CITY OF SUNNYVALE
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
MINUTES
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
2004-0723 – Advanced Micro Devices [Applicant] Delaware Chip Llc [Owner]: Application for a Parcel Map on a 45.6-acre site to split one lot into two lots. The property is located at 1090 East Duane Avenue in an M-S (Industrial & Service) Zoning District. (APN: 205-22-021) KD
In attendance: Larry Loo, Representing Advanced Micro Device; Barry Schmitt, Representing Advanced Micro Device; Gerri Caruso, Administrative Hearing Officer; Kelly Diekmann, Project Planner; and, Gloria Barron Recording Secretary.
Ms. Gerri Caruso, Administrative Hearing Officer, on behalf of the Director of Community Development, explained the format that would be observed during the public hearing.
Ms. Caruso announced the subject application.
Kelly Diekmann, Project Planner, presented the staff report. He summarized the subject application and noted that Condition of Approval #8 should be deleted because it was an incomplete sentence. Staff was able to make the required Findings and recommended approval of the parcel map.
Ms. Caruso referred to Condition of Approval #2 and asked staff to explain the condition. Staff referred to the site plan and stated that in order to ensure the preservation of some trees along the north side of the property line; the property line should be adjusted so that the trees remain on Advanced Micro Device’s property for better protection. He then added that staff could work with the applicant to determine where the property line could be located. Ms. Caruso asked staff that if parcel #2 was sold and a potential development was proposed what the developer would need to do in order to modify the tree line if there was an easement located there. Staff stated that structures would not be allowed to be located there because they might hurt the trees but would consider allowing a walking path or perhaps a small accessory structure without a foundation.
Ms. Caruso opened the public hearing.
Larry Loo, Representing Advanced Micro Device, stated that he received and reviewed a copy of the staff report. He then referred to Condition of Approval #2 and requested that the lot line be 3 feet away from the trees and have AMD (Advanced Micro Device) maintain the trees. Mr. Loo referred to some pictures of the trees and explained that currently they have not lost any trees and adjusting the lot line 3 feet away from the trunk of trees would have minimum impact on the trees. Ms. Caruso asked Mr. Loo if any consideration had been made to have a protective easement for the drip line. Mr. Loo responded that it was difficult to answer that without knowing exactly what was being proposed but he asked that it be kept to a minimum.
Barry Schmitt, Representing Advanced Micro Device, asked where the easement would be shown. Ms. Caruso responded that it would be shown on the map when it is recorded and there would be some language in the easement that would lay out what process is needed to protect the trees. Mr. Schmitt asked Ms. Caruso if the easement would be dedicated through the City. Ms. Caruso responded that it would not be dedicated through the City and stated that it would be a protected easement that would go on parcel #2. Staff gave the example of a Public Utility Easement and stated that a PUE usually protects what is below the area but in this case it would protect what is above the area and the roots below. Staff noted that the easement on parcel #2 would probably prohibit building structures around it. Mr. Schmitt asked if it was a PUE if it would be dedicated through the City. Staff responded yes but noted that it would not become the City’s responsibility to maintain it.
Mr. Loo suggested putting the property line 1 foot off the curb. Staff believed that because the trees are serving parcel #1 they should remain on parcel #1 because the trunks of the trees are providing shade to the parking lot on parcel #1 as recommended by the tree shading ordinance. Ms. Caruso asked Mr. Loo if he would be comfortable having the property line 3 feet from the trunk of the trees with a protective easement, not recorded on the map, but recorded as a separate instrument. Mr. Loo responded that he was concerned with how wide the easement would be. Staff stated that it would probably be between 20 to 30 feet on average. Staff noted that an easement would be required because in an Industrial Zoning District there are no side yard setbacks requirements and therefore they need to insure protection for the tree roots when the parcel is developed. Ms. Caruso referred to condition #2 and stated that she was inclined to require that the trees be on parcel #1 with the lot line 3 feet away from the trunks of the trees and requiring an easement recorded as a separate document with the easement to be determined by the Director of Community Development after an arborist report. Mr. Loo agreed.
Mr. Schmitt stated that he spoke to staff early and was concerned about the trees adjacent to the other property line and asked staff if that property line would also impact those trees. Staff responded that the trees were not considered significant to have the property line adjusted. Mr. Caruso stated that it would be the future owner’s responsibility to show how the trees are going to be protected or taken out.
No one else was present to speak on the item.
Ms. Caruso closed the public hearing.
Mr. Caruso approved the Parcel Map with the Findings provided by staff and with the Conditions of Approval recommended by staff with the following modifications: 1) Condition of Approval #8 shall be deleted, 2) the proposed lot line for parcel #1 shall be adjusted so that it includes the trunk of the trees on the north side with an additional 3 feet beyond the trunks and that an easement be recorded through separate instrument for protection of the trees and the easement shall be determined by the Director of Community Development after receipt of an arborist report regarding the condition and viability of the trees for construction. Staff clarified that the easement should include only the first row of trees surrounding the perimeter of the parking lot.
Ms. Caruso stated that the decision is final unless appealed during the 15-day appeal period.
The meeting was adjourned at 2:21 p.m.
Minutes approved by:
Gerri Caruso,
Principal Planner