The URL can be used to link to this page

.01 R-2006-08 appeal CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: Appeal of R-2006-08 Agenda Date: November 14, 2006 and RM-2006-13 Appellant: John Tracy & Jessica Rose Elena Herrera & Subir Sengupta Property Location: 21180 Grenola Drive Application Summary: Appeal of a Residential Design Review and Minor Residential Permit to construct a new, two-story 4,219 square foot residence with two second-story rear yard decks. Recommendation: The Planning Commission has the option of making the following determinations: 1. Deny the appeal(s) and uphold the Director of Community Development's decision, or 2. Uphold the appeal(s) and deny the Director of Community Development's decision, or 3. Uphold the appeal(s) and modify the Director of Community Development's decision Background: On October 10, 2006, the Planning Commission heard appeals by John Tracy, Jessica Rose, Elena Herrera and Subir Sengupta opposing the Residential Design Review and Minor Residential Permit to construct the proposed 4,219 square foot, two-story residence at 21180 Grenola Drive. The appellants indicated their concerns regarding privacy impacts of the proposed balconies, protection of the existing oak tree, privacy protection landscaping, and the proposed architectural design of the residence. Upon hearing the appeals and discussing the issues involved, the Commission continued (5-0) this item to the November 14, 2006 meeting and provided direction to the property owners, Homa and Mehrdad Mojgani, to address their comments and revise the plans accordingly. The Planning Commission recommended that modifications be made to the plans addressing the master bedroom balcony, the privacy protection landscape plan, front yard landscaping, architectural enhancements along the front elevation, and the color scheme of the residence. . , -I Appeal ofR-2006-08 & RM-2006-13 November 14,2006 Page 2 Discussion: On November 2, 2006, the property owners submitted revised elevations, a landscape plan and a response sheet to the Planning Commission's comments. The following is a table listing the Planning Commission's comments from the October 10th meeting and staff's review of the property owners' responses. Eliminate the master bedroom balcony and provide a faux balcony, or pull back (reduce) the balcony so that it is non- intrusive to the adjacent neighbors to the west. Lower the entry feature 50 that it is more symmetrical and in alignment with the turret on the front elevation. Remove or refine the second story bay window on the front elevation. Provide privacy planting on the west side of the property that is increased in height and density to provide full landscape screening from the master bedroom balcony at the time of installation. The balcony has not been removed or reduced per the Commission's recommendations. Staff met with the property owners on November 7th at which time they proposed to install a 5-foot high screening around a portion of the balcony that will preclude them from viewing into the neighbor' 5 ro er to the west. The property owner has complied with the Planning Commission's comment and has reduced the entry feature from 14 feet to 13 feet from finish ade to to of late. The property owner has complied with the Planning Commission' 5 comment and has removed the bay window on the front elevation. The bay window has been replaced with three windows that are flush with the exterior wall. A revised landscape plan has been submitted and appears to include significant landscaping within the rear yard; however, the plan does not provide an accurate plot plan showing privacy protection landscaping within the 30 degree angle cone of vision from the second floor window jambs and balconies. Additionally, the plan neither indicates the size of trees and shrubs to be planted at installation, nor provides the planting distances for the trees and shrubs. (,.-J Appeal ofR-2006-08 & RM-2006-13 November 14. 2006 . Page 3 Restore the privacy protection landscape requirements along the east side of the property and move the proposed deodar cedar tree forward to provide privacy protection screening of the balcony for Bedroom 2. Provide front yard landscaping and/ or brick/ rock features on the front elevation. Work with staff on a final landscape plan. Identify a less bright color scheme for the residence. The revised landscape plan includes landscaping along the east side of the property; however, the proposed deodar cedar tree has not been moved to provide privacy protection screening of the balcony for Bedroom 2. Additionally, because the plan does not show the 30 degree angle cone of vision from the second story windows and balconies, it cannot be determined if the proposed landscaping will fulfill the privacy rotection re uirements. The property owner has not submitted landscaping plans for the front yard; however, they indicate that they will work with their landscaper to provide landscaping plans to soften the front of the residence. The property owners do not plan to provide any brick or rock base features on the front elevation. Staff met with the property owners on November 7th to describe an adequate landscape plan for privacy protection. Staff also asked that the property owners show the landscape plan to the appellants and find out if they support the landscape Ian. No color chips have been submitted by the property owners for the exterior color and roofing of the proposed residence. The property owners indicate that they have changed their proposed color scheme to a beige/ off-white exterior color. However, the have not et selected a roof color. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the following conditions of approval be added to the project, should the Planning Commission consider upholding the appeal and modifying the approval of the Residential Design Review and Minor Residential Permit: ,-3 Appeal ofR-2006-08 & RM-2006-13 November 14.2006 Page 4 1. Prior to issuance of building permits, the property owners shall revise the plans by reducing the balcony size to have a maximum depth of 4 feet and providing a minimum 5-foot high screen around the railing of the balcony to prevent any privacy impacts onto the adjacent property to the west. 2. The landscape plans shall be revised to provide immediate privacy protection at installation along the western property line. The landscape plan shall also provide the size of trees and shrubs to be planted at installation and the distance between trees and shrubs to be planted at installation. The landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development to determine the adequacy of privacy protection on the property. Appellants' Responses The appellants have reviewed the revised elevations, landscape plan and response sheet that the property owners submitted on November 2, 2006 and have submitted their responses (See Exhibit D) to the revised plans. The appellants stated that they do not feel the Planning Commission's comments have been adequately addressed. Submitted by: Aki Honda, Senior Planner ~ J Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme~ Enclosures: Exhibit A: Property owner comments and revised plans submitted on November 2, 2006 Exhibit B: Planning Commission meeting minutes of October 10,2006 Exhibit C: Planning Commission staff report of October 10, 2006 Exhibit D: Appellants' responses to property owners' revised plans g:jplanning/pdreportjAppealsjR-2006-0S, Continued to 11-14-06.doc ( --tf Exhibit A Cliff, Homa and Mehrdad, Here are the list of comments from the Planning Commission: 1. Eliminate the balcony and create a faux balcony, or significantly reduce/pull back the balcony so that it does not create privacy impacts onto adjacent properties. The side views of the balcony after the reduction are drawn. In this design, the balcony is aligned with the edge of the house and it is no J_onger st OlJt. T]1P baJ_cony size and look is j_11 code. 2. Lower the entry feature so that it is more symmetrical with the turret and the house. The entry feature has been lowered by 1 foot, even though it was already in code for 14'. This request has already been waived by the neighbor, Elena Herrera who had raised it as an issue. According to opinions of some of the City commissioners, lowering the height of the porch has made the look of the house out of proportion. 3. Remove or refine the second story bay window on the front elevation. The second story bay window has been eliminated and replaced with regular window. 4. Provide privacy planting along the west side property line to provide full privacy protection screening at installation of a balcony, if a balcony is still proposed. We are proposing completely a new privacy landscape design done by a licensed architect (JPM landscaping). The design should create full privacy protection screening. 5. Reinstate requirement to install privacy protection landscaping along the east property line. We are proposing a completely new privacy landscape design done by a licensed landscape architect (JPM landscaping). The design includes privacy protection screening along the east property line. 6. Move the proposed Deodar cedar forward about 8-10 feet from the corner of the story poles so that it is approximately 8 feet from the common property line of the fence to provide more sufficient privacy protection screening along the eastern property line. We are proposing completely new privacy landscape design done by a licensed landscape architect. The design includes privacy protection screening along the east property line. 7. Work with staff to provide an acceptable privacy protection landscaping plan. Will be reviewed with staff. {~S 8. Tone down the color of the residence and roofing; provide a less bright color scheme. Considering that the exterior color of the appellant's house is also light, we will use beige/off-white exterior color similar to Herrera's instead of peach. We also make sure to select a roof color which is not odd to the neighborhood. However, we can not guarantee that every single neighbor would love the color, since people have different tastes and majority are counted. We should not forget that we are not 13_" ill a Communist C01111try. 9. Include front yard landscaping and/or brick/rock work on the frontage of the residence to soften the frontage of the home and provide additional architectural enhancements. There will be a front landscaping to soften the frontage of the home and has been approved by our neighbor. 10. Applicant shall talk to their neighbors. we did talk to the appellants neighbors (Tracys & Herrera). Tracys proposed a privacy landscape design for our back yard that we agreed to. However, we decided to hire a professional landscaper architect to design a new privacy landscape. The new design should exceed the expectations. We met with Herreras. They have changed their minds. They no longer wants the height of our porch to be reduced. They also agreed to use front landscaping to soften the look of the home. Since the exterior color of their house is light, they agreed with light color for the exterior of our house! We have also talked to many other neighbors, they all like what is proposed for our house and they are very much happy for this replacement. {-~ '""" 'I !! DD DC WEST (RlGHT) ELEVATION Scale 1/4" .; 1'- 0" F'iaID. "'...doLH _.-lI-Caat Sbocc:o. _0" (Lt. Ye_rraal _ CooI:nte s.TlleB~ "Caoa GRnde 1IIoacf' Trim 1/ F_ hlated Wood Trim Surrooada . "1'1_" (White) _ 1/ __ Eack Vla71 C\&d UIua Wladowa . "White" Ga.qe 1/ Frost Door. Palated Wood - "Aatlque" Deck JIaIIIq: Palated ArtIcaIated W.......t Inm . "WhIte" __Yo Slate TIle ...ao .. at:::- .. m m EAST (LEFT) ELEVATION Scale 1/4" == 1'- 0" 1 -l J I i I ~~I, ~ a ~ j! Js iP.;:~~~' l ;:;;;<.11 II c:...,.' pa j j u~ ~ Ii ~ ~& '.......... ) .... ~ ~ =- :;s ~i; j"O~~ 61 <<S 1= I~ i~ ~~ ~~ "':lI6~ ~. ~t ~ <<s 8Q ~ ~ Cl .. ~= la "....F. f/} ~ ~- ~,~ ~ d - ~ / I I I I I \l \ \ IBIVlllWlS8'"d _lid 711_ ._-U 8IlI8'9P"I1I8 S31~ un;:) 1IOI0lI1OI - y:) ,....-0:> ,/"v.JJ-: " __'O"d ~_YP";- ,~1- '%1 ,.(q -"e.I(I fl&u.~ 'L9O"8&"9U 'ON"d"V ~l\lO 'll.I"8J;)S 1>10S8 y:) 'ouJlnldn:> ".1(1 "fOUWD 0lIJl3' l'"!JlOw p-eP.I1f3W ." "eUJoH ....J a:>WpJU6 ~~ MaN V SNOI~V A3'I3 30IS rn ~ ~ III III 1111 1111 III [II 1111 1111 ]. Uli ~p :2 1 ;.' ., i'1j'h~ ~~ .~1 ll!~i) i~~i~JI jUJ!J~ UH!hJ DiUhl ..o~"'l ~ 8 8 ( -'6 J91V8S9'R8""'.i ......."4111_ __ lIJI8'9lI9'Ill8 S3JMo;:) D!1~ 9010l11Ol _v.:l'''''''''''' '!AJiW'. JOUII mq '0 'd \i(~ Y :,:'i';' \I~..,S(,' :.tq -".1(1 81LL'9v.nlOt 'L~ 'ON"d'V .tlw.> ".reJ:>S: I>'IlW6 V:> '~n:> ".1(1 '8JoUND 08113 JVe1l(ow p-ep.ltf3W 711 '\!WoH I0I01 a:JVaI'l"8 ~.L ...aw V SNO~"7iI I ~<' I 711 .LNOH~ .....01 b ~ j ~~ ~ 'i L ~ t: f:j' . . . Is ~Ij" 1.Ii ~ill!~t t1~~)) ill- JJ ~p!jii j!)!jJ~ 1~~~hiJ Ij~iH~ .31ufiJ , s i i Aa .. qa r-q -'<It 'odoc us ~ t Hedge i.~ .::.;. Lit. .",.f. \i'l1. ~'":\i ....,. li'lt " ;:.;t I.~ .~..... ~ v.~ I~.~ ,.... f-:.'1 ,",,'.- r~r. :;.i. "~ '''1 ~.., ;}~ .-(t!f~~ .....$<;' RESIDENCE ...tt}i:: ) ...7f- \ \.:$:""" ......- -Kojpai ....... c;..Ia_, Qpr\iJo> - tA3QOO6 -BJ 100 A..aoIiIa - 1 al"l ~,.... 108"7 .~ D<tliSD . Bllild.. COD,truction Cll51Dm Landscape Design and Construction ~~=.;~~~r:::-~= -- 408-925-0180 ~ MlrnlWa.cA-UCENSED-BOMDED-INSURED- ~.- '..../0 Cupertino Planning Commission unlOIl D 10 October 10, 2006 Commission decision final unless appealed. Gary'<;hao, Associate Planner, presented the staff report: . Re 'ewed the application for a Use Permit to construct a new two-story 2,131 sq. ft. resid ce with 5 foot side yard setbacks in a Planned Residential zoning district, as outlined in the ff report. . He revi ed the side yard setback exception. Staff feels that the project site fits the parameter of the RI-5 zoning district and the proposed use permit is consistent with the intent of the 1 ordinance. . Staff recornm ds that the Planning Commission approve the project according to the model resolutions. Richard Kimville, rep esenting Richard Baro Inc.: . Reviewed briefly the lans prepared. He noted that there was a full basement, with a deck in the front of the hous which is adequately screened. He said it presented as an overall smaller appearing house, with the second floor set back. . He said they have worked iligently with staff and followed their recommendations. Com. Chien: . He a~ked what the homeowner' considerations were when they chose to go below the 750 square feet allowable for second ory. Richard Kimville: . Said they were trying to keep the over I project not too large, and it has been worked several times over. There was not a specific issu brought up about that; just working with the totals. . Said he could not say that it would be fea 'ble if you look at the way the designs layout; it is a nice house and you are starting over totall when you do something like that at this stage. Chair Miller opened the public hearing. Jennifer Griffin,.Rancho Rinconada resident: . Commended the architect for designing an appro . ate sized home on the small lot and taking advantage of the basement. She said the house ould complement the neighborhood. Chair Miller closed the public hearing. Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Chien to approve Application U-2006-10, ASA-2006-18. (Vote: 5-0-0) Chair Miller declared a recess until 9 p.m. 4. R-2006-08 and RM-2006-13 Appellant John Tracy/Jessica Rose; Elena Herrera/Subir Sengupta; 21180 Grenola Dr. Appeal of a Residential Design and Minor Residential Permit to construct anew, two-story 4,219 sq. ft. residence with two second- story rear yard decks. Aid Honda, Senior Planner, presented the staff report . Reviewed the appeal of the Residential Design and Minor Residential Permit to construct a new, two-story 4,219 sq. ft. residence with two second- story rear yard decks on 21180 Grenola Drive. '-If Cupertino Planning Commission 11 October 10, 2006 . The residential permit and minor residential permit were approved on August 21, 2006 and two appeals were filed by neighbors on September 6, 2006. The appellants' concerns were outlined in the staff report, Page 4-3, and include protection plan for the Oak tree; concerns about the impacts of the second story master bedroom balcony; the home not fitting in or complementing the neighborhood; proposed change of color of the home to prevent reflectivity into the neighborhood and privacy screening be reinstated. . Staff feels the proposed residence meets and exceeds the development standards for a two- story residence with two-story decks;. the Mediterranean style home is consistent with other Mediterranean styles in the Garden Gate area; the balconies are limited in size and there are others that have been approved in the neighborhood. Staff also feels the landscaping plan addresses the privacy protection landscaping requirements. . The city arborist determined that the Oak tree can be retained on the property based upon their review of the plans shown. If the applicant follows the protection measures required per his report, staff has narrowed criteria to request the changes based on the temperature and glare effects that the Herraras and Senguptas requested and more changes were requested on the design of the house or colors based upon that. . She illustrated of the color renderings and photos of the site from various elevations and other neighboring homes. . She clarified that the Planning Commission would be the final decision maker on single family homes, unless appealed by the City Council. Jessica Rose, Appellant: . Expressed concern about the impact of the proposed home, specifically the rear balcony which would invade their existing privacy and affect the quality of life and property value. . She explained that they had recently remodeled their home, taking into consideration the potential changes to the neighborhood and the impact on their home. She said they did not consider that the home behind them might build a second floor balcony. She said that the proposed balcony was not in scale with the design and general neighborhood and would have a negative impact on their privacy., . She discussed the examples used in the staff report of homes with second story balconies and summarized the concerns outlined in their written appeal related to privacy impacts, incompatibility with the neighborhood, and landscaping screens for protection of the impacts from the balconies. Homa Mojgani, applicant: . Discussed the concerns of the neighbors relative to the oak tree; privacy; look and feel and compatibility with the neighborhood; impact on quality of life; and the value of the neighboring houses. . She said the home design meets all the development regulations for two-story homes with balconies; it is compliant with Rl ordinance for second story deck. Relative to the oak tree, in the initial plan, the oak tree was mislabeled as a sycamore tree and following an arborist's determination, the oak tree will be preserved and remain on the property. . Relative to privacy impacts from the balcony; we went to our neighbor's house to talk about their concerns; we agreed that they can see our house and whoever is standing in our balcony and from our balcony if somebody wants to see their backyard, he or she can; of course if there is no privacy landscape. What we did not agree and discuss was, what details can be seen from our house? . Maintaining privacy landscape should be mutual; people can use curtains for more privacy; with many new two story houses, some big balconies and also looking at the trend of the new developments and understanding the city ordinance should help the people who renovate their older houses to set their expectations realistically. One should anticipate a possibility of '-f~ Cupertino Planning Commission 12 October 10, 2006 two story houses to be built next to them, replacing older homes. . She illustrated photos showing the views from the bedrooms and master bedroom. . She said that in order to address the neighbor's concerns regarding privacy screening, they have planned a maximum privacy protection landscape which meets the city's privacy protection landscape requirements, and have chosen plants from the city's privacy protection planting list. . Regarding story poles per the neighbor's request, she said they paid an extra $600 to put up the story poles to show the exact location of the balconies. Balcony setbacks are exceeding the minimum setbacks for east, west and rear sides. Regarding balcony size, it was initially designed to be 113 square feet. Although it met the two-story balcony requirement, to satisfy the neighbor, they reluctantly reduced the size significantly to almost half of the initial size doWIi to 60 square feet. . . They considered the neighbor's windows and attempted to put almost all the second floor windows on the side of the adjacent neighbor with no window on the side. Regarding compatibility and feel and look, this is a mixed neighborhood, many two story newer homes are built next to 50 years old, single story homes, throughout Cupertino and specifically in this neighborhood. Existing newer homes under construction are Mediterranean style and some have rear balconies. Elena Herrera, Appellant: . Said she understood that there was a certain mode of operation to adhere to; the ordinance says (a), (b) and (c); within that we all agree that you have a certain responsibility to address the style, size, the look and feel within your purview as individuals. We as residents look to you to exercise your judgment and that is what we are doing tonight. . One of the precedents that is being discussed is balconies. She said she discounted the homes built during the County tenure of that neighborhood, specifically because the neighborhood campaigned for annexation into the city for the types of protection sought tonight. She illustrated two examples of projects approved recently; one with a balcony overlooking her property and one which overlooks her back yard. . She illustrated photos of Greenleaf which showed examples of large homes which did not fit into the neighborhood. . Showed a drawing to illustrate the importance of landscaping on the east side of the home being reinstated. . Referring to the color renderings of the project, she said there were features of the home that did not fit in with the look and. feel of the home. The bay window over the garage and the turret feature do not exist in the new buildings that are being constructed in the neighborhood. . She referred to the entry feature which exceeds 14 feet; the turret which is not in keeping with the home designs in the neighborhood and the bay window. She recommended that the fal(ade be softened; . She expressed concern that there were flaws in the noticing procedure. Relative to the subject property, she said that she did not receive noticing although she shares a property line with the new project behind her home on Hazelbrook. She said that the landscaping report contains many unanswered questions relating to protecting the oak tree. Com. Chien: . There was a disagreement about the species of the tree, which was later identified as an Oak tree. He asked if there was a need for the arborist to come out at that point. 1-/3 Cupertino Planning Commission 13 October 10, 2006 Aki Honda: . Said there was a need because it had to be determined how far away the oak tree would be from the main residence and to have the arborist look at that plot plan to see if it was sufficient distance away from the proposed home. In that timeframe, the applicant's designer had the property surveyed and they determined at that point that the oak tree would be 14 feet, 2 inches away. Their initial plan showed 12 foot setback but they later changed it and the arborist reviewed it and said it would be appropriate. . Relative to entry height, she said that the initial review with the applicant was that the entry height was too high, at that time over 14 feet. The entry height is from the plate height, not from the peak of that roof, but from the plate height to the floor. . Said that the applicant wanted the balconies to be functional, not just ornamental. . Said there was a diagram in the ordinance that shows how the entry feature height is measured, and it shows it to the plate height and not including the roofing over it. Vice Chair Giefer: . Said she was concerned about the ridge above the plate height; the gap between the plate height and the bottom just under the keystone. . Asked the applicant if in their discussions with the Tracys, they had considered offering to plant privacy trees or shrubs on their side of the property line as a courtesy to screen them from the new construction. Part of the alternatives brought up is that the applicant can pay for the plants and installation on their property; and the neighbor would maintain it to maintain their privacy. Applicant: . Said she would plant other privacy plants if the appellant felt others were more appropriate. Aki Honda: . The reduced balcony plan was added as part of the approval plans as an addendum. They have been working with the designer to redesign the whole plan, during the application stage instead of revising all of the entire plans again. They submitted a revised portion for that balcony which was added as an addendum and included as part of the approved plan. The elevations do not reflect the reduced balcony as of yet, but the reduced balcony and floor plan does. . The applicant has not given a revised elevation. It will be set in more and won't project as much as shown on the elevations. Steve Piasecki: . Said that a possible option would be to ask the applicant to install a 6 foot high barrier that would direct views away from their neighbors instead of into their neighbor's back yard. . We have approved turret features; we try to get them to be less dominant, this one because it is set back is not as obvious as some are. One of the things we look for in house designs and we try to encourage applicants is symmetry and balance. There are some features here, some people have talked about this window here that seems to be out of symmetry. The entry feature could be reduced in height. You could ask the applicant if they are willing to take a continuance; they could come back and look at putting some kind of brick or rock feature into the design of the home as well as lower this feature, and simplify another feature somehow. You could do a number of things that would lower and soften this; in addition you could look at providing a screen to the balcony and/or minimizing it further by adding landscaping, so maybe they could come back with a package that would address a number of the neighbors' concerns and scale the house more compatible with the neighborhood. Being compatible with the neighborhood is always a problem when you have neighborhoods that ,-If Cupertino Planning Commission 14 October 10, 2006 are in transition; this one has a tract of homes that were newer, built in the 70s and were largely stucco homes and weren't as big as this home, but they were of stucco features and the homes in Garden Gate are very small in some cases, and because they are flat roofed, they do not have the appearance of this, and there is clearly a transition going on. How do you balance that; and this is a classic neighborhood with a lot of variety. Chair Miller: . Relative to the balcony, two issues in terms of intrusion are the visual intrusion and noise intrusion. He asked if staff considered that intrusion in evaluating the balcony? Aki Honda: . Said staff did not take into consideration the sound intrusion. Steve Piasecki: . Said there was no provision in the ordinance to do that. He clarified that a balcony is an appurtenance on a home; it can be well designed, it can be sensitively designed relative to the neighbors. We don't look on it as being a neighborhood character feature one way or the other; it is just another amenity that someone chooses of may chose to have in their home. Chair Miller: . Said they have focused on the visual impact of the balcony on the neighbor to the west; and asked about the impact of the balcony on the neighbor to the east. Steve Piasecki: . Said there was much greater setback; there is an oak tree in the back yard that will provide some of that screening; I think that the views are more limited; this is also the neighbor immediately to the east; the privacy screening is not needed. If you had a continuance, you could ask that neighbor to weigh in on the issue and ask for more sections and details to help with that. Chair Miller opened the public hearing. Les Bowers, resident: . Said the proposed balcony looked directly into their 6 foot garden window into the master bedroom, as well as the windows up above. . . The original planting was large magnolia trees and it was felt because they would take a longer time to grow, pitosporum was recommended because of its faster growth. . Said Garden Gate was built on slab foundations and the privacy issue is much greater because there is as much privacy invasion on a house on a slab foundation than there is with another kind. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: . Said that the issues that drove Garden Gate to annex into Cupertino from the County are still alive. House size is important in Garden Gate as is privacy. . People do have the right to build what they want on their property. Relative to the balconies, there is precedent in the city to look at the invasion of privacy with these types of balconies. In many areas of the city, particularly Rancho Rinconada with the small lots, balconies are not encouraged. In Garden Gate, there is a history of overly large homes, the city has done a good job in bringing the homes into line with the property. I-/S Cupertino Planning Commission 15 October 10, 2006 . Said she was pleased there are second story setbacks. In the case of the balconies, if you are able to bring them back, perhaps not have them rounded, have them step out two to three feet, if they must be there, but also what the previous speaker said about the slab houses in Garden Gate, Rancho is on slab also, if you bring in the new homes, they have probably a crawl space underneath them; if not a whole basement area, so that is going to put another five to six feet on the height. She suggested that the portico was too high. Chair Miller closed the public hearing. Vice Chair Giefer: . Said she felt the entry feature is too large and dominates the entry of the house. Said she would like it lowered, and agreed that the second story bay window seems to be out of alignment with the architecture and sticks out. . Relative to tree protection, she said she was not sure they were doing enough to protect the Oak as they have for others in the past, and was uncertain if final approval included such things as trenching, root barriers, fencing it off, posting, no storage under it, no dumping, the usual things done for Oaks. AId Honda: . Said they were all standard conditions, and it is stated in the conditions to look at the arborist's report and all of the arborist's recommendations. Vice Chair Giefer: . Said she was sympathetic with the privacy issue since she resided on a sloped lot and in the process of remodeling her home, added large kitchen windows. She said she was aware that her neighbors would have a clear view into her new kitchen window, but it is a choice she made. . Expressed concern about the privacy plantings on the east side; a site visit showed the clearest shot it to the east; there are screening trees already on the west side of the lot, but you can see quite extensively on the east. She said she was surprised the neighbor had waived the privacy plantings, and she suggested they be reinstated even though they were waived. . Suggested that Tree A, the deodora cedar be moved forward to the area approximately 8 or 10 feet from the comer of where the current story poles are and approximately 8 feet from the common property line fence. The reason is that off the east balcony, one would be able to see quite a far way to the east and the plantings would help those and future neighbors with their privacy. . Said she would prefer that the balcony be removed and replaced with a faux balcony, with French doors, and curve out 18 inches as an architectural feature. It would maintain the integrity of the back of the house and solve many privacy issues heard today. Balconies need to be well placed. She suggested an option of pulling that section of the house forward, moving the closet around the staircase. . He said there appeared to be confusion about the privacy plantings, and suggested bringing that portion back to the DRC to finalize the landscaping plan, or give some specific direction on where it needs to be increased, so that staff can work with them, and make it as expeditious as possible. Com. Saadati: . Said that privacy is the major issue and needs to be addressed by planting trees or modifying the balcony. As far as the front entry feature, the way it is presently designed based on the /--1 ~ Cupertino Planning Commission 16 October 10, 2006 three dimension view shown earlier, lowering it will result in it being out of proportion. . It meets the current R1 requirement; if you want to change the plate height that.is something we have, but a lot of effort has been put into make in an entry feature. The intent was to lower it, but if the roof slope is one to one, then the ridge is going to be substantially higher. Perhaps in the future we need to address it to keep it lower; and depending on the width of the entry feature, then the ridge of it would be much higher. Those are the issues that we could address. . The bay window seems to be out of proportion, and could be addressed by the architect. The original balcony is out of proportion; a smaller balcony makes the plan look much nicer and would serve the function and cost less. The main issue is addressing the privacy by . either going back with the Director of Community Development or coming back to the DRC. Com. Chien: . Said he felt the privacy plan was deficient and needed to be strengthened. He said it appeared that the privacy planting was done after the fact by the property owner. He suggested that the entry height and deck be negotiated and some adjustments be made. Com. Wong: . Said he concurred with Vice Chair Giefer in most areas. The front portico is too large, and should be lowered. If it could be kept symmetrical to the height shown, it would be more compatible with the neighborhood. . The bay window is not compatible with the front; and I do not support the bay window sticking out. . The peach color is too bright and is not compatible with the neighborhood; choose another color that would be more compatible with the neighborhood. . Agree with staff on softening some architectural features to help soften it to be more compatible with the neighborhood. . Vice Chair Giefer asked about the Oak tree; it is already prescriptive in the ordinance and in the model resolution. . Relative to the elevation of the second story, said that he was concerned about the balcony sticking out. . Referring to the second story floor plan, he said he liked the enclosed balcony vs. the balcony that stuck out too far. . Suggested that the applicant work with staff to reduce the size of the balcony; agreed with Vice Chair Giefer to either reduce the bedroom to bring back the balcony if they want to keep the 60 square foot balcony so that it won't intrude out and on both balconies. It should be a solid vs. see through wall because of the privacy protection of this particular neighbor; even with the trees and shrubs planted, you can still see into the back yard. . He said he knew that it was difficult to accept a second story home in a neighborhood of mainly one-story homes. He said the Planning Commission should not make decisions about where the rooms are located, it would help to push it back a little, and make the balcony come back a little; and ensure there is a good landscape plan. . Said although the east side neighbor waived their rights, he did not feel it was unreasonable of the applicant to plant privacy protection on the second story windows facing east. They could be shrubs or trees to help mitigate the privacy intrusions. Chair Miller: . He expressed concern about the privacy impacts of the balcony, and said that it was not acceptable that the neighbor could see into the backyard of the neighbor. The choices would be to eliminate the balcony or in some way reduce the balcony so much that you cannot view 1-(1 Cupertino Planning Commission 17 October 10, 2006 the neighbor's yard to the west; or ask that the landscaping that is put in place be a complete screen on day I, not three years from now. . He said there are rights of the property owner and there are the rights of the neighbor also. The balcony is different from a window. . Concurred that some softening of the front was needed; a neighbor suggested some landscaping that was in the rendering and some landscaping would help soften the front. Said he agreed that there needs to be landscaping along the east side as well. Many issues can be mitigated with landscaping; more landscaping than normal is needed because it is a very large home. . Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Giefer, second by Com. Wong, to uphold the appeal with the following modifications: . Pull back the second story balcony in the master suite so that it is non- intrusive to their neighbors on the west side, or eliminate it and recommend a faux balcony in its place; . The final design details will be referred to the DRC; . The entry feature height should be lower to be more in alignment and symmetrical with the front elevation turrets; . The second story bay window be refined or removed; . The privacy planting on the west side of the building be increased in height and density to provide full screening at time of installation; . The east side privacy planting be restored specifically tree A - the deodora cedar, moved forward to not crowd the Oak and provide screening for the second story balcony on the east side into that adjacent neighbor's yard; . The landscaping and/or brick/rock features on the front elevation to soften the elevation; . The applicant to work with staff on a final landscaping plan; . The applicant work with staff to identify a less bright color scheme for the neighborhood; and . The final design will come back to the DRC. . Com. Chien: . Said he would be more comfortable with the recommendations; the Plarining Commission has the purview to do anything at the DRC level. He said he would rather not design the house on the fly, on the dais, and preferred that it go to the DRC to address. He proposed the amendment for acceptance. Vice Chair Giefer: . Said she was not willing to accept the amendment since she felt it was more expeditious for the applicant to know what the specifics are, so they are not spending incremental dollars trying to redesign the entire second floor, when it is one small piece that needs to be fixed. Com. Chien: . Asked the city attorney, why bind the Planning Commission to certain requirements when it is going back to the DRC, and the DRC will have the purview to make any decision. Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney: . Said it can be done either way by a motion for a specific requirement or make it a broader, specifying the things that they are not happy with, and direct the DRC to look at those things and come up with solutions. She said she could not say what the best option was. I-I to Cupertino Planning Commission 18 October 10, 2006 Steve Piasecki: . Said he was comfortable with the DRC, and asked the applicant if they were agreeable to a continuance to work on the issues. Com. Chien: . Said he had confidence in the DRC and did not want it back at the Planning Commission level. Staff explained the options available to the applicant, and explained the conditions outlined in the motion made. The applicant agreed to a continuance to work with the neighbors and city staff. There was consensus that an application fee would not be charged. Withdrawal of Motion: Vice Chair Giefer withdrew the motion to uphold the appeal in favor of a continuance of the application to the November 14, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. Com. Wong accepted the withdrawal of the motion. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Giefer, second by Com. Wong, to continue further discussion of Applications R-2006-08 and RM-2006-13 to the November 14, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. Com. Chien: . We decided in the original motion to take it to the DRC so that we could have an open forum where all parties are involved to discuss how we could come to a solution. The process we are going to now is not as transparent, it is going to be incumbent on the property owner to move the process forward and we would be back here possibly with or without new information depending on what the applicant does. My preference would be to take it to the DRC where everybody gets a full airing of the case. Com. Wong: . Explained that if the application is continued, all suggestions are off the table, and the applicant will be forced to work harder and work with their neighborhood so that when they come back in 30 days, hopefully they will have a plan that all their neighbors will strongly support the project or there will be a repeat of the long discussion. He said he felt it was a win-win situation. Chair Miller: . Said he agreed with Com. Wong, the DRC is only two commissioners, and it will come back to the full Planning Commission and hopefully they will have talked to the neighbors and reached some agreement. Steve Piasecki: . We prefer when we give the applicant the option of going to DRC or coming back to the Planning Commission, of deferring to whatever option they prefer because there is a significant delay, and they will have to spend money and lose time. Staff would rather they be in agreement, rather than dictate one formula which may not work out, and cause more delays for the applicant. (Vote: 5-0-0) , ~t0 Exhibit C CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: Appeal of R-2006-08 Agenda Date: October 10, 2006 and RM-2006-13 Appellant: John Tracy & Jessica Rose Elena Herrera & Subir Sengupta Property Location: 21180 Grenola Drive AppHcation Summary: Appeal of a Residential Design Review and Minor Residential Permit to construct a new, two-story 4,219 square foot residence with two second-story rear yard decks. Recommendation: The Planning Commission has the option of making either recommendation to the City Council: 1. Deny the appea1(s) and uphold the Director of Community Development's decision, or 2. Uphold the appeal(s) and Director of Community Development's decision, or 3. Uphold the appea1(s) and modify the Director of Community Development's decision Project Data: General Plan Designation: Low Density (1-5 DU / gross acre) Zoning Designation: R1-10 Lot Area: 9,375 square feet (.21 acres) Proposed Residence First Floor Living SF: Second Floor Living SF: Garage SF: Total Building SF: Floor Area Ratio: First Floor FAR/2nd Floor FAR: Lot Coverage: Master Bedroom Balcony: Bedroom 2 Balcony: . Parking: StoriesjHeight: 2,272 square feet 1,309 square feet 638 square feet 4,219 square feet .45 .45 31% 60 square feet 53 square feet 2 e10-c1osed/2 uncovered 2 stories /26 feet 6 inches ~ I-~O Appeal ofR-2006-08 & RM-2006-13 October 10,2006 Page 2 Setbacks: Front (Grenola Dr. side) Rear (south) East Side West Side Balconies First Story 20 feet 45 feet 5 feet 10 feet NjA Second Story 33 feet 46 feet 18 feet 14 feet 6 inches 20 feet (east side) 17 feet (west side) Projed Consistency with: General P'lan'les Zoning Yes Environmental Assessment: Categorically Exempt Background: In April of 2006, the applicants, Mehrdad and Homa Mojgani, applied for a two-story residential permit and minor residential permit to construct a 4,219 square foot, two- story single family residence with two-story decks on their property located at 21180 Grenola Drive. Based on concerns expressed by neighbors that an existing oak tree was to be removed on the property, staff conducted an inspection of the property and discovered that the applicants had mislabeled the existing oak tree on the property as a sycamore tree that they were proposing to remove. As a result, staff notified the applicant that oak trees are protected trees and that the application could not be processed until a tree evaluation could be conducted by the City's Arborist. A tree evaluation (See Exhibit D) was conducted by Barrie D. Coate & Associates on April 27th, who identified the tree as a coast live oak in excellent condition. The City Arborist also provided several measures to ensure protection of the tree during construction if the tree is to be preserved. The applicant's designer also resubmitted a revised site plan, indicating that the oak tree was actually 14 feet 2 inches from the proposed new home, rather than the 12-foot distance as previously shown. As a result, the City Arborist stated that trenching could occur 14 feet 2 inches from the trunk diameter, rather than the 15-foot distance as recommended in the tree report. Due to this information, the applicants decided to retain the tree since the tree report indicated that it could be preserved. Further, the City Arborist stated that the pruning required to construct the new residence would result in a fairly minor canopy loss and that the tree should be able to tolerate the canopy loss if the pruning is done by a. certified arborist and meets the ISA Western Chapter standards. Staff determined that the proposed residence met all development regulations for a two-story residence with two-story decks and consequently sent a letter to neighbors notifying them of the application and requesting comments by July 25th. The City received comments from the surrounding residents who expressed concern about the proposed two-story residence and asked that the story poles be installed to accurately reflect the location of the two-story deckS to be constructed on the residence. Staff subsequently requested the applicant to install the story poles showing the location of f -:2 ~ ~ Appeal ofR-2006-08 & RM-2006-13 October 10,2006 Page 3 the decks and extended the comment period to August 16th. A letter was sent on August 23, 2006, notifying the applicants and surrounding residents that the two-story residential permit and minor residential permit were approved on August 21st. On September 6, 2006, the City received two appeals on this project. One appeal was filed by John Tracy and Jessica Rose. The other appeal was filed by Elena Herrera and Subir Sengupta. Discussion: John Tracy and Jessica Rosc, adjacent residential neighbors who residc at 10410 Ann Arbor Avenue, submitted an appeal (See Exhibit A) of the minor residential permit approving the second story balcony to the master bedroom of the proposed residence and voiced their concerns about protection of the existing oak tree on the property. The appeal letter provided the following concerns and comments: Second Story Master Bedroom Balcony The balcony will have a full view into their backyard, living room, patio, and master bedroom window affecting their privacy and quality of life. They question the compatibility of the proposed Mediterranean residence with the neighborhood and believe there are no homes with rear facing balconies in the Garden Gate neighborhood. The proposed two-story home is surrounded by three single-family homes and will allow the homeowner to view into these surrounding homes. . They question the proposed .home owners' purpose to construct a balcony that will view into their yard and has no surrounding hillside views. They propose a faux balcony in lieu of a true balcony for the master bedroom. They do not believe the landscaping plan for privacy protection will adequately mitigate privacy impacts and that the plants will not grow tall enough within three years to provide privacy mitigation. Protection Plan for the Oak Tree They question the ability of the oak tree to survive if the arborist report recommends maintaining a 15 foot distance from the tree when the' plan indicates the proposed house will be 14 feet 2 inches from the tree. There is no follow-up that the arborist has estimated the proposed canopy and root system loss with the installation of the story poles. They believe there would be a 25% root loss if the foundation of the home is . placed at 15 feet from the tree trunk and would threaten the tree's chance of sUIVlvmg. . They would like to know the impact of the privacy landscaping on the existing oak tree as they state oaks are difficult to plant around. I;J :J. ~ Appeal ofR-2006-08 & RM-2006-13 October 10. 2006 Page 4 . An appeal (See Exhibit B) was also submitted by Elena Herrera and Subir Sengupta of 21150 Grenola Drive, who reside two houses down from the subject property. They provided the following concerns and comments: Proposed Residence . The size, look and style of the proposed residence neither fits nor compliments the neighborhood. . They realize that there are similar homes within the Garden Gate ll.eighborhood to the proposed residence, but that these larger honles 'Ivere approved when these properties were within the Santa Clara County's jurisdiction. . There is a proliferation of large homes within their neighborhood, and they believe it affects the quality of life in the neighborhood. They request a major design change to the proposed residence and feel the proposed turret contributes to the "massive and block-ish look and feel" of the home. The home replicates the Mediterranean style homes that are pervasive on Green Leaf Drive. . The home is out of scale with the neighborhood. Balconies . Only one home on Grenola has a balconies. . They request that the balconies be minimal in size for the proposed residence and do not view into a neighboring lot. Temperature and Glare . The proposed home will radiate heat and glare into the- neighborhood and will compromise their health and comfort in the I1eighborhood. Darker tone homes with darker roof materials will provide a less intrusive roof line and provide a softening of the fa<;ade of the home. Privacy Screening Although the adjacent property to the east signed a privacy protection waiver, they request that the privacy landscaping requirements be reinstated on the east side of the property to address their concerns. Oak Tree' . The existing oak tree on the property should be protected. . They would like further clarification on how the tree is to be protected if the 'arborist recommends a minimum 15-foot distance between the tree and the home, and the proposed home will have a lesser setback. . The arborist' s recommend~tions on root exploration, story pole placement and review of utility line locations should be addressed. ( ~ :;l3 # Appeal ofR-2006-08 & RM-2006-13 October 10. 2006 Page 5 Staff Response The proposed residence meets all development standards for a two-story residence, including the setbacks, lot coverage, FAR, parking and height. Additionally, it exceeds the minimum second story setbacks along the front, rear and side yards. Further, the design of the residence as a Mediterranean style home with red tile roofing and stucco exterior is consistent with other Mediterranean style homes that are present within the Garden Gate neighborhood. As a result, staff approved the residential design review and minor residential permit. BalcoYl ies The proposed balconies meet the requirements to allow second story balconies in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. As a result, staff approved the minor residential permit for the balconies that include requirements for privacy protection landscaping. The proposed balconies are 53 square feet (bedroom 2) and 60 square feet (master bedroom) with a 20-foot setback along the east property line and a I7-foot setback along the west property line. Additionally, the balconies have a 47-foot setback from the rear property line. These setbacks exceed the minimum setbacks of I5-feet from the side yard and 20-feet from the rear yard for tWo-story balconies. The appellants have stated their concerns that the balconies will create privacy impacts onto their properties and that balconies are not prevalent within the neighborhood. However, the Zoning Ordinance states: "The goal of the permit is not to require complete visual protection, but to address privacy protection to the greatest extent while still allowing the construction and use of an outdoor deck." Staff believes that the applicants have addressed the privacy protection to the greatest extent with the privacy protection landscape plan and by exceeding the setback requirements. Additionally, the applicant has already reduced the master bedroom balcony to 60 square feet from their initial proposal (that also met the two-story balcony requirements) in response to their neighbor's request during the review period for the application. Regarding prevalence of balconies in a neighborhood, the ordinance does not prohibit second story balconies from being proposed or approved where balconies may not be prevalent within a neighborhood. However, staff has found that there are homes on Grenola Drive, Hazelbrook and Greenleaf Drive within the Garden Gate neighborhood that do have second story, rear yard facing balconies. Privacy Landscaping The applicant has provided a landscape privacy protection plan (See Exhibit D) that meets the privacy protection landscape requirements in accordance with the RI ordinance with the additional condition to supplement landscaping on the west side of the property. The condition requires the applicant to plant two additional I5-gallon, minimum 6-foot high Pittosporum shrubs along the west property line to provide the 4-5 I"'-~~ Appeal ofR-2006-08 & RM-2006-13 October 10, 2006 Page 6 required privacy protection for the second story window and the balcony of the proposed residence. The applicant is agreeable to these conditions. The applicant has chosen landscaping that is listed on the City's privacy protection planting list. Staff finds this landscape plan sufficient,to meet the intent of the ordinance requirements. Oak Tree The City Arborist has provided supplemental information (See Exhibit C) to the original arborist report stating that the trenching for the proposed residence be no more than 14 feet 2 inches front the trunk of the oak tree.. as opposed to the 15 foot distance previously stated, during construction of the residence to preserve the tree, This would allow the home to be constructed per the approved plan with a 14 foot 2 inch setback from the trunk of the tree. Additionally, the City Arborist states that the story poles have been reviewed and that the pruning required to construct the building would result in fairly minor canopy loss. The City Arborist also states that the tree should easily tolerate the canopy loss if the pruning is done by a certified arborist and the pruning me~ts the ISA Western Chapter standards. Staff also confirmed with the City Arbortst that it appears the tree can' be retained with the proposed residential development on site as long as the tree protection measures that the City Arborist recommends are met. A condition of approval to the applications requires that the tree protection recommendations in the aiborist report be met. Temperature and Glare The Zoning Ordinance does not require a study of temperature and glare for approval of a residential design review. The proposed residence will provide a red tile roofing and peach colored stucco exterior that are consistent with Mediterranean style homes that are found within the Garden Gate neighborhood. Therefore, staff has no criteria to request the applicant to change the design, color and materials on the residence based upon the possible temperature and glare impacts a residence may create within a neighbhood. Submitted by: Aki Honda, Senior Planner Approved by: Steve piasecki, Director of Community Development ST~ ~k / vu....r-' Enclosures: Exhibit A: Appeal submitted by John Tracy and Jessica Rose Exhibit B: Appeal submitted by Elena Herrera and Subir Sengupta Exhibit C: City Arborist supplemental information Exhibit D: Approval letter with conditions of approval and Plan Set g:/planning/pdreportf AppealsjR -2006-08 .doc . I-aS J.t-t; Exhibit A CUPERTINO CITY CLERK CITV CUPEiQ'INO City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3223 APPEAL Application No. _'J?,-~::~(n~0~J~~t _ ,jJ""'3(_J,~h~_-=~ 1{~7) (~, ~}--- Phone Number (\ i.' t' d./),',. I ~I ~ t C c1J(~S 'v JDhr,\co,C\./'2, 6\ --.s~S')CG'" ,\'~'CiS"'Q.... '0 L\ I. () l~nt\ l~, bo\' (~v-L.- L\t)~ "LSs. -- 5 fl-b 2. Applicant(s) Name: 3. Appellant(s) Name: Address Em ail r os.e. -+'YG"- c.~ 3 ~ s bc-~J \} bc" \ . Y1...12..-\ 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: 5/1-3/06 6. Basis of appeal: -.5 e:.e c\.. +! c'\ c.l-1f cD J~ :5 0... () e ; 7) h o~ (\) 6>-:-0 t?.e. r,-1--'(r v,-!~L., c^';f ee.:J.....!-.. \'\.._l- 0.. fe cu I.j c'\ \ (;.......1- rv.- (Y\ ," 0"- ,e5' d.c" '1,1" i pec~ k )\-<.- , €-eN'-- DOc \ ui\-, ~ V1~~~ "({\\Jo\o'lu. 0 f){ e...xJ-sh\(\~ pn"-Jc~c.?J ~~dL oec.-I...$o,:, l\! e. CI\.\~L 0\ Is 0 c..c () (.V1,rf\..Q..<'/L C\. ti o/v...fr h.-\._ f.vLO h,-'il1.../ D u...~ k Or\...--- (hv f>1O ptr~ . Signatur, e(s) (} - =--... (I ~&<I\.--->~ \\ ~ Please complete form, include appeal fee of $149.00, and return to the attention of the City Clerk, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, (408) 777-3223. 1-d.lP ~ September 6, 2006 JohnR. Tracy Jessica T. Rose 10410 Ann Arbor Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 408-255-5126 rosetracy3@sbcglobal.net To: The City Of Cupertino Planning Department This letter and submitted fee is to appeal the approval of the residence at 21180 Grenola Drive, Cupertino. We live next door to this property and our appeal is based on two counts: Second StOry Master Bedroom Balcony: The existence of this balcony violates our right to privacy in our house and yard, affects the quality of life we enjoy and will affect the value of our property. Any person using this balcony will have a full view into our main living room, patio, master bedroom window and entire back yard areas. And any person in our house or in our backyard, will have full and unobstructed view of the balcony and anyone using it. The City must recognize that Garden Gate neighborhood is mixed with single and two-story homes. We were part of a core group that annexed our neighborhood into the City of Cupertino six years ago primarily to have proteCtion from the overwhelmingly large two-story homes that were thoughtless constructed around existing single.story residences due to weak and misguided county ordinances. We expect the City to recognize that an existing homeowner has the right to expect a maintained level of privacy during development of a neighboring home. We question how this home can be considered "compatible" with homes in the neighborhood. First, there are no homes with rear facing balconies that we are aware of in Garden Gate. Second, the existing privacy in a neighboring property should not be compromised by new construction. Do we have to accept that there will be a large and imposing Mediterranean style house next to our newly renovated "cottage/craftsman" style home? Do we have to accept that it is twice the size of our home, complete with a large and uninviting columned front door? We cannot accept the approval of a balcony that views into our house and into our entire back yard. We look to the City to protect our existing privacy to the greatest extent. The proposed home will be surrounded by three single-story homes. How can the rear-balconies proposed on this home be justified when it will allow the user to view down into three homes? Why is this considered a permissible and acceptable design form? It is an unnerving experience to look up from 1 I-:J.- 7 ~ our back yard (or out our house window) to a balcony that stands that view over our property as currently depicted by the story poles. The purpose of a balcony is to provide a large window, fresh air, natural light and a place to sit and relax. We question the ''view'' that this balcony will provide. What is the purpose of a "view" that can only be enjoyed at the expense of the existing neighbor's privacy? It must be acknowledged that this neighborhood is not in the hills of Cupertino, but rather the flat lands. This balcony will view directly into our house, our entire backyard and into the large Heritage Oak tree lacated an the Grenala property, A-ny views beyand that will be include neighboring properties. We encourage you to. do. a site visit and discover the "views" this balcony would have. We invited the property owner to our home to see fIrst hand our concerns and in an effort to resolve this issue with us, they suggested we put curtains on our windows and they promised to "go inside" if ever we are using our backyard for entertaining. This implicitly implies that the balcony would allow them an invasive presence on our property. Should we then go mside when they are using their balcony? And what guarantee do we have that any future resident would agree to this behavior and second, why should either of our behaviors be dependent upon each other? We proposed the property owner consider a "faux" balcony. It would include the large sliding glass door for fresh air, natural light, and limited views into their backyard. The railing would be cosmetic and offer the look and feel of a balcony without the intrusive exterior 60 square foot patio sits above neighboring yards and houses. It seems logical that a landscaping plan would mitigate the impact of this balcony on our yard. Aside from what it has taken from us to get the City to require the property owner to present a landscaping plan that meets the minimal ordinance requirements for a two- story house, (three attempts so far) we do not believe that within three years a landscaping plan could protect us from the impact of this balcony "to the greatest extent". Consider that the floor of the balcony sits at approximately 11 feet. To effectively screen our yard from a 6 foot person enjoying the "view" we would need approximately 17 feet of landscape screening within three years. The current requirement for landscaping along this existing 6 foot property fence is a 6 foot plant (s). Unless that plant is replacing its size annually, the protection from a landscaping screen that should protect our privacy to the greatest extent within three years, is impossible. We also question . how these plants and trees vital to our protect privacy rights will grow with the large oak tree canopy so close. Protection Plan for the Oak Tree The City of Cupertino has not followed the recommendation of their arborist to take the minimum required measures to assure survivability of the maj or 'oak tree in.the Grenola property. The referenced report discusses two key assessments for the tree. First, whether the tree can be expected to survive based on the location of the proposed structure relative to the tree location. This assessment is at best inconclusive based upon a number of factors. To list a few: 2 J-~ to ~ a. The arborists' recommends the closest wall be at least 15 feet from the trunk of the tree. The plan shows it being less than 14'2" (kitchen nook estimated to be 12') . b. The arborists' recommends a follow-up assessment to be made after the installation of story poles to accurately estimate the canopy and root system loss. No such follow up reports provided. c. The arborist states that the tree would not be expected to survive if the , combination of the canopy and root system were reduced more the 25%. The arborist also states that if a foundation is placed at 15 feet from the tree trunk ,that it would equate to 25% loss in root mass. Therefore, any additional loss to the canopy by trimming to make room for the structure would surely threaten the tree's chance of surviving. And, the arborists' sketch of the tree relative to the house shows overlap suggesting some canopy trimming is necessary. The story poles visibly verify this overlap as well. Second, the minimum steps to be followed to protect the tree during construction. The assessment is very detailed and thorough. But, as the arborist states ". . . a moot point"..if the plans do not meet his previously stated m.ini;mum requirements for tree survivability based on the location of the proposed structure. We would also like the arborists report to include the impact of the proposed privacy landscaping plan on the oak. Oaks are often noted as being difficult to plant around, and due to the size of this oak in the backyard, we question if the oak might hinder the expected growth of the privacy screening plants and trees. It is the City of Cupertino's responsibility to ensure that the health and beauty of this tree remains intact. We have been aware for a year that the property owner intended to "remove" or "relocate" the tree. We also noticed it was labeled a "sycamore tree to be removed" on the house plans submitted for approval by the City. Not only is this oak tree a fantastic example of a species native to California landscape, and a reminder of the rural roots of Cupertino and the Garden Gate tract,. but it provides all of us in single-story homes who surround this two-story, 4,219 square foot home an existing landscaping feature that greatly buffers us from the visual impact of the large home to be constructed. Weare aware that the City has protected it, but we read this arborists report as preliminary at best and the City has no right to consider it conclusive and worthy of approval without further follow up action with the arborist. In closing, we are looking to the "planners" of the City to review this situation with fresh eyes and an understanding that a cookie C1.Jtter approach to home development in a community with such diverse neighborhood settings as Cupertino is not realistic. And as property values continue to climb, maintaining our home as the asset that it is, has become of utmost concern to us. Judging by the number of sympathetic comments we are receiving from the neighbors and our house visitors when viewing the story poles that loom over the back side of our property, we can safely assume that any potential property . buyer of Qur home would be deterred by the impact ?f the balcony structure. 3 , ~ ;1-0 ~ Exhibit B' f5)~<<:re~w~rm lJl1 SEP 6 2006 lW c . CUPEIUINO City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3223 CUPERTINO CITY CLERK APPEAL 1. Application No. .-;--\ ,'.-. '..';' ,(:., ':,-~ !- _~ J.t j{)l'~~L {;-~'- (vi . , ' . 2. Applicant(s) Name: GD LV.eJ<; 3. Appellant(s) Name: Address d2-11 '; () L~ IWJ61 >~ ']:;1-: I' . I /-( L-X' .:1-'5 :J- [I 1)"D1- . Phone Number 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: O'-2]-()& 6. Basis of appeal: S;JL~ cdJ~c.A~ Signature(s) fkd~"- I . .' IL/r.oo Please complete form, include appeal fee of $-1-45:(j0, and return to the attention of the City Clerk, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, (408) 777-3223. I-aD t4-tt ELENA HERRERA SUBIR. SENGUPTA 21150 GRENOLA. DRIVE CUPERTINO, CA. 95014 40fl.252.0504 To the City of Cupertino With this letter and fee, we are appealing the approval of the home building permit for 21180 Grenola Drive. Much of this letter is similar in content to our original e-mail expressing concern dated 02 !\ugu~;t, 2006. ][tern 2- Balconies has been added dlS a concern upon fnrther reviev/ of the Item 1 - Consistent with existing neighborhood look and feel In the cover letter sent by the city, dated July 11 2006, the intent to approve the project is stated along with the sentiment that the look and feel of the home fits in with the existing neighborhood. We take great exception to this, in that the size, look, and style neither fits in with the . neighborhood, nor can it be seen to compliment the neighborhood. Although there are homes in the neighborhood that are similar in look in feel: III The great majority of the homes of this style were built, in this sub-set of Garden Gate, prior to the annexation of this county pocket' into the city: .. This home is much larger than the average home in this 3-4 block area. 1 Although there is a great re-building of the neighborhood, the city - as a guardian of the community - has the responsibility to maintain the quality of life, the integrity of the neighborhood life-style, and the values of community living. By continuing to perpetuate a trend in massive, block-like, cement structures, we instead invite a turn to solitary living within the four, huge walls. As a small example, the city ordinance "encourage porches"- directly supporting this community living. This home does not emulate the spirit of the ordinance. . These larger homes cover so much of the width of the lot, are so close to the front of the lot, and are so large that they are intrusive not only into the neighboring homes, but also have a palpable intrusive feel into anyone walking by. To be sure, they may fit within the current rules for width and size, and there may be precedent, but it is our contention that the current rules are not sufficient to maintain our "quality oflife" and to perpetuate this style wd size of homes will surely destroy it. Please walk the neighborhood to understand this point, including the area east of Stelling, for a stark and contrasting example of the turnover in the neighborhood rather than the preservation of it. . The plans for this home show a turret - or ~ rounded "bay window" - above the entry that greatly contributes to the massive and block-ish look and feel. Again, this is a feature far more suited to a much larger lot, in a neighborhood full of much larger lots. To preserve the look and feel of our neighborhood, this would be a major design change to be sure, but had the planning department taken the guidelines to heart, this should not have been approved. . This home replicates a style pervasive on Green Leaf Dr. (and other GG blocks) east of Stelling where older ranch homes have mostly disappeared to be replaced by the Mediterranean style. I do not object to the style, only to the fact that now the majority are of this theme, it cannot be said to be a "mix"; the neighborhood feel has completely changed over to an impersonal, blaringly bright, and hot environment. 1 Although we are part of the greater Garden Gate Neighborhood, when a person drives through the area it can easily be seen to have distinct parts that have their own look and feel. This is important to the reference of "Green Leaf Dr., east of Stelling having turned over to completely new 'look and feel' ". PAGE 1 OF 3 WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 06, 2006 1,...?/1 -+r~ ELENA HERRERA SUBIR SENGUPTA 21150 GRENOLA DRIVE CUPERTINO, CA 95014 408.252.0504 o Building a grandiose home does not guarantee a positive impact to the neighborhood when re-selling. Although we do not expect the city to ensure this, we do expect the city to be a guardian of the intelligent and well-though out growth of the community. To be sure, a very large home, completelY out of scale with the nei$borhood remained' on the market for months during the time of the multiple-offer, "bidding war" frenzy in the summer of2005. This particular home: is over 5,000 sq. ft., far exceeding the relative size, took, and feel of its neighbors, has 31fuu.r-car garage, t11Je~ balconies overlooking neighborhood properties, and many more amenities that are far more suitable to ill neig.hborhood such as Linda VistalRegnart Road. Item 2: Balconies Only one home in the neighborhood has balconies, 21140 Grenola - the large out-of-scale property noted above. To use this as a precedent for further growth and developm~nt in this direction is wrong. We contend that the city was negligent in the planning process of both 21140 and 21180 Grenola, and expect the city to correct this oversight immediately by ensuring that balconies, if at all allowed, are minimal in size and are not sighted near the intersection of a neighboring lot. To place a balcony near a comer ofthe home, to build a balcony that can hold more than two people, and - in and of itself - to build a balcony at all says to the community "I wish to survey my kingdom" not "enjoy my own backyard". Standing upon such a balcony, one does not "enjoy their own yard" as is the common contention, instead one enjoys the vista beyond the home, and therefore intrudes into the neighboring yards. Again, please visit the balconies of 21140 for a first-hand illustration of this oversight. Item 3: Temperature(Heat) and Glare When purchasing our home, moving from a neighborhood even closer to Memorial Park, we directed our realtor to "NOT search on 'these' streets (east of Stelling) and illustrated to her the heat, glare, and noise factors when driving through these streets. By removing so many trees outside the protections of the ordinance, and by building larger homes on the lots, the loss of ambience and the gain of heat and glare is tangible. I (E. H,) drove my realtor through the three ne~ghborhoods (our former, our current, and east of Stelling) to illustrate the effects by noting the temperature gauge in the car, the presence or lack of any breeze or tree-rustling, and the noise level increase or reduction as we stood outside at three different times ofthe day. We strongly believe that we will greatly feel the negative effects of the mass of concrete that will radiate heat into the neighborhood. AB an example, we live directly across from such a home, built prior to city annexation. This home radiates so much heat and glare that the imposition is palpable, annoying, and directly compromises our health and comfort during the majority of the year, this being the temperate climate that the valley provides. With further regard to the heat and glare issues, I provide 2 examples of homes recently built that, although Mediterranean in style, are of a darker paint,tone and have a darker roof material that would a) provide a less intrusive roof line and b) provide a softer, less imposing look to the facade, of such a large home. Please visit 21180 Grenola and 21090 Hazelbrook for illustrations of this concept. PAGE20F3 , '-3~ ~. WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 06,2006 ELENA HERRERA SUBIR SENGUPTA 21150 GRENOLA DRIVE C U.P E R TIN 0, C A 95014 408.252.0504 Item 4: Privacy Screening The privacy screelling-plantings along the side nearest our home are either non-existent or insufficient. Apparently, the city holds that only the adiacent property owner needs to relinquish rights to the concern of privacy landscaping. We request that the privacy screening: landscaping requirements be reinstated on the east side of the pro12ertv line. Item 5: Heritage Oak The beautiful heritage oak on the property needs to be protected. I have seen only a preliminary arborists report in the approval package of the project. There are many points in the report that indicate more information was needed before a judgment on the impact to the tree could be rendered. &> The report outlines specific plans for protecting the root zone during construction that conflict with the building plans. For example, the current plans show the trunk of the tree being less than 15ft. from the perimeter of the foundation. This 15ft. is a minimal guideline per this arborist that, if held to, would minimally affect the tree, and is no guarantee that the tree would survive. If it is even 15 feet, how can the building of the foundation not be intrusive and damaging to the root system? iii It is noted in the report that further root exploration be done, two methods are given, to be able to give a reasonable estimate as to the viability ofthe project. " It is noted in the report that the story poles should be in place before coming to any conclusions: the story poles were not up at the time of the arborists report. e The report states that schematics/plans for utility lines and plumbing/sewer lines be presented before coming to any conclusions. We hold the city accountable for the well-being of this tree, a determination that may take years to realize. So many trees have been taken down, against city ordinances and guidelines, or even outside the current gUidelines, that we cannot risk a further deterioration of the treasure that this old, green, wooded neighborhood is. We fully expect to see further documentation by this arborist, and request the city apply due diligence in requiring a second arborist opinion. We base this request on having had our own arborist take a look at the site and state that he felt that plans to build a large home on that lot would be "detrimental to the health of the tree." Summary We feel that these issues are a testament to the lack of oversight of the planning department with regard to the city's own guidelines, and feel that further development along these lines follow a trend that this neighborhood can't afford. Indeed, the residents of this neighborhood specifically campaigned for annexation into Cupertino for the protections, guidelines, and vested interest of the city in maintaining and preserving the quality of life with regard to the neighborhood and it's eventual renewal and growth. . We will be pursuing the matter with great interest. Thank you, Elena Herrera and Subir Sengupta 21150 Grenola Dr., Cupertino, CA 95014 PAGE30F3 /-33 -4-f-t-f WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 06,2006 BARRI~ D. COATI; AfJD ~OCIAT~ Exhibit C I-lOtficulfuraJ Comultan~ PI-lO~~ (4OC) SSg-10S2 l=AX (4-CY?)-ssS-t Zg,? ZSSgS ~umm1t Road/ Los GatllS/ CA 950SS ~ A X TO: A ki 8~Vld CL !=axll: 777- 3335 moM: game D, CMte DArt; b ~ <23 -(!) G R~: ~ r f I) (7'J 6 \~('J{J\ () \ CL V 1/ , ~JU M8[R OR P AG[~ _~1__ C-c C-I ~~~.C~w I e~ g"3/-GSCf-61GI COMMENTS: M r---S ~H(bLLd ~I . . I . IS-foh> r~t~ Cj;f-P lA'J\.lJ\0'S -the, WOI-vttrAg (l heD GL t 4;~ c t,tfvtg fCa:> r 0:. -f'ot.(....J"j:'[", <1 V1 ep ~ "CJa k +t:E'~ { · ~ uJp ~ ~~ ~ 1:c ('f,' pd r-lAa} -h::f' C{6~ {ctg bP J! rCse _tfb- {fi"(f\-oVV/1(ze f{.-I,1V1 ~ wI1U~~1 Ct:!U)[t:?~ v/Dwf'{uds; iu<^-+ +CuP (U'i-<-( o..J -tr-e vtc~ WIDe.( (d ~ q rJ P 1-(1') b e /1/./;Z f/ ~ f-o vU ~ ~ t(-1'UJ1 k- () . 'lh e cC 1ff\:. i-f? c.{C~ 90IJHA) J fA 0 f b e SCt fA. ~ \ (' cLU---t; d \0{ J 5' ~tP t(J d f, r co v( S; /J Q[~ J tl('('~fi~J,(p . 5/q \'-~( " 1-3+ ~ Exhibit C Aid Honda From: Ciddy Wordell Sent: Wednesday, September 20,20062:57 PM To: Aki Honda Subject: FW: email from Michael Bench -----Original Message----- . from: BARRIE D COATE [mailto:bccoate@verizon.net] Sen1t: FridaYI September 151 2.006 12.:19 prv'J To: Ciddy Wordell Subject: email from Michael Bench Re: Cowles Residence, 21180 Genola Drive I have looked at the story poles in relation to the large Coast Live Oak and the pruning required to construct the building would be fairly minor canopy loss and therefore I find it quite acceptable. The tree should easily tolerate the canopy loss. It would be essential that the pruning be done by a certified arborist and that the pruning meet the ISA Western Chapter standards. I find this acceptable if the pruning is done properly. ,. dictated by Mick, 9/15/06 9/2012006 ,-35 ~ Exhibit 0 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 Telephone: (408) 777-3308 FAX: (408) 777-3333 CITY OF r~JPEIUINO . COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT August 23, 2006 Cliff Cowles PO Box 223201 Carmel, California 93922 SUBJECT: RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW ACTION LETTER - Applications R-2006-08 and RM-2006-13: This letter confirms the decision of the Director of Community Development, given on August 21, 2006, approving a residential design review for a new two-story, 4,219 square foot residence, and a Minor Residential permit to allow the construction of two balconies on the new residence on property located at 21180 Grenola Drive, with the following conditions: 1. APPROVED PROTECT This approval is based on a plan set. entitled, II A New Two-Story Residence for Homa & Mehrdad Mojgani," consisting of seven sheets dated March 20, 2006, including a site plan, first and second floor plans, elevations, roof plan and section, and a privacy protection landscape plan and revised master bedroom balcony plan with reduced balcony, except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution. 2. REVISED BALCONY Pi-ior to issuance of buildingpermit(s), the applicant shall reduce the size of the master bedroom balcony to a maximum six-foot depth and 60 square feet as shown in the revised master bedroom balcony plan. 3. TREE PROTECTION The applicant shall be required to maintain the existing 31-inch diameter Coast Live Oak tree on the subject property in a healthy rrianner in accordance with the tree protection recommendations outlined in the tree evaluation prepared for this property on April 27, 2006 by Michael L. Bench of Barrie D. Coate and Associates. 4. PIDVAcYPROTECTIONCOVENANT The property owner shall record a covenant on this property to inform future property owners of the privacy protection measures and tree protection requirements consistent with the R-l Ordinance for all windows and second story balconies with views into neighboring yards and with a sill height that is 5 Printed on Recycled Paper 1-3lP ~ 1<.-1.UUb-Uo, Kl\l-LUUD-l.) Page 2 feet or less from the second story finished floor. The precise language will be subject to approval by the Director of Community Development. Proof of recordation must be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to final occupancy of the residence. 5. PRIV AC'f PROTECTION PLAN Prior to issuance of building permit(s), the applicant shall provide a revised privacy protection landscape plan that additionally provides for a total of three (3) I5-gallon, minimum six-foot high Pittosporum non-deciduous shrubs (of a species listed in tlle City's approved landscape mitigation measures plantinp; list) in addition to the two (2) IS-gallon, minimUlTl six-foot high Pittosporurn non- deciduous shrubs along the west property line to provide the required privacy protection from the second floor window of the proposed master bedroom. The privacy protection plan shall also fficlude two (2) deodar cedar trees along the south east side of the property, five (5) magnolia trees along the south (rear) property line, and two (2) deodar cedar trees along the south west side of the property; unless alternative privacy trees/shrubs have been agreed upon by the property owner and adjacent neighbor(s). The revised privacy protection plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of building permit(s). The City Arborist has confirmed that the existing Coast Live Oak tree is appropriate for screening purposes in terms of species, size and health. The Coast Live Oak tree shall be recorded on the property as a protected tree along with the new privacy trees and shrubs to be planted on the property. I 6. FRONT YARD TREE A new 24-inch box tree shall be planted in the front yard to meet landscaping requirements. The type and size of tree shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works and Community Development Departments. 7. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/ or agencies . with regard to the proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Any misrepresentation of any submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Development Department. 8. NOTICE OF FEES. DEDICATIONS. RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (I), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 2 /-87 ~ .[\...-~uuu-vu) .L'-I.\.L-~VVV J. ~ Page 3 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. Please be aware that if this permit is not used within one year, it shall expire on August 23, 2007. Staff received comments from numerous neighbors expressing concerns about the project. The City receIved emails and letters from adjacent neighbors expressing concerns about privacy irn.pacts onto their adjacent properties clue to the second story windows and balconies and the health and retain.ing of the eXlsting mature oak LTee In response to these concerns, the applicant has reduced the size of the second story master bedroom balcony to 60 square feet and has added privacy protection landscaping. Additionally, it was brought to staff's attention by one of the adjacent property owners that the privacy protection proposed along the west property line did not sufficiently meet the City's privacy protection measures. As a result, staff has added a condition of approval that requires that additional privacy protection shrubs be planted to satisfy this requirement. Staff also received comments from other property owners within the neighborhood expressing concerns about the project. These include concerns about the massing and size of the proposed residence, compatibility with the neighborhood, privacy protection and preservation of the oak tree. Additionally, a concern was raised about the color of the proposed residence and the amount of heat that could be radiated due to the proposed color scheme. Upon review of these comments and concerns, staff has determined that the proposed project is in compliance with the development standards for .the Rl-75 zoning district in which the property is located, and that the Mediterranean style and color of the home are consistent with other homes within the neighborhood. Further, the applicant will be required to revise the privacy protection plan to comply" with the City's privacy protection requirements. The existing Coast Live Oak tree will also be preserved in conjunction with these applications and conditions of approval are required to ensure the protection of this tree. Regarding the color of the home, the proposed color scheme is in character with other . Mediterranean style homes within the neighborhood and the proposed architectural style of the home. The City currently has no requirements to' prohibit certain color schemes due to the possibility that certain colors may reflect heat/light within the neighborhood. Therefore, staff is not recommending a change in the proposed color scheme. Staff has made all the findings that are required for approval of a Minor Residential Permit as required by the of Cupertino's Municipal Code, Chapter 19.28.090 (B) and 19.28.100 (D). . 3 1-3~ ~ R-2006-08, RM-2006-13 Page 4 Please note that an appeal of this decision can be made within 14 calendar days from the date of this letter. If this happens, you will be notified of a public hearing, which will be scheduled before the Planning Commission. Sincerely, tiler .~jJjIl]/Ui~ Aki Honda Senior P1aru,er City of Cupertino . Enclosures: Approved Plan Set Tree Evaluation by the City Arborist Cc: Homa & Mehrdad Mojgani, 22370 Palm Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 . Jessica Rose & John Tracy, 10410 Ann Arbor Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 Lester Bowers, 21181 Hazelbrook Court, Cupertino, CA 95014 Elena Herrera & Subir Sengupta, 21150 Grenola Drive, Cupertino, CA 95014 Tibor Polgar, 10373 Ann Arbor Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 Kathy & Bob Berger, 10439 Ann Arbor Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 Lee Xu, 21164 Grenola Drive, Cupertino, CA 95014 G: \ Planning \ Minor Residential\Rl Approvals \ R-2006-08 Actionletter.doc 4 , -30 ~ 41'-0" Old Balcony _-----__ 'ItS" ''f.edev ( ill - ~\?v',\Cl'(\ 'I A-z-")!pO , / ~I I I I I j Uj I I I~ .,r Lllllllli ,~ c.. .1 I ~ - ...L,_L -., CO 60710 SUduJ4 G&.ss Door w 26710 FixedBlAwnling both sides(Temp.) I ........, l'.l Master I Qa Bath Suite 'I ~78.2 \1 II . , Upper J1aU (Open to 4oyer) ~ ~~l ~ \ \ 111~'51 lfr ~ I . , II) i \ \llJ ~ il III ~ 10'-6" 3'-2" C> II- 16'-6" - '" .Y '7 iN I t:l ... Master Bedroom o I ..... ... 15'-6" 2878 \ sc I-- 9'-~ z :iIr CD I iI) :::r ] II 2878 ffl Asc 4- ~ f~ ,; \@ t"t~ I st. , I~ 5'-0" c _,0 - '"- .- ~ o ~ ..... ':+=!~o co .- _ (1.)_ o - ct:S --~ =2:>.at 0... __ 0 co ta 0... - L- c::::;: <C::E 8:: .!;2>iQ t:ll:::OC<1::cng "--1\ I~ iTef.p p~. 1 1. I oF. l~l-r~ c.. I ,... \l SE~~!ON ~':l\- . . ~ J. C . I I f ~ r:. I i i'\OODOQ'oonE ~~~~~\~~}~~>lit~:~t~, ;~~~M~~-~~T~'T II ", '....;~ .,.I4,t 6 n~~r Yard,,,/.,,,,- . ...... I, . ,/ . ':::{.' .. "'. . _. . _"".:.,./ .- t.... I C,J sc.b....~ I r ~~ .....('" /" ., ~> ;LtJt;\/ i ,...--'''"";.CC"= '"......-...--:[oi'i{.' ,_...., ; I 2oiJ~-:-B. "~l. ~ --1-- -,.::.~_. --,-:'-... v_/ : H l 2p5" (I',,, \ ,/~ I --, ' , /f" I , ~. l:' ''', ." ~-';'1 l' I . 1J ~.". r-", ' I ' \..~~..... J "0 .ex, ,",i c^f';-(" \. ..,:' ~.r !: " ~.., ~'" i/ ~,,-fl"-...,...l.;~____ :i~.~" ' ~''-'~'~ /~', 'j'/ ''''', I I ,,\'" \', -;:' /) r i-\ I i, I o<\!( :) 540 M; iilf ,I " t '\ .,.d,..,~. 8 ..' "",. .\~ ,j-.t' . ""~" \-, ._ . ;' T Ii '. \.. ' , 11:1/, - --~'7'-i:' , ~JJ l t ~q ''1 1>< i,. ! ('. 1\, ~ . t.. n5'~O~ . '1 !:Lt. ~ \ i ~ 'f ].\<o it" ... /. . ',1 '- ~. 2nd ~Story 1 0 ! ' '" /"..'>...... /"; ~ . ..1'100..6' Declt j b I !. .~. ., . /// '.' ." ; 'TIj-'1 3dl]..<:f.' :T(O , /. ".' ".." /.... // ..' /'/., , t.,:t,(;'/ ,ff I - 1..:\ .~f"" ,. ~~.. .......- I ~ 0 \ :......,:. .:-..... ..".;. ..'.>~.. " ,'/~~<r. :;-7-'''': .,~--..':':. ~..:.-lV.: '-}., ,i) I ]8 I . /,,' ,-I"...., !:.L,,:__:' '~' ;' / .' . , ,i, - > L 'w ~:: '.' :~:': .:.. .<:t,. ::.:>:' ~ </ "/ .><> ;,,"',//'/ -:,../ /':.,/'~f':1 i' :! :- ... b ..' .' .'" .'1'" -1.' / .... ," / .'" .... ,/ / /".. <:'2 ~ 1 ." 6" I!. t g ~f~;;'l /> ~-I=",,("~'/>/N"~<2{g"l'i'//A!li~'- St ? sf/ ,"/. .: l 900' St" / / ./ bL,./ ./ / / ./ / ~,V.~ ~ i," I ~,~ ? 0 ,,////..../><,.,I:.~..;;.,zf'9.. /' ./ / ~.,WW-~"ti1b'fi7/ / / /""i ':..-li "'-.'" li~ o ...:" /..' ,'.' . 't.' i' .' "tB.tl'..'~ .ll _... ... ..' d:""'/ / //-/, ,J' , / / ,I .~ i '\1 ''''',:~: ... "":fdbif~:,~--,,i' ... !.~~/. .::...LaJEltL91.l~c.'-.anr~'-;t,j < i.. ;'i I ~ " S'~ ~rt;It~~::~/'~~:~~; ~~~"7/:;:Eifln ~ r '1~!..fJ..Il"\' i, ", ,/ /' ./ ./ ~... "J;,,/ .... / .-- .-' .'~ .,' - , .~.~,<, /.' 1 ",.,,,,._ '1 '.' \..' '/' " / ,,/'./., /" .--,~.,-_..- "1 . <>;,:. :'.' ~. iF ./-' / ..,/ / / ,'. / / / ,,/ ,/,. \\( L~' .... . ..'A I /.'./ . ',J:,." ; ~L / ~.tA'f/R90 Irl21,aq9' /./ ,/ ;'~;,..;,.., .,...! ~ .' ... I .,. ~ 'i/ / 'FF;[()p)1 'L :fQ!Y.2S/ " / .' ;.~..". -- .,/ ."~ -0' 0"",,1 fi r~ .,. ~ " ~ ; ..../ / / (- " "/ ./ /. ./ (',1. .~. 1 . .... J .i .......;to- t ....... ,..;. 1/ ,,' ,/ / ...,.Oll..ol~/ r / ...t...",..' .','.! Sicl_V".,.d\'; '~.. .~...' ~ J ~ ~ ~. t'-'/ ,/,./.1 t/,/ ,/ / // /i/~. t '; /.~ -S~::b~c:.~ I ,. . i ' . 1." i! (. / (.' ./~' '~/.--;/ /., / .,;.j!..' , ~. / .'. 1 :.{l.,' m fuld , , ~ ~ . ." ,,_.......,.., or' _z." - ,.. .... L . 1 '. I' ." " . l,r li j ," E / f /" /'1'" . /" ." / _*A.':r;, . . ~l I ~LOl"'1o;:.:: I ~ . . . , " / r ' . .~ . '~J' ...... . , 1 . / '.1.' , 1 t.. r / /... )",.;.~~ / --</.,r..... -/.' .'..' '.' j, Il .........}.. r: :0', /,/ ,;,//~~./.r../.. ....~ "/,;-:; l~ . ' ,,' ,~ I / / , /.' / " ''!=- 7.' .-/ .,.. , ' . . " , ii' ~'. '~~:::'I~>\'.l . ..:-~,:.~);.;":,:,,,~'.:'...:'-;:>?;<< '.' ,-,:'. ::,.~;..~~~;~:::. .' ,.' d'. ~ . --:". ': i j ~L / . ' s . , .'....' / /// //.-/ / / / .' .' /., . .' . /.... .... ,.... .' . I:' !'. . ,,/., I' I . . ,,".,1 q ..:.... ': .' .:'/. . / /, .-/ / .'.' /.t!.. .~..../~.LC:: / /,' t.:,j.:.J::>",', ..' .L~ (0 --I'T t: /, /,// __" .." - =, -. ... ...e_...r!.. -'" ..,~. '--." ~) I ';.' .! ',' ,.~ ",-,.,-,'.LL'" '.. ~,.,. .., ' ." -"<'[1 ' ---..---~-. '.. ..__',c. - "').6' \!O. I j " ",'d' r."',,~//.I, ......J,' __~~=-,~~~~u"'.f~": I " ..' r I r~'" .., ' - - 1-..... -. ....- -.,. - ::..':q';,:~"'ri"';""'" . - 1 . .-:: ',,-:. " :.'. .... " ...-:...,:-;1 -';:- ~ j . ". I! """ 0"1: !"~'''.-.,~ j d I ,/...../.t,\ t... ..,.,.././<,1'... (~' II ;_~--==::-! , --;----.H--~ "'~'P.:<""fi' ,..::...L.[i...;."....... '~";;i'l! ~J:!;,(,!i.), .' - l \' .--" 1'"""'{1 3~...:~1!:-:~tJ~t?.~._.,." -:'. ~::.:J::'':... .---\': :' ' . / "". li' -- c.. :.0 . "")'.:;;1!~":: -. ':::'~-';;:="~:"'-,'~f"''---:-:----':_----1' L \ -~,,"""l .' - i" \-- 1 I !\ - & . .. :y.\ " I' jl<'i \ \ ~/-!------- j emit le . \.~.. ~!i"rcat T...lt GRAVEL ...-----/ ~'l-~ "'_.1_ . '0 Ss:1bo.cl\/ ~ ~ ~ ' tJliivc "t,,;;_--~----------- I --:' ~~I~~L75#~ --- --==r---~ , k ~Jxo _O~,.ooonNO'>'~" r RM Appncation f2t.1 -~{)Qb -/3 APprOVa.1 Date ~ J;:~ Signature 0 jf..f' ~ ~ (Case Manage~ ..!~I...O" "D;i<J=, ~ ~;:.rd ~!;{':~""~C , , i I i. I i GR .--- ---' i--- , , ."--... -' ...... .'-- ~ ...... R Application \-4\ ~ Privacy Landscape -21180 Grenola Dr. Cupertino Type Height Spread Planting distance max A Cedrus Deodara 80' 40' 20' B Cedrus Deodara 80' 40' . 20' C S.Magnolia 80' 40' 20' D S. Magnolia 80' 40' 20' E S.Magnolia 80' 40' 20' F S. Magnolia 80' 40' 20' G S.Magnolia 80' 40' 20' H Cedrus Deodara 80' 40' 20' I Cedrus Deodara 80' 40' 20' J Pittosporum 40' 20' 5' K Pittosporum 40' 20' 5' L Birch 20' 10' M Mary Magnolia 20' 10' >f; All rr-ces. fVll'r!. UJI OO'f ~ lVlln, h~(~h.1- ~I h,j1l-L p!~l~' *A-vtSrvrL-lhs Yvl,n IC;1till5YI t VV1ln fol'{;r,"ljh p/M'Y!+ei. R Application R - ~ooP -06 RM Application m-:;<wfo -/3 Approval Date. ~-()b. Signature !i1tethb/t v{ P- page Manage~ , -Lj~ '4~ }-43 ~ BARRIE D. CO -i: and ASSOCIATES Horticutural Consultants 23535 Summit Road Los Gatas. ':A 95033 4081353-1052 HE C HIVED MAY 1 8 2006 EVALUATION OF TREES AT THE COWLES. PROPERTY 21180 GRENOLA DRIVE, ClfJPERlDN <<) Prepared at the request of: Aki Honda City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue CupertinoJ CA 95014 Prepared by: Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist April 27th, 2006 Job # 04-06-088 R Application I? -dOOb - as RM Application I!M - ~oob - /.; Approval Date 6 ~ Signature {} [Ir i cjk; V (Case ManageQ I -tf1 *- {)5- EV ALVA TION OF TREES AT THE COWLES RESIDENCE, 21180 GRENOLA DRIVE, CUPERTINO 1 Table of Contents Assignment Page 2 Summary Page 2 Observations Page 2 Methods Page 2 Comments about Specific Trees Page 3 Protected Trees Page 3 Risks to trees by Proposed Construction Page 3 Recommendations Page 4 Enclosures Page 7 R Application ;( ~. ~OOb -oR RM Application . f0L1-;<ooG-/3 Approval Dale ~3 -ot, Signature iil Llr_~ t:^ ICase Manage~ Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist April 27th, 2006 1-15 ~ EVALUATION OF TREES AT THE COWLES RESIDENCE, 21180 GRENOLADRlVE, CUPERTINO 2 Assignment I was asked by Aki Honda, Planner, City of Cupertino, to evaluate the existing trees located at 21180 Grenola Drive, Cupertino. The plans provided for this evaluation are the Construction Plans prepared by Cliff Cowles, Carmel, Sheets AI-A8, dated 2-28-06. Summary There are 2 trees included in this inventory that may be damaged by proposed constmction One tree is located on this property, and one IS located on the adjacent property toward the south The 2 trees are identified here and given a condition rating. Some characteristics concerning these trees are briefly described. Both Trees # 1 and 2 are protected by city regulation. It appears that Tree # 1" eQuId be preserved, but this may require revisions to the plans, or relocation of the foot print, and mitigation procedures to be diligently implemented. A reasonably accurate estimate of the potential canopy loss to Tree # 1 is not possible with only the plans provided. Options are suggested. Observations There are 2 trees included in this evaluation. Tree # 1 is located on this site, and Tree # 2 is located on the neighboring property toward the south near the southwest corner ofthis property. The attached map shows the locations of these 2 trees and their approximate canopy dimensions. The 2 trees are classified and given an overall condition rating as follows: Tree # 1- Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) in excellent condition Tree # 2 _ Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) in excellent condition The particulars of these 2 trees (species, tTUl;lk diameter, height, spread, and structure) are included in the attachments that follow this text. Please note on these data sheets that the health and structure of each specimen is rated on a scale of 1-5 (Excellent - Extremely poor), which provides the basis for the overall condition rating of each tree,' stated above. The condition ratings are. ranked using the following range: (1) Excellent, (2) Good, (3) Fair, (4) Poor, (5) Extremely Poor. Methods The trunk measurement of Tree # 1 has been taken using a diameter tape at 4 1Iz feet above soil grade. This is referred to as DBH (Diameter at Breast Height). The diameter of Tree # 2 is c: CD ~ .estimated by visual observation at a distance of about 10 feet. I stepped off the canopy spread of .5 ...8 ~ Tree # 1 from north to south and from east to west. The height and canopy spread of Tree # 2 is 13 ~ ca ~ ~stimated using visual references only. These trees have been added to the Site Plan, of which a a ~ ES ~ reduced version is included in the attachments. 0-- c.. c:~- . ~ c...!2>s a:. <C. en ~ Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist April 27th, 2006 ,-1~ tl ~:;L 1 EVALUATION OF TREES AT THE COWLES RESIDENCE, 21180 GRENOLA DRIVE, CUPERTINO 3 Comments about Specific Trees The lowest limb of Tree # 1, facing northwest and approximately 12 inches in diameter, has been removed. The perimeter of the wound had been cut with a saw, but the interior wood of this limb has broken off (photo in c:tttachments). The removal ofthis limb appears to have reduced the screening value ofthis tree in the lower 6-10 feet ofthe canopy. However, this tree provides an effective screen, especially toward the southeast. As the proposed new residence is to be'a two- story, Tree # 1 would immediately screen portions of the second story for the neighboring residents facing south. Tree # 1 has a trunk diameter of 31.2 inches at 4 Y2 feet above grade Its canopy Spl cad] s approximately 55 feet north to south and east to west, but the canopy is not synlmetrical or equal on all sides. There is a greater quantity of canopy on the east side of the trunk than the west side, and there is a slightly greater canopy on the south side than the north side, but only by a few feet. The canopy is shown on the attached map. Protected Trees The City of Cupertino (Chapter 14.18 "finds that the preservation of specimen and heritage trees on private and public property, and the protection of all trees during construction, is necessary for the best interests of the City and of the citizens and the public thereof." The City "finds it is in the public interest to enact regulations controlling the care and removal of specimen and heritage trees. . ." A "Heritage Tree" means "any tree or grove' of trees which, because of factors, but not limited to, its historic value, unique quality, girth, height or species, has been found by the Architectural and Site Approval Committee to have a special significance to the community." A "Specimen tree" means any of the following: Species Measurement from Single Trunk Multi-Trunk Natural Grade Diameter/Circumference Diameter /Circ1imference Oak trees~ 4 ~ feet 10 inches (31 inches C) 20 inches D (63 inches C) California Buckeye Big LeafMaple~ 4 1j:: feet 12 inches (38 inches C -) 25 inches D (79 inches C) Deodar Cedar~ Blue Atlas Cedar Both Trees # 1 and 2 are protected by City of Cupertino regulation. Risks to Trees by Proposed Construction The plan proposes to remove Tree # 1, and notes on the plan that this tree is a sycamore. The new residence is shown to be located 12 feet from the truDk. This would not be a sufficient distance to expect the survival of Tree # 1. Ca> .5 ~ J!! If Tree # 1 is to be preserved, both the root loss and the canopy loss must be limited to a maximum - c.> ~ ~ .0.. <il e -.of25% total. These (root loss and canopy loss) are not separate unrelated events. They are parts of . o..~ e ~ r a single living entity. Thus, both canopy loss and root loss must be considered as a whole. ~::;;;; l5: _ g, i Concerning Tree # 1, if the trenching for the footing or for perimeter drainage would result in an 0:: a: <t: en Q. . Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist April 27'h, 2006 1-'11 ~ EV ALUA nON OF TREES AT THE COWLES RESIDENCE, 21180 GRENOLA DRIVE, CUPERTINO 4 estimated root loss of 25%, there must be no significant canopy loss. Also, bear in mind that the recovery period for a major loss (root, canopy, or both) is 2 years. We consider 25%-30% total loss to be a major loss. Concerning root loss of Tree # 1, there must be no trenching or excavation within 15 feet of the trunk. This distance of 15 feet would be the minimum distance and would result in approximately 20%-25% root loss at this location. In this event, the canopy loss must be minimal. Whether or not there would be minimal canopy loss, using the plan alone, is not possible to estimate. Inmy opinion. story poles for the south side of the new residence would be required to more accurately estimate the canopy loss, Bear in mind that the root loss estimate is based on experience with coast live oak species and on the typical plant morphology of a large oak tree. An alternative method of estimating the potential root loss would be to excavate the soil using an air spade or a water jet spade at the location of the proposed footing. We usually consider this method to be more accurate. An air spade or water jet spade simply removes the soil without damaging the roots. Then the trench could be inspected to estimate the root loss. Of course, there is no guarantee that this method would yield a positive result for the owner. Another important element is that the plans provided are incomplete with 'regard to Tree # 1. The plans do not show any backyard hardscape or landscaping. Nor do the plans show drainage or utilities. Without these elements provided in the plans, the potential impact to Tree # 1 cannot be fully assessed. It does not appear that any grading, excavation, or construction would occur adjacent to the back fence. If there is no grading or soil work in the area within 10 feet of the back fence nearest Tree # 2, the potential damage to Tree # 2 would be insignificant. The trees at this site would likely be at risk of damage by construction or construction procedures that are common to most construction sites. These procedures may include the dumping or the stockpiling of materials over root systems, may include the trenching across the root zones for utilities or for landscape irrigation, or may include construction traffic across the root system resulting in soil compaction and root die back. If any underground utilities are replaced or upgraded, it would be essential that the location of trenches be planned prior to construction, and those locations shown on plans, and that the trenches be located at the exact locations shown on the plans. Recommendations If Tree # 1 is to be preserved, both the root loss and the canopy loss must be limited as previously described. c ~. oQ) c: .- ~ o ta "\J "..:;::! ~o ~=ca ~li>- 0-:::> ~~ .0001:ti~ .....c-..::c i5.. c: ::;: -d: ~ o...g>~ a:: a:: c:::C. en 2. 1. Concerning potential canopy loss, I recommend that story poles be installed for the south side of the residence in order to more accurately assess the impact. In my opinion this must be done first. The quantity of canopy loss must not exceed 25% of the total canopy. If this cannot be achieved after evaluation, the location of the footing, which would result in root Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist April 27tn, 2006 ,-1.e ~ CO,) c: ..8 11j OCtSo -"ttS .9 - Q) =- u-ro-'" -a. 8:.~ -i! 0- -4: - C::::E <c 0.. 0)'" :::E 0...- 1c3 a:: a:. cd:: en 9- EV ALUA TrON OF TREES AT THE COWLES RESIDENCE, 21180 GRENOLA DRIVE, CUPERTINO 5 loss, would be a mute point. 2. With regard to potential root loss, I recommend 2 options: . Relocate the footprint a m~nimum of 15 feet from the trunk of Tree # 1, or . Excavate the intended location of the footing using an air spade or a water jet spade. The exposed roots must be inspected by the city arborist. The size and quantities of roots exposed by this excavation would determine whether or not it would be feasible to construct a standard spread footing, or a pier and on-grade beam footing. However, this would be a mute point, iftne quarltity of canopy loss would exceed 25~~) of the total Companies that provide air-spade service include Urban Tree Service (650-321-0202) and Arborwell (888-969-8733). Depending on the outcome of Recommendations # 1 and 2, Tree # 1 may be preserved. In this event, the following mitigation procedures typically required at most construction sites would be required. 3. I recommend that protective fencing be provided during the construction period to protect those trees that are planned to be preserved. This fencing must protect a sufficient portion of the root zone to be effective. In most cases, it would be essentiaHo locate the fencing a minimum radius distance of 10 times the trunk diameter in all directions from the trunk. For example, a tree with a trunk diameter of 15 inches dbh (Diameter at Breast Height = 54 inches above grade) would require that protective fencing be erected 13 feet minimum from the trunk. Ifhardscape (i.e:, curbing, paving, etc;) exists inside this 13 foot radius, the protective fencing is usually recommended to be erected at the edge of the hardscape feature and be located at least 13 feet from the trunk minimum on all other sides. Occasionally it may be essential to have a certified arborist make decisions about the location(s) of protective fencing at the project site. I recommend that protective fencing must: . Consist of chain link fencing and having a ininimum height of 6 feet. . Be mounted on steel posts driven approximately 2 feet into the soil. . Fencing posts must be located a maximum of 10 feet on center. . Protective fencing must be installed prior to the arrival of materials, vehicles, or equi pment. . Protective fencing must not be moved, even temporarily, and must remain in place until all construction is completed. Note: In my experience, less substantial fencing is not respected by contractors. 4. Because it would not be practical to protect the root zone near the new residence with protective fencing, a root buffer would be essential. A root buffer allows work to be done over the root system without significant root loss. However, this root buffer is intended to bare the weight only for workers with hand equipment, and is not intended for tractors or lift equipment. Prepared by: Michael 1. Bench, Consulting Arborist April 2i\ 2006 I -lfO, ~ go.> c: ..+=! as .9 ~o 1d.s:! _ 0.>_ c.>-<<S-~ ._ 0-:> ~ g C5...9- (:) 1:;; a 0..""'" - c:::E ~::2E 8:-~~ a::: cr: -d: en Q.. EVALUATION OF TREES AT THE COWLES RESIDENCE, 2] ]80 GRENOLA DRlVE, CUPERTINO 6 I recominend a root buffer as follows: . A 6 inch layer of course wood chips . Topped with full sheets of 1-12 inch plywood tied together. . The w90d chips must be course (approximately % inch in diameter or larger) to be. effective (shredded redwood is not acceptable for this purpose due to its. compressibility). . The wood chips must ~e spread by hand over the existing soil grade to a minimum depth of 6 inches over the specific area to be protected. G plywood must be secured to prevent slippage @ This root buffer must be installed in conjunction with protective fencing and must remain in place until all construction is completed. 5. There must be no grading, trenching, or surface scraping inside the driplines of protected trees, unless specifically described in another section ofthis report. 6. Trenches for any utilities (gas, electricity, water, phone, TV cable, etc.) must be located outside the driplines of protected trees, unless approved by a certified arborist. 7. I recommend that Trees # 1 must be irrigated throughout the entire construction period during the dry months (any month receiving less than 1 inch of rainfall). Irrigate a minimum of 10 gallons of water for each inch of trunk diameter every two weeks. A soaker hose or a drip line is preferred for this purpose. 8. I recommend that the entire area inside the dripline of Trees # 1 must be mulched to the extent feasible. Mulching consists of a protective material (wood chips, gravel) being spread over the root zone inside the dripline. This material must be 4 inches in depth after spreading, which must be done by hand. I prefer course wood chips because it is organic, and degrades naturally over time. Wood chips must be l/4 to % inch in diameter primarily. One supplier is Reuser, hic., 370 Santana Dr., Cloverdale, CA 95425, (707)894-4224. 9. If any old irrigation lines, drain lines, sewer lines, or any other underground features exist inside the driplines of protected trees, but would not be used, I recommend that they be cut off approximately at soil grade and left in the ground. 10. Materials must not be stored, stockpiled, dumped, or buried inside the driplines of protected . trees. 11. Excavated soil must not be piled or dumped, even temporarily, inside the driplines of protected trees. 12. Any pruning must be done by an arborist certified by the ISA (International Society of Arboriculture) and according to ISA, Western Chapter Standards, 1998. 13. Any pathways or other hardscape inside the driplines of protected trees must be constructed completely on top of the existing soil grade without excavation. Fill soil may be added to the edge of finished hardscape for a maximum distance of approximately 2 feet from the Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist April 27th, 2006 I~ ~ EV ALUA TION OF TREES AT THE COWLES RESIDENCE, 21180 GRENOLA DRIVE, CUPERTINO 7 edges to integrate the new hardscape to the natural grade. 14. The sprinkler irrigation must not be done within 20 feet ofthe trunk of Tree # 1. 15, Landscape irrigation trenches must be a minimum distance of 10 times the trunk diameter from the trunks of protected trees. 16. Landscape materials (cobbles, decorative bark, stones, fencing, etc.) must not be installed directly iJl with tl1e bark of trees beC31JSe of the risk of serious disease infection 17. The plants that are planted inside the driplines of oak trees must be of species that are compatible with the environmental and cultural requirements of oaks trees. A publication about plants compatible with Califori:ria native oaks can be obtained from the California Oak Foundation, 1212 Broadway, Suite 810, Oakland, 94612. 'MLB/sh Enclosures: Assumptions and Limiting Conditions Photo Map Tree Chart. Respect p'~rt Michael L. Bench, Associate ~.~~ R Application R ... ~O!)b - o~ RM Application t2fl1- a oob -I.~ Approval Date. B "':2 3-ofn Signature (/J4'f/tJ/I )y- ICase Manageij Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist April2ih: 2006 I-51 1f-5d 1. I I \ \ I \ 1 \ \ \ I I .\- . IVI\ I IV V L... , """,.. u_ .....-..- - -." C ~;UCHIUll VI \I.....""".,} U\, \11.... ,,","'" .......... ,'-I' -.- "' Ft I .t'plication / ... ;l,oofo -OR RM Application RJf.j - c7./OOb -I.~ Approval Date ~: Signature ({Ice - ,_ (Case Manager) CONSULTING ARBORISTS 'BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES (400) 353-1052 . 23535 Summa Road L., Gal.., el\ 95030 Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist Date: April 271h, 2006 I Job # 04-06-08~ This logo is attached to a plan done by another professional. The presence of this logo is not for the purpose of claiming credit for the plan but merely to add horticultural or arboricultural information Lo a Elan prepareCl by others. . 21180 Grenola Drive, vupertino Requested by: Aki Horna "1 oiD l 0 - tit.;' -I r-i' 1/1' ""lil~i ,. Tree numbers correspond Lo evaluation charts. All dimensions and tree locations are approximate. ,,'.\.~"'--l- 1!4 " . 1, ~. \~ ~ .~. Q .... ~ ..Ct. ~ .. W' ..q' 'o~'CIL -, I \OO~,. ~~1~. ... ';! "l . i. .' _" I ---"1 _----~. --T---:. , .' I .. . /- \ I 1 I. o. I . ~~ ~_~!l!Jl--~_'-:"-"-:' ~ ~ I i .~--' .~ . ~ r i . I , I I I ~~~~~i ~ .~\ it\ L -It--i .' ~"- ,~~~., :.1 .... I ! tct..O' ..... Vi f- IH i ... ;. - .~ . ._';..._ ~."'I 1 l \ . I \ I \ n!. IN ~_J. \ l' I l[i\~ .. . . \ \ i" -----------~' ~.j 'ii '.~ \ "." -"'., . t -~"~-i.r, \ ':' ~ ...---------..---- , : \~\~ \ \ \ , I -I I , I , , I ..., , IN , CD " ,...... , I I CD I I I 'l:l: \ I I I , , , , , , I' , I , I I , , , , I , , ; I , I \ \, " I I , I \ I I I I , I , 1 , I L C- O 0 rr rr ~ Z 0 0) .l>. 3 I CD 0 CJ) 0 \ 0 ~ co co CD rJ> -0 ..., 0 -0 CD ::1- ':< N , , :.....-~...-~~-.-~.,... CD ~~.--'l~-' 0 , \ G) , , ..., , CD I :J ___1.___ , Q.. , , 0) ---T--- I 0 I , ..., ---t--- <' _CD , I , 0 ___L___ I C , -0 I I CD ---T--- ::1- I , 5' , ---+--- 0 I I ., s>- C/) '0 10 '0 ~!g ~ 19 g!~ g!~ i Qr 1:::0 Ie I : en:~ ~ 1C5 ! ! ~ 1:E (Q '0 I ,:;;1:0 ~ I , ,"0 '0 ~ ,0) I I ~ ! c. iii'! A I ,: ~.!! I t I ::3 I I l : : C/) r : I I I I I " I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I i I I i I I I I I l r <C-rL";r~O~i~4"~:<~J:O~ Cr<~!~i~l...i<."1~l~:-\-"ti. ....~~.._.~..~~'"..+l I I I I I I I 1...--1- t---1.. ! ! ! : ! : : iCO :10 ---~--- ---~--- --~--- ---~--- --~--- ---~--- ---~--- ---~--- ---~--- 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 ----r--- ---T--- --li--- ---T--- ---~--- ---,--- ---~--- ---,--- ---r--- I , 1 I I I I · · I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ---4---- ---t--- ---~--- ---~--- ---~--- ---~--- ---~--- ---~--- ---~--- I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ___~___ ___~___ __~___ ___J___ __-L___ ___J___ ___L___ ___~___ ___L___ I I I I I I I I I I .- 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 ___~--- ---T--- --~--- ---T--- ~--~--- ---~--- ---~--- ---,--- ---~--- ! ! : ! : ! ! !~ !~ ___~--- ___+___ __~___ ___+___ __~___ ___4___ ___~--- ___4___ ---~--- : : : l ~ : : :tJJ :01 I I I I ! I I 10 101 co > ;::0::1 ~ f"I"'\ ~ (') o :> -t I"'T"I t:II :=: Q.. ~> ~V'> ....., V'> ~O ~(') "'s: -t f"I"'\ V'> -0 00 :J ... 2~ C'l:::l ~ U'O ~'" ~I. "";;; 8~ '" z 0) 3 CD DIAMETER@ 4-1/2 FEET -~O-Lti:i3\(~T-E1A-------------------- ~ --------------------------------------- ~ III DBH ~ --------------------------------------- ., DBH 3 --------------------------------------- ~ DIAMETER @ Z FEET a t/l HEIGHT ESTIMATED --------------------------------------- SPREAD ESTIMATED ! ->. HEALTH (1-5) ---~--- -------------------------------------- () !N STRUCTURE (1-5) g ___~--- _______________________________________ CL ! CONDITION RATING (2-10) g: ---~--- -------------------------------------- ~ ! HAZf.\RD RATING (4-12) CROWN CLEANING -------------------------------------- CROWN THINNING --------------------------------------- CROWN RESTORATION ------------------------.------------- CROWN RAISING -------------------------------------- REMOVE END-WEIGHT --------------------------------------- CABLES NEEDED # ; ; I ,...... I I ___~--- _--of--- , I : :~ --+--- ---~--- I , , I , ,. ___"'___ ---..1--- I , , , , I T I , I I , ___1..___ ___.l___ I I I , ., I I , ---,..--- ---"'--- I , , , I I --+--- .,.---i--- I I I I , I ---1---- ---001--- I I , I I , I I ---,...--- ---,--- I , I , I , ___L-___ ---.1--- I , I I I I ; ; I , I I --....--- ---...--- , I I I , I --4---- ---~--- , I , , I , --~--- --_.&--- I I I , I , , T I , I ,. __..L___ ___J.___ I I , I I I I , --~--- -_.....--- I I I , I , --+--- ---t--- I , , , , I --.....--- ---...--- I , I , , I --+--- ---~--- I I , , , , __...&....__ __...1___ , I , I ! I 1 I I ---ot--- I I , ---~--- , , , ---~--- I I , , , I --~--- I I I I ---,...--- I I , --.....--- , , ! , , I , I , ---~--- ---+--- I I I I I I ---4---- ---f--- I I I , , I ---~--- ---~--- I , I I I I I I I ---+--- , , I ---t--- , , I ---~--- , , I I I I ___L___ I , , , ---t"--- I I ---~--- , I I ---1---- , I , ---~--- , I , --_&..--- I , , "'0 ... s:: ~ :; co n III ~ :; co Z (D (D CL t/l I , I I I I __..&...___ ___.l___ , I I I , I I , --..,..--- ---"'--- I , I I , I ---1---- ---i--- I , , I , I --~--- ---~--- I I I , , I --+--- ---~--- , , , I , , ___L.___ ___.l___ , I , I ! I I , I I I I I I , I ---~--- ---~--- , I , , I , __.....___ ___.a___ , , I I I I I I ---1"'--- ---.,--- I , , I I I __..l..___ ___.l_.__ I , , I I I I I , r , I ---10---- ---"'--.. , I I , , I I I , I , , I " ---.....--- --_.&._-- , I I I I , I I ___.....___ ---or--- I I , , I I - --i---- ---t--- I , I I I I - ---~--- ---~--- I I I , I I I , - ----....--- ---T--- , I 1_ ___Jl___ ___1___ , I I I I I I I I ___.a.___ I , , I --or--- I I I __1 , I I I --~ , , I , --T I , , __.l , ..~ ~ I ~ -------------------------------------- PRUNING PRIORITY (1-5) I I , , I ---~--- , , I ---1---- I I I , ---r--- I , I ___L___ , I , I I I ___Ioa___ , , I ! , I , , , I , , , I --+--- ---~--- I I I , , , ---1---- ---..1--- I , , I , I I I ---r--- ---,--- I I I I I I ___L___ ---~--- , I I I , I , I , I ---~--- ---~---- , I , , I , INSECTS (1-5) ~ ______________________________________ t/l - TREE CROWN DISEASE (1-5) a ______________________________________ Ui DEAD WOOD (1-5) ~ _______________________________________ t/l TRUNK DECAY(1-5) (D _______________________________________ "'0 ... o ~ ;;- 3 t/l , I , I I , , I I I --+--- ---~--- I I , , , , __..&,..___ ___ol___ I , , I I , I I --..,---- ---,--- , I , I , , __-'-_-'_ ___.1___ , , I , , I I , I I I I --.........- ..--.&-_.... I , , I , I , , I I , I , , I , , , ---4-~-- ---~--- , I I I I I ..-......--- ---~--- , I , , I I I , ___~--- ---T--- , I I , , I ___..L___ ---~--- I I I .1 I , I I , , , I -_..~--- --_.&--- , I , , , , I I l ~ ~' -- ~ -- " -- , I I --- -- c coO> oi:ts1a .1:a Co> Q . I .2 -- ro ~:-= ........::> :::sl ~ -a c.. 0 1U1e- a.. <l: OJ C:::::E ~ ~ ~ ~I ~??~_~~~~~~?_~~~_~~J!:~L_____ ROOT COLLAR DISEASE (1-5) I NEEDS WATER(1-5) ::0 ---~--- --------------------------------------- ~ I ~ ! NEEDS FERTILIZER 0 ---r--'" _______________________________________ :3 ! RECOMMEND REMOVAL 3 ---1---- --------------------------------------- ~ ! REMOVAL PRIORITY (1-3) CL HERITAGE TREE? PROTECTED TREE? -, , I _..-~--- I I , , ---.,--- I I I ___.1___ I I I I I , , ___L.___ , I , I ---~--- , , I --+--- , I , , I I ---.1..-- I I I I --...,--- . I I ___.1___ I , , , ,u , I --......--- , I I , -..,..--- I I , --.....--- I I I , , I I __..L..._- I I I I ---r---- I , I ---'---- I , , , , , , ___J.___ , , , I ---T--- I , , ___.1___ , , I I I I I , , I I I I ->. ___.L___ -_..&...--- --_.&._-- I , , II I , , , I , OJ. I , I ---,.--- ---"'T'""-- ---T--- CD I I , I I , rJ> I , I U ~ ---t--- ---.....--- ---t--- , III tn , , , <a I , I CD II , , I ...... :;E 0 0 ..... ..., ...... ~ en - III - r:: t/l \-5~ EV ALUA TION OF 1REES AT THE COWLES RESIDENCE, 21180 GRENOLA DRT'lE, C1.JPERTrNO Photo of Partially Cut, Partially Broken Limb facing Northwest ~7.'",:~"" "', . ..,-I~ 1~~~4:::;:~;~/'~: ..~ '~"-~" . ~~~',~-::~' ::,- .' --o! Photo of Same Tree from Northeast . ~c;""~f~?-;f:';,,_. , . :.".~ R Application R - eJ/!>Ob -0'6 RM Application .R:M ~ d D () 0 ~ / ~ Approval Date -1;:1;;/" Signature ()iu. "t (Case Manage~ Prp.n~rp.r1 nv' Mi,.h"p.1 T RpT\,..h r",.,c""lt;,.,O' Arh,,";ot ^ ",~;1 ,)7th ')()()t:, 1-5~ - BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES Hor1i cutural Consultants 23535 Summit Road Los Gates, CA 95033 4081355-1052 ASSUMPTIONS AND L1MITING'CONDITIONS 1. Any legal description provided to the appraiser/consultant is assumed to be correct. No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character nor is any opinion rendered as to the quality of any title. 2. The appra iser/consultant can neither guarantee nor be responsible for accuracy of information provided by others. 3. The appraiserlconsultant shall not be required to give testimony 01 to attelld cow i))I rea;OII 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. , 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 tr~e specialists who use their education, knowledge, training, and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist, or to seek additional advice. Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or fora 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. tOaM2e ~ ~ Barrie D. Coate ISA Certified Arborist Horticultural Consultant R Ap' /,.',r+",'. !? ~dl."IlI.!iji I - ~f!)O to - O~ . RM Application ;eu ~ d.DDb ~ f 3 Approval Date ~;23-0b Signature t] Jw . l~ (Case Manageij \,S5 ~ (E) 105""'" SFD EX. BUILDI~ N90.00'OO"E '~ WOOD FENCE zo.4.~'flCe \ I I I I -, I / :u.F," lS'~O. WS;;; So.tb....::...' .. .. q lZ r- IKlDal I. AI............-...................... M........ abd ......... .. UIded IMIDn '.... .................................... .. ___........ bJ e:IIecttn pIud:Iaa..... ~ .... ..... - --....................... So DdNwa:r"'" OIl lite bp u-t Bow to ~ IIIIIfa.ces. .. ~....Io "'" ....... &1nIJ' tr-1ItNcbIra..... ." IIlope tar a....... aI' _ ___..._Tno-......_...-PVC_...._- ..................... at..... 4. A OOJIF of aD coapacIIoo tabI aDd baJ ....... report llhaJJ be submitted to the. CIty prior to ~ U7 ~ Prior C. tM coatractor req~. l__liD iDspectI-. the SolIs ~.... IldriR the rn.o.... OIDclalla ~ that: 1) the. DaDdiq F'ootIal ..::a.YIL1:ioM ud baIIdIaC pM .._ pnpand'" .c:cordaac:& wttII. the ~U n=port ncoIIl.W'V" -. I) The Ioudatioa krrmb.C ......1JnWBa& eompll' wlUl !:be ~U report and IlppfUYIId ......... Uld I) tile dndM.P.,--.. AD u::eorda.oce....1th the..00 report. ---------------- GRAVEL ...-- ------------------ ~ IISE.C. N9C"oo'OO"E GRAVEL a. RocILO'nII'~ ~ enola Dr. 10.00' , N9l\.OO'OO"E \ ~Ct:I"f"\1 ^ nCI\lt: to. Dut!ram........ opaa.tioas m.1IIt be stt. to.-w. d-. ~ide eqllipmcat to cluDPU..cnr.e ----------- ----~ n ..orner 20lrs I .,.. I I I I" g 8 z --"""- ---.....:.- D4.6'Ridi -a SIDEWALK EX. BUILDING I>U' ...... 21180 Cirenolo.. Ur. Lot :>1. 1 rac~ t:7,.,. ua.roen Uiilt:' v .u~"'" APN !:! 326-~57 Lob 9,375 sf ~ Two-Story SFD: 4.219 sf 1st Floor: 2,910 sf Living: 2,271 sf Two-Car Ga.r-age; 638 sf 2nd Eloon L309 sf Entry Porch: 51 sf Propose.d Ralcoa.ies: 160 sf Lot Coverage: 2fJ73 sf n 7~ FAR. (46% max.) 4,l!I9 sI 45'- ~ Existing Fin.ish. Grade:: Proposed Sf'D F.F.: 100.0' Main: 1015' Upper: ID.5' f. Ni.a.J:.jmu;~ R..idg~ Height: (26'-6" j'n)!l\ E..GJ 126.5' ~ Excavate a.nd Re:compa.ct Existine Septic Tank. ~ O~e 42" Syca.more To Z,e Removed S=pe of Work: 1. Demo existing 1,235 sf SFD 2. Excavate and recompact exist- Septic Tank 3. Build New SID plus Garage Occ. Closs: R.S r.uIId. Const.: Type V. F"..... Ra1lDe: SprinkI T41U F OF CONTENTS A-I SITE PLAN A-2.MAIN FLOOR PLAN A-:5 _ FLOOR PLANlPrincy PI....tin4 A-4 FRONT/REAR ELEV A'I10NS A-5 SIDE ELEVATIONS MI ROOf" PLAN A-7 SEC11~ A.s LANDSCAPING A-9 ELECTRICAL A-IO T44 CER'I1f1CATES SoI.O SPEm1CA'I1ONS SoU SHEA 'J'HINGlNAlLlNG s.lJl TYPICAL llET AJLS SoUl SHEAR DETAJLS 5-2.0 FOUNDATION PLAN So2.1l!1'1D FLOOR FRAMING 5-2J! UPPER ROOF FRAMING SITE PLAN Scale 1/8" = 1'- 0" 45% FAR N '" ..... ~ R ~ it) R G) us lri M <t = ;g r8 Li .. .. O-;:g ~ 0: g ~ Li 45% 1st FIr_ III (ol . i'@ o ~ ~U: . , .... " . ....;. ... III -- := 0; (.).1 '" < , ~:~ I , . 100: >. .., ~ ~ <G CS .... ~ ~ ~ I::: ,~ .0 ... ... 10 ~...~ c; I~ I: ., .2 '0 ~t-" ~.g.d .R $.t tCN 1.d .!l~ Cii tal go.., ~~ \J 6 ~ ct s:2; ..~Qc. ....., ~< _ 0 ;.. '~ ~ J~ l!=O;~ ... ...\J ...... ~ 1120"J["8,:1 sUUJ.Jad 111 s'U'Vld S'JOlS1MIIU 91"" S31NlO:) Ull:) 9oioe/!: rf':J '1"1D.N:) ~ xog "0 "d '.). ftj :^-'1 .UM ".1(1 f ~ i . :: 61>LL~1r 'L90111>"98 "ON"d"V ^-~,,~ "'''l~S IrJCW6 V:l 'O"l:J.Ialdn:l .'CI "IO""~ 0801> lU~1I(oW P~P..nt3W ." ~UJOH :.IOJ '""""P!""U Lle>:IS-OMJ.. M"N V NV~& II ~ I ~ 5:c ~ .b.,91 .11 11 f' l o z ~ <- rJ) ~ 3' O~~? ~~I~~ o 0"3 IX: 0 ell ~ ~ ~ ~ ! ~ i. I In.., i1 .8.91 y01."" ....0. .o1..n c:cu c:,81:'a o_~o 111~1 a: ~ .2-~! 1-51 1:JHr6gg1~8'.ln!.J Gl::t9'9irn'lft <:662"6 y:) "(awn::> 106~Z xog: .0 .d S.HUJoJad 1B SQUid 611LL'!I!lll'80l> 'L!lo-811"911~ 'OIo.l'd'V ^~u;) ""'DS "1096 v:> 'oUJl''''Idn:> .'0 'l!Joua,O 0811ll lwe1lfOW p\?p.l'law 71 \?WOH '. UOI ,;:,uaPJS3U bOlS-O".L """10.1 V l1J .;\lO!S;!A3U satM~ U!t~>0107:/2 ~~>)l ~ :l1q """"'(1 WV'dUOO'ld U3ddn [" -tP '~""'-""" t~ ~ io Q Z ~ <- C/) ~~ ~~I~i o NO~ ~ 0 Ul ~ s: ; = ~ ;;: l i. ; 2 '- .. ~ 68~ ~~me = ~ > ~J !~ j~! ,-5~ I1!tO.X'Ud S"HUJ.J<td '1S s:u~ld "UOISfA3t1 mill s31Mo3 JI!J;:) 9oiogts: 1/';) "laUl.ntO \ xOlI'O'd ~~;, ~lt1I 'Aq'lM....I{J 61:Ll:!I!I~8017 "!l0-81:"91:2 'olol'd'" AlU;) "'''OS 171096 V;) 'OUJl'''ldnO ..0 ""0'11"-'0 08111: !vetlfow pl!p.IlJ3W 711 l!UlOH :.101 ""u"PJS"1:f ~OlS"""'.L ...."N " S>lOI.LV ^3U I <~. I 8"3:8 . TIJ .LN08~ o ,; .0-.01 <r ~ !l i . ~ i ....... ~ i :! 1I i1~ ; " Jc~ t.' jr c. ;,a ~ l' ~ 4 ~I}j ;)J~~t :Il~d!~ ~Jl~)1 . ,6) ,d:~ ~UliJ~ 1~]i.;fi ihi~fil .0-.01 Co ~ l:::,g .; 8.~o jilll c:~~cW!' , ---Sq , ~ (3 R Application R. -:J()()~ -()91 RM Application RM - ,;zoo/) -I ~ Approval Dm~~ SlQnature . PIii IIn>lIIl (I~~?? I ;~~L:.::; '7,r, DO DD WEST (RIGHT) ELEVATION Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0" Flnilah. ~ule= Eztoricr. ~t Stucco - "PaIamino' (Ll. Yellow/Tan) _ ~ S-TDoJiteo ~ Graado_ Trim 11. FudaI Paiated Wood Trim Sar,-ouDda . "K...... (WlUte) WIDdows 11. _ ~ V!alrI a.d m_ w...s..... . "W1Ute' GaratIe 11. F......t Door. Paiatod Wood. 'Antiquo' DocIt ~ Paiated Artlcu\..tod W.........t Iroo. . "White' IlaIcoDTo Slat.. Tile ...,::]5 1& .r:::- 1& to ~ m [J] EAST (LEFT) ELEVATION Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0" ~ ~ ~ a ~ = ~ I . <( '# . <.> ... .. - 10 o ." .. .. III ClI . ~'a ~ OC U~ ~' . ~~> =j -Co .. U >> ..0 " ~ Cll ,:s '" < 00 ~:~ -. lOa: .... d 0> I'd IN ~ !:: .;:11; .0 0:1:'" ~ ~~ "'~ "" ~"O~,..: -;;; I'd o~ ~"O~f:l III .a '"<b 1 ~ i~ =~ lJ 0 ~c; ~-~ o QC< "::.I < ~~ ~>> ~ I'd d'd ~ ~ ~~ Ol 6 i ~ z:;.... .. 0 <..Ol(/) ~ e {l.}e f-o < fI)> ~ It.l ~ ([!:O"Jn!.d S:JIUloIllId 111 s\reld SUO!S~AC~U n~. s31MO;:) nH~ 90/0Zf~ f'3"r~'U"':> ~ xog '() "d II 'i'f' :Aq UM ".1(1 6ZL.l:99Z'OO" 'l.So-OZ"'9Z~ 'olJ'd'V Al":l '''''I~S "1096 V::> 'oV!l~3tdn::> .~a 'llJou""D 08m: !u-e;t(OW pl!p.Jt[3W 711 l!UJOH :~ol ""u"Pl""U ~O~g-oM.L ...."101 V NV'Id .::1008 ILlJ J ~ ~ ~ E~ rII ~ ~ z -( ~l$ ..l rlJ 14 'U e: Q. i~ ~ j" ~ ~j ~ ~: O <J ~ ..,'~ ~- b o ~C = .... ~ 5~ ~ (.D1e.'"JJ) ........... b ~ nu ~ . ~ b ~ gi~ ~~lll !~ ~cW! 1- (p' ~ lBe,u .. ~ I Workshop o a:. I Study Utilities ." ,.... era ~7.B b ~ s'"""""" ...... ..... ........... hl.WOC All "'..JlsO.O.N :: I..,~.~"",,, 1~,iI;.... ........I"r'.1l:; FI_~A.~ Foyer Living EKborior 3. _t 5t--=D WaJls lD b_ 5 ".........--.:1 ..t plAto bc, raUL. 4" aboYe tra. Typ. SECTION "A" Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0" 100.0'&0. SECTION "B" Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0" - R- Application, RM Application, Approval Date ~~-()/" S~nature {; , pail IIngeIl R -;)00(0 -~ ;(..u - ~()()iD -/3 , ~ 9...) 0.... A c:o.crde f1&J: TDr. T,po _ 4D" hi; _1JI4" pIIwood wttIt.cIps O,Q;N. &.th 2 II Sed :> ...c:.DIoC....... w5lrAII~~Jtpic:aJ Great Room l;> .. HaD LA....dry II UtD. II Garaae ~ 100.0' E.G. SECTION "C" Scale 1/4" = 1'- 0" ~ = R ~ A = m G H : ~ ~ .& u ... ~ , -.- ::l " os" 0: ~ .:: l,J 10 aI " ~~1 U~ ~ " )1' ~ = ..f = ~ -'" U -~ ~ ~ e.g g.; -. "= <: ~ ~ .... d c> I'd f:! ~ :ci 0"'10 ~ s~ lOCO ",0 ., ;;-<r-: .2 "'" tJtO .. I'd ,;q ll"O .s~ .l!l '" "cb 'i.d!~ M ~ go>: g;~~o t.'c; .:-2; .s:llQ~ If) IOfI .IS >, o Q~ ~ I'd Cl Cl ~ S ~~ ~ 0 id <:I: ;1Il ......oc M1"''' o..ox --........... -- ..-. .... fIJ Z e ~ fIJ mo-E Exhibit 0 To: Aki Honda, Senior Planner, City of Cupertino From: Jessica Rose and John Tracy, 10410 Ann Arbor Avenue Re: Appeal of R-2006-08. Appeal of the Residential Design and Minor Residential Permit to construct a new, two-story 4,219 sq. ft. residence with two second - story rear yard decks on 21180 Grenola Drive. Date: November 6, 206 Cc: Staff Report for Planning Commission Meeting 11/14/06 At the close of the October 10, 2006 Cupertino Planning Commission meeting, the Commission withdrew the motion to uphold our Appeal in favor of a Continuance at the Applicant's request. The Commission made it clear that 10 concerns with the project shall be remedied by the next Commission meeting before plan approval could be considered. The Applicants selected the next meeting date and agreed to the conditions. Per the Draft Meeting Minutes, the items are: 1. Eliminate the west side balcony...or significantly reduce it to a "faux" balcony... 2. Lower the entry... 3. Remove second story bay windows... 4. Provide fully mature privacy planting on west side of property...if a balcony is still proposed. 5. Reinstate privacy planting on east side of property. 6. Move tree to specified position on east side property line for maximum privacy screening. 7. Work with City staff to improve privacy protection plan. 8. Tone down the color of the residence and roof. 9. Soften the frontage by the addition of; landscaping, rock work, architectural enhancements. 10. Talk to the neighbors. We request that the Commission uphold our Appeal. In review of the Applicant's written response to the specific comments decided by the Commission, we do not find that the objectives have been met in a satisfactory manner. We were very disappointed at the lack of response that the Applicants made to the clear and specific direction from the Commission on this project. . The following arguments support this conclusion (these 10 items correspond to the 10 items listed above ): 1. Not Satisfactory: The balcony has neither been "eliminated" or "significantly reduced". 2. Satisfactory: Although, it is debatable as to how "more symmetrical" the entry has become by lowering it 12 inches. 3. Satisfactory: the bay windows are shown to be removed. 4. Not Satisfactory: The new JPM landscaping plan is incomplete. Missing: second floor of house, cones of vision, dimensional location of planting, size of plants at installation. 5. Not Satisfactory: For the same reasons as item 4 above. 6. Not Satisfactory: For the same reasons as item 4 above. 7. Not Satisfactory: Tree not present on plan. Due to the incompleteness of the new landscaping plan we suspect the City has not been approached for comment on this plan. 8. Not Satisfactory: No change of residence / roof color changes were found. 9. Not Satisfactory: The provided elevations do not indicate any changes that may "soften" its appearance. Also, the new JPM landscaping plan does not include front yard details. 10. Not Satisfactory: The applicant did speak with us about landscaping only. We were asked what we wanted for landscaping. We were not give.n an update on house plans, balcony status, or offered a proposed landscaping plan. Our expectation was we would be provided new plans as the basis for review and discussion, therefore our discussion was preliminary at best. Regards. Jessica Rose and John Tracy 1-&3 ra.t>\;; 1 VJ. ,:. AkiHonda From: Elena [elena_herrera@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 07,200612:02 PM To: Aki Honda Cc: Subir Sengupta; Jessica Rose Subject: 21180 Grenola Dr. Elena Herrera Subir Sengupta 21150 Grenola Drive Cupertino, CA 95014 7 November 2006 Ak.i Honda Planning Department City of Cupertino Thank you for talking with us the other day. I want to note some things I find disturbing about the current status with the 21180 Grenola project, as evidenced by the Mojgani's replies to 10 specific items. Regarding the items left from our previous Planning Commission meeting. 1. The Balconies The balcony has not been reduced or modified from theplans presented at the meeting. Although it was reduced prior to the meeting, we do not see any changes. 2. Entry Feature We did not "waive" our interest in lowering the entry - - we concurred with one commissioner that lowering it too much would further make the round feature more prominent. 4. Privacy Planting One option that seems to have been lost was a consideration of planting more mature specimens rather than create the need to wait for several years for the privacy screen to kick-in. 6. The Deodar Cedar Moving the deodar was an excellent recommendation to mitigate the privacy issue along the eastern border - - what happened? 1118/2006 ) -lp t./ .l Gl6'" k V.l k 7. Landscape Plan When will the city be reviewing the new landscape plan as it will appear with the modifications to the house? 8. Tone Down the Color Scheme Due to the large size of the home (4200 sq. ft) I don't feel it's fair or right to compare colors of homes in the 1,100 sq. ft. range. I must re-iterate that the desire to annex into Cupertino was a defacto request to obtain the guidance and expertise of the city when growing our agreeably transitional neighborhood. 9. Front Landscaping or Brick/Rock on Fas:ade Neither my husband nor I approved any landscaping plan, I'm not sure which neighbor this comment refers to. We did agree that landscaping would help. Mr. Mojgani agreed that we together we would look at paint and roofing material samples. 1118/2006 l-lcS