The URL can be used to link to this page

15. Appeals R-2006-08 & RM-2006-13 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 FAX (408) 777-3333 CIty OF CUPEIQ"INO Community Development Department SUMMARY AGENDA NO. /5 AGENDA DATE March 20, 2007 Application: Appellants: Property Owner: Property Location: Appeal ofR-2006-08 & RM-2006-13 Jessica Rose & John Tracy Elena Herrera & Subir Sengupta Mehrdad & Homa Mojgani 21180 Grenola Avenue SUBJECT: Consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve Application Nos. R-2006-08 and RM-2006-13, regarding a Residential Design Review and Minor Residential Permit to construct a new, two-story 4,219 square foot residence with two second-story rear yard balconies. Continued from the February 6th and March 6th Cihj Council meetings. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council may take one of the following actions: 1. Uphold the appeals and deny the Planning Commission's approval of R-2006-08 and RM-2006-13; or 2. Uphold the appeals and modify the Planning Commission's approval of R-2006- 08 and RM-2006-13; or 3. Deny the appeals and uphold the Planning Commission's approval of R-2006-08 and RM-2006-13 4. Continue these appeals to the April 3, 2007 meeting. BACKGROUND: At the February 6th meeting, the City Council conducted a hearing on the two appeals and continued this item (5-0) to the March 6, 2007 meeting. The Council provided the following directions to the applicants, Mehrdad and Homa Mojgani: Modify the plans to meet the City Council's understanding of reasonable mitigation of the privacy impacts of the master bedroom balcony. Work with the appellants to reach an agreement. J S-{ Printed on Recycled Paper Appeals ofR-2006-08 & RM-2006-13 Page 2 March 20, 2007 ====================================================================================================== On February 27, 2007, the applicants and appellants participated in a mediation process offered by the City with Project Sentinel as the independent mediator. Although Project Sentinel explained that the details of the mediation discussion could not be disclosed due to the confidentiality of the mediation process, Project Sentinel was able to convey that the parties were still not able to reach agreement. As a result, the applicants requested a continuance from the March 6th meeting to the March 20th meeting to allow them time to revise the plans and resubmit them to the City Council for review. On March 6th, the City Council continued this item on a 5-0 vote to the March 20th meeting. On March 9, the applicant submitted revised plans, including a revised first floor plan, elevations and privacy protection landscape plan. On March 13, the applicants also submitted the second-story floor plans showing the modified balcony. On March 14, the City received responses (See Exhibit D) from the appellants, John Tracy jJessica Rose and Elena Herrera, on the revised plans. The appellants have indicated that the plans still do not address privacy impact concerns, particularly with respect to the revised balcony design and privacy protection landscaping, and request that both of the balconies be removed. DISCUSSION: During the February 6th City Council public hearings, the Council noted the privacy impact concerns of the appellants and requested that the applicants modify their plans by providing an adequate privacy protection landscape plan and mitigating the impacts of the master balcony by eliminating the balcony and providing a faux balcony; recessing the balcony or creating a physical barrier that is architecturally compatible with the residence. The Council also stressed the importance that the applicants work with the appellants to reach agreement on the plans. Further, the Council stated that privacy protection landscaping plans alone would not be sufficient to mitigate the privacy impacts of the balcony. The Council also heard from several members of the public who expressed concerns about the privacy impacts of the balcony and supported the appellants. Revised Plans The revised plans include first- and second-story floor plans, elevations and a privacy protection landscape plan (See Exhibit A). Although the plans do not fully provide dimensions of the modified balcony, staff estimates that the balcony is approximately 13 feet in length and approximately 5 feet in depth. Based on these modified plans, the balcony has been lengthened from the previously proposed plans, but now includes a 4.5 foot high solid stucco wall along the west side of the balcony that attempts to address privacy impacts. The applicant also states that the balcony will be unlivable and unfurnishable. However, staff believes that the balcony will still impact privacy since J S ..2 Appeals ofR-2006-08 & RM-2006-13 Page 3 March 20, 2007 -------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- the solid stucco wall is only 4.5 feet high and the balcony still appears wide enough to allow a person to stand on it and look over the wall. Additionally, a revised privacy protection landscape plan has been submitted that provides pittosporum shrubs around the majority of the property, with the exception of a portion of the eastern side yard that includes two magnolia trees. The privacy protection plan does not include the box size of the magnolia trees to be planted and does not specify the particular species of the magnolia tree proposed. Should the Council approve this privacy protection landscape plan, staff recommends that the tree be a Southern Magnolia tree that is a minimum 24-inch box, 8-foot high tree at the time of planting. This is the type and size of magnolia tree that is on the City's approved privacy screening tree list. Staff Recommendation Staff has reviewed the plans and feels that the revised plans do not satisfy the Council's direction. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council approve the residential design review and minor residential permit to allow construction of the two-story residence, including the balcony on the east side of the rear elevation, but eliminate the master bedroom balcony on the west side of the rear elevation. This will allow the applicants to continue with the construction of their residence. The applicants may re- apply for a minor residential permit for a master bedroom balcony in the future if they wish to do so and are able to design a balcony that follows Council's direction. . Enclosures: Exhibit A: Revised plans submitted March 9, 2007 and March 13, 2007 Exhibit B: City Council Report of March 6, 2007 with attachments Exhibit C: Copy of the originally approved plans by the Director of Community Development on August 23, 2006 Exhibit D: Responses from Jessica Rose/John Tracy and Elena Herrera, the appellants Prepared by: Aki Honda Snelling, Senior Planner Approved by: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development 9~ David W. Knapp City Manager G:planningjpdreportjappealsjR-2006-08, March 20 CC Appeal /5-3 Page 1 of2 AkiHonda Exhibit A From: Mehrdad Mojgani [Mehrdad.Mojgani@Sun.COM] Sent: Friday, March 09, 20072:53 PM To: Aki Honda Cc: Steve Piasecki; Steve Piasecki; hmfamil@Sun.COM Subject: [Fwd: Re: request for extension] Dear Aki, Attached please find the new plan for 21180 Grenola and the privacy mitigation plan. In the interest of meeting our neighbors' privacy concern, based on some of the suggestions made in the meetings, the west side balcony is redesigned to be unli vab le/unfurnishab Ie. We have also added 4.5 feet stucco wall that permanently blocks direct view to the west side neighbor, Tracys. With your feedback, the "flowering pears" has been changed with "Magnolias". Per Mrs. Hererra's request one more tree than what is required by the City will be planted in the Front Yard on Mrs. Hererra's side. Per Mr. Bowers request, we already changed all the big trees on the back side with Pittrosporum. The revised plans are much more stringent with respect to the already approved plan in August and are based on the suggestions were made at the meetings, so we are hoping that the planning office can support us. We will provide a copy of the plans to our neighbors today as well. Please provide your comments. Regards, Mehrdad -------- Original Message -------- Sub.iect:Re: request for extension Date:Fri, 09 Mar 2007 11 :50:35 -0800 From:Cliff Cowles :S[<!Y_~Jl2B2fg2sb~gIQb~LJ1el2': To:M~hrd<ld,MQjgani@Sun,CQM References:-::E2740541 02E86042B962073A1331 AA3E0121 EFB4@rnR-~~s;_llCll~.ad.c!J12ertino.oI"g2' <4~ED94E5~Jj05Q~@SJm~_CQM2': ~4J2EJ 824:Z::6BJ3E:::!J~D::.8JQB:: D73BEl1BSDA9@sbcglobal.J1Gl2': :S:!.5EEDD 3:t.~_Q60_Q.Q4@~mn.GQm?: <,45.EF1.5C2.9000703(gSun.CQJ\1> ::::..45F035D5.60601 04@SUlhCOM> <4AA818DC- AEIA-4BID-BAI2-AlI7EA9B9854@.sbcgloba1.net> <45FI941E.6090009@Sun.COM> -::DA2AQZ42::E55.C::4fi33 ::92J 4=-2EEJQlJ61864@sb~ glQR.<lLllGS?: S45,p12.ECD.307QI02@Sul1"CQM2 15-'-/ 3/13/2007 ., ~i:-<9 (9,tB t9 l' ~<lF~ ~.~ . .. / fi1 . // $~ . ' . /-' 1'/ /' ~. ;- //' /" / ;/". orum r:-- J.. L I I, 1 I 1.- 1-' ~c.-if'eIium Jld&bI:: Ufm Sprtad: 15- ZO f..t Sp..m,s: II foot Magno lie: Height SO' Sprtllnd: 40' ': Spacing: 20' ~........ ataDd: 6-& &+d Gnsnola Drive, Cupertino ~1/9/o& ScdoA. No'" 1 10 -lIT ~ JOG "..dohna """". of" 365 De.ir;:n . Build. Ce,n.lfu.r:tfDtf C1.l$tOm I.8nd<<a:tte Oetstgn and CoMlrucdon ~~.~,,~~"~"Qi!' Wft=Ibrs_rztlilicw..... .w.&_ ~~-tIIIKn. -- 408-!l25 . 0180 www/llmIonc&r;qlingmm _a.CA-UCBl5ED._D1D-~.l_- 6' to II" new IIlann height at st.ut --'.---" .._.~---_._-::....._-_. _. - -,.... _.~.__.~---_.._.. -- -.--....,--.--..----..-..- RECEIVED MAR 0 9 ZU07 I BY: 15-5 : F":'ao-W.... ~to:~Wwy .00ft ~:::-~~II;;~~ ~ ~~~"nt~d ft~ . ~IV.-:::-_... ~~c; .I;~E~ (El I-Story SFD 109.0' F~t Roo ~ I. AU dlatubed nrr.- .....atiq ha.............. be...... &ad ...... .. ...... bdDre .w.r ra1u, IM:iaC pnp&nd &Bd ~ to ooat:rol ""'-117 eB.cU_ pI&daC..... rye....... bariq orao.. o6.w Iut ~...&. I. Dd.......qo naoII_ ... tr,. ....... low tg ~_ ......... I. CoIloCUtrated naoll to be dIncW. ....qo ..... 8tnIctIuw .... "' .... _ ..-...- 01. IMt. IlooI ~ tr,. G1IttIua TJp. 01 roof ~ 4- IGIId PVC pipe laiD a:lauac COIMnIt8 atDra....... ~ ....aIe at IItre& 4, A cop)' 01 ..II oornp~Ol\ tala .ud fiMJ .....dint report .tW.1 be .ubmitted to the City prior to schedlllin.ll. &I\)' inspections. Prior to the contractor requestll\f a loundatin inspection, the Soils En&lnltU sh.a.1l adviae the Buildinll Omdalln writinC that: 1) the Build!.. Footina ucavAtiona &ftd build~ pad we" prep&red in accordance with the IOU report recoa\.nend&tions. 2) The loundAtion 10rmiA& _d pdiaQ; comply with the soil report lLI\d approved plans, And :5J the dr.al.ll..&4fe systeen is in accorda.ncc with the loil report. 5. All Constnlction at MAteriAls per Stl"\lc:t\ln.1 E~neeriq sheets provided by MS EnalneuiA&. C&cnpbeU, CA /408.:577.6504). 6. 'Recommendations incl\l.ded in the Geotechnica..l Report, diLled Dee. 27, 2005, by Amuican. Soil Testint., Inc., Sil.I\ ",ose. CA, (408.S59-6-400J. sM.ll be IncorpofiLted In the ,radln.ll. plans and specifications. . No orltAAic rn&terial shall be permitted iA on d wh.lch do~ not uceed 4 lnch.. in de.pth. ,t&nd&rd, ,hAil be Qed. See Stru.c:t\InJ Enalneerint. lor - 10. Dust from rlr&.dina operiLtiol\S must be contra situ to avoiddll5t. Provide eq\l.ipment to d&mpe.n llriLdint V) \ ~ I I I N90'OO'OO"E ce comer ZOSlSS 6S fenz~r 75.11 IL WOOD FENCE ...~ 2% Dra..il\ Slope Away from Stnacture & Property Lines I .,~ I I I I 20 6 Z04.~OC. I I I ,/ I" o 1:> o 8 Z l14.5'Rld e g ~ 5'-0' ~ .. 15'.0' --=.. / "'-- . Co. ..;.. t::.: . . t. . -.t=.:; ~~ ---"Cl2:._ ........ ~ ..ro.tv.... 2 s..tbAU GRAVEL - ---1&3"_ 75.0' P/L N90'OO'OO"E ZOO,64 Iff! SIDEWALK GRAVEL EX. BUILDING 114.S'Ridlle 21180 Grenola Dr. Lot 57, Tract 631 Garden Gate Villa..Jte APN # 326-28-057 Lot: 9,375 sf ~ Two-Story SFD: 4,219 sl 45% FAR 15t Floor: 2,910 sf Livinlf: 2,.271 sf Two-Ca.r Ga.ra.4e: 638 sl 2nd Floor: 1.309 sf 45% 1st Fir. Entry Porcn:: 57 sf Proposed 6a.lconies: 119 sf Lot Covera,ae: 2,973 sl 3170% FAil: (45% max.) 4.219 sl 45.00% HmhtJJ Existinit Finish Gra.de: Proposed SFD F.F.: 100.0' Ma..in: 101$ Upper: 111.5' Ma.ximum Ridlle Heillht: (26'.6" from E.G.) 126.5' ~ Excava.te an.d Recompact Existint Septic Tank &uta; No tre.u to be removed Scope of Work: 1. Demo existing 1,235 sf SFD 2. Excavate and recompact existing Septic Tank 3. Build New SFD plus Garage per Plan Plans to be in Complia.nce with CA SuUding, and Fire Code. (2001) Job Copies of Building and Fire System Plans and Permits must be onsite durinl! Inspections. Occ. Class: R~3 Build. Const.: Type V ~N Fire Rating: SprinkJere.d TARLE OF CONTENTS A-I SITE PLAN A.2 MAIN FLOOIl PLAN A-3 SECOND FLOOIl PLAN A-4 FIlONT/IlEAIl ELEVATIONS A-5 SIDE ELEVATIONS A-G 1l00F PLAN A-' SECTIONS A-8 ELECTRICAL-MAIN FLIl A-9 ELECTRICAL- 2ND FLIl A.IO T-24 CEIlTlFICATES 5-1.0 FOUNDATION PLAN 5-2.0 SECOND FLOOIl FRAMING PLAN 5-3.0 1l00F FIlAMING PLAN SD-3 FRAMING DETAILS SD-4 FOUNDATION DETAILS SD-5 TYPICAL FRAMING DETAILS SD-G TYPICAL FRAMING DETAILS SITE PLAN Scale 1/8"; 1'- 0" RECEIVED MAR iJ 9 2007 BY: 2 ~ ~ ~ a ~ ; ~ ~ ~ :s :s '" ~ i:l i:l d ~ : 0; ~ .. <Il ~~ -" ~.~ rE.;~Ug, :-~ ;os i":;:~::,') Uool ~ ".' :=.!1 U" ;.:. .c c: ~ <G .. Q . .... c. ir~ - . "'0: 'a ~ g: 'cn ~ ..... \I) o :!:~ ~ ~~ ~"O<~ .E UU) ~~ .~~ ~ '" ~ <h '..d ..~ ~ Cll go.., a:~\Jo too<; ,:Z; ~~ ~~ I> '0 ~ ~ ~ c: c: foo ~ ~u ~ l::: \:l <G " 00" :z; IopC 59 d < IoIoc l'irll wZ f-4< ~..J CIJ~ B MAX. TEMP. or II. DEGRf.l'.5 TO IIoE prollkied br~":hvl=:~~\I: ~~c:ll\lzI",nJ...type t. St.wr::;;::.I;:;: :O~cT= I. 1"'.'WldoWC/.....~ S.~I=t::~I'::_u;: ~:::i ~ ~.;:.~n;~::::~~7.: 0... iO..bow:...... :::..~~~:"..:.::=~ f1REPLACf.. CHI=,,~~ lI>a~::.Y:=:'_I: :::~~~ ."""'Co.ilinC T.....-U..... :~,~.;: ;;~lr. L~~.JHlklwoiAC I. H-::..., "':::::..:::;; reqlOi.........,q. Hoc""P.....1cLo P.........AdicI VLl......ltlo4n.l. _,,",,"We..t ....tcru...kr tfW......tuArf~~ 1I0V ,,"pu'..t. drcMIC Wl~_~=:::~~ &r~IM.X"Dry-.~W~ (5t....p .-..1 P.......,~:;)'P::.. to" " I.... ~b..._AIrV...t. _tll.........toUUllty~ lwlllu. ':'..::: :::'oorl ...... U\ I ...J 5.'.0' 11'.4" ~ ;. S040 HS (~ .... HS (l'Io,a.) . :: 11'.1" ~ ~ o ~ Bedroom 4 o o ~ ~ SECTION "A" .... ( -I Livll\i Room 15'.5" . ~ IS800H~O&OYlJl.d-2660DH wi LI030 Arc"-dAbo.... IT....p.1 . ,: MIllO Gu~. Door w/LlC&o Arch.6Tra1IIf;A.,.,...1 SECTIO "BII PROPOSED 1st FLOORPLAN Scale 1/4" = 1'. 0" RECEIVED MAR u 91007 69'-0. SECTION lie" BY: - gj III 0; ~ III ~ 'i a ~ ~ ~ ~ () ~ ~ .8 ~ co "l ~ ~ ~ .. d III r.l . i~ .~ .r-. 0 ~c..;~;:-.u I;:J' ti ~ i',;;';S1 ... ~ "'~<:- :E!! u" >. .0 ~ ~ ftl ... o . ,.. " o. ~:~ - . "'0: .... d <:l lIS ~ 'QD ~ '.... llf :g o -"l ~fjl' <; <:l~ ~"05li - lIS o~ ~"O .3~ ~ "" ~<.b '..d .. "l ~ 0) got') C:~U6 ~<; ~~ lil~ ftl< /,"fJ o~ ~ ... 5 ~ foo ~ ...u ~~CJe " 00 ftl zl<<pol ~o <...... o:ifll z <( z..J -Q. <(~ ~o o ..J ~ B <iJ-SI ~ 1&i;; Qo @~ f~~ -~ " ;;; ~ [[] o .- o o .- o (JJ tll ~~ -6 ~ :z 0 ~ ~ wO ~ ~OIN 0 ~~ = ~ ~~p..O ,- t""'" \J) ~> tr1 Z tj (JJ tll ~Q -(5 :z '" ~ . ,- o Drawn by: J;H(('.r~ <,~:'t~)) 3/09/07 Cliff Cowles Revisions Plans 81. Permits UPPER FLOORPLAN A New Two-Story Residence lor. Homa 81.. Mehrdad Mojgani 21180 Grenola Dr, Cuptertino, CA 95014 SCiara Cnty AP.No. 326-28.{J57, 408.255.7729 P. O. &ox 223201 Carmel, CA 93922 831626.8219 f'ax.831659.5161 /~'---.. ./ .. ~.. f,.~,#, ~. ~,,p-/ )~ ./ / /' /' -1iO.O'PliIl.te 16'-0. c ~ ~ !! s-e" Finis~ Sche.du~~ StUCCO.. "P&1am.ino" (Lt. YeU;~/TaA) E.'...or: 3-Co ,S.Til.U,.,. "C.... Grand. Illon d "Nud." (Whi,.> Roof: Concrete P&l ted Wood Trim Surroun S d- "White." Tr:::'.:"w~;,sclo:.r", Eatl. VI~yl ~~~r~A':''::u::'" - . " W III Fro~t Door - P.I~'od W "lib< lro~ . "Whit. ~:~~Ailinlll P~ted Articulated ro Balcony: Slate Tlle. "- \J\ , ~ DODD G NORTH (FRONT) ELEVATION Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0" .::::l< IS 126.5'~d e .~ IS '! = UlA:.f'J. JOB Plate lQJ,s....u-. 100.0' E..Go SOUTH (REAR) ELEVATION Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0" ~ !! ii_OW RECEIVED MAR u 9 ZU07 BY: - ~ \1l (0 I ~ ~ ~ ~ :t : ~ ~ a.c U ..l .; ~ 1:il ':l ~ ~ ~ " d '" ~~ ~e i""'::R 0 ~ If~:' 0U ~ .t;-::-3~ III !';:':.~.:" ~ ~ U" >. .a c: ~ oil .. Q . ... . " 0 i:~ "0: .... c:: ell ld f.! 'Q.O ~ ....., "t :g o ~~ ~ ~~ .. 0(_ !;"O u&; - ld o~ ~"O,a1N ~ "" .. <h :9..c::::l1N ~ Cll g.~ C:~uo ~oe; r:Z; o Qll, ~~ oG< b"Q o~ ~ ld 5 c: r- f"! ..u ~ ~ I.:l e ~ 00 oil z~ !!lo <~ c::illl tJ) ~ ~ f-oO:'" Z<f-o OW< 0:0:> '" ~ W B ~ 120.5' PI..t 0 JblY. ~ ...., m Solid ~ t St~~ "U'F.F. T""1a DD DD D Acc:....t , "4 au '.E Ik. , , 100.0' E Finish Schedule: Extuior: S-Coat Stucco.. "Palam.in.o" (Lt. Ydlow/Tan.) Roof: Con.crete So TdeUte- ''Casa. Gra.nde. 601end" Trim Bl FAscia: Painted Wood Trim Surrounds.. ''Nude'' (White) Windows Bl Doors Ea..le Vinyl ClAd Ultra. Windows.. "White" G&r&lle II. Front Door.. Painte.d Wood.. "Antlque" Deck RAiUn,: Painted Articu.lAted WrouCht Iron.. ''White'' aa.lcony: Sla.te Tile WEST (RIGHT) ELEVATION Scale 1/4" = 1'. 0" ~ .. 01:::::... .. o il !: ~ nO.5'Plate D [[]] [j] EAST (LEFT) ELEVATION - V\ I ....... o Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0" .110,S.R....t.. 13.0' Pl....t.. .. rem. ACCCrll RECEIVED MAR 0 9 Z007 BY: ~!:l .. '" 5 a i:l ;;; ~ ~ ~ ".3 .. 6 ~ M 0: E ~ \l III OJ -tl ~ Os 0"",:<:' 0 ~ }t..,~~u 0. <;'.'~ ill \E~o;? ~] uo. >. ,Q c: ~ '" .. o . ... . co !:~ -. "Qi 'a <<tl gj 'OD ~ ..... III o :!:~ ~ ~~ L: _ <r: .!l OJ U III g~ ,~~ .. ;.. t ' :5!..d ~ l:!l ~ Cll Cl.lI) c: ~ 8 t5 ~<; ,:Z; ~~ ~~ b '0 to ~ <<tl 5 c: (-0 ~ ..U ~ ;:; 1:1 '" .. 0 0 ~ :z:. $10 <~ o:IlIl rJJ Z o ~- af-< -< rJJ> ~ ..J ~ ~ Exhibit B 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 FAX (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department SUMMARY AGENDA NO. AGENDA DATE March 6,2007 Application: Appellants: Property Owner: Property Location: Appeal ofR-2006-08 & RM-2006-13 Jessica Rose & John Tracy Elena Herrera & Subir Sengupta Mehrdad & Homa Mojgani 21180 Grenola Avenue SUBJECT: Consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve Application Nos. R-2006-08 and RM-2006-13, regarding a Residential Design Review and Minor Residential Permit to construct a new, two-story 4,219 square foot residence with two second-story rear yard decks. Continued from the February 6, 2007 City Council meeting. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council may take one of the following actions: 1. Uphold the appeals and deny the Planning Commission's approval of R-2006-08 and RM-2006-13; or 2. Uphold the appeals and modify the Planning Commission's approval of R-2006- 08 and RM-2006-13; or 3. Deny the appeals and uphold the Planning Commission's approval of R-2006-08 and RM-2006-13 4. Continue these appeals to the March 20,.2007 meeting. BACKGROUND: At the February 6th meeting, the City Council conducted a hearing on the two appeals and continued this item (5-0) to the March 6, 2007 meeting. The Council provided the following directions for the applicants, Mehrdad and Boma Mojgani, to follow before tonight's meeting: Modify the plans to meet the City Council's understanding of reasonable mitigation of the priv.acy impacts of the master bedroom balcony. / 5 -/ / "", \ Appeals ofR-2006-08 & RM-2006-13 Page 2 March 6, 2007 -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Work with the appellants to reach an agreement. At this time, the City has only received a proposed privacy protection landscape plan that was submitted the evening of the last Council meeting when this item was discu~sed on February 6th. No other plans have been submitted by the applicants. The applicants and appellants did agree to participate in the mediation process offered by the City through Project Sentinel, an independent mediator. The mediation was held on February 27, 2007. DISCUSSION: During the meeting, the Council noted the privacy impact concerns of the appellants and requested that the applicants modify their plans by providing an adequate privacy protection landscape plan and mitigate the impacts of the master balcony by eliminating the balcony and providing a faux balcony, recessing the balcony or creating a physical barrier that is architecturally compatible with the residence. The Council also stressed the importance of the applicants working with the appellants to reach agreement on the plans. Further, the Council stated that privacy protection landscaping plans alone would not be sufficient to mitigate the privacy impacts of the balcony. The Council also heard from several members of the public who expressed concerns about the privacy impacts of the balcony and supported the appellants. Staff recommended that if a physical barrier structure is proposed to screen a portion of the balcony to prevent privacy impacts, that the barrier structure should be constructed of a solid louvered structure that is architecturally compatible with the residence. Landscape Plan The applicants submitted a landscape plan (See Exhibit A) to staff on the evening of the February 6 Council meeting; however, they did not present the plans during the meeting. Staff did not have sufficient time to review the plans prior to that meeting to make a determination on the adequacy of plans. Following the meeting, staff reviewed the landscape plans and found that the plans still do not indicate the exact variety (species) and box size of the flowering pear tree proposed along the east side of the property. Without this information, staff cannot determine the ability of these trees to serve as privacy protection landscaping along the east side of the property. Mediation Process On February 27, 2007, Project Sentinel as the mediator conunenced the mediation . process between the applicant and the appellants. However, the parties were still not able to reach agreement. /5../'2- Appeals ofR-2006-08 & RM-2006-13 Page 3 March 6, 2007 -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Staff subsequently spoke to the applicants, at which time they verbally indicated that they were going to submit a request for a continuance to the March 20th meeting to allow them to revise the plans. However, a written request has not yet been received from the applicants. Staff also spoke to both appellants, Jessica Rose and Elena Herrera, who indicated that they were agreeable to a continuance to March 20th. Enclosures: Exhibit A: Privacy protection landscape plan submitted February 6, 2007 Exhibit B: Minutes to the February 6, 2007 City Council meeting Exhibit C: City Council Report of February 6, 2007 with attachments Exhibit D: Copy of the originally approved plans by the Director of Community Development on August 23,2006 Prepared by: Aki Honda Snelling, Senior Planner Approved by: .~ Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development David W. Knapp City Manager G:planningj pdreportj appealsjR-2006-08, March 6 CC Appeal 15-/3 ~.:~-=-:-;-,......,-- -"",.~~~,.~--"--_.'.".__..-~------,._..~;:-.- -,' Pittrospol 1111 hhibit A r=----,- -' ,- "."') -~J\" C,,-; )...\ 1 I lr"\::> J r:l ~ J I De~jtn Build Con~[ruction ~~=:~ ;~,s~~l~~~~l~:'rn~~:~n.s~~~~I~ I~i WW::IAAI. ~ning'fNlls.~ .'vbI;lG' Out;dQOILighting. (fila"! . F~ En;,".~~ ~ 408- 925 . 0180 J www.jprnland5r..a~iri!':l.oon:- U M.m~.r,~CA -UCl'N5W - BONDED - IN5URED - l"""", "4"'" II ' -, __ .______.l.-......___..___ Pittooporum cn..ilolium HdFt, 25 rut Spread: 15-20 reet Spac:ibz:SCut Bv... gnenFloweriDgPur. Hei&bt, 20 rut Spread, 20 rut Sp~: 10 rut H~t.f ptaab at.bIt 6-3 Drawing Iitle Homa Mojgani Project Grenola Drive, Cupertino Dd. 11/9/06 Drawn By Joe Andolina Sheoet 0' '-.1 .=. \ , " ""~ .... ,,,,',,' \,' . Sule A. Noted 1 10 Drawin& 365 6' to S' new plants height at start ..~.~.. --..... _.,- . -.---...-- _ ---.....-- "'''-' -- --- ._--...--y..,-.---._---~---.... I ! / S ..It{. Exhibit B Febmary 6, 2007 Cupertino City Council Page 5 Approval of the final map permits the map to be forwarded to the County for recording, which completes the subdivision. 19. Adopt a resolution approving an improvement agreement, Allen K. Hsu and Cindy S. Hsu, 21926 Dolores Avenue, APN 357-14-015, Resolution No. 07-027. Through an improvement agreement with the City for a single-family development building permit, these applicants will be obligated to bond and constmct city-specified roadside improvements, including curb, gutter, sidewalk, and driveway, along the street frontage of their building site. 20. Approve the Planning Commission recommendation to appoint Lisa Giefer as the Environmental Review Committee representative. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR 13. Accept the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for 05/06. Mayor Wang noted that the General Fund balance had increased by $4.6 million and the auditors had found the city's accounting program in good order. She thanked staff for a job well done and also thanked the Audit Committee for all oftheir hard work. SandovallKwok moved and seconded to accept the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for 05/06. The motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS 21. Consider approving bingo permit renewals. (Continued from January 16): a) Senior Center Coordinating Council b) St. Joseph's of Cupertino Church c) De Anza Force Soccer (Continue to February 20) Sandoval/Lowenthal moved and seconded to approve the bingo permit renewals for the Senior Center Coordinating Council and St. Joseph's of Cupertino Church. The permit for De Anza Force Soccer was continued to Febmary 20. The motion carried unanimously. 22. Consider two appeals of the Planning Commission's decision to deny an appeal of a Residential Design Review approval and a Minor Residential Permit to construct a new, two-story 4,219 square foot residence with two-second story rear yard decks, Application Nos. R-2006-08 and RM-2006-13, Cliff Cowles (Mojgani residence), 21180 Grenola Avenue, APN 326-28-057. (Continued from January 16). The appellants are: /5 -IS February 6, 2007 Cupertino City Council Page 6 a) Jessica Rose and John Tracy b) Elena Herrera and Subir Sengupta Director of Community Development Steve Piasecki stated that this project met all of the city's ordinances and there were existing second story balconies in the neighborhood. Appeals had been filed based in part on the architectural design, the negative impact on privacy and the preservation of the oak tree. Staff suggested that Council could consider asking the owner to inset the balcony, reduce the depth of the balcony, add a screening wall around a portion of the balcony or put in a faux balcony. The option of mediation had not been acceptable to the owners. Appellant Elena Herrera restated her position regarding this project. She did not believe this balcony nor the house met the city's ordinances. Furthermore she believed the mass of this house and the balcony did not fit into the neighborhood. Mrs. Herrera also noted that the landscaping plan was insufficient and the oak tree was not protected in any of the plans. Appellant Jessica Rose noted that she had led the annexation efforts of the Garden Gate area into the city with the hope that it would better protect their privacy and neighborhood preservation rights. She noted that this balcony had a negative impact on their privacy and the landscaping plan was not sufficient. Cliff Cowles, architect representing the property owners, stated that this project met allof the city's ordinances and balconies were allowed in the city. He also noted that a privacy landscaping plan should be required and in place and as part of this his client had agreed to a full screening on the side of the balcony. Homa Mojgani, property owner, stated that she had submitted new landscaping plans to the city. She said that this process had been very time consuming and she had been emotionally and financially impacted by it. She stated that mediation had been proposed a month ago and she did not think it was necessary since the matter was coming before the Council. The following addressed the Council in support of the appeals filed regarding this project: Saul Chaikin, Tibor Polgor, Eric Sharps, Lester Bowers, Margaret Limberatos, Kathy Berger and Jennifer Griffin. They expressed their concerns regarding the negative impact on privacy and the existing neighborhoods. Council discussed their options regarding the project before them and noted that this was a neighborhood in transition but the negative impact of this project on the neighboring properties had not been resolved, and the landscaping plan had not been submitted in time for Council review. Mahoney/Lowenthal moved to continue this item to March 6, to allow the applicant time to modify the proposal to meet the City Council's understanding of reasonable mitigation I ~ -/~ February 6, 2007 Cupertino City Council Page 7 of adverse visual impacts, and to work with the appellants to reach an agreement by eliminating or modifying the balcony, addressing minimal privacy impacts, etc. The property owner agreed to the continuance and the appellants agreed that March 6 was convenient for them. The motion carried unanimously. 23. Consider adopting resolutions regarding new fees. (Continued to March 6): a) Building fees, Resolution No. 07- b) Revision of the housing mitigation in-lieu fee, Resolution No. 07-_. Under the "Postponements" section, these items were continued to March 6. RECESS The meeting was recessed from 9:50 p.m. untill0:05 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) 24. Consider Application Nos. TM-2009-02, Z-2006-01 (EA-2006-02), TS/Civil Engineering (Lau residence), 21600 Rainbow Drive, APN 366-38-012: a) Negative Declaration b) Tentative Map to subdivide a 2.09 net acre parcel into one 40,009 square foot parcel and one 51,171 square foot parcel in a proposed RHS-40 zoning district c) Rezoning of a 2.29 gross-acre parcel from RHS-80 (Residential Hillside Zoning, 80,000 square foot minimum parcel size) to RHS-40 (Residential Hillside Zoning, 40,000 square foot minimum parcel size) First reading of Ordinance No. 07-1993: "An Ordinance of the Cupertino City Council Amending Section 1 of Ordinance No. 2 by Rezoning Approximately 2.09 Acres From RHS-80 (Residential Hillside Zoning, 80,000 Square Foot Minimum Lot Size) To RHS-40 (Residential Hillside Zoning, 40,000 Square Foot Minimum Lot Size) Located at 21600 Rainbow Drive, Cupertino Application Z- 2006-01" Council member Lowenthal recused himself from participation on this item because of its proximity to his home. At 10:06 p.m., Lowenthal left the Council Chambers. The applicant's representative from TS/Civil Engineering stated that they were In agreement with all of the conditions. Jennifer Griffin stated that she had followed the steps of this subdivision process and noted that she was pleased the property was only been subdivided into two lots. She did /5 -/7 Exhibit c 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 FAX (408) 777-3333 CITYOF CUPEIQ"INO Community Development Department SUMMARY AGENDA NO. AGENDA DATE February 6,2007 Property Owner: Property Location: Appeal ofR-2006-08 & RM-2006-13 Jessica Rose & John Tracy Elena Herrera & Subir Sengupta Mehrdad & Homa Mojgani 21180 Grenola Avenue Application: Appellants: SUBJECT: Consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve Application Nos. R-2006-08 and RM-2006-13, regarding a Residential Design Review and Minor Residential Permit to construct a new, two-story 4,219 square foot residence with two second-story rear yard decks. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council may take one of the following actions: ~1. ~ Uphold the appeals and deny the Planning Commission's approval of R-2006-08 and RM-2006-13; or 2. Uphold the appeals and modify the Planning Commission's approval of R-2006- 08 and RM-2006-13; or 3. Deny the appeals and uphold the Planning Commission's approval of R-2006-08 and RM-2006-13 BACKGROUND: On November 30, 2006, the City received two appeals of the Planning Commission's approval of the residential design review and minor residential permit to construct a two-story, 4,219 square foot single-family residence with two second-story rear yard decks at 21180 Grenol~ Avenue. One appeal was filed by Jessica Rose and John Tracy (See Exhibit A), who are the adjacent property owners to the west of the subject property and reside at 10410 Ann Arbor Avenue. The other appeal (See Exhibit B) was filed by Elena Herrera and Subir Sengupta, who reside two houses to the east of the subject property at 21150 Grenola Avenue. On January 30, 2007, Elena Herrera and Subir Sengupta also submitted an addendum to their appeal (See Exhibit C) to further explain their concerns. /5 -/8 Printed on Recycled Paper Appeals ofR-2006-08 & RM-2006-13 Page 2 February 6, 2007 ---------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------- The appeals were scheduled to be heard at the January 16, 2007 City Council meeting; however, the property owner requested a continuance to the February 6th meeting due to a family emergency. On November 14, 2006, the PI aIming Commission, on a 3-2 vote (Vice Chair Giefer and Commissioner Chien voted no), denied the appeals submitted on September 6, 2006 by Jessica Rose, John Tracy, Elena Herrera and Subir Sengupta, and upheld the approval by the Director of Community Development to construct the proposed two-story residence with second story rear yard decks as proposed by the property owner, with the additional condition that the property owners submit a complete landscape privacy protection landscape plan. The condition required that the landscape plan be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and include a site plan of the project, the 30-degree cones of vision from each second story window jamb and balconies, and the location, species and canopy diameter of existing and proposed trees and shrubs to satisfy the privacy protection landscape measures. The residential design review (R-2008-06) and minor residential permit (RM-2006-13) were originally approved by the Director of Community Development on August 21, 2006. The Director's approval included conditions of approval that limited the size of the master bedroom balcony to a maximum six-foot depth and 60 square feet, retention of the existing 31-inch diameter Coast Live Oak tree in the rear yard in accordance with the City Arborist's report, and privacy protection landscaping along the western si<:le ..," " - ' and rear property lines. , DISCUSSION: Appellant Issues The appeals were filed by the same appellants as the ones filed at the Planning Commission level. The appeal filed by Jessica Rose and John Tracy (See Exhibit A) include concerns related to: Planning Commission's approval of the second story rear yard decks Landscape requirements for mitigation of privacy impacts Jessica Rose and John Tracy are requesting that the City Council consider requiring a "faux balcony" that would allow for a sliding glass door and railing, but would prohibit a patio projecting out from the second story wall, and a privacy protection landscape plan that addresses their concerns. The appeal filed by Elena Herrera and Subir Sengupta (See Exhibit B) and the addendum to the appeal filed on January"30th (See Exhibit C) include the following concerns: Architectural design, neighborhood fit and massing of the proposed residence Privacy impacts of the second story rear yard decks /5 -17 Appeals ofR-2006-08 & RM-2006-13 Page 3 February 6, 2007 -~-------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- Potential of the proposed building colors to affect temperature and glare in the neighborhood Landscape requirements for mitigation of privacy impacts Preservation of the oak tree in the rear yard' Lack of compatibility of existing homes in the Garden Gate neighborhood built when the neighborhood was in the Santa Clara County jurisdiction Architectural ramifications of an added privacy barrier to the balconies Their appeal requests the City Council to reverse the decision of the PI arming Commission, recommend a Design Review process with a decision that is agreeable to all parties, re-notification of the neighborhood, and that the impact of a 14-foot high entry feature along the front elevation be illustrated to show how the entry feature height is measured. Planning Commission Issues During the Commission's discussion of this project at its October 10th meeting, the Commission provided direction to the applicant to address the following comments: Reducej eliminate the master bedroom balcony Lower the entry feature on the front elevation Removejrefine the second story bay window on the front elevation Provide increased height and density of plantings along- the. west side of the property for privacy protection Restore the privacy protection landscaping along the east side of the property Provide front yard landscaping andj or brickj rock features on the front elevation Provide a complete privacy protection landscape plan Identify more subdued colors for the residence Staff also recommended that the applicant reduce the depth of the second story balcony and add a screening wall around a portion of the balcony to minimize the views into the adjacent property. At its November 14th meeting, the Commission reviewed revised plans from the property owners that incorporated lowering of the entry feature and removal of the second story bay window on the front elevation, but did not reduce or eliminate the master bedroom balcony or provide an accurate plot plan showing privacy protection within the 30 degree cone of vision from the second story windows and sufficient labeling of tree and shrub types and installation sizes. Additionally, no landscaping was provided for the front yard and no changes were made to the color scheme of the residence. The property owners explained that they wanted to retain the master bedroom deck as proposed, but would be willing to enhance the privacy protection landscaping and provide lattice screening around a portion of the balcony to mitigate the privacy /5 -20 Appeals ofR-2006-08 & RM-2006-13 Page 4 February 6, 2007 ------------------------------------------ impacts. The owners also indicated that they could enhance the front yard landscaping to soften the front elevation of the residence. As a result, the Planning Commission denied the appeals and upheld the original approval by the Director of Community Development with the additional condition to bring a complete landscape privacy protection plan to the Planning Commission for approval. Mediation Process The City offered the appellants and the property owners, Homa and Mehrdad Mojgani, the opportunity to participate in a mediation process to encourage the property owners and the appellants to reach agreement on the project themselves and to preclude the need for a City Council meeting. The City contracted with Project Sentinel, an independent mediation consultant, in mid-December, at which time all of the parties involved were notified that mediation would be offered to them, and would take place if all parties agreed to participate. It was also made clear that the mediation process was a service being offered by the City through Project Sentinel as an independent party, without any obligation to participate. Project Sentinel did receive favorable responses from the appellants that they were willing to participate. However, Project. Sentinel also reported to the staff that the , c'property owners were not.willing to participate. Therefore, the mediation process was not possible. - .~. - . ~ _ . .. _ __ __. _ .. _ __ . _ _ '"- ~._,",_' ....:-...--............4__ Revised Privacy Protection l:.andscapePlan . On January 24, 2007, the property owners submitted a revised landscape plan (See Exhibit D) for review. The landscape plan provides landscaping along the rear and west side property lines; however, no landscaping is provided along the east property line. Staff finds that the landscape plan is not sufficient, given that it does not adequately show the 30-degree cones of vision from each second story window with sills less than five feet in height along the side and rear elevations, it does not indicate the exact variety (species) and size at installation of shrubs and trees to be planted, and does not include privacy protection landscaping along the east property line. Without information regarding the exact species of shrubs and trees to be planted, staff cannot determine the ability of these plantings to serve as privacy protection landscaping. There are no. flowering pear trees on the City's approved privacy protection landscaping list. If the City Council denies the appeals and upholds the Planning Commission's decision, the landscape plan will be scheduled for a Planning Commission hearing. Enclosures: Exhibit A: Appeal submitted by Jessica Rose and John Tracy Exhibit B: Appeal submitted by Elena Herrera and Subir Sengupta Exhibit C: Addendum to the appeal submitted by Elena Herrera and Subir Sengupta 15... 2./ Appeals ofR-2006-08 & RM-2006-13 Page 5 February 6,2007 Exhibit D: Privacy Protection Landscape Plan submitted on January 24, 2007 Exhibit E: Privacy Protection Landscape Plan submitted on November 14, 2006 Exhibit F: Petition signed by neighbors in support of proposed residence Exhibit G: Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 6429 & 6430 Exhibit H: Planning Commission minutes of November 14, 2006 Exhibit 1: Planning Commission Staff Report dated November 14, 2006 w / attachments Prepared by: Aki Honda Snelling, Senior Planner Submitted by: Approved by: .-~.,)'rr!'L/~ ~~~7C>/~' ~ L~) ) Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development ~ David W. Knapp City Manager G:planningj pdreportj appealsjR-2006-08, CC Appeal /5...2.2. CUPEf\TINO 1. Application No. 2. Applicant(s) Name: 3. Appellant(s) Name: Address Phone Number Email Exhibit A City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3223 ~ ~ N~V ~ o~ 2:6 ~ ~ CUPERTINO CITY CLERK APPEAL K (VI .~ cO Q b ~ 0'3 ~~ K n'\ ~()O Co ,~ 1 .~::; ~-)omcA i r>')~hcclo.d /mC1'(~~'::: '-~0CDwlu I :res SIc: C',--, k.cD€..- ~\ -S Dhn \ co. C v(J \ 0 ~ll 0 Arl r\ I"~ ~ hoc- A ~-e.n \J-C- dSS-SlG:c:' ."'0' -:',e.-'-("--u,c"? fR c L c.L 1 \ -L ~::::, ......,.-l~ ~ ..::::>DG _J 0.,::::'0\ n-c\ 4. Please check one: Apjleal a decision of Director of Community Development (0.!ppeal a decision of Pl~ng Commissi~ , 5. Date of determination of Director or mailing of notice of City decision: 6. Basis of appeal: S--e..c- Y-'=\VJ(;tI(.Jv.e:L J- pu~ \P~~ i) Se c..-on cA... ~ J-o,~ \l'Q.Vt c- J:-:o'-... \ GO'f\ \-e~ C~V-, \ i"'\ V CA S ).v-e.... j.--() 00r p,G cru~ ' i-) lov,cA SC--c:/'vp'V)2.; Lct^l) n 0+ sue. C-e s s ~ \ \ d tY'll h' ~ 0, l----,-- p;iJv-G~ \S5UV. Signature(s) (J<:.~~~~(\)A ~ . ~J '0- Please complete form, include appeal fee of$149.00, and return to the attention ofthe City Clerk, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, (408) 777 -3223. IS -2 3 John R. Tracy Jessica 1. Rose 10410 Ann Arbor Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 408-255-5126 rosetracy3@sbcglobal.net To: City Council of Cupertino November 30, 2006 This letter and submitted fee are to Appeal the approval of the Minor Residential Permit for the residence at 21180 Grenola Drive, Cupertino. We reside on the western adjoining property. Our Appeal is based on two counts: 1) The second story rear balconies are invasive to our property and violate our right to privacy. The layout of these two properties does not allow adequate spacing to protect our house from the adverse visual impact of a rear balcony. 2) Landscaping cannot successfully mitigate privacy concerns pertaining to this situation. The most current landscaping plan (approx. revision #6) is substandard and has yet to meet minimum ordinance requirements. Second StOry Rear Balconies: The purpose of the Minor Residential Permit in the R-1 Ordinance is to allow the appeal process to judge disputed balconies. We are appealing the approval of the Minor Residential Permit for this balcony to the City Council because the existence of this balcony on this lot size and location will violate our right to privacy and qmnot be mitigated by privacy landscaping. The purpose of the Minor Residential Permit requirement for all 2nd story balconies is to protect the privacy of adjoining properties and provide affected neighbors with the opportunity to comment on how new development will impact their property.: City_ planners created this separate permit for balconies to address the reality that an ordinance cannot approve or deny all balconies without exception. The R-1 ordinance was designed to allow rear yard decks expecting that if a a balcony was perceived as invasive, the appeal process is available for protest. Our planners recognized that Cupertino real estate offers a large variation in lot size and terrain for development. A balcony which might offer a lovely enhancement t6 a foothill property with reasonable acreage might be intrusive and intrusive in a neighborhood set on flat land with smaller lot size. In our neighborhood, the proposed balconies will violate our right to privacy in our house and yard, and will affect our quality of life and the value of our property. Any person using the master balcony will be looking down directly into our main living room, patio, master bedroom window and entire back yard areas. And any person in our house or yard can look directly up at the balcony's occupant. Privacy Protection Plan! Landscapinq The R-1 ordinance states that the intent of landscaping requirement is to provide substantial visual screening "from the privacy impacts and visual mass and bulk of a two story home..." within three years of planting. A balcony has a significantly more invasive presence than a 2nd story window. A solid landscaping plan should be a critical element of any proposed second story house in Cupertino, especially one with balconies. Since July 11, 2006 we have received 3 plan approval notification letters from the City Planning department on this property. 1 I S-;1tf Each letter stated approval of Minor Residential Permit for the rear balcony, and yet the enclosed landscaping plan in each mailing failed to meet even the minimum ordinance requirements. We question how the planning department can determine if a balcony is justifiable without requiring a landscaping plan that meets ordinance requirements. In our appeal to the Planning Commission, the many deficiencies in the landscaping plan were cited by every member of the Planning Commission and drew unanimous concern about its incomplete status. The "Faux balcony" solution supported by several planning commissioners makes good sense. A faux design could include the large sliding glass doors for fresh air, natural light, and direct views into the backyard while limiting views into neighboring yards. The railing would be cosmetic and offer the look and feel of a balcony as an architectural feature, without providing a 60 square foot patio perched above neighboring yards and houses. There is just not enough sRace between the two houses to mitigate the privacy violation from a balcony as required by the R-1 ordinance. We led a core group of residents that annexed our Garden Gate neighborhood six years ago. The City must remember that the primary argument in support of annexation was to have protection from the excessively large two-story homes that were thoughtless planned due to weak County ordinances. We saw our annexation into the City as protection that our property value and quality of life would no longer be compromised when a new home is built. We wanted a change from the "just because the ordinance reads... then you may have" mentality experienced under County jurisdiction. We need a City government to guide our neighborhood growth in a fair and reasonable manner. For the first time, we are testing the process we worked so hard to have available to us. We want the City to recognize that an existing homeowner has the right to expect a maintained level of privacy during development of a ..n.~eighboring home, just as a new property owner has the right to build a new home. Your attention to this matter is especially important to our many .Garden Gate neighbors who are con,cerned_ about maintaining our privacy and quality of life as the inevitable new growthoccursa~oLJnd.ys._ We invite any interested party to arrange for a site visit and come onto our property. Stand in our kitchen to view up at the orange story poles outlining the proposed balcony and walk around our back yard to see if you can find a spot in which your presence would not be viewed by a balcony occupant. It is important that those making such powerful decisions see first hand how severely this proposed balcony affects both our quality of life and the property value of our newly remodeled house. for your time and attention. r 2 /5-2.5 CiTY . F CUPERJINO 1. Application No. 2. Applica!1t(s) Name: 3. Appellant(s) Name: Address Phone Number Email Exhibit B City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3223 I , p ":::'\ r;:::J ! I I~ .1(-..... .\.- Iii i\n !:-" r--, '1""":'- i~' \ J I"" . .... . \ \t ru)' \ LS !~') J'0} l,,= i: \ r \ j \t : I I'l \ U l i 3 Q : x~ \[0 \ CUPERTINO CiTi CLERK I APPEAL l< nf/- ;UJO(o-D f j3 R lV1 ;}-[)O~ -/ :s HoM4 J lv(f/tD.trO /Ct-I ~r::- LOIdU;;3 @YA!A- /-kJt/dIC4- 'i~ t~ul)L S f,A)6urJ:4 .2! /}V Gf--ElJOl--~ ~ ~j! ~);:L ():;7Y/ e.l&/!ct~ ~rr~J,?{ e4 CZ,h(J(). [;!J /r]/( / 4. Please check one: Appeal a decision of Director of Community Development . _ ]tAppeala decision of Planning Commission 5. . Date of detemlination of Director or mailing of notice of City decision: Nb{ 1&, ?JJO& f 6. Basis of appeal: p{7rjt-~r- / cS -r~ t-i- (()l.--<...1'S:1DL ~ GU/ D'LlJ vf5!, 012- c:/;:-r.: ~ r..f-5/' r J /' I / :;;: O-C <;:::: rr f '" ,-,oe u o /Z() ( (if/t"I'V c...--C/ . . S ignature( s) t4d~~ Please complete form, include appeal fee of $149.00, and return to the attention of the City Clerk, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, (408) 777-3223. IS - 2(P ELENA HERRERA SUBIR SENGUPTA 21150 GRENOLA DRIVE CUPERTINO, CA 95014 408.252.0504 To the City Council of Cupertino With this letter, I am requesting that the City Council of Cupertino reevaluate the denial of my aDDeal of the Proiect Planning Commission, Appeal of application # RM-2006-08 and # RM- ....1. ~ - . ...... ~- 2006-13. My original appeal of the Planning Commissions approval of this project, consisted of several points: Item 1: Project is not consistent with existing neighborhood look and feel Item 2: Balconies Item 3: Temperature(Heat) and Glare Item 4: Privacy Screening Item 5: Heritage Oak Item 1 - e Section 19.28.010 states that the Rl ordinance is intended to create, preserve, and enhance areas suitable for detached dwellings in order to: A. Enhance the identity of residential neighborhoods B. Ensure provision oflight, air, and a reasonable level of privacy to individual residential parcels C. Ensure a reasonable level of compatibility in scale of structures within residential neighborhoods D. Reinforce the predominately low intensity setting in the community With regard to A: Please refer toph6tos 1, 2, & 3 attached. Photos 1 & 2 represent the two most recently completed homes that are comparable to the . project under review. The project's color rendering (attached) clearly illustrates the reality of what will be placed into the neighborhood, and shows that the massive, blockish look, while meeting the setback requirements, does not emulate a style that will not be highly intrusive into the neighborhood it will reside in. Photo 3 is also a fairly recent addition to the neighborhood, but it represents a home that, while only 3 homes away from the project, cannot possibly be construed as comparable for 3 reasons: 1) This home at 21140 Grenola itself was out of compliance ofthe ordinance and had to go through the Design Review process; 2) The home sits on a more than 13,000 square foot lot; one could successfully argue that although within the required maximum coverage area of the lot, the 5300 sq ft home remains outside of the boundaries of what could be seen as compatible with the scale, look, and feel of the neighborhood; 3) One could successfully demonstrate that the house is not a single family residence at all, but a 2 full-family residence. With only the interior placement of one door, there would be a kitchen, family room, full bath and bedroom, and a 2- car garage separate from the remaining 4 bedroom, 2 car garage home attached, and with space available for laundry facilities and a spa. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 30,2006 PAGEloF5 1~"'J.7 ELENA HERRERA SUBIR SENGUPTA 21150 GRENOLA DRIVE CUPERTINO, CA 95014 408.252.0504 . . Section 19.28.060 - C-a states that the mass and bulk ofthe design shall be reasonably compatible with the predominant neighborhood pattern. New construction shall not be disproportionately larger than, or out of scale with, the neighborhood pattern in terms of building forms, roof pitches, eave heights, ridge heights, and entry feature heights. To the points of roof pitches, eave heights, ridge heights, and entry feature heights, this home is in no way compatible within a 3 block radi'us with the exception of the homes built under County guidelines, and is certainly out of scale with its immediate neighbors. With regard to Photos 7 & 8, one can see that 3 blocks away, across Stelling, and arguably outside of our neighborhood but within the greater "Garden Gate" district, these same-day comparison photos illustrate that Greenleaf Drive has completely been modified from one style to another. I maintain that our neighborhood immediately adjacent to Garden Gate school still retains a look and feel that is still wooded, spacious, and inviting in comparison. We are in danger oflosing all ofthat if we don't carefully work with builders now to present ideas that are consistent with the look and feel of our highly valued and treasured neighborhood, and to diligently work to avoid the cookie-cutter approach to home development. Item 2 - Balconies I submit that the Minor Residential Permit for 2 rear balconies is simply that: A permit - a request for an evaluation - and is therefore subject to approval or denial. If not, what purpose does the permit have? If they will always be approved, why have the permit process? Indeed, the formulation of the permit was developed so. that neighbors could appeal ifthey felt it was outside of the reasonable scope of development. While I agree that we should be able to build balconies if we wish, and to enjoy that feature, I hold that it is incumbent upon the planning commission to: .. ensure that the balconies are appropriate to the neighborhood such as the larger lots on the hills above Regnart Road, . that placement of the balconies is not intrusive into a neighboring property, . and in addition that landscaping and neighbor concurrence is required. With regard to placement, these 2 balconies, while appropriate to the current floor plan, would have been far less intrusive to adjacent properties had they been brought in from the comers or sides of the house. Although one can argue that standing in front of a window gives one the same view as that from a balcony, the implication to a balcony environment is that one deliberately steps out upon it to enjoy the ambiance and views of the adjacent areas, while the window, while it can also be used for gazing, is more frequently used for light rather than "living upon" - in other words, a window is a part of the daily living space, is frequently covered by shades and draperies, and is walked past more often that it is deliberately used THuRSDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 PAGE 2 OF 5 15-28 ELENA HERRERA SUBIR SENGUPTA 21150 GRENOLA DRIVE CUPERTINO, CA 95014 408.252.0504 for the outside living experience that a balcony invites. A visit to the site and the adjacent sites is invited and would prove useful, fm sure. Item 3 - Temperature (Heat) and Glare Having lived now for more than a year across the street from a similar home to the project in terms of scale and design components, and having walked innumerable times in the neighborhood across Stelling I referred to earlier, I know that with further documented studies I will be able to illustrate the negative impact to the community and environment of the predominately concrete homes that have been built. I feel the planning commission, if not able to specifically state that the ordinance requires a mix of textures, materials, color schemes to mitigate a predominate theme fi'om changing a neighborhood, then the commission has at least the responsibility of enforcing a landscape plan that will temper the impact of such a large structure. Item 4 - Privacy Screening To date I have not seen a landscaping plan that minimally meets the ordinance with regard to privacy screening. In particular, while the immediate neighbor to the east of the property signed a waiver of interest due to his not having any windows on that side of his house, the ordinance was developed for the perspective of the field of vision from the proposed house. If the City Council were to review the meeting minutes, and took the time to review the commissions deliberations, I believe the council would find that the commission was unanimous on the point that the landscaping plan was and remains deficient. Item 5 - Heritage Oak .. . To this date, I have not seen any documentation that illustrates the plans to preserve the oak. In the commissions deliberations there was discussion of procedures that are customary to ensure that the building process ensured things such ground cover and boundaries set to keep traffic and equipment away from the tree and its root system, but the original project evaluation called for a minimum distance of the foundation to the tree of 15 ft - - I submit that that determination was truly minimal giving the age of the tree and it's current size and spread. That the perimeter of the house is now at 14 ft 2 inches which was somehow determined as "should be okay" is highly questionable and that a second independent arborist opinion should be obtained. With regard to my original appeal, several things were very easy to see as reasonable requests, and some changes were made by the applicant: & The bay window in the upper story was deemed asymmetrical and out of character with the style and architecture of the home, so it was removed. . Tbe round turret noted above the entry is still in place, and was determined to be in keeping witb the style of the house. While I agree that it is within the style of the bouse, the overall design of the bouse cannot be construed as within the predominant look and feel oftbe neighborhood. .. Landscaping has been modified, but neither to the planning commissions satisfaction nor to the requirements of the ordinance. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 PAGE 3 OF 5 IS"'2.'/ ELENA HERRERA SUBIR SENGUPTA 21150 GRENOLA DRIVE CUPERTINO, CA 95014 408.252.0504 e The entry feature was deemed to be too high. While the technical specifications ofthe maximum 14 ft entry height were met, the record (video) of the meeting shows that the obscure critical point of the "face plate" , what it is, and the whether the measurement is at the top, middle, or the bottom of the plate, is still not clear to either the general public. Summary The homes that are of a similar look and feel to the proposed project in the neighborhood were- without exception - built within the tenure of the county guidelines and are one of the main reasons that the neighborhood voted to be annexed into the City' of Cupertino. The planning commission recommendations were consistent with our appeal at the meeting of October 10. The reason for the denial on November 14 is unclear. We request the City Council .,. reverse the decision ofthe planning commission, <Il recommend a Design Review process that is structured and with and outcome that is agreeable to all parties, '" that, due to documented failures in the notification process, the neighborhood be re- notified so that misconceptions regarding the size and scope of the house and project can be clarified, i.e., the house is not a 3,500 square foot home, but rather a 4,200 square foot . _. structure, as erroneously represented to several neighbors, It and that the impact of a 14 ft entry feature can fully be illustrated. . Sp many at the meeting - and in the neighborhood - are unfamiliar with face plates, and indeed thought that the full feature was what was being considered. Theoretically, a very high structure could be built above the face plate measurement, negating the value of the specification. We very much appreciate your attention. Z~t~~ ~ Elena Herrera and Subir Sengupta THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 PAGE 4 OF 5 I 5" 36 , '. ,", .' -., H"i~:<., '. ......Va51lUBI'l SSt8) ~ _ ~i?1 ~~~.l1IJ) :.,~mlBy5\s 16J-EC- ~~;:';i" ~WQIB^oJdd\l S:'/ -~i,--oe- ~~n:';~:; UOnBd!ldd'y' ~~t\ Pfi - '7"OI~t);'-f~?~BO!ldd\l B f;n~~~~'~:-t~L:~~ ' "...,;. :. ~~,~Jt ~f~e:-:;:.( .;;;~ ,,': ~ :~:" : _ _... .. t.. ..,:-,:....:'.; ,_ ,..1..-' .,. _. '~~fj;~' f'" : '.'" . :,'~:".';". "... '. '::", l~ : .' . ....;....:. ~;;!~~:}:~i'. ;::~.-,::-~...i::'~:;:, (';f}..... h~?::;-/;;,~< f.';j".:;." 15-31 c ;', p r-' .::> v \ ~ Two recent projects, one on Hazelbrook (above) one on Greenleaf (west of Stelling) that are more compatible with the current neighborhood look, feel. and size. :-....--------- ~!+"'>~~"l~f.~~i~~~~~:f~~~' Re 21180 Grenola VhJv.1- ph~.~ IS~32 Two projects referenced with balconies, both in immediate neighborhood to 21180 Grenola, 21150 Grenola ~-::~""-:"'~>/-- . , ,..J'" / /' //' ~ u Ct~~1~nt:H2:~~~~?,?,tproject (21135 Hazelbrook) ~~ '-.-' ;t">' " : . u . :........;:.,..,. . ".-" -.. . - " . .- ,;- ---,. .__.-~~-,_._. ...~....::.:__. -.. -.....-. .. ......... Re 21180 Grenola f\v)tv . ) 7~~~~ /5 - 33 1~Dfv-0 Views from neighbor on Ann Arbor, under the mistaken impression that he would not be affected by the project. He was notified per the mailing, 8Qxv~yer the reference map was misleading and indicated that the proj~cgfy.~((;ls..2 blocks away and so he did not comment. Re 21180 Grenola '."~--'. ..-----..:::.-,- .------ .". - -~ -~-_.- -- --" f\Mtv~ /5~3t./ .' ;':'fi:;':':::;~::. ".;-~_:-. Fits with current look and feel? (Pictures taken on some day) Before: rhpto 1 -,.-:.,..- ,. ~_.-: - ' . - '. -, .. -' ,-,' .... , -- , _-----,--- .,.i:.~ ----,..-~ ----- Re 21180 Grenola /5...35 Exhibit C 21150 GRENOLA DRIVE CUPERTINO, CA 95014 408.252.0504 JAN 3 0 2007 ELENA HERRERA SUBIR SENGUPTA [E~[E~W[E CUPERTINO CITY CLERK anuary 30, 2007 To the City Council of Cupertino Re - Council Meeting February 2,2007 Appeal: R.2006-08, and RM-2006-13 I've been advised that appellants will have 3 minutes to speak, unfortunately, it will take you longer than that to read this. I appreciate the process that allows me to submit this for you consideration. With regard to the above noted appeal, we have several issues we wish to expound on. Our concerns derive from the fact that we are not trying to be subversive or in any way difficult. Vie simply feel we have the right to speak out, and rely on your judgement to be able to hear all points. Many thanks in advance. Size and Scale Cupertino has been cited by the Mercury News in a West Valley Section Page 1 article title "Growing Pains in Fremont." In fact, the design guidelines noted below are the focal point of the article. Section 19.28.060 B _ FloorArea.:Rati-o' _".;:~__:,:'-"~H -, ...F AR shall be used in conjunctiou.yvi.th the residential development standards and guidelines-in this--()rclinaficeitfd~termining whether the mass and scale ofthe project is compatible with the suffuoodlng neighborhood. C. Design Guidelines 1 a - The mass and bulk of the design shall be reasonably compatible with the predominant neighborhood pattern. New construction shall not be disproportionately large than, or out of scale with, the neighborhood pattern in terms of building forms, roof pitches, eave heights, ridge heights, and entry feature heights. While I agree that a person can point to large homes in the neighborhood, it must be noted that the majority are homes built during the jurisdiction ofthe county of Santa Clara, and not since the Garden Gate neighborhood was annexed into the city. These older homes MUST be discounted when using them as a basis for current building guidelines, as this was one of many protections that the neighborhood looked forward to when becoming part of Cupertino. The three newer homes under development in the neighborhood are in line with the project addressed by this appeal, and I maintain that this represents a change in the. neighborhood look and feel, not a preservation of it, nor even of a graceful transition. Instead, the houses are out of scale, and the style is more in line with the almost complete transition of the part of Garden Gate on the east side of Stelling Road. /5- jt, ELENA HERRERA SUBIR SENGUPTA 21150 GRENOLA DRIVE CUPERTINO, CA 95014 408.252.0504 This small pocket of Garden Gate is precious, and deserves to have it's heritage preserved. I understand completely that the ratio's and measurements have been met, but that the guidelines are not being observeq with respect to the scale of forms, pitches, and eave, ridge, and entry heights. I Size with regard to neighborhood agreement A petition was passed by the homeowner asking for support. A wise move. Unfortunately, I have heard thrice, once from Ms. Mojgani herself, that the home is 3500 square feet. Two other residents involv~d have hear the same figure. Theproposed . home is 4200 sq. feet, but without the garage, the figure is closer to 3500 sq. ft. I am dismayed by the misrepresentation. Yes, it meets the measurement restrictions in one aspect, but not the spirit of the R1 ordinance, nor the content quoted above. Landscaping To date, I have not been assured that the oak tree in the rear yard is protected. The original landscaping plan represented this as a sycamore, even though the disclosure documents presented during the sale of the property clearly stated it was a protected tree. Though subsequent plans have changed it to an oak, the first arborist report (and the only one I've seen) states that the minimum protected envelope be IS' out - for some reason this nasheen reduced to 14'2". I am not confident that this oak tree won't be impacted by- the massi4Teequipment and trenching that will exist within this 14-15' range. I '>--':Ullderslddcktb.'e:,lS' to be the minimum area to be protected - what has changed that this , has be6'ome a s~laller envelope? :'f, Balconies Of major concern to me, is the proposed design of the balconies. These balconies are being sought as part of the Minor Residential Permit for "two rear yard decks." The placement of these two balconies places them in direct line of site to the neighbor's backyard, kitchen and living room, and more. Again, while I don't oppose balconies in general, I believe the design of these balconies warrants denial of the permit. Of special concern is the tendency to say by one planning commission member "if a resident wants a balcony they should have one." I maintain that the application of the permit is just that: a REQUEST for permission to build - not a guarantee. The permit may be approved or denied. If it is the will of the city to always approve all requests of tllis nature, then WHY have the permit process? I still maintain that balconies are inappropriate for this neighborhood, and more relevant to hillside vistas and acreage. Commissioner Steve Piasecki noted (as is recorded by the video) in the October 10th meeting, the permit for the balcony was specifically drafted with the intention of allowing neighbors to comment on for the purpose of determining the appropriateness of it. Yau know have neighbors in front of you saying it's not the balcony, it's where the balcony is /5~37 ., l~ -,' ) ELENA HERRERA SUBIR SENGUPTA t!'~' 21150 GRENOLA DRIVE CUPERTINO, CA 95014 408.252.0504 The request to deny the Minor Residential Permit is based on 1.' My right to help in the transition of this old neighborhood, and to ensure that the integrity of the existing property's and the neighborhood look and feel are maintained. 2. My right to appeal the permi,t is valid and I have the expectation that the concept noted by Mr. Piasecki is true. 3. Our current home has 3 balconies facing our property - - it will take many years for the privacy screening to take effect. We are in year two of the plantings, and there is absolutely no expectation of privacy. We are grateful for two things: a) our fIrst neighbors are gracious and kind, and thankfully do not use their balconies as living areas. Our "second" neighbor with a balcony . placed the structure within the center of their footprint, .. recessed it into the roofline, and 6> kept it very small. , While it looks directly into our neighbor's home with the two balconies, it is minimally intrusive into our yard. We got lucky, and that's all. Note: Since we share a property line with both properties, we are still quite disturbed by the fact that we Were not noticed with regardto project planning on this.....,;._. "second" project. .....r;.._ '.:--;- : i~:~" .......:.~_.~'--~-.-i.__ Color Scheme I do not take issue with the color scheme, it is not intrusive, I only wish that more people would understand the greater implications of so much light-colored masonry in such large, massive amounts, and the affect on the neighborhood. I cannot win on this issue, but I emphasize that I am fIling this appeal and noting this point in an effort to keep our neighborhood from the complete turn-over that has OCCUlTed on the other side of Stelling. I walk the neighborhood regularly: The minimal landscaping and the massive reflective surfaces create a palpable difference in temperature. Moi gani Petition I feel the need to make it clear that we have met with the Mojgani's on more than one occasion. Documentation exists that states that we won't come to the door. I personally have met with the Mojgani's when they have come by unannounced, I was straight out of the shower without shoes and with wet hair, and enjoyed a very good dialogue with them for well-over 40 minutes. Another time, I welcomed them in and we sat at my table for some time. I understand their hopes and their dismay at the long process, but we have not delayed them for 5 months. We have rightfully fIled one appeal (not constant appeals) and unluckily for all of us the holidays came into the picture. The comprises noted by the Mojgani's petition must be clarified: . .:~, !, ,,'j :'~ .'; ,- '. /5-38 ( ELENA HERRERA SUBIR SENGUPTA 21150 GRENOLA DRIVE CUPERTINO, CA 95014 408.252.0504 1. The height of the entryway was indeed modified, but I maintain first that it is now more in line with the ordinance - is it really my responsibility to measUre each project? Second, if the ordinance clarified to the general public what and where "plates" were, it would be a much easier process on everyone to ensure that what they bring to the planning department is within the pararneters established. 2. Replaced a window Indeed, a bay window was "flattened" or removed. Similarly to the above situation, the bay window was not at all sympathetic to the general architecture and design of the home; again, I maintain that this change fell within the jurisprudence of the planning department, and I an1 dismayed that I have been put in the position of now hearing that they have" acceded to our wishes." 3. The balcony was reviewed extensively by the commission, and many commission members had suggestions and comments, the overall recommendation in the October meeting was to reduce or eliminate the balcony. I truly believe our appeal was denied in November based on improper "measurements" - that is, the Mojgani's purported that we were difficult to work with, when in fact we wished we had had a chance to work with them in the DRC or in arbitration, but they are resistant to both forums. 4:' Privacy Landscaping ',The project is still deficient inthis area:..NoneMthecommissioners felt the eastern landscaping should done away with, regardless of the immediate neighbor waiving interest in the issue. ,ft~is not strictly 'and ,;;tdj oining property issue - this eastern wall, due to the nature of the street, will be highly visible to houses 2,3,4 house away. 5. Added privacy barrier . Please consider the ramifications of the design of such a barrier. Would it truly be in line with the architecture? Would it truly be seen as a gracious amenity, or would it be an admission that the privacy is a real and immediate issue? Would it not imply that this is even more of a living space, and then why not call it living space and add it to the square footage. Oh, because there is no roof? If you allow building a permanent structure that by extends the "wall'; by the additional footage, you have created a de-facto extension to the home. 15...31 1(:' , (.,. ,j ELENA HERRERA SUBIR SENGUPTA 21150 GRENOLA DRIVE CUPERTINO, CA 95014 408.252.0504 and the fact that it more than just an arcpitectural feature. The homeowners have maintained that they view it as a living "lfea, and intend to use it fully. The homeowner maintains that the view from a balcony is the same as from a window, and on this po~m I agree. However, I maintain that a window - unless it has a bench-type window seat t~ it, is not usually gazed out and stayed in front of. It is usually passed by from the inside when moving to and fro,m the closet, the doorways, the bed, etcetera. " I believe it is important to view each Pfpject individually, and judge this one on it's own werits. I sincerely hope that each of YQu had the opportunity and the inclination to view the project from within the Tracy's hoWe. I have. While sitting at the kitchen counter and while in the family room, the view from the Tracy's pitched windows high in their east-facing wall looks directly at the bMcony on the rear west side. WillIe the Tracy's were smart and conscientious about rPFir remodeling efforts, and wisely placed and sized those windows, it is burdensome 4ltct'unrealistic to suppose that every neighbor facing a new project next door could or would be so diligent in pro actively designing their homes or in preserving their privacy. Thank youfoi'yourefforts~tl;)~fair1y,hear this appeal. ---= -"-,-...... _. ;, ,_ .;;-~~ :. .i~ _~ _ .__ Elena Herrera and Subir Sengupta /S-'fD ~)LOCAl NEWS IN YOUR ::!INBOX EVERY WEEI{DAY Checking your e-mail? Why not check the news tpo? Sign up for our e-mail newsletter. MERCURYNEWS.COM t:.- '. ".' .. .SUING,FORACGESS .... . . '..:D~le Walton,"leff;.;~ijq.,ot~er ~fir.6~gdri~er~ have filed .' '~"suittoo~en:..YP:~.r:~;:~f ap~ryyon;I'~G~.4B "'::.. www.mercurynews.col11/news "e., \IS DRIVERIN.FATAUCRASH SOUGHt: . ". .' _,;. .... .. ,._'~." "" c"" ",.' , '. : .' .. Police are searc~i'ng'. fat' the driyer ofa stolen :ca.rthat-".,: . slammed into a van friday, killi~ghi~passenger.PAGE'~~ .c' ;fisher opinion 'Sermng (SUre close he heart 'onsider Bill and Jean ~ of contributions to open- ation, their campaign to leasly houses from being 'ortola Valley neighbor. m like small potatoes. is is the philanthropic ,nated $1 million to the m Space Trust last year lic coastal land. They've Jf awards for their efforts ifornia's natural trea. lsemite to the Pacific 3 bringing their conserva- 1 to their own back yard the former publisher of line and served as ambas- n and Australia. Since the his wife have lived on a 10- . the Westridge area of . '.They have a sprawling vith corrunanding views of eas Fault ~indy Hill, :uest house ~ a stable. is place, but 1fU"cllyopulent llldards. . ,e property ~rs three , the Lanes were con- ,ne day it wOinM be sold to ",ho would level their one- md replace itwith three gi- ek, they asked the town .......,1-- n "nn"'^~."""+;n,., a.o;l~C_ Growing pains in Fremont HOMEOWNERS ARGUE OVER BUILDING RULES - OR LACK OF THEM FREMONT By Usa Fernandez Mfm:uryNtITbs Folks who live in Fremont are grappling with a vexing issue - how big can your dream home be? On Tuesday, a group of residents, many of whom live in low-lying ranch homes, Will address the city council to complain about the lack of rules regarding slapping up expan- sive homes. part of Fremont. And a fourth is plarmed. Typically, existing homes there are less than 2,000 square feet - about half the size of the. new homes being built. There is no delini- , tion for what constitutes what critics ' call a "monster" home. ' , The issue is coming to a forefront now, some surmise, because the Many tony towns on the Peninsula and in the South Bay have already dealt with the issue by tightening regulations. At least three such large homes have been buUt sporadically in a Bra- dy Bunch-type neighborhood, called Mission Ranch, in the southeastern flee HOMES, Page 2B 1(;' WISH BOOI(""~;Ct?2006 I;V:J.l~\\ Genter eases senior isolation .' i,i' . 'I '" Hugs, like the one GraceSo~a, Jeft, giveS Jessie Navarro, are common at MACS~~dult Pay ~ealth Care. , ," <:-:.-}' i ~~'_ : If\ , """,ifi< '\' 'MO,NST~~!f)VS.~REAM What's happening: At 6:30 p.m. Tuesday, the Fremont City Council will discuss new ordinances regarding two-story homes; the meeting is at 3300 Capitol Ave. in Fremont. At issue: Those who want to preserve the homey character of their neighborhood are up against those who see mini-mansions as a sign of modernity and progress. . Katrina evacuees toast life ill South Bay By Dana Hull MercuryN_ Denise Johnson can still see the water rising, as she sat in the sec- ond-story bedroom of her New Or- leans house and prayed that rescu- ers would find her and her family. Luckily; they managed to survive the ravages of Hurricane Katrina. But that was just the beginning of a long journey that is far from over. Johnson remembers standing in line from 3:30 p.m. 1,lIltil 5 a.m. to get into New Orleans' packed a.ir- port, desperate for any flight out to safety. After living in a convention .._..~,~.. ;..... ^.........;..... f'",~ .... t,-n,r l11r;>nlrc: I, NewsLibrary Document Delivery Page 1 of2 ('>lJj[~; fil~) /[: "ij 1(;;{'f1'-Yf1i"tPX':(r ~~i~~j~';Ylf(;~:.! ..:::::..~ ..'.,.~)./ . <'7' c:_~ ':"'/ '...I ,,:/' ...:".... ,? '..,-~.~'; ......c:,. :'~,) C-.7\r,...:?<"..... "'~':;.,~ F~{t~rr:~1:~:lTr;.U~~ir~~fW-g~V': . - -- News I Business I Sports Entertain.ment I Lifest\'les I Opinion I Classifieds I Jobs I Cars Arch ives Note: Searching is always free. There is a $2.95 fee to view the full-text of any article. Check out our Pricing Options. San Jose Mercury News (CA) December 18, 2006 Section: Local Edition: MercuryNews.com Page: WEB 'MONSTER' GROWING PAINS IN FREMONT HOMEOWNERS ARGUE OVER BUILDING RULES -- OR LACK OF THEM LISA FERNANDEZ, Mercury News Folks who live in Fremont are grappling with a vexing issue -- how big can your dream home be? - On Tuesday, a group of residents, many bfwhom live in low-lying ranch homes, witl~ address the city council to complain about the lack of rules regarding slapping up expansive homes. . _ 'c',""" , . Many tony towns on the Peninsula and in the South Bay have already dea'lt with the:\s~we. by tightening regulations. . ..'::-" , . At least three such large homes have been built sporadically in a Brady Bunch-type neighborhood, called Mission Ranch, in the southeastern part of Fremont. And a fourth is planned. Typically, existing homes there are less than 2,000 square feet -- about half the size of the new homes being built. There is no definition for what constitutes what critics call a "monster" home. The issue is coming to a forefront now, some surmise, because the 1950s bedroom community of Fremont is beginning to run out of space, leaving those who want to upgrade and modernize their homes little choice but to raze and start from scratch, The battle pits those who want to preserve the homey character of the neighborhood against those who see mini-mansions as a sign of modernity and progress. City planners say tear-downs are increasing, estimating that about 10 to 15 homes have been demolished and rebuilt during the past two years. Largely driving the matter is a grass-roots group led by Nishit Vasavada, who can't stand the large homes dwarfing his views of the East Bay hills and seem out of place in his middle-class, tree-lined neighborhood. "People live here for open skies," he said. "And these homes are just too big. They don't fit in here. Plus, you have to live with the construction for a year and a half or more." Vasavada has researched the ordinances of cities such as Los Altos, Los Gatos, Sunnyvale, Palo Alto and Menlo Park; collected signatures of 100 neighbors upset with new houses towering over their low-lying homes; and launched a Web site (www.mission-ranch .com). /5-'-12- httn://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/ Archives?p_action=doc&p~ docid=11624111 ED3983... 1/30/2007 NewsLibrary Document Delivery Page 2 of2 But homeowner Wen-wei Lee, who is Vasavada's next-door neighbor on Bedford Street and hopes to soon demolish his one-story green ranch and build a two-story home, disagrees. He sees his new dream home as a sign of the changing times. "I look forward for the next 50 years, but Nishit looks backward for the past 50 years. That is our difference," Lee said in an e-mail, declining a personal interview. "I consider this progress." Lee said h,is home is old and in bad condition. A structural engineer said it would be extremely expensive to add onto his home -- just as costly as starting from scratch. He has taken out the building permits for a new 4,200-square-foot home next to Vasavada's 1,670-square-foot one. City Councilwoman Anu Natarajan, who is an architect and urban land-use designer, said she wants Fremont to embrace more home-building guidelines to preserve neighborhood integrity. But she also doesn't want the rules to be so authoritarian as to stifle personal expression and creativity. At present, there is little oversight in Fremont to individuals building new homes, other than saying the structures can't be higher than 30 feet or set back from the street about five feet. There is also no notification process to alert neighbors that an old home is being demolished end a new one is being built in its place. Fremont, the Bay Area's fourth largest city, has long existed as a spacious suburb so is only now feeling the growing pains of being nearly built out, Natarajan said, Certainly, there are large homes - hovering in the range of 20,000-square feet -- in Fremont. But these villas are mostly built on the hillsides and are surrounded by spacious lots of land. The issue in Mission Ranch and some other neighborhoodS' is'that the two-story homes are sprouting next to existing ranch-style houses with a few feet separating homes. Natarajan said she would like the city to hire piannfi1'g Staff trained in design; something Mountain View has, to review homeowners' plans before they build. At Tuesday's meeting, Planning Director Jeff-Schwab win Jay. out options for the city council spanning from doing nothing about Fremont's scant regulations to creating stricter ones. Some new guidelines could include: a Los Altos-style "neighborhood compatibility" approach / ~ where new homes must architecturally complement one another to gain approval; a Palo Alto- / IT inspired guideline designed to keep the integrity of single-story neighborhoods; or a version of..l\. what Cupertino does -- new construction can't be disproportionately larger than the rest of the '\ neighborhood. The city could better regulate privacy between neighbors a number of ways, too, Schwob said. The council will hear the issue for the first time Tuesday but will study it further for a later vote. Any home-building change would be too late for the Gustafsons on Austin Street. Their next-door neighbors recently built a 3,700-square-foot two-story home with a multicolored stone porch and high ceilings. It has a security camera that peers from above into the Gustafson's kitchen and garden, leaving the Gustafsons feeling like they're constantly being watched. So they planted bamboo in an attempt for more privacy. In winter, the house blocks their morning sun. "We've learned to live with it," John Gustafson said. "But it's really kind of sad." Copyright (c) 2006 San Jose Mercury News /5-43 http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-searchlwe/Archives?p_action=doc&p _ docid= 11624111 ED3 983... 1/30/2007 ~~-';~~ i~c:\ .l"if'"c r -.;:--;:-.o::>.~..::;1 (~=) f.1~ t~:?~; f{o;~ " Z:< \y '''.:.-;:;~~~,-,-/:,-=:; i-~__ -.1l spacing @ D- iP Ut[fOS ~om ~'ll 10' l( 20' H ... '-,\ '~ ~,""';. /.-- ..,1! ..~r"';"';""- ~~~=?i~;~~l~~~ff0j~~ 1"S-~~_~ lti'!"~.., :."::" 1:i!J.... f"loma Mojgani ~~t Grenota Llrl\1e) ClJpeFt:no Th\~ Hj9j06 S=J\~~'fI~,,"1..-:d I D=--ln E7 D=ri::.l1 1 J:;.e f-iiujc.lina I S-~t 365- i o. I -. <1~\~~ ~(~~ " ~~J~ l~!" 'I "";'.'})~f":;1' \~::i~tlv')/ Exhibit D {/ l" .a-:-i:;~ i (:"~"'---<::~1 .,~tG~~o. /;1 . -,. ~-~~"J .. ."" ._~ C~~,/,' ,?~ !"'..... I F "'8uW5~Qnmn , ~dgel0~'\N -: 20' Ii , ;C!f~'{" 1. tJ?!':-~~1 . '~"t""""~''-l.~- ~:,!!.. "d4 ">', :<~~Sil ''''><''' 'r.- -. ., .- .)i I [ . I . .,~ 'i ~6 SpZ!lcin9 ;(2~L t :::-":"'+,~. ~.:.-~-.. i I I ~_._.-~ ~~~~1 De_sign.. ButlJ... Con;.:trucl::l(",n CLi:i!1Jm Landi'tE DG D'2slgn ana Coru.~rtJcti-OiJ '~:=:'~:;II,;r:~~;~;~~t~~1:"'~~~~~:.~':~;~:o F*",~;i;lJ.:';1~ "oa- 9;L5. 01BO " ~9 .s'. ne~i pl.nts height at start 1,\?mb2' QV'.l;;~bm:~';~~~~'~~11';''';";, .l<"',," """397 RECEIVED --..,,-.-- 'JA" 2 4 2007 BY /5-1./'1 '~~~@ Exhibit E /' l' . .', , . f J ..~: -~ ~. .\9 tB -. J: :L' Project Grenola Oriye, Cupertino 0... 1I{9j06 ~YnB;,. Joe Andolina Shl!<I!~ of 365 Design Build.. Conlitruceion Custom land!Oc.p. Oe51gn and Construction ll1ertx1l2OgPJHe(, '1"1I~. S1impCOI'ICftOl. '51OO1!&JIIe lYlltClblb . ~ninlllW.I"'. .\obon. Ow+;dcqt U91'1ting . ElBa, 'fto!EIII,"f\e' Scale M No1ecl 1 10 Drawil'lr; 6' to U' new plants height at stort 406 - 925 .0180 wVI'w.jpml.!lndscapil"l9.com Member QCA -lICENSED. BONDED - "'lSURED 'lice;~ J17<1)8!l'7 [ . "\--~-- ~~tbrnJ1cv{ ({f~ Noyo i~ ft Inee11-/~ Pi fnp-e~~ Ol-vW1'S ,/' ..-----' '-------------- "'-------,._-----/"------ IS -45 ./ ----.' /t._/ ,r:.~, J:..? Exhibit F Dear Neighbor, \Ve are the owners of 21180 Grenola Dr. and are currently in the process of rebuilding our house. However, two of our neighbors are appealing our plan because of the "'feel and look" (Mediterranean style), the exterior coloring and the existence of a balcony. Although these elements are within confines , of city codes, their constant appeals have stopped our project for almost 5 months. They believe the new house will have a negative impact on the value of the houses, and the style is not consistent with the other houses in the neighborhood. They also want our hOllle to have a dark color exterior and roof because of ""temperature and glare". Contrary to their beliefs, we think the addition of our house to the neighborhood should help the appreciation of other homes in the neighborhood. -~--"-.-'- -------_.'~. . --.. - --- ..., -..-.- So far, we have compromised a great deal: 1. Reduced the height of our entryway by one foot (originally in code and approved by the City) 2. replaced one of our windows with their suggestions 3. reduced the size of our balcony significantly (origina!ly in code and approvedbytb~ ,Qity). 4. Provided profe~siorial privacy landscape 5. Added privacy,harrier for part of our balcony facing,our l}eighbbt. We would appreciate your name and signature below if you support our home plan. Tha:qk you in advance. Homa & Mehrdad Mojgani Name Address )( . ( ~h Q I({ 11 10395 r-/on:( V' ..JCt AI)f. / f &l os' l-/ l5 / ' tP-- A/'.' , ) . fA.. (0 U )"U J- LoyOt. Lit' / A v' e..-- "-, //,Vv 1---1 i I ST[L /A..J !{ '1/\-L (LX-':<'" :J ~ / DL!-~6 6 'fCu>-e~ VgfeJ-, ~- \ , 1-tsICl-rl z..t 0\..7l/\, :>-(01) ~1-(~ II o[ 4 T)( \. / S ...tf(, Name ~ Address I " ;::'~\:~~~ _ --(' 0 Tt.-. .- \ .'" I. ) '\ '> o-.c\f:i . vl- ,---.J u~ lilf'~ ) ~j '11l6A1/J-tJM~( j .' cj /' f' I .J'" ,,,, , U_-t.:Vh_R \J L-'-/'(J"",..1;L.- )4- ( )~.; c .J i1-1 VI ~ Dc~. ~ C:UJ,J~av~ \ \ .. )1 . ~ I'- i Jj?\ i ~Oc.'-.J'\ .- J c... 'c ..', ' ( ~) lA.{ t .1) 11\ 1/ ~. 0 t'" o<...cL\ \.1 CL.---l z... - I II i=z> L- (J ttcQ l[ ~ ov,'\-( rk ~ Vvt c~ S ~~e>J 5',,0 h n-tj \ . 1\10 0 ~ IE' C. T-'1ly ~ X(OLV\pi:~J Ge/ N~~~~. \J\ L \c ~ (f1 5/~~"~ ~~~'i~ .;J lOr Q (\ 1'7 rr\f'o LI\, '0 lY\ I'- 'I tI J)K \ ve; I'<J H b -?D~\IIC, k>>-- fJ \J , . I - .. I /") / //) c/(1"--t. (-;:;1 l' (. C>'\::_.,.. / [) t ~75/ 2111-/)1 . r b L-I 4 ~ l.L-hL..-..... (\.;1 l-:>L:'{ it'iJ~ ) 0 'SO! r-o,"4 t/ i ;~Ile(. /1v~' 104-9 tf Fro f--(::( 'Y'i;::, +c{ Av. 2. j 0 .+ C:l (f/r-ti\ 0 ~ c. \:7,~, ..~J,,-,.t, \ ~( ~l\ 9 S-t) (If. n I \ 11? .G' " o-p -,r . L . ..1/::) -;;,'-(9)~ 0''-- l' (.i.- \J:::> .0'"i- :\).' 1'\ DcA q (,r. i I I. ~"_' .:_:,1- ," ) .) V L..1 , . . . ... tl (( ::; ( ~ J e L< b lOe:(=>< ' . Cu' PC? ~ h 'j:,\ (J (A ;j'f(t? ( v' ~ ( D'l ) ~ 11 ~t ~ U/\ If' ~ 211 2. \ [~-+CL2.e I Gt.)~ \)r. (1\\11 \~~1l\~r~\L 7 \ u: \ (-k" 2. 2. ,~9v\:!-::-I? . ~ I (<q5 Cl R~r1 a LA 'tJ cev J 15-47 Name Address ;:;Cf7 J41A bjL~ - 6", !) 'J : u ~? (k~'Vl&e,,- [) r -~ ltD 2- \ 1 ~. b 6rrC4'\.{) \L 0) 15-48 Exhibit G R-2006-08 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6429 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DENYING AN APPEAL OF A RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A NEW, TWO STORY 4,219 SQUARE FOOT RESIDENCE WITH T'NO SECOND-STORY REAR YARD DECKS LOCATED AT 21180 GRENOLA DRIVE SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received two appeals of a Residential Design Review approval (R-2006-08), as described in Section II of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have, been given in accordance with the Procedural OrdinaIlce of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the appellants have not met the burden of proof required to support _said -- - appeals; and have not demonstrated that the Residential Design Review approval me€ts.:tpe -" ,'-" -', followin~f~r;~i!lgsfor denial: 1) The -proposed use, at the proposed location, will be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; 2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner that is not in accord with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of this title. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for R-2006-08 is hereby approved, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof; and That the subconc1usions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. R-2006-08 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of November 14, 2006 and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 15-41 Resolution No. 6429 Page 2 R-2006-08 November 14,2006 SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Applicat~on No.: Applicant: Location: R-2006-08 Cliff Cowles (Mojgani Residence) 21180 Grenola Drive SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED PROTECT This approval is based on a plan set entitled, II A New Two-Story Residence for Homa & Mehrdad Mojgani," consisting of seven sheets dated March 20,2006, including a site plan, first and second floor plans, elevations, roof plan and section, and a privacy protection landscape plan and revised master bedroom balcony plan with reduced balcony, except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution. 2. REVISED BALCONY Prior to issuance of building permit(s), the applicant shall reduce the size of the master bedroom balcony to a maximum six-foot depth and 60 square feet as shown in the revised master bedroom balcony plan. I , ." 3. TREE PROTECTION_ The applicant shall be required to maintain the 'existIng 31-incI-l'diarrieter Coast Live Oak tree on the subject property in a healthy manner in accordance with the tree protection recommendations outlined in. the tree evaluation.prepared for this property on April 27, 2006 by Micha~l L. Bench of Barrie D. Coate and Associates. 4. PRIV ACY PROTECTION COVENANT The property owner shall record a covenant on this property to inform future property owners of the privacy protection measures and tree protection requirements consistent with the R-1 Ordinance for all windows and second story balconies with views into' neighboring yards and with a sill height that is 5 feet or less from the second story finished floor. The precise language will be subject to approval by the Director of Community Development. Proof of recordation must be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to final occupancy of the residence. .5. PRIV ACY PROTECTION PLAN Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a complete privacy, protection landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission that shall include a site plan of the project, the 30-:degree cones of vision from each second story window jamb and balconies, and the location, species and canopy diameter of existing and proposed trees and shrubs to satisfy the privacy protection landscaping measures for the project. 15 ~SD Resolution No. 6429 Page 3 R-2006-08 November 14,2006 The City Arborist has confirmed that the existing Coast Live Oak h-ee is appropriate for screening purposes in terms ot species, size and health. The Coast LIve Uak tree shall be recorded on the property as a protected tree along with the new privacy trees and shrubs to be planted on the property. 6. FRONT YARD TREE A new 24-inch box tree shall be planted in the front yard to meet landscaping requirements. The type and size of tree shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works and Community Development Deparhnents. 7. CONSULT A nON WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/ or agencies with regard to the proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Any misrepresentation of any submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Development Department. 8. 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, m~y pr()t~st these fees, dedications, reservations, a~d other exactions, pursuant to GovernmenfC6deSection 66020(a), has begun. If you fail _ to file a protest within this -90-:day p.erlodcomplyirtg with all of the requirements_of_ Section 66020, you will be legally barred frorn: later challenging such exactions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of November 2006, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Corrunission of the City of Cupertlllo, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABST AIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Miller, Saadati, Wong COMMISSIONERS: Vice Chair Giefer, Chien COMMISSIONERS: none COMMISSIONERS: none ATTEST: APPROVED: / s / Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development / s / Martv Miller Marty Miller, Chair Planning Commission g:/ planning/ pdreport/ res/R-2006-08 /5 -S J RM-2006-13 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6430 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DENYING AN APPEAL OF A MINOR RESIDENTIAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT TWO SECOND STORY REAR YARD DECKS ON A NEW, TWO STORY 4,219 SQUARE FOOT RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 21180 GRENOLA DRIVE SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received two appeals of a Minor Residential Permit approval (RM-2006-13), 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 appellants. have not met the burden of proof required to support said appeals; _and hav~ no~ d~monstr~ated that the Minor Residential Permit approval meets the following fin,dings for d~nial: . . . -"' .'--=-.;'~."':~. .-' -.. -..;.." 1) The proposed ~~e,~t the proposed location, will be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; 2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner that is not in accord with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of this title. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for RM-2006-13 is hereby approved, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. RM-2006-13 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of November 14, 2006 and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 15~S2.. Resolution No. 6430 Page 2 RM-2006-13 November 14,2006 SECliOr..J Ii: YKUlbLl UbSL1",-W llUl',,) Application No.: Applicant: Location: RM-2006-13 Cliff Cowles (Mojgani Residence) 21180 Grenola Drive SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED PROTECT This approval is based on a plan set entitled, "ANew Two-Story Residence for Homa & Mehrdad Mojgani," consisting of seven sheets dated March 20,2006, including a site plan, first and second floor plans, elevations, roof plan and section, and a privacy protection landscape plan and revised master bedroom balcony plan with reduced balcony, except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution. 2. REVISED BALCONY Prior to issuance of building permit(s), the applicant shall reduce the size of the master bedroom balcony to a maximum six-foot depth and 60 square feet as shown in the revised master bedroom balcony plan. '.. 3. . TREE PROTECTION The applicant shall be required to maintain the existing 31-inch diameter-Coast Live ._'. Oak. tree on the subject property in a healthy manner in accordance with. the t:r.e~., protection recommendations outlined in the tree evaluation prepared for this property. on April 27, 2006 by Michael L. Bench of Barrie D. Coate and Associates. 4. PRIVACY PROTECTION COVENANT The property owner shall record a covenant on this property to inform future property owners of the privacy protection measures and tree protection requirements consistent with the R-1 Ordinance for all windows and second story balconies with views into neighboring yards and with a sill height that is 5 feet or less from the second story finished floor. The precise language will be subject to approval by the Director of Community Development. Proof of recordation must be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to final occupancy of the residence. 5. PRIVACY PROTECTION PLAN Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a complete privacy protection landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission that shall include a site plan of the project, the 30-degree cones of vision from each second story window jamb and balconies, and the location,. species and canopy diameter of existing and proposed trees and shrubs to satisfy the privacy protection landscaping measures for the project. /5..53 Resolution No. 6430 RM-2006-13 November 14,2006 Page 3 The City Arborist has confirmed that the existing Coast Live Oak h-ee is appropriate for screening purposes 111 terms ot specIes, sIze and health. Ihe Loast LIve uaK tree shall be recorded on the property as a protected h-ee along with the new privacy trees and shrubs to be planted on the property. 6. FRONT YARD TREE A new 24-inch box tree shall be planted in the front yard to meet landscaping requirements. The type and size of tree shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works and Community Development Departments. 7. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/ or agencies with regard to the proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Any misrepresentation of any submitted data may invalidate an approv'al by the Community Development Department. 8. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS,RESERV ATIONS 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 exactiOl~s, pursuant to Government Code SectioiF66020(a),'has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying.yY'itb aU~pf.tl).e requirements of. Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging:such exactions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of November 2006, 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: Chairperson Miller, Saadati, Wong COMMISSIONERS: Vice Chair Giefer, Chien COMMISSIONERS: none COMMISSIONERS: none ATTEST: APPROVED: / s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development / s / Marty Miller Marty Miller, Chair Planning Commission g: / planning/ pdreport/ res / RM-2006-13 /5-5i Exhibit H Cupertino Planning Commission 2 November 14,2006 posed serious threats to future generations, particularly relating to the Stevens Creek Corridor Project. She said while East Palo Alto plants 1,000 trees and Berkeley intends to ban construction within 30 feet of creeks, the city plans to destroy nearly 200 habitat providing trees and compromise the wetlands by building too close to the Stevens Creek. The majority of these trees make way for new development; an 8 foot wide paved bike road and a reconstruction of the 90% non residence money losing business at Blackberry Farm. While the city is careful to protect lawns at Memorial Park by cutting down on events, the misuse and overuse of Blackberry Farm and the delicate riparian habitat now is causing trees to fall so much so that the city has fenced offthe property. .. By rebuilding the event compound, it will retain nearly all the existing event impact and add over 89,000 users, resulting in more environmental casualties. It was thought that the business would make more money to fund more library hours but the opposite is true; we are spending over 2 million dollars to built it and about $300,000 a year to subsidize it. The non-residents benefit; and what suffers is the environment, congestion on neighborhood streets and every restriction of resident access to the property that we are paying a 2.4% utility tax to own. This also violates our General Plan; the overall project will cost over $16 million. . She expressed concern about where the money was being spent and said that the city was being irresponsible by not addressing its $50 million debt. . She requested that the Stevens Creek Corridor project be brought back for review, which she said the Planning Commission expressed interest in at the May 23 meeting. She urged the Planning Commission to think globally and act locally and focus on fiscal responsibility. Chair Miller: . Asked staff to comment on bringing the Stevens Creek Corridor project back for review. Ms. Wordell: . Said she was nofaware oftheoptiQns~for a~complishing that; the Planning Department is not involved in that qcepJ for .theenvironIhenta1 reviews. She said staff would bring a report back to the Planning Commission. CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING: 1. ASA-2006-08; RM-2006-13 Cliff Cowles (Mojgani Residence) 21180 Grenola Drive 10123 No. Wolfe Road Consider an appeal of a Residential Design Review to construct a new, two-story 4,219 square foot residence. Consider an appeal of a Minor Residential Permit for two-second story rear-yard decks on a new 4,219 square foot residence. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Continued from the October 10, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. AId Honda, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: . Reviewed the application which was a continuance from the October 10, 2006 meeting when the Planning Commission considered appeals of a residential design review and minor residential permit approval for a new two story residence with two second story rear yard decks. . . She reviewed the comments from the Planning Commission directing the property owner to make some revisions, and the property owner's responses, which are outlined in the staff report. /5-.55 Cupertino Planning Commission 3 November 14,2006 . Staff recommends additional language to ensure privacy protection for the adjacent neighbor to the west. Staff also recommends that conditions be added that state prior to issuance of building permits, the property owner reduce the balcony to a maximum 4 foot depth and provide a functional and attractive 5 foot high screen to be perpetually maintained and recorded on the property to prevent privacy impacts onto the adjacent western property. . In accordance with the Planning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that an additional condition on landscaping be added that landscaping be revised to provide immediate privacy protection and at installation of the master bedroom balcony, if it is approved, and to provide the size and distances of all plantings on the landscape plan. 61 Noted that any decision of the Planning Commission tonight is final unless appealed to the City Council. Staff answered Commissioners' questions relative to the application. Cliff Cowles, project designer: . Said the color chips and colors were specified with the drawings when they were first submitted; and that the proposed colors fit well in the neighborhood. . . If you reduce the balcony to four feet, the door cannot be opened, resulting it is not serving as a real balcony. You are either going to allow the balcony, or you are not going to allow the balcony, and therefore are making the decision that whenever a neighbor says that they have an issue with someone seeing off that balcony, you are making the decision with this house, and it has not been made before in Cupertino. The real issue is to provide very adequate privacy landscaping. . Said they have requced the height, even though in that neighborhood there are at least a dozen homes with a high entry. They are not arguing for that now; one foot is a good compIoml.l:!e. . - -Mehr-dad:. :MOJgIlfi,I~-o-hp.plicant, reviewed the responses to the Planning Commissioners' . -.' chrhinen!~;ffofiitK~ci.6ct'ober 10th Planning Commission meeting: . Relative to pullback of the second story balcony in the master suite so that it is non-intrusive to their neighbors on the west side, she said they have already reduced the size ofthe balcony to almost half the original size; the balcony is aligned with the edge of the house and it is no longer sticking out. . In addition to the professional privacy landscaping that you are going to provide, we will provide screening on the portion of the balcony facing our neighbors so that the west side of the neighborhood is going to be covered and you won't be able to see anything directly into the backyard. . The entry feature height should be lowered to be more in alignment and symmetrical with the front elevation turrets. -.....: Boma Mojgani, co-applicant: . Presented photos of homes in the neighborhood and commented on the privacy landscaping and comparison of older parts of the neighborhood to the newer construction. She said she preferred not to put in extra plants if they were not required. She repOl.1:ed that she spoke with other neighbors about the proposal's compatibility with the neighborhood. Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney: . Said that it was public information after presented to the Planning Commission. /5 -Sfo ~::.~..io-~,~"'"' ,. Cupertino Planning Commission November 14,2006 4 Jessica Rose, Appellant, Ann Arbor Avenue: . She said they were encouraged at the October 10th meeting since the Commission's comments validated a concern that they and the Garden Gate pocket had for a long time of how to transition the neighborhood between the old and the new. The issue is not if new homes will be built in Garden Gate, but how to guide the development. We must be considerate of existing homes and also allow new residents to design and build a home that is current in style and functionality. She said the comments demonstrated how they can begin to bridge the gap between those two factors. . After the meeting she said they felt the system that they would have never had under country jurisdiction, worked. Their comments targeted landscaping and architectural enhancement features as the two key areas that would need modifying to allow this large house to be harmonious with the existing area. It seemed like a win/win; the suggestions were cosmetic. The size and layout of the 4200 square foot house remains untouched and yet its presence would be softened. None of the Commission's comments reflected the interior size of the house; the dream house remains; the kitchen is lUltouched, the master suite, the multiple bedrooms bones of the house that are usually at the core of creating one's dream house, are still original to the property owners liking. The recommendations demonstrate that by exercising some care and consideration when planning exterior features and landscaping, existing privacy and the visual impact of a large home among smaller homes can be lessened. . She expressed disappointment at the minimal response of the property owner to the Planning Commission's recommendation, which provided clear direction on the project. At the previous meeting the Planning Coinmission withdrew the motion to uphold the appeal with the 9 modifications at the request of the property owner, who instead opted for a continuance of just one month to address all of these issues on their own, while working with the Planning Department. She said that they were frustrated and confused because the timelines for submitting comments were not met by the applicant. . . She said they were requesting the ,Planning Commission to uphoJd the appeal of the project and include the following conditions for approval: .",~,->, ./ Uphold the appeal; ./ Require that the master bedroom balcony be a faux or false balcony; it was suggested last month and it was supported that the balcony was intrusive to their privacy. A faux balcony will allow the exterior to have the look of a balcony, the interior room will enjoy the balcony window light and fresh air and it will not provide a landing area for neighbors to view over the entire backyard and house. It was established and agreed at the last meeting that this was an area of concern. ./ It needs a true landscaping plan that protects privacy; it needs to be accurate and include the size of the plants, spacing, location, and show the cones division from the homes ./ Landscaping the front yard: Add the brick and rock features on the front elevation as recommended by the Commission last month. It will soften the imposing nature of the design. . Relative to the house color, she said that most homes are now abandoning the stucco and tile roof look, popular in the 80s and 90s. Perhaps the property owner might want to consider a more contemporary color scheme for the house and roof. . Lastly, regarding the 5 foot trellis idea that was introduced late last week, we have not seen it yet as it was proposed after the November 7th deadline for comments, but it sounds awful and pointless. The need for a 5 foot trellis on a railing validates that this balcony is an unreasonable imposition on our privacy. It also negates the purpose of a balcony which isn't to view into your yard and beyond; again, we have made this point already and you have spoken in agreement with us. We asked you to not change direction at t his point. 15-57 Cupertino Planning Commission 5 November 14, 2006 Elena Herrera, Granola Drive: . Said she was not opposed to balconies, but would work on the placement to ensure that it is not intrusive, perhaps recessed into an inner courtyard, and not directly over the adjoining properties. . She agreed that the view from a window is just as severe as a view from a balcony, and said she felt that balconies deserve to be in areas where the acreage and hillsides support the use of a balcony. The proposed home is a very tightly drawn home that is five feet on one side, ten feet on the other and the balcony is not appropriate. . She said the 4200 square foot home was not within the scope of the neighborhood, and there was no indication that the color was going to be anything less bright than presented. She said that the color scheme should help with the softening of the mass. . Said she was not recommending the Los Gatos model of dictating what type, size and style of gingerbread to put on the Victorians; nor the Carmel practice of dictating the shape and color of the rooflines. Cupertino is a city that does care about rebuilding the community and it is going through a huge rebuilding era right now and it is incumbent upon the community members and commissioners to think about building smartly, enhancing the value of the neighborhood and the community as a whole, but maintaining the quality of life. Chair Miller opened the public hearing. Sharon Adams, Grenola Drive: . Said her home was affected similar to the residents of Ann Arbor who have no sunshine because of the home next door. When the sun comes up there is no sunshine until another couple of hours because the sun must go around the big house next door; the sun goes down in the summertime at 4 p.m. because ofthe house on the other side. She said there was a 60+ year old tree in the back yard. Jennifer GriffiD.: Rancho Rinconada resident: .. - ..,,': - . . Said she empathized with the Garden Gate .district, becausetliey were attempting to annex into Cupertino from the county at the same time that Monta Vista and Rancho Rinconada were. There were a number of problems the residents of that neighborhood tried to deal with; there were some large homes being constructed in Garden Gate prior to 1999. . She said it was a volatile topic in the neighborhood; and hoped that the home that is constructed would be something that the neighbors and the owners would be proud of. Hopefully the homes built there now are reflective of the current RI ordinance in Cupertino which everyone has fought to try to have homes that are sensitive to the neighborhood. . Said she was pleased that there are second story setbacks on the homes now, and that the city has done a good job in coming up with larger homes with a stepped outline. . She said it was a good idea to pull back the balcony as much as possible because Garden Gate has larger lots; but even then there are neighbors who are used to a lot of privacy in their back yard because they are all one story. Les Bowers, Grenola Drive: . Said the single story homes are not going to go away in the immediate future in Garden Gate, and some considerations should apply. . He said relative to the privacy planting proposal, the issue in question is the oak tree; the branches of that tree now reach the backyard fences of the new owners and his backyard fence. Does the privacy planting subject the neighbors to trees that will extend considerably over the existing neighboring properties? . He said that if all the trees projected along the back fence grow to maturity, it will be very private, with 80 feet height. He said they did not mind because their bedroom looks 1,-5~ Cupertino Planning Commission 6 November 14,2006 immediately up to the new house balcony and they do need privacy. Bahar Mojgani, Grenola Drive: . Daughter ofMr. and Mrs. Mojgani, spoke on behalf of her parents' desire to be receptive to the neighbors' concerns about the design of their proposed home, and said they wanted the home to fit in with the neighborhood. . She said she and her mother attempted to meet with neighbors regarding their concerns but were not well received when they went to talk with some of the neighbors about their concerns. Chair Miller: . Asked staff to address the issues raised regarding the lack of sunlight and sunshine on other homes and privacy planting extending into neighboring yards. Ms. Wordell: . Relative to the tree issue, she said she did not think they had a criterion of not having trees extending over into other peoples' yards. A neighbor may comment on the neighbor's proposal, and if there is a preference for a smaller canopy tree, staff would put it into the mix and see if the property owner is agreeable. She said it was probably still on the table, although he said for privacy reasons he would prefer the larger trees. It is something that could be negotiated. . She said she did not recall any wording in the General Plan or ordinance about sunlight. Chair Miller: . Relative to the sunlight issue;' it is. not in the General Plan, but we have looked in the past at daylight planes, and I thought that our ordinance was consistent with our setbacks on the second story consistent with the concept of the daylight plane and allowing the neighbors to havesuffici:ent sunlight. .. .. Ms. Wordell: . Said the regulations are geared toward decreasing the size of the second story, increasing the size of the setbacks. In that sense it does get at the idea of allowing a greater space between the second stories of houses. Chair Miller closed the public comment portion. Com. Chien: . Said the ordinance recognizes the right to improve and build on property, and it has gone through several revisions. He said he lobbied for more rights, and it still finds a very fine balance between the right to a neighbor's privacy and the right to improve. . He said the total space was not negotiable, because the property was purchased knowing how much they could get anci they should have every right to get that amount of space. The balcony was negotiable, and you reduced that and I appreciate you doing that. I appreciate you going out to the neighbors to try to make that happen. . Said he was disappointed in the landscaping plan; previously it was deficient and appeared to have been done at the last minute and didn't provide any cones of vision. He said what was submitted in the packet was beginning to resemble a privacy plan, however was still not sufficient because it did not show the house and the cones of vision. Although someone was hired to work on it, he questioned if the hired people had read the ordinance and worked in the city before and knew how to do a privacy planting landscape plan properly. . He said he was concerned that it was brought to the Planning Commission; the process for J 5 -5l:f Cupertino Planning Commission 7 November 14, 2006 approval of a house is outlined in the ordinance. The story poles go up and people can see it and have a chance to comment on the proposal. . It is difficult for people to comment when they cannot see the plan; some of the neighbors may still not have seen the landscape plan, which is a concern that has not been addressed. Asked for others comments before moving forward. Com. Saadati: . Said Com. Chien addressed some ofthe key issues and he concurred with most ofthem. . Pointed out that the property owners also have the right to develop their property, and if they comply with the ordinance, they should have the right to build it. . He said previously they discussed many issues regarding architecture; however, their role is not to design buildings, but to make sure it complies with the ordinance. Some suggestions were made which the applicant can consider or not consider, and based on the changes made, it appears that an attempt has been made to address those. He expressed concern about the front which is visible from the street, and even though the entry feature met the intent of the ordinance and there are some other projects that are already approved with the same dimensions, the requirements are being changed. . The color scheme has been softened; relative to the backyard, he said he was not so concerned about the back yard architectural feature. He said that privacy needs to be addressed. . The balcony size has been reduced and the Director of Community Development approved the project with the reduced sized balcony. It appears the applicant is willing to put the screening on the balcony; however, the proposed landscaping plan for privacy has not been studied. .He suggested that it be the issue discussed and have the Director of Community Development review that and if it complies with the ordinance, then they have the right to haye it approved on that basis. . He concurred with Item 1 recommendation including the amendment that the l~ndscape plan . is dQne in such a way that the privacy of the neighbors is addressed. Vice Chair Giefer: . Said she felt the applicant has made some effort to satisfy the conditions that the Planning Commission was concerned about. . She said she appreciated the effort to lower that, but it was still quite large. She noted that the applicant satisfied the request made regarding the removal of the bay window since it did not fit architecturally with the front of the building, which shows effort on the applicant's part. . Relative to the color scheme, she said she was satisfied with the sample paint chip, which is a good choice of a non-reflective color; the roofing material is less bright than what was understood they were going to use. She said it would be a very large yellow building without some plant materials in the front to satisfy the concern. . Said she was disappointed that there is no change in the balcony size; and she had hoped that they would look at aligning both balconies by either pulling the master closet forward, giving square footage in the master bedroom, which would mean running the roof differently. . Expressed disappointment that the Planning Commission received a hand drawn and somewhat incomplete landscaping plan, and said she was also concerned that there is going to be a deodar cedar in front of Mr. Bowers' 50 year old redwood tree, it, potentially robbing it of its daylight. . She said the landscaping plan needs more massaging for the type of materials with consideration for what is around it because there is no view in that comer. She suggested that the redwood tree be given some room. I 5' ~~O Cupertino Planning Commission 8 November 14,2006 . The placement of the other plants and the viewing cone are good efforts; however, it still needs more work, either at the staff level or by sending it to DRC. . Said her position on the balcony hasn't changed; it is invasive for the adjacent neighbors on the next street whose lot runs along the length of the applicant's. She said she preferred the faux balcony, and did not support'the balcony as proposed, even with a lattice since it would require maintenance and one can see through the lattice. She said she supported removal of the balcony and make it a faux balcony because they are viewing the same balcony presented a month ago which no one liked. She said she did not support the proposal. Aki Honda responded to Com. Wong's questions: . Explained that balconies require minor residential permits, hence, it would go through the planning permit process. There are no meeting notices sent out with the plan showing the proposal for the balcony. The balconies do need to have a minimum 15 foot setback from the side property line, which the property owner has provided. . It also has to meet the finding that they need to provide some privacy protection as well and try to create as little privacy impact on the adjacent neighbors. It would be up to the Commission to decide how much it could be mitigated through landscaping or removing the balcony. . She said it does not address additional setbacks for the residents if a balcony is proposed. The balcony itself needs to have the minimum 15 foot setback. . She said that the applicant should provide the landscaping plan for staff review; however staff has not had adequate time to review the present plan. The process would be with the application with the minor residential permit application, with the two story residential permit, and that it be submitted together. Com. Wong: . Questioned why the application was brought forward to the Commission since it was not complete. He expressed concern about not having the full landscaping plan 48 hours j.p. advance to allow staff and the Planning Commission to review it, and suggested that the issue should be addressed in the future. Ms. Wordell: . Said it is not absolute black and white that every single thing has to be in or the applicants won't be heard; staff has attempted to be flexible enough to allow an application to go forward if enough information was present to make it significantly worthwhile to have a meeting. Staff tried to work with the applicant and asked for the information early, but proceeded although it was not available. AId Honda: . Stated that they had given the applicant a deadline, and the landscape plan was the one received from the applicant. Staff asked the property owners if they needed additional time to work on the landscape plan and they responded that they wanted to proceed with tonight's meeting. Com. Wong: . He pointed out that the area of Garden Gate has had extensive remodeling and rebuilding, but the residents had good communication about the proposed plans. He said he did not feel that good communication occurred in the present instance. . He said that whatever is decided, improved communication is needed, so that the Planning Commission is not put in the middle, and it would be ideal if two parties could communicate and try to resolve it between themselves rather than have the Planning Commission make the IS~(PI Cupertino Planning Commission 9 November 14, 2006 difficult decisions relative to color and whether or not there should be a balcony. . The applicant has made some compromises and the colors have been muted, and they are moving toward a positive direction. He noted that wood siding, brick or rocks is not in line with a Mediterranean style. If there is no agreement, the Planning Commission will have to make the decision. . He said he was also disappointed with the landscaping plan. He said that if there had been a more complete landscape plan, shared with staff since the two appellants were not available, it would have allowed more questions to be answered. . Said he was concerned about putting deodar cedars and magnolia in the back area; they are large trees, but are they compatible with the redwood tree? Regarding the landscaping plan, instead of going back to the Director of Community Development, it should go back to the DRC for review. . He said the neighborhood is in transition; three Commissioners had the opportunity to review the RI ordinance, and he felt the privacy protection plan and the notification was put in there so that neighbors could talk to each other. . The goal of the discussion is to ensure that the landscaping privacy plan is intact; he said he felt they had a better plan in the front yard that will soften the front. He said he was very conflicted about the decision regarding the balcony. . . The applicant did reduce the size of the balcony and are remaining firm on the 6 foot opening. He said with a six foot balcony, he would prefer having it be a solid material rather than open, since it would take time for the privacy protection plants to grow. The architect suggested that if the balcony was reduced to four feet, it should be a faux balcony: The Rl ordinance does provide that you can have the balcony, the only concern is that the privacy protection plan is in place to protect the neighbor's property rights and privacy protection. The other thing is to give the flexibility that the balcony is allowed in the ordinance. . He said aside from that, he would uphold the appeal with the following modifications. Chair Miller: . Said his comments were similar to other commissioners'~,::-,. . . Relative to communications, he said in his opinion the primary reason for the continuance was to give the neighbors and the applicant an opportunity to work together and reach a compromise solution, and it is disappointing that it did not occur. He said if the commissioners are asked to impose a solution, they will do so, but the solution may not be the one that either the neighbors or the applicant would have desired; therefore it is better if the neighbors and the applicant try to work together to achieve a level of consensus. . Said there are a number of issues with respect to the look and feel, the balcony, and what the applicant has made some serious efforts to address the concerns of the Commission. He said the balcony was still an issue because he felt because of the distances between the houses, the balconies were not the best idea. However, they are in the ordinance and the applicant has a right to request them. The real issue is privacy and the balcony is appropriate as long as there is a privacy plan to ensure that it is not intrusive to the neighbors. . He said they were back to the same question partly because the applicant was not able to show his privacy planting scheme before tonight, and it is not certain whether the issue has been addressed or not. He said if it was addressed, he was not opposed to the balcony because the ordinance does allow it. If it is not addressed, he said he concurred with two other Commissioners that the balcony needs to go. . He said he was satisfied with the colors; they are muted and it is not the neighbors to decide what the house color should be. . The applicant was also asked to soften the front elevation and it is not apparent that it was done. He said it amounts to what the final landscaping plan will look like and whether that /5-&'L Cupertino Planning Commission 10 November 14,2006 addresses the remaining issues that have been brought up. . A decision is needed whether to approve it at this point with staff review or with DRC review, or with the third possibility of bringing it back for the Planning Commission to look at it, which he felt was the best choice, because if there is some dissatisfaction at one of the other levels, it will come back again and people will go through this two more times instead of just one time. . He suggested that because the landscaping plan has not been seen and evaluated completely, it be brought back once more with respect to the landscaping and the balcony issue, and whether that is addressed by the landscaping, and pass on the remaining issues. Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Vice Chair Giefer, to uphold the appeal and modify the Community Development Director's decision regarding Application R-2006-08 and RM-2006-13, including the following modifications: The entire landscaping plan must be complete before it retnrns to the appropriate body; Ensure that the deodora cedar and magnolia trees do not affect Mr. Bowers' backyard relative to the redwood tree; Ensure that the privacy planting is complete regarding the cone of vision; Staff to confirm that the east and west elevations are correct; Support the 6 foot balcony but ensure that the privacy planting is sufficient; Applicant to work with staff on a material other than lattice for the balcony. Amendment by Vice Chair Giefer, second by Com. Wong: Because new information was introduced tonight and it was not avai~able for public comment in advance, the Planning Commission .looked at it, but the public did not have time to review it; it be stipulated that all the information has to be to staff so that it can be publicly available and mailed to t_h~lleigh'bors well in advance of the hearing. Clarified that if this passes and it comes back, if the neighbors are unable to work out privacy with regards.to the balcony, at that time they will still have the latitude to removethatifnecessary. Said sh.e did not want to be locked into a 6 foot balcony at this point ifthQse Qt~er issues are not satisfied. Com. Wong: . Expressed concern that agreement is needed to either support the balcony or not. If the balcony is agreed to, the applicant knows they have to talk to the neighbors, and determine a way to do the privacy protection plan complete to have the balcony. . Clarified that his proposal for the balcony was that it be an enclosed balcony, with a 5 foot high solid wall the radius of the balcony. Vice Chair Giefer: . Said she would prefer to eliminate the balcony and put in a faux French window or redesign that portion of the house and pull it forward to make it less invasive. . She said before agreeing to a 6 foot balcony, she needed to know what it would be like. If it is going to be a completely enclosed stucco wall, it is just another small room, and why would it not be included in the square footage of the house? Com. Saadati: . Reiterated that the issue was privacy; he suggested that it be brought back and if it is not addressed, the staff doesn't have to bring it back, but postpone it. He said they did not have to design the balcony, but focus on the issue of privacy. /5 -ie,3 Cupertino Planning Commission 11 November 14,2006 Com. Chien: . Said they should not be designing the balcony and get locked into anything for the balcony. Relative to the process, Com. Wong said that his motion was to uphold the appeal. Aki Honda: . Said that the Commission could uphold the appeal and modify the Director's decision; at that point the property owner would have to meet those conditions in order for them to move forward. Ms. Wordell: " Clarified that ifthe Director's approval is granted with modifications, that is the decision; but if the privacy plan is brought back, that is what would be considered either at the DRC level or Planning Commission, whoever hears it. It would be approved with that one outstanding item to review. Chair Miller: . Relative to the issue of the balcony, he questioned why the balcony couldn't be approved subject to the applicant showing a satisfactory screening and privacy for the neighbors, and allow the applicant to design the balcony or remove it. The Planning Commission would review it as part of the overall plan. Vice Chair Giefer: . She said it would only be the privacy screening that comes back to the Planning Commission, and she had a problem separating it because she felt the balcony is one of the . most intrusive parts of the privacy. It is at the heart of the privacy issue. . Chair:Miller:.'::; " -. It i-s,-so.you say- the-balcony is approved subject to a-satisfactory privacy screening plan; then .-.-~.~:: :::.~' ~.i~tRey~ don~i.sfiowus a satisfactory privacy screening plan., the balcony is no longer- approved: Vice Chair Giefer: . Asked if it would be more than just the plantings that are part of that screening plan; or just talking about them bringing back a landscape plan. Chair Miller: . Said he was referring to a privacy screening plan which is more than just a landscaping plan. Vice Chair Giefer: . Said that is the reason she was looking for clarification on it. Chair Miller: . Said he was willing to leave it open so that they have the flexibility to design whatever they want to design if they can come up with a creative idea. Ms. Wordell: . Said it appeared the only difference between the points of view is that Vice Chair Giefer wants to be explicit that the balcony can go if the privacy protection, whether it is a wall or its landscaping is sufficient or not. The difference is that the motion was that the balcony is approved, subject to an adequate privacy protection plan, so you would have to be satisfied 15"'1 Cupertino Planning Commission 12 November 14, 2006 with that plan, or you wouldn't approve it. Vice Chair Giefer: . She said normally privacy protection is addressed through landscaping, and she was looking for it to be more 'explicit and be more than landscaping in this case, perhaps by encasement ofthe balcony with solid material. Vice' Chair Giefer withdrew her second of the motion; and Com. Wong withdrew his motion. Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney: . Clarified that the item could be continued to come back with a privacy plan and allow the applicants to make a decision about the balcony. Applicant: . Said he would rather not continue the application; he would like to see the balcony issue done so that the neighbors can get together on the privacy issue. Allpellants: . Stated they were taken aback because they left the last meeting with the direction for the balcony to be significantly reduced or eliminated, and now it is the same size before it was at the first meeting. . Said they expected the Planning Commission to do what they indicated they would do the first time, to significantly reduce or eliminate the balcony, not to keep it the same. . One appellant said he was prepared to go to the City Council. If a continuance is taken, he said the balcony should not be closed. All aspects of the project should be continued as - . ~-~:=='. ~~~~_.:-_: ..--- well, in fairness to everyone invQlved.- ~ .- :~,-Y-~""~.~c.-. If the balcony ever gets approved;'tbere is going to be an appearto -the CityCounCi1;' ana delaying that is not helpful at this point. The process should move forward: Chair Miller: . Clarified that the issue for the Planning Commission is privacy. Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Saadati, to deny the appeal; with the stipulation that the landscaping privacy plan must be very complete. Com. Wong: . Said that the most important issue was communication, and he felt they were moving toward progress; but the bottom line is do they want the balcony or not. He said he was not comfortable deciding to give them the balcony, and the neighbors feel it is an invasion of their privacy. . There is a privacy protection plan that can help mitigate the concerns, but likely won't please the applicant. He suggested that the applicant consider reducing the balcony, make it solid, or remove the balcony. ' . He said the City Council will be put in the same position and he suggested that instead of putting staff in the middle, they try to improve the communication. . Said he would prefer the landscaping privacy plan to be reviewed at the Planning Commission level. IS~t?!? Cupertino Planning Commission 13 November 14, 2006 Com. Saadati, the second of the motion, concurred. (Vote: 3-2-0; Vice Chair Giefer No; Com. Chien No.) Com. Chien explained he voted no because the appeal specifically states a privacy concern, and he felt the privacy plan was insufficient. Chair Miller declared a recess. 2. TR-2006-16 Yuh Jiuan Lin 10740 Brookwell Drive Tree Removal and replacement for a deodar cedar. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Aki Honda presented the staff report: . Reviewed the application for tree removal and replacement of a deodar cedar as outlined in the attached staff report. The property owner was not aware that the deodar cedar was a protected tree. A stop work order was put on the tree removal when the city's Code Enforcement Division received a complaint that the tree was being removed. The City arborist determined that the tree was in good health; however, because of the severe pruning of the tree and removal of the branches and foliage, it was detennined that the tree was a total loss and recommended its removal. . Staff recommends that the tree be replaced with one 84-inch box deodar cedar tre.e, or two n-inch box deodar cedar trees, or three 48-inch box oak trees, or one field grown oak tree. . Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the tree removal to allow the remaining portion of the tree to be removed and also require replacement trees equivalent to the cost of the removed deodar cedar that could include one aforementioned trees. Yuh Jiuan Lin, applicant: . Said that he was concerned about safety on his rental property with the large tree. . Said that they did not know the name of the company.who cut.the tree down. Vice Chair Giefer: - -- - -. -;-,~ . Asked the applicants, other than talking to someone in property management, if they considered contacting the city prior to having the tree destroyed. Yuh Jiuan Lin: . Said he was not aware of the rules, and did not know the species of the trees in his backyard. Chair Miller opened the public hearing. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: . Recommended that persons considering removing trees contact the city, and if needed contact a licensed tree service. She said the loss of a tree that size is staggering to the city's canopy. . She reported that recently a street tree which was 10 inches across was cut down by the property owner without a permit. . She said that Cupertino has a responsibility to maintain the integrity of their trees and the city. She commended the city for their outreach in informing residents about the protected trees. . She said she hoped that there would be a successful resolution and that a protected tree would be planted. She suggested a covenant be placed on the property that there is a tree there. She said she assumed the replacement tree would be protected particularly if it is a deodar or an oak, and suggested that a rider be put on the property to that effect. /S-'00 Exhibit I CITY OF CUPERTINO ~,}3l}1J T~~:-~ _A~'W}er.~~~; C....~7~~~i~~i C~!~!I]~~i~ ~5':l~_4- DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: Appeal of R-2006-08 Agenda Date: November 14, 2006 and RM-2006-13 Appellant: John Tracy & Jessica Rose Elena Herrera ~ Subir Sengupta Property Location: 21180 Grenola Drive Application Summary: Appeal of a Residential Design Review and Minor Residential Permit to construct a new, two-story 4,219 square foot residence with two second-story rear yard decks. Recommendation: The Planning Commission has the option of making the following determinations: 1. Deny the appeal(s) and uphold the Director of Community Development's decision, or 2. Uphold the appeal(s) and deny the Director of Community Development's decision, or ~ 3. ;Upholsitheappeal(s) and modify the Director of Community Development's decision : ~ - -:-~ Background: On October 10, 2006, thePlanning Commission heard appeals by John Tracy, Jessica Rose, Elena Herrera and Subir Sengupta opposing the Residential Design Review and Minor Residential Permit to construct the proposed 4,219 square foot, two-story residence at 21180 Grenda Drive. The appellants indicated their concerns regarding privacy impacts of the proposed balconies, protection of the existing oak hee, privacy protection landscaping, and the proposed architectural design of the residence. Upon hearing the appeals and discussing the issues involved, the Commission continued (5-0) this item to the November 14, 2006 meeting and provided direction to the property owners, Homa and Mehrdad Mojgani, to address their comments and revise the plans accordingly. The Plmming Commission recommended that modifications be made to the plans addressing the master bedroom balcony, the privacy protection Im1dscape plan, front yard landscaping, architectural enhancements along the front elevation, and the color scheme of the residence. . 1,~~7 Appeal ofR-2006-08 & RM-20l 13 November 14,2006 T"'"\~I':'......,..r.o~,:,....,_. Page 2 On November 2, 2006, the property owners submitted revised elevations, a landscape plan and a response sheet to the Plam1ing Commission's comments. The following is a table listing the Planning Commission's comments from the October 10th meeting ,and staff's review of the property owners' responses. Pla:hni.fi '. Commission CO:n:l:Il1ents;... ; Eliminate the master bedroom balcony and provide a faux balcony, or pull back (reduce) the balcony so that it is non- intrusive to the adjacent neighbors to the west. Lower the entry feature so that it is more symmeh-ical and in alignment with the turret on the front elevation. Remove or r~fine the second story bay window on the front elevation. ".-, Provide privacy planting on the west side of the property that is increased in height and density to provide full landscape screening from the master bedroom balcony at the time of installation. ]leyiew of Pro '-er. OWll.erslRes onses. The balcony has not been removed or reduced per the COlmnissionis recommendations. Staff met with the property owners on November 7th at which time they proposed to install a 5-foot high screening around a portion of the balcony that will preclude them from viewing into the neighbor's ro ert to the west. The property owner has complied with the Plam1ing Commission's comment and has reduced the entry feature from 14 feet to 13 feet from finish rade to to of late. The property owner has complied with the Planning Commission's comment and has removed the bay window-on the front . elevation. The bay window has been replaced with three windows that are flush with the exterior wall. A revised landscape plan has been submitted and appears to include significant landscaping within the rear yard; however, the plan does not provide an accurate plot plan showing privacy protection landscaping within the 30 degree angle cone of vision from the second floor window jambs and balconies. Additionally, the plan neither indicates the size of trees and shrubs to be planted at installation, nor provides the planting distances for the trees and shrubs. IS-'8 Appeal ofR-2006-08 & RM-20'c 13 November 14, 2006 Plannin Commission Comments Restore the privacy protection landscape requirements along the east side of the prop'erty and move the proposed deodar cedar tree forward to provide privacy protection screening of the balcony for Bedroom 2. Provide front yard landscaping and/ or brick/ rock features on the front elevation. Work with staff on a final landscape plan. Identify a less bright color scheme for the residence. . Page 3 Review of Pro er OwnerRes onses The revised landscape plan includes landscaping along the east side of the property; hmvever, the proposed deodar cedar tree has not been moved to provide privacy protection screening of the balcony for Bedroom 2, Additionally, because the plan does not show the 30 degree angle cone of vision from the second story windows and balconies, it cannot be determined if the proposed landscaping will fulfill the privacy rotection re uirements. The property owner has not submitted landscaping plans for the front yard; however, they indicate that they will work with their landscaper to provide landscaping plans to soften the front of the residence. The property owners do not plan to provide any brick or rock base features on the front elevation. _ Staff-met-with the property owners on November 7th to describe an adequate :::.-.landseapeplan-foI-~privacy protection. Staff also asked that the property owners show the landscape plan to the appellants and find out if they support the landscape Ian. No color chips have been submitted by the property owners for the exterior color and roofing of the proposed residence. The property owners indicate that they have changed their proposed color scheme to a beige/ off-white exterior color. However, the have not et selected a roof color. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the following conditions of approval be added to the project, should the Plann_ing Commission consider upholding the appeal and modifying the approval of the Residential Design Review and Minor Residential Permit: /5 ~,0 9 Appeal ofR-2006-08 & RM-20l .3 November 14.2006 Page 4 1 P:,:,iC'.,.. tn i""""nrp "f hl1ilr1ina nr:'1-mit<;_ thp nnlnprtv niNnprs ,<;1,;:111 n:>vi,<;p t1,e nlans '-' .L -.L....; .... by reducing the balcony size to have a maximum depth of 4 feet and providing a minimum 5-foot high screen around the railing of the balcony to prevent any privacy impacts onto the adjacent property to the west. 2. The landscape plans shall be revised to provide immediate privacy protection at installation along the western property line. The landscape plan shall also provide the size of trees and shrubs to be planted at installation and the distance between h-ees and shrubs to be planted at installation- The landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development to determine the adequacy of privacy protection on the property. Appellants' Responses The appellants have reviewed the revised elevations, landscape plan and response sheet that the property owners submitted on November 2, 2006 and have submitted their responses (See Exhibit D) to the revised plans. The appellants stated that they do not feel the Pl~nning Commission's comments have been adequately addressed. Submitted by: Aki Honda, Senior Planner ~ I Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme~ Enclosures: Exhibit A: Property owner:cernments,,!;tnd-revised plans submitted on November 2, 2006 Exhibit B: Planning Commission meeting minutes of October 10,2006 Exhibit C: Planning Commission staff report of October 10, 2006 Exhibit D: Appellants' responses to property owners' revised plans g:jplanning/pdreportj AppealsjR-2006-08, Continued to 11-14-06.doc /5' - 70 Exhibit A C~ltt, Homa ana Menraaa, Here are the list of comments from the Planning Commission: 1. Eliminate the balcony and create a faux balcony, or significantly reduce/pull back the balcony so that it does not create privacy impacts onto adjacent properties. The side views of the balcony after the red0ction are drawn. In this design, the balcony is aligned with the edge of t]18 h011se and it is no 1')ri'~f(:::1.' :stii~'.kir!':) 1_~'1Jt.. 1hl::; )_'cilci ny :::;~_Z~ ,::il~d. J_(!\~\k .' , .l. .:.. .l (1 (-.I~)O.i:-.;. 2. Low~r the entry feature so that it is more synmetrical with the turret and the house. The entry feature has been lowered by 1 foot, even though it was already in code for 14'. This request has already been waived by the neighbor, Elena Herrera who had rai2ed it as an issue. According to cpiniGns <)f SOlTiS of the City corrunissioners , lO~dering the heir;sht (If the ~Iorch has rn2de the look of the house out of proportion. 3. Remove or refine the second story bay window on the front elevation. The secQnd story bay window has been eliminated and replaced with reg1Jlar \,.,,1indov.]. 4. Provide privacy planting along the west side property line to ..pro~i~e full privacy protection screening at installation of a balcony, "--:""lfa"':~r:;:alcony~ is::gtill proposed. ':::;'1:'.-., We are proposing completely a new privacy landscape design done by a licensed architect (JPM landscaping). The design should create full privacy protection screening. 5. Reinstate requirement to install privacy protection landscaping along the east property line. We are proposing a completely new privacy landscape design done by a licensed landscape architect (JPM landscaping). The design includes privacy protection screening along the east property line. 6. Move the proposed Deodar cedar forward about 8-10 feet from the corner of the story poles so that it is approximately 8 feet from the common property line of the fence to provide more sufficient privacy protection screening along the eastern property line. We are proposing completely new privacy landscape design done by a licensed landscape architect. The design irtcludes privacy protection screening along the east property line. 7. Work with staff to provide an acceptable privacy protection landscaping plan. Will be reviewed with staff. 1'5,'7/ 8. Tone down the color of the residence and roofing; provide a less bright color scheme. Considering that the exterior color of the appellant ',s house is also light, we will use beige/off-white exterior color similar to Herrera's instead of peach. We also make sure to select a roof color which is not odd to the nei~hborhood. However, we can not guarantee that every single neighbor would love the color, since people have different t~stes and majority are r:ounted. We should J10t forget that we are Dot 1 i '1 .Ln~; .Li:. (: (~'(':f!\r\.lnn i 21-~ 1='( L: n ~~ L J . 9. Include front yard landscaping and/or brick/rock work on the frontage of the residence to soften the frontage of the home and provide additional architectural enhancements. There will be a front landscaping to soften the frontage of the home and has been approved by our neighbor. 10. Applicant shall talk to their neighbors. vJe did talk to the appellants neiqhbors (TracJ1s & Herrera). Tracys proposed a privacy landscape design for our back yard that we agreed to. However, we decided to hire a professional landscaper architect to design a new privacy landscape. The new design should exceed the expectations. We met with Herreras. They have changed their minds. They no longer wants the height of our porch to be reduced. They also agreed to use front landscaping to soften the look of the home. Since the exterior color of their house is l.ight, they agreed with light cellar for the Bxterior of our house! We have also talked to many other neighbors, they all like what is proposed for our house and they are very much happy for this replacement. /'''72 ~ ~ J Tnlll. Accent 12.0.5'Plat DD DD Flnish. Sch~du.h:: Exteriorl 3-Coat Stucco .. OIPalamlno" (Lt. Yellow/Tan) Runt. Concrete S. TileUte. "e.sa. Grande Wend" Trim Bl Fasciaa Paln.ted Wood TJ'im SUlToun.ds .. "Nude" lWhJtc) WindowlI 8L Doors: EaglR. Vinyl Clad Ultra Windows - '''White" Ga.rage Bl Front Door.. Painted Wood.. "Antique" Deck Railing: PaintEd Articulate.d WroUjlht Iron .. ~hite" Dalcony: Slate Tile WEST (RlGHT) ELEVATION Scale 1/4" ,;; 1'- 0" - V\ \ lj EAST (LEFT) ELEVATION Scale 1/4" = 1'_ 0" .t::,... III n4;.o' Plate. [[] Tnd.l;~ Ar:.co:nt 0' P,!'". E .. ~ S " ., " Iii to to ~ ., " " ., :g .. <( ~ U ... .~ ~ to .... "I ci .. .. E . a: d '" (jj l\l .. i] ~~,~ i -I'. U ~ .a <I ~ (,j ... Q ~g ~:~ .," '-<J>Wo / .,., ~ ~ ~ ~ ..... If.) o ~ ~Q ...~ 1l!~ ~ m~ t: < ~ "0 r..> r.; " ~ ciG' g'U~~ ~ :f.1 !:;<b ... ~ ~'" ~ ~~ g.'~ III ,,<>I U 0 r:-a2t t!~ o Cl'" ~~ .!!!< o 0 >> ~ ,(11 ~6 ~ e 0 ~ " 0'" ii Z;~~C) <( I"bl '" c!\ @) Z o ftJ- ~r -< (j~> w d ~5l / ',- // o l4 ~ s :Q'1 ~ g '" m "5 ~ a ~ ,~ ~ ~.~ u. t20 l~ ~~ " j!: '@ _...~_ 0 61 ,1~iU~ (::>;;') 15 ] yo. ... '" C1 ~ ~ t!i "," ~g " 'a ~.f ~1'Ii T,..IlI. Ac.ceRt b ~ ~ 12 ,t:::... .. "I :1 m HJ ~ "''''j lI') Il :!:~ ...113.. Ill; O)~ I: <(- .~ "11 r..>!;; <Il ,I 6'" ~:I .$~ ~"l1o\ 'Ii) oJ: ~w '" II g... Q: .. 4 r..> d to..; ,l!; B"I ~~ ~(l ~a ~ ,I 56 :t 1; ~ ffJ ~ I) ~.~ <i.:i:i~ 100.0' , WEST (RIGHT) , ELEVATION ! Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0" Finish SC'Ju!:dulel Exteriorl 3-Coa.t Stucco.. "P&J&mlno" (Lt. YeUowlTan) 900ft Concrete S. TUelite.- "Calla. Grande. Blend" Trim 8l. FasciAl P~t~ Wood Trlm Surrow.ds ~ ''Nude'' (White) Wlndows Il Doon: Eadie Vinyl Clad Ultrit. Windows. .'W'kite" Garage 81. Front Door. Painted Wood. "Antique" Du:k RailinQ: Painted ArticulnJ;ed Wrour!ht Iron . "White" Balcony: SIa.te Til. ~ I1S.o'PllIow Trllllis A.x:....t ~ liE; o 111- ll~ i::l~ fJl> !'il d EAST (LEFT) . ELEVATION Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0" - ~~ "" , "-.1 -J." ..... .' ~-~>' y- ./ _// ,. /.....-............ '~; ./ ~ 16'.0' L.":. - .~~ ~- :=;... DecD 10'-0' . ~ . !i 5'-8' 100.0' E.G. NORTH (FRONT) ELEVATION FlnI!Jh Schedu12: E~lerjon S-COat Stucco. "Palamino" (Lt. YeOowlTan) Rool: Concrete. S- TileUte.. "Casa GrllUlde Dlend" Trim 81. Fascia:-Pa.intitd Wood Trim S."rroUlldll. "Nude" (White) Windows II Door_ E.aght VJnyl Clad Ultra. Windows. "White" Gal'a.&c Ii Front Doot'.. Painted Wood.. "Antique" Deck nailing~ PaiAted Articula.ted Wrought Iron.. "Whltell Balcony: Slate Tile Scale 1/4".= 1'- 0" ...<::)5 '" lZU . c::,. '" lllILtIoU " II 100.0' E.G. SOUTH (REAR) ELEVATION Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0" - l.1\ \ ~ ........ . ~ a " ~ S ., ~ &I ~ a ~ iil ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ j:QJt3~ d ~ ~ 0: J .. (I) III .~ 1l it '~ ....Q. 0 Ql ,18:P fC) Q, :;<1 III '::.< 1 r= ~ u" ;:, J:I $'~a. ~ '" Q $~ ~:~ Q' ~c: ~ 1\11 : j gJ '111 l:; .,., If) ,) ::!:~ : ~ ~! c ., <~ .':1" u l;; " d O'Q ~, i .g~ .g I, t"" 'm J: 2J IN ell I I g.~ ~ ~ u 0 tN' ,2; o .' ~ P, ~. d Q< ~ei~~ (,) o~ ~ d ~6 ~ ! il!l ~ ~ I) !i;~ 0( :.: ~ ~ C"U) Z ~ 0 E-t~(.: Z <( ~~> fL. ~ ~ ~.~ ,.:,.:(,l/;"'Y,-, cra~ ytle .:.~,:.. ."_.. '" _ ~'" D~~~~~erry ~- -E:;..pe mrytle ..' :d"""'-' ,__ Deoda.", Cedar ......c~"" '~ "."""'-<~ "I?'; '"j .,,- .;...,",' , , iC'''" 0,.,.,0<,'" Fen~.:;{-~;.rK l~,*'-~~~ '~"~~"~L.\' (~~>:,~':J~-'};f;~~. -,- ~-_<;:~~c:;.;;.. .:~~ ~. 7'\ ,. :>.:_ .,~; '.;/ V:>t "~:,,.';;,..K~?\Z~~\.~:'Li';:'~5!~m"'~;'L,~\~~;'\::~::if. \if.~~L'; ;- :JY;~'i.. -,. ...~-t. :~. D.C ~~" t, .': " -"~, r ~ ~ V1;~'" ~,~~-,~~., i~;D-f .It-. ;r cp}" ,'~:::-<"- r~;. . J{f,,:.--<: 1.,~ ~ijf ;(:~"~_,i!\c~.'\"'-<,<1' 0 ~J;J; ":-<:j<'~~~~~.::.~'.. ~ ':'rq~-"~~>)~~:',::~:,:~ ~ ";:-~2>;t. "I"~ . \: / ;::J '.~.' )y;i)~, t7 It-,:. ';.<t(j;r. . LJ, \.. ~ 17 y . - ...-( ~.\ [. ....:.: ~ ",..y !L! i -9t_) ~:~~,}~i j;,.I~/c~~ - ~~j, (<] ( (:( ~> 'I'" "~:".r~;~./ 11 I' (>~- \j k-} ~, FloworiRg pca. ~~~{~i~1";( EKI.t1nq oak D--7/~0 ~'-~!kJ ~ 1:": ~.~ oJ ./~.~~[j' _ .j / _ r 0./ J'~ ",,~_:., 1-, :- (J -i I" }J\ f"'--"- ~ \> ;Y'-: ,'i"J-.f . ---r--'.<?~...-> ) """-'\./--0 .~:=';-!17~..:~{ .~,:~ ~:: .. t'...r ~/ /1" \ a ~ Cherry lau.....1 ..,~;;';1: .',-/"\::' -'. ~ 7~~'" ~...'-- \,:). . .~(-"1..'" ,.' . 'J I ./ d '-' '''\ '\;.;\_"1 ,_, ,. ' \).1 -r ('. ~:> ~- ~ ;7 /\ ~\ <<:1 i::--. ~~ .....;..t. ~,,~ podoca us Hedge . -.,1 ",;.: ,~;; .= ".-L_. .\.4~:~~!<:- -"':'.;,X-, ::T:-., ;: I :j_ . ~ ~;';: '"'i~;'~:l. strawberry bu.h It','.>" ~~.t..~ r......'.. ~;.-~_. L.. "3. -<',. /f"l!'/f>'",_ .. ':. ~.>-1t:_. '-:\ \"1:~'" ~.~y-.,- ."'!..~ ....~....T.:rJ.... .:" q:??;,~::! J7 l:....":g;..~. "<{-;.:;<~5~~~/ ~~nOlia t:.1!.: ~.J. !. (.~:~ ...j..... \ "A" t...,l:'. '~"!. \ ,-., '\.. ~":I:' . .! ~~.. j"I: ~;.}1 RESID-\7.NClE .'.-1: fi'';. ~rnlo Hama ).{oj~ PwJ- <mma1a.dri:ro.J Cupertino 1)." gn3l2006 llim<n Dr Joe Andolina. Sb<<<ot 1"0(""1 \ ....." .~':":'" .....;:::. \; .~,. ..'-., . --. .,.I~ G~ s."1t~6i"lM ~ 108-:- ~.-l: ""';' ..... '4.':. "-':" '-L'" -"-".~-"'7- ~,;-~~,.__..~. i-'~i ,-" p;tto.pOMlm t:- .'.: (Black rtem) \-i:"if. ,~S.: 1:-"::'" 1 "'_I':;:-/" ,(t~{ \.;"-<r . ;.tit:~ ...._~-:;r i!t~:~~ ~4YO: ,.",,"-+-':" "'1/,. D~sign' Build. Construction CU5tom Landscape Design and Construction ttrtertoddn1I Pr4fJ. . f:lags:t:ma .. Sbtmp CottaWtt.. Stona&.1lla \\'ll:O:fC'lillb .. RetU1tn'i 1.~lb... ^tbM:& .. O\ndocr Ughtlng . BaQ"'s -=r-[rthn.m:JI; 408 -925 - 0180 wwwJpmlandscaplng.com MemberCLCA - UCENSED . BONDED-INSURED' L~#7<131197 15~70 Exhibit B Cupertino Planning Co... ~llSSlOn 10 October 10,2006 rn~T~.-n'C'C"irn" rlnr>i~'i_rl1" r;"",,?l,FJI1!oC'C" nnnorrloA J . Gary <;hao, Associate Planner, presented the staff report: . Rev~wed the application for a Use Permit to construct a new two-story 2,131 sq. ft. resid~ce with 5 foot side yard setbacks in a Planned Residential zoning district, as outlined in the st.aff report. . He revi~ed the side yard setback exception. Staff feels that the project site fits the parameters\of the RI-5 zoning district and the proposed use. permit is consistent with the intent ofthe'Rl ordinance. . G Staff recomn~p.ds that the Planning Commission approve the project according to the model resolutions. \.\ \ Richard Kimville, r~esenting Richard Haro Inc.: . Reviewed briefly th~lans prepared. He noted that there was a full basement, with a deck in the front of the hous which is adequately screened. He said it presented as an overall smaller appearing house, with the second floor set back. . He said they have worked iligently with staff and followed their recommendations. Com. Chien: .' . He al'?ked what the homeowne'is, considerations were when they chose to go below the 750 square feet allowable for second Ssry. Richard Kimville: . Said they were trying to keep the over {I project not too large, and it has been worked several times over. There was not a specific iss~ brought up about that; just working with the totals. . SaiQ h~Gould not say that it would.be fea~ble if you look atth~. way the designs layout; it is' a nice hQ~se and you are starting over totallJ\wheri you do something like that at this stage. Chair Mill~r opened the public hearing. \\ _.~:~. l Jennifer Griffin,.Rancho Rinconada resident: \\ . Commended the architect for designing an appropJjate sized home on the small lot and taking advantage of the basement. She said the house ~ld complement the neighborhood. Chair Miller closed the public hearing. Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Chien to approve Application U-2006-10, ASA-2006-18. (Vote: 5-0-0) Chair Miller declared a recess until 9 p:m. 4. R-2006-08 and RM-2006-13 Appellant John Tracy/Jessica Rose; Elena Herrera/Subir Sengupta; 21180 Grenola Dr. Appeal of a Residential Design and Minor Residential Permit to construct a new, two-story 4,219 sq. ft. residence with two second- story rear yard decks. Aki Honda, Senior Planner, presented the staff report . Reviewed the appeal of the Residential Design and Minor Residential Permit to construct a new, two-story 4,219 sq. ft. residence with two second- story rear yard decks on 21180 Grenola Drive. /5 ' 77 Cupertino Planning Co~ ,11SSlOn 11 October 10, 2006 .,.....,__ _~~_':....J__+':_1 _....__._..:+ ......_...:1 ~~_:-..... ...o.("I~.rl=~T-~......l T""oCo~~t HloCloT"Co <:l-n.-n..,...^'r~rI rl:n lllHTl1ct'11 ")()()h, ':J,.,rl ............... &.....'-'...__............_~ r--....---- ---- -------- ------------- .r------. . ~- -.-r-~ .' '......... , two appeals were filed by neighbors on September 6, 2006. The appellants' concerns were outlined in the staff report, Page 4-3, and include protection plan for the Oak tree; concerns about the impacts of the second story master bedroom balcony; the home not fitting in or complementing the neighborhood; proposed change of color of the home to prevent reflectivity into the neighborhood and privacy screening be reinstated. . Staff feels the proposed residence meets and exceeds the development standards for a two- story residence with two-story decks; the Mediterranean style home is consistent with other Mediterranean styles in the Garden Gate area; the balconies are limited in size and there are others that have been approved in the neighborhood. Staff also feels the landscaping plan addresses the privacy protection landscaping requirements. . The city arborist determined that the Oak tree can be retained on the property based upon their review of the plans shown. If the applicant follows the protection measures required per his report, staff has narrowed criteria to request the changes based on the temperature and glare effects that the Herraras and Senguptas requested and more changes were requested on the design of the house or colors based upon that. . She illustrated of the color renderings and photos of the site from various elevations and other neighboring homes. . She clarified that the Planning Commission would be the final decision maker on single family homes, unless appealed by the City Council. Jessica Rose, Appellant: . Expressed concern about the impact of the proposed home, specifically the rear balcony which would invade their existing privacy and affect the quality of life and property value. . She explained that they had recently remodeled their home, taking into consideration the potential changes to the neighborhood and the impact on their home. She said they did not consider that the home behind them might build a second floor balcony. She said that the proposed balcony was l}otjp.scale with the design and general neighborhood and would have a negative impact on therr privacy. , . . She discussed the examples used in the staffreport of homes with second story balconies and summarized the concerns outlined in their written appeal related to privacy impacts, incompatibility with the neighborhood, and landscaping screens for protection of the impacts from the balconies. Roma Mojgani, applicant: . Discussed the concerns of the neighbors relative to the oak tree; privacy; look and feel and compatibility with the neighborhood; impact on quality of life; and the value of the neighboring houses. . She said the home design meets all the development regulations for two-story homes with balconies; it is compliant with R1 ordinance for second story deck. Relative to the oak tree, in the initial plan, the oak tree was mislabeled as a sycamore tree and following an arb ori st' s determination, the oak tree will be preserved and remain on the property. . Relative to privacy impacts from the balcony; we went to our neighbor's house to talk about their concerns; we agreed that they can see our house and whoever is standing in our balcony and from our balcony if somebody wants to see their backyard, he or she can; of course if there is no privacy landscape. What we did not agree and discuss was, what details can be seen from our house? . Maintaining privacy landscape should be mutual; people can use curtains for more privacy; with many new two story houses, some big balconies and also looking at the trend of the new developments and understanding the city ordinance should help the people who renovate their older houses to set their expectations realistically. One should anticipate a possibility of /5.. 78 Cupertino Planning Co, ~llsslon 12 October 10,2006 ~....r: ::~:::-:j' ::~'_~::'~ ~~ 1:'~ ~l1~lt Tlpvt fA t~~"Y!l, ,..p~10('in~ ()lrl~r h{"\n1P:~ . She illustrated photos showing the views from the bedrooms and master bedroom. . She said that in order to address the neighbor's concerns regarding privacy screening, they have planned a maximum privacy protection landscape which meets the city's privacy protection landscape requirements, and have chosen plants from the city's privacy protection planting list. . Regarding story poles per the neighbor's request, she said they paid an extra $600 to put up the story poles to show the exact location of the balconies. Balcony setbacks are exceeding the minimum setbacks for east, west and rear sides. Regarding balcony size, it was initially designed to be 113 square feet. Although it met the two-story balcony requirement, to satisfy the neighbor, they reluctantly reduced the size significantly to almost half of the initial size , down to 60 square feet. . They considered the neighbor's windows and attempted to put almost all the second floor windows on the side of the adjacent neighbor with no window on the side. Regarding compatibility and feel and look, this is a mixed neighborhood, many two story newer homes are built next to 50 years old, single story homes, throughout Cupertino and specifically in this neighborhood. Existing newer homes under construction are Mediterranean style and some have rear balconies. Elena Herrera, Appellant: . Said she understood that there was a certain mode of operation to adhere to; the ordinance says (a), (b) and (c); within that we all agree that you have a certain responsibility to address the style, size, the look and feel within your purview as individuals. We as residents look to you to exercise your judgment and that is what we are doing tonight. . One-of the precedents that is being discussed is balconies. She said she discounted the Q.omesbuilt during the County tenure of that neighborhood, specifically because the neighborhood campaigned for annexation into the city for the types of protection' sought .., ~tonight. She illustrated two examples of projects .approved recently; one with a balcony . . -,::<'>overlooking her property and one which overlooks her back yard. , . She illustrated photos of Greenleaf which showed examples of large homes which did not fit into the neighborhood. . Showed a drawing to illustrate the importance of landscaping on the east side of the home being reinstated. . . Referring to the color renderings of the project, she said there were features of the home that did not fit in with the look and feel of the home. The bay window over the garage and the turret feature do not exist in the new buildings that are being constructed in the neighborhood. . She referred to the entry feature which exceeds 14 feet; the turret which is not in keeping with the home designs in the neighborhood and the bay window. She recommended that the fayade be softened; . She expressed concern that there were flaws in the noticing procedure. Relative to the subject property, she said that she did not receive noticing although she shares a property line with the new project behind her home on Hazelbrook. She said that the landscaping report contains many unanswered questions relating to protecting the oak tree. Com. Chien: . There was a disagreement about the species of the tree, which was later identified as an Oak tree. He asked if there was a need for the arborist to come out at that point. 15" 71 Cupertino Planning Co. .11SSlOn 13 October 10,2006 ." -'," ..........-...............,......--.. ... 1~.!. T_T ...._...l_.. . Said there was a need because it had to be detern1ined how far away the oak tree would be from the main residence and to have the arborist look at that plot plan to see if it was sufficient distance away from the proposed home. In that timeframe, the applicant's designer had the property surveyed and they d.etermined at that point that the oak tree would be 14 feet, 2 inches away. Their initial plan showed 12 foot setback but they later changed it and the arborist reviewed it and said it would be appropriate. . Relative to entry height, she said that the initial review with the applicant was that the entry height was too high, at that time over 14 feet. The entry height is from the plate height, not from the peak of that roof, but from the plate height to the floor. . Said that the applicant wanted the balconies to be functional, not just ornamental. . Said there was a diagram in the ordinance that shows how the entry feature height is measured, and it shows it to the plate height and not including the roofing over it. Vice Chair Giefer: . Said she was concerned about the ridge above the plate height; the gap between the plate height and the bottom just under the keystone. . Asked the applicant if in their discussions with the Tracys, they had considered offering to plant privacy trees or shrubs on their side of the property line as a courtesy to screen them from the new construction. Part of the alternatives brought up is that the applicant can pay for the plants and installation on their propeliy; and the neighbor would maintain it to maintain their privacy. Applicant: . Said she would plant other privacy plants if the appellant felt others were .more appropriate. AId Honda: . The reduced balcony plan was' added as part of the.approvaLplans as an addendum. They have been working with the designer to redesign the whole plan, duringthe application stage instead of revising all of the entire plans again. They submitted a revised portion for that balcony which was added as an addendum and included as part of the approved plan. The elevations do not reflect the reduced balcony as of yet, but the reduced balcony and floor plan does. . The applicant has not given a revised elevation. It will be set in more and won't project as much as shown on the elevations. Steve Piasecki: . Said that a possible option would be to ask the applicant to install a 6 foot high barrier that would direct views away from their neighbors instead of into their neighbor's back yard. . We have approved turret features; we try to get them to be less dominant, this one because it is set back is not as obvious as some are. One of the things we look for in house designs and we try to encourage applicants is symmetry and balance. There are some features here, some people have talked about this window here that seems to be out of symmetry. The entry feature' could be reduced in height. You could ask the applicant if they are willing to take a continuance; they could come back and look at putting some kind of brick or rock feature into the design of the home as well as lower this feature, and simplify another feature somehow. You could do a number of things that would lower and soften this; in addition you could look at providing a screen to the balcony and/or minimizing it further by adding landscaping, so maybe they could come back with a package thaf would address a number of the neighbors' concerns and scale the house more compatible with the neighborhood. Being compatible with the neighborhood is always a problem when you have neighborhoods that /5- 86 Cupertino Planning Co. .1lSSlOn 14 October 10,2006 :.!"~ ::: ~:.::::t:~~~ :~~: '='~~ !:?: ? tr?~t AT hrvrn~C' t~~t UTP-rP n~'."X/~"',.. hl1~lt ;n tnp 7fh~ ~T10 YXTPTP largely stucco homes and weren't as big as this home, but they were of stucco features and the homes in Garden Gate are very small in some cases, and because they are flat roofed, they do not have the appearance of this, and there is clearly a transition going on. How do you balance that; and this is a classic neighborhood with a lot of variety. Chair Miller: . Relative to the balcony, two issues in terms of intrusion are the visual intrusion and noise intrusion. He asked if staff considered that intrusion in evaluating the balcony? Aki Honda: . Said staff did not take into consideration the sound intrusion. Steve Piasecki: . Said there was no provision in the ordinance to do that. He clarified that a balcony is an appurtenance on a home; it can be well designed, it can be sensitively designed relative to the neighbors. We don't look on it as being a neighborhood character feature one way or the other; it is just another amenity that someone chooses of may chose to have in their home. Chair Miller: . Said they have focused on the visual impact of the balcony on the neighbor to the west; and asked ab()Ut the impact of the balcony on the neighbor to the east. Steve Piasecki: . Said there was much greater setback; there is an oak tree in the back yard that will provide some of that screening;-Ithink that the.. views are more limited; this is also the neighbor immediately to the east; the privacy screening is not needed. If you had a continuance, you . ~ould ask that neighbor to weigh in on the issue and ask~for more sections and details to help with that. Chair Miller opened the public hearing: Les Bowers, resident: . Said the proposed balcony looked directly into their 6 foot garden window into the master bedroom, as well as the windows up above. . The original planting was large magnolia trees and it was felt because they would take a longer time to grow, pitosporum was recommended because of its faster growth. . Said Garden Gate was built on slab foundations and the privacy issue is much greater because there is as much privacy invasion on a house on a slab foundation than there is with another kind. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: . Said that the issues that drove Garden Gate to annex into Cupertino from the County are still alive. House size is important in Garden Gate as is privacy. . People do have the right to build what they want on their property. Relative to the balconies, there is precedent in the city to look at the invasion of privacy with these types of balconies. In many areas of the city, particularly Rancho Rinconada with the small lots, balconies are not encouraged. In Garden Gate, there is a history of overly large homes, the city has done a good job in bringing the homes into line with the property. /5,,81 Cupertino Planning Co.. .1lSSlOn 15 october 10, 2006 s~:~ s~":' '\H~~ ::!':'?:~~ +h~r~ o:lr&::o CP,...r\n0 C'tr\~' C'~t'b';J~t:c Tn the r'~~p f"\-fth~ l:'?1~0~i~c~ -if~r01_~ ~rp able to bring them back, perhaps not have them rounded, have them step out two to three feet, if they must be there, but also what the previous speaker said about the slab houses in Garden Gate, Rancho is on slab also, if you bring in the new homes, they have probably a crawl space underneath them; if not a whole basement area, so that is going to put another five to six feet on the height. She suggested that the portico was too high. Chair Miller closed the public hearing. Vice Chair Giefer: . Said she felt the entry feature is too large and dominates the entry ofthe house. Said she would like it lowered, and agreed that the second story bay window seems to be out of alignment with the architecture and sticks out. . Relative to tree protection, she said she was not sure they were doing enough to protect the Oak as they have for others in the past, and was uncertain if final approval included such things as trenching, root barriers, fencing it off, posting, no storage under it, no dumping, the usual things done for Oaks. Aki Honda: . Said they were all standard conditions, and it is stated in the conditions to look at the arborist's report and all of the arborist's recommendations. Vice Chair Giefer: . Said she was sympathetic with the privacy issue since she resided on a sloped lot and in the process ofremodeling her.home, added large kitchen windows. She said she was aware that her neighbors_would hav:e a dear view into her new kitchen window, but it is a choice she made. . - Exp:c..essed,{;oncem.about cthe : privacy plantings on the east side; a'site visit showed the clearest shot it to -the east; there are screening trees already on the west side of the lot, but you can see quite extensively on the east. She said she was surprised the neighbor had waived the privacy plantings, and she suggested they be reinstated even though they were waived. . Suggested that Tree A, the deodora cedar be moved forward to the area approximately 8 or 10 feet from the comer of where the current story poles are and approximately 8 feet from the common property line fence. The reason is that off the east balcony, one would be able to see quite a far way to the east and the plantings would help those and future neighbors with their privacy. . Said she would prefer that the balcony be removed and replaced with a faux balcony, with French doors, and curve out 18 inches as an architectural feature. It would maintain the integrity of the back of the house and solve many privacy issues heard today. Balconies need to be well placed. She suggested an option of pulling that section of the house forward, moving the closet around the staircase. . He said there appeared to be confusion about the privacy plantings, and suggested bringing that portion back to the DRC to finalize the landscaping plan, or give some specific direction on where it needs to be increased, so that staff can work with them, and make it as expeditious as possible. Com. Saadati: . Said that privacy is the major issue and needs to be addressed by planting trees or modifying the balcony. As far as the front entry feature, the way it is presently designed based on the IS-82 Cupertino Planning Co. .1lSSlOn 16 October 10,2006 ~~~:'~ ~~YnP~c;':'" U;PUT c~{"\um p';n-l;pr, lrn'Xlprifi,Z it uTill r~~1.11t i" it ~~;,,~ 1\1.lt nf:-Tl\nnrt;nn . It meets the current R1 requirement; if you want to change the plate height that is something we have, but a lot of effort has been put into make in an entry feature. The intent was to lower it, but if the roof slope is one to one, then the ridge is going to be substantially higher. Perhaps in the future we need to address it to keep it lower; and depending on the width of the entry feature, then the ridge of it would be much higher. Those are the issues that we could address. . The bay window seems to be out of proportion, and could be addressed by the architect. The original balcony is out of proportion; a smaller balcony makes the plan look much nicer and would serve the function and cost less. The main issue is addressing the privacy by . either going back with the Director of Community Development or coming back to the DRe. Com. Chien: . Said he felt the privacy plan was deficient and needed to be strengthened. He said it appeared that the privacy planting was done after the fact by the property owner. He suggested that the entry height and deck be negotiated and some adjustments be made. Com. Wong: . Said he concurred with Vice Chair Giefer in most areas. The front portico is too large, and should be lowered. If it could be kept symmetrical to the height shown, it would be more compatible with the neighborhood. . The bay window is not compatible with the front; and I do not support the bay window sticking out. . The peach color is too bright and is not compatible with the neighborhood; choose another color that would be more compatible with the neighborhood. , . ,:.:.Agr.ee _with staff on softening some architectural features to help soften it to be_ I?o..re _ compatible with the neighborhood. k,.,,'_c:.:..~.> 1h;..cNice..Chair Giefer asked about the Oak tree; it is already prescriptive in the ordinance and in__.c .~.,:,~" _, the model resolution. . - . ..-.." . Relative to the elevation of the second story, said that he was concerned about the balcony sticking out. . . Referring to the second story floor plan, he said he liked the enclosed balcony vs. the balcony that stuck out too far. . Suggested that the applicant work with staff to reduce the size of the balcony; agreed with Vice Chair Giefer to either reduce the bedroom to bring back the balcony if they want to keep the 60 square foot balcony so that it won't intrude out and on both balconies. It should be a solid vs. see through wall because of the privacy protection of this pmiicular neighbor; even with the trees and shrubs planted, you can still see into the back yard. . He said he knew that it was difficult to accept a second story home in a neighborhood of mainly one-story homes. He said the Planning Commission should not make decisions about where the rooms are located, it would help to push it back a little, and make the balcony come back a little; and ensure there is a good landscape plan. e Said although the east side neighbor waived their rights, he did not feel it was unreasonable of the applicant to plant privacy protection on the second story windows facing east. They could be shrubs or trees to help mitigate the privacy intrusions. Chair Miller: . He expressed concern about the privacy impacts of the balcony, and said that it was I10t acceptable that the neighbor could see into the backyard of the neighbor. The choices would be to eliminate the balcony or in some way reduce the balcony so much that you cannot view /5-83 Cupertino Plamring Cm _11SSlOn 17 October 10,2006 th", npi~hhor'" ;,,,,rrl to tnp ""'.,d' or ",,,1< tn",t tnf'. lm,rl"r,:l~,in~ tn:lt i,,, :.>llt in ~,hr.f' nf' :l r,om:.>lf>ff' screen on day 1, not three years from now. . He said there are rights of the property owner and there are the rights of the neighbor also. The balcony is different from a window. . Concurred that some softening of the front was needed; a neighbor suggested some landscaping that was in the rendering and some landscaping would help soften the front. Said he agreed that there needs to be landscaping along the east side as well. Many issues can be mitigated with landscaping; more landscaping than normal is needed because it is a very large home. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Giefer, second by Com. Wong, to uphold the appeal with the following modifications: . Pull back the second story balcony in the master suite so that it is non- intrusive to their neighbors on the west side, or eliminate it and recommend a faux balcony in its place; . The final design details will be referred to the DRC; . The entry feature height should be lower to be more in alignment and symmetrical with the front elevation turrets; . The second story bay window be refined or removed; . The privacy planting on the west side of the building be increased in height and density to provide full screening at time of installation; . The east side privacy planting be restored specifically tree A - the deodora cedar, moved forward to not crowd the Oak and provide screening for the second story balcony on the east side into that adjacent neighbor's yard; . The landscaping and/or brick/rock features on the front elevation to soften the eleva~ion; , ." . The applicant to work with staff on a final landscaping pIaD.; . ,The applicant work with staff to identify a less hright color scheme for the neighborhood; and . The final design will come back to the DRC. . Com. Chien: . Said he would be more comfortable with the recommendations; the Planning Commission has the purview to do anything at the DRC level. He said he would rather not design the house on the fly, on the dais, and preferred that it go to the DRC to address. He proposed the amendment for acceptance. Vice Chair Giefer: . Said she was not willing to accept the amendment since she felt it was more expeditious for the applicant to know what the specifics are, so they are not spending incremental dollars trying to redesign the entire second floor, when it is one small piece that needs to be fixed. Com. Chien: . Asked the city attorney, why bind the Planning Commission to certain requirements when it is going back to the DRC, and the DRC will have the purview to make any decision. Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney: . Said it can be done either way by a motion for a specific requirement or make it a broader, specifying the things that they are not happy with, and direct the DRC to look at those things and come up with solutions. She said she could not say what the best option was. IS -8l/- Cupertino Planning Co, .11SSlOn 18 October 10,2006 ~f.a'To. 1>io:llco,..lri- "_ .. . eo,' . Said he was comfmiable with the DRC, and asked the applicant if they were agreeable to a continuance to work on the issues. Com. Chien: . Said he had confidence in the DRC and did not want it back at the Planning Commission level. Staff explained the options available to the applicant, and explained the conditions outlined in the motion made. The applicant agreed to a continuance to work with the neighbors and city staff. There was consensus that an application fee would not be charged. Withdrawal of Motion: Vice Chair Giefer withdrew the motion to uphold the appeal in favor of a continuance of the application to the November 14,2006 Planning Commission meeting. Com. Wong accepted the withdrawal of the motion. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Giefer, second by Com. Wong, to continue further discussion of Applications R-2006-08 and RM-2006-13 to the November 14, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. Com. Chien: . , We decided in the original motion to take it to- the DRC so that we could have an open forum where all parties are involved .to-discusshow we,could come to a solution. The process we are going to now is not as tram;parent, it IS going to be incumbent on the property owner to . move the process forward and we would he'bacFhere possibly with or without new' information depending on what the applicant does. My preference would be to take it to the DRC where everybody gets a full airing of the Qase. . Com. Wong: . Explained that if the application is continued, all suggestions are off the table, and the applicant will be forced to work harder and work with their neighborhood so that when they come back in 30 days, hopefully they will have a plan that all their neighbors will strongly support the project or there will be a repeat of the long discussion. He said he felt it was a win-win situation. Chair Miller: . Said he agreed with Com. Wong, the DRC is only two commissioners, and it will come back to the full Planning Commission and hopefully they will have talked to the neighbors and reached some agreement. Steve Piasecki: . We prefer when we give the applicant the option of going to DRC or coming back to the Planning Commission, of deferring to whatev~r option they prefer because there is a significant delay, and they will have to spend money and lose time. Staff would rather they be in agreement, rather than dictate one formula which may not work out, and cause more delays for the applicant. (V ote: 5-0-0) /5-85 Exhibit C CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 ",..-,." A ...........,ll. AI""'''- T'T' ...lC' '--'...1\ If1\. AfT T1\. HTVn-,:;';;n:rr .YD1UTlC'l\.TT 10 lC'1DnVT lC'nV 1\ Ii A--'..I:-l..ll..J..-.L..IL..,...A...I,v.a...~......JI,................. ....................~.A.....~.A.__..___ -~. -----~-~---..;... ---- -~-.;..... - -"----.- Application: Appeal of R-2006-08 Agenda Date: October 10, 2006 and RM-2006-13 Appellant: John Tracy & Jessica Rose . Elena Herrera & Subir Sengupta Property Location: 21180 Grenola Drive Application Summary: Appeal of a Residential Design Review and Minor Residential Permit to construct a new, two-story 4,219 square foot residence with two secOled-story rear yard decks. Recommendation: The Planning Conunission has the option of making either recommendation to the City Council: 1. Deny the appeal(s) and uphold the Director of Community Development's decision, or 2. Uphold the appeal(s) and Director of Community Development's decision, or 3. Uphold the appeal(s) and modify the Director of Community Development's detision ~. Projecf~afa<' ,..'.~~ :',~ ,'"~- - General Plan Designation: Low Density (1-5 DU / gross acre) Zoning Designation: Rl-10 Lot Area: 9,375 square feet (.21 acres) Proposed Residence . First Floor Living SF: Second Floor Living SF: Garage SF: Total Building SF: Floor Area Ratio: First Floor F AR/2.nd Floor FAR: Lot Coverage: Master Bedroom Balcony: Bedroom 2 Balcony: _ Parking: StoriesfHeight: 2,272 square feet 1,309 square feet 638 square feet 4,219 square feet. .45 .45 31% 60 square feet 53 square feet 2 enclosed/2 uncovered 2 stories /26 feet 6 inches ._.1. .' ~ I 5 -8~ f 1/\ Appeal ofR-2006c08 & RM-200r October 10,2006 Page 2 Setbacks: Front (Gl'enola Dr. side) Rear (south) East Side West Side Balconies t'lfst ~tory 20 feet 45 feet 5 feet 10 feet NfA oCLviLu. ...f':u1. 'f 33 feet 46 feet 18 feet 14 feet 6 inches 20 feet (east side) 17 feet (west side) Project Consistency with: General Plan Yes Zoning Yes Environmental Assessment: Categorically Exempt Background: In April of 2006, the applicants, Mehrdad and Homa Mojgani, applied for a two-story residential permit and minor residential permit to construct a 4,219 square foot, two- story single family residence with two-story decks on their property located at 21180 Grenola Drive. Based on concerns expressed by neighbors that an existing oak tree was to be removed on the property, staff conducted an inspection of the property and discovered that the applicants had mislabeled the existing oak tree on the property as a sycamore tree that they were proposing to remove. As a result, staff notified the applicant that oak trees are protected trees and that the application could not be . proces~ed until a tree evaluation could be conducted by the City's Arborist. A tree evaluation (See Exhibit D) was conducted by Barrie D. Coate & Associates on ,.AprIl; 27th, who identified the tree as a coast live oak in excellent condition. The City . .'" ,Aiborist aiso provided several measures to ensure protection ofi:hetree dur:~K:'~; ~"., .,' construction if the tree is to be preserved. The applicant's designer also resubmitted.a revised site plan, indicating that the oak tree was actually 14 feet 2 inches from the proposed new home, rather than the 12-foot distance as previously shown. As a result, the City Arborist stated that trenching could occur 14 feet 2 in,ches from the trunk diameter, rather than the IS-foot distance as recommended in the tree report. Due to this information, the applicants decided to retain the tree since the tree report in,dicated that it could be preserved. Further, the City Arborist stated that the pruning required to construct the new residence would result in a fairly minor canopy loss and that the tree should be able to tolerate the canopy loss if the pruning is done by a certified arborist and meets the ISA Western Chapter standards. Staff determined that the proposed residence met all development regulations for a two-story residence with two-story decks and consequently sent a letter to neighbors notifying them of the application and requesting comments by July 25th. The City received comments from the surrounding residents who expressed concern about the proposed two-story residence and asked that the story poles be installed to accurately reflect the location of the two-story decks to be constructed on the residence. Staff subsequently requested the applicant to install the story poles showing the location of IS-87 tf ,-:) Appeal ofR-2006-08 & R.M-200F ''J, October 10,2006 Page 3 the decks and extended the comment period to August 16th. A letter was sent on . .. 0-'" ...,~ ~~~/,_.' c_"._....,. ,o_L., ____"__.,-Ln ~_..-1 _,,~~~,,~r1;,"rr ...oc;riontc th",t th", hATn_c:tn,v .ti.UtJU::'L kJ, ..L..VVV, ~LUL..u...JJ.J..lO 1....L.L'- ........t"'.t".u...................L......... -.....- ~-------------o -,-------' ..' -' residential permit and rmIlor residential permit were approved on August 21 st. On September 6, 2006, the City received tvvo appeals on this project. One appeal was filed by John Tracy and Jessica Rose. The other appeal was filed by Elena Herrera and Subir Sengupta. Discussion: J olu1. Tracy and Jessica Rose, adjacent residential neighbors 'iMho reside at 10410 Arm Arbor Avenue, submitted an appeal (See Exhibit A) of the minor residential permit approving the second story balcony to the master bedroom of the proposed residence and voiced their concerns about protection of the existing oak tree on the property. The appeal letter provided the following concerns and comments: Second Story Master Bedroom Balcony The balcony will have a full view into their backyard, living room, patio, and master bedroom window affecting their privacy and quality of life. They question the compatibility of the proposed Mediterranean residence with the neighborhood and believe there are no homes with rear facing balconies in the Garden Gate neighborhood. The proposed tvvo-story home is surrounded by three single-family homes and will allow the homeowner to view into these surrounding homes. They question the proposed ,home owners~ : purpose- to construct a balcony that will view into their yard and has no ,surrounding hillside views. They propose a faux balcony in lieu of Eitrue balc6uy'.rqi.'th-einaster bedroom. They do not believe the landscaping plan~.-for' prIvacy protection will adequately mitigate privacy impacts and that the plants will not grow tall enough within three years to provide privacy mitigation. Protection Plan for the Oak Tree They question the ability of the oak tree to survive if the arborist report recommends maintaining a 15 foot distance from the tree when the' plan indicates the proposed house will be 14 feet 2 inches from the tree. There is no follow-up that the arborist has estimated the proposed canopy and root system loss with the installation of the story poles. They believe there would be a 25% root loss if the foundation of the home is , placed at 15 feet from the tree trunk and would threaten the tree's chance of survlvmg. They would like to know the impact of the privacy landscaping on the existing oak tree as they state oaks are difficult to plant around. /5,88 II :J, I(.....G/ Appeal ofR-2006-08 & RlA-200 October 10, 2006 Page 4 . An appeal (See Exhibit B) was also submitted by Elena Herrera and Subir Sengupta of 21150 Grenola Drive, who reside two houses down trom me sUbJect property. They provided the following concerns and comments: proposed Residence The size, look and style of the proposed residence neither fits nor compliments the neighborhood. They realize that there are similar homes within the Garden Gate neigbborhood to tbe proposed residence, but tha.t Heese larger hODle:" ~",rere approved when these properties were WIthin the Santa Clara County's jurisdiction. There is a proliferation of large homes within their neighborhood, and they believe it affects the quality of life in the neighborhood. They request a major design change to the proposed residence and feel the proposed turret contributes to the "massive and block-ish look and feel" of the home. The home replicates the Mediterranean style homes that are pervasive on Green Leaf Drive. The home is out of scale with the neighborhood. Balconies Only one home on Grenola has a balc~nies. They request that.the ~alc(nv.~s. ~e mb:lli;rl.al in size for the proposed residence ?lnddo not view into _~ i}.eighboring-lot. . Temperature and Glare , '.. '. . The proposed home will'i-cidiat'e' heat and glare into the n~ighborhood and will compromise their health and comfort in the ~eighborhood. g Darker tone homes with darker roof materials will provide a less intrusive roof line and provide a softening of the fac;ade of the home. Privacy Screening Although. the adjacent property to the east signed a privacy protection waiver, they request that the privacy landscaping requirements be reinstated on the east side of the property to address their concerns. Oak Tree' The existing oak tree on the property should be protected. They would like further clarification on how the tree is to be protected if the 'arborist recommends a minimum IS-foot distance between the tree and the home, and the proposed home will have a lesser setback. The arborist' s reco:mmend~tions on root exploration, story pole placement and review of utility line locations should be addressed. / '-81 tf/tf Appeal ofR-2006-08 & RM-200f '" October 10,2006 PageS Staff Response , _ ...., "I' .' 1 ] r ...-:1 The proposeci reslClence illeeLb cUi UC:Vc:Lul!iuCilL ';LU.~-lc..U.i.'''::''':; ..:'::':;: ;: :--.-.-.::; ::.::;:::; :::::::-:::::--'::, including the setbacks, lot coverage, FAR, parking and height. Additionally, it exceeds the minimum second story setbacks along the front, rear and side yards. Further, the desigrl of the residence as a Mediterranean style home with red tile roofing and stucco exterior is consistent with other Mediterranean style homes that are present within the Garden Gate neighborhood. As a result, staff approved the residential desigrl review and minor residential permit. Balconies The proposed balconies meet the requirements to allow second story balconies in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. As a result, staff approved the minor residential permit for the balconies that include requirements for privacy protection landscaping. The proposed balconies are 53 square feet (bedroom 2) and 60 square feet (master bedroom) with a 20-foot setback along the east property line and a 17-foot setback along the west property line. Additionally, the balconies have a 47-foot setback from the rear property line. These setbacks exceed the minimum setbacks of 15-feet from the side yard and 20-feet from the rear yard for two-story balconies. The appellants have stated their concerns that the balconies will create privacy impacts onto their properties and that balconies are not prevalent within the neighborhood. However; the Zoning Ordinance states: . 'IIThe goal of the pertirit is not to require complete visual protection, but to ad~ress priva-~y protection to the greatest extent while still allowing the constIuction and useufan outdoor deck." Staff believes that the applicants have addressed the privacy protection to the greatest extent with the privacy protection landscape plan and by exceeding the setback requirements. Additionally, the applicant has already reduced the master bedroom balcony to 60 square feet from their initial proposal (that also met the two-story balcony requirements) in response to their neighbor's request durin,g the review period for the application. Regarding prevalence of balconies in a neighborhood, the ordinance does not prohibit second story balconies from being proposed or approved where balconies may not be prevalent within a neighborhood. However, staff has found that there are homes on Grenola Drive, Hazelbrook and Greenleaf Drive within the Garden Gate neighborhood that do have second story, reaT yard facing balconies. Privacy Landscaping The applicant has provided a landscape privacy protection plan (See Exhibit D) that meets the privacy protection landscape requirements in accordance with the Rl ordinance with the additional condition to supplement landscaping on the west side of the property. The condition requires the applicant to plant two additional 15-gallon, minimum 6-foot high Pittosporuin shrubs along the west property line to provide the 15" -,/0 4-5 Appeal ofR-2006-08 & Rlv1.-200f October 10. 2006 Page 6 re~uired privacv protection for the second story window and the balcony of the proposed residence. The applicant is agreeable to these condItIOns. lne applicanT ni:i~ chosen landscaping that is listed on the City's privacy protection planting list. Staff finds this landscape plan sufficientto meet the intent of the ordinance requirements. Oak Tree TI,e City Arborist has provided supplemental information (See Exhibit C) to the original arborist report stating that the trenching for the proposed residence be no more than 14 feet 2 inches horn the trunk (If the oLo,k tree, as opposed to the 15 foot distance previously stated, during construction of the residence to preserve the tree. This would allow the home to be constructed per the approved plan with a 14 foot 2 inch setback from the trunk of the tree_ Additionally, the City Arborist states that the story poles have been reviewed and that the pruning required to construct the building would result in fairly minor canopy loss. The City Arborist also states that the tree should easily tolerate the canopy loss if the pruning is done by a certified arborist and the pruning me~ts the ISA Western Chapter standards. Staff also confirmed with the City Arbortst that it appears the tree can' be retained with the proposed residential development on site as long as the tree protection measures that the City Arborist recorrunends are met. A condition of approval to the applications requires that the tree protection recommendations in the arborist report be met. , Temperature and Glare The Zo!1ingQrdinance does not require a study of temperature and glare for approval-u ___().La residential design review. The proposed residence will provide a red tile roofihg~- '~'Q.dC:peach colored stucco exterior that are consistent with Mediterranean style homes -that- are found within the Garden Gate neighborhood. Therefore, staff has no criteri~'t:b-',,r:Cj,~ request the applicant to chall.ge the design, color and materials on the residence based upon the possible temperature and glare impacts a residence may create within a neighbhood. Submitted by: Aki Honda, Senior Planner . Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development :it...u~0 ~k / vu"';;---" Enclosures: Exhibit A: Appeal submitted by John Tracy and Jessica Rose Exhibit B: Appeal submitted by Elena Herrera and Subir Sengupta Exhibit C: City Arborist supplemental information Exhibit D: Approval letter with conditions of approval and Plan Set g:jplanninglpdreportj AppealsIR - 2006-08 .doc . 15 ~q 1 if~& Exhibmt A CTV 'F CUPERJINO Citv of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3223 I@I [E; fG j II Wi ~iR'i 1 U Uj SEP 6 2006 j/1)) CUPERTINO CITY CLERK APPEAL 1 ' Application No. '1.,.1_,. ,_, ....=['.., i,.,.',-'-; " ,c- ',I ". .-4 ,," I _ _ \ '!} '. C; 1,\ ')J'i,'J: r:~;'l' \- },{1-(J (:~,.. i '5 3, Appellant(s) Name: CJ. (' J,/j(, C' \ ,I /.1 (" ~ ' (rL-,J,..j;~J 'v 'JDhr,\\r-c\.cV\ 6\ '-St.SS)CG\., 'kti'S'.c u 2. Applicant(s) Name: Phone Number \ 0 L\ I. C) (=\ n t\ r=i, '00\ \-=1 v~ l\O~ LSS '. 5 r~b Address Email r Os,e..}-Y'L).. c~\ 3> E:: s buJ \J be-, \ ' Y1..J2.. ~ ~ ' 4, Please check one: , /.~peal a decision of Director of Community Development Appeal a decision of Planning Commission 5. Date of determination of Director or mailing ofnoticeofGityd.~cision: 5/23/ 0 6 6. Basis of appeal: - ,5e..e c'\. He\ c lIe (~-C- J~s 0... () e; ~)ho~(\:) p-:--J ~:HC:-\-i-'~ v>.!~l.. (.'rff?{:.z,J...J. r\..~t.. C<., f(::;')(--c,< C\ '\ u<1- t'\-~ ()" 1>00 ,_ (8;' d.u, 1-;);,,' pee ~-'c k 11--,-- rr UMj lx' \ uP" 'Ie I'\",)\" _\ [\ '.Jcl\c!lL'i, 0" c e..,';>>(;s h\, 2r pc;' -1 c\ c. 'd- hL- ~0dl 0 eel.. S 0 f~ . L'J e. C'\.\,-L, 0\ Is 0 c...c n c.U[,J\...G'....c"..t 0, Jj o"'-vvJ.t- h,..-\._ I-vLO h.\.'t(v D u..~ k ('h''-...---- ('r..z./ GJCli fj=-Xr/"'0' Signature(s) a-z.~&~~_. ~ (j Please complete form, include appeal fee of $149.00, and return to the attention of the City Clerk, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, (408) 777-3223. IS -'fZ *./7 John R. Tracy Jessica T. Rose 10410 Ann Arbor Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 408-255-5126 rosetracy3@sbcglobal.net September 6, 2006 To.: The City Of Cupertino. Planning Department This letter and submitted fee is to appeal the appraval afthe residence at 21180 Grenola Drive, Cupertino. We live next door to this property and aur appeal is based an two counts: Second StOry Master Bedroom Balcony: The existence of this balcony violates our right to privacy in aur hause and yard, affects the quality oflife we enjoy and will affect the value af aur property. Any persan using this balcony will have a full view into our main living room, patio, master bedroom ,window and entire back yard area~. Andany persan in our house ar in our backyard, will have full and unobstructed view oft:hti balCony and anyone using it. The City must , recognize that Garden.Gat~ l)~igllb9Il1Q.og.j~ rrWced with single and twa-story homes. We were part af a core group that annexed our neighborhood into the City of Cupertino six years ago primarily to have protection from the overwhelmingly large two-story homes that were thoughtless constructed araund existing single~story residences due to weak and misguided caunty ordinances. We expect the City to recagnize that an existing homeowner has the right to expect a maintained level of privacy duringdevelapment af a neighboring home. We questian how this home can be considered "campatible" with hames in the neighborhood. First, there are no homes with rear facing balcanies that we are aware of in Garden Gate. Second, the existing privacy in a neighboring praperty should nat be compromised by new construction. Do we have to accept that there will be a large and imposing Mediterranean style house next to our newly renovated "cottage/craftsman" style home? Do we have to accept that it is twice the size of our home, complete with a large and uninviting columned front door? We cannot accept the approval of a balcony that views into our hause and into our entire back yard. We look to. the City to. protect our existing pnvacy to the greatest extent. The praposed hame will be surrounded by three single-story homes. How can the rear-balconies proposed an this home be justified when it will allow the user to view down into three homes? Why is this considered a permissible and acceptable design form? It is an unnerving experience to look up from 1 5 ~ 'f3 1 ~~ r",r h<>C'lr -;T>1r0 (no f\lit nm hnllC::p. windowl to a balconv that stands that view over our property as currently depicted by the story poles. The purpose of a balcony is to provide a large window, fresh air, natural light and a place to sit and relax. We question the "view" that this balcony will provide. What is the purpose of a "view" that can only be enjoyed at the expense of the existing neighbor's privacy? It must be acknowledged that this neighborhood is not in the hills of Cupertino, but rather the flat lands. This balcony will view directly into our house, our entire backyard and into the large Heritage: Oak tree located on the Grenola propeIty. P,-Tl)? views beyond that will be include neighboring propeliies. \Ve encourage you to do a site visit and discover the "views" this balcony would have. We invited the property owner to our home to see fIrst hand our concerns and in an effort to resolve this issue with us, they suggested we put curtains on our windows and they promised to "go inside" if ever we are using our backyard for entertaining. This implicitly implies that the balcony would allow them an invasive presence on our property. Should we then go inside when they are using their balcony? And what guarantee do we have that any future resident would agree to this behavior and second, why should either of our behaviors be dependent upon each other? We proposed the property owner consider a "faux" balcony. It would include the large sliding glass door for fresh air, natural light, and lin1ited views into their backyard. The railing would be cosmetic and offer the look and feel of a balcony without the intrusive exterior 60 square foot patio sits above neighboring yards and houses. It seems logical that a landscaping plan would mitigate the impact of this balcony on our yard. Aside from what it has taken from us to get the City to require the property owner topre~ent a lan.dsc~p,iJ?g.:.plan that meets the minimal ordinance requirements for a two- '~story.h,6use;,Q:DJ~e'a~e~npts so far) we do not believe that within three years a , landscapmgplan could protect us from the impact of this balcony "to the greatest extent". Consider that the floor of the balcony sits at approximately 11 feet. To effectively screen our yard from a 6 foot person enj oying the "view" we would need approximately 17 feet of landscape screening within three years. The current requirement for landscaping along this existing 6 foot property fence is a 6 foot plant (s). Unless that plant is replacing its size annually, the protection from a landscaping screen that should protect our privacy to the greatest extent within three years, is impossible. We also question . how these plants and trees vital to our protect privacy rights will grow with the large oak tree canopy so close. Protection Plan for the Oak Tree The City of Cupertino has not followed the recommendation of their arborist to take the minimum required measures to assure survivability ofthe major 'oak tree in,the Grenola property. The referenced report discusses two key assessments for the tree. First, whether the tree can be expected to survive based on the location of the proposed structure relative to the tree location. Tbis assessment is at best inconclusive based upon a number of factors. To list a few: I S -Cf~ 2 tf--"Cl a. The arborists' recommends the closest wall be at least 15 feet from the trunk of the tree. The plan shows it being less than 14'2" (kitchen nook estimated to be 12') , b. The arborists' recommends a follow-up assessment to be made after the installation of story poles to accurately estimate the canopy and root system loss. No such follow up reports provided. c. The arborist states that the tree would not be expected to survive if the combination of the canopy and root system were reduced more the 25%. The arborist also states that if a foundation is placed at 15 feet from the tree trunk ,that it would equate to 25% loss in root mass. Therefore, any additional loss to the canopy by trimming to make room for the structure would surely threaten the tree's chance of surviving. And, the arborists' sketch of the tree relative to the house shows overlap suggesting some canopy trimming is necessary. The story poles visibly verify this overlap as well. Second, the minimum steps to be followed to protect the tree during construction. The assessment is very detailed and thorough. But, as the arborist states"... a moot point"..if the plans do not meet his previously stated minimum requirements for tree survivability based on the location of the proposed structure. We would also like the arborists report to include the impact of the proposed privacy landscaping plan on the oale Oaks are often noted as being difficult to plant around, and due to the size of this oak in the backyard, we question if the oak might hinder the ,.__ _","._ .'~' - ,- .- I'':. . '.""":::-:~7~~!-g~~ted growth of the privacy screenllig plarits and trees. ' --.........'- .- ..- 'Ids' the City of Cupertino's responsibility to ensure that the health and beauty of tbis tiee::=-~ remains intact. We have been aware for a year that the property owner intended to ' "remove" or "relocate" the tree. We also noticed it was labeled a "sycamore tree to be removed" on the house plans submitted for approval by the City. Not only is this oak tree a fantastic example of a species native to California landscape, and a reminder of the rural roots of Cupertino and the Garden Gate tract,: but it provides all of us in single~story homes who surround this two-story, 4,219 square foot home an existing landscaping feature that greatly buffers us from the visual impact of the large home to be constructed. Weare aware that the City has protected it, but we read tbis arborists report as . pre1.imIDary at best and the City has no right to consider it conclusive and worthy of approval without further follow up action with the arborist. . ,- .,.1' In closing, we are looking to the "planners" of the City to review this situation with fresh eyes and an understanding that a cookie cutter approach to home development in a community with such diverse neighborhood settings as Cupertino is not realistic. And as property values continue to climb, maintaining our home as the asset that it is, has become of utmost concern to us. Judging by the number of sympathetic comments we are receiving from the neighbors and our house visitors when viewing the story poles that loom over the back side of our property, we can safely assume that any potential property , buyer of o.ur home would be deteLTed by the impact ?fthe balcony structure. Js-q.s 3 t-J.-I () ExhmbU: 8 ![f5)lle ~ ~ -0 ~ _~~ U 111 SE? 6 2006 IlW CUPERTINO CITY CLERK II'I!! ...-:-~ _ JI:> r-1___ _ __)_~_ ..... "L..-JLLJ VA "L...- u..e..p'l".;.Il. \l..i1...lUl..V CTfY~bF . CUPEI\IINO 10300 Tonne Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3223 APPEAL 1 ApplicatIOn No 'Ji~'..li.'{')r' ' I '._ ,,' I f J \..;.. , . c: ,,', \:. .) 'J{.. (' :,"j L ~ I r.... v\ .. ," ,'I~t..0," 3. Appellant(s) Name: II J ~ ~* telL\} ~ (~ ( I, . \' . (tf \)if<, CO, 1" ,," < .~t( !LA'7U- Ii' Dr 2. Applicant(s) Narne: Address dIll C; ;-) (~ rfQJc) I jl; '1)1'1- ' -I' . . / Phone Number J t", ~l ,'>{ ,K r) r /.:::c/ L . /1 ..' ,?,- '-' " 1 Em ail ----- 4. Please check one: \/ Appeal a decision of Director of Community Development , ,Appeal a decision of Planning Commission 5. Date of determination of Director ormailing offiQti~\{;of City decision: 0'-2.] -() 0 6. Basis of appeal: S~~ ~cJ~ It/f. &0 Please complete form, include appeal fee of $-145-:\:)0, and return to the attention of the City Clerk, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, (408) 777-3223. U' d /1 / . 'b:jJ}~,,' .. r Mv ,-;~ I ' '.- Signatuie(s) I 5 -q (, t}-( l ELENA HERRERA SUBIR SENGUPTA 21150 GRENOLA. DRIVE ~T!n~nTT~n Q~n14 408.252.0504 To the City of Cupertino With this letter and fee, we are appealing the approval of the home building permit for 21180 Grenola Drive. Much of this letter is similar in content to our original e-mail expressing concern dated 02 f\ugust, 2006. Hem ',~ - B?,\conies has been added as a concern upon further review oUhe project, Item 1 - Consistent with existing I;leighborhood look and feel In the cover letter sent by the city, dated July 11 2006, the intent to approve tbe project is stated along witb the sentiment that the look and feel of the home fits in with the existing neighborhood. We take great exception to this, in that the size, look, and style neither fits in with the , neighborhood, nor can it be seen to compliment the neighborhood. Although there are homes in the neighborhood that are similar in look in feel: '" The great majority of the homes of this style were built, in this sub-set of Garden Gate, prior to the annexation of this county pocket' into the city. @ This home is much larger than the average home in this 3-4 block area. 1 Although there is a great re-building of the neighborhood, the city - as a guardian of the community - has the responsibiljty to maintain the quality of life, the integrity of the neighborhood life-style, and the values of community living. By continuing to perpetuate a trend in massive, block-like, cement structures, we instead invite a tum to solitary living within the four, huge walls. As a small example, the city ordinance "encourage porches"- directly supporting tills community living. This borne does not emulate the spirit of the ordinance. ~ These larger.how~_s covt::t:~QI:ll't!eh~fthe width of the lot, are so close to the front of the lot, and are so large that they are intrusive not only into the neighboring homes, but also have a palpable iritrusive feel into anyone walking by. To be sure, they may fit within the cunent rules for width and size, and there may be precedent, but it is our contention that the current rules are not sufficient to maintain our "quality of life" and to perpetuate this , style and size of homes will surely destroy it. Please walk the neighborhood to understand this point, including the area east of Stelling, for a stark and contrasting example of the turnover in the neighborhood rather than the preservation of it. .. The plans for this home show a turret - or a rounded "bay window" - above the entry that greatly contributes to the massive and block-ish look and feel. Again, this is a feature far more suited to a much larger lot, in a neighborhood full of much larger lots. To preserve the look and feel of our neighborhood, this would be a major design change to be sure, but had the planning department taken the guidelines to heart, this should not have been approved. .. This home replicates a style pervasive on Green Leaf Dr. (and other GG blocks) east of Stelling where older ranch homes have mostly disappeared to be replaced by the Mediterranean style. I do not object to the style, only to the fact that now the majority are of this theme, it cannot be said to be a "mix"; the neighborhood feel has completely changed over to an impersonal, blaringly bright, and hot environment. ' 1 Although we are part of the greater Garden Gate Neighborhood, when a person drives through the area it can easily be seen to have distinct parts that have their own look and feel. This is important to the reference of "Green Leaf Dr., east of Stelling having turned over to completely new 'look and feel' ". WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 06, 2006 PAGE lOF3 IS. '17 J+--/ ~ ELENA HERRERA SUBIR SENGUPTA 21150 GRENOLA DRIVE CUPERTINO, CA 95014 408.252.05U4 to Building a grandiose home does not guarantee a positive impact to the neighborhood when re-selling. Although we do not expect the city to ensure this, we do expect the city to be a guardian of the intelligent and well-though out grmvth of the community. To be sure, a very large home, completely out of scale with the neighborhood remained' on the market for months during the time of the multiple-offer, "bidding war" frenzy in the summer of2005. This particular home: is over 5,000 sq. ft., far exceeding the relative size, look, and feel of its neighbors, has C!l four-car garage, three balconies overlooking neighborhood properties, and many more amenities that are far more suitable to a neighborhood such as Linda VistalRegnart Road. Item 2: Balconies Only one home in the neighborhood has balconies, 21140 Grenola - the large out-of-scale property noted above. To use this as a precedent for further growth and developm~nt in this direction is wrong. We contend that the city was negligent in the planning process of both 21140 and 21180 Grenola, and expect the city to correct this oversight immediately by ensuring that balconies, if at all allowed, are minimal in size and are not sighted near the intersection of a neighboring lot. To place a balcony near a comer of the home, to build a balcony that can hold more than two people, and - in and of itself - to build a balcony at all says to the communitj "I wish to survey my kingdom" not "enjoy my own backyard". Standing upon such a balcony, one does not "enjoy their own yard" as is the common contention, instead one enjoys the vista beyond the home, and therefore intrudes into the neighboring yards. AgaD.l, please visit the balconies of 21140 f~r a. first-hand illustration of this oversight. , ,HetTi 3:~ T emper;j.ture(Iieat) and Glare . When purchasing our home, moving from a neighborhood even closer to Memorial Park, we "n _ ---i:'lir~ct;e~Q~1I:-'fe8':f~o:r';:t0~~NOT search on 'these' streets (east of Stelling) and illustrated to her the , hea,( glare, and nois~' factors when driving through these streets. By removing so many trees outside the protections of the ordinance, and by building larger homes on the lots, the loss of ambience and the gain of heat and glare is tangible. I (E. H.) drove my realtor through the three neighborhoods (our former, our current, and east of Stelling) to illustrate the effects by noting the temperature gauge in the car, the presence or lack of any breeze or tree-rustling, and the noise level increase or reduction as we stood outside at three different times of the day. We strongly believe that we will greatly feel the negative effects of the mass of concrete that will radiate heat into the neighborhood. As an example, we live directly across from such a home, built prior to city annexation. This home radiates so much heat and glare that the imposition is palpable, annoying, and directly compromises our health and comfort during the majority of the year, this being the temperate climate that the valley provides. With further regard to the heat and glare issues, I provide 2 examples of homes recently built that, although Mediterranean in style, are of a darker paint.tone and have a darker roof material that would a) provide a less intrusive roof line and b) provide a softer, less imposing look to the facade of such a large home. Please visit 21180 Grenola and 21 090 Hazelbrook for illustrations of this concept. PAGE20F3 WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 06, 2006 J S~ <lB +/3 ELENA HER.RERA SUBIR SENGUPTA 21150 GRENOLA DRIVE ,_ -:-_ _ -:- _ _ _ ~.' _ n c: (\ 1 _4 .... ..... - - -- - - -- -. - 408.252.0504 Item 4: Privacy Screening The privacy screening-plantings along the side nearest our home are either non-existent or insufficient. Apparently, the city holds that only the adiacent propertY owner needs to relinquish rights to the concern of privacy landscaping. We request that the privacy screening landscaping requirements be reinstated on the east side of the pr..QJ2ertv line. Item 5: Heritage Oak The beautiful heritage oak on the property needs to be protected. I have seen only a preliminary arborists report in the approval package of the project. There are many points in the report that indicate more information was needed before ajudgment on the impact to the tree could be rendered. '" The report outlines specific plans for protecting the root zone during construction that conflict with the building plans. For example, the current plans show the trunk ofthe tree being less than 15ft. from the perimeter of the foundation. TIlis 15ft. is a minimal guideline per this al"borist that, if held to, would minimally affect the tree, and is no guarantee that the tree would survive. If it is even 15 feet, how can the building of the foundation not be intrusive and damaging to the root system? 61 It is noted in the report that further root exploration be done, two methods are given, to be able to give a reasonable estimate as to the viability of the project. '" It is noted in the report that the story poles should be in place before coming to any conclusions: the story poles were not up at the time of the arborists report. _""c~.c~,-, Gl The report states that schematics/plans for utility lines and plumbing/sewer lines be , presented before coming to any conclusions. c' 'r=,~_~~~:We hold the city accountable for the well-being of this tree, a determination that may take years._ - '" . . ." to realize. So many trees have been taken down, against city ordinances and guidelines, or eYf<llC'" , outside the current guidelines, that we cannot risk a further deterioration of the treasure that this old, green, wooded neighborhood is. We fully expect to see further documentation by this arborist, and request the city apply due diligence in requiring a second arborist opinion. We base this request on having had our own arborist take a look at the site and state that he felt that plans to build a large home on that lot would be "detrimental to the health of the tree." Summary We feel that these issues are a testament to the lack of oversight of the planning department with regard to the city's own guidelines, and feel that further development along these lines follow a trend that this neighborhood can't afford. Indeed, the residents ofthis neighborhood specifically campaigned for annexation into Cupertino for the protections, guidelines, and vested interest of the city in maintaining and preserving the quality of life with regard to the neighborhood and it's eventual renewal and growth. ' We will be pursuing the matter with great interest. Thank you, Elena Herrera and Subir Sengupta 21150 Grenola Dr., Cupertino, CA 95014 PAGE30F3 WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 06, 2006 /5 -1'1 If-- f tf BARPI~ D, ~OAT~ AND ~OCIAT~ hh~b~t C Horticultural ~ultet1h; PHO~~ r4-Wl g.s3-1052 t=AX (4.0'?)-gS9-12g,? ZgSgS ~ummJt Rosd, La>: G!3tM, CA 950g9 A ~ A X TO: . k; H0\{d CL ~aJ( II; rnDM: fSartl8 D, CMtB DA'IT: PI;:: ~ r f I> (f) (:7 1'/(', '0)- () \ CL V \--- I 777~ 3333 ~~<23-6G \~UM8~R m~ PM;~ J C,C Cl ;f{='C?Jw \ e> K3r-iDSo/-670j COMMENTS: M Ir'S \cHCDUd CfL, , -- I ~ \t' t..f':. ( ~ >fO t'\1? r f ~. C( I f-f' l.Q2 1m",:;? -+ ht') VVl 0 \- vt \ <J g Cl. h <0 '-'- t 4 r e " c k f vlg f'ilH- ct --Po u.. '" J "J ,em '1 V1 eo r-- DC( k +-ye~4t- {I ' . WQ ~.\ Cl\tl~ d -k f + rA6~~~ f> . ( fir rD Ut1 i~ e f(--vul1 k wk N eJ{y, en UJ [f;?;c.;. vi IS) W f' 1\'U::f~ 1~ cA. + +CUP cui<< oJi-r--e fA. C Ct IA),OL(~rrf U C;b p"i(1'J - b e /4/ z t( ~rovU 1~ tl-f'UJ1 k() . - 'TVi ~ J ;ffp f-e <-1C(' )) 0iJ) fA,} j fA l'J f b-e 5' (t l{ If; l (' a..u-{ ~ dl1 J. :> ~ If) C(J d h f' CD W 52 (t) Q r-r2. J - [l(,('c:='f't-w,brp . . 5/0 ,--c (, 15 -100 ,I ~tS Exhibit C AkiHonda From: Ciddy Wordell Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 2:57 PM To: Aki Honda Subject: FW: email from Michael Bench -----Original Message----- , FnJdm: BARRIE D COATE [mailto:bccoate@verizon,net] Sen\!:: FridaYr September 15r 2006 12:19 PfVJ To: Ciddy Wordell. Subject: email from Michael Bench Re: Cowles Residence, 21180 Genola Drive I have looked at the story poles in relation to the large Coast Live Oak and the pruning required to construct the building would be fairly minor canopy loss and therefore I find it quite acceptable. The tree should easily tolerate the canopy loss. It would be essential that the pruning be done by a certified arborist and that the pruning meet the ISA Western Chapter standards. I find this acceptable if the pruning is done properly. '. dictated by Mick, 9/15/06 ,. -';... _":C , 9/20/2006 15--/6/ J-f--/ lr Exhibit 0 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 Telephone: (408) 777-3308 ., A .... r / A .1""\ I'"'l \ -r-r-r r;,..,,.., r; 1:[1.'/". (-riJu) III -J...Jo..J(.J COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT August 23/ 2006 Cliff Cowles PO Box 223201 Carnlel, California 93922 SUBJECT: RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW ACTION LETTER - Applications R-2006-08 and RM-2006-13: This letter confirms the decision of the Director of Community Development, given on August 21/ 2006/ approving a residential design review ror a new two-story, 4,219 square root residence, and a Minor Residential permit to allow the construction of two balconies on the new residence on property located at 21180 Grenola Drive, with the fo.11owing conditions: 1. APPROVED PROTECT This approval is based on a plan set entitled, "A New: Two-Story Residence ror Homa & Mehrdad Mojgani/" consisting of seven sheets dated March 20/ 2006/ including a site plan, first and second floor plans, elevations~ roof plan and section, and a privacy protection landscape plan andrevised:rnaster .be.0room balcony plan with reduced balconYr except as may be a~ended bycondinons in this resolution. 2. REVISED BALCONY Prior to issuance of buildingperrnit(s)/ the applicant shall reduce the size of the master bedroom balcony to a maximum six-foot depth and 60 square feet as shown in the revised master bedroom balcony plan. 3. TREE PROTECTION The applicant shall be required to maintain the existing 31-inch diameter Coast Live Oak tree on the subject property in a healthy manner in accordance with 'the tree protection recommendations outlined in the tree evaluation prepared for this property on April 27r 2006 by Michael L. Bench of Barrie D. Coate and Associates. 4. PRlV ACf PROTECTION COVENANT The property owner shall record a covenant on this property to iniorm future property OIlV11ers of the privacy protection measures and tree protection requirements consistent with the R-1 Ordinance for all windows and second story balconies with views into neighboring yards and with a sill height that is 5 Printed on Recycled Paper /$-ID2. tf~(l K-l.UUb-UiS, KM-l.UUb-l j Page 2 feet or less from the second story finished floor. The precise language will be subject to approval by the Director of Corrununity Development. Proof of , _ . ~, .. _ ,.~_'. _, 0,.. __' . _ .,_._ r-"'__________.:.L...,..... T\~.....,..,.....1~....................-.........J... I)o,.-..,:,\.,...+-,-y"c".f- reCOrQaI1UIl lllUbL UC ;::,UUHLJ.LLCU. LV I.,a\.... '-\J.i.,Li..i.,.....~....~J ~-' -.-r'":--~--- - -rc--------. prior to final occupancy of the residence. 5. PRIV AC'f PROTECTION PLAN Prior to issuance of building permit(s), the applicant shall provide a revised privacy protection landscape plan that additionally provides for a total of three (3) IS-gallon, minimum six-foot high Pittosporum non-deciduous shrubs (of a ::;pecies listed in the City's ;:J,pproved landscape mihgation measures planting list) in addition to the t\lVO (2) IS-gallon, minimul1.l. six-foot high Pittosporurn non- deciduous sbrubs along the west property line to provide the required privacy protection from the second floor window of the proposed master bedroom. The privacy protection plan shall also include two (2) deodar cedar trees along the south east side of the property, five (5) magnolia trees along the south (rear) property line, and two (2) deodar cedar trees along the south west side of the property; unless alternative privacy trees/ shrubs have been agreed upon by the property owner and adjacent neighbor(s). The revised privacy protection plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Departinent prior to issuance of building permit(s). The City Arborist has confirmed that the ~xisting Coast Live Oak tree is appropriate for screening purposes in terms of species, size and health. The Coast Live Oak tree shall be recorded on tbe :p~operty as a protected tree along with the new privacy trees and shrubs to be planted on the property. .---- --- - 6. FRONTYARDTREE A new 24-inch box tree shall be planted in the front yard to meet landscaping requirements. The type and size of tree shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Warks and Community Development Departments. 7. CONSULTATIONWITHOTHERDEPARTMENTS The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/ or agencies with regard to the proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Any misrepresentation of any submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Development Department. 8. 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 2 /5 -I D3 t+---l~ R-2006-UI5, I:Uvl-LUUb-l j Page 3 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest Wll1Un this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally 1_,-.",,~,,:,_.~,~ .L__.__ ,,....~"'....... ~h......l10T'""'l~'Y"\rT 1:"'(""'11, oy:::\r+-Tf\T)Q Uc..L.J...L,-"\.A. .L.L'-I.L..L ........................ --...~------~o---'--o - -- -' .' .' - -- '. . Please be aware that if this permit is not used within one year, it shall expire on August 23,2007. Staff received comments from numerous neighbors expressing concerns about the project. The City received emails and letters from adjacent neighbors expressing concerns about privacy irn.pacts onto tll.eir adjacent properties due to the second .story windows and balconies and the health and retalll.ing of the existIng mature oak tree Tn response to these concerns, the applicant has reduced the size of the second story master bedroom balcony to 60 square feet and has added privacy protection landscaping. Additionally, it was brought to staff's attention by one of the adjacent property owners that the privacy protection proposed along the west property line did not sufficiently meet the City's privacy protection measures. As a result, staff has added a condition of approval that requires that additional privacy protection shrubs be planted to satisfy this requirement. Staff also received comments from other property owners within the neighborhood expressing concerns about the project. These include concerns about the massing and size of the proposed residenceJ compatibility with the neighborhood, privacy protection and preservation of the oak tr.ee. -Additionally, a concern was raised about the color of the proposed residence and_thearnount of heat that could be radiated due to the proposed color scheme. Upo~ review of these coinmentS and concerns, staff has determined that the proposed- project is ill compliance with the development standards for ,the Rl-7.5 zoning distriCt'in which the property is located, and that the Mediterranean style and color of the home are consistent with other homes within the neighborhood. Further, the applicant 'will be required to revise the privacy protection plan to comply' with the City's privacy protection requirements. The existing Coast Live Oak tree will also be pr'eserved in conjunction with these applications and conditions of approval are required to ensure the protection of this tree. Regarding the color of the home, the proposed color scheme is in character with other , Mediterranean style homes within the neighborhood and the proposed architectural style of the home. The City currently has no requirements to 'prohibit certain color schemes due to the possibility that certain colors may reflect heat/light within the neighborhood. Therefore, staff is not recommending a change in the proposed color scheme. Staff has ffi<;l.de all the findings that are required for approval of a Minor Residential Permit as required by the of Cupertino's Municipal Code, Chapter 19.28.090 (B) and 19.28.100 (D). 3 /'5-/0c.; ~-Lq R-2006-08, RM-2006-13 Page 4 Please note that an appeal of this decision can be made within 14 ca.lendar days from the date of this letter. If this happens, you will be notified of a public hearing, wbich will be scheduled before the Planning Commission. Sincerely, /) . / j' [&h. \~1iUIJALL{f~ Aki Honda Senior Planner City of Cupertino . Enclosures: Approved Plan Set Tree Evaluation by the City Arborist Cc: Hom.a & Mehrdad Mojgani, 22370 Palm Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 . Jessica Rose & John Tracy, 10410 Ann Arbor Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95D14 Lester Bowers, 21181 Hazelbrook Court, Cupertino, CA 95014 Elena Herrera & Subir Sengupta, 21150 Grenola Drive, Cupertino, CA 95014 'Tibor Polgar, 10373 Ann Arbor Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 Kathy & Bo~ F3ei'ger, 10439 Ann Arbor Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 -Lee XUI2116~Grenola Drive, Cupertino, CA 95014 - '--,_.. 'G:\Planning\Minor Residential\Rl Approvals \ R-2006-08 Actionletter.doc 4 /5.../05 *-:J D 411 '~(]I" -::. Old' Ba,lCpny '. .l: i:" .. llil'~6" - I. 3'~2" ['> 1I6'~6" , _/__- ___ '.. :, ,:i' ~, '. /- _ _ ' ",', ,$- LC LI ' ..../ '" --,,' .....--1';,010'''1 =' L ,:, ~~ ,,9""["'-- X' ----- " _~ . I IT-M lG . .. ..L. ': .." v r'<>. Clo,.d " ," '.~", .Y.' ,"'" " ,:,:1' . J:', ';'./L;L i. ~< ,,", "",'oooy '. ~ T,1J~ \.1"1.. I . I . I ' " L . ".L:.l..,i,J: HIlL ,- I'l.- lr... 0'" y h''' ',b>-., Raillng~ AA .,,,., I &, .' '. :1. J:,".. r II ~.n .. ",' - .,' ~Jd.-.-I/TT .L~ ...1 ,.LI,T..' .',.' It .3' f'. . . ,-' ". . .I .L I. -."',, ...I' h - ,. "L,_,.,J,,~ i \ ~I::;)l ~ ' ,;'~:~;1: 'O~~~;hn,~;;'(T;:::;.~ -~: ~'..\ -'\j' i~~ ~ ~~t~r ,~ ))[MJI Suite ~ ~~~, ^ I f~."''':''';'''':''''.!<:'7' ~!y ~ ,.~:....::.:t,:::-;::"':'{.'::::: ~.Y ~ 213782 J.~~~: ~:~er)~ sc ...-:; I . ,K J .;~ ,,\.5~' ] ~ ~~. .-"':: "'; ....&1 -r\;r ] .J'rj a' 9' l ){'l:1 r Ii I\' 1 2878' 1/ 1 ~~ ~~ ,- ~ I,. ~:. '1 H' ',- ~ ,.... - -\i.T,,;.,p)'1l0 11. I F.F ....-'Ii::-\\ I I Tl! I H:<:I1i.n PI a~1 \1-...1, ..L..ll 17 71 i:-li , to .... Master Bedroom. :l.5'~6" -y r=Ff - TI .- .. .. I D ,::r T I -r ..L II ,- T 0 1.- .. , ..... .... I L I I I L.L III '1l' I ='~2878 sc 9'~6 ~ A h-I-. .L.L T 11' I I , II --r- T --r--+ To T T T I' I 17 I II I I 1 -r ...:I' rNI -r l' I -r i", s\' v_.eJ-v.cecA. --\--CJ . lot:' st. CD I it) -'.- 5'..0" V SEe ION "I! I v' c: c:.Q- o 1XS co 1d .0 0 _~ Ci..""'@ ~ ~ _ .>:::l ~ CL~ 0 ~ ~ 0... -..... :L-- .. '-' '" <1C::2: CL c ~ cr: tOr:: ~ g 3 , ..9 (~ Q.-:t , \r\ - (f:, ({< ~ , . ~ '" t ; . t 1 , " t f!'J';f:r~'~~r~ '::~:-~'~rt,~f'!;, j t I ,.. r- 'l'~~..... .,t~ 1\ "-,,. '\ / 1..",) I '-.~ ' lr-'~'X'<" "/../ . )// /~\ 111.....' Y:l,'d><' ../ I' . '\.. "C", , .. ,'r' . . Se~b.,dt f "~~ ,.,. '. \rc/'3i ;S<' -'" -..> C- : '1\ '!~._c:l""" ---:~.':~: "--'-=l:~i:;-c/' .,-" U lj1 ;pt 2MfJfFN ('Y '. . ".}-.- --. n /'1 'i .. ,', '-" /(, I ' ' j' ,,"'~1 i / l ' ,0 \' '.! .,' ." -: \" " J l ~~I..I" :."..__ ';,.,11 ;: ,~, r" (.J / . . , " ' ~ I: ":'. / _/:c:. (:~'- \ "\ ~.~' ~'---"'~,../'::t:. j' "'.,.,,': ,1.._._,_.__-gbJL~\,QQt----- ,.. ",.,"l;:~ .... ,,'; /' :,-,1';""""', "'nc \ "'l r, ,:.,J; if' \ \ ""j " h"!,,,,,,.:", I o't(~6-40 M"J ~ : ..,. ,;~'. \1 f....--.'lt..-...,',.,d ;10 .' .l/ , <' "',---- ," . 'j T " ti . I .,' ,:7, .. ,.~.; ,-' "'" .. .:- i 1 'j -f",d' ~ --- ~- ' ~.,,_..,(\ '" '~ -~--- l -----~:~~;~ls Ii',.. \,. j ;! Znd ,;3tory \ 10 I' ' ..'" - ),1.00-\)'11 ,Ded, ,10 I ~_ ! ~ "-!.' / . 7.,.... / .>.., /-:'::',<::: ::::,.:.' ~. . ~\ ~;.~1;]::1' ~ 3~:.lJ:~:: i \ f' r H'.'" , ,~>-:" -' .. .. ;r'~~' ,,!=2hk!.1 ': ~.__.,.,l..,~,..-'11.,~ ,\ i 0 \ ~"'.:','- ,'....:"..,' '.'. ,.-' -.L~-LUj:_:_7:::::~l~.J"/ ,/ / ./ .,' .... U>,L 'i \ ;2- i ,'" !, , . . ..." ,,:!,>f~' , ,,>: r, / -' r / --- " i' if." ! /,'/ '/1.......-/ ;i~~m1.//".......)..//'./',///".!"~.J i~.. ~ W ,.A .' .../.......'~/;.';_ ./' ~.r /. /". ,0'" / ,/ ;--;.,.".ui I- '. ./ /,.,'.'c.;.,... ~-;: -J,),'TI'/' ..' .., / ___ / // ,....... ,/ /.i.;.....i~ 14'-6" ~;, ~\" g 1;{:~'~' {~j~>'~1:1~d/~;~:{ >'<:J '<~J:q~~/ /4;2iif &J[// /><)~ r::pnl~ ~-~,,' ~ 'b _ 0 . ~....h. ~ A/.' .,~'\1>>~ e:/ ./ " ,,- r4:-, & .l'./ J/./ F'} '2 fZ 1 :::n ",,;;YOU! .s!'!, ___ .-!,..lOUq,U S~ I / .' / II'W =~':.;-liO\T'(i7/ " .,' o';.,.'.j , '. 0 I'=, ~ 0 /.',.,', V/,r,'il'/-;'-'.,..{c.:," ," .IV ~"'T~f' / ,. /' "'in ,,"'~ ;':- r 0 .(.:..///....,,1,......'lii~!l.j;>i..fi'././ ..--'.,,/---././ -- i ... /" .;l"<,~ ,;U ,,,.. ,_" ~ ,I.:'J.,,;nrJ: "., ' I . <, ,,/ .' /. " ,Q.C':; T;l1 nll~C-:8'..c:.::"~ /,:' r'.. I 'c:; _:1'., .e,l:l1.,,,.;~--;--Fr.../--'---7~./.-.;7'-::'..~i: ;--,'.'-':7',.:" !...' Ii ,.1\ '- r G'-5' ,1"1lO"'~i,..:;i ",/ ~~~~"-'-"V='''~::._.../--......, ,1 If:" c~ ." '-~ . r iji:~fiTj ,c,'>:': >,,>;j~"'~'""; , ,:' 'tJ(:lt \ 'j I "t(J>'J..@T/'!f.'\"""'/:/ / ~. .!l/ / " / ..' /,,,,...:_L,,.__---'-. /, J I /,';::,J, r l~/>;'ti\~( / :~.{a~</:/,"H!:> /;1 ' ! l," 0" .' .>' L'r;'1'. '. ~ l-/.,/'./~?~ ~~:,i-6?!2~/,.///> H:-r r.' >:~d 10':~:r~.il I '1'4-! '. "." : II C' . 1./ / / 0' ,!?1Jll.OII)lG / /' / /c,; .",' c' " . .j LSidC y=", I' .\r=,:,'..:,~:i~~il ' I." f;.' I r / /' I . '. -.b-d\ ' . I \\,ii Ii V;/<>:>>>,~/>~>:>;:; >':: )h\'i\::;~)dii ! I ," L'I' "" / / / .' "\ '~"'" ." . ,', . '. , ", " __~~!I +t~lkjii%i~~~%~Jk;,ci;~~Lffi) II i I " . , .. l. j . ~.;.-'. ' I I / ..~ ~~.~....t...'~,...". ~,' ,- ci'-~"""""=--="""'~'-- on ' j 1 ; ~ <: '.:.:," i' \ r .... ~.' ." ._.~..<~~~:.~~: ~i~ ~''''.Jrf- ),,_, L_...:.. __:. . .j.l, :~~::.. ~":I: !7::.:.:..........__i___ 1 i ! .-,-' / I ".....,' , I . 1 --.\+-~ ,/~ "+i<~-,fC :.:~;~~~j~i~1;'~:~.'<: .<~~:~.'.., ".~,~f?fl, , .'>' ~- "" 1 lil: I : ..0<""0 ",,'--.'~'- .......~,~'~..... ...\.... . \ ~ "'. ,.-r"~"~\.. -~~~~~=r~:.--...'T..-:--:----~..:..._L. ) l ''''~!,j . ;'".-, '.. ,'. --1---_ i ~ Cool ete' ~ b:\ It \.~: \:~~ 1'...1 GRAVEL '....----./ --- ~I i -~re"- _..-_' r r.......",.~ . E..xls.~. '~t c::::Ss:!b~:;'/ ~ .,_"" J ll'\r.r I ;, ....... ~riVc. 'l!VI !-----~----~------- ~--.I\-~l'..l..........l --\f---~!!.';:,..... ....:.,,'" ll_..~:t" ____ J 7ii.q:'PlL ~.E-_,,_~ .~,..'~:: J 'k _~~ _oB"~"nn'nn"c . "f N90D,20'O(j"E.,,,. ..,.,~, .';0-" ~ . - . .~~~-==-.......,..<:-;=~~; ',~,t ~j 1 _.;e corne:! 205~-9S 65 \jC;/OOD FEf(~CE R Application RM App\ication fZrtt -d wfo -13 Appro!aI Date rfI::, -00 SIgnature (I jjr G " ifl,-- !Case Manager) 15 -/67 J.-t- ~~ Privacy Landscape - 21180 Grenola Dr. Cupertino Type Height Spread Planting distance max A Cedrus Deodara 80' 40' 20' B Cedrus Deodara 80' 40' , 20' C S.Magnolia 80' 40' 20' D S. Magnolia 80' 40' 20' E S.Iv1agnolia 80' 40' 20' F S. Magnolia 80' 40:' 20' G S. Magnolia 80' 40' 20' H Cedrus Deodara 80' 40' 20' I Cedrus Deodara 80' 40' 20' J Pittosporum 40' 20' 5' K Pittosporum 40' 20' 5' L Birch 20' 10' M Mary Magnolia 20' 10' pt All tv- -c: e), fV1I'v].' 74 Ii 00 'f ~ ;iVl/ n, h -e .(~ 0-1- f3 I k" ~ h.. P 1t'#'1kJ . .~ A1AS~r~s m In rG1t-i II~L hI! I,n fat ~"1h p/,q11+-e{ R Application K ~ :200b -0'6 RM Application R-t4 - /) DOC, -/3 Approval Dale . :;;2-01,. Signature !l1tet4t/l d _~ lJase Manager) 15 -108 . Lfrcl3 IS-{(;1 tf "':2'-f ,: ~- ~.. :'~-.:-:.---~'::':'-::':.;';.'._: .'. '- .;' . BARRiE Do CO -E and ASSOCiA Tl Horiicutura['::;onsultants 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, '::;A 95033 ~C'~;~.~~ ! 052 RECEIVED M,AY 1 8 Z006 EVALUATION OF TREES AT THE COWLES,PROPERTY. 21180 GRENOLA DRIVE CU1P'ERTINO' Prepared at the request of: Aki Honda City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Prepared by: Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist April 27th, 2006 Job # 04-06-088 R Ap.lp' I I.' r:atl!.On /) i~ K~~ODb -OM RM Application KM - doob ~ /:3 Approval Date 6 <23 ~D(,., , Signature ii [IX; cik.V1j~ (Case Manager) . 15...}10 tf-25 EY ALUA nON OF TREES AT TI-L.)\VLES RESIDENCE, 21180 GRENOLA DRlVE, Cill LNO 1 Table af Contents Assignment Summary Observations Methods Comments about Specific Trees Protected Trees Risks to 'hees by Proposed C(mstnJlctuon Recommendat~ons Enc!ost,u"es Page 2 Page 2 Page 2 Page 2 Page 3 Page 3 Page 3 Page 4 Page 7 R Application K ~ :::<,006 -oR RM Application , /0L1-c1oOfP-/3 Approval Date . f:,.,~:;!. 3 -oI~ Signature ill L/ 'i-"ilil ,~ , (Case Manager) ~ Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist April 2ih, 2006 IS ../1 { ~f;lL EVALUATION OF TREES AT THl. WLES RESIDENCE, 21180 GRENOLADRlVE. CUFf 10 2 A "~lg1} vn ~1fIt I was asked by Aki Honda, Planner, City of Cupertino, to evaluate the exisling trees jUCa.lC;~ al 21180 GrenolaDrive, Cupertino. The plans provided for tbis evaluation are the Construction Plans prepared by Cliff Cowles, Carmel, Sheets AI-A8, dated 2-28-06. . Summary There are 2 trees included in this inventory that may be damaged by proposed construction One tree is located on this property, and one is located on the adjacent propeliy toward the south The 2 trees are identified here and given a condition rating. Some characteristics concerning these trees are briefly described. Both Trees # 1 and 2 are protected by city regulation. It appears that Tree # 1 could be preserved, but tbis may require revisions to the plans, or relocation ofthe foot print, and mitigation procedures to be diligently implemented. A reasonably accurate estimate ofthe potential canopy loss to Tree # 1 is not possible with only the plans provided. Options are suggested. Observations There are 2 trees included in this evaluation. Tree # 1 is located on this site, and Tree # 2 is located on the neighboring property toward the south near the southwest corner of this property. The attached map shows the locations ofthese 2 trees and their approximate canopy dimensions. ~ The 2 trees are classified and given an overall condition rating as follows: Tree # 1 _ Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) in excellent condition Tree # 2 _ Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) in excellent condition The particulars ofthese 2 trees (species, trunk diameter, height, spread, and structure) are included in the attachments that follow this text. Please note on these data sheets that the health and structure of each specimen is rated on a scale of 1-5 (Excellent - Extremely poor), which provides the basis for the overall condition rating of each tree,' stated above. The condition ratings are ranked using' the following range: (1) Excellent, (2) Good, (3) Fair, (4) Poor, (5) Extremely Poor. Methods The trunk measurement ofTree# 1 has been taken using a diameter tape at 4 1!z feet above soil grade. This is referred to as DBH (Diameter at Breast Height). The diameter of Tree # 2 is Q) ~ _estimated by visual observation at a distance of about 10 feet. I stepped off the canopy spread of .15 .~ ~ Tree # 1 from north to souih and from east to west The height and canopy spread of Tree # 2 is -e ~ ro ~ ~stimated using visual references only. These trees have been added to ihe Site Plan, of which a . o..~ e; ~ leduced version is included in ihe attachments. 0- 0.. c=:::E . "'2 O--Q'~ a::. <C. c.f) 9. Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist April 2ih, 2006 15-112 Lt <J. -l L .,......- EV ALUA TION OF TREES AT THt.. ~OWLES RESIDENCE, 2] ] 80 ORENOLA DRlVE, CUP, LNO ..., .J CommenHS auvu~ Spc......ii1.-:. 'L-;:;s:; The lowest limb of Tree # 1, facing northwest and approximately 12 inches in diarrieter, has been removed. The perirneter ofthe wound had been cut with a saw, but the interior wood of this limb has broken off (photo in attachments). The removal ofthis limb appears to have reduced the screening value of this tree in the lower 6-10 feet of the canopy. However, this tree provides an effective screen, especially toward the southeast. As the proposed new residence is to be 'a two- story, Tree # 1 would immediately screen porti ons of the second story for the n ei ghb orin g residents facing south. Tree # 1 has a trunk diameter of 3 i.2 inches at 4 V2 feet above grade Its canopy spread IS approximately 55 feet north to south and east to west, but the canopy is not synometrical or equal on all sides. There is a greater quantity of canopy on the east side of the trunk than the west side, and there is a slightly greater canopy on the south side than the north side, but only by a few feet. The canopy is shown on the attached map. Protected Trees The City of Cupertino (Chapter 14.18 "finds that the preservation of specimen and heritage trees on private and public property, and the protection of all trees during construction, is necessary for the best interests of the City and ofthe citizens and the public thereof." The City "finds it is in the public interest to enact regulations controlling the care and removal of specimen and heritage trees..." A "Heritage Tree" means "any tree or grove'oftrees which, because of factors, but not limited to, its historic value, unique quality, girth, height or species, has been found by the Architectural and Site Approval Committee to have a special significance to the community.'"A , "S peClmen tree" means any of the following: Species Measurement froiTI. . Sin'gle Trunk Multi-Trunk. ~ .' Natural Grade Diameter/Circumference Diarneter /Circumferenee'. '.' :,:.. Oak trees; 4 V2 feet 10 inches (31 inches C ) 20 inches D (63 inches C) Califonlia Buckeye Big Leaf Maple; 4 V2 feet 12 inches (38 inches C ) 25 inches D (79 inches C) Deodar Cedar; Blue Atlas Cedar Both Trees # 1 and 2 are protected by City of Cupertino regulation. Risks to Trees by Proposed Construction Tbe plan proposes to remove Tree # 1, and notes on the plan that this tree is a sycamore.. The new residence is shown to be located 12 feet from the tnink. This would not be a sufficient distance to expect the survival of Tree # 1. Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Coo.sultio.g Arborist I ~ -//3 A .\ 2ih 2006 pn , , [,,-'](, J-f v.--l EVALUATION OF TREES AT THl IVLES RESIDENCE, 21180 GRENOLA DRlVE, CUFE m 4 ':;S'~if;i3,:,;::;,d ::-C:::: ~::;::;: :::~~otS> thPfP mlld hp: nn significant canoPY loss. Also, bear in mind that the recovery period for a major loss (root, canopy, or both) is 2 years. We consider 25%-30% total lOSS to be a major loss. Concerning root loss of Tree # I, there must be no trenching or excavation within 15 feet of the trunk. This distance of 15 feet would be the minimum distance and would result in approximately 20%-25% root loss at this location. In this event, the canopy loss must be minimal. Whether or not there would be minimal canopy loss, using the plan alone, is not possible to estimate. Inmy opinion, story poles for the south side of the new residence \liQuId be required to more acc1.lrate]y estimate the canopy loss, Bear iil mind that the root loss estimate is based on experience with coast live oak species and on the typical plant morphology of a large oak tree. An alternative method of estimating the potential root loss would be to excavate the soil using an air spade or a water jet spade at the location of the proposed footing. We usually consider this method to be. more accurate. An air spade or water jet spade simply removes the soil without damaging the roots. Then the trench could be inspected to estimate the root loss. Of course, there is no guarantee that this method would yield a positive result for the owner. Another important element is that the plans provided are incomplete with 'regard to Tree # 1. The plans do not show any backyard hardscape or landscaping. Nor do the plans show drainage or utilities. Without these elements provided in the plans, the potential impact to Tree # 1 cannot be fully assessed. . It does not appea.r.~hat any grading, excavation, or construction would occur adjacent to the back fence. If there is no grading or soil work in the area within 10 feet ofthe:back fence nearest Tree # 2, the potential damage to Tree # 2 would be insignificanC: .'" d.'._ .', The trees at this site would likely be at risk of damage by construction or construction procedures that are common to most construction sites. These procedures may include the dumping or the stockpiling of materi3;ls over root systems, may include the trenching across the root zones for utilities or for landscape irrigation, or may include construction traffic across the root system resulting in soil compaction and root die back. If any underground utilities are replaced or upgraded, it would be essential that the location of trenches be planned prior to construction, and those locations shown on plans, and that the trenches be located at the exact locations shown on the plans. -:-;-,"'-.,30- : Recommendations IfTree # 1 is to be preserved, both the root loss and the canopy loss must be limited as previously described. ga.> 5 -.o=! "'tt5 '-p ~o , ~=ca ~-=- 0-::> :::; go .E7oCCi~ ~=...o... '-- c:::E <::::C = 0.... ClJ' ~ .= 0--- "" 0:: ex:: <d:: Cf) ~. 1. Concerning potential canopy loss, I recommend that story poles be installed for the south side of the residence in order to more accurately assess the impact. In my opinion this must be done first. The quantity of canopy loss must not exceed 25% of the total canopy. If this cannot be achieved after evaluation, the location afthe footing, which would result in root I 5 '"I / '-/ Prepared by: M.ichael L. Beoch, Coosultiog Arborist April 27tlJ, 2006 4-'~ EV ALUA TION OF TREES AT TJ:--]}, c;OWLES RESIDENCE, 21180 GRENOLA DRlVE, CUPL ,NO 5 loss, would 'oe a mULe; 1JV~ll~. 2. With regard to potential root loss, I recommend 2 options: @ Relocate the footprint a minimum of 15 feet from the trunk of Tree # 1, or o Excavate the intended location of the footing using an air spade or a water jet spade. The exposed roots must be inspected by the city arborist. The size and quantities of roots exposed by this excavation would determine whether or not it would pe feasible to construct a standard spread footing, or a pier and on-grade beam footing. However, this \yuuld be a mute point, If tDe quantity of canopy joss \vould exceed 25~0) of the tota1 Companies that provide air-spade service include Urban Tree Serv1ce (650-321-0202) and Arborwell (888-969-8733). , '2P 'J l. '.!) C ~ C::a:>~ c .9 -o-! '-"~ o CtS, co '-..l ._~ 0 Cl as ._ _ a:>-= ('..:> - ro >-- '" :..o=: 0-:;:> .2 g> O-~C> coa f~ -....' - c: ~ '<<::C. = 0- 0)'" ..= 0--- ~ 0:: a=. .21:: en ~ Depending on the outcome of Recommendations # 1 and 2, Tree # 1 may be preserved, In this event, the following mitigation procedures typically required at most construction sites would be required. 3. I recommend that protective fencing be provided during the construction period to protect those trees that are planned to be preserved. This fencing must protect a sufficient portion of the ro9t zone to be effective. In most cases, it would be essential,to locate the fencing a minimum radius distance of 10 times the trunk diameter in all directions from the trun..k For example, a tree with a trunk diameter of 15 inches dbh (Diameter at Breast Height = 54 inches above grade) would require that protective fencing be erected 13 feet minimum from the trunk. Ifhardscape (i.e'., curbing, paving, etc,) exists inside this 13 foot radius, the , , protective fencing is usually recommencled to .b~er~cted at the edge of the hardscape feature and be located atleast 13,feet from t~~~nk,mi~lnum on all other sides. Occa.sionally it , may be essential to have a,certified arborist.IDJtke decisions about the location(s) of protective fencing at the project site. . . . . I recommend that protective fencing must: ~ Consist of chain link fencing and having a ininimum height of 6 feet. It Be mounted on steel posts driven approximately 2 feet into the soil. @ Fencing posts must be located a maximum of 10 feet on center. e Protective fencing must be installed prior to the arrival of materials, vehicles, or equipment. o Protective fencing must not be moved, even temporarily, and must remain in place until all construction is completed. . Note: In my experience, less substantial fencing is not respected by contractors. 4. Because it would not be practical to protect the root zone near the new residence v/ith protective fencing, a root buffer would be essential. A root buffer allows work to be done over the root system without significant root loss. However, this root buffer is intended to bare the weight only for workers with hand equipment, and is not intended for tractors or lift equipment. /5 -1/:5 Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist April 2ih, 2006 t-(~ <30 EVALUATION OF TREES AT THL _.JWLES RESIDENCE, 21180 GRENOLA DRJVE, CUP! .NO 6 :i 1(;L;Uiilhi(,u':: z..l-~~~ t:::.::~:-:::.: :':."~~,:\U". OJ A 6 inch layer of course wood chips @l Topped with full sheets of 1-1/1 inch plywood tied together. e The wood chips must be course (approximately % inch in diameter or larger) to be, effective (shredded redwood is not acceptable for this purpose due to its compressibility). '" The wood chips must be spread by harid over the existing soil grade to a minimum depth of 6 inches over the specific area to be protected. 'c The plyvvood must be secured to prevent slippage @ This root buffer must be installed in conjunction with protective fencing and r!Just remain in place until all construction is completed. 5. There must be no grading, trenching, or surface scraping inside the driplines of protected trees, unless specifically described in another section ofthis report. 6. Trenches for any utilities (gas, electricity, water, phone, TV cable, etc.) must be located outside the driplines of protected trees, unless approved by a certified arborist. 7. I recommend that Trees # 1 must be irrigated throughout the entire construction period . during the dry months (any month receiving less than 1 inch ofrainfall). Irrigate a miI).imurn of 10 gallons of water for each inch of trunk diameter every two weeks. A soaker hose or a drip line is preferred for this purpose. 8. I recommendthat-the'entire area inside the dripline of Trees # 1 must be mulched to the , extent ie~sib~~." .t.1ulching consists of a protective ma.~erial (wood chips, gravel) being 'spreadoverthe'r'6ot-Zorre:inside the dripline. This material must be 4 inches in depth after spreading, which 'must be done by hand. I prefer course wood chips because it is organic, and degrades naturally over time. Wood chips must be 1;4 to % inch in diameter primarily. One supplier is Reuser, Inc., 370 Santana Dr., Cloverdale, CA 95425, (707)894-4224. 9. If any old irrigation lines, drain lines, sewer lines, or any other underground features exist inside the driplines of protected trees, but would not be used, I recommend that they be cut off approximately at soil grade and left in the ground. 10: Materials must not be stored, stockpiled, dumped, or buried inside the driplines of protected . trees. 11. Excavated soil must not be piled or dumped, even temporarily, inside the driplines of protected trees. 12. Any pruning must be done by an arborist certified by the ISA (International Society bf Arboriculture) and according to ISA, Western Chapter Standards, 1998. 13. Any path ways or other hardscape inside the dri plines of pro tooted trees must be constructed completely on top of the existing soil grade without excavation. Fill soil may be added to the edge of finished hardscape for a maximum distance of approximately 2 feet from the ~ ~ 6<D~ c:: .- ~ o ........., '-'-I -.= ~ D ~=ca ~-g- __ 0-:::> =:i 0> Ci.. 0- 0 1:d ~ 0- c::::C Ci. c: ~ c::C :2 O--Q>~ 0::. a: -=::C. en Q.. IS...//(P Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Asborist April 27ili, 2006 d- ..--J., { [ .J. EV AL UA TION OF TREES AT THE COVlLES RESIDENCE, 21180 GRENOLA DRIVE, CUP ~ "u-m 7 edges to integrate the new narUSI;Cl.1-'1:; i..u i..~l':' ".;.-::-..;.;-;:: ;:-:::.-=. 14. The sprinkler irrigation must not be done within 20 feet ofthe trunk of Tree # 1. 15. Landscape irrigation trenches must be a minitI1um distance of 10 times the trunk diameter from the trunks of protected trees. 16. Landscape materials (cobbles, decorative bark, stones, fencing, etc.) must not be installed directly III contact ".\lith the bark of trees because of the risk of serious disease infection 17. The plants that are planted inside the driplines of oak trees must be of species that are compatible with the enviroruneutal and cultural requirements of oaks trees. A publicalion about plants compatible with California native oaks can be obtained from the California Oak Foundation, 1212 Broadway, Suite 810, Oakland, 94612. Respect ~" Michael L. Bench, Associate ~a;&E:~ :MLB/sh ._--, -c' . ,. ... Enclosures:'" --, -'-':'-. . A~sutnPtions. and Limiting Conditions '" ,.--:: -'-Pllof{):C''''''.'' . Map Tree Chart, - ". ... ,_......-0--;. .~, -.. ~ R Application R ,- J.cob - 09, RM Application ,2;11- /)000 -- / 3 Approval Date. (3 ... ;2 3 -Dt-, SIgnature (iJu . fin/! )jJ~ .~ (Ca--.e Managery . Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consultiflg Arborist /5-(/7 April2ih: 2006 1-f--~ ,'.,; , '"IVI\ ll,-,"VL..I \..J'" ."- .......--..- --. CONSULTING ARBORISTS BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIA ns FI J 'f"~lication K .- ;{oo!o -OR RM Application Pu - ,;;1000 ~ / :-; Approval Date . ~ -;2 3 -ob . / Signature ala -~ - ;/ (Case Manager) , v t-rLtfA...... , t \ I \ I \ I \ 1 I I I \ I I \ I I I , \ (400) 353-1052 23535 Summ~ Road Los Gal.., CA 95030 T fee numbers correspond to evaluation charts, All dimensions and tree locations are approximate. '1 l .. S; If, ;. "Y ~,~ III ~. "'l< 11 Q. 00 ~, ';J ~ C,'...,IUCl.lIVII VI 1I................... ....- -- 2-\ 180 Grena\a Drive, vupertilo Requested by: Aki Horda Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Cansu ting Arborist Date: A ril 271h, 2006 lJab # 04~,.-088 This logo is attached to a plan done by another pr,)fessional. The presence of this logo is not for the purpose of dab ning credit for the plan but merely to add horticultural or arbonculturll information to a plan repared by others, i , . .-:._- L-~-"l _----.. --1'. . ". I . . !- \ I 1 \ \ \ I I ~ ".~ ',' --.!. ~J .' ~' l> to ~. '0 ~ ~ ~ IiliI 30....0- 'o~lCIL . i '~ . \CJ) , [j) 9-1 .- Q t-j. \J\ ~1-t11~ \}J \)J I \ \ \ ---------~\'.: . ~\ 1>. ~ i? ! -\ .Ie'.-' II" ( I , ! I I I 20'-0. \1''' fl IH 2. 1 I I I I I ___J' ----------...---- : :. i: , ,\ ;, :- &. -~-\~ - - .~' \ . ~ ~.. . ~\ Sl \ c ,~ ~ L C- o 0 () () ;;t: Z 0 0) b. 3 I CD 0 OJ () I 0 0 CD ~ CD CD Cf) -0 <3 -0 CD 2 N CD 0 G) -; CD ::J Q.. OJ 0 -; <' .ct> () C -0 (j) ~, ::J 0 I I I , I I 1 I , I I \ : I I , I I I I \ , , I , , 1 , I I. , I I I 1 iN I " I' I' \. I' I' I' ,~ I I I \ I I I , , I ,. I , , I I 1 I , , 1 +t: , I I , I I I I I , , I , I , , I I , I : l; \ \ : \ \ \ ~ 1~ ~ \~ \ \ : \ ! j ! ! 6:;!l. ~ \;!l. I I : : : : : \ 03'::::0 ~ Ie \ \ \ \ : \ \ \ ~ \2- OJ:C13 : i : I : : : ::3 \6 tg iO : : : : : : : :"0 '0 0'_0:0) I I I ' I 1 1 ,CD io. 1;<;" : : \ \ \ : \ \ <: 03' \ \ : I : : :1 :~.: : ! I \ \ \ ! \ : ~ 1 \ I 1 , 1 1 ' I I I ' I 1 " I 1 1 I I I I I I I, ' ' 1 ' I , I I ' 1 ' ' I ' I ' I I I I \ I 1 I ' I I I ' I ' I I I I I I I ' ' \ I ' ' I I I ~4~~'O~'Ti~'-4-'-+~,"c+~~+=-i~' ;_"""~,o..~"~' o~~~-"'o~~~~-,,~+ I I : \ : : I :':~ :~ I I \ : \ I \ \ \ \ iCD :N DIAMETER@4-1/2FEET ---t--- ---:---- ---t--- ---:---- ---t--- ---r--- ---1--- --~\--- ---1--- ---r--- -~-O-LTi=s\(-ST-E~-------------------- ~ ___~--- ___~--- ___~--- __~--- ___~--- ___~--- ___~--- ___~--- ___~--- ___~--- _______________________________________ ro , ' 1 ' ' I 1 ' I I l>> : : : I : I : : : : ~ ___+___ ___~--- ___+___ ---t--- ---t--- ---t--- ---+--- ---~--- ---+--- ---~--- --------------------------------------- ~ I : : : : : : I \ ; ro ___~___ ___J.___ ___1___ __JL___ ___1___ ___L___ ___1___ ___L___ ___1___ ___L___ 3 1 , I ' I ' ' ' ' ' (l) : : : : : : : : \ : ~ ---~--- ---~--- ---~--- --~--- ---~--- ----~--- ---~--- ---~--- ---~--- ---~--- ~ \ : \ \ \ \ 1 '! :~ It ---~--- ---~--- ---+--- --~--- ---+--- ---~--- ---+--- ---~--- ---+--- ---~--- : : : : : 1 : : IV) lc.n I ' , ' ' I ' ' ,0 ,c.n I I I ---+--- , I , ---t--- , , , --_.&.--- , 1 : , , , ___.1._-"- ~ n' . . l.~ , --~--- , , I __1 , I , , --+ , , I .... < --T ;:::. 1 -.l 'f ~ -~-~t ~- l ~ ~~' ~~ \:l c: 6 * ~ -- C> 1:ts _____ ,:'B::S 0 0 9.>:, ~ ."_CJ_ '.-. ro -- >-<-::> ~:~ --0... 0... 0 ~l€- C!... <:C@:C="::::E '<:.C ~ i:C 0:: <:C ~ f@ ~ II CD CD U ~ OJ 01 tel II CD ~ ~ 0 0 ....... , -l. ;!l. I I , ___L___ , , 1 , ---T--- , I I ___.L___ I I 1 , I I I I , 1 I ----+---- , I , I ---,--- I , , ---.......--- , I , " , I _""_.J.-___ , I .. I , ----r--- , I , _ ___J-___ I , I I - ----+---- , , , , -- ---,--- , , 1 ___...1---- I , : , I I I I ,. ---,--- I I , ___...1-___ I , , I ----r---- , I , ___-1-___ I I 1 , I , ---~--- I I 1 1 I I 1 ---+--- I , I ---t--- , , , ___J.___ I I I , ' , ' --+--- ---1--- , 1 ---~--- ---~--- , ' I I I I _~-...t---- ---~--- , I , I , I I , , ---~--- I I I , ---r--- I , I __--L-"--- , , , T T ~-3. , I ' ---~--- ---~--- ---~--- , ' ' I I 1--3- ---~--- ~---~--- ---~--- . J I I I ' ' I u I .. ---~--- ---~--- ---~--- .J J I , I ' I I __I I I I -I 1 I I I I - r ~:...~, 'I I I. I I ---t~--~ r----t--- ---t---.. _ ---b.--- ---1--- I I I I -I. ,-- ---1--- --.1.--- .:.:A".:-": ~~~:.~- ---!--'- 1 I I I - 1-'- J I I Lc- I ---t--- --~--- ---t-~- ---~--- ---~--- I I l I I I I I I I I I 1 a I ---+--- --~--- ---.--- ---~--- ---;--- I 1 I I I 1 ' I I I I I I I I ___+___ ~--4---- ---{--- ---~--- ---i--- I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I ___J.___ __...1-.__ ---~--- ---~--- ---~--- I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I ' I 1 I I I I I I I I I ---t--- ---t--- ---~--- ~---~--- ---~--- , I I I I I I ' I I I I I I I ---~--- --~--- ---~--- ---~--- ---~--- I I , 1 I , I I I I I ' I ' I I I I I I ---T-~- ---r--- ---~--- ---r--- ---i--- I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I ___~___ __-L_~_ ___l___ __~___ ___J___ 1 I I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I r I I I I I --_..-- ~--~--- ---~--- ---~--- ---~--- 1 I ' I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I ! I 1 , , 1 .__..L---- I I I I ----r--- , 1 I ___J-___ I , I I 1 I , , , T I ' , , ___L.__ --~--- , ' , ' , I I I ---T--- ---r--- 1 ' I ' I I ---t--- ---~--- I ' , I I I , ' I I I I ___.L___ ___L.__ , ' , ' I I , I ---'T--- ---,---- , I , I I ' ---t--- ~---r--- , I 1 ' , 1 I , , ___.1___ , I I , ---~--- 1 , , ___J___ I , , 1 \ \ I I . .'. I .-' ;1--;: ~ __ 1_._ 1'- ___L..___ ___..1___ I ' .: ~; I .":"-1-- -.....-r.--- ---,--- 'I ' , I .,-:--~--- ---~-~- , ' I ' , ' ___t-___ ---""--- , I , ' , I I ' ---r--- ---,--- , I I I I I ___L...__ ___J___ , I I I I ' I ' , I , I I 1 I ' --+--- ---+--- I ' 1 I , 1 ---1---- ----&--- , I , I I ' , I ---r--- ---,--- I ' , I I ' ___L..__ ___.1--- I I , 1 I 1 I ' I ' , I ___5-0___ ___..t___ , I I I I 1 ! ' 1 I " ~--_I---- I I , , ---r---- , , I ___L___ 1 , I 1 u Q) ::J ...... ~ ;:;l ~ g~ ~o ~O ;;p.. ==1 FA cr.> o::l >- ;;:;;;l ;;;0 FA o (J o >- ==1 FA z 0) 3 CD ~tj ",t3 s~ ~ '" ~i ~~ = of; :=l~ DBH DBH --------------------------------------- DIAMETER @ 2 FEET HEIGHT ESTIMATED --------------------------------------- SPREAD ESTIMATED \-'- HEALTH (1-5) ---~--- -------------------------------------- () :N STRUCTURE (1-5) g ---~--- --------------------------------------- ~ : CONDITION RATING (2-10) C. ---~--- --------------------------------------- g \ HAZARD RATING (4-12) CROWN CLEANINGi:l ________ _ ______ ________ _ _ __ __ ___ ___ ____ -...'''t~ CROWN THINNING 5 --------------------------------------- ~ CROWN RESTORATION 12. ----------------------------------~---~,() CROWN RAISING ~ -R-EMOVE-ENO:WElGHT----------- ~. --------------------------------------- ~ CABLES NEEDED # ~ --------------------------------------- ~ (fl , ,I I ___L.___ , I I , ---r--- " : ___~-n I 1 , ---....--- I , , ---t--- , I I ___1-___ , I ! PRUNING PRIORITY (1-5) I , I I , ---~--- , I , ___l-___ , I I ,..___~-n I I I ___1-___ , , I I I I ---1---- , , I I --------------------------------------- ~??~_~~~~~_~?_'::~f3~~J~:~2_ ---- ROOT COLLAR DISEASE (1-5) NEEDS WATER(1-5) ;lJ --------------------------------------- ~ (') NEEDS FERTILIZER 0 _______________________________________ 3 RECOMMEND REMOVAL 3 --------------------------------------- ~ REMOVAL PRIORITY (1-3) 0. HERITAGE TREE? PROTECTED TREE? I , , ___.1___ 1 , I , ---.,--- , , I ___J___ I I , , , I 1 ___L.__':' , I 1 , ---,--; I , I ___L___ I , 1 , en ..... Ql ..... c: ~ IS-II'f ,I/nt <--r ::J - E\lALUA DON OF TREES AT Th -J\VLES RESIDENCE, 2\180 GRENOL'A DRIVE, em ,NO Photo of Partially Cut, Partially Broken Limb facing Northwest ;-',Sr:::.,;.,,=, ,. "<:-'\::"7 '\f~i~~ :;f , ~'~~,:,;"'''' -~..- '. -. ". . ~:...:~...~ C: -~l~~f ~!~. .'t '"'_ .m!f~jt -.'! Photo of Same Tree from Northeast - ~. - . . - -, ".- -.' ._,...:T_.....,..........._-.-:...-.~-_..---....-~--- -- ..~..,.~.'?-,-:::;'.- R ApplIcation R- d(00b -00 RM Application /2rvt ~;) D t) {p ~ / ~ Approval Date, . jf; :23 ~ 010 SIgnature [ilL{ f!Jd~ (Case Manager) = "Prf'.n:HPn nv' Mir.h~p.l T Rpnr,h I'nnC:ll1tirocr tl.rhnr;ct ^,,~:1""71b ,..,nnt:: 15 - { 2.0 l-t--3E BARRD E D, COA IE and ASSOC~A TES Hor1i cutural Consultants ?3535 SLJmmit Road Los Gatos. CA B5033 4081353-1052 ASSUMPTIONS AND UMITINGCONDiTIONS 1. Any legal description provided to the appraiser/consultant is assumed to be correct. No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character 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 i 'lfOl'lTlatioll provided by others, 3. The appraiser/consultant shall not be required to give testil'llony or to attelld court by reaSOI-1 of tQis 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 herpicide, always follow label instructions~. 1 D.No treepdescribed in this report was climbed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take .. responsibility for any defects which could only have' been discovered by climbiAQ. AfuH'Teot-," ' " ~Q!1C31jnsp~_Gtion, 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 sudi2:fh -:-? ~:: '- ~.' inspection. ,...,: . CONSULTING ARBORIST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Arbori$ts are tre.e 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. cfJ~6J.~ Barrie D. Coate I SA Certified Arborist Horticultural Consultant R Apptlcat~Gr! R ~ dVO Co - 09, RM Application R;tj ~;2 f:){)b ~ f 3 Approval Date" v "" ;23~O b Signature i j }w ~wuL/I'-' (Case Manageq. J 5 - I 2./ ~ ---3& (E) l...story SFD EX. BUILDI~~9::'o = 1. All ~twbed B~ nttaltizllt,lnlom ~ ,ball b. Bead_ aa.d molcbad ... ,..dad bdDr. wbltcr BiaS. bang pn=panut IUId ~..d tD coma! erualDn b, Bi&dfv. pl&Dtlllg INch IU Q'~ grua. bAdq ar aOBle oUaa'....t ~ .Md. 2. DriVWWQ' l'\lIloll OIl. sib b, ah_t DO'W' tg 'Ye!!ct:a:tt.... 61~ :z;.. Con~ runoll to be dizW:ted ..WIO:7 Irom etruduN. sz;Un.. 2~ .Iope tor.. mlnlrraa.d1 cd Ii Iect. RoDt Dra.Luae by ~ T1P. aD rool tbtvugh 4" .oUd PVC pipe iDta oia6llt eoacrd2 .tDrmW1U:1:r~.tn.I..&ta~ \j 4. A capr of aJl COBlpJIICtiOEL t&a1:3l ..,..d !I.D.aJ jradio.f ~part IUl&ll be Bllbsclttul to the City prior to scheduling ILII.Y inIIpcc:tioJ1$. Prior to thl!. contn.ctor n!.Il"Ptinl! . louu1a.tUl lna~OG, th.. Soil9 EngiDeu sball .dvise the r"WldiAl! omdAI ill writ:1n. tIat: 1) tbe f)uiIdinC FootD.iI dCll.Y&t:ions u.d bmldiD.g pad were. prepared iA JIICCOrdiUO= with the. Boll n:.port rw:OllUDaNla.tioDS, 2) The fcnul,daticm IontLlnt ~ .radlD.II compl1 ...Ith the. soU report .nd apprvvad pluul, and 50) the dralaA,e 5)"Stc.m 1s u.. auordaoce with the soil report. c::: a> \ 5. AU Couttlluion &! Matui..Js pet 5tructunt.l EII,meerir.g 5heets pf1;Ovidc=d by MS Entine:eriS\lt, ~ ~~ 1:ti ~b~ CA (4Q8.571.6504). ca .2 0 Q) 6. Rec:ommlUldatiQQS 1n.;!lldad ja, tbeG1!.ote.c:h.niea.l Re.port, da.t..dDp:.. 27. 2005, by AJo..nc._ ~ D.. ~ :::; poil Tes&g, wc., SLIl. Jose. CA, \408_559_64001. sb&ll be. mcorpon.ted ia. the en.din, pl6.nli a.nd 0.. ~ e 15 :C ~ ~ . No OTtuUc. ~ILI sluo.11 be ~tted 1~ ::c CC <( Ci5 ~ d ...hidl. dOd Dot ClCcecd 4 i.P.cbd iA depth. c. - \J\ I - N N 10. DIISt tram. ~I!. op~t:io'" 1n\Ult"" contro ~vide e.q.uPlJ>eDt tI:l d1.mpen Ufo.dln8 s::ib!:s to .."oid dUllt. --..... ---- ----------- I / I is. :PIL 1,90'OO'OO"E f~6A~'" .< WOOD FENCE -.1, I I I. 15' R~Yard I ~ .k~d<., f i 20 67'JIl' - I I / I I / 20<l.!<fC' I \ ' o~k 36-40 'O"!& - --7----- .----- 15'-0. :!,.o! SID ....... 105'-0. \, . ~ ~ --=i! --- -- ...- ,- ---------- ---- GRAVEl -... - 75.!:~' PIL 99$ E.G. N9C'OO'00"E GRAVEL ,_ G enola Drm 10.00' N9~'OO'OO"E \ 0-pt:t..11l1 ^ nDI\ft: "m;e corn..r 205195 6S II:" 10'~Q~ SillkYard ....... !l.:tlll2aol StDrh...) .,'"' I ~,S" I I i ~ b o b ~ o Z -~-'Ult:_ U4.5'Ri.dI!." .... SIDEWALK 2118(} Grenolii. Ur. L.,ot. "I, .t.raCl 0"".1 'l.Jaroef\ U~l'C:' ...', ~o:- APN ,!l 325-28-051 Lot: 9.575 5i ~ Tv~o.Story SFD: 4,219 sf 45% f' Ul. 1st f1(X)r: 2,910 si Living: 2.271 st: Two-Ca.r Ga.r6.jfe.: SSB sf 2n.d Floor: 1.509 sf 45% Is' Fir. Enb"'y Porch.: 57 si Propo5ed Ba.lcotUes: 160 sf Lot Cove-ra.ge.: 2.973' sf 3L70% FAR> (45% max.) 4,219 51 45,00% He.i~hts: E.xisting Finish Gra.de: Propo5~d SF'D F.F.: 100.0' Ma.in: 1OL5' Uppe:r: liS N\a.J:imurl'. ):.l.jdg", Hlei&!nt: CW'-6" kt.." E..c..! [2;6.5' ~ Excava..te a.nd Recomp.ct Existin~ Septic Ta.nk. ~ One 42" Sycamore To Be. Removed Scope o! Work: 1. Demo existing 1,235 sf SFD 2. Excavate and recompact existi Septic Tank Pl2LJ\S to be. in CompU with CA l>ulldlng and Codes (2001) 3. Build New SFD plus Garage p EX. BUILDlI..jG Job Copies of Building FU"e. System. Plans a,nd Pennits must be onsite during, Inspections. U4.SRldQ" Dce. Class: R-3 l!ouUd. Const.~ Type V ~ Fire. Rn.ting: Sprinkler TARLE OF CONTENTS A.I SITE PLAN A.2 M.AIl'I FLOOR PLAN A-3 2nd FLOOR PLAN/Privacy PlantiJ g A.4 FRONTIREAR ELEVATIONS A.5 SIDE ELEVATIONS A-G ROOF PLAN A.7 SECTIONS A.S LANDSCAPING A.9 ELECTRICAL A.IO T.24 CERTIFICATES 5-LO SPECIFICATIONS 5-U SHEATHlNGlNAlLING 5-1.2 TYPICAL DETAILS 5-L3 SHEAR DETAILS 5-2.0 FOUNDATION PLAN 5-2J 2ND FLOOR FRAMING 5-2.2 OPPER ROOF FR.AMlNG SITE PLAN Scale 1/8" = 1'- 0" '" '" ii ~ 0; " <( "' U ;; " 0 ~ ~ 0: ~ "" U lO !=! . ~ '" ~u~ \~;. ~~ .... .~- -0- () ~ ~ 1 " 0' o'Vi OJ', - . "''' >. '" ~ : ~ III ~ I:l 'd (lJ gJ 'e.il ~ ..... 10 ~o s~ l~ <0 (llO <( ~. u&; cSq :E~ E~ 0..., a 0 ,Z; ~o. ~~ g~ ~u , III ~~ ;:::u O'l E-o ': (lJ ~'1j ~ \.c ~.d JQ! ~ - t'~ o ii}Qi5 o ~ <Fl ~ Ol -;!: - <(:J: "'- VJ E-t ~ fJJ ~ 59'~O.. 11'.4" 46'.8" 5OG(l.3f".&J .~ Noo 5040 HSU.........1 16'~2' 13.~10' .... H' (......, "tche.n ....Q"Il:I...Q" 11'.1:' area' Q.oom !: ~ Bedroom 4 !l Q ~ : .... ...... 15'-5" c ~ tlISODH4080f".-d--2BfiODB ...1 1IlOSOAtd0c.4 A-bo... (Tuop..l 16G80~,"D..... .../u_ .,~ PROPOSED 1st FLOORPLAN Ar_cd Tralli& A_t 59'-0.' SECTION lie" Scale 114" = 1'- 0" Approval Date Signature (Case t.lanage~ = - I.S\ \ - N \}) a u ;i ~ "ii g o s 0: 6 g i :I .. III <ll " ~~ ~ 0" 8)"':-.( \ ~ .",=,., e" " ~...c.!'"'t: ,.' ~.11 ~~~ I 00 O:!2 '" > - . "'0: k \ (~ ~ <l Q '1 ~ SECTION 11AII -2 0'> (1$ ~ ,'Q/) '" ~ ';Ci 11)\0 00:;, 0'>0 ~~- g."utl; ';; (1$ o~ ~"':a~ :La E~ CIl "'.. ~~ r3,~ ~~ ~~ b '0 ~ ~ (1$ 5" ~ S Ci~ ~~ ~~ ~1oIot c:llll ~ ~ z < Z...;! ....0. :S~ ) ....l '" ~ l!119'6991~9.J(12.:r GlC:9.9t;91~O zZ's~s "3 'r.H.IJ.r9:) IO-Z;~6 XO{J .0 .d rn S:H1O.lad 711 SllVld 61:LCSS1:'S0I7 'LSo-B1:"91:2 'oN'd'V Alu:) "'.'''DS f110S6 "3 'oU!:P<Y.ldn3 ".JQ ''elOU'4'o'l'''t OSUg 1u-e~foW p--ep..nraw 78 ;OH ". ;,]01 -aOU-aP!S3tI A.I01S-0.MJ.., M.aN " NV'IdtlOO'ld tl3ddO .;;\10!~!J\al:l "3-0/0Z/~ S3jMO:) !JH~ ~f :A:q 1.:!M"e.l(l 8?~~ [~ ~ -' z o ~~ (,)= W (/j Cl Z r.T.:l <G. en t-.:l ~ o "01 ~ ! ~ ~ ~~ ONO'E ~ 0 Ul p., ~ = ~ o ~ = z :: 0 1== ~~ (/j ~ ~ !r r. 50> _Q.ia ~ ~ <..:>~ ~~.a.~ ~~ C5... 0... 0 1:t:i ~ c.. <X: n.. c: :::e <C:2: Q,.QJi!! = = <C Cf)2. IS.. {Z.tf 1tr~o~ o ~ o ~ em NORTH (FRONT) ELEVATION Scale,l/4" = 1'- 0" un jqh ~r.hduJe: Exterian 3-Coa,.t Stucco. ''PaIa.m1no'' (Lt. Y c8awrra.nJ Roon Cancreta S. Tile1ite.o "Ca.sa. Gra.nde B-lend" Trim 8L Fascia: Pa..inted Wood Trim Surrmmds . "Nude." (White) WindDWs Bl Doors: Eagle Via.yl a.d Ultra. 'W"mdowa . """bite" Ciara,4e. 81. Frc:mt Door. PrJntl:oCi Wood. "'An.tique." Deck ~ Painted Articul..ted Wrought Iron ~ "White"' DaJc:onY' Sla.te Tile. R Application R -,},()() '"' - ifd RM Application . 11M - r9mb -1.3 Approval Date) 1,:-2: ~ Signature (lJu' , (Case ManageQ - U\ \ - N U\ IL I I I JII 12B.5'~ l!. ~ JlI lOO.O'E..G. .c:::... 12 ~ 0.5' IAtl!. SOUTH (REAR) ,'. ELEVATION Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0" .' I 'i'l, , . '~ ' i l'~ .... , I , I' ,'. I' I, I), ~u~~~ IQ ..: g ~ C o 6 ~ ~ ~ {~I ~~i1 UP-I ;.:, a .c ~ ~.2 ld ~.~ Q ii;& -..... 5'.O~ o ~ 'a ttl ~ ,.. 'Of} ~ ~Ij') .:;~ . Ij')~ <t g)~ ~"O~" ';; ed 6q ~ "0 .s~ ~ ... 1:: <.6 :9,.d 2... ~ e.l got<) Cll~ Ucl ~< ~2 liiei!$~< o "0 t' ~ rtl ~ ~ ~ S ~~ ~ '" 0 ~ z:;~ ;So -0: toIo< .. If) f/j ~ Z o f-t~- z<~ C'ty> I w ~ ,.,l fJ.l ~ ...... U\ , - ~ ~ R Application R-~oofo-()9> RM Application R.M - ~f)Db -/ :5 Approval Dat~~'3-Dl. Signature ~ ~ {Case Manag'~ ,l' 12Q.5' Pill. ~ ~1.!yr)rr:I(,ll, T..... A_t ,WEST (RIGHT) ELEVATION . Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0" DO D~ lOur E Fifth!;}.. SchedulE: ) , .t Exterior: 3--Coa.t Stucco - "Pa..lamino" (Lt. YeUo;~vITa..n. '. Roof: CoDcrc.t& S- Tilelite- "Casa. ~iL.D.de Blen~ "If d "(White.) Trim. 81.. Fa.sci&l Painted Wood Trun Surroun $. u e '. II Windows t!i. Doors: &&le Vinyl Clad Ultra.. W~doW$ - "White. GiU"a.ge 81. Fl"oD.t Door. Pa...i.D.ted Wood. "Antique." . ',; , Deck RILlli.o.g.l P&ln.ted Articula.ted Wrought Iron. '"WhItt. Ra.lcony1 Sla.te Tile. :~5' .e::- ll! o i1 [I]] EAST (LEFT) ELEVATION Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0" ~ N :l :g '" '" . 0: o U " ~ o S 0: :; U fIJ (j) . ~'3 ~U; ~: ~ ~ - rj 0: ~ ! ~ ~ ~ Q ;g ~ o:~ " > iQa .... ~ '" ~ r: ~ l': "v-ot 1...') ~o 8~ lOCO a>~ t:_ ~,..- oS y V III ~ l'(\ O'cr ~"O:E;'l .g ;.. :;'d> ...s::: ...... ~ ~ goo<> Cl:~ Vci >>~ r.Z l5 Q~ 0~ ~-;. ~ g ~ E-1:u ~ .::J ~ ~ 0 0 ~ :z: ~ SSo ~ido>I c:lVl 4.0' PlD.tl!. . 5 fJ) Z o w""" er-- (f)~ w ,J w '. A=At l . ~ l~Ir'CC.::l f:l\Ul,I<td 1f1 s\J"eld 6(;Ll.'!)!)(;'ao~ 'L!)O-a(;-9(;1I 'ol.j'd"V A,U::> """'DS I N:V'1d 1l1J S21MO:Jj Hl1Ji S\Jo~!....aU ~1O!)6 v::> 'oUJ'I"qdn::> "JQ "IOU3"D OaU(; ..t~O 90/0b/~ ':) i"m.ro:) ~ !U'e~r )[ P\?p.U.J<3W -,g 'leuroH ~O( 'oq 'O'd f'J"P,t}f :A.q 'J.M."e.JQ :.101 a:map!S'3l1 Jt.J'o:Js"OM.~ M..'3M " . ~ .. '" i:i! "l '" 01 :1i ::l ~ 0 E== Z U~ f.l.l (/) <( i.> .... .,; d. ,,= :., ~ ~11-< ch~ '01 " ~ Q.. "" ~ ~"O - ]'1-< ~ ,,~ ~ (/)0. 1Io1Vld .....SI ~ ~ go <l ~ffi .. 8 '" ~ -<9 .. 0 < ~ e It) .~ ~ l/IU U .' 0 r ~ 1.: ~. 'Q l5 ~~ b ~ t-i'l '3 Q" Q ~lI) '" !!j z o 6~ f.l.l (/) :Sco c: ~ "rtS .13 ~Cl ~ ~ C6 ~~ = 0...:> .2 f,j' ~~e ~J 4:: :::;;: 8::.!2'~ 0:: 0:: 4:: CJ:>,Ii /5-1;)', ~ Workshop ".9' IIllII 8'-6- o = Entry - U\ 1 - N ex> RApplication R. -dDOfo - OR RM Application RH - :Jnn II> -/:3 Approval Date . ~-.;23 -nl" Signature {)Id:#ryu(d:::::::. lCaseManag9~ . (. 1~ I' U!:7JJ'Rjdl!e ~&ed5 b o t StructlU'aJ 3_o;pu E-~_r~ ~ hClltll.OC ,0,11 W'o.JI.O.O.1'l 'n,..l"in"':',i1,,,,. 1......1..' rl-l~ rl_~fl.:tf Utilities o ~ Study ," ;: Livin~ u1"ri.~ Ii. -...t St....... w....,. t"uY1lIi uS.wc.... IQ"~~ ..t plo.t" I...... raI... 4. aho.... 1I~.d" T~'fl Foyet' o ' G lOO.O'E..G. SECTION "A" Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0" 6.AAeJa ta n..t c.mne> o ~ C\a.... A CaJlcnr.tr> f1aJ: Tile Typ- D.."" <40 Ib. Pdl D...... Sl4" ptrw....d wttbc::1lpso.O.1'l SECTION liB." Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0" rna G~a~ lr b JOO,O'~,G. "'.1 SECTION "C" Scale 1/4" = 1'. A" !} ON eo. lD ~ ~ ~ ~ "t q) t:l ~ N < fJ ;:; ~ ~- ~ g d G ~ 0; " CD OJ . ~~ ~~ o~ ..u ~ 9-.7:'" ~ ~ ~ ..j" .f.! tD ~ !2 .~ o. '" '; - . "'0: .: ~ o1l .. o .... d ell ~ ~ 'Q!lJ ~ ..... '0 ,., "l'ltl ~~ 8~ ltlOO ",0 ~"'. (..1(;; ocr -E~ ~~ "'to 80 ,2: Q~ ..!!l~ at> ~6 r3 o1l o " ;s..!!l ~~ ~'tI :; tll "'tl 5 ~ :SA ~ e.l ~~ 0QIJ a ~ ~ ~ ., Q ~:c billltlrO" AJlWaII.,UI.H. ~_c..~.~ WaJb:D.1J ........- (/) Z o 1-1 ~ U W rJ) JI11.5'f"F. ~'-E To: Aki Honda, Senior .mner, City of Cupertino Exhibit 0 From: Jessica Rose and John Tracy, 10410 Ann Arbor Avenue Re: Appeal of R-2006-08. Appeal of the Residential Design and Minor Residentfal Permit to construct a new, two-story 4,219 sq. ft. residence with two second - story rear yard decks on 21180 Grenola Drive. Date: November 6, 206 Cc: Staff Report for Planning Commission Meeting 11/14/06 At the close of the October 10, 2006 Cupertino Planning Commission meeting, the Commission withdrew the motion to uphold our Appeal in favor of a Continuance at the Applicant's request. The Commission made it clear that 10 concerns with the project shall be remedied by the next Commission meeting before plan approval could be considered. The Applicants selected the next meeting date and agreed to the conditions. Per the Draft Meeting Minutes, the items are: 1. Eliminate the west side balcony.. .or significantly reduce it to a "faux" balcony... 2. Lower the entry... 3. Remove second story bay windows... 4. Provide fully mature privacy planting on west side of property... if a balcony is still proposed. 5. Reinstate privacy planting on east side of property. 6. Move tree to specified position on east side property line for maximum privacy screening. 7. Work with City staff to improve privacy protection plan. 8. Tone down the color of the residence and roof. 9. Soften the frontage by the addition of; landscaping, rock work, architectural enhancements. '10. Talk to the neighbors. , ,( We request that the Commission uphold ,our Appeal. In review of the Applicant's written resPP:f\se,--: ,- n ~,tojhespecific comments decided by the Commission, we do not find that the objectiveshave)~~@n.",:",,: ,_:,,'~~~~:~,meHrra satisfactory manner. We were very disappointed at the lack of response thCltt~e.:;:::~:j-:;',<' .. "',nn 'Applicants made to the clear and specific direction from the Commission on this project:' The following arguments support this conclusion (these 1 0 items correspond to the 1 0 items listed above ): 1. Not Satisfactory: The balcony has neither been "eliminated" or "significantly reduced". 2. Satisfactory: Although, it is debatable as to how "more symmetrical" the entry has become by lowering it 12 inches. 3. Satisfactory: the bay windows are shown to be removed. 4. Not Satisfactory: The new JPM landscaping plan is incomplete. Missing: second floor of house, cones of vision, dimensional location of planting, size of plants at installation. . 5. Not Satisfactory: For the same reasons as item 4 above. 6. Not Satisfactory: For the same reasons as item 4 above. 7. Not Satisfactory: Tree not present on plan. Due to the incompleteness of the new landscaping plan we suspect the City has not been approached for comment on this plan. 8. Not Satisfactory: No change of residence / roof color changes were found. 9. Not Satisfactory: The provided elevations do not indicate any changes that may "soften" its appearance. Also, the new JPM landscaping plan does not include front yard details. 10. Not Satisfactory: The applicant did speak with us about landscaping only. We were asked what we wanted for landscaping. We were not give'n an update on house plans, balcony status, or offered a proposed landscaping plan. Our expectation was we would be provided new plans as the basis for review and discussion, therefore our discussion was preliminary at best. Regards, Jessica Rose and John Tracy I '5 -12q Page 1 of2 AkiHonda From: Elena [elena_herrera@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 07,2006 12:02 PM To: Aki Honda Cc: Subir Sengupta; Jessica Rose Subject: 21180 Grenola Dr. Elena Herrera Subir Sengupta 21150 Grenola Drive Cupertino, CA 95014 7 November 2006 Aki Honda Planning Department City of Cupertino . Thank you for talking with us the other day. I want to note some things I find disturbing about the current status with the 21180 Grenola project, as evidenced by the Mojgani's replies to-10 specific items. ~ --..-.., - ~, ..". ~--- .. ...'.: -.-' Regarding the itemdeft froffi0ut previous Planning Commission meeting.~ ",..'-~,,-"" -'" "'I ~..,.. ..------.:.-=--::.:,~"--'..~..c.......:....:...';.7,:-::.~ :;'1~....1 . 1. The Balconies The bakony has not been reduced or modified from the plans presented at the meeting. Although it was reduced prior to the meeting, we do not see any changes. 2. Entry Feature We did not "waive" our interest in lowering the entry - - we concurred with one commissioner that lowering it too much would further make the round feature more prominent. 4. Privacy Planting One option that seems to have been lost was a consideration of planting more mature specimens rather than create the need to wait for several years for the privacy screen to kick-in. 6. The Deodar Cedar Moving the deodar was an excellent recommendation to mitigate the privacy issue along the eastern border - - what happened? /5-/30 11/8/2006 Page 2 of2 7. Landscape Plan When will the city be reviewinJ? the new landscape plan as it will appear with the modifications to the house? 8. Tone Down the Color Scheme Due to the large size of the home (4200 sq. ft) I don't feel it's fair or right to compare colors of homes in the 1,100 sq. ft. range. I must re-iterate that the desire to annex into Cupertino was a defacto request to obtain the guidance and expertise of the city when growing our agreeably transitional neighborhood. 9. Front Landscaping or Brick/Rock on Facrade Neither my husband nor I approved any landscaping plan, I'm not sure which neighbor this comment refers to. We did agree that landscaping would help. Mr. Mojgani agreed that we together we would look at paint and roofing material samples. ", !.". '0 :;;r-;,.::.-~ I 5 - / 3/ 1l/8/2006 Exhibit C R Applicat!oH) RM Applicat,iq... Approval. Dqte\1(~ Signature (Case Manage~ ' - .............. - ,:~;;go:/:::::::::\:.-'i" - ':," ....-: - :: ::: :'" ,:", :.:-:..-:....:.".. t-:l I Co ....0.".......:....: :." ,", .: .... :.... ..... ':.':..:.':. ::,::::,::::,:::::' :",:",:".:", r&J201us = 878 SC :::r ] - J ~ 287. ~ \ "- SC ~ "- 41'-0" 10'-6" 3'-2" > 16'-6" /__ Old Balcony J"Cf'C\ \ "{ .e {IL V'- .........---------.( 0-. \Cl'yl-.i ,S I roO., St- ,...... ........ ............Uv'c' ( -\:V l?'---' """"'........ L ...... /,----- ........ A Closed ~ I~, ~ Balcony r.... ~ \ ~ Railing I Hi Of Y \ ~ 11.3' F. i? .' 170/1 , A ..... -,.... 1-' 60710 Slidin" G~ ss Door w 26710 FixedB/Awr ng both sides(Temp.) ~ ,1,1, IT,U'cYJ.\.1'...L ,1.,1 ,1.,'-. I..L I 1 . I l. I.A'.I 1.\, "Ii..: :1, -r: T L IJ, rL J ,I ,I , I "Y,L,! ,J ,..I ~L, 1:,,",,1. "L,I~ .,L" , ,.I,..I,~, ;-x- ;:I:sti .L~~) o I Master Bedroom ~ I to ... 15'.6" Master Bath Suite ~ 78 p~ J ~ }".2 ~~."!'~~ ! all / (Open to I oyer) I 2878 \ SC 9' -6'--. ~1.51~~ ~ ;;- ~~~ \ >- ....~ \''11 ~ I Co 1-' I~ 1 0 I 1 r... ... T ~ to T I ~ 1 T ....:,... ~ J~ 7/ f-.. 'I I \\1\1 1: ~u- / .~ ..g ,\1 'Q'e. ~1 1.1' F Y. f I Il~ ~.~ 1-' at ~ , l- - I- \~j.. ~ I .... 5'-0" V SEe ION "A I o lrc- .. (; \.~ . I J J ( . I J ( 1 " c:: o c:: -- co .Q co,...... ......... c..::> L--I a:s .- _ CD_ 0-a:sL-~ __ a....:> ~:g, 0.. a.... <:) co ~ CL <C Ci. c:: ==- ~ ~ a.....cn13 w:: ex: <3:: CJ)!;2.. ./ I. 75.Th:.PiL 'n2f\,"4CO'(fe~~"'" .,~ '---';C-J'--;-~-'--0~'--'-"~-"- i r'"~" :!qo~'- ! (, ( ",,:~' I; C- .. r 'iI ~- ~ I I W~) ." ': I,e. tt ' I ) !.' ,f," T-' '. / - ! /';. n"",y,,,'d. l("y:)":~~\ ! / g Sdl.-'j,,'rf 20'~G?w '<"}" ~ -.)-'- -- -----..... .,. .'"'\ Z' I --',., l'i. ,,. ...~ I -", . ';;" ,', ,r-.' ~ -,"'"'''' J.,:~" ..l.r .('" \ ". I.. \' .//-.-'----i'?~~;~~~~~--~-~--~-\-' 20<1.~f)llco L-., -,' / \ l .' I ",,\. f.:~,~, "..'@~ j . ,':;;"dSt40 'I . J,,;;J1ilo j" '_. " II " :':-~;~lfhi\dl'._ N90000'OO"E . , ~"i----;-'"-'r ':"~=~'''~''iI1n~55~~nt:l WOQD F}~,NCEi 65 I I r.J.. ",..,........ ,,'I.n I i-l 2pS' " . 'lij I / I: ? '" I 1 I 11 " 1:\./ ,. .\.... . ('0 '. 1'r ~-, ,.~~ ~.: .I . \ J' .'. I'"r ::;~ . r /J,. l-~~t j i /' \ I -~-~---- ---:--T-"1',-:...:-,,--f \ '0.: f / "'~, _ l;i !;, ~ : 1 ~t ~~;--~I ~ W "\. '"' I ,~- I ,= I ' ---=:=--.. :bG....-.f'.. 'II ' _'.'0 I 'x,., //.~. _ ~ c"', <l[ _' " J ~U"l Zn~~\~ry I j g ~ "~~__........4'::J>~// '. " ,-',fi--; __..l~.r-" Sd...."h i,a 9JMIL_ ~,.<.,,',, .../"..'/../4;' ,;,,,.- !!'J ,.;;:r:-u\ .~., /' / -.- 0 n ", :-.....' '-' . .' ,._._'~.;.~~ ' ! '~. ,;;er.:r., I ,Tl.1 j. .-.J\ I . ! I I, a w ';,;':iij"~' {'~>:-~~'!.;~/>>:>!.; r '-' I;~ .... b ... ."" ',/:, .-..'il, . -'I_J/ /., ./ / "../,/ // ,./ // // ./ 1:- 1 1'~'-6"j:, ~ g b~~:O~~i"'>~~.I"fu<<f~f~~{/////r4.e~.4J'zi~l&f/" /><..),: ~~ '!s'---t"~. \O~.~ 'l1 0 ~frJjP~;;f/ :",;'. :~" :i?'JgQff st' ,./ .,/ ./ /-1r;:{TC~~''-Y'; '~lv" /././ I , :~ .:..:; ~ 0 ' . , " ." 1'-J~l'<;;f ,6,..,... '" .",\1)-0['''-)' / ,. / .\ ' - r 0 /,:"/" "'i ',/,' ,,~ .;, .'.l"f~' .-' ./ ./ =Df-' n/' ; ... ,/ / .) ',~,r ,1') l.~~ fl' ,..;.." '"'~: [.~' ___, _._,::...-'-_,__:___.::..s..l("J1.,,_n~j1JI~..'}..f.Illit.~ ::~.t.,"- ,. .. ::; ~,..f,_1..Fi~i'. ,{. :'.! ~/ L.::.~...-..- .~..,/~/' ,.,'-' .' i.....~~.. I ,101!;"x~W'.,".. ..,. / "-'.' ...~-' ,.......',C;'....... ./.... ,. "'--I :?..6",:-~;:'r'T1i, . '.\ .' L/~ \: " ' ,\il\!l'l\ll~' 'I . , . , .."-, ",1\,'.: II '1~3,!,,,,,,,.,;,\;~,'i " \. i ..-. \ ..1\, ,":11, .,;:::,;~;:?4:6;;;';;;':~ .' I' ;.:, ':':"~ "I" : \.:.<>:~:~:>;,~~~,~:.)j;;:;,,: / ",', s~;~;~-['~~ :,. /, 1. . I /,. ~ ,; J.~. / ; /' I" / 0"/:...... /. ' I {h.'i:' Bl2nd I ), " ,.. / / /~"r:ri.~"- .' ./ .... 4";' " , .stu.';"~) ./ >... / / ,,'... ~";--'- / / /~-"~;;:~ ..'. / I. " ""1' 1"-,,' / / --- ' /~./~ / _.(""~/ /.' / ' I..'" . :_ J! .,l ,"' / "" .-' ,/1/; ...~~-~r~r../-.-::. /"./ . . " :'~ ~~,,!I; .;;~~~~~f",::l~""~~,,i< .... .1"'ffi) III1 / ': ! /.'".i!1\ !' I -'~--'-~_____..,.,.1__..9~ '~7:/;:; :! ,::.'(<J \l;"",''P':)'---'---'--- , ! i - ,;\\ I ..~;,:. "~;"'d': . . -------~.-_L ') \ l~"r f i A"" '----"1-0___! C\'4 '~l>'l\ ,,:/,.\ , ". ,/ ----"'?-_".n;r. Coni' de ! \' .~: :!"ro.at y~ GRAVEL , "--,,, 11 i .- ~-=:::. .. .. r 1, lSs:tbn.ci\/' ! ..... Exls 'fhvuv ~: I ' i ~~ ~~~UUI ~----------~---- 1 -'-~:'I:\-~~"\' ...-- i --\r----emz.-. b. .~_;I~~~~ ~-c"~:l\T~--..- . '. );.-~:~:.~n"c ,~.5' ~~.._...,.,-~.--- '~<'. .~:; ''1- R Application k -:J.([)t10 -0P> RM Application {2f1-1 -dwb -' /3 Approval Date -!ii623-a, Signature {llM 'L. / ; ;Vl1U---- !Case Manager) ,_' -r.:(r",.;, )00(.. ! ~. ~' f, i. ~ ,.,<' \ I '. r"- , I~ .~'-o" ,j J'..O" -'~ "~,~::~~ ~:,('.lh:'\c , .-~. I S --I '3'1 Privacy Landscape - 21180 Grenola Dr. Cupertino A B C D E F G H I J K L M Type Cedrus Deodara Cedrus Deodara S.Magnolia S. Magnolia S.Magnolia S. Magnolia S. Magnolia Cedrus Deodara Cedrus Deodara Pittosporum Pittosporum Birch Mary Magnolia Height 80' 80' 80' 80' 80' 80' 80' 80' 80' 40' 40' Spread 40' 40' 40' 40' 40' 40' 40' 40' 40' 20' 20' 20' 20' Planting distance max 20' 20' 20' 20' 20' 20' 20' 20' 20' 5' 5' 10' 10' ;f All -hr-cC'<; fYl"v'/. '24 It bDY ~ lVl/n, h-el~h-{- f1/ h'iJh.. p1aA1kd, .* A-11 Sh-r~s YJIl/ n [C; 1t1 II ()Y1 f /t}J I n fa' h,"1"" r/.:fYI+-e). R. Application K--:;;'[)()(? -06 RM Application Rttf -:l.wh -/3 Approval Date PJ ~ cJ.3 -tJlo Signature !iltl.thf;Jl/ll~( ,.tJ--.,. ~ase Manager) /5-/3S (E) l-Story SFD EX. BUILDI~9:DD ~ 1. All distarblld.ada=S ~a1tIng Ira.. tradinI..balI be .-.dad &DIl uudcba.d d pood-.d \JdDr& wil'ltcr raina. being pn=pand IUIli ~Bd to CDDiral CfOSitlllo b, &ii~. pla..DtiQ neb as rJl:~' badQ' or eolnCDtba' hult~ ..-1. 2. Drlv&nf&7 nmoD OP. &1te 1>>, .b...t 0_ to .....eb.ti.... 5~ z. CoD~ nmaB tD be ~ ......a7 trcraa. .trud1lra JD1D- 2'J1, .Iopclor II. U1lIlliDWD. cal , leat. iblDl [)nlCIAS& by ChIdznI "f1p. aB raDI tbn>\,I~ 4" uUd PVC pipe b,t11 Qdating COD~ .tan:Do"'lll'aier~ .....-Ie a.tatJoM:t:. \'i 4. A copY at a11 COlSI.p~tioa talts a..nd ~ ....dl.a4 ",port sh&lI be I:l.lbm.ltted to the City prior to scbe.dullD.g ~ 1N;IpectJQIlSo Prior CD the eontnc:cor ""luelltinll a loanda.t1a wpectiDG, the Soils E[ldiD~ sba.11 wSvise tb. ~uUdiol1 omdaJ iD writini tb.at: 1) tbe. ruwmnl FootUll ElCCIl.Yil.tioD5 Il.1Id baildUll. pwS ",en prepuwd UlII.~rd_c.e ,.ntb tb.. .uU ....port ~Q_I[ULdaJ:ions. 2} nae fgutl.dation klnnlna pd india' ~J[lplr 1Ylth the ~U report and appruved p~. ~ 51 the. draiJYlll. system ks iA l:l:Col'da.Dce wltb the soU """art. , S. All c.~~""oo Bl M"oriili pu 5,,""''''' "'oll1no""" "'''''.. ",""'0' b, MS "'--.. ~pbdl.. CA 1408.377,6.5041. c:: c..Q2 010ctS ~.QO ~D..~=s Et~ ~ tti ::C::2 c:::l- r:::. r: 0:: ~Ci5 '"' ,- - . U\ \ - W ~ Ii. R~ItlID_da.tiDas includad La tbe.Q...gtad.Nc.a.J Report, d..tcdDu:. 27, 2005, by Allle.rlea.n ut:h&o ~c:., SUlJoae. CA, (408..55&.64001, 51:/.al1 b.. \ncorpOl'1Lted iro the arad.U:r.1l ptaAs uuI .~du'ds'aba.1I be....ad.. 5_ StNcI:.ua1 E.ngiDeerinll1or 10. DIUIt \rom. ~It apua~aDII m..-t be cont:r'D ~vide.I!.qu.iPD\t.Ilt to d...m.pe.allJ"l:db>I: sites to ......old d~t. ---..... --- ~ ----------- '-, I I' I I 1~90.00'OO"E -oce. ttlrn~ 20!>l35 65 75. :PlL WOOD FENCE le~fi4swr'" 0' '''5. ) '"",. /~ R= yud I ~ Sc.~b>.dLi II \ I ~,S" I I ,I ZD 66iW" - ~ /....1(,1 15'-0. 204.~~a 1 \ ' o~k 36-40 '0"1& - \,,~ I '-------7----- I I I I I / \ll b o b o 1, o Z ~ ~ ~ r ".~~ 1a.Q~ Si.ll.y..,t ....... I1ot_2D11 St".lc=l JI'tE} _.....--- ....- .._ 2.0 --- ---- --- ---- -- .... ~ P"r..,l y....~ GRAVEL ~ Set!:....... ------------------- is.C' ~lL fillS e.G. N9C.OO'OO"E GRAVEL ~ ~ . ^ nDI\fC ---aQ!:,_ U4.5'JUdl!e. '""11 SIDEWALK 21180 Gr€nol;;.. lh'. l,...ot ,:)/, lr'a.Ct. tJ.tI-.l. ua....oen Uc.l.t:. y.,,~... APN .,!l :52&28-051 Lot: 9,'575 51: t;~~~~ry SFD: 4,219 sf 45% F ''lR 1st Floorl 2,910 sf Living: 2,271 sf Two-Ca.r Ga.["a.C~ Glj8 sf 2.n.d Floor; LS09 sf 45~ Is' Flr. En b"y po...ch: 57 sf PrC?Pose:.d Ba.lco.ue.s:' 160 sf Lot Cove:.ra.ge:.l 2,97:3" sf 5170% F~ (45% m""') 4,219 sf 45.00\' Hei~hm Existing Finish. Gra.de: 100.0' Proposed Sf'"D F.F.: Maire 101.5' M~,;muO' ~"cl~" ""en" i:l;6',6" !<-o'" E.C.U,PPec, ~-s,;, ~ Excavate. a.nd RccDmpa.ct Existing Septi.c Tank. ~ One:. 42" 5yClLmore To Be. Re:.move:d Scope or Work: 1. Demo existing 1,235 sr SFD 2. Excavate and recompact existi Septic Tank Pla..ns to be in Cotnpli willi CA l>ulldlnt and Codes (2001) 3. Build New SFD plus Garage p EX. BUILDING U4.5'Aldie Job Copies of Building Fire. System. Plans apd pertnlts Ulust be onslte. during Inspections. Dee. Class: R~3 :Build. Const.: Type V.. Fire. Ra.ting: Sprln.k1er IARLE OF CONTENT~ A-I SITE pLAN A.2 MAIN FLOOR PLAN A-3 2nd FLOOR PLANlPrivacy PlantiJ g A-4 FRONTIREAR ELEVATIONS A.5 SIDE' ELEVATIONS A-6 ROOF PLAN A.7 SECTIONS A.S LANDSCAPING A.9 ELECTIUCAL A.IO T.24 CERTIFICATES 5-1.0 SPECIFICATIONS 5-U sHEA THINGlNAD.-lliG S-1.2 TYPICAL DET AlLS s-L3 SHEAR DET AlLS 5-2.0 FOUNDATION PLAN S-21 2ND FWOR FRAl"lliG 5-2.2 UPPER ROOF FIlAMING SITE PLAN Scale 1/8" - 1'. 0" 0; ~ - :;; n :l ~ g .. .: "' ~ U ... " '" ~ " 0 ~ ~ 0: ~ ... U co t,) -n ~U! ~~ ~~ -J 8~ >. \ l~, -"' ~ ~ 3'~ ~ I!l (1'1'; ~ ~& '(J @ gJ 'QID l::; 'o'Cf~ ~ g~ 1<; Q) 0 ~<l'. g"ljul;; -;; l'il o"'? ~ "lj -3 ~ ji.a B ~ ~ cy o.tQ ,O:..e 8 ci ~~< rZ; o Cill OV} ~ ~ ~ ~ g~ Df-- ~ eu o ~ ' " '" ~ . ~1-:~ ~c , ~""'" ",If "'- iJ.l~ ~< t-'4~ cfJ, -"r:~ -E R Application ;:z -,;(co~ -oe RM Application _ /.11-:; (J)ob -/3 Approval Date ::;: ~-: Signature UiYt'. (Case loIanaga~ ....... V\ \ ....... W ~ i :J,g'.O" 11'.4" 46'~B. $OQo.:sl'""ul j/ NOD ;50'10 Hsttl..ra.! , .. lS'~10' 1S'-2" ....... (Moor...) It'.I?' ar...t Room !:: ~ ~ Bedroom. 4 o o ~ ~ 'I ..... tll_ Living Room 15'-$" ~ ~ o 2lilGODS..;o'OI'"~-SiODB .., 12050 AIdutA "u._ {T....1L> ~ ~ . ~ 160IOCar"4!",D- wfLi~ PROPOSED 1st FLOORPLAN k'docd Trdld ,,~ 69'-0.' SECTION lie" Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0" -= " , ~ ~ Q ~ 0: ~ '" U II) ~ . ~ '2 ~ 0" 8j~W~ . ., c , . ~"""(l-lC: .~j ~~' ~ :;, 0"1. .tl .... 1 ~ 8 b ~ a:!l Q ~& .' . SEcrION "A" .... d 0'> (fj F:! .'QIl) :6 "'''' ~~ O!:;, ",0 .o:~- ~ 't.'l u\;; ";; (fj 0"'1 ~"O:a~ ~~ ~~ ~ 0,) a.", ~~ 8,~ o CiO: iii~ .~ b '0 b ~td~= ~ S ~~ ~ 0 a6~ Zloi"I...u <(loIodlCfl ~ ~ z ~ Z...i ....0. ~o: ....0 ) F-l ~ ~ l019'S99"'l2S')C"1i!,J ;;160'SC;91.~O ZZSQS Y:l 'j3Ulnl:l toZSZO: xog '0 'd s~l\O.lad 7tJ 5\l1l1d 6ilLL'Sg;;'S0l7 'Lgo-B;;-9;;': 'oN'd'" A.u3 ".'.~IJ'" \ !7JOS6 'of:! 'o"!P"1dn;) -'0 "Iou"'..... oau;; 1U~gl1[OW p"ep.l'-l~W 7fJ ;oH "" ;JOI '3':)lJ~P!satl ...t':I01S-OMj". MaN: " .;:LlD~S!A3Cl "3-0/0(;/2 NV'1dtlOO'Id tl3dd(l IW S3jMOJ) !m~ ~1 :.A:a. ~.!lM:e.l([ ~ -' ~2~~ ~)~ z o ~~ (,l= ~ z ~ j~ o ]\~ ~ ~ NO: o 0"8 ~ rJ'J P9 ~ .,..u .;_~:. =-=--,'" = ....._.. o .' ~ . e . ."'-:;- ='::';':'~ , . . ...-~' '.--- - - -- '-". ... - Q '0 <=1]> a21tj ~~Cl 4~.D-~ ~~ 8:~ e 'cri ~ <C 0..<='" CC ~ ~-cJ5! /5-/38 ur-o~ o e I;: , : Ii I ~ e 126SRid 5'-6" tlr NORTH (FRONTl ELEVATION Scale,l/4" = 1'- 0" Elnish s~he:dula Exbcrian z..coa.t Stucco. ''PaJa..minoll (Lt. YeUow/Tan) Rooe Coo.cre.ta S. Tilelit.- "Ca,sa. GrandlE. B-leo.d" Trim 8l Fucia: PalAted 'Wood Trim SurrOUllods . "Nude" (White.) Windows Bl. Doors: Eagle Vinyl C&d Ultra. \VLD.dows . "Wh.ite~ Qar6.l!e 8l Front Door. Pa.if,.ted Wood. "An.tiqua" Deck R&.ilin-I!: Painted Articula.ted Wrou.ght IrOD.. . "Wb1te" :aa.1CotL)'1 Slate. Tile R Application R -~()()'"' - (fd RM Application 11M - /)tfl6, -!? Approval Date ) 1.:/: h Signature (I}u' , (CasaMBIlaga~ ....... I.S\ \ - W -c I [III] U!&.5'Ri I!. '.1.:. .c::".. II! SQUTH (REARl , ELEVATION Scale 1/4" =: 1'- 0" ~ .,' , I :.; :: ~ i : . ~' I.!' "::t;;.' ': i.~ ." ~. - i ; ,i; F . .': 1\" ~h ,,' 10'.0. 10D.D'E..G. 0.5' ...tl!. l00JYE...G. 10. ..: = C I o 6 ~: 0: 6 "' i ] -\ ~~ll , ~)! ~ y ~ ..0. ~.: ~ is ~ ~ {1j ~ ~~ Ci j;j~ --- 5'.0' -a a> @ IN -em !:: 'Cf'~ . ~~ ~ 0>$ g"d~": -;; III ci~ ~"O.Sg'l " ;.. t r.b ~..c:: 2l", " e.l "'''' Cli~ 8 ci ~< t!"2 ~eil)~": ~ ~ ~ ,.. t'd "c.; ~S\3~ ~~ ~c -0: pIoo c;; If o ~ if. ~ O/l r- ~ S z-<f.-- "" t(,l E; lor ,... I l" ~ \,! IF ~ ~ - U\ I - -t:.. 0- R Application R.~:Jrofo -riA RM Application {!,/v{ - ;/DDb ~ / ~ Approval DateOj~'3-D{' SIgnature _~ r~ (Case Managaq ~:., ' ,t' ~ ..."1 120.5'P fini!l:h S~hedul!:o\ :E.xterion ;s.coa.t Stucco p l'Pa.laminoM (Lt. YdJow/Ta.n) Rooil Cob-ere-te. s- TUcUto- 1'Casa. Gra.nde :Blend" . Trbn 8l Fa.scia.a Paio.ted Wood Trim. Surrounds - "!iude." (White.) Wl.ndQWs &. Doors; Ea..tle Vinyl Clad Ultra. Windows - "WhiteU Ga.ra.t& 81. Front Door. Painted Wood. "Antique" . . Deck g,.nlng! p&lnt:ed Articula.ted Wro~t lrDP. - ''Whibt'' . l\a.1coJl.Yl Sla.te Tile. ,WEST (RIGHi) ELEVATION . Scale 1/4" = 1'. 0" . ~ ,~5' , ,. . 5 t:::- ,. m EAST (LEFT) ELEVATION Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0" ~ o ~ " ~ ,:0 ..: ~ :: d a 0: ~ u U) <>l 1=J ---&..0 I~U: ~~ ~ _T, Col-l - r) i :; ..a ~ ~ ~ ~ 't.' "" 00 ~:~ -. "0: D4..0'PLD,t" .... d eil ~ 'o~ ~~ g '" ;) -;; 10 ,; ~ "1j .$ Cll t...t t: ~,.d~ ~ Cl,) " i:ll..:o 8 ,.. 0<:; , ~~ ~ b C ~ ' < ~ ~ ~ z 0 ~ I-<::t~ . 5 rJ ~ c: W" S~ rfJ'" '" \1 " G T..m. Ac=At " r. E (El ]-Stol"Y . SFD 109.0' {J Flat Root R Application RM Application. Approval Date Signature {Case ManageQ - U\ , - .c... - 15'.0" :1 111...0' I"I~.." .. " ,~ ~ 9'.o'P1a.t.e (01.0'1"" U01.5'P.F) 1lS ~~ ..~ ~~ 11'..Q'Plau -L!-1L- C SEs;f,~ON ROOF PLAN SECTION lien Class A Concrete 50 Tilellte- "Casa. Grande Blend" 12" Crown Molding Typ. 5 I 12 Slope with Hip Typ. U4.s' Qidga U4.S RiA.. " d 0: to" \ " " x ,: 1 III cJ " ~~ ~ at ~.,u~ .~> ~ ~ U" :;. .a i~ ~ ~ ~ g o :~ " > - . \,'jp: .... ~ (J) ltl ~ ~ ~ 0:1'", S~ ",., .c:::; (J)~ .. <( ,E"dut;; ~ I'd "..q ~'1j:E~ e.l ;... ....~ :E A .ll", ~ . e.l "'''' o:~ 02 >-ce:; r"-' a csC: ill~ ~~ b . '01; ~ tt1 ~::: r-dCl~ t a 0 ~ z; ~C <(=OiNlI: ~z 0< f""'\~ ~ ~ Ii .1' ,,' : Workshop 9Bed5 .. Utilities o c:. Study Foye~ 0' SECTION ilA" Scale 1/4" = 1'. 0" SECTION "BU Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0" - R-Application R -dDOfo - OR RM Application R+f - ~()n /" - f;) Approval Date ~-;23-iJl" Signature (J/tI4m ~ lCaseMana1J9~ )00.0'1::..0. V'\ , - ...r:. l\l ...,' !) 127.ER.,ide. ~-A.nfilatoF1a.t c....oJ : 1-.' i..ivin~' ~1iI1i"OC AJIWall~ 1101'( ~a"a Cdl~~ R-IJO ''''aJl:n-l!l 1"1-"n-21 E:.I:tarior ;i.CG..lSh.a:"WaU~ t<> hu'1l ii 112" weep sc:reo:.d ;'t pl..ta Ii..", rniA.C.u.....l!.r'IodIl'Typ. b ~ 5tructO&rLl S==-I per EI\~ee.rin4 2o:C el'-OC ...n ",..JI.O.O.l'l ~::;~~'~,:,~r~.a...". I' :<.. rl"""~ n.:!=! f...:t.......rS._ISl.......W.o.JI. I" ......-. J UJ."",.cp___",..t ..lplAleli.... ".J... C"a.bonllrad.. T~'p. lOO.O''E...G. CI,o.". A Co.bl'rate. fla.t TU&: Tl'P- Dwu40lb.,PclLD.......1I1".fl!T1>'D.,cI wtthclipl'D.O.l'l Bath 2 vrCdlhl.tll-DaTd w 5/!1"~_ D~ Typi=l All c.JU...-:_....<I \"'aJl~ Bed Zi 0tiL Garage .. SECTION "C" Scale 1/4" = 1'. 0" 0 " :; ~ ~ " oi " '" g ~ <( ... " u :l 0 ] ~ 0: ; "' u <0 (jj . i~ ~' o~ '- "~u ~ S;; . _' u...!:, "-'"",~ ,-...,.., rj ~ I.n (I) ~ 0' ~ :~ - . t.~ CJ: ~ .. r:!l ,,," d Cl> III iN ~ ~ ''-' It) '" ""It) ~y S"! lfl'" CIl~ ~ "l.':l ~,-: -.; fd 69 ~ "tl .!i~ ~ ~ ~ob '~.d ....iN ~ Cll go'" Ol.eud ~< r2: B CiP; '?~ !J~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ c.; ~ r3 ~ ~ 0 sol! <(:I: .. ~ DlS ~ Z o """' ~ U f1J rJ) ~".'IA.J b.lllf lrO- A1IW-.ll:nC,/i. ~~IItCc."-t.A-50 ........... Mar 14 07 12:40p John Tracy 408-725-1475 p,1 John Tracy Jessica Rose 10410 Ann At-bor Avenue Cupertino CA 95014 408.255.5126 rosetracy3@s bcglobalnet Exhibit 0 To: AId Honda Snelling, City Planning Department From: Jessica Rose and John Tracy Re: Comments on 3109/07 plan submittals for 21180 Grenola Dr.! Mojgani property Date: Wednesday March 14, 2007 We received the revised drawings for the 2nd floor / balcony for the 21180 Grenola Drive property on Tuesday March 13th. We were told the deadline to the City Planning Department was Thursday March 8th and once again we feel the tardy submission of such critical information is disrespectful of neighbors and City Planning department. As we have documented at prior departmental meetings, since April 2006, our primary concern is privacy protection for our property. The proposed two second story rear- balconies are intrusive to the privacy of our interior home and back yard areas. Additionally, the many landscaping plans officially proposed since July are deficient, incomplete and do not meet minimum ordinance requirements. Also, because of the close proximity of these balconies to neighboring property lines and the size and nature of the property lots in Garden Gate, we do not believe landscaping can mitigate the privacy violations imposed by the proposed balconies. The ordinance states our privacy must be mitigated within three years of planting and we have not found a shrub to grow close to 20 feet in three years to meet such a requirement. Comments to 3/09/07 balcony and landscaping plan submittals: I) Balcony; 2nd story floor plans do not provide adequate dimensional sizing in order to accurately assess spacing and areas. 2) Balcony; "old l;>alcony" is misleadingly shown as 8' when should be shown as 6'. 3) Balcony; This new balcony concept is documented at 66sf, which is 10 sf larger than the previous 6' concept (56 st). Balcony still serves as usable living space. 4) Balcony; Proposed 4'-6" solid stucco wall at each end of the balcony is insufficient to provide privacy. The average adult could easily view over this chest high wall. 5) Balcony; The second (bedroom #2) rear balcony does not reflect privacy mitigation concepts. 6) Landscaping Plan; No referenced dimensionals for planting locations 7) Landscaping Plan; Docwnented cones of vision from proposed balcony are incorrect 8) Landscaping Plan; Ordinance requires 5'minimum, not 8', planting distance for Pittrosproum 9) Landscaping Plan; Plantings do not take into consideration existing mature trees on neighboring property 10) Landscaping Plan; No front landscaping detailed Conclusion: We ask the 'City Council to uphold our Appeal of the Minor Residential Permit for two - rear second story balconies proposed 'On this property. I" -/43 Print hrtp://us.t527.maIl.yahoo.comJdc/launch'!achon=foJderview&Y Y= 1... From: Elena To: Aki Honda Date: Wednesday, March 14,200711:52:21 AM Subject: Re: Mojgani 2nd Floor Thank you Steve and Aki - - I have to repeat Aki, I truly, truly appreciate the dedication you guys give to your projects!!! (I couldn't believe how late you answered the phone last night!!) Many cheers, to you both. With regard to comments on the Mojgani's submission- I have a side comment I feel it's important to make. I truly wish the Mojgani's would respect and understand the process. Yes, we got these files in advance, but with no time to work with them on it before they submitted it to you/the city for the upcoming meering. I would have liked to have had the opportunity to work with them before their final submission for the City Council. This is what I would have said: The landscaping plan illustrates . A different size balcony than the pdf file - i.e., it notes 3'11" deep, yet the pdf file (2nd floor plan) illustrates an odd shaped balcony that must vary in depth as it has several angles, and does not give any details as all balcony dimensions (ht, width, depth.) As an aside, it seems that - due to the length change - it is almost as big as the original 6 ft balcony which is noted as 111.3 sq ft. (Refer to page 1-40 of the November Planning Commission packet, was probably renumbered for the January City Council meeting packet.) . Does not show the front yard tree - - this tree would help mitigate the portion of my appeal that talks to the mass and bulk being inappropriate to the neighborhood; it would help, aesthetically soften the approach from the east, and hopefully the rendering used in the proposal illustrates what would be planted "in the future", . A solid boundary hedge of pittasporum - oh well. . With regard to plantings: I feel it must be re-iterated that plan rings will not even be close to maturity (20ft +plus footage fot screening of a second story balcony) at 3 years, and likely will not be effective at 6-7. This is based onpast personal experience with pittasporum, hedges, balconies, and privacy screening. Please consider this. My appeal, different from the Tracy1s in this regard, stipulates that I believe balconies are inappropriate to the neighborhood. While I believe that much attention is being focused, deservedly, on the Tracy's side of the property, all my comments are germane to the impact to the neighborhood as a whole. . The balconies should be treated with regard to modifications as a whole unit. I believe they are both highly intrusive, having been placed on the exterior comers of the property, This home will remain for 50, or 60 or more years, and I believe this must be considered. . I am asking for the balconies to be removed, and feel that a faux balcony IS a compromise" given that a sliding door or a french-door gives one the ambience of the outdoors without intruding into the neighbors yards and living spaces. . The faux balcony is not the same as a window. It gives a much larger outdoor space (from the 1nt-p....tr-..... (")~ ThD f"'r\r\'f'"n '\ ...1...11'1"\ r1r\~C 111 T'CrtnrlnTt7 / 5" _III Li .Ll..I.L\.....L..LvJ.. V.L L..U...... L\JV~J..l.) LJ...lA.U. '-lV"""'" a. n tlJ.\,..tv \IV. 'T 7 , 3/14/2007 11:52 AM 1 of 2 ketY~1l-- Print http://us.f527.mail.yahoo.comldc/Jaunch?action=folderview& yy= 1... My appeal also speaks to the oak tree. Not much attention has been given to this tree, and I don't understand why. The planning commission and the city council have both been assured somehow that the oak tree "should be safe" - but I do not have that assurance. . All I have is an arbonst report that has many recommendations and acknowledges that it is based on insufficient data. Where is the documentation addressing all the unknown factors?! I include this report with marked notations on the many areas that seem to indicate that this home project plan endangers the tree. ----- Original Message ---- From: Aki Honda <AkiH@cupertino.org> To: rosetracy3@sbcglobal.net; elena_herrera@yahoo.com Sent: Tuesday, March 13,20073:05:52 PM Subject: FW: Mojgani 2nd Floor Hi Jessica and Elena, Here are the updated second-story floor plans I received from Cliff, the Mojgani's designer. I wi!! be incorporating them into the report, since these plans provide a little more clarity and understanding of what is being proposed. If you'd like to submit any comments to include in the Council report, please feel free to submit them by noon tomorrow (Wednesday). Thanks, Aki , Bored stiff? Loosen up... Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games. . 2- t:t~~ /5' -/tiS 20f2 3/14/2007 11:52 AM I1j!UHU iL U. \LV l.- and ASSOCIATES Horticutural':onsult8I\ts 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, ':A 95033 4081353- 1 052 ? i!-,~~ ,;J RECEIVED MAY 1 8 2006 EV ALUA TION OF TREES AT THE COWLES, PROPERTY 21180 GRENOLA DRIVE C1UJP'I~ H 'fIN 0 Prepared at the request of: Aki Honda City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Prepared by: Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist April 27th, 2006 Job # 04-06-088 R Application ;? -:~ODb - 0f,S RM Application m - doob -1.3 Approval Date B :l::- Signature a /6'.; c;tr (Case Manage~ 1'5 -1'Ift; tf-% EVALUATION OF TREES AT THE COWLES RESIDENCE, 2] ]80 GRENOLADRlVE. CUPERTll-.JO 2 Assignment I was asked by Aki Honda, Planner, City of Cupertino, to evaluate the existing trees located at 21180 Grenola Drive, Cupertino. The plans provided for this evaluation are the Construction Plans prepared by Cliff Cowles, Carmel, Sheets AI-A8, dated 2-28-06. Summary There are 2 trees included in this inventory that may be damaged by proposed constn]ction One tree is located on this property, and one lS iocated on the adjacent property toward the south The 2 trees are identified here and given a condition rating. Some characteristics concerning these trees are briefly described. Both Trees # 1 and 2 are protected by city regulation. ~! It appears that Tree # I eQuId be p..r..es..erv...e..d...,. .b. u. t tIDs..m.. ay require re.vis. i.ons to the plans, or relocation _ of the foot print, and mitigatiol1J=!~~~~gY.fe?JPJ>'~;Jiiligentlyirnplerrwnt.e~:L" ~""''''~'''~~l'!>,.-o..",.;;,-,,,~... " A reasonably accurate estimate of the potential canopy loss to Tree # 1 is not possible with only the plans provided. Options are suggested. ' Observations There are 2 trees included in this evaluation. Tree # I is located on this site, and Tree # 2 is located on the neighboring property toward the south near the southwest corner of this property. The attached map shows the locations of these 2 trees and their approximate canopy dimensions. The 2 trees are classified and given an overall condition rating as follows: Tree # 1 - Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) in excellent condition Tree # 2 - Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) in excellent condition Methods The trunk measurement of Tree # 1 has been taken using a diameter tape at 4 lh feet above soil grade. This is referred to as DBH (Diameter at Breast Height). The diameter of Tree # 2 is , -estimated by visual observation at a distance of about 10 feet. I stepped off the canopy spread of ~ "1:5 ~ Tree # 1 from north to south and from east to west. The height and canopy spread of Tree # 2 is ~ .~"C8 ~ ~stimated using visual references only. These trees have been added to the Site Plan, of which a ::i.~ e ca jeduced version is included in the attachments. 0- 0.. c= o:C:;E 0...Q> ~ :c: CC <C. en ~ ~~r€-F:~ 4- The particulars of these 2 trees (species, trunk diameter, height, spread, and structure) are included in the attachments that follow this text. Please note on these data sheets that the health and structure of each specimen is rated on a scale of 1-5 (Excellent - Extremely poor), which provides the basis for the overall condition rating of each tree, stated above. The condition ratings are ranked using the following range: (1) Excellent, (2) Good, (3) Fair, (4) Poor, (5) Extremely Poor. Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist April 27th, 2006 15 -/47 q-;;Ll EV ALVA TION OF TREES AT THE CO\VLES RESIDENCE, 2] 180 GRENOLA DRIVE. CUPERTINO 3 Comments about Specific Trees The lowest limb of Tree # 1, facing northwest and approximately 12 inches in diameter, has been removed. The perimeter of the wound had been cut with a saw, but the interior wood of this limb has broken off (Photo in attachments). The removal ofthis limb appears to have reduced the screening value of this tree in the ~ower 6-10 feet of the canopy. However, this tree provides an effective screen, especially toward the southeast. As the proposed new residence is to be 'a two- story, Tree # 1 would immediately screen portions of the second story for the neighboring residents facing south. Tree # 1 has a trunk diameter of 31 2 inches at 4 II; feet above gTade Its canopy spread J::; approximately 55 feet north to south and east to west, but the canopy is not symmetrical or equal on all sides. There is a greater quantity of canopy on the east side of the trunk than the west side, and there is a slightly greater canopy on the south side than the north side, but only by a few feet. The canopy is shown on the attached map. Protected Trees The City of Cupertino (Chapter 14.18 "finds that the pre'servation of specimen and heritage trees on private and public property, and the protection of all trees during construction, is necessary for the best interests of the City and of the citizens and the public thereof." The City "finds it is in the public interest to enact regulations controlling the care and removal of specimen and heritage trees..." A "Heritage Tree" means "any tree or grove of trees which, because of factors, but not limited to, its historic value, unique quality, girth, height or species, has been found by the Architectural and Site Approval Committee to have a special significance to the community." A "Specimen tree" means any of the following: Species Measurement from Single Trunk MuIti- Trunk Natural Grade Diameter/Circumference Diameter/Circum ference Oak trees; 4 V2 feet 10 inches 31 inches C ) 20 inches D (63 inches C) California Bucke e 4 V2 feet 12 inches 38 inches C 25 inches D 79 inches C) Both Trees # 1 and 2 are protected by City of Cupertino regulation. Risks to Trees by Proposed Construction The plan proposes to remove Tree # 1, and notes on the plan that this tree is a sycamore. The new residence is shown to be located 12 feet from the trunk. This would not be a sufficient distance to expect the survival of Tree # 1. 5a.>~ 25 1a ~ '-'S If Tree # 1 is to be preserved, both the root loss and the canopy loss must be limited to a maximum -..ul-.t . ~ -c....""'@ ~ 1iiof25% total. These (root loss and canopy loss) are not separate unrelated events. They are parts of 'g-~ e .g fa single living entity. Thus, both canc~py loss and root loss must be considered as a whole. ~::::2: ~.a,i Concerning Tree # 1, if the trenching for the footing or for perimeter drainage would result in an ::c: c:: <c CI) '2- ' . A..~ir€..&., ~~ Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist ." April 2ih, 2006 /5 -I 'f'J> J-f,.- Jf) EV ALUA TION OF TREES AT THE COWLES RESIDENCE, 21180 GRENOLA DRIVE, CUPER TINa 4 estimated root loss of 25%, there must be no significant canopy loss. Also, bear in mind that the recovery period for a major loss (root, canopy, or both) is 2 years. We consider 25%-30% total loss to be a major loss. * Concerning root loss of Tree # 1, there must be no trenching or excavation within 15 feet of the trunk. T~~~ta~~~,,2L~?*!~~~,~?~!~,~~"*~l"lJJi~trn1:l}n,ql*J~;!1~7c;~~~f.,~g:Y!5j,r~s~lt ip approximately 20%-25% ro'ot1oss at thIS 10catIoh.- In thIS event, th~c,a,ngpyJo~s lI'l~st,~~ mlmrnal. Whether or not there would be miiliirial'canopy loss, using the plan alone, is not possible to estimate, In my opinion. story poles for the south side of the new residence would be required to more accurately estimate the canopy loss Bear in mind that the root loss estimate is based on experience with coast live oak species and on the typical plant morphology of a large oak tree. An al!ernative method of estim~ting the potential root loss would be to excavate the .soH us.ing<m.a,ir spade or a water Jet spade at the location of the k ;~~~~ss~~~~t;:;o~f~fi;X;~~~r;:a~~;i:eti!o~m~~e~~~;~:~~nc~~l;~~:'~:~~~ i~t est!.m~te,lhe root loss.. Of course, there IS no guarantee that this method would yield a pOSItive result for the owner. ): Another important element is that the plans provided are incomplete with regard to Tree # I. The plans do not show any backyard hardscape or landscaping. 1:-I~.?L,ggJheplans $h.q'~hsk~aln.(ige DC (' utili~i~~:, v..rj,!g2.~! the~e. e!em~nts.'pr.()v~d in tl!e plan.s., t~~ P'?tentialimpact to Tree # 1 cannot be \ fully assessed. ~ ~ -' -. ~ - ~ ----=.-:..--:::-- ' It does not appear that any grading, excavation, or construction would occur adjacent to the back fence. If there is no grading or soil work in the area within 10 feet of the back fence nearest Tree # 2, the potential damage to Tree # 2 would be insignificant. The trees at this site would likely be at risk of damage by construction or construction procedures that are common to most construction sites. These procedures may include the dumping or the stockpiling of materials over root systems, may include the trenching across the root zones for utilities or for landscape irrigation, or may include construction traffic across the root system resulting in soil compaction and root die back. If any underground utilities arer~ml~yydor upgraded, it would be essential that the loc,ation of _.... __,..,-:.....-. ",.".,-f!::':'''' .""'h-',HI'-,,," ".,......,. ~=."r.""..-'"""........, ' ' ,_., - - _.- ,.... '- --.. ' - trenches be pianned prior to construction, and those locations shown onpJans,and that the trenches . ,,... ..' . " . ,~. '7 be located at the exact locations shown on the plans. - ____ Recommendations If Tree # 1 is to be preserved, both the root loss and the canopy loss must be limited as previously described. CO) o -+-' 5 1:a ro :=;uCl :'CS . - - CD--:. o -;:::;: co =- l;; - .......::> --' "" 5-o..o"E~ ::::2- c::::C 0- c:::E ::1':: ~ O--Q'~ :c a:: <X: en 2, 1. Concerning potential canopy loss, I recommend that story poles be installed for the south side of the residence in order to more accurately assess the impact. In my opinion this must be done first. The quantity of canopy loss must not exceed 25% of the total canopy. If this cannot be achieved after evaluation, the location of the footing, which would result in root 1'L2 if. reerc, G Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist April 27th, 2006 /5 -1'11 '-f- 'a-l , }jj~\" ;.~~: '-~.'~ ~~'."~C . f,i',,'t ., ...'...."'., ;~,\ ,. it~~,. t~""A'j;f \:P I7:i l. --..D ~ c:: c:: .9 $ '-'--:- o1ii~'.J -~= c:...>D a:s .- - 9='-=- u-C\:S-a> == ~:> ..a g> O-~ 0 ~ a O-~ --- c:::E 4: ~ 8:.Q>fJ [':C cc. <C. Cf) g. EV ALUA nON OF TREES AT THE COWLES RESIDENCE, 21180 GRENOLA DRIVE, CUPERTINO 5 loss, would be a mute point. With regard to potential root loss, I recommend 2 options: . Relocate the footprint a minimum of 15 feet from the trunk of Tree # 1, or . Excavate the ,intended location of the footing using an air spade or a water jet spade. The exposed roots must be inspected by the city arborist. The size and quantities of roots exposed by this excavation would determine whether or not it would be feasible to construct a standard spread footing, or a pier and on-grade beam footing. However, this \'vould he a mute point, jfthe quantity of canopy loss would exceed 25% of the total Companies that provide i:m-spade service include Urban Tree ServIce (6SU-3'21-02C12) and Arborwell (888-969-8733). Depending on the outcome of Recommendations # 1 and 2, Tree # 1 may be preserved. In '-J..-' this event, th~J(:~,llo;>>'iIll?; mitigati,?~ ~fC~ct?dures typically required at most construction sites /}\ would be required. ~-, .-:-. 3. I recommend that protective fencinl?; be provided during the construction period to protect those trees that are planned to be preserved. This fencing must protect a sufficient portion of the root zone to be effective. In most cases, it would be essential to locate the fencing a >{t~i\~";rip~~i;;~~~ffi'a9~~tiJf:~:r~ ~~:::e~~ (~i::~~~ :r~~s:~e~~ 54 inches above grade) would require that protective fencing be erected 13 feet minimum from the trunk. Ifhardscape (i.e:, curbing, paving, etc.) exists inside this 13 foot radius, the protective fencing is usually recommended to be erected at the edge of the hardscape feature and be located at least 13 feet from the trunk minimum on all other sides. Occasionally it may be essential to have a certified arborist make decisions about the location(s) of protective fencing at the project site. I recommend that m:Q.t~_<::B'ye f~I1c,i:pgomu~!: . Consist of chain link fencing and having a ininimum height of 6 feet. Be mounted on steel posts driven approximately 2 feet into the soil. Fencing posts must be located a maximum of 10 feet on center. Protective fencing must be installed prior to the arrival of materials, vehicles, or equipment. . Protective fencing must not be moved, even temporarily, and must remain in place until all construction is completed. r: . Note: In my experience, less substantial fencing is not respected by contractors. 4. Because it would not be practical to protect the root zone near the new residence with protective fencing, a root buffer would be essential. A. n19.!;J:;>Yff~L?-!1.R:.~~B~?r~ ~e",9,~ done ov~tl;~\L~8,B~!,~X~t~l11,Y[ifuqut ~igp.ificant root loss. ~~y~g-;fut~:EqQt l:>l%f~e.~ii~,~nt~1,{;sLe9 to bate;;the'~W~igl:),tJl:nIy,.forcworkel'switb.h.@c:lequipment,. and is notintended for tra~tors or l.ft... . . - - ~.--:=- li{~qJ11pm~nL;,.;> ------= -" ~ ---- ~ ":;1 IA..sV{V"~e.n-c - 7 Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist April 2ih, 2006 I S -I SO If <~t) 13. Any pathways or other hardscape inside the driplines of protected trees must be constructed completely on top of the existing soil grade without excavation. Fill soil may be added to the edge of finished hardscape for a maximum distance of approximately 2 feet from the t~rp---1/?\ .-,)' EVALUATION OF TREES AT THE COWLES RESIDENCE, 21180 GRENOLA DRlVE, CUPERTTI\lO 6 !.recommend a root buffer as follows: ,. A 6 inch layer of course wood chips Topped with full sheets of I-1f2 inch plywood tied together. The wood chips must be course (approximately % inch in diameter or larger) to be. effective (shredded redwood is not acceptable for this purpose due to its compressibility). The wood chips must be spread by hand over the existing soil grade to a minimum depth of 6 inches over the specific area to be protected. "' The plywood m usl be secured to prl;':wnt s 1 i ppage @ This root buffer must be installed In conjunction with plOtective fenclllg,and rnus1 remain in place until all construction is completed. 5, There must be no grading, trenching, or surface scraping inside the driplines of protected trees, unless specifically described in another section of this report. 6. Trenches for any utilities (gas, electricity, water, phone, TV cable, etc.) must be located outside the driplines of protected trees, unless approved by a certified arborist. 7. I recommend that Trees # 1 must be irrigated throughout the entire construction period during the dry months (any month receiving less than 1 inch of rainfall). Irrigate a minimum of 10 gallons of water for each inch of trunk diameter every two weeks, A soaker hose or a drip line is preferred for this purpose. 8. I recommend that the entire area inside the dripline of Trees # 1 must be mulched to the extent feasible. Mulching consists of a protective material (wood chips, gravel) being spread over the root zone inside the dripline. This material must be 4 inches in depth after spreading, which must be done by hand. I prefer course wood chips because it is organic, and degrades naturally over time. Wood chips must be 1;4 to % inch in diameter primarily. One supplier is Reuser, Inc., 370 Santana Dr., Cloverdale, CA 95425, (707)894-4224. 9. If any old irrigation lines, drain lines, sewer lines, or any other underground features exist inside the driplines of protected trees, but would not be used, I recommend that they be cut off approximately at soil grade and left in the ground. 10. Materials must not be stored, stockpiled, dumped, or buried inside the ciriplines of protected trees. 11. Excavated soil must not be piled or dumped, even temporarily, inside the driplines of protected trees. 12. Any pruning must be done by an arborist certified by the ISA (International Society of Arboriculture) and according to ISA, Western Chapter Standards, 1998. Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist April 27ili, 2006 /5 -/5/ tf"'3{ EVALUATION OF TREES AT THE COWLES RESIDENCE, 21180 GRENOLA DRlYE, CUPERTINO 7 edges to integrate the new hardscape to the natural grade. 14. The sprinkler irrigation must not be done within 20 feet ofthe trunk of Tree # 1. 15. Landscape irrigation trenches must be a minimum distance of 10 times the trunk diameter from the trunks of protected trees. 16. Landscape materials (cobbles, decorative bark, stones, fencing, etc.) must not be installed directly jJl contact with the bark of trees because of the risk of serious disease infection 17. The plants that are planted inside the driplines of oak trees must be of species that are compatible with the environmental and cultural requirements of oaks trees. A publication about plants compatible with Califorilla native oaks can be obtained from the California Oak Foundation, 1212 Broadway, Suite 810, Oakland, 94612. Respect ~ " Michael L. Bench, Associate A_L1-~ -f)~ ~.(;'ate, Principal MLB/sh Enclosures: Assumptions and Limiting Conditions Photo Map Tree Chart R Application R - ;<O!)b - o~ RM Application r2M - d oob -1.3 Approval Date {; ... :2 3 -oln Signature {iIu' #n/1 ~y- (Case Manage~ Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist k~(t.-eYl<- -~ Apri12ih,2006 /5 - 152- +-~ ~ARRI~ D, COAT~ A~D ~OCIAT~ Exhibit C H Q.tt!cl.lltura I Comultann: PHON( (4-W) gSg-tOS2 ~AI (4-Q<6"}-gSg-12g,? 2 g5gS S;urnmIt Rnad, Lo~ Gstos, CA 950g g A ~ A X TO; ki HC1vt.d CL ~axll; 777- 357> r1<OM: t5Bme D, !2MY8 DATI: 6: ~ :2. '5 -([) G Rl: -'52 f \' 15' (!) E i/e,qzh () \ o~ 1/ r--- I ~UM8~l< OR PAGr;s: _L-~ C-c C:l ;f~C~w I e> rz3f-G6'7-67GI COMMENTS: M r--S Ie H (b GLd 0L, , ~ I ~ \th t r-r \ \ l- >fO t'\I? IfH CJ. I . l.Q \)J _0> -+ ft(:; WOl-vt\wg a. h<0<-'- t 4r-e~c kfvtg f2@f- ct fo<.zctJ"<L}[a1'1 VI eo r- CJC( k +r-e~4f- r I ' W9 ttc: ~ ~Cl'{\'t?d t-kccf +f-'f'L{C>Cc(~ b P VI (T) (' ((f) S ' . ! ':7 ( f\-D VVl i ~ e f [--Vi lit k w l1)(e k [~I Co(jj[~r;:., vi D w f'tlA.d s; 1- Uce 1- +CuP ctrj-c{ aJ +r-e V{ c0~ W dJL{ r d ~ a (/ P 1-(0 b e / Lf I Z /( ~ ro vU tf Gte t (-1't,( t1 k () ']Vl e d iff\:J r{) V(C~ 9- 0 (J) Vv( j fA e f b e 5'(g /,{ r(; l (' <LC{j J d 11 J 5' ~If) cd d b f' CD L{ 52 (~J Q[-e J a ('(' ~r'f-d',b (p ;; / Vl re~--eJ C; . . I cf~~Jcft{hg~ ["'-.Q.,,('O;7 ,__ { 1\ rcc...--rt.., -' U I S -IS 3 4-(5 Exhibit C AkiHonda From: Ciddy Wordell Sent: Wednesday, September 20,20062:57 PM To: Aki Honda , Subject: FW: email from Michael Bench -----Original Message----- IF'lmm: BARRIE 0 COATE [mailto:bccoate@verizon,net] Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 12: 19 PM To: Ciddy Wordell Subject: email from Michael Bench Re: Cowles Residence, 21180 Genola Drive I have looked at the story poles in relation to the large Coast Live Oak and the pruning required to construct the building would be fairly minor canopy loss and therefore I find it quite acceptable. The tree should easily tolerate the canopy loss. It would be essential that the pruning be done by a certified arborist and that the pruning meet the ISA Western Chapter standards. I find this acceptable if the pruning is done properly. dictated by Mick, 9/15/06 9/20/2006 /5-15'1 Jfrl& ~ 12fJ/D 7 SE. Ie " , t8'-6~ PROPOSED 2nd FLOORPLAN Scale Ii4" = 1'- 0" 1f ~ l! - ~ br- l;o ;., i I - - - . - - . - - - - - - - - D[ DO r~ 1. \ ~ anis' o m Feb 8 Staff called & spoke to Mr. Mojgani, stating the landscape plan was still deficient. Tree species and box size were not identified. Staff also requested revised plans be submitted by Feb. 20 for March 6 meeting. Feb 7 Mojganis asked staff to review landscape plan submitted on evening of Feb. 6 City Council meeting. response Feb 20 Staff received no or revised plans. Feb 23-26 Mojganis did not request a response from staff, but copied staff on emails between the Mojganis' and their designer that indicated difficulties resolvi ng thei r ssues with thei r designer. Feb 27 Mojganis & appellants participated in mediation. No agreement was reached. Feb 28 Staff notified City Clerk of continuance request. Staff also notified the Mojganis that City Clerk was given the continuance request. Feb 28 Mojganis requested continuance to March 20 CC meeting, stating they needed time to revise their plans. Mar 6 Staff emailed the Mojganis, reiterating continuance request was given to City Clerk's office. Staff also requested revised plans by March 8 at the latest. Mar 5 Mojganis asked staff to double check that their continuance request was submitted to the City Clerk's office Mar 8 Staff requested plans by March 9th at latest & requested that the Mojganis to give appellants copies of their revised plans Mar 8 Mojganls email staff that they will submit revised plans on March 12. Mar 12 Staff emailed the Mojganis requesting the second story floor plan showing revised balcony dimensions. Mar 9 Mojganis emailed elevations, first floor plan, plot plan & landscape plan to staff at 2:53 p.m. Mar 13 Staff re-emailed Mojganis requesting balcony dimensions. Mar 13 Mojganis email second story floor plan without dimensions. Mar 15 Staff emailed Mojganis that the second story floor plan was incorporated into the City Counc packet. Staff also asked owners to pick up their large size exhibit that was not in a format that could be included in the Council packet (2' x 2' exhibit). Staff also emailed the Mojganis a copy of the Council report. Mar 14 Mojganis asked f staff received the emai with second story floor plan. Mar 15 Mojganis send severa emails asking staff if their revised balcony and mitigation plans are adequate, if the Tracy's appeals were based on privacy, what staff's recommendations are on the revised plans. They also indicate that the Magnolia trees will meet the City's privacy protection standards. Mar 19 Staff responded to the Mojganis email explaining their question and staff's recommendation are included in the Council report that was emailed to them the previous week. Mar 19 Mojganis emai dimensions of master balcony: 13.2 long, 4.5 ft deep. They ask why City hasn't responded to any of their emails in the past 11 days. ,,(1 PlAtte l' T.. Ace m [l] Staff notified property owners that the Feb. landscape plan was still deficient. Staff requested revised plans by Feb. 20. ere submitted 6 Feb8 the City. to revised plans Feb 20 No Staff requested that revised plans be submitted by March 8 at the latest. Mar6 Mar 9 Property owners submit revised plans, excluding second floor plans. Staff requested second floor plans & balcony dimensions. plan, Mar 13 Property owners submitted second floor excluding balcony dimensions. GRAVEL ----------------- 0' P/L ".5 Ui N90000'OO"E GRAVEL