The URL can be used to link to this page

15. Hsu/Han petition for reconsideration City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 Fax: (408) 777-3333 I CUPEIQ"INO Community Development Department SUMMARY Agenda Item No. 15" Agenda Date: May 1, 2007 . Application: TM-2006-12, EXC-2006-14, V-2006-01 Applicant: Jitka Cymbal (Westfall Engineers) Owner: Sue-Jane Han . Location: 21871 Dolores Avenue APPLICATION SUMMARY Consider a Petition for Reconsideration of the City Council's decision to deny a Tentative Map to subdivide a .46-acre parcel into two parcels of 9,685 square feet and 9,686 square feet, respectively, and to deny a variance to allow a 50-foot lot width, instead of the required 60-foot width, for two proposed parcels, Application Nos. EXC- 2006-14, TM-2006-12, V-2007-01, Titka Cymbal (Westfall Engineers), 21871 Dolores Avenue, APN 357-14-026. The petitioners are Tracy Hsu and Suejane Han. RECOMMENDATION The Council has the options to adopt a resolution to either: a) Deny the rehearing request; or b) Grant the rehearing request; or c) Approve the application if rehearing is granted. BACKGROUND On February 20, 2007 the city council denied the appeal of applicant Sue-Jane Han of application TM-2006-12 and V-2007-01, a tentative map to subdivide a.46 acre lot into two parcels of 9,685 square feet and 9,686 square feet, respectively, in a Rl-7.5 zoning district and a variance to allow a 50-foot lot width, instead of the required 60-foot width, for the two proposed parcels. This application, which initially included a request for an exception, EXC-2006-14, to allow 5-foot side yard setbacks, instead of the required combined 15 feet, was denied by the Planning Commission on January 23, 2007. The appeal on February 20, 2007 to the City Council was denied on a two-to-two vote with one council member absent. 15-/ File Nos.: TM-2006-12, V-2006-01 Page 2 May 1, 2007 A petition for reconsideration of TM-2006-12, a tentative map of a subdivision of property owned by Sue Jane Han located at 21871 Dolores Avenue, Cupertino, into two side-by-side lots, and V-2006-01, a variance to allow 50 ft. lot widths, was submitted by Ms. Han and Tracy Hsu on March 5,2007 and supplemented on March 8,2007. DISCUSSION Please refer to the City Attorney's report (Exhibit A) for a detailed summary of the basis for the reconsideration request and the findings that are necessary in response to the petition for reconsideration. ADDITIONAL SITE DESIGN OPTIONS The applicant has submitted three site layout options for a side by side lot division and an exhibit showing the flag lot configuration for the Council's reference (Exhibit B). If the Council wishes to allow the rehearing, a full staff analysis of these options will be provided at a later date. ENCLOSURES Council Resolutions City Council Meeting Minutes from February 20,2007 Applicant's Reconsideration Request (with attached materials) Exhibit A: City Attorney report to the Council Exhibit B: Additional site design illustrations provided by the applicant Exhibit C: City Council staff report dated February 20, 2007 (with attachments) Prepared by: Gary Chao, Associate Planner Approved by: ~ Steve Piasecki Director, Community Development David W. Knapp City Manager F:\PDREPORT\ CC\2007\ TM-2006-12reconsideration.doc /5-2 Page 1 of3 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DENYING THE PETITION OF SU-JANE HAN SEEKING COUNCIL RECONSIDERATION OF ITS DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. TM-2006-12 AND V-2007-01, A TENTATIVE MAP TO SUBDIVIDE A .46 ACRE LOT INTO TWO PARCELS OF 9,685 SQUARE FEET AND 9,686 SQUARE FEET, RESPECTIVELY IN A Rl-7.5 ZONING DISTRICT AND A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 50-FOOT LOT WIDTH, INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 60-FOOT WIDTH, FOR THE TWO PROPOSED PARCELS Whereas, Application TM-2006-12 and V-2007-01, a tentative map to subdivide a.46 acre lot into two parcels of9,685 square feet and 9,686 square feet, respectively in a RI-7.5 zoning district and a variance to allow a 50-foot lot width, instead of the required 60-foot width, for the two proposed parcels was denied by the Planning Commission on January 23,2007; and Whereas, the Applicant Sue-Jane Han's appeal of the Planning Commission decision to the City Council on February 20,2007 was denied; and Whereas, Sue-Jane Han has requested that the City Council reconsider its decision under the provisions of section 2.08.096 of the City's ordinance code; and Whereas, the City Council has considered all relevant evidence presented by the parties at all hearings, including evidence presented at the May 1, 2007 reconsideration hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The petitioner's Reconsideration Petition is defective on its face in that it does not offer proof of facts as required by Municipal Code section 2.08.096. 2. The petitioner has made no offer of new relevant evidence that, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced at any earlier city hearing. (See Municipal Code ~ 2.08.096B(l).) 3. The City Council did not exclude any evidence presented by the petitioners at any prior city hearing. (See Municipal Code ~ 2.08.096B(2).) 4. The City Council has proceeded entirely within its jurisdiction regarding the application for a use permit. (See Municipal Code S 2.08.096B(3).) 5. The petitioner has failed to present any evidence that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing. (See Municipal Code ~ 2.08.096B(4).) 6. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion regarding the application. (See Municipal Code ~ 2.08.096B(5).) Specifically, the City Council. determines that: a. The City Council proceeded in a manner required by law. b. The City Council's decision is supported by findings of fact. /5'-3 Page 2 of3 c. The findings of fact related to the City Council's decision were supported by substantial evidence in the record of proceedings. 7. The specific allegations contained in the petition for reconsideration are refuted by specific City Council findings, as follows: Petition Findin2 The City Council abused its discretion by Evidence offered by the Applicant was rendering a decision in which the considered by the Council, but did not meet findings of fact were not supported by burden required by ordinance to create the evidence in that" we presented the substandard width lots. evidence that the traditional subdivision (side-by-side) was in fact consistent with the overall neighborhood because the substandard lot width is the predominate pattern in the Monta Vista area. Weare not really introducing a new pattern to the neighborhood. Two Council members ignored the evidence and proceeded with their decisions without considering the facts that were presented." "We were not aware that one of the As long as there is a quorum, the number of council members was absent prior to the council members present is irrelevant. meeting. No one had informed us that we had a right to ask that our case be reviewed at the next meeting when there is full chamber." "The City recently approved a similar Against side-by-side subdivision: Applicant project located on McClellan Road did not meet burden for the granting of a although the adjacent neighbors were all variance. No extraordinary conditions exist, in flag lots. The City cited the general denial will not cause unnecessary hardship. plan policy' A flag lot is created only when there is no alternative.' It's clearly stated the flag lots are less desirable and discouraged. The City has insisted that the property should be subdivided the middle despite it creates a substandard lot width. In our case, the City Council made an inconsistent interpretation and didn't follow the intent and spirit of general plan policy." /5 -1 Page 3 of3 8. The petitioner's Petition for Reconsideration of the City Council's determination of February 20, 2007 is DENIED PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this _ day of , 2007, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino /5-5 Page I of2 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO GRANTING THE PETITION OF SU-JANE HAN SEEKING COUNCIL RECONSIDERATION OF ITS DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. TM-2006-12 AND V-2007-01, A TENTATIVE MAP TO SUBDIVIDE A .46 ACRE LOT INTO TWO PARCELS OF 9,685 SQUARE FEET AND 9,686 SQUARE FEET, RESPECTIVELY IN A R!-7.5 ZONING DISTRICT AND A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 50-FOOT LOT WIDTH, INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 60-FOOT WIDTH, FOR THE TWO PROPOSED PARCELS Whereas, Application TM-2006-12 and V-2007-01, a tentative map to subdivide a.46 acre lot into two parcels of9,685 square feet and 9,686 square feet, respectively in a RI-7.5 zoning district and a variance to allow a 50-foot lot width, instead of the required 60-foot width, for the two proposed parcels was denied by the Planning Commission on January 23,2007; and Whereas, the Applicant Sue-Jane Han's appeal ofthe Planning Commission decision to the City Council on February 20,2007 was denied; and Whereas, Sue-Jane Han has requested that the City Council reconsider its decision under the provisions of section 2.08.096 of the City's ordinance code; and Whereas, the City Council has considered all relevant evidence presented by the parties at all hearings, including evidence presented at the May 1, 2007 reconsideration hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: I. The petitioner's Reconsideration Petition is defective on its face in that it does not offer proof of facts as required by Municipal Code section 2.08.096. 2. The petitioner has made no offer of new relevant evidence that, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced at any earlier city hearing. (See Municipal Code S 2.08.096B(1).) 3. The City Council did not exclude any evidence presented by the petitioners at any prior city hearing. (See Municipal Code S 2.08.096B(2).) 4. The City Council has proceeded entirely within its jurisdiction regarding the application for a use permit. (See Municipal Code S 2.08.096B(3).) 5. The petitioner has failed to present any evidence that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing. (See Municipal Code S 2.08.096B(4).) 6. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion regarding the application. (See Municipal Code S 2.08.096B(5).) Specifically, the City Council determines that: a. The City Council proceeded in a manner required by law. b. The City Council's decision is supported by findings of fact. /5-~ Page 2 of2 c. The findings of fact related to the City Council's decision were supported by substantial evidence in the record of proceedings. 7. The specific allegations contained in the petition for reconsideration are refuted by specific City Council findings, which are attached to this resolution and incorporated herein. 8. The petitioner's Petition for Reconsideration ofthe City Council's determination of February 20, 2007 is DENIED PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this _ day of ,2007, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino /5---7 Page 1 of2 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO GRANTING APPLICATION NO. TM-2006-12 AND V-2007-01, A TENTATIVE MAP TO SUBDIVIDE A .46 ACRE LOT INTO TWO PARCELS OF 9,685 SQUARE FEET AND 9,686 SQUARE FEET, RESPECTIVELY IN A R!-7.5 ZONING DISTRICT AND A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 50-FOOT LOT WIDTH, INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 60-FOOT WIDTH, FOR THE TWO PROPOSED PARCELS Whereas, Application TM-2006-12 and V-2007-01, a tentative map to subdivide a.46 acre lot into two parcels of9,685 square feet and 9,686 square feet, respectively in a R!-7.5 zoning district and a variance to allow a 50-foot lot width, instead of the required 60-foot width, for the two proposed parcels was denied by the Planning Commission on January 23,2007; and Whereas, the Applicant Sue-Jane Han's appeal of the Planning Commission decision to the City Council on February 20,2007 was denied; and Whereas, Sue-Jane Han has requested that the City Council reconsider its decision under the provisions of section 2.08.096 of the City's ordinance code; and Whereas, the City Council has considered all relevant evidence presented by the parties at all hearings, including evidence presented at the May 1, 2007 reconsideration hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: After review of all relevant evidence the City Council makes the following findings: I. Council finds Applicant's evidence showing that the neighborhood has 77 lots of 50-60' widths side by side as opposed to 26 flag lots is persuasive. Narrow side-by-side lots predominant in the neighborhood. 2. General Plan policy 2-23(2) regarding flag lots states: "Create flag lots in proposed subdivisions when they are the only reasonable alternative that integrates with the lot pattern in the neighborhood." Council finds the side by side as proposed by Applicant the most reasonable alternative. Applications No. TM-2006-12 and V-2007-01, a tentative map to subdivide a.46 acre lot into two parcels of9,685 square feet and 9,686 square feet, respectively in a R-7.5 zoning district and a variance to allow a 50-foot lot width, instead ofthe required 60-foot width, for the two proposed parcels are GRANTED. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this _ day of ,2007, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: / '3-6 NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino Page 2 of2 /5-1 February 20, 2007 Cupertino City Council Page 3 the Superior Court website to obtain applications and receive further information can be found on the Cupertino website at www.cupertino.org. CONSENT CALENDAR Sandoval/Kwok moved and seconded to approve the items on the Cons Calendar as recommended, with the exception of item No.8, which was pulled for discu on. Ayes: Kwok, Mahoney, Sandoval, and Wang. Noes: None. Absent:. Richard Lowenthal. 5. Approve the minutes from the February 6 City Council meetin 6. Adopt resolutions accepting Accounts Payable for Janu 26, February 2, and February 9, Resolution Nos. 07-030 to 07-032. Sanddval/Mahoney moved and seco ed to continue this item to March 6. Ayes: Kwok, Mahoney, Sandoval, and Wang. N s: None. Absent: Richard Lowenthal. Adopt a resolution accepting Payroll for February esolution No. 07-033. 7. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT C 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. Consider approving a bin permit renewal from De Anza Force Soccer. (Continued from February 6). The public hearin as opened at 7:16 p.m. There were no speakers and the public at 7:18 p.m. moved and seconded to approve the bingo pennit renewal for DeAnza The motion carried unanimously with Lowenthal absent. 10. Consi an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to modify the use pennit for Peet' Coffee to allow an opening time of 5:30 a.m., Applkation No. M-2006-07, Laura T as (Peet's Coffee), 20807 Stevens Creek Blvd., APN 326-32-051. The appellant is uncil member Richard Lowenthal. Under postponements, this item was continued to March 6 as requested by the applicant. 11. Consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny an exception to allow a 5-foot side yard setback, to deny a Tentative Map to subdivide a .46-acre parcel into two parcels of 9,685 square feet and 9,686 square feet, respectively, and to deny a variance to allow a 50-foot lot width, instead of the required 60-foot width, for two proposed parcels, Application Nos. EXC-2006-l4, TM-2006-l2, V-2007-0l, Jitka /5-/0 February 20, 2007 Cupertino City Council Page 4 Cymbal (Westfall Engineers), 21871 Dolores Avenue, APN 357-14-026. The appellant is Jitka Cymbal. Director of Community Development Steve Piasecki noted that the applicant had withdrawn the appeal for the exception portion of the application, EXC-2006-14. Applicant Jitka Cymbal reviewed the project. The public hearing was opened at 7:50 p.m. Johnny Wang said he was concerned about the loss of privacy with a flag lot due to the many windows that would face his house from the side. Rhoda Fry said that she was not in favor of variances and was concerned about the drainage issue. She said that the lots should be compared to others on the street for compatibility, rather than the overall neighborhood, and she did not think side-by-side lots would be compatible in this case. She said she would like to see some big trees planted in Monta Vista. Jennifer Griffin,said she is familiar with the problems of small lots, noting that she can hear her neighbor's conversations from her window. She said she was concerned about creating two substandard lots and that homes built side by side would look like mobile homes. She thought flag lots were a better idea in this situation, and she also urged Council to preserve the trees. Victoria Gomez said she lives across the street from the property in question. She noted that the applicant had already built two houses elsewhere and that they are beautiful. She said she would like to see diversity in theneighborhood and urged Council to uphold the appeal to build the houses side by side. Cindy Hsu, owner, said that Cupertino is the only city where she has seen flag lots. She said they are not safe because fire department vehicles have difficulty reaching the houses. She asked Council to uphold the appeal. Tracy Hsu, owner, said she was told by City staff to avoid flag lots. She noted that the Planning Commission failed to give clear guidelines to City staff and to the applicant, and that the City should stay with its policy of avoiding flag lots. Suejane Han distributed a petition in support of upholding the appeal. She said she counted 76 side-by-side houses vs. 26 flag lots in the Monta Vista area. She believed that that side~by-side lots are safer, and building flag lots is an old practice. The public hearing was closed at 8: 12 p.m. is-II February 20, 2007 Cupertino City Council Page 5 Mahoney/Sandoval moved and seconded to continue the item to March 20 and to have the applicant bring back plans of what the lot would look like as a side by side. The motion failed with Patrick Kwok and Kris Wang voting no, Orrin Mahoney and Dolly Sandoval voting yes, and Richard Lowenthal absent. Malloney/Sandoval moved and seconded to uphold the appeal and grant the variance. The motion failed with Patrick Kwok and Kris Wang voting no, Orrin Malloney and Dolly Sandoval voting yes, and Richard Lowenthal absent. The appeal is denied arid the Planning Commission decision is upheld. Jennifer Griffin said that the project looked nice on paper ut the resulting housing is too high and too dense, and creates an oddly shaped roofl' along Highway 280. She urged Council to add lots of trees to the project and note at any artwork put there should be around 5-feet tall and have muted colors in order eep it looking like a wooded area. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 12. Consider a Community Development Director's referral of a minor approve the final front plaza design and gateway feature for Oak Par De Anza Boulevard required by a previously approved use pennit 09), Application No. DIR-2007-06, Chuck Bommarito, 10745 326-10-064. SandovallK wok moved and plaza design and gateway Lowenthal absent. rove the minor modification to the front motion carried unanimously with Richard Council recessed from 8:55 p.m. to 9:00 ~ 13. Receive staff recOlmnendatio . a) The evaluation of affic safet issues in the tri-school area including Monta Vista High, Kennedy Iddle, and Lincoln elementary schools b) Defer discu IOn ofthe reopening the Scenic Circle gate into Blackberry Fann as a separate i n Rhoda Fry s El that the City should put money into pedestrian safety, especially in the Monta Vis area. David reenstein talked about traffic around the schools and said the best solution is to get p. ent participation and to educate the public about using alternative transportation to ge eir children to and from school. /5 -( d To: City of Cupertino Application No.: TM-2006-12, EXC-2006-14, V-2007-01 The grounds for reoonsideration of the petition: 1. We were not aware that one of the council members was absent prior to the meeting. No one had informed us that we had the right to ask that our case be reviewed at the next meeting when there is full chamber. 2. The City recently approved a similar project located on McClellan Road. The adjacent neighbors are all in flag lots. The City cited the general plan policy "A flag lot is created only when there is no alternative." It's clearly stated the flag lots are less desirable and discouraged. The City has insisted that the property should be subdivided the middle despite it creates a substandard lot width. In our case, the City Council made an inconsistent interpretation and didn't follow the intent and spirit of general plan policy. 3. Two council members didn't support our application. Their main concern is it creates substandard lot and inconsistent with neighbor. In the meeting, we presented the evidence that the traditional subdivision (side-by-side) was in fact consistent with the overall neighborhood because the substandard lot width is the predominate pattern in the Monta Vista area. We are not really introducing a new pattern to the neighborhood. The same Council members ignored the evidences and proceeded their decisions without considering the facts that were presented. f5)lE~~~W[ErRI [\1 MAR - 8 2007 lW ~lc4A- I (I APplic~t: Tracy H~u1 Svut l:~ S~J 'ane !1t1i!1.- CUPERTINO CITY CLERK ~~.b~ ~~~~ c<.c urt- J..Ol ~ E ,. ~ ) 5 ..}3 :2-1871 PD!ores. J.1-v~ 5Vr.bdr'{/J'51'0Y\. U ~ UU ncJ1 ~ Y))ee-i IV: ~ DY\. :J. - :2 U - ZCC-J7 The grounds' for reconsideration of tHe petition: 1. We were not aware that one of the council members was absent prior to the meeting. No one had informed us that we had the right to ask that our case be reviewed at the next meeting when there is full chamber. 2. The city's general planning policy is that" A flag lot is created only when there is no alternative." is not carried out by the councils. CUPERTINO CITY CLERK S"I/J.J~ne )--1RYL ~~ C4Dff)t:68- 06 (~-,r- Lb07 fB) fE C fE ~ \VI IE rRI lrll MAR - 5 2007 lW J'5~/Lf City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3223 f5)IE~lEOW[EfRl ~n MAR - 5 2007 lW CllYO CUPErtTlNO CUPERTINO CITY CLERK APPEAL 1. Application No. 2. Applicant(s) Name: Phone Number S'vt.1. J 'C~ n ~ /-to. Y\- o2! 'iP I 50</\0 Fe n"w-ncLo .lJv1C./:J:fsW/hD ~ . SDILL (4-D8 C)h8'. a{,> I 0 J 3. Appellant(s) Name: Address Email 4. Please check one: Appeal a decision of Director of Community Development Appeal a decision of Planning Commission . 5. Date of determination of Director or mailing of notice of City decision: 6. Basis of appeal: ?)A$f (k~ Please complete form, include appeal fee of $149.00, and return to the attention ofthe City Clerk, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, (408) 777-3223. Signature( s) ) 5 - /5 To: City of Cupertino I support the lot side by side subdivision at 21871 Dolores Avenue, Cupertino to allow the exception of 50 foot lot width. Name Address signature Date .A\\.f.\\r~ I-lsu. 2-1 q 2-&00\ ~'ce-s ,4vf-- /~C~7/-;>" -- ~ ~ ~~ 5-1'i(<;'O SP~ ~oj:u>o7 17 f'\ 0 (]-, c'- $ \7 ~ ~ ~_(Jlo.J ~ . ~MIl '-1-0 ~t1S () r- 'J. /,,/ t1 Oo~/L~ ;fAg ~fTvlflt f-4'LIs.b1 rv^-A, CJtA e1J}-J1 ) .?4 l(v I .-/. __ ~ 2/11 / '\"f/ \ ;,. Cj i /..-y J C, sl'IA~ j "J-,(' fiv I'; '~/~ve[ 4v A" l:/</~ . .. /~? ~, I I.L. l' n v ,h/ y,? /"U c:: "'V iY--------- /'tl a~i"vC,J.. a'Y\.t1t S'cle~~f/Yl/l' ::( \ C} 00 \::)0 \ ' //Y /1 A /' f7,~~ j (J. Jl..S I v 'LV;/l.)V,,\__ ;)J1/Vf1A-L /~rrvL. \, :217v2.) ij)rA~ :a '1/7--r" 9-;/,1 tl.'.. Iv~p- J~~/~~ ~ l Of-,o (\~?-=iV ~ D ~ ~.. 2~/~ 1$ T - :2>t/~ tu l -a~.,"..~ J-Jt'-A_>7' 2(r/;.'% U" ("l v ,.. //'/ ',- / --- I ~-,- ....'J fJ:-.>~(.(,'~,::r~ \ , v~ 'I J J, dl f6'0 4LcC/<_c?r 41/~"/ ~~ ~~ a. .-,.._._. ./. ----= _ J)' (0- ::> (- j)c (CJ (t~r )1(,~6-.- -" U tf t1fi:.Ji! J 7C~ ~ .=<::) ~::>'-J ,-J ,'. j // V /5'- / 6 1 1 ~ ..-1. ~ (I)", ;;: ~ ~ 32 <(-~ tj 1'513, 137 5S20' .-------'"t. -;1;' '. . ~ 72': ..J ",.ulir I :::i: ~ d PIN. , .!:-. -;? 139' I I l~ 29 .fl SUBDIVISION -A" MaNTA V1STA I - - --:- ~ . -ALCAZAR o 21910 IOQ,I~ 'l1Q,15 " /iffO 21828-5 ff)O,\5 I\VENUE ~ l1815 100,15 - i7P~ -t 7~;~ l 55 ;tl, .,;25' 131 .. W -----a:.~--- :J 147 Z ::W ~> <( 21850 \Oll\~ ;~ :~.. "::r:.>~ '" "' ~ g 75 II 5/ .. "!, "', .. 3"1 1i 50 L ['I Q ~ c' gi g ! 136 1~1i @ 134 ,tXl.'\~ lOT 1 0.261 AC. 1 ~ : 74!li1l1 g ff1.:;: '01 - I'. 'M!\AC. o 27AC <. 00.15 : 26 '": !o.15 \, ,~ " ;~ rl:OT2-j - ~ ;-~~~-~+ p~tAl 0 rp~~- . " : 0.18 AC. : i 0.183 AC. :1 1 I iN ~ Ii!; I&: g:;;' .:~ lit'., "I~ ..,f~ 5~:;1 JL :& Q.. g: ,:I: lJ ~.. oM ", ~ ~! - 'M: to: M" M...: lo.'1A~ ,~ - , !O.\ _ ."~ ~.~I -- .~ 2182/ M ::l Imp.M. 6~5-M-8DOLORESP.M. 69B'M'Z' PM 601/20 527'8320/37 AVENU~ m:zo R.O.S.'" 412/7 211i54 100,15 r 100.15 ~tl>O 15 r ;{00.15 : ;\00..15 . I BO,'~ 60 : 47 ~ : u 66 1 U 87 : '" 45 ;:: 46 ~' I R 0 5 .. 15... 1q I ~ ~ ~ {l0Q - I DIlMllS' //Ell, I' "l - or _ !'? '!} ... '" " ~ I <> 1m." I fIJ$H7 . : 1991-871:/1 "'I 148 :g 6 ,~ 155 ~.l!___~5~ __ ~ '" & _Js:,...,,, I 151 , 150 I H~ 1___ _..J..5_ h PTN 15S , 157 :1 ~"!.15a :JfI!p::.:. 1:Sl~'-.6-:;;:8-~b:' PCL':Toe --;:5'-- : PIN 100.15 v' ,163 20 V\~W ' ?TN <<: .2 ~N - ~ 4B 42 ~' I' 0 i ~ ~ 156.,; 11 11L$!1 tM'/i'S 1Itll. ~ - : - J"" PlN Z W i!: g '" 1.Bat1-fJ7 I . -I 2, '02< Z - " 80"?: 163 _ ~ ~~ 0::: -T- -t-;!I; r 1 ---11""17-0 ------'l" rp1rn5.:J1-,.- -f'TN-"1-61Q.60"'~'116~51'1-6 l~ 0 >-~ 180.\79.1?8\171r ,-------'--,- T--- en g J 1 I 175 I I PCl . -:: _, rt76r ',17.' 17:3 171 ~'" .... I . I I I . .. .....:, :1681 )67 I 167 OQ" 120 I' - : - 10 I : ~ ",I <'j I _, _ " . N '" _ 1.1!.. 5" g 49 01 g 2 I <'j _ " 71 lei'.t I 1 _ S! G> - -, 1.-.::-., I ~ ll!1 Jl~ - ~ I 9 I 1 j:JI I.,' I :2 I ~ I 1 1 1 I 0', .. I . r!' -. I I ~- fiQ15 1 ~ r ~ ...'3' eo .v rl' I rrl''iil'''~'' I I I I <;., 100.15 1'1-"" 100,15 ~IS41 "lIUI Sll SC.15 - b Z192/ 2190; 21d9J 2/U~ g 211l2/ 21$15 g: .- .'" <;. Me CLELlAN ..~-_._- ROAD~. '" ...- . ';00.15 LOT 1 U.26 AC. ill 70 ~ 143 f1 5 I~ 9 .IS 1<\.0 .a ~ ~ 2/925 10,1~ ..J .1.~ 'L~'. \~J /1~(.lAbfJ'~ sl~r'1>t)n TIJ'Y' ~ 'fr;ror $ I {L.~ P.M. 428-M-J ~ it b oi i(J;~. i if/;4 " , ~ SId€' 8 556 @ 371/4 ~ _w~r<,_ '~S~ ~ ~ ...... '1- "'" 100' LA WRENa:: E. 5Til'IE - AS CalilllrQ m~ fer vs..<essmenl M CLTJ;1ilf(! un<!-..; R. &. 1 COOe, EftvcUw Roll Yt(lr 2001-20( ,"" ~~..~ ,...,. .~~~".7:~'" , ", "...,"""~~ ._..~~;::::_.ur - ~d~ -;r~~ --.;)~l:.~.. . 'It ' ~,.. ":'\i!~..'.t . ," " +,.., .. '!'~~1f~",.a'''''''W!I~__ . .<._".'_ . . ... . ..',' .... ... ...., ." .. -r.'!'" "" ~... ~'~...jJ..'''~'.f~;, ~. _OJ;'.' . .......f1ll'~7l'"I'~'. 1i;'I-.r~c....... ,', ... .' . :it:~~ <,~~.~ "";'._'.~...o' 15'-18 ..& o - ..j t1 c;.... ....... ~ o \I) -- ! ~ ~ ~ \2:V @ ".l" ~ 'W------=-o " f '- OFFICE COUI/T'r ASSESSOR - SANTA Cl4~A COUNTY, CALIFORtI @ COUItTY....SS<:SSOR_SAJ.lTA CQUNTY, CALlFOIH. SUBDIVISION 'A" ~ ~ ,,::w .'~H\'" @ @ '" W '" TRACT No 61/7 I PATRICIAN TOWNHOUSES @ @ .~ '::. ~ "-..l. r D ~ r- ..9 '. ct:: VJ 0 " ...0 4= t .0 0 L.I] lI) i .- ..., ~ -\--' () ~ \ ~ ......... I . .,~...'\~ ~ ,~/ II I '- , j. n: ....il .l U! oFflct couNTY ~SSESSOfl _ S,l.IlTI. ClI.R.l CllUNTY, C.l.LlfllRHI ~C.e53~OIZ @ @ COUNTY ....SS(SSIlR -- 5AHi.l. W @ ~~ 01:< COUNTY, CAlIFORt. faOOK\ ~ @ @ % ~ ~ '" , " .b '" ~ ~ @ ro'" ", OJ W cr () (J) Z w > w f- (J) @ @ @ @ Exhibit A CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR RECONSIDERA TION RECONSIDERATION Municipal Code section 2.08.096 states: "A petition for reconsideration shall specify, in detail, each and every ground for reconsideration. Failure of a petition to specify any particular ground or grounds for consideration, precludes that particular omitted ground or grounds from being raised or litigated in a subsequent judicial proceeding. The grounds for reconsideration are limited to the following: 1. An offer of new relevant evidence which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced at any earlier city hearing. 2. An offer of relevant evidence which was improperly excluded at any prior city hearing. 3. Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council proceeded without, or in excess of its jurisdiction. 4. Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing. 5. Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion by: a. Not proceeding in a manner required by law; and/or b. Rendering a decision which was not supported by findings of fact; and/or c. Rendering a decision in which the findings of fact were not supported by the evidence. Petition Findine; Supporting Against reconsideration: reconsideration: The City Council abused its discretion by rendering a decision in which the findings Council finds Evidence offered by of fact were not supported by the evidence Applicant's the Applicant was in that" we presented the evidence that the evidence showing considered by the traditional subdivision (side-by-side) was that the Council, but did not in fact consistent with the overall neighborhood has meet burden neighborhood because the substandard lot 77 lots of 50-60' required by width is the predominate pattern in the widths side by side ordinance to create Monta Vista area. We are not really as opposed to 26 substandard width introducing a new pattern to the flag lots is lots. neighborhood. Two Council members persuasive. Narrow ignored the evidence and proceeded with side-by-side lots their decisions without considering the predominant in the facts that were presented." neighborhood. 1 /5'.0 TENTATIVE MAP Pursuant to Municipal Code section 18.20.050 a tentative parcel map may be denied by making the following findings: 1. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans; 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans; 3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development; 4. That the design ofthe subdivision or the proposed improvements is likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat; 5. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems; 6. That the design of the subdivision or improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In approving or conditionally approving the tentative parcel map, the finding must be made that the proposed subdivision, together with its provisions for its design and improvements, is consistent with applicable general or specific plans adopted by the City. VARIANCE Municipal Code section 19.124.080 states: The Director may grant a variance from the site development regulations... if he finds: 1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; 2. The granting of the application is necessary, for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship; 3. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare, or convenience, and to secure the purpose of the title. APPLICATION SUMMARY On February 20, 2007 the city council denied the appeal of applicant Sue-Jane Han of application TM-2006-12 and V-2007-01, a tentative map to subdivide a .46 acre lot into two parcels of9,685 square feet and 9,686 square feet, respectively in a R!-7.5 zoning district and a variance to allow a 50-foot lot width, instead of the required 60-foot width, for the two proposed parcels. This application, which initially included a request for an exception, EXC-2006-14, to allow 5-foot side yard setbacks, instead of the required 2 /5 r;);:) combined 15 feet, was denied by the Planning Commission on January 23,2007. The appeal on February 20, 2007 to the City Council was denied on a two to two vote with one council member absent. A petition for reconsideration of TM-2006-12, a tentative map of a subdivision of property owned by Sue Jane Han located at 21871 Dolores Avenue, Cupertino, into two side-by-side lots, and V-2006-01, a variance to allow 50 ft. lot widths, was submitted by Ms. Han and Tracy Hsu on March 5, 2007 and supplemented on March 8, 2007. The petition asserts as follows: PETmON FINDING "We were not aware that one As long as there is a quorum, the number of council of the council members was members present, is irrelevant. absent prior to the meeting. Noone had informed us that we had a right to ask that our case be reviewed at the next meeting when there is full chamber." Findings in support of Findings against appeal appeal "The City recently approved Support side by side lots: Against side-by-side a similar project located on General Plan policy 2- subdivision: Applicant McClellan Road although the 23(2) regarding flag lots did not meet burden for adjacent neighbors were all in states: "Create flag lots in the granting of a variance. flag lots. The City cited the proposed subdivisions No extraordinary general plan policy 'A flag when they are the only conditions exist, denial lot is created only when there reasonable alternative will not cause is no alternative.' It's clearly that integrates with the lot unnecessary hardship. stated the flag lots are less pattern in the desirable and discouraged. neighborhood." Council The City has insisted that the finds the side by side as property should be proposed by Applicant subdivided the middle despite the most reasonable it creates a substandard lot alternative. width. In our case, the City Council made an inconsistent interpretation and didn't follow the intent and spirit of general plan policy." ) 5"- ;7(~ 3 4~ . r- o o ;;u ..... o -" > z o ..... o ro o " ~ w ~ o Dolores Ave, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I , I I I I I I I I I I Exhibit B --------l -- i , i , , I-- I , , I I I I r-- I I ! i : ! i : ! " ! I ! i ' i 1 I I I I, i I ! Ii: i ! ! I I I I I : I , I, I i i ..- I I j ! : I , I I , i I i I ! ! i ! : i ! ! j i I i I I ! I i , i, i ! i I , i I I j j ! : , I II i ! i : ! j i " I Iii ! ! i i ! i : Iii ! ! I : : j I i lu~::=::=::=::=::=::_j ! , , , I I I : I J L I ________ ~------ -------------- ------ r-- i r i i i i , , , , , I I , i , , ! ! ! i I i I i L ______J ! :L ------~~=~~_________j --------- /5-~f $ ~ .., 5 0 '" ..- ." 0 s: z 0 C; ru Cl ~ ~ w ~ Cl ,----- I I I I I I ,-------- -- I I I -----l I I o I ,-------- -- ! rn-u--- i i , , ! i I , ,___n___ i , i , I n-n---l I I i , , i' i i I"~-I I I, L---1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I L _ ___ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J , I " - D , , I i , I I i Ln_n_n_n_n_nJ L_ ___ __n__ ___ ___ _ __ _ _nJ I I I i ! L___n_n____u__J , Ln____n_ n____________J / 5 ~GJ5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I L - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J Dolores $ ~ ..., r- 0 0 '" - " C> >: z C> c; f\) C> " ~ . w ~ C> ,-- I I I I I I r ---------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I -----------l o o I : ! i o ! i , i o ! i I o ! ! i i o o I o i ! i : ! ! ! I i o i o ! ! I , , ! o ! Ln_n_______n___J ! , L_______________________J Ave, ! , ! , ! , Ln_______n____nJ ! L_______________________j J5--0l&.' $ ~ ." 5 0 ;;0 0 " '; z 0 ...... 0 1"\) 0 ~ ~ w , 0 Dolores Ave, Ii----- r I ! r---' ! ! I I ==--,== 1-1-1 I I 1 II L_+-J f=ll ----3-----0 r i .-----J L___________________________________j L -- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --l ,----------- , ! , -;----------------, , I I , , ! ! ,-----::=1 ! r-----l i ! I I ' , , I I ' , I 1.-__~ I L--_______-J --~ I L _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J /5;;7 Exhibit C ;, CITY OF CU PERJINO lU3UU Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 Fax: (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department Summary Agenda Item No. _ Agenda Date: February 20, 2007 Application: TM-2006-12, EXC-2006-14, V-2006-01 Applicant: Jitka Cymbal (Westfall Engineers) Owner: Sue-Jane Han Location: 21871 Dolores Avenue Application Summary: TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide a .46 acre lot into two parcels of 9,685 square feet and 9,686 square feet, respectively in a RI-7.5 zoning district. EXECPTION to allow 5-foot side yard setbacks, instead of the required combined 15 feet, V ARIANCE to allow a 50-foot lot width, instead of the required 60-foot width, for the two proposed parcels. -., RECOMMENDATION: The City Council has the following options: 1. Deny the appeal, uphold the Planning Commission's decision; or 2. Uphold the appeal and overturn the Planning Commission's denial; or 3. Uphold the appeal with modifications. Project Data: General ,Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: Total Acreage (gross): Net Acreage per parcel: Density: Low Density Residential, 1-5 DU j gr. acre RI-7.5 .46 Lot 1- 9,685 sq. ft., Lot 2- 9,686 sq. ft. 4.3 duj gr. acre. /.::;- /.-')""1& Applications: TM-2006-.LL., EXC-2006-14, V-2006-01 Page 2 Project Consistency with: General Plan: Zoning: Yes, Policy 2-23 Yes Categorically exempt. Environmental Assessment: BACKGROUND At its meeting of January 23, 2007, the Planning Commission voted (4-1) to deny the proposed project. The Commission was concerned about the proposed side by side subdivision design and felt that the project should match the predominate flag lot pattern of the immediate neighborhood. The applicant was given the option of redesigning the project but decided to take the denial instead. Several members of the public expressed concerns on the proposed 5 foot side yard setback in terms of potential privacy impacts and matching the neighboring flag lot pattern in the neighborhood. One member of the public supported the proposed traditional (side-by-side) subdivision design and did not want another new flag lot on the street. The applicant is appealing the decision of the Planning Commission. DISCUSSION There are two major discussion points for this subdivision: flag lots vs. traditional lots and the proposed 5-foot side yard setbacks. Flag lots vs. traditional lots The proposed project parcel is approximately 100 feet wide and 190 feet deep. The project lot is not wide enough for two minimum 60-foot wide lots as required by the Rl Ordinance. The site can be subdivided into two lots with a flag lot in the rear and a smaller conventional lot in the front similar to the adjacent properties (see aerial diagram below). Alternatively, the property could be divided down the middle creating two conventional lots resulting in lot widths narrower than the required 60 feet. General Plan: The General Plan (Policy 2-23) specifies that flag lots should be created only when there is no reasonable alternative that integrates with the lot pattern in the neighborhood. This policy discourages new flag lots in the interest of promoting better house to street relationships in residential neighborhoods. Planning Commission: The Planning Commission recently approved a similar variance request (TM-2005-14, 21988 McClellan Road) allowing the subdivision of conventional lots with substandard lot widths (less than 60 feet) in the interest of better integrating the future residence into the neighborhood. However in the case of Dolores Avenue, the Commission felt that a flag lot design is more appropriate and consistent with the immediate pattern of the neighborhood. Commission Chen supported the traditional lot split down the middle. / 5--~ 1 Applications: TM-2006-.lL, EXC-2006-14, V-2006-01 Page 3 Staff Recommendation: There are numerous existing traditional lot patterns with similar lot widths in the project neighborhood (please diagram below) so the proposed project is compatible with the neighborhood. The City has previously approved similar requests in order to be consistent with the General Plan. Staff supports the variance request and the side- by- side lot design in the interest of allowing better home to street interface along Dolores A venue and promoting a more desirable living environment for the new homes. The narrower lot width promotes houses with a smaller fa<;ade that is consistent with the predominant cottage style homes in the Monta Vista neighborhood. Side Yard Setbacks In general, the Rl Ordinance requires ground floor side yard setbacks be a combination of 15 feet with a minimum of five feet on one side. Only RI-5 zoned lots are allowed to have five foot side yard setbacks. The intent of this rule is to permit less side yard setbacks on narrower lots (50 feet wide or less) in order to provide greater flexibility to construct a reasonable and balanced floor plan. The applicant is requesting an exception to allow five foot side yard setbacks. Planning Commission: The Commission denied the request to allow for the five foot side yard setbacks because it may create negative visual impacts to the adjacent neighbors. The Commission preferred to see a traditional side yard setback arrangement that will be accomplished by a flag lot design. Staff Recommendation: The project is located in the Monta Vista area, which has a variety of lot and setback patterns. A survey of the immediate neighborhood indicates that there are approximately 34 lots with similar lot widths and side yard setbacks (see diagram right). The City has previously approved exceptions to allow five foot side yards setbacks on lots that are located outside of RI-5 zoning districts when the lot width is less than 60 feet. In addition, further Rl design control at the design review process for the new homes will ensure that the buildings are design to minimize undesirable building interface issues to the adjacent neighbors. Staff supports /5)'0 Applications: TM-2006-.LL, EXC-2006-14, V-2006-01 Page 4 the side yard setback exception if the side-by-side patter is approved APPLICANT'S APPEAL The applicant is appealing the decision of the Planning Commission based on the following reasons: · The Commission's decision was not consistent with the city's policy that flag lots are created only when there is no alternative. · The applicant has followed the city's suggestion to avoid flag lots and worked with city planning staff to design the tentative map. · Although the 50 foot lot width is substandard, it is not uncommon in the Monta Vista area. There are numerous houses with 50 foot lot widths in the neighborhood. · Safety and appearance are better in the side by side approach. It creates more value to the project and to the neighborhood. · Neighborhood compatibility is subjective and the owner's interest should not be ignored. ENCLOSURES Planning Commission Resolutions Nos. 6444,6445,6446 Exhibit A-I: Staff Report to Planning Commission dated January 23, 2007 Appeal request from the applicant dated January 26, 2007 Planning Commission meeting minutes January 23,2007 Prepared by: Gary Chao, Associate Planner Approved by: '" ~ David W. Knapp City Manager St Piasecki , Director, Community Development / J ~ 3/ EXC-2006-14 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 (Denial) RESOLUTION NO. 6444 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO TO DENY THE REQUEST OF 5-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACKS, INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED COMBINED 15 FEET AT 21871 DOLORES AVENUE SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: EXC-2006-14 Jitka Cymbal 21871 DOLORES AVENUE SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for 5-foot side yard setbacks, as described in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds the following with regards to this! application: 1. Literal Enforcement of the provisions of this chapter will result in restrictions inconsistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter 2. The granting of the exception will result in a condition which is materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare 3. The proposed exception will result in signifieant visual impact as viewed from abutting properties 4. That the exceptions to be granted are not ones that will require the least modification of the prescribed regulations and the minimum variance that will accomplish the purpose. That the subconclusions upon which the findings specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application EXC-2006-14, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of January 23, 2007 and are incorporated by reference herein. /J-3Ot Resolution No. 6444 Page 2 EXC-2006-14 January 23, 2007 PASSED AND DENIED this 23rd day of January 2007, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chair person Giefer, Miller, Wong COMMISSIONERS: Vice Chair Chien COMMISSIONERS: none COMMISSIONERS: none ATTEST: APPROVED: / s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development / s / Lisa Giefer Lisa Gener, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission /5-)) TM-2006-12 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 (Denial) RESOLUTION NO. 6445 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DENYING A TENTATIVE MAP TO SUBDIVIDE A.46 ACRE LOT INTO TWO PARCELS OF 9,685 SQUARE FEET AND 9,686 SQUARE FEET, RESPECTIVELY IN A RI-7.5 ZONING DISTRICT, AT 21871 DOLORES AVENUE SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Tentative Subdivision Map, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has not satisfied the following requirements: 1) That the proposed subdivision map is consistent with the City of Cupertino General Plan. 2) That the design and improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the General Plan. 3) That the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of development contemplated under the approved subdivision. 4) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and unavoidable injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. 5) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements associated there with is not likely to cause serious public health problems. 6) That the design of the subdivision and its associated improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Tentative Subdivision Map is hereby denied. 1_) 3Cf Resolution No. 6445 Page 2 TM-2006-12 January 23, 2007 That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. TM-2006-12 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of January 23, 2007, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: TM-2006-12 Jitka Cymbal 21871 Dolores Avenue PASSED AND DENIED this 23rd day of January 2007, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Giefer, Miller, Wong COMMISSIONERS: Vice Chair Chien COMMISSIONERS: none COMMISSIONERS: none ATTEST: APPROVED: / s / Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki, Director Community Development Department / s/Lisa Giefer Lisa Geifer, Chairperson Planning Commission /5 -55 V-2007-01 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 (Denial) RESOLUTION NO. 6446 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DENYING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 50-FOOT LOT WIDTH, INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 60-FOOT WIDTH, FOT THE TWO PROPOSED PARCE AT 21871 DOLORES A VENUE. SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino has received an application for a Variance, as described in Section II. of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one Public Hearing on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support the application, and has not satisfied the following criteria: 1) That there are extraordinary or exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to ' the property involved that do not apply generally to properties in the same district . 2) That granting of the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship. 3) That granting the Variance will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare, or convenience, and to secure the purpose of the title. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, testimony, exhibits and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Variance is hereby denied by the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the subconclusions upon which the findings specified in this Resolution are based are contained in the public hearing record concerning Application V-2007-01, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of January 23 2007, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. ' /53& Resolution No. 6446 Page -2- V-2007-01 January 23, 2007 SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: V-2007-01 Jitka Cymbal 21871 Dolores Avenue PASSED AND DENIED this 23rd day of January, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABST AIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Giefer, Miller, Wong COMMISSIONERS: Vice Chair Chien COMMISSIONERS: none COMMISSIONERS: none ATTEST: APPROVED: / s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development / s/Lisa Giefer Lisa Geifer, Chair Cupertino Planning Commission /5'" 37 s (; - I "> ::- s..,r. ,;3$;r 2-6 :- / S- CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: TM-2006-12, V-2007-01, EXC-2006-14 Jitka Cymbal Sue-Jane Han 21871 Dolores Avenue Agenda Date: January 23, 2007 Applicant: Property Owner: Property Location: Application Summary: TENT A TIVE MAP to subdivide a .46 acre lot into two parcels of 9,685 square feet and 9,686 square feet, respectively in a RI-7.5 zoning district. VARIANCE to allow a 50-foot lot width, instead of the required 60-foot width, for the two proposed parcels. EXECPTION to allow 5-foot side yard setbacks, instead of the required combined 15 feet. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the tentative map, the variance and the exception in accordance with the model resolutions. Project Data: General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: Total Acreage (gross): Net Acreage per parcel: Density: Low Density Residential, 1-5 DU j gr. acre Rl-7.5 .46 Lot 1- 9,685 sq. ft., Lot 2- 9,686 sq. ft. 4.3 duj gr. acre. Project Consistency with: General Plan: Zoning: Yes, Policy 2-23 Yes Categorically exempt. Environmental Assessment: BACKGROUND: The project site is located on the north side of Dolores Avenue between Byrne Avenue and Orange Avenue. A main residence, two detached cottages and a detached shed currently exist on the parcel. Single-family residential parcels surround the subject parcel. The project proposes to demolish all of the structures on the property, subdivide into two lots and build two new single family homes. / '7- '6 TM-2006-12, V-2007-01, EXc..-.<:.u06-14 Page 2 January 9, 2007 DISCUSSION: There are two major discussion points for this subdivision: conformance with the Rl Ordinance (substandard lot widths & 5-foot side yard setbacks) and tree removal and retention. Rl Ordinance Conformance: Lot Width The proposed project parcel is approximately 100 feet wide and 190 feet deep. The project lot is not wide enough for two minimum 60-foot wide lots as required by the Rl Ordinance. The site can be subdivided into two lots with a flag lot in the rear and a smaller conventional lot in the front similar to the adjacent properties (see aerial diagram below). Alternatively, the property could be divided down the middle creating two conventional lots resulting in lot widths narrower than the required 60 feet. The General Plan discourages the creation of new flag lots unless if they are the only reasonable alternative that integrates with the lot patterns in the neighborhood. The Planning Commission recently approved a similar variance (TM-2005-14, 21988 McClellan Road) allowing the subdivision of conventional lots with lot widths narrower than the required 60 feet in the interest of better integrating the future residence into the neighborhood. The project site is located in the Monta Vista neighborhood that consist of a variety of different lot patterns, including numerous conventional lots with substandard widths (50 feet) and flag lots (see diagram above). Staff supports the variance request and believes that the variance findings for the lot width can be made: 1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions apply to the property involved that do not apply generally to the property in the same district. In order for this property to subdivide with conventional lots, a variance is needed for narrower lot width. The property could be subdivided with a flag lot that does not require a variance, and the exceptional circumstance is that conventional lots are desired so that residences can face the street and be better integrated the homes into the neighborhood. /5-31 TM-2006-12, V-2007-01, EXC.-~ll06-14 Page 3 January 9, 2007 2. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship. The proposed lots conform to the General Plan, zoning and the lot sizes in the surrounding area, thereby allowing the property owner to achieve property rights similar to others in the area. 3. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare, or convenience, and to secure the purpose of the title. The subdivision will not be detrimental to the vicinity. Side Yard Setbacks In general, the Rl Ordinance requires ground floor side yard setbacks be a combination of 15 feet with a minimum of five feet on one side. Only RI-5 zoned lots are allowed to have five foot side yard setbacks. The intent of this rule is to permit less side yard setbacks on narrower lots (50 feet wide or less) in order to provide greater flexibility to construct a reasonable and balanced floor plan. The City has previously approved exceptions to allow five foot side yards setbacks on lots that are located outside of RI-5 zoning districts if the following fundamental principles are met: 1. The setback pattern is consistent with the neighborhood; and 2. The project lot width is substandard (less than 60 wide); and 3. The five foot setbacks will not cause building interface issues. The applicant is requesting an exception to allow five foot side yard setbacks. The project is located in the Monta Vista area which has a variety of lot and setback patterns. A survey of the immediate neighborhood indicates that there are approximately 34 lots with similar lot widths and side yard setbacks (see diagram below). In addition, further Rl design control at the design review process for the new homes will ensure that the buildings are design to minimize undesirable building interface issues to the adjacent neighbors. / 5- ~() TM-2006-12, V-2007-01, EXC-.d.l06-14 Page 4 January 9, 2007 Staff supports the side yard exception request and believes that the variance findings for the lot width can be made: 1. Literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter will result in restrictions inconsistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter. The proposed project is consistent with the intent of the ordinance and will not impact the neighborhood. The five-foot side yard setback is appropriate in order to allow for a functional floor plan and a balanced front elevation on a narrow lot. The substandard lot width and a literal enforcement of the ordinance will not allow enough design flexibility. 2. The granting of the exception will not result in a condition which is materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. The proposed setbacks are consistent with the neighborhood pattern and will not create public health, safety or welfare issues. 3. The proposed exception will not result in significant visual impact as viewed from abutting properties. The proposed setback will not result in significant visual impacts for the neighboring properties since the Rl design review approval process for the two new homes will ensure that the buildings are designed to minimize negative visual impacts. /5-lfl TM-2006-12, V-2007-01, EXC-""ll06-14 Page 5 January 9,2007 4. That the exceptions to be granted are ones that will require the least modification of the prescribed regulations and the minimum exception that will accomplish the purpose The proposed side yard setback exception is consistent with the intent of the Ordinance in that the project lots consist of substandard lot widths and the five foot side yard setbacks provide greater design flexibility to allow reasonable and balanced floor plans. The side yard setback exception is the minimum exception necessary to achieve these goals. Tree Removal and Retention: Ten trees are located on the subject property, three of which are significant (Deodar Cedars #1 & #2 and Coast Redwood #5). Only the two Deodar Cedars are protected by the Tree Ordinance, According to the applicant, the Coast Redwood #5 has already been removed due to its poor condition. Staff recommends that the two Cedar trees be preserved as part of this approval and that one 36 inch box Redwood be planted to replace the removed redwood. As for the other trees on the property, the applicant has the option of removing them since they are not protected. Staff recommends a condition of approval that requires the existing trees be retained to the maximum extent possible and that the applicant work with the Director of Community Development to make the final decision on the retention of these trees at the design review stage. The applicant is also required to record a covenant on the property that ensures the preservation and maintenance of the new replacement trees and any trees that are required to be preserved as part of this approval. Prepared by: Gary Chao, Associate Planner Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developm~ Enclosures: Model Resolution for TM-2006-12 Model Resolution for V-2006-03 Model Resolution for EXC-2006-0 Plan Set Exhibit A: Tree Survey & Arborist Report ;c;- 4 2- TM-2006-12 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROV AL OF A TENT A TIVE MAP TO SUBDIVIDE A .46 ACRE LOT INTO TWO PARCELS OF 9,685 SQUARE FEET AND 9,686 SQUARE FEET, RESPECTIVELY IN A RI-7.5 ZONING DISTRICT, AT 21871 DOLORES AVENUE SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Tentative Subdivision Map, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1) That the proposed subdivision map is consistent with the City of Cupertino General Plan. 2) That the design and improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the General Plan. 3) That the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of development contemplated under the approved subdivision. 4) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and unavoidable injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. 5) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements associated there with is not likely to cause serious public health problems. 6) That the design of the subdivision and its associated improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Tentative Subdivision Map is hereby recommended for approval, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof; and 1'3 --4-3 Resolution No. Page 2 TM-2006-12 January 23, 2007 That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. TM-2006-12 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of January 23, 2007, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: TM-2006-12 Jitka Cymbal 21871 Dolores Avenue SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS The recommendation of approval is based on the Plan Set titled, "Tentative Map, Lands of Hsu and Han, 21871 Dolores Avenue, Cupertino, California", dated November 2006 (two pages), except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution. 2. TREE PRESERVATION All existing trees must be retained to the maximum extent possible. The applicant must work with the Director of Community Development to make the final decision on the retention of these trees at the design review stage. Revised landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Director prior to issuance of building permits. 3. COVENANT The two Cedar (#1 & #2) trees shall be preserved as part of this approval and that one 36 inch box Redwood be planted to replace the removed redwood (#5). Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant is required to record a covenant on the property that ensures the preservation and maintenance of the new replacement trees and any trees that are required to be preserved as part of this approval. 4. VISUAL IMPACT The applicant shall make every effort to work with staff at the Rl Design Review Approval Process to minimize any negative visual or building interface impacts to the adjacent neighbors. SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. !JlfCj Resolution No. Page 3 TM-2006-12 January 23, 2007 5. STREET WIDENING Street widening and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer. 6. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed In accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. 7. STREET LIGHTING INST ALLA TION Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of visual interference to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located. 8. FIRE HYDRANT Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City and Santa Clara County Fire as needed. 9. GRADING Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404 permits maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/ or Regional Water Quality Control Board as appropriate. 10. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 11. FIRE PROTECTION Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the City as needed. 12. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of underground utility devices. The developer shall submit detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer. 13. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for under 15' - 45 Resolution No. Page 4 TM-2006-12 January 23, 2007 grounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to Issuance of construction permits. Fees: a. Checking & Inspection Fees: $2,194.00 minimum b. Grading Permit: c. Development Maintenance Deposit: d. Storm Drainage Fee: e. Power Cost: f. Map Checking Fees: g. Park Fees: h. Street Tree $ 5 % of Off-Site Improvement Cost or $ 6% of Site Improvement Cost or $2,060.00 minimum $ 2,000.00 $ 593.40 N/A $3,348.00 $15,750.00 By Developer Bonds: a. Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements b. Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvement c. On-site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements. -The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule. 14. TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas. 15. AMENDED DEVELOPMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP) REQUIREMENTS a. Permanent Stormwater Quality BMPs Required In accordance with chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the City Code, all development and redevelopment projects shall include permanent BMPs in order to reduce the water quality impacts of stormwater runoff from the entire site for the life of the project. b. Stormwater Management Plan Required The applicant shall submit a Stormwater Management Plan for this project. The permanent storm water quality best management practices (BMPs) / c' Ljl ) .I,f? Resolution No. Page 5 TM-2006-12 January 23, 2007 included in this plan shall be selected and designed in accordance with chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the City Code. c. BMP Agreements The applicant and the City shall enter into a recorded agreement and covenant running with the land for perpetual BMP maintenance by the property owners(s). In addition, the owner(s) and the City shall enter into a recorded easement agreement and covenant running with the land allowing City access at the site for BMP inspection. d. Hydromodification Plan (HMP) Required The applicant must provide a comprehensive plan to control any combination of on-site, off-site and in-stream control measureS incorporated into specific redevelopment projects in order to reduce stormwater runoff so as to not increase the erosion potential of the receiving watercourse over the pre-project condition. 16. MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT The applicant will be required to maintain all items, which are non-standard within the City's right of way. The applicant and the City must enter into a recorded agreement for this aforementioned work. 17. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN The developer must submit a traffic control plan by a Registered Traffic Engineer to be approved by the City. The plan shall include a temporary traffic control plan for work in the right of way as well as a routing plan for all vehicles used during construction. All traffic control signs must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to commencement of work. The City has adopted Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards for all signage and striping work throughout the City. 18. REFUSE TRUCK ACCESS The developer must obtain clearance from the Environmental Programs Department in regards to refuse truck access for the proposed development. CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF ENGINEERING/SURVEYING CONDITIONS (Section 66474.18 of the California Government Code) ) 5-- 4-7 Resolution No. Page 6 TM-2006-12 January 23, 2007 I hereby certify that the engineering and surveying conditions specified in Section IV. Of this resolution conform to generally accepted engineering practices Ralph Qualls, Director of Public Works City Engineer CA License 22046 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of January 2007, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki, Director Community Development Department Lisa Geifer, Chairperson Planning Commission / c;--v3 V -2007 -01 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 50-FOOT LOT WIDTH, INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 60-FOOT WIDTH, FOT THE TWO PROPOSED P ARCE AT 21871 DOLORES AVENUE. SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino has received an application for a Variance, as described in Section II. of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one Public Hearing on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has meet the burden of proof required to support the application, and has satisfied the following criteria: 1) That there are extraordinary or exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to properties in the same district. 2) That granting of the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship. 3) That granting the Variance will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare, or convenience, and to secure the purpose of the title. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, testimony, exhibits and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Variance is hereby approved by the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the subconc1usions upon which the findings specified in this Resolution are based are contained in the public hearing record concerning Application V-2007-0l, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of January 23 2007, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. !'S---Lj 1 Resolution No. Page -2- V -2007 -01 January 23, 2007 SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: V-2007-01 Jitka Cymbal 21871 Dolores Avenue SECTION III: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approved is based on the tentative map entitled "TENT A TIVE MAP, LANDS OF HSU AND HAN, 21871 DOLORES AVENUE, CUPERTINO" by Westfall Engineers, Inc., dated November 2006, and consisting of two sheets labeled pages 1 and 2, except as may be amended by the conditions contained in this resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of January, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Lisa Geifer, Chair Cupertino Planning Commission /5-56 EXC-2006-14 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO TO ALLOW 5-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACKS, INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED COMBINED 15 FEET AT 21871 DOLORES AVENUE SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: EXC-2006-14 Jitka Cymbal 21871 DOLORES A VENUE SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for an exception to the Sign Code, as described in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds the following with regards to this application: 1: Literal Enforcement of the provisions of this chapter will result in restrictions inconsistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter 2. The granting of the exception will not result in a condition which is materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare 3. The proposed exception will not result in significant visual impact as viewed from abutting properties 4. That the exceptions to be granted are ones that will require the least modification of the prescribed regulations and the minimum variance that will accomplish the purpose. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the exception to the sign ordinance for an exposed neon ground sign border is hereby approved subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution; and '5- 5 i Resolution No. Page 2 EXC-2006-14 January 23, 2007 SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on a plan set titled: "Tentative Map, Lands of Hsu and Han, 21871 Dolores Avenue, Cupertino, California" consisting of two pages, except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution. 2. TREE PRESERVATION All existing trees must be retained to the maximum extent possible. The applicant must work with the Director of Community Development to make the final decision on the retention of these trees at the design review stage. Revised landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Director prior to issuance of building permits. 3. COVENANT The two Cedar (#1 & #2) trees shall be preserved as part of this approval and that one 36 inch box Redwood be planted to replace the removed redwood (#5). Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant is required to record a covenant on the property that ensures the preservation and maintenance of the new replacement trees and any trees that are required to be preserved as part of this approval. 4. VISUAL IMPACT The applicant shall make every effort to work with staff at the Rl Design Review Approval Process to minimize any negative visual or building interface impacts to the adjacent neighbors. 5. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application EXC-2006-14, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of January 23, 2007 and are incorporated by reference herein. I )-S:7- Resolution No. Page 3 EXC-2006-14 January 23, 2007 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of January 2007, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABST AIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Lisa Geifer, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission /5-,f3 BARRI E D. COA _ i: and ASSOCIATES Horn cutural Consultants 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos. CA 95033 4081353-1052 A REVIEW OF THE TREES AT THE LANDS OF HSU!HAN 21871 DOLORES AVENUE CUPERTINO Prepared at the request of: Piu Ghosh City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Prepared by: Barrie D. Coate Consulting Arborist October 2nd, 2006 Job# 10-06-204 RECEIVED n~T 1 7 2GOS I BY:. . ' J /5- SI/ HSU/HAN PROPERTY, 218"! 1 DOLORES AVENUE CUPERTINO Assignment On October 2nd, 2006, I met Mrs. Sue Han at the property to prepare an analysis of the trees on the property. The plan used for this analysis is by Westfall Engineers, Inc., titled 'Tentative Map; Lands ofHsu and Ran' dated September 2006. At this time we do not have the plans that show the proposed new structures so it is not possible to provide specific recommendations for tree preservation during construction, but the enclosed notes titled "Tree Protection Before, During, and After Construction" should be used as guidelines for tree protection. It will,be necessary to install fences to protect at least the two Deodara Cedar trees before any demolition or construction activity begins, The suggested fence locations are drawn into the map I was provided. If those recommended fence locations conflict with proposed construction we should review the construction plans with tree preservation detail in mind. Summary The site has 4 trees on it of a size large enough to be controlled by City Ordinance. The most important ones are two Deodar Cedars (Cedrus deodara) which are near the south side near the front of the property. The majority of the other trees are ofless important species such as Black Locust (Robinia pseudoacacia). There is one Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) in rather poor condition along the east property line. -' The Deodara Cedar trees have been severely pruned and over thinned causing them to be very stubbed looking at this point and being of much lesser value than they might have been otherwise. These trees (#1 and # 2) are both healthy but have been damaged by the severe stub- cutting of each of the limbs. It will be necessary over a period of time to re-prune these trees as they respond to the severe pruning they received. PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORIST OCTOBER 2ND, 2006 15'-55 HSU/HANPROPERTY,21od OOLORESAVENUE CUPERTINO 2 Conclusion There are nine trees on the property and one on the adjacent property to the west in this survey. Of these, only the two Deodara Cedars, one Coast Redwood are significant trees. The three Black Locusts species are brittle and the specimens are poorly formed and of little importance. The rest of the trees are smaller than the size commonly covered by City regulations but are included in this report because they were shown on the plan provided. Respectfully submitted, ~,f)~ Barrie D. Coate BDC/phlg Enclosures: Assumptions & Limiting Conditions Tree Protection Notes Photographs Map PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORIST OCTOBER 2ND, 2006 1 5'-:!J/J'~ ., BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES Horn cutural Consultants 23535 Summit Read Los Gates, CA 95033 4081353-1052 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS 1. Any legal description provided to the appraiser/consultant is assumed to be correct. No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in ct)aracter nor is any opinion rendered as to the quality of any title. 2. The appraiser/consultant can neither guarantee nor be responsible for accuracy of information provided by others. 3. The appraiser/consultant shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this appraisal unless subsequent written arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for services. 4. Loss or removal of any part of this report invalidates the entire appraisal/evaluation. 5. Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any other than the person(s) to whom it is addressed without written consent of this appraiser/consultant. 6. This report and the values expressed herein represent the opinion of the . appraiser/consultant, and the appraiser's/consultant's fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value nor upon any finding to be reported. 7. Sketches, diagrams, graphs, photos, etc., in this report, being intended as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering reports or surveys. 8. This report has been made in conformity with acceptable appraisal/evaluation/diagnostic reporting techniques and procedures, as recommended by the International Society of Arboriculture. 9. When applying any pesticide, fungicide, or herbicide, always follow label instructions. 1 a.No tree described in this report was climbed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take responsibility for any defects which could only have been discovered by climbing. A full root collar inspection, consisting of excavating the soil around the tree to uncover the root collar and major buttress roots, was not performed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take responsibility for any root defects which could only have been discovered by such an inspection. CONSULTING ARBORIST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training, and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist, or to seek additional advice. Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments, like medicine, cannot be guaranteed. Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate all trees. ~tVrAZe ~ ~ Barrie D. Coate ISA Certified Arborist Horticultural Consultant ) 5-57 BARRIE D. CuATE AND ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants (4-08) 353-1052 Fax (4-08) 353-1238 23535 Summit Rd. Los GatosJ CA 95033 TREE PROTECTION BEFORE, DURING, AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION These are general recommendations And may be superseded by site-specific instructions BEFORE Plan location of trenching to avoid all possible cuts beneath tree canopies. This includes trenches for utilities, irrigation lines, cable TV and roof drains. Plan construction period fence locations which will prevent equipment travel or material storage beneath tree canopies. Install fences before any construction related equipment is allowed on site. This includes pickup trucks, Inform subcontractors in writing that they must read this document. Require return of signed copies to demonstrate that they have read the document. Prune any tree parts, which conflict with construction between August and January. Except for pines which may be pruned between October-January. Only an ISA certified arborist, using ISA pruning instructions may be used for his work. If limbs are in conflict with the construction equipment before the certified arborist is on-site, carpenters may cut off offending parts of 6" diameter or less, leaving an 18" long stub, which should be re-cut later by the arborist, Under no circumstances may any party remove more than 30% of a trees foliage, or prune so that an unbalanced canopy is created. DURING Avoid use of any wheeled equipment beneath tree canopies. Maintain fences at original location in vertical, undamaged condition until all contractors and subcontractors, including painters are gone, Clear root collars of retained trees enough to leave 5-6 buttress roots bases visible at 12" from the trunk, Irrigate trees adjacent to construction activity during hot months (June-October). Apply 10 gallons of water per 1" of trunk diameter (measured at 4 ~') once per 2 week period by soaker hose. Apply water at the dripline, or adjacent to construction not around the trunk. Apply mulch to make a 3" deep layer in all areas beneath tree canopies and inside fences. Any organic material which is non toxic may be used. AFTER Irrigate monthly with 10 gallons of water per 1" of trunk diameter with a soaker hose, placed just inside the dripline. Continue until 8" of rain has fallen. Avoid cutting irrigation trenches beneath tree canopies. A void rototilling beneath tree canopies since that will destroy the small surface roots which absorb water. A void installation of turf or other frequently irrigated plants beneath tree canopies. /55"8 31 MEASUREMENTS CONDITION DISPOSITION NOTE8 BARRIE D. COATE ~ ~ ~l ~ w lii ~ m w ~ and ASSOCIATES W 0.. w u. w ~ W f/) II) ~ m C ~I f/) ~ . W 14lBl3S3-1l&2 rij' w ~ (!) ~ C'- W 0::: :l! .... w ~ 0 W cr: .... .... II) ~ ~ W 0.. ...= 8 23535 ~"I.. -- 0 @ @ Ii) W . . 0 r= 0 o 0: IMGU,CA9SCOO i5 C c . cr: ml cr: c ~ ~ ~ 0 I cr: 1m .... ~ ~ 0 i1i ~ ~ W ~I~ cr: -- 81~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :r:l c C/J f/)IW ~ 0 0 ~l W ~ ~If/) 5 ! C/J :::> W ~ i'fi ~,~ ~ ~18 (!) ...J ~ ~ ~ :r: :r: ~ W cr: ~ ~I R: ~ ~ W a: Tree # ~ ~ 0.. Ri e f/) f/) Jf ~ a ?n ~ ~ n :r: f/) :r: T Z n _L De9,!:t-!ra qedaL______ 20 - 40 30 1 - 3' 41 -r . . - pi Cedrus Deodars -1__ Deodara q!l.!!!L__________ .H _L~_~~~~ I 4 +1_ __L~~_ --l ; _'Lt..!. -, --- - -!. -- -!II- Cedrus Deodars ! I I , i i I I --~-- l3J!I_C!t Lo~~.!L___________ 11 ~ ! 125 20 gt~- _1_~__ , , ! R i -4 -- --~--f-- ---.. -- --t-- -. ~--t-- -+-t--- -i- - Robinia pseudoacacia I , I ,I I I I I I I I , 4 Black Locust I _L~'-~ , __+__LLL ++--. _JB1____ I i 11 , ~- _!. 51 ~-t-T1- ---- --------------- --~- , i , I I I I Robinia pseudoacacia 1 _L Co!Ist ~S1________ 17 I , _1. _~_ 31 ---1- T ! J'_~__ . -- -T,_lli- ---l- I . -T- Sequoia sempervil8ns , I I I 1 1 , , 6 In~.!1se Ced!lL________ _J 19.L 8 111 , __LJ_ . I . L-1---- 8 -- 21 I _J.. --,- ---- T I i I ---t-- , i I --r CalocecJrus decurrens I , , , _L_ ~ricot 1):~..!_.___...._..___. 6 ~-p-1J~ 1 1 1 21 I ! .1-' 1-'-+-- ...:-t--- -- --- --t--- ,- --+-- - - i -- - --- --- Prunus annenlaca , , i i i i I I 2.._ ~!!_rr.!!.___________ i-J 15tJl -~-~- 4 ! -~- I I i I Frost D!lml!g~ 9 __1__ ----1--- ----,- -.-- - r1"--- -- Brachvchiton oooulneus I I , 9 Black Locust 13 <oJ .!Pt-- _30~~ ,,L i-!. -~~- ! . !R -------------------- -- --- -- -1--- -- -- - -- -t---i-- Robinia oseudoacacla i i i ! I _jJL ~~Ie lree__________________ 6 I I 112 1 ! 2 I 31 I I, i I ' ! I I _.!. , I I , --tl--r--f- --r---~--.--- - --"'--"-~-r--- ---t-- ---r-t--+--~---to--- I I I , Brachvchiton oooulneus 1 I ! ii, , I I I I I I I * CD W/IS = CODOMINANT LEADERS WITH INCLUDED BARK ** RECOMMENDED + P = PRESERVE; T=TRANSPlANT; R=REMOVE 1 = Best, 5 + Worst ~ The Lands of Hsu/Han ~. 21871 Dolores Avenue Cupertino ~ 'w ...... "'.... """'.''''''_.l._L.__^_-lI ""^^'" HSUIHAN PROPERTY, 21871 DOLORES AVENUE CUPERTINO of- 1. Tree #1. 2, Trees #1 & #2, . ~ PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORIST OCTOBER 2ND, 2006 IS'-(y{) HSUIHAN PROPERTY, 21871 DOLORES AVENUE CUPERTINO +- 3. Tree #3 (note dead branches). 4. Tree #5. -+ PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COA IE, CONSULTING ARBORIST I,-v I OCTOBER 2ND, 2006 HSUIHAN PROPERTY, 21871 DOLORES AVENUE CUPERTINO +- 5. Tree #6. ! 6. Tree #7. <~l;: .f. l;:,-i '<",- .r"" l' PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORIST OCTOBER 2ND, 2006 I 5,- (l'J ;).. HSUIHAN PROPERTY, 21871 DOLORES AVENUE CUPERTINO .1..~ .-..., .: ~'. ' +- 7. A neighboring tree which should not be affected. 8. Tree # 8. ---+ . ~.--. ...-.... ... PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORIST OCTOBER 2ND, 2006 / 5- 0 -3 HSUIHAN PROPERTY, 21871 DOLORES AVENUE CUPERTINO t 9. Cypress along neighbor's property line, PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORIST OCTOBER 2ND, 2006 / 5 -fp (I Cupertino Planning Corr. jSlOn 3 January 23,2007 Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. February 27, 2007 Planning Commissio absent) the -0-0; Com. Saadati PUBLIC HEARING 1. EXC-2006-14, TM-2006-12, V-2007-01; Jitka Cymbal (Westfall Engineers) 21871 Dolores Ave. Exception to allow a 5-foot side yard setback. Tentative Map to subdivide a .46-acre parcel into two parcels of9,685 sq. ft. and 9,686 sq. ft., respectively. Variance to allow a 50-foot lot width, instead of the required 60-foot width, for two proposed parcels. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Postponed from the January 9, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. Gary Chao, Associate Planner, presented the staff report: . Reviewed the application for tentative map, variance and exception to allow 5-foot yard setbacks on two parcels located on 21871 Dolores Avenue in a RI-7.5 zoning district, as outlined in the staff report. . He reviewed the two major discussion points which include conformance with the Rl Ordinance for substandard lot widths and 5-foot side yard setbacks, and tree removal and retention. . Relative to the lot width, staff supports the variance request and feels that the variance findings for the lot width can be made. Staff also supports the side yard exception request. Relative to building interface issues, the applicant would be required to apply through the design review process to ensure that the position of the house, articulation and recess are maximized to minimize any potential interface issues with adjacent neighbors. . Staff recommends that the two Deodor Cedar trees be preserved and one 36 inch box Redwood be planted to replace the removed redwood tree. Staff is also requiring that the applicant work to with staff in preserving as many trees as possible. . Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the tentative map, variance and exception applications in accordance with the model resolutions. . He answered Commissioners' questions relative to the history of flag lots. . Explained the rationale behind requesting the applicant to replace the removed redwood tree with another tree. He said it was standard practice to replace fairly large trees that are not specimen trees, to keep up the urban forest. 1brough the subdivision process there are examples of where the city has required them to protect and record trees that are not on that list of protected trees, but they may have other attributes that are important. Ciddy Wordell: . Said they did not normally encumber a subdivision with requirements for a residential development, it should be related to the subdivision, and could be done through the design . ' reVIew. Jitka Cymbal, Westfall Engineers: . Said they considered both side by side lots and the flag lot. /5-65 Cupertino Planning Corr" jSlOn 4 January 23,2007 . Besides the issues which are strictly planning issues relating to length of driveway for a flag lot, we were looking at potentially creating a greater impervious surface area and there are some drainage issues because the lot slopes away from the street. Putting the house all the way in the back with the long driveway, not only would create greater impervious surfaces because the driveway is very long, and has to have a turnaround, but we are draining it to the back unless we fill the lot. That was another factor that went into the design and actual request for the side by side. Com. Miller: . Said that whether it is side by side or flag lot, the drainage issue still has to be addressed. Jitka Cymbal: . Said with side by side lots, the homes are closer to the street; ,they can be raised enough to have the front of the homes and most of the roofs draining onto the street which is not impacting the people in the back. It also provides a large area in the backyard for onsite retention. It creates possibilities which the flag lot does provide; it is not impossible, but is more difficult. Chairperson Giefer opened the public hearing. Cindy Hsu, Dolores A venue: . Supports the side by side split for safety reasons; said the lot in the back is very dangerous. . Said that the fire department prefers side by side lots, not flag lots. . Supports the application. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: . Said the lot should be flag lot and a 60 foot side lot; there are a number of issues. When there are two 50-foot wide lots you are creating substandard lots in a residential community. Unfortunately when you do this, the resulting lots begin to look like a planned development area with high density housing. This is not a planned development area, it is a suburban residential area. ' . Five foot side yard setbacks are not appropriate in this area; the homes should be made smaller if you do have two 50-foot wide lots. . How many of these potential lot splits can occur in Monta Vista; are we setting a dangerous precedent of having the creation of substandard lots. Also, if doing 50150 side by side, require submittal of plans for the potential homes to see what they look like. Los Gatos requires this when the house is going down; you have one year to build and you have to submit plans. Shu-Jen Liau, Cupertino resident: . Opposes the application. . Resides on a flag lot in the front house. . Concurred with Jennifer Griffin that safety was not the main concem; the neighborhood is safe. The concern is the lack of privacy with a 5 foot setback as the homes are too close together. . Prefers flag lot configuration, not side by side. Johnny Wang, Cupertino resident: . Oppose's the application. . Resides on a flag lot in the back lot. . Emphasized the neighbors' concern about privacy. . Said he would like to see consistency of the flag lots in the neighborhood. . Asked the Planning Commission to continue to enforce Rl ordinance. /5 -!vb Cupertino Planning COlT. JSlOn 5 January 23,2007 Tracy Hsu, Dolores Avenue (Owner of proposed homes) . Said the reasons they chose the side by side division was twofold: drainage because the rear lot entry is a lot lower than the front and fire safety because the fire trucks would have difficulty to reach the rear lot. . Said she previously resided at 21869 Dolores Avenue which is the adjacent neighbor and is aware of the problems with the flag lots. . Asked the Planning Commission to approve the side by side configuration. . The house size would be about 3600 square feet plus the two car garage. . Supports the application. Rafael Gomez, Dolores Avenue: . Resides across the street opposite the 21871 address. . Suggested a difference look for the neighborhood as the builder has built five large identical big houses, one in front of the other. .' Supports application for side by side configuration for aesthetic reasons. Rhoda Fry, Cupertino resident: . Opposes application. . Said that Cupertino's annexation of Monta Vista has blighted Monta Vista. . It sounds like splitting the lots down the middle is not a good solution, nor are flag 'lots. Anybody think of not doing it?? . Prior to it being a rental unit, it was occupied for a long time by the owner. Sue Jane Han, co-owner of parcel: . Said that in the past she resided in the back lot of. a flag lot and it was very difficult turning the cars around because of limited space of the garage; and on occasion if there were other cars in the area, her father hit the fence. Chair Giefer closed the public hearing. Gary Chao: . Relative to the fire department's position on flag lots, they don't necessarily have to access the site to fight fires in the back area; they can drag their lines out. They would prefer to have easy access to the properties. Gary Chao: . Said the fire department reviewed the proposal, and supports the project. Com. Chien: . In the General Plan, Policy 2-23 under one of the strategies for this policy, it s~ys "create flag lots in proposed subdivisions when they are the only reasonable alternative". He suggested that it state "discourage flag lots". He said that Cupertino is a city that encourages neighborhood compatibility and integration. He asked staff to elaborate on how the city or staff interprets the policy. Ciddy Wordell: . Said the intent was to make it stronger, to see fewer flag lots, It is created only in unusual circumstances, when there is not a reasonable alternative. /~5'- Iv 7 Cupertino Planning Coni .:iSlOn 6 January 23, 2007 Gary Chao: . If doing a flag lot configuration, the lot is 100 feet wide, usually the panhandle portion would be 20 feet, so the remainder would be 80 feet in terms of the width of the smaller lot in front. Com. Miller: . My concern is that these are very large lots, 193 feet long by 50 feet wide; if we do it this way, and on those lots you can build a house in excess of 4,000 square feet on each of them, and we are proposing to build these fairly significant sized houses which will be long and narrow and in fact impact the neighbors. They will have an impact on the neighbors from a potential privacy standpoint. . If we go with the flag lot configuration, the lots lose some width; the flag is not considered in the calculation; the eventual houses will be smaller and the separation between the houses and the neighbors will be larger. . I understand the issue about drainage, we didn't clarify what the grade is from front to back; but I also believe there are solutions to this unless there is a very severe grade, and even if there was, there are still solutions. . (staff response: 365 elevations at the streets as opposed to 363 at the rear property line, so about 2 or 3 feet variance) . I assume the grade difference is the same for the neighboring houses as well. . My feeling is because of the large size of the house that the applicant can put on each of the subdivided lots, I would rather see the flag lot configuration and I don't think that the drainage issue is that significant to address. Com. Wong: . Supports the tentative map; but not the variance. ,I agree that the lot is big enough to be subdivided, and the reasoning at the time we went through the Rl to allow the exception for the five feet was mainly for an existing parcel that was substandard and had under 60 feet. Here we have an opportunity to subdivide a lot, but we are subdividing the lot into a substandard lot and that concerns me. . I see the exception to be used in special cases where in Rancho Rinconada where we have small lot and we only have a few in Monta Vista, but on this particular lot, you do have a way to have a standard lot by doing a flag lot. . Relative to safety concerns and concerns about small children, there are already five or six flag lots on that block, and many other flag lots in the neighborhood. . What makes Monta Vista special is the single family Rl lots, and if we can keep the neighborhood in tact, to have a standard lot, I prefer to go that way. On some of the lots you cannot, because they were already long and narrow, but on this particular I feel this is important for the compatibility to be consistent, not to have substandard. I am concerned about that 50% that it will be a burden on the property owner to have pavers included. . I agree with the neighbors regarding the density; I think that privacy has been a strong concem with the neighborhood and I also think that Monta Vista is known for single family homes and to respect the 15 feet on both sides, maybe 5 or 10 or the equivalent of 15 feet together. . He said he would also like further discussion on Policy 2-23 and clarification on where staff is coming from. . Said he supported a flag lot configuration, Com. Chien: . Thanked the speakers for their valuable input; in such an application there are always two sides to that debate, and the city had to look at what is in the public interest. . Said the policy on flag lots, while the intent may be clear, is poorly written because the first words regarding flag lots written in the General Plan are "create flag lots when they are 15.63 Cupertino Planning COlI. ~slOn 7 January 23, 2007 reasonably compatible" They are in this case, and compatibility is an issue that has been discussed when looking at single family homes and has been an issue of contention; and many of the Planning Commissioners have worked to try to take compatibility out because it is very subjective. . Where the public interest is concerned, the city is always interested in neighborhood compatibility. The Commissioners are asked to weigh that public interest vs. private interest, and he felt in this case the private interests of the right of an owner to build on their property outweighs that of neighborhood compatibility. . Said he supported the application as the 50/50 split. Chair Giefer: . Said the lots meet the criteria for subdivision which she did not have an issue with; but questioned how to subdivide it. . I think that we have solved drainage issues in this neighborhood in other ways with dry wells and other swales and pavers to help with runoff and absorption. . The dominant configuration for the area of Dolores Avenue is the flag lot configuration. She said she supported a subdivision for a flag configuration because it also has the least requirements in terms of variances. Jitka Cymbal: . Said the owner would prefer not to have flag lots. Chair Giefer: . Clarified for the applicant that there was verbal consensus that the preference was for flag lot configuration; that the Commission could deny the tentative map, take a vote and have the decision appealed to the City Councilor continue the item to a later date. Jitka Cymbal: . Said there were two variance requests; one for the lot width and one for the setback which creates the privacy issue. Asked if there would be a chance of getting the lot width without getting the setback. Chair Giefer: . Said that based upon what was heard, it was not likely that it is going to pass. Ciddy Wordell: . Said it is physically possible, but would be up to you whether you want it that way. Chair Giefer: . We could say you could have a 50 foot width; we could give you a substandard lot size and then enforce our standard side setbacks, if there were members of the Planning Commission who agreed to that. Jitka Cymball: . Said that is what the owners would prefer. Com. Wong: . Said he would prefer a continuance, since he needed to see the plan and could not make a final decision this evening. /5-61 Cupertino Planning Com JSlOn 8 January 23, 2007 Chair Giefer: . Said that the applicant would prefer to come back with 50/50 side by side substandard with smaller house. Com. Wong: . Said he was concerned about substandard. Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Wong, to deny Application TM-2006-12, V-2007-01, and EXC-2006-14 (Vote: 3-1-0; Com. Chien No; Com. Saadati absent) Ciddy Wordell: . Noted that the decision could be appealed to the City Council within 10 calendar days. AId Hon . Review Amendm by the PI . At the Decem be provided inc the Director of associated with a replacing trees in con removal permits be han . She reviewed the mode approval authority, notici list, rear yard tree removals, outlined in the staff report. . Staff recommends that the Plann staff recommended draft model retroactive tree removal fee. MCA-2006-02 City of Cupertino Citywide Location Municipal Code Amendment of Chapter 14.18 (Heritage and Specimen Trees) Continued from the December 12, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. Tentative City Council Date: February 20, 2007 nelling, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: the background of the item which was a continuation of the Municipal Code fChapter 14.18 (Heritage and Specimen Trees) and reviewed the discussion held, Commission as outlined in the staff report. 12,2006 meeting the Planning Commission recommended a draft ordinance orating staff s recommendations for simplifying the ordinance by allowing unity Development to make determinations on tree removals when not velopment application and by providing prescriptive measures for tion with tree removals. Staff also recommended that retroactive tree' d by the Community Development Director to simplify the process. dinance which incorporated staff s recommendations relative to enalties, tree replacements, protected tree size, specimen tree management plan, and general clean up/clarification items, as Commission recommend that the City Council approve the inance and recommend establishment of the specific Com. Chien: . Asked for an explanation of the logic behin AId Snelling: . Said it was a recommendation by the Planning Co . ssion at the last meeting to take into consideration that the trees in the rear yard may not ha e visible significance that a tree in the front yard may have, so that some ability may be give allow the removal of protected trees in the rear yard that may not be very significant to the c unity. Also some rear yard trees may infringe upon some of the adjacent neighbors, the cano the trees might, the root systems they may become over-burdensome that it may not allow for property owners to plant gardens in the rear yard; it may create too much shading. Com. Chien: . One of the ways a tree becomes protected in addition to being a protected species is. J 5 - '76 LEGE~D O.lSTING c::::; BULDm:; MQNUH(NT CURIlH-lLET AR(ADRAIN ~DLE SANlTARYSE\JERMANHDlE STORM DRAIN MANHD~( [=:J . . . o @ a: --h o . ~ . -3; ----- F"IR[ HYDRAN"T WATER VALVE STRE[;LlGHl C:...EANDUT BOUNDARY LDTLlNE CtNT::R~lNE UMIT Or EASEMENT CURB ClJRIlANDGl"TTER EDGE or PAVEMENT CONTOUR FENCE FLOwLINE SANlTARYS[\I[R S"DRHDRAIN ELECTRICAL GAS \<lATER -ss- )"k9S -SIl-8JPII I I II -(;-G- -\1-\1- SITE II I' I ! I c I .. c '" II ORANGE z z II .. .. g z "' ~ I 0 0 .. N () :r .. f " g :> .. IMPERIAL AVENUE vie NITY MAP Ii i I II R<:vrS!DN > I > I > 1 I : ~ ! I 1 e>:;~ i )l "<: <"~ I 1 1'..1 ! I . >. j : ' ' ~' I I 1 I 1 I I ~--- Iwl >:J " IZI ,~~ I <I: ' ''f.CI? ~ Iw-I., .' '0;:: v ~I '0 ' I~~ > I I II 3J2. ~z ~ si", ,~,~I ,;; 4 J.. u..36'5. ~ - oi e"f ~ I I 3.5% CHEN I~I I ~ L~ I _n ---------.- ., " -y,~, 9~ I" , I, " 'I , , I , ! ! I i i E'I'DATE DATE Nf]VEMBER2006 SCALE, Hell'. ,':10' VERT. DESIGNEDI JC CHECKED KC PRDJ[NGR, JC ~r~~:';REL CYMBAL, .$ WESTF ALL ENG I NEERS, I NC, ~~~~E<~E:XAINI!\IG ~. - -, \ NOO'OO'O:J"E 1'9342 '~ I /~.. ( ,,;, ~~.. r WANG .; SCALE l' = 10' J FUNG r- F /L 3670 I' - - - l - - -..,~,..,~{-r;--',,-~,_ -1- II > I EX.SHED I;, REMOVE II I EX.C07TAGE REMOVE PROPOSED R~Drncr - ! ~3Sl-~! F.F.EL.368.Q 1-' PAD 355.0 II ~, L~J.~R.( -----NGc"oo'OQ"E,gJ..... 1 S.68:5 ,::::it:>"g ~~-O-~Rrr ,," ~' "---l ~~~- EX.COr,,.GE REMO'JE I ! I -I i _J _ +-- F/L 364.5 ~ L",,::- _ _ =-=-.~~ " rfr- N6'5"OO"ocTlSJ..;.2' RADHAKR1$HNA 14583 BIG BASIN \lAY, SAR~TOGA. CA 95070 (40mS67 02+4 ~ . 3.~, 7' PROPOSED ~ES DENCE . F.F.::1__ 367.00 ' PAC 364.00 '\ ~FENCE/RETAINING WIl,LL 3'MP-':< 'ft,,-;. -----.;- "" , I ~I"". "I 1: i {-~ ..,- ~~o> T I k ~ w o o '~ ~ z .. iO .. z .. " z .. '" r jJ I, i" I' I I ~ '~^' ~'I ~I PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN LANDS OF HSU AND HAN EI87iDDLORESAVENUE, CUPERTIN;] LEGEND ~Y]STJNG CJ . o o BJLDlNG MONUMENT CURIIINlET AREADRA1N POLE SAl'WIIR"SE\J[RMANHllLE STOR>.1DI<AINMANHllL[ :) @ cf. ~ . ~ I ~ 1 I ~ !I ------- I I I I rrR[HYDRANT VATER VA~VE STREETUGHT CLEAIllUT BOUNDARY LDTLTNE CENTERLINE UI1IT OF EASEMENT CURB CURllANDGUTTER EDGE OF PAVEMENT CDNHlUR FENCE FLO....UNE SANITARY SE\J'EP. ST;JRHDRAli'i ELECTRICAL GO, >iA"lER 11 ---- 'I =-:.-;-~ jJ~e~ -sD-G-~Pll -G-G- I! -,-,- II II ! I Ii II i I I i I sm: c '" o '" z ~ ~ " " :::l: IMPERIAL AVENUE '" '" N '" " -' '" VICINITY MAP REVISION CJ . . . I ,I 'I I II II II II Ii II Ii I I lJ2"!' l ' "- I Wi >:J " IZI >~" 1 <I: 1 ifSi- >Q! ,. Pji ":oo! b" ; I 1 ,'1 c ~::-::~~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ if' , I Oi.~~:[D'" I ,;:,31>5" ~~ I 1./- T""l!lSlJlIIIdSU.j....f1.m 21871d<>loro,AVCllDe CllJlOfli=.CA95014 ToL4f>4-'OJ(l :E1Il!"'= WOOlCollf.o&i_",iDoC. 14jIJB>aBasUlW"!' Saral"llo,CA9'iD70 re1S61~144 f..S67-62lil S$...u04tactfl< IBujklin8.....(~ 'EmtmsllK-resiclcnlilll ~~':~8~~~~ 1P:ropo"""~I-R-1-7'OO ~plando8ign2lR>n"~...1iaI I L___________.J CHEN r------i " I ,'--I I l:ll;~ ;~ I "'I" ~ 0 g16 8 ~13f.Sl. ~I ;;---.-, r. I I _[-T'--Y-~ I ; o -I, 1\ l \~~, '/ ~ I----.-~;'~'"' ~ ~k'ACI>L .; "< /p ! ';. (,~., i 1"- I I -, I.~- t- I L r --- -~- <~ '"~ ~~ IIY DATE DATE NDVEMBER2.Q06 SCALE' HOR. j.=lt" VE:RT. DESl:JNED' JC BY,kARElCYMEAL. RC[34534 CHECKED' KC DA~E, PROJENGR. JC EX. HOclS:: REMOVE ~ L_ ..,-~".," .3lii.7' Ji[~' 618< tiOCQ[.QQ"E _I 193 '!f' _ [)lCO-TAG[ RWOIIE L _ _ _ _ --.J3f.~~J 1 9,6~5 sq. ft. _ _ _ . i;'Rl~OG1lQlO"U93.42' _ _ - ~- 4 I(tIO'OC'oc"[ 19-3_42' r e,O'.",,:.'<' '-.J% __ ,~, e 2 9,6B6 sq. tt RADHAKRISHNA WESTFALL ENGINEERS, INC, 145El3 BIG IlASHll,lAY il\RATOGA CA 95070 (408)867 0244 DC HOllSE SCALE 1#=10' I L___________.J WANG -.'- -," , ' ';' ~ ~T~rE -'--'.-.' ~E,:O_ :6 ~~----- ~ ~ " r ,- r'-,~_ c#..~l ---l EX.COTTAGE REl.IOVE J.OJr !:X HOUSE r-----, ! I , - -.- Ja~a,. ., -~ :1"' :1' Ig .., I~ I Z I I z '" F '" z '" " Z '" <r ~I --~ -~, - I PARSAY 21871 DOLORES IWENUE. CUPERTlNJ -, TENTATIVE MAP LANDS OF HSU AND HAN I I I ~~ , IEX,HOUSE JOB NO 2006-133 SH[[T I ", CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Applicant: Property Owner: Property Location: TM-2006-12, V-2007-01, EXC-2006-14 Jitka Cymbal Sue-Jane Han 21871 Dolores Avenue Agenda Date: January 23,2007 Application: Application Summary: TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide a .46 acre lot into two parcels of 9,685 square feet and 9,686 square feet, respectively in a RI-7.5 zoning district. VARIANCE to allow a 50-foot lot width, instead of the required 60-foot width, for the two proposed parcels. EXECPTION to allow 5-foot side yard setbacks, instead of the required combined 15 feet. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the tentative map, the variance and the exception in accordance with the model resolutions. Project Data: General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: Total Acreage (gross): Net Acreage per parcel: Density: Low Density Residential, 1-5 DUj gr. acre Rl-7.5 .46 Lot 1- 9,685 sq. ft., Lot 2- 9,686 sq. ft. 4.3 duj gr. acre. Environmental Assessment: Yes, Policy 2-23 Yes Categorically exempt. Project Consistency with: General Plan: Zoning: BACKGROUND: The project site is located on the north side of Dolores Avenue between Byrne Avenue and Orange Avenue. A main residence, two detached cottages and a detached shed currently exist on the parcel. Single-family residential parcels surround the subject parcel. The project proposes to demolish all of the structures on the property, subdivide into two lots and build two new single family homes. f5,7f TM-2006-12, V-2007-01, EXC-2006-14 Page 2 January 9, 2007 DISCUSSION: There are two major discussion points for this subdivision: conformance with the Rl Ordinance (substandard lot widths & 5-foot side yard setbacks) and tree removal and retention. Rl Ordinance Conformance: Lot Width The proposed project parcel is approximately 100 feet wide and 190 feet deep. The project lot is not wide enough for two minimum 60-foot wide lots as required by the Rl Ordinance. The site can be subdivided into two lots with a flag lot in the rear and a smaller conventional lot in the front similar to the adjacent properties (see aerial diagram below). Alternatively, the property could be divided down the middle creating two conventional lots resulting in lot widths narrower than the required 60 feet. The General Plan discourages the creation of new flag lots unless if they are the only reasonable alternative that integrates with the lot patterns in the neighborhood. The Planning Commission recently approved a similar variance (TM-2005-14, 21988 McClellan Road) allowing the subdivision of conventional lots with lot widths narrower than the required 60 feet in the interest of better integrating the future residence into the neighborhood. The project site is located in the Monta Vista neighborhood that consist of a variety of different lot patterns, including numerous conventional lots with substandard widths (50 feet) and flag lots (see diagram above). Staff supports the variance request and believes that the variance findings for the lot width can be made: 1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions, apply to the property involved that do not apply genel'ally to the property in the same district. In order for this property to subdivide with conventional lots, a variance is needed for narrower lot width. The property could be subdivided with a flag lot that does not require a variance, and the exceptional circumstance is that conventional lots are desired so that residences can face the street and be better integrated the homes into the neighborhood. / 5'.~ 7d-. TM-2006-12, V-2007-Ol, EXC-.L006-14 Page 3 January 9, 2007 2. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoym,ent of substantial property rights of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship. The proposed lots conform to the General Plan, zoning and the lot sizes in the surrounding area, thereby allowing the property owner to achieve property rights similar to others in the area. 3. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare, or convenience, and to secure the purpose of the title. The subdivision will not be detrimental to the vicinity. Side Yard Setbacks In general, the Rl Ordinance requires ground floor side yard setbacks be a combination of 15 feet with a minimum of five feet on one side. Only RI-5 zoned lots are allowed to have five foot side yard setbacks. The intent of this rule is to permit less side yard setbacks on narrower lots (50 feet wide or less) in order to provide greater flexibility to construct a reasonable and balanced floor plan. The City has previously approved exceptions to allow five foot side yards setbacks on lots that are located outside of RI-5 zoning districts if the following fundamental principles are met: 1. The setback pattern is consistent with the neighborhood; and 2. The project lot width is substandard (less than 60 wide); and 3. The five foot setbacks will not cause building interface issues. The applicant is requesting an exception to allow five foot side yard setbacks. The project is located in the Monta Vista area which has a variety of lot and setback patterns. A survey of the immediate neighborhood indicates that there are approximately 34 lots with similar lot widths and side yard setbacks (see diagram below). In addition, further Rl design control at the design review process for the new homes will ensure that the buildings are design to minimize undesirable building interface issues to the adjacent neighbors. J t)- 73 TM-2006-12, V-2007-01, EXC-2006-14 Page 4 January 9, 2007 Staff supports the side yard exception request and believes that the variance findings for the lot width can be made: 1. Literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter will result in restrictions inconsistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter. The proposed project is consistent with the intent of the ordinance and will not impact the neighborhood. The five-foot side yard setback is appropriate in order to allow for a functional floor plan and a balanced front elevation on a narrow lot. The substandard lot width and a literal enforcement of the ordinance will not allow enough design flexibility. 2. The granting of the exception will not result in a condition which is materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. The proposed setbacks are consistent with the neighborhood pattern and will not create public health, safety or welfare issues. 3. The proposed exception will not result in significant visual impact as viewed from abutting properties. The proposed setback will not result in significant visual impacts for the neighboring properties since the Rl design review approval process for the' two new homes will ensure that the buildings are designed to minimize negative visual impacts., (f 7 L( TM-2006-12, V-2007-01, EXC-;' 1-14 Page 5 January 9, 2007 4. That the exceptions to' be granted are ones that will require the least l1wdification of the prescribed regulations and the minimum exception that will accomplish the pU1'pose The proposed side yard setback exception is consistent with the intent of the Ordinance in that the project lots consist of substandard lot widths and the five foot side yard setbacks provide greater design flexibility to allow reasonable and balanced floor plans. The side yard setback exception is the minimum exception necessary to achieve these goals. Tree Removal and Retention: Ten trees are located on the subject property" three of which are significant (Deodar Cedars #1 & #2 and Coast Redwood #5). Only the two Deodar Cedars are protected by the Tree Ordinance. According to the applicant, the Coast Redwood #5 has already been removed due to its poor condition. Staff recommends that the two Cedar trees be preserved as part of this approval and that one 36 inch box Redwood be planted to replace the removed redwood. As for the other trees on the property, the applicant has the option of removing them since they are not protected. Staff recommends a condition of approval that requires the existing trees be retained to the maximum extent possible and that the applicant work with the Director of Cormnunity Development to make the final decision on the retention of these trees at the design review stage. The applicant is also required to record a covenant on the property that ensures the preservation and maintenance of the new replacement trees and any trees that are required to be preserved as part of this approval. Prepared by: Gary Chao, Associate Planner Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developm~ Enclosures: Model Resolution for TM-2006-12 Model Resolution for V -2006-03 Model Resolutionfor EXC-2006-0 Plan Set Exhibit A: Tree Survey & Arborist Report ! 5 -7,') Tl\1-2006-12 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOI\1MENDING APFROV AL OF A TENT A TlVE MAP TO SUBDIVIDE A .46 ACRE LOT INTO TVVO PARCELS OF 9,685 SQUARE FEET AND 9,686 SQUARE FEET, RESPECTIVELY IN A Rl-7.S ZONING DISTRICT, AT 21871 DOLORES AVENUE SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Tentative Subdivision Map, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1) That the proposed subdivision map is consistent with the City of Cupertino General Plan. 2) That the design and improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the General Plan. 3) That the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of development contemplated under the approved subdivision. 4) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and unavoidable injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. S) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements associated there with is not likely to cause serious public health problems. 6) That the design of the subdivision and its associated improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Tentative Subdivision Map is hereby recommended for approval, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof; and /5- 7h Resolution No. Page 2 TM-2006-12 January 23, 2007 That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. TM-2006-12 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of January 23,2007, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein, SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: TM-2006-12 Jitka Cymbal 21871 Dolores Avenue SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS The recommendation of approval is based on the Plan Set titled, "Tentative Map, Lands of Hsu and Han, 21871 Dolores Avenue, Cupertino, California", dated November 2006 (two pages), except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution. 2. TREE PRESERVATION All existing trees must be retained to the maximum extent possible. The applicant must work with the Director of Community Development to make the final decision on the retention of these trees at the design review stage. Revised landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Director prior to issuance of building permits. 3. COVENANT The two Cedar (#1 & #2) trees shall be preserved as part of this approval and that one 36 inch box Redwood be planted to replace the removed redwood (#5). Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant is required to record a covenant on the property that ensures the preservation and maintenance of the new replacement trees and any trees that are required to be preserved as part of this approval. 4. VISUALIMPACT The applicant shall make every effort to work with staff at the Rl Design Review Approval Process to minimize any negative visual or building interface impacts to the adjacent neighbors. SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. / 5 - 77 Resolution No. Page 3 TM-2006-12 January 23, 2007 5. STREET WIDENING Street widening and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer. 6. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed ill accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. 7. STREET LIGHTING INST AJLLATION Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of visual interference to adjoining properties,' and shall be no higher than the maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located. 8. FIRE HYDRANT Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City and Santa Clara County Fire as needed. 9. GRADING Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engin.eer in accordance with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404 permits maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/ or Regional Water Quality Control Board as appropriate. 10. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 11. FIRE PROTECTION Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the City as needed. 12. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of underground utility devices. The developer shall submit detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer. 13. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for under 15;-78 Resolution No. Page 4 TM-2006-12 January 23, 2007 grounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed pnor to Issuance of construction permits. Fees: a. Checking & Inspection Fees: $2,194.00 minimum b. Grading Permit: c. Development Maintenance Deposit: d. Storm Drainage Fee: e. Power Cost: f. Map Checking Fees: g. Park Fees: h. Street Tree $ 5% of Off-Site Improvement Cost or $ 6 % of Site Improvement Cost or $2,060.00 minimum $ 2,000.00 $ 593.40 N/A $3,348.00 $15,750.00 By Developer Bonds: a. Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements b. Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvement c. On-site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements. -The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit'in the event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule. 14, TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas. 15. AMENDED DEVELOPMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP) REQUIREMENTS a. Permanent Stormwater Quality BMPs Required In accordance with chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the City Code, all development and redevelopment projects shall include permanent BMPs in order to reduce the water quality impacts of stormwater runoff from the entire site for the life of the project. b. Stormwater Management Plan Required The applicant shall submit a Stormwater Management Plan for this project. The permanent storm water quality best management practices (BMPs) / 5- 71 Resolution No. Page 5 TM-2006-12 January 23, 2007 included in, this plan shall be selected and designed in accordance with chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the City Code. c. BMP Agreements The applicant and the City shall enter into a recorded agreement and covenant running with the land for perpetual BMP maintenance by the property owners(s)_ In additionj the owner(s) and the City shaH enter into a recorded easement agreement and covenant rurming with the land allowing City access at the site for BMP inspection. d. Hydromodification Plan (HMP) Required The applicant must provide a comprehensive plan to control any combination of on-site, off-site and in-stream control measures incorporated into specific redevelopment projects in order to reduce stormwater runoff so as to not increase the erosion potential of the receiving watercourse over the pre-project condition. 16. MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT The applicant will be required to maintain all items, which are non-standard within-the City's right of way. The applicant and the City must enter into a recorded agreement for this aforementioned work. 17. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN The developer must submit a traffic control plan by a Registered Traffic Engineer to be approved by the City. The plan shall include a temporary traffic control plan for work in the right of way as well as a routing plan for all vehicles used during construction. All traffic control signs must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to commencement of work. The City has adopted Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards for all signage and striping work throughout the City. 18. REFUSE TRUCK ACCESS The developer must obtain clearance from the Environmental Programs Department in regards to refuse truck access for the proposed development. CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF ENGINEERING/SURVEYING CONDITIONS (Section 66474.18 of the California Government Code) /5-gG Resolution No. Page 6 TM-2006-12 January 23, 2007 I hereby certify that the engineering and surveying conditions specified in Section IV. Of this resolution conform to generally accepted engineering practices Ralph Qualls, Director of Public Works City Engineer CA License 22046 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of January 2007, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABST AIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki, Director Community Development Department Lisa Geifer, Chairperson Plarming Commission ! 5. 8! V-2007-01 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 50-FOOT LOT WIDTH, INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 60--FOOT 'WIDTH, FOT THE TWO PROPOSED PAneE AT 21871 DOLORES A VENUE. SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, of the City of Cupertino has received an application for a Variance, as described in Section II. of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one Public Hearing on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has meet the burden of proof required to support the applicatiQn, and has satisfied the following criteria: ' 1) That there are extraordinary or exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to properties in the same district . 2) That granting of the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship. 3) That granting the Variance will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare, or convenience, and to secure the purpose of the title. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, testimony, exhibits and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Variance is hereby approved by the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the subconclusions upon which the findings specified in this Resolution are based are contained in the public hearing record concerning Application V-2007-01, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of January 23 2007, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. / ') - 6d- , ' ---'\,. Resolution No. Page -2- v - 2007-01 January 23, 2007 SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No:: Applicant: Location: V -2007 -01 Jitka Cymbal 21871 Dolores Avenue SECTION III: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approved is based on the tentative map entitled IITENTATlVE MAP, LANDS OF HSU AND HAN, 21871 DOLORES AVENUE, CUPERTINO" by Westfall Engineers, Inc., dated November 2006, and consisting of two sheets labeled pages 1 and 2, except as may be amended by the conditions contained in this resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of January, at a Regular Meeting of the Plamung Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABST AIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Lisa Geifer, Chair Cupertino Planning Commission /1-:85 EXC-2006-14 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO TO ALLOW 5-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACKS, INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED COMBINED 15 FEET AT 21871 DOLORES AVENUE SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: EXC-2006-14 Jitka Cymbal 21871 DOLORES AVENUE SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for an exception to the Sign Code, as described in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds the following with regards to this.. application: 1. Literal Enforcement of the provisions of this chapter win result in restrictions inconsistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter 2. The granting of the exception will not result in a condition which is materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare 3. The proposed exception will not result in significant visual impact as viewed from abutting properties 4. That the exceptions to be granted are ones that will require the least modification of the prescribed regulations and the minimum variance that will accomplish the purpose. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the exception to the sign ordinance for an exposed neon ground sign border is hereby approved subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution; and /5- 3l/ Resolution No. Page 2 EXC-2006-14 January 23, 2007 SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on a plan set titled: "Tentative Map, Lands of Hsu and Han, 21871 Dolores Avenue, Cupertino, California" consisting of two pages, except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution. 2. TREE PRESERVATION All existing trees must be retained to the maximum extent possible. The applicant must work with the Director of Community Development to make the final decision on the retention of these trees at the design review stage. Revised landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Director prior to issuance of building permits. 3. COVENANT The two Cedar (#1 & #2) trees shall be preserved as part of this approval and that one 36 inch box Redwood be planted to replace the removed redwood (#5). Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant is required to record a covenant on the property that ensures the preservation and maintenance of the new replacement trees and any trees that are required to be preserved as part of this approval. 4. VISU AL IMP ACT The applicant shall make every effort to work with staff at the Rl Design Review Approval Process to minimize any negative visual or building interface impacts to the adjacent neighbors. 5. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Govermnent 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 Govermnent Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions, That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application EXC-2006-14, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of January 23, 2007 and are incorporated by reference herein. /5-.35 Resolution No. Page 3 EXC-2006-14 January 23, 2007 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of January 2007, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Lisa Geifer, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission / 5~31c BARRIE De COAT~' and ASSOCIA TE:~ Horticutural Consultants 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos. CA 95033 4081353-1052 A REVIEW OF THE TREES AT THE LANDS OF HSUffiAN 21871 DOLORES AVENUE CUPERTINO Prepared at the request of: Piu Ghosh City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Prepared by: Barrie D. Coate Consulting Arborist October 2nd, 2006 Job# 10-06-204 lrRE(---" H~ 1'1. H'" .11"......./. . '""'--""" "_.4... - ;....-!.F J ! nr:r 1 7 ?"-'n '" - f . 'LUUD I ~ f I BY- i ........;, _O~ . -:-. _., -~~~! /5-,37 HSUIHAN PROPERTY, 218~ 0LORES AVENUE CUPERTINO 1 . Assignment On October 2nd, 2006, I met Mrs. Sue Han at the' property to prepare an analysis of the trees on the property. The plan used for this analysis is by Westfall Engineers, Inc., titled 'Tentative Map; Lands ofHsu and Ran' dated September 2006. At tbjs time we do not have the plans that show the proposed new structures so it is not possible to provide specific recommendations for tree preservation during construction, but the enclosed notes titled "Tree Protection Before, During, and After Construction" should be used as guidelines for tree protection. It will be necessary to install fences to protect at least the two Deodara Cedar trees before any demolition or construction activity begins, The suggested fence locations are drawn into the map I was provided. If those recommended fence locations conflict with proposed construction we should review the construction plans with tree preservation detail in mind. Summary The site has 4 trees on it of a size large enough to be controlled by City Ordinance. The most important ones are two Deodar Cedars (Cedrus deodara) which are near the south side near the front of the property. The majority of the other trees are ofless important species such as Black Locust (Robinia pseudoacacia). There is one Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) in rather poor condition along the east property line. The Deodara Cedar trees have been severely pruned and oyer thinned causing them to be very stubbed looking at this point and being of much lesser value than they might have been otherwise. These trees (#1 and # 2) are both healthy but have been damaged by the severe stub- cutting of each of the limbs. It will be necessary oyer a period of time to re-prune these trees as they respond to the severe pruning they received. PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COA IE, CONSULTING ARBORIST OCTOBER 2ND, 2006 /722 HSU/HAN PROPERTY, 2181' 'OLORES AVENUE CUPERTINO C<rmclusion There are nine trees on the property and on~ on the adj acent property to the west in this survey. Of these, only the two Deodara Cedars, one Coast Redwood are significant trees. The three Black Locusts species are brittle and the specimens are poorly formed and of little importance. The rest of the trees are smaller than the size commonly covered by City regulations but are included in this report because they were shown on the plan provided. BDC/phlg Enclosures: Assumptions & Limiting Conditions Tree Protection Notes Photographs Map Respectfully submitted, ~IJ~ Barrie D. Coate PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORIST OCTOBER 2ND, 2006 2 /'5..31 - BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES Horti cutural Consultants 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, CA 95033 4081353-1052 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS 1. Any legal description provided to the appraiser/consultant is assumed to be correct. No responsibility is ,assumed for matters legal in cl)aracter nor is any opinion rendered as to the quality of any title. 2. The appraiser/consultant can neither guarantee nor be responsible for accuracy of information provided by others. 3. The appraiser/consultant shall not be requilced to give testimony or to attend COUI't by I'easar! of this appraisal unless subsequent written arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for services. 4. Loss or removal of any part of this report invalidates the entire appraisal/evaluation. ' 5. Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any other than the person(s) to whom it is addressed without written consent of this appraiser/consultant. 6. This report and the values expressed herein represent the opinion of the appraiser/consultant, and the appraiser's/consultant's fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value nor upon any finding to be reported. 7. Sketches, diagrams, graphs, photos, etc., in this report, being intended as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering reports or surveys. 8. This report has been made in conformity with acceptable appraisal/evaluation/diagnostic reporting techniques and procedures, as recommended by the International Society of Arboriculture. 9. When applying any pesticide, fungicide, or herbicide, always follow label instructions,' lO.No tree described in this report was climbed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot tE.lke H_ responsibility for any defects which could only have been discovered by climbing. A: full root collar inspection, consisting of excavating the soil around the tree to uncover the root collar and major buttress roots, was not performed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take- responsibility for any root defects which could only have been discovered by such an inspection. ' CONSULTING ARBORIST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Arbqrists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training, and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist, or to seek additional advice. Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments, like medicine, cannot be guaranteed. Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate all trees. c:fi~ ~~ Barrie D. Coate I SA Certified ArPorist Horticultural Consultant /5,96 BARRIE D. cr 'TE AND ASSOCIATES Hortklun..!\I""al Consultants (4-08) 353-1052 Fax (4-08) 353-1238 23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033 TREE PROTECTION BEFORE, DURING, AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION These are general recommendations And may be superseded by site-specific instructions BEFORE Plan location oftrenching to avoid all possible cuts beneath tree canopies, This includes trenches for utilities, irrigation lines, cable TV and roof drains. Plan construction period fence locations which will prevent equipment travel or material storage beneath tree canopies. Install fences before any construction related equipment is allowed on site. This includes pickup trucks. Inform subcontractors in writing that they must read this document. Require return of signed copies to demonstrate that they have read the document. Prune any tree parts, which conflict with construction between August and January. Except for pines which may be pruned between October-January. Only an ISA certified arborist, using ISA pruning instructions may be used for his work. If limbs are in conflict with the construction equipment before the certified arborist is on-site, carpenters may cut off offending parts of 6" diameter or less, leaving an 18" long stub, which should be re-cut later by the arborist. Under no circumstances may any party remove more than 30% of a trees foliage, or prune so that an unbalanced canopy is created. DURING A void use of any wheeled equipment beneath tree canopies. Maintain fences at original location in vertical, undamaged condition until all contractors and subcontractors, including painters are gone, Clear root collars of retained trees enough to leave 5-6 buttress roots bases visible at 12" from the trunk. Irrigate trees adjacent to construction activity during hot months (June-October). Apply 10 gallons of water per 1" of trunk diameter (measured at 4 W) once per 2 week period by soaker hose. Apply water at the dripline, or adjacent to construction not around the trunk. Apply mulch to make a 3" deep layer in all areas beneath tree canopies and inside fences. Any organic material which is non toxic may be used. AFTER Irrigate monthly with 10 gallons of water per 1" oftnmk diameter with a soaker hose, placed just inside the drip line. Continue until 8" of rain has fallen. A void cutting irrigation trenches beneath tree canopies. A void rototiliing beneath tree canopies since that will destroy the small surface roots which absorb water. A void installation of turf or other frequently irrigated plants beneath tree canopies. /1- (11 MEASUREMENTS CONDITION D1SPOSmON NOTES I , ~ ~I ~ I ~ ~ I ~, ~ ;! ~ II.. ~ !i: c ~ I ml ((,II : Z ~ I I lij WI C) t!:! 0 <'- W ~I a:: ~ ~ I I@ I -II~ ~I ~ !I~I iel ~ ~ e ~1~i~1 ~ 18 m I' 11~~19~~' ~J:i~mll~((,Ilw'818 ~tl~I~I~'ffi i~1 w w : W ::J ~I ~ ~. ~ gl ~ 3:~'ll-o ~ ~I ~I! !l ~ I ~I ~ J:! J:l::e jjj &: I!: I n. <, m ((,II ((,I W Qi 0::1_ -I () I- ree# n ~I ~i ~ J: W J: ((,I R; e ~i ~ z; n ni ~ ~ ~I ~ m;?nl ~ ~I __L =;;~c;~;---------- 201 1--~rT;}9 -l-~ _4-t f---r-+--r-t--+. :t-!!f--+p-r-.'--- -+-t-r-- 2 De9_C!!.ra ~~..<!~L___________ 24 i -LJ...-.Ti 451;}~ ll~ _41_ -1-1-L---L_TI ___1_ ..!.LJ..!!l_.Lf_tr~:~~_ ____,__ ___1__ T I I I I I I I 'i I I' I ' t I CedrusDeodara I I I i I Ii; I ; I , I I I I 3 BI k L t 111 ., I ! 25! 20 2 I 2 4 i ;! I Ii! 'I I ! R : "h_ !. I ------ --!.~--~~!!.!!.------------------ -!..!f-~---I--+--l-- --t--- ---t---- 1---f--+I---41---jr-+---{-- -+---t---+-l --i---f--- ---~--~-4--- Robinia pseudoacac/a I I j I I . I I I I I I , I I I I I __..1.__ ~Jii_(~H~~!!.!!.L_______________ J.ll-1__J___~L;}9 ~!31L~L- _J__ __J__l__1._i__ -J-l__l_1R-L-____ ----tl---&-II --ell ---- I I I · I ", I I i I I I ' I I Robinia pseudoacacia I I; I I I I I I I : ___L_ 9-~!:!tFeC!~'!9sL_________ _17~ 1---~--.f-!q,L~ _L _?-~--~~---- ---tl! -- ---~---~--i--t-- · ~-!!t; _~.f_~_~~__ ---~ --t-- Seauolasempervlrens I I I I I ; I I I ; I I I I I I I ! I _11__ !!!~!..]~e Ced!lL______________ JtLJ_l--TJJO L.!!.. J1l, _L -~-L_. ~.t-_l.--LJ_- ----i- __+___L+!_~----~-M-- ---L- __~~__ Ca/ocedrusdecurrens i i i I Ii! i I I I I I! i i I ___L. .~ri<<;2U!~1!._..___...._......._.__.. -~---J---~--~-t-1~ 1_~_t -~-t---- ---t---i---~---+-+-_f- ---.l----i.--~-+--1---- ---1-L--l~-- Prunus anneniaca Ii! Ii! I I i I I I I ! i : : I I I ! 8 Bo!t!~_I.r1!!..___________________ ~_J_J_1151j~ J.TI-~-I...i.t---- ~-li---+---i----~- ---+-- ---+-l---+-J----~---- Frost~~~I!lE!gl~__ Brachvchlton fJOpUlneus I I I I ! 1 I .1 I , I i I ! l I! 9 Bla_c:~!-~~ust._________________ .1~i-i.~l9..~---~-~~!-~~ .1.1-1.. ~~~I,I---- ---lj---+j'---1i---t,-- ---i'- -!L--t-+---J~J:=- --- --- ----i---- Robinia pseudoacac/a I I I I -r ! I I I : ! .. 10 Bottle Tree 6 I I ! I 121 8 1 I 2 I 3 I i I I I I I I i I ! ! ------- B;~,;;;;,t~_;~~~i~;~;------- --r--r--r--i--r-- -r-t--r-- --T--t--t---t---t----t-- ---r--r-r-T--T---- T BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES (400) 353-1002 235lS 5uIInlRoa lMG1los,CA 95030 - .. CD WIIB = CODOMINANT LEAPERS WITH INCLUDED BARK U RECOMMENDED + P = PRESERVE; T=TRANSPLANT; R=REMOVE IJ\ ~ ~ The Lands of Hsu/Han 21871 Dolores Avenue Cupertino 1 = Best, 5 + Worst 10.( UOctober 2nd, 2006 HSU/HAN PROPERTY, 21871 DOLORES AVENUE CUPERTINO .~ . .~ .' " ,_.1 .'..,. ......1 'r:'If'$' _.'~ I~:~; ,.~~ 'Of 2. Trees #1 & #2. ~ PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORIST ~ 'f'-l ~ 1. Tree #1. . (!I:~< i f'< -.(~" P- I' '_ .'.' -.. .~. " .,. , 5 1'3 OCTOBER 2ND 2006 / - . , HSU/HAN PROPERTY, 21871 DOLORES AVENUE CUPERTINO J, '<:~j 'j *- 3. Tree #3 (note dead branches). ~-- ------.-- 4. Tree #5. ---* ~~~~! -_.v'.i't-.~_;... PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORIST 1 5 if OCTOBER 2ND, 2006 HSU/HAN PROPERTY, 21871 DOLORES AVENUE CUPERTINO " '1>" -;&!' , ^r:e. . ~f:!t'J:.., " ~... ~ -';""''''' +- 5, Tree #6. ~.:;-::~~~~~~~~:~:.. ,.- ~.~;:. -,..~..;C~.. 'j>~2-':':~..", ~:~~~~ii~~~..._-. t 6, Tree #7. .... -,---- --:- -- , . , "l,?~#;~( +--,' c'~!~C~>;?~ , "''f'~~ ,~* l(j', ',:~i'(;~f, ';;~,J:':';~~~,::'f (,:r~. : " . ::.' _ 'l..:.. .'~" . :..,~ . . ,0 "~::..~'~;:, ~ .' 'IX--' '~~r!<1..;1 ..,!'- ~ ,J :f :. -;'11 -"f 11;' l -~ r';. ",,'.,.,J..,. ......,'iJ! ":;'. )",. "..k"~'" ,'. . '._ ,. -. w " ,. '.:",. .~:S J':'f,~:'~::;i!~'~'" -" ..:. ., """"""'''''~' ""-S'J't .. . '.:'i;~~..:.~~~:~) ,,~ I. !m .-- /5.15 PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTINGARBORIST OCTOBERi'U,2006 HSUIHAN PROPERTY, 21871 DOLORES AVENUE CUPERTJNO +- 7. A neighboring tree which should not be affected. '. [t', Ir~' ~ ' r 8. Tree # 8, ~ PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORIST / 5-10' OCTOBER 2ND, 2006 HSUIHAN PROPERTY, 21871 DOLORES AVENUE CUPERTINO -r:;: ~~'k t':'::'"..} 1if~'" p. ri ~ i'". !~.?- . j, i. . .J ,IIi:) ..,~ ';' J'J . r.~r! ,~'l f J ;"!' '" ""I '., "".l .." . 1 ~. ' ;". " .:',. . '. 'j, ~,' ).;, '~ . "L':~ '.' :';. i., t,;. ~t ,. ii. - "": J Ii; f. ," l '" - ".7 " ;'. ~,~ " i 9. Cypress along neighbor's property line. /5--C/7 PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORIST OCTOBER 2ND, 2006