PC 05-08-07
CITY OFCUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
6:45 P.M. May 8, 2007 TUESDAY
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
The Planning Commission meeting of May 8, 2007, was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the
Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Vice Chairperson
Cary Chien.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present:
Vice Chairperson:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Cary Chien
David Kaneda
Marty Miller
Gilbert Wong
Commissioners Absent:
Chairperson:
Lisa Giefer
Staff present:
Community Development Director: Steve Piasecki
City Planner: Ciddy Wordell
Assistant Planner: Piu Ghosh
Assistant City Attorney: Eileen Murray
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the April 24, 2007 Planning Commission meeting:
Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Miller, to approve the
April 24, 2007 minutes as presented. (Vote: 4-0-0; Chair Giefer absent)
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, stated there is a request
for postponement for Item 2. She also noted two documents received related to ethics.
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOV ALS FROM CALENDAR:
2. DIR-2006-07
William Stephens
(T-Mobile)
20833 Stevens
Creek Boulevard
Director's Minor Modification to install a wireless telecommunication
facility at an existing office center (Stevens Creek Office Center)
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Miller, to postpone Application
DIR-2006-07 for one month. (Vote: 4-0-0, Chair Giefer Absent)
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
Cupertino Planning Commission
2
May 8, 2007
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. TM-2007-04
Rick Bleszynski
10185,10215,10227
Empire Avenue
Tentative Map to subdivide two parcels into three parcels, ranging
6,650 to 7,047 square feet. Planning Commission decision final
unless appealed. Postponedfrom the April 24, 2007 Planning
Commission meeting.
Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
. Reviewed the application for a tentative map to two parcels into three parcels, ranging from 6,
650 to 7,0947 square feet, in a planned residential zone as outlined in the staff report.
. The proposal is to build three single family homes using the Rl standards, and is consistent
with the General Plan density and the existing zoning.
. He noted that none of the trees on the property were identified by the heritage and specimen
tree ordinance as being a protected species and size. He illustrated the proposed trees to be
removed.
. Staff recommends approval of the subdivision with the conditions of approval listed in the
model resolution; including the arborist's recommendations with regard to preserving the
trees, certain techniques to preserve the trees during construction, the provision of a tree
protection bond, and the requirement of a recorded tree protection covenant for four trees.
. Relative to the arborist's appraised value of $5680.00 for the 17 trees, staff recommends that
either 4 Coastal Redwoods or Deodar Cedars be planted as mitigation for that tree removal.
The arborist has given values for box specimens and $5,680 equates to one 24-inch box, one
36-inch box, and two 48-inch box trees.
. Clarified that a number of fruit trees and other trees shown on the tentative map are being
retained by the applicant. They are not specifically protected by covenant and may be removed
with the consent of the Director of Community Development.
. Explained that the Deodar Cedars and/or Coastal Redwood as opposed to other trees were
recognized by the city of having some value. They grow to ample size and have the potential
. to replace the trees that are being removed, from a neighborhood canopy standpoint.
Com. Wong:
. Referred to Page 1-2, regarding the zoning conformance, and stated that the pattern of the
neighborhood was two unit homes or duplexes with single family homes. He asked why
keeping some duplexes in the neighborhood was not considered.
Colin Jung:
. Said the area was developed in the county in a hodge podge manner, with duplexes, and single
family houses, with a number of them on smaller lots. Back in the early 1980's the City went
through merger activity to merge a lot of the 2,500 square foot lots so it would result in at least
a 5,000 square foot lot. The zoning itself is somewhat flexible; it states either Rl or R2 and
does not suggest a preference for either one. It was the applicant's inclination to go with a
single family development.
. Said it was not considered substandard.
Com. Wong:
. Said they are proposing a P(RES) versus an Rl; since the lot itself can configure over 6,500
square feet, the frontage is at least 70 square feet, why not take it out of the planned
development and make it just single family lots, Rl?
Cupertino Planning Commission
3
May 8, 2007
. Relative to pattern zoning, there is a good mixture of single family and duplexes; duplexes
usually attract more affordable housing which is a concern.
Colin Jung:
· Said for development review purposes it would be treated as an Rl zone property. If they
choose to develop according to the Rl standards, they would be doing a two story design
review permit. If they choose to do something else they will have to apply for a Use Permit
and come before the commission for approval for that. It works either way for them. Whether
you do an Rl zoning or a peRES) it would lengthen the entitlement time if they were to rezone
the property; the end result would achieve the same goal.
The applicant did not speak.
Vice Chair Chien opened the public hearing.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
· Expressed concern that the main house at 10185 Empire was a Victorian structure, and asked
that its time period be established before the demolition permits are granted.
. She referred to the proposed 22 unit townhouse complex at Stelling Road and Highway 280,
and said there was an existing Victorian structure from the early l890s on the property. She
asked that the city be sensitive to the remaining period homes.
. She said that she was hopeful that the trees could be saved.
Art Manson, Empire Avenue:
. Said he was not opposed to building single family homes rather than duplexes as duplexes
create more parking problems.
· He expressed concern about his rights as a property owner when he decides to sell his
property, as he expected to be able to sell the property to a new owner who would likely
demolish the existing building and build a new one. He said he hoped that he would be
afforded the same rights as the current applicant.
Ciddy Wordell:
· Said that the project is a subdivision, and if the speaker wanted the same opportunity at this
time it would be related to subdivision; and if he wanted to develop a better single family
home or a newer home he has that opportunity now. If his property is eligible for subdivision
he would need 12,000 square feet to divide into two 6,000 square foot lots. A new home
would go through the same process as the homes go through when they are proposed.
Steve Piasecki:
· Said the applicant could come to the city and evaluate the options for redeveloping his own
property. He said without all the facts, they could not offer advice.
Com. Miller:
. Supports the project.
Com. Wong:
. Supports the project.
Com. Kaneda:
. Supports the project.
Cupertino Planning Commission
4
May 8, 2007
Vice Chair Chien:
· Said he had no additional comments and concurred with fellow commissioners.
Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Kaneda, to approve Application
TM-2007-04 per the Model Resolution.
Colin Jung:
· Asked if it included the staff condition about other trees that are not protected; stating that staff
did not want to be in the position of requiring a tree removal permit for every fruit tree left on
the property. Staff is suggesting that the tentative map is showing protected and they do not
want there to be a presumption that the trees that are not specimen trees require a tree removal
permit. There are ornamental trees and fruit trees on the property, and staff would like the
additional condition that states trees that are not protected by the covenant can be removed
with consent of the Director of Community Development, which is something that would be
done at staff level.
Com. Miller:
· Asked why the consent the Director of Community Development would be needed if they are
not protected.
Ciddy Wordell:
· The problem in the past has been since they are shown as being retained on the site on the
tentative map, and we have interpreted that they are also saved, it needs to be clear that a fruit
tree that does not have the kind of interest of protecting it that the other trees do, it is okay to
remove it even though they did not show it as being removed.
Steve Piasecki:
. Said as an alternative, it can state that all the trees may be removed at the applicant's
discretion.
Com. Miller:
. Recommended that it be changed to the Director of Community Development's suggestion.
Com. Kaneda:
· Said he agreed to the amendment by Com. Miller, and requested additional discussion. He
asked Com. Miller to clarify the amendment.
Com. Miller:
· Clarified that the model resolution covers all the trees that are to be protected; the amendment
does not address any trees that are to be protected, only the ones in the gray area. They could
be removed but he did not identify them as wanting to be removed.
Steve Piasecki:
. Occasionally on a site like this there will be a large Pine tree that otherwise is not protected or
a large Pepper tree off to the side not in the construction zone. Sometimes neighborhoods do
not like to see large trees like that removed so staff interprets it more literally, that if they do
not say they are going to remove it, that it is being saved. It was amended in the motion;
hence it is at the applicant's discretion to remove any of those.
Cupertino Planning Commission
5
May 8, 2007
Vote: (4-0-0 Chair Giefer absent)
OLD BUSINESS: None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
The Environmental Review Committee: No report
Housine: Committee: No meeting held.
Mavor's Monthlv Meetine: With Commissioners:
. Meeting scheduled for May 9,2007; Com. Wong will attend.
Economic Development Committee: No meeting held.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
Steve Piasecki reported on the following:
· The City Council reviewed the Commission's recommendation of the tree ordinance;
continued it with direction to incorporate some. minor amendments into the ordinance for
clarity.
. Kelly Kline has been hired as the new Economic Development and Redevelopment Manager.
She is currently employed with the City of San Jose Redevelopment Agency, as their
Downtown Division Manager of their retail area.
. Reported that many people are concerned about Longs Drug Store moving out of the
Marketplace Shopping Center. He clarified that the City does not exercise review of changes
and tenants; staff has encouraged the property owner to work with Longs and they felt they did
and made every effort to retain them. He said the replacement market is high end and will be a
good addition to the community.
. The Planning Commission, City Council, General Plan Task Force and the City of Cupertino
are the recipients of an award issued by the Northern Section of the California Chapter of the
American Planning Association.
ADJOURNMENT:
meeting at 6:45 p.m.
The meeting was adjourned to the May 22, 2007 Planning Commission
SUBMITTED BY:
~~~
Elizati A. Ellis, Recordmg Secretary
Approved as presented: May 22, 2007