTTAGE: RE~OVE .:l~; l~ ~,,__ __ _ __ .J3;,)J:: ~ ~;- " ... I SCALE 1 H = 1 0' EX .,OJSE RECEIVED ~JOV 1 5 2006 By. '-, '----1 J FUNG r ~ I ~i~~H~D ..oj -__ -,- ----J ~6e, J~ II", Ii z "" iE "" z "" <> Z -< '" ~II I I -~~ '" -- -r' 'PARSAY j'--------- ---1 TENTATIVE MAP LANDS OF HSU AND HAN 21871 D(JLDRE~ AVENiJE. CLPERT!NO I' I I I'J lEX. HOUSE JCII"O 2006-133 SHEET 1 DC, E I C L 1(2O! V7 ~ \ I To: City of Cupertino FXHIBIT I support the lot side by side subdivision at 21871 Dolores Avenue, Cupertino to allow the exception of 50 foot lot width. Name Address signature Date .. i\"~,I,1 .o'.I!.,t! 1-\ ~ il 2-1 n 2-- !.~ ~\-;) \ ()c 0 S . LL '€. - -;-7/.., ~L-__. /1\\h. . I~ :> v -\ 1:7 ,0 ~ ~1 v .c:: ',- - .-,.L--:;:-,,-_.._~ o ~'L f- < Qj '" \ . " C\ { ", G\ '. f} J~ 1} _ / ./ ~ /J r l_ .2;1 0 / ~ 0] t! ~ 'id-V->-yYU'~ J-- <;(,,>,0 ,J' I)k,..-......, 'tiJc~ ~ , \ Q ~ ~ \/ctoJ ~~ c' $ ~ #<F1fl Ct-c ~~j~ (2,ttb /fA- (4L1,,11) ,,;,ft, U/fH,.tf,v7/ /1 ~G 9 0 ot.~ ~~ 2 J 11 Ie '\.{i' '.1.'1 Cj /t1z,J c, slu,tv ''2./ [;1; / '])o!oVe?S A1//. ,'.(~l:;~'I-f;~~7", I I I' J' . ,,/( I / ' V ,.IL._----.....-..-- , Ii, 1/~:" ,..I - L_/ rv! a ,,,(.J, Cl'1'\./t S.'oiel....~t/Yvl' ;( \ O/c_o \~c \0 /rlg 1\ /\. / , " co~~~~~~,_.."~_. ' ,> IVYMCV~~______ !J0ylv-l 7~~A,;trrVL\ ,;)170') '1Jdc~,~ ~I '('r ,," ~lZ (I (j fGL-z; , i~/LI({;~C)?~'--:? , , l 02fo{) (\ \C'':''j 2.p,'Y ~/ R/ " ) /,/1 " 2/ /6/" f'-r:-){>'--l._~/ o. '7 ,) 2-'u(GlCl, ; r > .:t-~ VL,ci}' L.,{.,~"'i \, 'f\' :;-/. Ii l II-. {: ,,;J / rf{/O Ii 2 (? c; ?Cl f' Alit! . / ~"h1,7 --7~'./'" '/;7 / LJ I I, ~v Ii" a < (-jtJ,t-t-f-t<":t-th--' 1-2 .''-1 -;;6",0 1\ L It .)~ ~ /"l ~ I. / .........- / '--::'7'; / ~~~) 8 .?_.S- i~ c -ej . <::J ; C i /, l,'__~. r,~ v I /1 ~ . f..r t:f,:t,. / ,,) "( c."I, 4:;- 0".... - '-/ ' $ IJJv--'" y-_..... """-JU " i' / II .j I 1 i ~ ,.J, ~ (l} ""'~ ". ~ :;; <(-g z W 5520' >= -l 8 ~ ::2 ::!;d ~ - ~ @ SUBDIVISION · A" MONT A V1ST A i . ~ I 1~ - P.M. 6~5-M-8DOLORESP.M. 698'M'Z, R.O.S.'" 412/7 21854 I - - -:- ~ . -ALCAZAR ~ 219/0 'CKl,!,- I ,(l<l.15 ".J: ~ : i I il I , I I 1 1'36 : 137t ._u_ ---. 'to - -;1;" .. "' 72' l PIN. r 139' : ~I IOoH 32 34 \~I:>.\~ to, &1 g ! 218f1O 21850 r3ti 75 '" '" :J g 56 I l~ 29 '100.15 : LOT 11 . ; 0.26 AC. ~ 70 ~ - I ;~ rl~~2-1;1 : D.18 AC. t~ ~ 1 "& 69 g. I - : I . I : 20 BO.15 155 r34 lc,;o.h LOT 1 0.261 "Co 1-<: aCl.15 i rl~;-; : 1 0.183 AC. ;, . IN C-'(" 1tJ:! CI:! (Q ,:;: 11 3:" I 20' Zl 9 _1~ 140 21920 70,15 ... i43 26 /..;,;,,'1 h bDr~ '5Mf'pol't .f;,-r fb 1'= T S; I'.L e ~ ~ ~ I'J <i' 21828-5 f~~,\S 50 5/ 13:3 132 57 :i:1. c.25 AC. _ll'~-4 pel A I 1 I .M :l~ \'" I a.27AC. r-~-- ( peu I ~I~ 53 ;;1 ~J - ,,[ ,O.17AC. 80 P.M. 428-M-3 b " .. , . .. "'<;-/L. $ ({ ~ I (0:5. ( Rif/44 " '" .,; '" - i7P~ -t 7~;7~ ~ 5S ..I I - :;; 2$"1 !31 '" W --~-{.""~--- :J 147 Z f1 ~ ~ < @ ! f U /t7~ "\ -wTE- 's}J i ~ 1" :z 1 QO' ! u, WRENa:: E. STCl'IE - ASSE: I ():j<:\~ra mtj: kr ''--'''Sment "J!1:0~ I CD11'iled vn1-.: P. 0: 1 (-'JOe, So:. I..metl'" Roll roar 20-01-2002 ?' ' -- -~ ...~, . , -~:.:::'::::: . '.~' ... "'_',},:~:5i: :',:.;'? . . ,'.: i_~~;., ..~:~. ' . ., "":,''''.' ~'''''/'~..,. '.'~......",.... 1Mrt!l.t'i1oill.>- __ :" "Jf~~~Jj~~~HJi~~';'~!~~'t:,,:,. ..,."'.t_,.,,~'":'., ,,:~~t:Sk.~<. . "'.;fl.. -:~'_':~;'-i""'_~J._'~ ,,< ~ ;.-) ~ f\ ~ o ! ~ ~ ~ \2:V " OJ OJ a: () (/) z OJ > w I-- (/) ~~ M CO U ~ T Y ^ SSE S 5 () R 1J "' OW ",:0 ZZ "'W ffi'~ S A 11 T A (; L ;., R _~ C 0 U N I Y @ @ 1j ~ ~ 21 <;5 ~- ".4! - @ 12 '"AVE CALIf'ORN @ ASS.O:SSQR -- SANTA SUBDIVISION "f." @ row,: 106 :!J jJ ~~ @ peL A M '" r P1'N 125'~1~ @ I "P-, '\+,;--= I CAll,ORf M w ~~~ > r< ____'_m @ ~. 0 CQ r---n--- I ~ ~ C;/ ~:!~ e:, .=! <l'~~~.., 10... _D~U ..: N';J'''' ... * .... <i...., -'1-13 !"')l -.<0 ; .!9~" if: gd : lil:,~ ...___9"___ ~ II ,'r ~ ~I '>:"' , " i :$:1 68 69 i ~I ~,~ 12 '''_M" ~I ~ j.!: ~ @ @ ;:<;, ::; ! i ~ ~j :;? I.., OIl ~ @ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :~--~_wii--Li oh 'i ~ ~t~_____ ~ !;!; I~ GRANADA AVENUE . ~ ~~ lC'" 2:0 ~ i! J~ i~ @ .~t> T~ ~V ,0, Ig:~ @ @ @ ~ ~ FW.S. 571/44 Lc-t l~\~~ ~O - bO~: 1, Lvr</ soft: S~ LD ts @" f"t:, -w+,- T ,. "" 100' LA\\RUtCEE.STt:tlE- ~":':d.ft~lor_',,:,,~~11