PC 08-28-07
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
AMENDED MINUTES
6:45 P.M. August 28, 2007 TUESDAY
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
The Planning Commission meeting of August 28, 2007, was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the
Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre A venue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Lisa
Giefer. .
Chair Giefer announced the resignation of Vice-Chair Cary Chien effective immediately. She
thanked him for his expertise and service on the Planning Commission. Com. Wong and Com.
Miller 'commended Com. Chien for his contributions to the community and the Planning
Commission.
Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, thanked Com. Chien for his contributions to the Commission and
wished him success.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present:
Chairperson:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Lisa Giefer
Marty Miller
Gilbert Wong
David Kaneda
Staff present:
Community Development Director:
City Planner:
Senior Planner:
Senior Planner:
Assistant City Attorney:
Steve Piasecki
Ciddy Wordell
Colin Jung
Gary Chao
Eileen Murray
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the August 14, 2007 Planning Commission meeting:
Page 1, "Under approved minutes of June 26, 2007, "Page 4, "teed" should read "LEED"
Cupertino Planning Commission
2
August 28, 2007
Page 13, under Chair Giefer: Second bullet "slip" should read "slope"
Page 13, Third bullet: Change "something" to "someone".
Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Miller, to approve the August 14,2007
Planning Commission minutes as amended. (Vote: 3-0-1; Com. Kaneda
abstained)
Chair Giefer did not participate in discussion of Item 1 as she knew the applicant. Com. Wong
chaired the portion of the meeting relative to the application.
PUBLIC HEARING
1.
EXC-2007-09,
TR-2007-04
Kathy Yates
22292 Regnart Rd.
Hillside Exception to construct a 5,188 square foot residence,
with a 2,625 square foot basement, on slopes greater than 30%
slope and to decrease the setback of the second-story downhill-
facing wall plane. Tree Removal to remove two oak trees.
Postponed from the August 14, 2007 Planning Commission
meeting. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed.
Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
· Reviewed the application for a Hillside Exception to demolish an existing house and build a
new 5,188 square foot home, including basement, plus a garage of 842 square feet. Most of
the home is on a flat pad, with certain portions on slopes greater than 30% which requires an
exception. The applicant also requests to reduce the setback of the second story downhill-
facing wall plane; and a tree removal request to remove two protected oak trees.
. He reviewed project issues: project location - is built on slopes greater than 30%; other
hillside exception for the reduced setback for the second story downhill wall plane. Some
principles in siting homes on residential hillside properties are to stay away from the public
open space areas as much as possible and creeks. The project itself including its leachfields
are a minimum of 100 feet from Regnart Creek and the location is also the furthest that you
can get from the public open space. The residence is also located on the largest flat bench on
the property which reduces the amount of development on the steeper slopes but not enough to
not require the hillside exception for the development.
. Issue 2: Reducing the setback for the second story downhill facing wall plane. Showed the
view of the property that has the most prominent downhill facing wall plane. The requirement
in our RHS ordinance is that the offset be at least 7-1/2 feet and encompass at least 75% of the
wall. Presently they are proposing that 45% of the wall length has that sufficient setback; it is
deficient about 30% of the wall length. The applicants are aware of this and have attempted
to mitigate those concerns by adding certain architectural features which includes the arbor.
Staff also recommends that the length of the shed roof be extended to break up the wall plane.
They feel the exception is justified because the property is located on the lower elevation, not
the ridgeline, with the two mitigation considerations.
. Geotechnical review: The private report was reviewed by the city geologist; the project was
determined to be geotechnically feasible; the leachfield was approved and the city geologist's
recommendations were incorporated in the model resolution.
. Tree removal: Forty-four trees conflict either with the house design or the newleachfield and
are recommended for removal by the city arborist. He explained that the trees were being
recommended for removal because leachfields are incompatible with trees; when they install
leachfields, they sever the roots of the trees, and in the future, soils become heavily saturated
with a large amount of leach which drowns the roots and makes them prone to falling down.
The applicant is interested in preserving the remaining trees; however, the arborist
Cupertino Planning Commission
3
August 28, 2007
recommendation is that the trees be set back at least 15 feet from the leachfield lines. Staff
recommends removal of the trees so that if they do fail or die, the applicant has an opportunity
to remove them.
. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the hillside exception and tree
removal per the model resolution.
Staff and the project engineer answered Commissioners' questions.
Robert A vellas, applicant:
. Said the major issue in developing the project was the environmental health approval. It took
about 2-1/2 years to get a plan that was acceptable and approvable. Using the existing location
of the house to work with, they were sensitive to siting the house which is why there are low
amounts of grading; most is fill in the terrace areas. They are reusing the existing driveway
and are pleased with the recommendation for the architectural modifications.
Com. Wong opened the public hearing.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
. Said she was pleased that staff was making great efforts to ensure that shear wallplanes which
are potentially two stories tall are set back or articulated. There have been many instances in
this city where there have been vertical runs of walls with no second story setbacks.
. She asked for a clarification of leachfields.
. She said she hoped that because many trees are being cut down, new ones will replace them.
She asked if the protected oak trees could be saved.
Com. Wong closed the public hearing.
Colin Jung:
. Relative to leachfields, he said that Regnart Canyon was developed and approved by the city
without it being hooked up to the sanitary sewer system. It was done intentionally and at the
request of the homeowners previously because they wanted to have larger lots and felt they
could have a much stronger control on the density in Regnart Canyon if they all remained on
septic systems rather than hook up to the sanitary sewer. He explained how the septic system
and leachfields worked.
Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Kaneda, to approve Application
EXC-2007-09 and TR-2007-04 per the model resolution, including staff's
recommendation regarding including non-native trees and that there be a mutual
agreement between applicant and staff. (Vote: 3-0-1; Chair Giefer absent)
Chair Giefer returned to the dais and chaired the remainder of the meeting.
2. V-2007-03, TM-2007-03
Tracy Hsu
21871 Dolores Avenue
Variance for substandard lot widths on a proposed two-lot
subdivision. Tentative Map to subdivide a .46-acre parcel
into two parcels, 8,375 square feet, and 11,470 square feet
respectively. Continuedfrom the August 14,2007
Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission
decision final unless appealed.
Cupertino Planning Commission
4
August 28, 2007
Gary Chao, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
· Reviewed the application for a tentative map to subdivide one lot into two parcels and a
variance to allow two 50-foot lot width lots instead of the required 6O-foot width for the two
proposed parcels, as outlined in the attached staff report. The proposed project was denied by
the Planning Commission at the August 14,2007 meeting and the applicant appealed it to the
City Council in February 2007 when the Council upheld the Commission's decision to deny
the project on a 2-2 vote with one councilmember absent. The Council reconsidered the
application again in May 2007 and denied the applicant's request on a vote of 3-2. The
applicant reapplied to the Planning Commission because the May 2007 denial was based on
concerns about the procedure, and the Council provided the applicant with the choice of
resubmitting the application to the Planning Commission.
· The tentative map proposal is for a side-by-side lot rather than the prior flag lot proposal. The
side-by-side lot design is consistent with the neighborhood pattern as most of the lots are
narrow. The applicant has also addressed the side yard setback concerns and is no longer
requesting an exception; and has agreed to a condition requiring 10 foot side yard setbacks
along the side where the neighbors are concerned with.
· Staff recommends the Planning Commission find merit in the proposal; and a condition be
added to require the DRC approve the two house designs prior to recordation of the fmal map.
Recommendation is for project approval with staff recommended changes and conditions.
Staff answered Commissioners' questions regarding the proposed project.
Jitka Cymbal, representing applicant:
. Reviewed three possible scenarios for the design of the houses; one with a
. side entry garage, with a common entry driveway; one with front facing garages; and a third
with side entry with two separate garages.
Staff answered Commissioners' questions regarding the proposed project.
Tracy Hsu, Applicant:
. Said that since the last meeting, she talked to 10 of the surrounding neighbors; 5 support the
side-by-side subdivision, 3 are neutral, and 2 neighbors are opposed to the side-by-side
proposal. She said that one of the neighbors who was opposed to the proposal, said that he
would consider agreeing to a 10 foot side setback on his side; and one still remained opposed
to the project.
. She said two concerns regarding flag lots were fire department access for more than one truck
on a flag lot, and because the front was at a higher level that a rear lot, the drainage system
would be a problem. She added that a flag lot has more pavement area for the driveway which
would decrease the green space area; and she preferred living in a house with a 50 foot
frontage which provided better interaction with the neighbors.
Chair Giefer opened the meeting for public comment.
Rose Serio, resident:
. Opposed to the project.
. Asked that the Planning Commission give careful consideration to requests for larger homes
on the smaller lots. Said she was not opposed to growth, but on overbuilding and lack of
consideration of the systemic impact to the community and inner neighbor relationships that
occur because of the close proximity of the buildings. She asked that consideration also be
given to the impact of the sound level, and volume of traffic in the small area.
Cupertino Planning Commission
5
August 28, 2007
Suejane Han, Dolores Avenue:
. Supports the project.
. Asked that the Planning Commission honor the staff s suggestion that the flag lot be created
only when there is no reasonable alternative.
. Said that as a Cupertino resident, she supported saving more green space for the city and the
flag lot results in a larger pavement area.
Alan Hsu, Delores Avenue:
. Supports the project.
. Said that a benefit of side-by-side subdivision of the houses allows for access for both houses
from the street.
. Said there is more chance of accidents involving pedestrians because of the long driveways
from flag lots and there is less visibility of the cars driving down the long driveway.
Rachel Hwang, Cupertino resident:
. Supports side-by-side subdivision of the property.
. Said she experienced difficulty exiting from a flag lot because of the
long driveway.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
· Said that Monta Vista had an eclectic nature; areas of the city are very historic, lots were
subdivided in the early 1900s. In this situation you are creating two lots, each 50 feet across
and much of Monta Vista is currently zoned Planned Development which allows larger homes
on small lots. This would fit nicely in a Planned Development community, but this is not a
Planned Development community; it is one of the areas of Monta Vista that is zoned R1;
therefore there are rules for R1.
· She addressed the issue of the garage being over 50% of the front expanse of the property and
asked if there was a law requiring that the garage not go over 50%. If any lawn in front of the
property would be less than 50% of the property; that means it is creating an area not able to
have a street tree. She expressed concern about the regrowth of a tree that would be going in
and stated that street trees are assets to the community.
. Another issue is if you have a 5 foot setback on the inner side of each of the homes, please
make sure there is a full second story setback, giving 10 feet separation between the two two-
story houses. If you do allow this, make sure there is a full second story setback on the inner
side; because in a Phpmed Development community, you don't have to have that second story
setback. She said she was concerned about the application and hoped they could reach a good
decision.
Chair Giefer closed the public hearing.
Staff reviewed the history of flag lots in Cupertino, which originated when Monta Vista developed
as a resort area for wealthy San Franciscans, with small and narrow lots. In the past, there was an
Ad Hoc Flag Lot Policy, and if there were a predominant pattern of flag lots in the area, they
would tend to be supported, even though it was recognized that some of the neighborhood
interaction problems; there may have been some flag lots approved that came from that. It
occurred for many years until the last General Plan when it was made official that flag lots would
only be allowed in very unusual circumstances, not the fact that there may be a pattern of them in
the area. It is more if it is the only reasonable alternative.
Cupertino Planning Commission
6
August 28, 2007
Gary Chao:
. Said that no additional neighborhood notification was done when the application was
postponed from the last meeting. He said it was not a requirement to re-notify interested
parties; the application would have been postponed as part of the agenda and interested parties
would follow the meeting, either through attending the meeting or viewing it on the website.
Steve Piasecki:
. If the application is denied, their only alternative would be the flag configuration; they could
appeal to the Council. He said that the flag lot was previously approved and the applicant
could default to that.
Ciddy Wordell:
. Said one of the reasons the side-by-side was recommended was that it was the choice of the
Planning Commission on a previous property and they got a similar variance. There is some
precedence for the Commission doing that.
Steve Piasecki:
. What is key about it, if this was significantly narrower than the standard; if it was 40 feet or 35
feet, we would likely say there is no reasonable alternative but a flag lot. When you are at 50
feet, it is a break point; you can still design an attractive home that has that interface with the
street and can fit into the neighborhood pattern and look good.
Com. Miller:
. Asked if they could approve side-by-side with reduced square footage?
Steve Piasecki :
. Said that under the variance you could approve a smaller house size as part of the variance
request.
Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney:
. Said that it was a tentative map and is just for their side-by-side yard. They are not approving
the homes yet or the size of the homes, therefore it is advisable to stay with the application as
it is with the tentative map.
Com. Miller:
. But we could require them to come back here for the homes. What the attorney is saying is
that we can't have a condition saying if they chose side-by-side that we are going to restrict the
size of the homes, more than the current ordinance.
Steve Piasecki:
. Said Com. Miller was inquiring whether they could require as a condition of approval on the
variance, that the variance only be approved if the applicant is willing to record a covenant and
deed restriction on the property, limiting the house size to whatever, 35% FAR, or not-to-
exceed 4,500 square feet or whatever number the Commission deems is a reasonable number.
. Said the plan would be to approve the variance first with that condition; approval of the
tentative map would be subject to them complying with the variance.
Com. Miller:
. Said the massing is more with the two side-by-sides, with two massive houses occupying that
lot and running back; however, there is no good solution, and the flag lot is not the best
Cupertino Planning Commission
7
August 28, 2007
solution. The side-by-side because of the large size of the lots is not that great; if the lots were
smaller and the houses were smaller, they might work better.
. An alterative might be that if the applicant is agreeable and they want side-by-side, perhaps we
limit the size of the house to total of 3,400 square feet instead of the 4,300 square feet and/or
we require that the garage be put in the back and detached so that some of the massing is
moved from the street as another alternative to reduce the overall mass of the houses. He said
he was sensitive to the drainage on the lots; perhaps the side-by-side, it is still a tossup.
. Said that if the applicant was agreeable to reduce the size of the houses, the side-by-side might
be more acceptable. He asked for the other Commissioners comments.
Com. Wong:
. Asked the applicant to comment.
Tracy Hsu, Applicant:
. Said they had not considered that question, because they felt the side-by-side is conforming
with the neighbors and they are trying to follow the ordinance.
. Said in general the house is in Rl 7.5 zoning and they should follow the ordinance not making
a special case for whoever is doing the subdivision on this neighborhood. Only two or three
lots remaining in the neighborhood can be subdivided; it is unfair to penalize the owners.
. Relative to Com. Miller's suggestion to detach the garage and place it in the back, she said the
city has a rule for detached garages on the back, the side setback has to be 14 feet which
results in the house being narrower. She said she did not feel it was doable, and said they were
willing are willing to do a garage facing the side instead of facing the street or a combination.
Steve Piasecki:
. Said she may be referring to the driveway necessary to serve the detached garage in the back
and in this case they could develop a common driveway which would minimize that. They
don't have to do 15 feet all the way on both lots.
Chair Giefer:
. Relative to the applicant's point, she asked if it would narrow the house size? They committed
to 10 feet on either side, and is an agreement with their neighbors. She said she felt they were
creating issues in designing the applicant's house.
Com. Wong:
. Said they were not denying the applicant to subdivide; his concern was the variance. Rl does
allow you the 45% FAR but the neighbors are also concerned with the mass and bulking. If
you use the 45% FAR and have side-by-side you are going to have a very long and narrow
house which would impact the immediate neighbors. How can it be compatible with the
neighborhood; by already having four flag lots on this street and to have a pattern of two side-
by-sidelflag lot, two side-by-sidelflag lot, it is not helping the pattern for this particular street.
. Said he has voted in favor of side-by-side on other applications because there was already an
immediate pattern. He said he was tempted to reduce the FAR, but would not because he felt it
is an property owner's inherent right and there are other mitigating ways to reduce the
bulkiness of the house which is already prescriptive in the Rl.
. Said that Com. Miller had a good suggestion with putting the garage in the back, but they had
a concern with the 10 feet on either side and putting the long drive down is not being friendly
to the environment.
. Said his preference would be more towards a flag lot.
Cupertino Planning Commission
8
August 28, 2007
. Said he was troubled about the variance and did not feel comfortable granting the variance
tonight.
Steve Piasecki:
. Clarified that they had not approved a flag configuration. The Planning Commission can deny
the variance and approve the flag configuration subject to them coming through staff for the
fmal map and final approval. They could have a subdivision and a flag lot configuration.
. He said there would likely be a three foot rise in elevation in the back so they can get the
proper drainage to the street which is going to elevate the back house.
Com. Wong:
. He said that would be his recommendation; he would support a flag lot and also include
consideration to notify the immediate neighbors.
Com. Miller:
.. Said he did not favor the flag lot primarily because of the drainage; and disliked the side-by-
side because of the massing.
. Said he would support a side-by-side if the applicant was amenable to reducing the square
footage in some way, either the overall square footage or moving the garages to the back
somehow. If the applicant was not agreeable, he would support the flag lot.
Com. Kaneda:
. Supports the flag lot.
· Expressed concern that all the properties on the street except for one were flag lots and wider
lots; and he felt they should stay consistent with that in that part of the neighborhood.
Chair Giefer:
. Said she concurred with her colleagues' comments about the configuration of side-by-side vs.
flag lot.
. Said staff did a compelling job of showing good examples of side-by-side, but said she felt that
the variance is creating an additional substandard width lot within a 7500 neighborhood. The
approved one was different because it was a rounded pie shaped lot. She said she did not feel
it was the same situation; and would prefer a flag lot.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Kaneda, to approve Application TM-
2007-03 as a flag lot and send it back to the DRC for final review.
(Vote: 4-0-0)
Motion:
Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Kaneda, to deny Application
V-2007-03. (Vote: 4-0-0)
3. R-2007-01
Chia-Lun Femg
21410 Vai Ave.
Director's referral of a Residential Design for anew, two-story
6,677 square foot resident. Planning Commission decision
final unless appealed.
Com. Kaneda did not participate in discussion of the application as the applicant was a neighbor.
Gary Chao, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
. Reviewed the application for a Director's referral of a Residential Design Review for anew,
two-story, 6,677 square foot residence. He explained that two story permits are generally
Cupertino Planning Commission
9
August 28, 2007
approved by the Community Development Director; however, the proposed project is for
Planning Commission consideration as it is almost twice the size of the average home in the
area, and staff has also received numerous concerns from the neighbors.
. He reviewed the concerns expressed by the neighbors as outlined in the staff report.
. The applicant is willing to placing the air conditioning units and heating units more centrally
on the lot so it is not too close the property line, but should be addressed at the building permit
stage. The city has not in the past required developments match the overall average size of the
neighborhood or be reduced to a single story home. Staff will work with the applicant to the
maximum extent possible to reduce the visual mass in scale by articulating the walls, adding
interests, quality material, providing second floor setbacks to get to that perspective view from
the streets or compare to the pattern of the neighborhood. The Rl Ordinance also recognizes
the property owner has the ability to go up to 45% and that we will do our best to
accommodate the functional needs of the applicant within the parameter of the R1 Ordinance.
The R1 ordinance does allow for the property owners to reduce the rear yard 20 foot setback to
as low as 10 feet.
Steve Piasecki:
. Clarified that they were allowed to go in the rear yard as close as 10 feet provided it averages
20 feet across the entire back.
Gary Chao:
. He reviewed the neighborhood compatibility issues as outlined in the staff report. Staff
recommends approval of the project with the staff recommended changes.
Staff answered Commissioners' question relative to the proposed project.
Chair Giefer opened the public hearing.
Richard Bolander, resident:
. Was no longer present at meeting, but had requested that his comments be noted for the
record. He wanted to review his concerns as written on Page 3-10 of the staff report. His
photos were not included. His letter to staff stated he was against such a large house and the
height will impact his view of the skyline. Other concerns stated in his letter were that there
will be unacceptable noise from the new structures and that it will change the characteristic of
the neighborhood.
T. Kao, applicant's designer:
. Said he took into consideration the neighbors' comments when redesigning the home.
. Reviewed the changes he made to the design of the house; stated that the comments in the staff
report were for the previous design, not the present proposed design. He said he redesigned
the house based on the comments from the neighbors; met all the rear and side setback
requirements; the turret at the highest point is 28 feet and the rest is 26 feet. The turret was
designed to make the stairway the heart of the house and he wanted to get more light into the
center of the house. He said he went beyond the requirements for setbacks, the front setback is
28 feet, 4 inches, and the city's requirement is 20 feet; the left side is almost 12 feet, the city's
requirement is 10 feet; the other side is 10 feet and the city's requirement is 5 feet. He noted
that the color and material of the house is the same as the house on the left side of his client's
house.
Cupertino Planning Commission
10
August 28, 2007
Gary Chao:
. Relative to Mr. Kao's reference to the design, he is referring to the petitions, comments, emails
that came in with the ftrst iteration of the plans. He said he spoke with the neighbors and they
~e still concerned with this proposal in the same fashion as before.
Subush GropuIkrishnan, Cupertino resident:
. Resides directly behind the proposed site and said the home will alter the environment from
his backyard. They moved into the neighborhood because of the rural appeal and all the
conveniences close by and that will be lost.
. The house is a huge monster home; initially with bay windows in the back which would look
into their family room, living room and part of their bedroom. The bay window was removed
and there is now a balcony where the neighbors can look down into their yard. There are no
trees to screen the house, and the scenery has been changed. It was a ranch style house, now it
is a two story home. They can have a second story but this is just too tall; it will invade their
privacy.
. Opposes the application.
Mattangi Rajamani:
. Said she resided behind the proposed project. When shown the plans originally, she was
concerned about the size and also that they would lose their view of the sunset, sky and trees.
The bay window was a concern as well, but the plans have since been revised and are worse
because of the proposed balcony. The proposed turret will also diminish the light into her
house.
. She said the R1 Ordinance is not specific on how much the house has to conform to the
neighborhood; it states that it has to be around the same size. The proposed house is much too
big and is bigger than any other home in the neighborhood. While the setbacks from the street
may diminish the perceptive size, the actual size remains almost 7,000 square feet.
. She said the monster home and the impacts on her privacy would lower her property value.
. Even though I would like to keep my view of the sunset and the sky, and have sunshine on my
tomato plants, I realize that it is in everyone's right to build a second story. If left to me I
would prefer a ranch style home with a large basement so they can have a 7,000 square foot
home but still not impact anybody around them and would minimize the impact on my home.
. Said that planting trees was not the solution to having privacy in her back yard.
. Opposes the application.
Linda Goh, Vai Avenue:
. Resides across the street from the proposed house, in a 2,000 square foot house with an attic
and some dormer windows. They bought the home because of its rural feel and have lived
there for 26 years. The proposed home is almost three times the size of her home and will
change the feel of the neighborhood.
. Opposes the application.
Jack Carter, Vai Avenue:
. Said he resided across the street from the proposed house and has been there since 1952.
. Said the home is unattractive and a monster home. It is very much out of character in the
neighborhood, and he did not want to have to move from the neighborhood which had so much
character and is now losing it because of money.
. Opposes the application.
Cupertino Planning Commission
11
August 28, 2007
Bryan Langer, Cupertino resident:
. Opposes the application.
· Said that the house conforms to the Rl guidelines, but the Rl does not articulate how to
preserve the look and feel of a neighborhood, and the residents moved to Vai A venue because
of its rural feel.
. Said he was responsible for a petition to have it preserved as a rural street with no sidewalks
and no street lights because the residents liked the feeling of country living; it emphasized the
sense of community that a neighborhood and a street can present.
· Said he was disappointed that the R1 Ordinance would allow a house four times larger than the
normal houses on the street, that is twice as close to the street as the other homes, which will
affect the feeling of community that comes from the neighborhood.
. Said that although the house is legal, it would be better suited on a 2-acre parcel in Los Altos.
Having a 7,000 square foot house on a street with 2,000 square foot homes so close is
problematic. He said he believed in property rights, but also believed in community. He
asked that the Planning Commission give consideration to preserving their precious sense of
community on their street.
. He suggested that if they were not willing to reduce the size of the house, they push it back
another eight or ten feet which may help alleviate the sense of imposition when you walk by
the house.
Com. Wong:
. Said that if the house was pushed back, the prior speakers would be impacted because they live
directly behind them.
Bryan Langer, resident:
· Said he agreed, but added a rebuttal that a backyard abutted to a backyard is less of a public
imposition than a front yard. It is a huge home and will negatively impact the community.
. He clarified that he did not object to the house, it is attractive, but it is a huge house on a small
lot. He added that the home they were using as a reference was a very controversial home.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
. Said the proposed home was a very large home; the maximum size home in the RHS hillside
area is 6,500 square feet, and having a home larger than this on the flat lands in suburbia is
quite staggering. She said she understood it was legal. It is very important that the house has
second story set backs on all four sides. The owner has chosen to build the second story to the
maximum 45%, it was 35% until recently. You have a lot more second story that can go up;
you are allowing more bulk to the second story but it looks like staff has done a good job in
making sure that there is adequate setback around the top of the home.
. What happens to plans that are approved for a home and the home has not been built and the
home is sold? How long are these plans good for to make sure the home is built. When does
the new owner have to get plans?
Gary Chao:
. Said it was a two year period, but they have not had an approval at this address yet. It was
sold to the current applicant but at the time the plans were still in the review stage.
John Stubblebine, Vai Avenue:
. Resides on Vai A venue at the comer of Bubb Road. He said that the property mentioned as
the example for what the subject house would be is the one that has all the contention. He said
many residents in the neighborhood feel that it is the poster child for the monster home they do
Cupertino Planning Commission
12
August 28, 2007
not want, and the proposed home is even larger. Several residents proposed somewhat rural,
no sidewalks, no gutter, no curb and no street lights and the City Manager said studies show
that it does not decrease safety to have no street lights.
. He said they had property rights and they need to be balanced with the responsibilities to the
neighborhood and the community. ' Just because you can build something gigantic does not
mean you have to.
Com. Miller:
. Asked if staff had any comments on how it fits or does not fit in the neighborhood.
Steve Piasecki:
· Said that the Planning Commission should focus on staff s list of items that can be applied to
enhance the buildings to fit into the neighborhood. One of the advantages to sliding the house
back to the south is that while you get somewhat closer to the south neighbor, the sun angles
that come off the house will be cast to the north. He said he felt the turret was unnecessary;
lowering the front entry would result in more of a ranch style. It may be advantageous to have
the redesigns come back to the Planning Commission.
Com. Miller:
. Asked if staff was recommending any landscaping from the street view to help with softening
the street perspective.
Gary Chao:
. Said it was one of their suggestions.
Com. Miller:
. Part of the issue is the way the lots are designed in the city. There is an issue of property
rights and much is prescriptive and they are not asking for any exceptions. There also is a
concern which was heard tonight, that perhaps the house could be softened by the
neighborhood perspective. Landscaping tends to do a lot to soften the view. The turret is an
element that people do not agree with it; and he saw it as a functional element. However, as
staff pointed out, the same functional objective could be achieved with skylights. Perhaps it is
an element that can be removed and there is some way to reduce the overall height by a foot or
two.
. The rear balcony is an issue; if the applicant can demonstrate they can properly screen it so it
does not become a privacy issue, then it is acceptable and if they cannot, it is not acceptable.
He said he was still uncertain with that element.
· Said he would prefer a smaller house, yet the ordinance allows people to do that. It is a fact
that there are many larger lots out there and the larger houses are going to continue to come up
as people redesign; it will continue to be a problem. He said perhaps they should look again at
the R1 Ordinance. Staff has proposed some elements that will soften the view and we they
should work on those elements and bring it back to the Planning Commission.
Com. Wong reviewed the illustrated list and provided comments:
. The turret is a good architectural design; however, he said he agreed with staffs
recommendations to delete the turret element and consider a skylight.
. Does not support No.2.
· The house should not only be pushed back but also have a good landscaping plan that can
soften the blow of the front.
. Alternative materials: use stone materials instead of using wood or hand plank wooden
materials.
Cupertino Planning Commission
13
August 28, 2007
. Suggest lowering the front canopy so it is not so massive; the two columns are not compatible
with the neighborhood; they can be a different architecture to be more compatible.
. Agrees with providing additional architecture on top of the garage.
. Agrees that there is a need to show the e81MvMi6,. cone of vision to the neighborhood to see
what the tree planting would look like as well as in the front and back yard.
. There are property rights, but we should balance it with the responsibilities on the
neighborhood, but because the Rl ordinance is so prescriptive, it is really up to the applicant to
reduce the house. It is not up to the commission. I strongly encourage the applicant to reduce
the house size based on the comments from the neighbors. I do not feel comfortable reducing
it at this time.
Com. Miller provided comments on the list:
. Agrees with removal of the turret.
. Agrees with lowering the entry level feature, the entry feature is well within the guidelines; a
one foot reduction is fme.
. Felt the second story setback was appropriate because the left side is 35 feet, and the
remainder of the house is more like 50 or 55 feet.
. Agrees with lowering the entry in the living room by one; agrees with (1) and (2);
. Agrees that the house should be pushed back; provide natural or alternative building or sign
material. Be caution about having too much stone on the front of the house because too much
would increase the mass of the house
. Revise the front entry canopy columns; is the suggestion for one or two columns?
Gary Chao:
. Said presently there are three on each side; he suggested reducing the number. Said the
material or shape is more important, such as circular, Spanish style.
Steve Piasecki :
. Said they could consider a wood fluted column instead of hard material. He said he
understood they were going in the direction of a Mediterranean look.
Com. Miller continued his comments:
. Agreed; said they don't want to insist that they not have columns.
. (No.7) Said that rather than trellises, overhang or arbor features on top of the garage, he felt it
was more important to have more landscaping in front to soften the look and feel of the house.
Chair Giefer:
. Referring to the front elevation, agree that the turret should be eliminated because the light can
be captured without it; the turret makes the home look much more massive, like it has a third
story on the house. They could put in skylights. There is also a lack of symmetry between the
right roofline and the left roofline, which increases the massiveness of the house.
. Suggest lowering the right eave height to the same so that it is symmetrical with the left side of
the house because it will be a better designed house and will have more symmetry within the
home. She asked the other commissioners to comment.
Com. Miller:
. Said he was not concerned as they are not in the same plane and different symmetry is fine. In
general, the house is well designed and you can see they are not in the same plane; it would
not be noticed.
Cupertino Planning Commission
14
August 28, 2007
Steve Piasecki:
· Said one way for the Commission to resolve it is to provide direction to the applicant to study
different options to get the desired effect which is lowering the overall profile.
Chair Giefer:
· Which is why I asked earlier if they planned a high volume ceiling for the study; is there a
functional reason why they need that additional internal height?
Steve Piasecki:
· It may be the room size and just the span of that roof element that Gauses this roof to climb a
little higher; they would have to study it and we would have to study it with them to fmd out
how necessary it is.
Com. Wong:
. Said he agreed with Com. Miller.
Chair Giefer:
· Suggested reducing the massiveness of the house; the front of the house has a lot of windows
which is good. She encouraged the applicant to look at some products to simplify the garage
doors and make the house look more elegant, with a rural feel.
· Overall massing of the home is too much and would like to see it softened either by additional
materials or landscaping. Agree that the landscaping will help in terms of reducing the
massiveness of the home and I encourage the applicant to use more mature trees and I would
like to see the landscaping plan, both for the front and rear particularly with the privacy
plantings.
· Said she agreed that pushing the house back would make the house fit in better with the
neighborhood if it is recessed more on the lot. The rear balcony is a concern of the neighbors
in the back as they feel it will look into their private yard space. If the applicant comes back
and is not able to mitigate the view into their back neighbors' home, consideration will be
given to reducing the balcony size or eliminating it.
· Trellises: Agree that the front entry canopy columns should be more consistent with something
more rural; Leave it up to staff and the applicant to investigate that to come up with something
more compatible with the neighborhood.
· Supports reducing the height of the entry feature by a foot as staff recommended; Not certain
of the need for the trellis above the garage.
. Commented earlier on the trees as well.
· Consensus has been reached on deleting the turrets; lowering the entry feature; pushing the
house back; no consensus on Item No.4.
· Consensus on revising the front entry canopy columns to be more consistent with the rural
style of the neighborhood; we do not have consensus on No.6;
· All agree that we need to plant trees to screen the views of the house and I also heard that we
wanted to see a rear landscape privacy screening landscaping for all second story windows.
Com. Wong:
· Staff said that is done at the stage toward the end, but because there is so much concern from
the neighborhood, we want to see a full landscaping plan from front, left, right and rear.
Chair Giefer:
· If the balcony privacy issues are not mitigated, it will likely come back up as a natural
byproduct of Commission discussions.
Cupertino Planning Commission
15
August 28, 2007
Com. Wong:
. Suggested that he would like to see a e61U1YisiBlt cone of vision for any second story privacy
concern. Since the Commission is particular' about shrubs and trees, we want to see a specific
plant, and encourage the applicant to use more mature trees especially in the rear, given the
feedback heard from the rear neighbors.
Steve Piasecki:
. Suggested that the application be continued to the October 9th meeting to enable the applicant
to make the changes. He recommended re-noticing to the neighborhood for the October 9th
meeting. If the applicant can incorporate the changes into a plan set early enough, send the
plan set out to the neighbors so they know exactly what it looks like and how it has changed.
Chair Giefer:
. Said she supported it; and said that even though they were not comfortable telling the applicant
to reduce the overall house size, they encouraged him to look at the interior space. It is a
prescriptive R1 ordinance and the applicant is within his right to every square foot they are
presenting.
Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Wong, to continue Application
R-2007-01 to the October 9, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. (Vote: 3-0-0;
Com. Kaneda absent)
Chair Giefer declared a short recess. Com. Kaneda returned to the meeting.
4. DIR-2007-27
Gregg Bunker
1375 So. DeAnza Blvd.
Director's Referral of a Minor Modification to a Use Permit
(U-2003-03) to phase an approved mixed-use
development (Wolfe Camera). Planning Commission
decision final unless appealed.
Gary Chao, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
. Reviewed the application for a Director's referral of a minor modification to a previously
approved use permit to phase a mixed-use development at the Wolf Camera site. The
applicant is now requesting to phase the project by selling the condominiums fIrst and
postpone the retail portion of the project for another year to gather his fInances for the project.
Staff is not opposed to the phasing of the project, but has concerns and alternative suggestions
to the terms of the phasing.
. He explained that the city has not previously approved phasing of projects because in
reviewing and approving projects, if there are different components, it is treated' as a whole.
The applicant came in and we worked hard with them to make sure that the building
transitions nicely from the front proposed retail expansion to the taller condos building in the
back. The concept of providing, having the retail being taller and enhanced, and improved
upon being able to screen some views of the taller condos building in the back was a key
component to the prior approval.
. As part of the original review of the project, neighborhood concerns were received about
ongoing construction activities. A general rule of thumb is to try to minimize the duration of
construction to the maximum extent possible, which applies to both the commercial and
residential neighbors in terms of minimizing the construction activities.
. Staff originally recommended that the applicant be given a year to start the retail portion of the
project from fmal occupancy; and within that timeframe he submit a performance bond in a
Cupertino Planning Commission
16
August 28, 2007
specified amount. The City Attorney advised that the performance bond idea is not
enforceable and is not a good idea; it will be hard to get a handle on it if we end up using it.
· It should be required of the applicant to come in and submit plans to be approved by the DRC
to string that elevation. Also, the applicant prior to final occupancy release of the
condominium shall identify ways to also architecturally screen the stair elements shown on the
back rear elevation of the rear facing balconies.
· If the Commission approves the request for modification, the approval will have an expiration
date of two years; which will give the applicant sufficient time to carry out his original request
for retail expansion. That is the revised recommendation from staff.
· Another issue not related to this particular project, that came up recently, is that it has come to
our attention that two large Ash trees were recently removed by the Public Works Department;
one of which was the 20 inch large Ash tree that was required to be preserved in front of the
condominium building and prior to its removal, both Ash trees set the gateway.
A brief discussion ensued regarding the removal by Public Works of the two large Ash trees. It
was noted that there should be consistency in dealing with the improper removal of protected trees,
whether by residents or the City.
· Staff recommends that the use permit modification request be approved with staff s suggested
condition and staff be given direction on the tree replacement.
Com. Wong:
· Referring to the communication from the Wildflower Court neighborhood, he asked staff to
address some of the concerns regarding construction, trespassing on property, damage by
commercial truck on many trees.
Ciddy Wordell:
· Staff will look at the concerns and see what can be done and how they can be addressed.
Steve Piasecki:
· Said that staff would work with the Building Department, contractors and bring the concerns
to their attention. He said he had not heard of the concerns before.
· Relative to construction violations, they work with the contractors to stop the behavior and
constrain themselves to their own site. He agreed that the site needed to be cleaned up and
said they would work with the Building Department to follow up with the contractors to get
the site cleaned up. The applicant can be asked to address what is going on with the
construction activity.
· Sometimes people have the impression that something someone is doing is illegal, when in
fact it is not. Parking on the street or turning into a driveway is part of the public right of way
and anyone can turn in someone else's driveway. We need to investigate what is going on, and
how much we can validate and get the applicant's contractor to comply.
Com. Wong:
· Suggested that the applicant come up with a construction management plan that if there was a
route, it would affect other neighbors as well, instead of turning around on that busy
intersection. He suggested going in one direction and out the other to avoid a tight turnaround.
Steve Piasecki :
· You can incorporate that into any decision you make on this application as well as if there isn't
a requirement already, that the applicant prepare one right away to address these issues.
Cupertino Planning Commission
17
August 28, 2007
Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney:
· Said that a performance bond is not the appropriate instrument for this type of thing; it is not
something the city would go and build if the developer didn't do it; they would not use the
money and go add onto his business.
· The city has been interested in the expanded retail because that provides sales tax and what we
are looking for is lost revenue, but we don't have a city policy regarding how you would do
that. What we are looking for now is to mitigate some of the development impact, perhaps by
other improvements and not a cash outlay on the part of the developer.
Com. Wong:
. Asked if an incentive could be offered to the applicant to ensure that the retail portion is
completed within a reasonable amount of time.
Eileen Murray:
. What we are trying to do now is to mitigate the impacts of the residential and still give him
time to phase his project. That is the option the Planning Department has come up with. It is
hard to force people to use the permits that have been issued, so let's get what we can and
maybe some improvements on the retail building would be something we might request.
Com. Wong:
. Expressed concern that when he approved the project before, it was approved as a mixed use
project and now the applicant is coming back four years later saying he is having fmancial
concerns because the market is changing. He said that perhaps they should have put a
condition to do the retail ftrst, and then do the housing. How can they guarantee that the retail
will get done ftrst to produce the sales tax dollars for the city?
Eileen Murray:
. She said that several years ago there was a project when they insisted there be substantial
performance on one project before they gave occupancy on the other project. In that case, the
substantial performance was a foundation. Presently, they are talking about adding onto a
bliilding; what would substantial performance be?
Com. Wong:
. Suggested that if they could not do a $100K bond, could they say after a certain number of
years they would give them a nominal minimum fee until the action was complete.
Eileen Murray:
. Said that the city did not have a policy to do that.
Steve Piasecki :
. This isn't so much an issue of what we have a higher performing retail environment here; this
was going to be second floor commercial space not likely to generate much in retail sales tax;
it was more of a physical package you were getting where the front building was being
enhanced and was blocking some of the views of the back building. We are trying to
accomplish some of the blockage through other means that this applicant can perform on in a
very reasonable period of time, two to three months, before he needs to occupy these
residences; trellises, additional landscaping, additional screening for the north elevation; and
then he would have two years to build the commercial.
. There is no reasonable mechanism, short of putting some appliques onto the commercial
building, trellises, but you won't get the effect that the second story addition. You could say
that is not good enough, I want the package; you cannot occupy until you deliver; that is one
Cupertino Planning Commission
18
August 28, 2007
option. You can also try to get as many of these appliques to both the commercial building
and the residential building to provide the screening and then you mayor may not ever get the
commercial building built.
Com. Wong:
. Asked staff for their suggestion regarding screening.
Gary Chao:
· Staff is suggesting that the applicant submit plans to DRC to show solutions in the form of
architectural feature, screening, trellis or arbor element on top of the garage elevation. The
applicant could help identify and develop some similar features that would also screen the
wing walls from coming down the second level balcony along the rear elevation. That should
be softened as well with trellises, arbors. In conjunction with landscaping enhancements
wherever possible, put in other trees if it is possible to do that screening purposes.
Gregg Bunker~ Applicant:
· Said it was his understanding that the project was approved as a phased project and there were
numerous discussions contributing to that, one being the continuing lease that needed to be
expired with Wolf Camera.
· He said he felt misled by staff that they would suggest that the project hasn't always been
phased. When Planning Commission approval was received, it was his understanding that the
project was phased, and he had always intended to phase the project.
· Said the f1ling for modification was made after he was assured by staff that the only
requirement would be to paint the front building and add some landscaping. He said he has
worked on the project for the last 4 or 5 years with no income or profit from the project.
· Said it was his position and the position of his attorneys that in the original approval there was
no requirement that the projects would be built simultaneously. It has always been discussed
that to build the entire project out simultaneously would be too much impact on the
intersection and the tenants.
· Said when they started the process, he invested large amounts of money in the design; certain
concessions were expensive and were granted to the property owners and required phasing. He
said he did not think it was appropriate or necessary to require him to put trellises on the
building or go back to design review. He said he should be allowed to complete the
condominiums/townhouses and sell them and hopefully derive enough income to build the
small amount of retail, which is only 1,800 square feet and will likely cost $2.5 million to
construct.
· Said he has had discussions with staff that they are not concerned about his building the
second story to the rear of the front building; however, he wanted to have another two years to
do so. He said he felt it inappropriate to require him to build trellises and do other things to the
rear building. He asked for staff support to allow him to move forward as he always indicated
it was a phased project.
Com. Wong:
· Asked the applicant to work with staff and neighbors regarding concerns.
Gary Chao:
· Said that is action is taken, it constitutes a modification of the use permit for two more years to
allow the applicant to complete or start the retail space.
· Staff supports the two year extension period provided that there are tradeoffs to mitigate some
of the impacts.
Cupertino Planning Commission
19
August 28, 2007
· Said that Mr. Bunker did not specifically request at the original approval to specify a
timeframe to have the condominium constructed, to be allowed occupancy fIrst before he came
back with a timeframe to start his retail building. Plans showing Phase 1 and Phase 2 do not
mean anything except it tells which part of the project would start fIrSt.
Com. Wong:
· If he cannot complete Phase 2, then staff is suggesting some mitigating factors so that the city
can get some community benefits as well too.
. It appears to be a disagreement, each person has their own understanding.
Steve Piasecki :
· Said it was always a major thing when projects come forward like this and staff is correct in
stating that, unless the city is very explicit, unless there is a condition by the Planning
Commission saying yes this is going to be phased in this fashion and these are the dates you
can build the residential only and never build the commercial; just putting words on a plan
doesn't lock that in. The Planning Commission can interpret it differently, saying that it locks
it in. He said he was acceptable to him if they explicitly approved it, but he found no evidence
of that in the discussions.
· Relative to the $100K, the city attorney pointed out that this is private property and we are
trying to find a way for Mr. Bunker to provide the benefits of the building through
landscaping, trellising, enhancements to the building that are going to cost something, but they
are practical and can be done within a reasonable period of time so that he can finish his
residential and occupy those units. He said he would have preferred to see the commercial
building, because it is better looking than the current building, but there are practical realities
to getting that done and unless we insisted that they make substantial progress toward that
construction, which was not done, it is unfortunate that we lose out on that.
Gregg Bunker:
· Said he chose to build the second story office building; he hoped to build it and take the equity
from other properties, because in and of itself it is a poorly performing addition. It will likely
take 20 years to get my money out of it.
Com. Wong:
· Said his concern was that it was a business decision for Mr. Bunker to negotiate with his
adjacent neighborhood. He said he felt if the process was quicker and they made the
agreement closer, they could have started construction a lot faster and they wouldn't be in the
present situation.
Gregg Bunker:
· Said he hoped the city would fulfill their agreement with him; and he was asking not to be
required to do anything to the rear building; but was requesting another two years' extension
on the approval to build the second floor addition.
Chair Giefer:
· Said when Mr. Bunker came in for the original approval of the mixed use project for both the
housing and addition to the Wolf Camera building, he presented it as a package for a phased
project. The city at that point gave permission to add housing to the site, rezone the parking
lot, and make concessions to the property owner to allow him to fulfill his financial goals.
· Said that Mr. Bunker was now saying that because of the cost of construction significantly
increasing, he mayor may not elect to fulfill that portion of the obligation within the next two
year period.
Cupertino Planning Commission
20
August 28, 2007
Steve Piasecki:
· Said if the application was denied, the applicant would have no choice but to build the
commercial building before occupying the residential structures. He explained that the
applicant was asking to memorialize a defInite phasing schedule where he would occupy one
before beginning the other, and wants that to come into the conditions and the approval very
explicitly. He said it was fIne, and we could have done that four years ago, but it didn't
happen then. He wants to memorialize that with or without the mitigations we are talking
about; he prefers not to do and we think they should be done.
· The Planning Commission could do the substantial progress option but you would have to
defme what that is and I don't know what that is. Another option is to go to the applicant and
ask him to defme substantial progress; tell us where you want to be to get this occupancy.
Chair Giefer opened the public hearing.
Lynn Sereno, Borrel Private Bank and Trust Co., Trustee of Yamagami Nursery Property:
· Said they did not object to a phased project and were concerned that if it wasn't phased, if
worked stopped on the back unit and then work on the retail unit; it should be cleaned up as
soon as possible so that it has the least amount of impact to their tenants and the neighborhood.
· Said their interest was to get the full project done as quickly as possible to minimize the
impact to their tenants.
Jiandong Cao, Wildflower Court:
· Expressed frustration since the project started the quiet neighborhood has become stressful. In
the morning, driveways are blocked; the owners and contractors did not communicate with the
neighbors and do whatever they want. The dust and noise are an inconvenience for the entire
neighborhood. Hopefully the project will be completed as soon as possible, so the neighbors
don't have to suffer any longer.
· Said that the city should have more control over the project. The homeowners association
told them to go to the owner, and he got no response from the owner. It is no longer a nice
neighborhood.
, · Said the property owner should be responsible for fIxing the damages to the neighborhood.
Preston Oka, Owner/Operator ofYamagami's Nursery:
· Concurred with previous speakers about trying to speed the project through to completion so
that everyone could go back to their norma1lifestyle.
· Asked if a two year extension would mean that the project needed to start the Phase 2 project
within 2 years or does it need to be completed within 2 years. (Answer from staff: 'started')
It could mean another 3 three years and he did not want to see that happen.
Khushroobanu Shaikh, Wildflower Court:
· Said she wrote a letter about her concern about the tree which was causing damage to the
sidewalk. She said there was no prior notice to the trees being cut down. She attempted to
contact the city to report the illegal tree removal, but it was late Friday afternoon and the city
offIces were closed. She said her letter also covered other concerns, such as the trucks
blocking the street for long periods of time when they unload.
· She said the other homeowners on Wildflower Court have the same concerns and are willing
to sign a letter opposing the application. She said that another four years is too much hardship
on the neighborhood; the project has created negative impacts on the neighborhood properties
and the owner needs to fInish, clean up and repair the damages.
Cupertino Planning Commission
21
August 28, 2007
. She said the city has to fulfill their promises to mitigate the existing and potential parking
problems.
Jack Chin, Wildflower Court:
· Expressed concern about the heavy construction and considerable damage it has done to the
road along Wildflower Way, which is considerably scarred and pock-marked. He said they
understood that construction was disorderly, but they hoped that the developer would repair
the roads to their original condition; it is the right and responsible thing to do.
. Opposed the proposal.
Com. Miller:
. Said that based on comments received from the neighbors and Mr. Bunker, he felt it was in
everyone's best interest to resolve the issue and allow Mr. Bunker to finish the project.
· He said it was important that the applicant work with staff to address the violations that have
occurred, and prevent them from occurring for the duration of the project; and also to address
any issues with respect to damages that may have occurred from delivery trucks or others.
. Said there appears to be some confusion over whether the project was a phased project or not;
and it is not clear if the city has a clear policy that applicants can read and understand and that
it also appears that the applicant thought he was phasing and the city did not think he was
phasing. It is a concern that should be addressed as a city to prevent the situation from
occurring again. There is still the issue of how to move forward.
. There was a suggestion on staff s part and also the applicant that additional landscaping would
be appropriate, not necessarily trellises, but landscaping. He said there were likely some
agreements that could be reached between the applicant and staff over that, and part of the
landscaping improvements should be done by the city just because of the removal of the trees
that were done without proper due process with respect to that.
· He said the neighbors have said they would rather not see the additional commercial structure
built and it is not clear that the applicant wants to build it.
. The project is about 21,000 square feet of residential and 1,800 square feet of commercial; the
commercial is the minor part of the project and not a major retail space. It is on the second
floor and most likely will be office and wouldn't contribute to tax revenues. He said he was
not opposed to not making that a requirement as part of the project in the interest from a
practical standpoint of allowing the project to be completed so that people could go on with
their norma1lives.
Com. Kaneda:
. Said he agreed with Com. Miller, but had mixed feelings about whether or not the commercial
part of the project should be completed.
. Said he was opposed to a two year extension.
Com. Wong:
. Staff is asking for tradeoffs in landscaping, trellises, and enhancing the existing retail building
if the new one is not built.
. Addressed the two Ash trees that were removed; Ash trees are a key signature for the city and
they should be replaced. He said the city may have to pay to replace with 48 inch box;
however, he felt because of the error in removing the trees, the city should not be exempt
about the replacement. He recommended that the tree replacement be done within 90 days.
. Asked the applicant to work with staff regarding the neighbors' concerns and suggested the
applicant be more courteous in working with the neighbors regarding the issues and to
alleviate the ongoing existing friction.
Cupertino Planning Commission
22
August 28, 2007
· Said he hoped staff would work with Code Enforcement and the Sheriff s Department to fix
some of the short term problems; construction site housing will be finished soon; he would like
to see the office space going up but said realistically he doubted it would go up.
· Relative to Phase 2, he said he supported staff s recommendation for landscaping mitigation,
some trellises, and some enhancements. Said when he approved the project, it as approved as
package and he agreed with staff that it was a mixed use project; the plans do read 'mixed
use' . Things happen; the market changed, prices go up; again there was an opportunity to
negotiate with the adjacent neighborhood to start construction early; it was a private matter
and the city attorney advised us that we cannot get involved regarding the private matter
regarding the parking. It is a business decision that Mr. Bunker had to make.
. Said he supported staff s recommendation.
Chair Giefer:
· She said that Com. Wong summarized her thoughts succinctly. She emphasized that the
business and residential neighbors were tired of the construction. She said that she had
experienced traffic delays on Wildflower Way when going to the Summerwinds Nursery and
she called Code Enforcement about her concerns.
· She said she felt it was unlikely that the front building would ever be improved, and she would
like the applicant to go to the DRC with specific improvements to the look of the front
building and work with staff on the improvements on the rear building.
· Suggested the native California Buckeye which is a large, faster growing tree on the approved
street tree list, that would also frame the neighborhood. She said because the two trees were
removed illegally, when they were protected trees, she recommended replacing them with two
48 inch box size trees.
· She supported sending a Minute Order and planting whatever tree made most sense.
Ciddy Wordell:
· Suggested using the wording "if feasible as determined by Public Works or Planning."
Chair Giefer:
· Said she disagreed, and found it interesting that at Cupertino Square they figured out how to
elevate the sidewalks; and on Stevens Creek, Public Works has figured out how to build
around the roots of the Ash trees, but they could not apply that to Wildflower Way. She said
she was surprised that they were not sharing that public knowledge that they have
interdepartmentally.
Com. Wong:
· Suggested opening the public hearing on that and have that discussion; one is suggesting Ash
and one is suggesting Buckeye trees. Bring in Public Works for more discussion.
Chair Giefer:
· Said she would rather make a decision and provide direction to them because it is too much of
a lag and if nothing is done, it will get lost. The neighborhood has been without their trees for
some time.
Steve Piasecki:
· Suggested the 48 inch box, either tree. Staff is concerned that they may have to tear up the
sidewalk to plant the tree, and if so, they could raise the sidewalk as they have done on
perimeter roads.
Cupertino Planning Commission
23
August 28, 2007 .
Gregg Bunker:
· Said as stated in the original approval, they were repaving the street. He said the landscape
plan was approved with trees in the rear which will grow and screen the areas that are
discussed as well as additional trees in the front.
Chair Giefer:
· Staff is concerned with the north elevation of the front building on DeAnza Boulevard. She
questioned what could be done to improve the visual aspect as well as the screening of the
residential building.
Gregg Bunker:
· Said he hoped he would be given the ability to build it if he chose to, since the goal is to sell
the units in a timely manner considering the market conditions; reduce the debt, and free up
the property to borrow to potentially do the second floor. He pointed out that it was his
understanding that staff supported him, and the preponderance of the Commissioners
suggested that they are going to allow him to make that decision.
Chair Giefer:
· Said the concern is if economically it is not viable for him to do that and he makes the decision
not to improve it; and if they don't condition improvements now for both the rear and the front
buildings, the front building will remain in its current state.
Gregg Bunker:
· Said he would agree to paint it to match the rear building. The entire length of the north side
has trees.
Chair Giefer:
· Said the Planning Commission would add conditions to the project moving forward for Mr.
Bunker to satisfy, based on staffs input relative to items such as the trellis, and their
suggestions regarding the rear building. If the conditions were satisfied, once the project was
concluded the occupancy permit would be granted.
Steve Piasecki:
· We wanted them to come to the DRC and satisfy the DRC and the condition that staff will put
on the screen would satisfy that; it adds language on the front building about the north facing
wall of the Wolf Camera building; otherwise it would be DRC's job to work with his
landscape architect and come up with a comprehensive plan, which could be some type of
green screening on the residential; trees on the front along Wildflower on the commercial and
possibly a trellis treatment on the north side of the commercial building.
· He said it would be suggested that under Condition No. 2 Phasing Schedule, the wording
presented in the staff report be removed and replaced with "the applicant is allowed to phase
the project and occupy the six residential buildings prior to commencement of construction of
the retail building." The new Condition No. 5 would be the one that is on the screen, and
would need to be fulfilled prior to occupancy.
Com. Wong:
· Said he would like to see a construction management plan presented to the Planning
Commission, and instead of submitting it to the DRC, submit it to the Planning Commission.
Cupertino Planning Commission
24
August 28, 2007
Steve Piasecki:
· Suggested adding ''The applicant shall return to the Planning Commission with a construction
management plan prior to construction to address the issues that have been raised in the public
testimony and in the letter".
· Said a separate minute action regarding the replacement of the two trees was appropriate.
Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Kaneda, to approve Application
DIR-2007-27, based on the following recommendations: (Condition No.2, modify
it to read .. .''Phasing Schedule: The applicant is allowed to phase the project
and occupy the residential units prior to commencement of construction of the
retail building; fulfilling the other conditions in this approval." It would be added
as Condition No.5.
Steve Piasecki:
· Suggested that when the Planning Commission takes action on the project, it should be
indicated that the last bullet on Condition 5 will be agendized for the next meeting.
(Vote: 4-0-0)
Minute
Order:
Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Miller, to forward a Minute Order
regarding Wildflower Way, to replace the two trees that were removed with
two 48-inch box trees and direct Public Works that the sidewalk needs to be
maneuvered, likeness for likeness, Ash trees. (Vote: 4-0-0)
5. .RM-20076-14
Reza Rafji
104894 Byrne A vel
Consider an appeal of a Design Review Committee approval of a
Minor Residential Permit for a second-story rear deck on a new
1,794 square foot residence.
Gary Chao, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
· Reviewed the application for consideration of an appeal of a Design Review Committee
approval of a Minor Residential Permit for a second-story rear deck on ai, 794 square foot
residence as outlined in the staff report. The basis of the appeal is that the existing privacy will
be lost due to the proposed second story balcony and the balcony would have control over the
property.
· He reviewed the city's policy on second story balconies, which is that the Rl ordinance allows
for second story balconies provided that they come in for minor residential permits which is
the case of this approval by DRC. He emphasized that the goal of the requirements of privacy
impact is not to require a complete visual relief or protection; it was clearly written on the
policy but we deal with what is reasonable to try to mask as much as possible the views from
the balconies.
· Staff feels the proposed balcony is modest in size and not excessive in design and that the
privacy mitigation issue has been reasonably addressed consistent with the intent of the
ordinance.
· Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider the options of upholding the decision of
the DRC; uphold the appeal; or uphold the appeal with modifications.
Fetekh Vergason, Byrne Avenue, Appelant:
. Opposed to the application.
Cupertino Planning Commission
25
August 28, 2007
. Said that standing on a balcony widens the angle of view of neighbor's homes more than a
window.
. Said that there will be unhappy neighbors if the balcony exists.
Reza Rafii, Applicant:
. Said that the Mr. Vergason's landing is three times as large as the subject balcony.
. The proposed balcony is two feet and is designed mostly for decoration.
. He illustrated various photos taken showing views to the neighboring homes.
Chair Giefer opened the public hearing.
Rose Serio, Byrne Avenue:
. She provided a brief history of the property.
. Said she was opposed to the proposed balcony which would invade her backyard privacy, and
recommended a window only.
Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Miller, to uphold the decision of the
DRC, for Application RM-2007-14 (Vote: 4-0-0)
Ciddy Wordell noted that the decision could be appealed to the City Council within 14 calendar
days.
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS: None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
The Environmental Review Committee:
Housinsz Commission:
Mavors Monthlv Meetinll With Commissioners:
Economic DeveloDment Committee:
No meeting held.
No meeting held.
No report.
No meeting held.
MISC:
. Chair Giefer stated that an election for the position of Vice Chairperson of the Planning
Commission and Chairperson of the Design Review Committee needed to be scheduled.
. Ciddy Wordell asked for a representative to attend the next DRC meeting. Com. Miller said
that he would work with staff regarding his schedule.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
. No additional report.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned to the September 11, 2007 Planning
Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m.
~
SUBMITTED BY:
Elizabeth A. Ellis, Recording Secretary
Approved as Amended: September 25, 2007