.01 DIR-2008-19 John Dozier
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application: DIR-2008-19 Agenda Date: August 26,2008
Applicant: John Dozier (for John Knopp)
Property Location: 21925 Lindy Lane
Environmental Review: Categorical Exemption, Section 15315, Minor Land Division
Application Summary:
Request for a one-year extension to July 26, 2009 of the tentative parcel map (file no.
TM-2005-03) for an approved two lot subdivision of a 1.0 acre site into lots of about
20,000 square feet each in an Rl-20 zone.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the one-year time extension for the tentative parcel map
and the addition of one new condition per the model resolution.
BACKGROUND:
In 2006, the Planning Commission approved a tentative parcel map to subdivide this
one acre parcel into two 20,000 square foot lots. The project has been delayed for
several reasons outlined in the applicant's email message to staff (Exhibit A). Currently,
the property owner is attempting to obtain final map approval but has been delayed by
lack of agreement over the extent of public street improvements (See Discussion below).
DISCUSSION:
Time Extension:
Approved tentative maps have a time limit of three years. Cupertino Municipal Code
section 18.16.100 allows the approving body to extend the time for an expiring tentative
map for a period of up to another three years (Exhibit B). The request for time
extension was filed before the expiration date, so the tentative map was automatically
extended to the date of this meeting.
Approved Subdivision Conditions:
In approving the subdivision, the Planning Commission placed conditions on the
development to protect the existing land forms and significant trees:
1) Condition #2: Identify future building area that reflects Planning Commission
staff report and prohibit retaining walls over four feet in height.
2) Condition #3: Record a slope easement on the lower slope that ensures the
existing landforms and trees are preserved and that development and other
improvements, except underground utilities, are prohibited.
3) Condition #4: No permission to remove trees and record a covenant on the
property about protecting specimen size trees.
4) Condition #6: Limit vehicular access to Lot #2 from the westerly ingress/ egress
easement.
1-1
Applications: DIR-2008-19
21925 Lindy Lane
Page 2
Street Improvements:
Street improvements are required as part of the final subdivision process and are
administered by the Public Works Department. Engineering studies demonstrated that
the standard, city-required subdivision improvements: 40-foot, curb-to-curb roadway;
curb; gutter; and sidewalk would have violated the tentative map conditions by causing
the removal of two oaks, introduced retaining walls (potentially over 4 feet tall) at the
edge of the sidewalk, and caused the grading of land in the slope easement area to
install a sidewalk and reduce the steepness of the adjacent slope (Exhibit C).
The Public Works Department (PW) determined that the standard street improvements
had to be modified to protect the oak trees and the only mechanism available was for
the applicant to canvass the neighbors for signatures and petition the City Council for a
semi-rural street designation for a segment of Lindy Lane (Exhibit D). This designation
would enable the Public Works Department to narrow the roadway width and
eliminate/ modify the sidewalk to protect the two oak trees.
The applicant's efforts to obtain the necessary number of signatures (two-thirds of
affected property owners) failed. A second effort by PW staff also did not yield the
requisite number of signatures. PW staff brought the issue to the City Council's
attention on August 19,2008 and to find out if the Council was interested in taking
unilateral action on the issue, but the Council declined (Exhibit E).
Conclusions:
To protect the Commission's interests in the development, staff recommends that the
Commission approve only a one-year time extension of the map with one additional
tentative map condition:
1) that the applicant obtain City approval of a modified street designation for the R-
1 zoned segment of Lindy Lane from the RHS-zoned properties to just west of
Terra Bella Drive that preserves the Planning Commission's conditions of
approval.
Planning staff believes that the objectives of the neighborhood can be achieved which
preserves the Planning Commission's conditions of approval through a modified street
improvement. One additional year should be more than sufficient time to complete the
final map process. A copy of the commission resolution and approved map are
attached.
ENCLOSURES
Model Resolution
Exhibit A: Justification for time extension
Exhibit B: CMC Section 18.16.100
Exhibit C: Excerpt of Subdivision improvement plans show effects of standard
improvements
Exhibit D: CMC Section 14.04.040 (street improvements)
1-2
DIR-2008-19
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO.
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO A TENTATIVE MAP APPROVAL TO EXTEND
ITS EXPIRATION DATE TO JULY 26, 2009, WHICH SUBDIVIDES A 1.0 ACRE
PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF ABOUT 20,000 SQUARE FEET EACH IN SIZE IN AN
Rl-20 ZONING DISTRICT AT 21925 LINDY LANE
SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
DIR-2008-19
John Dozier (for John Knopp)
21925 Lindy Lane
SECTION II: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received a request to
extend the time for an expiring Tentative Subdivision Map Approval as described in
Section I of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the application request was received on July 7, 2008 which was prior to the
expiration of the tentative map on July 26, 2008 and that the map is automatically
extended until the Planning Commission hearing.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held at least one public hearing in regard to
the application; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said
application; and has satisfied the following requirement that there is good and sufficient
reasons why the subdivision map process has not been completed within the allowed 3-
year timeline.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the application DIR-2008-19 for a Tentative Map modification to
1-4
Resolution No.
Page 2
DIR-2008-l9
July 26, 2008
extend the expiration is approved subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this
Resolution beginning on page 2 thereof, and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this
Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning
Application DIR-2008-19, as set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting
of July 26, 2008, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
All previous conditions of approval including Commission resolution no. 6313 and a
tentative map entitled "TENTATIVE MAP, LANDS OF KNOPP, 21925 LINDY
LANE, CUPERTINO, CAli by Nelsen Engineering, dated May 2005, and consisting
of one sheet labeled I, remain in effect, except as may be amended by the conditions
contained in this resolution.
2. MODIFIED STREET IMPROVEMENT STANDARD
The applicant/ owner shall obtain City approval of a modified street improvement
for the subdivision that preserves the Planning Commission's conditions of approval
regarding tree and land form protection.
3. TIME EXTENSION
The expiration date for tentative map approval (file no. TM-2005-03) is extended to July
26, 2009.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of July 2008, at a Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll
call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABST AIN:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
Marty Miller, Chair
Cupertino Planning Commission
g:jplanning/pdreportjresj2008/DIR-2008-19 res.doc
1-5
Exhibit A
Colin Jung
From: Cuptprop@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, July 13, 20085:42 PM
To: Colin Jung
Subject: 21925 Lindy Lane map extension
Hello Colon,
I filed the map extension and paid the fees for the Knopp property on Lindy Lane. I was told to send you an
email to explain why the extension is being requested.
I doubt that you need further explanation. As you know, there has been considerable input from the
neighborhood on keeping the rural atmosphere of upper Lindy Lane with an emphasis on preservation of
mature native oak trees. As a result, in the early going, the city planning required that the applicant achieve
access on an existing driveway easement instead of a driveway directly onto Lindy Lane. The applicant was
successful in acquiring an easement from their neighbor, T.E. Schmidt after a lengthy legal battle and payment
of considerable sums of monies for the right. The other delays have been caused primarily by delays in gaining
support from the neighbors on the south side of Lindy Lane for an acceptable solution for public improvements
that preserve the rural nature of the neighborhood. There was a recent neighborhood meeting held at the site
on June 10, 2008 at the direction of Glenn Geopfert from public works to discuss how best to achieve goals
consistent with public works improvement policy and integrate them with the neighbors desire to keep the semi-
rural. Glenn is presently working on obtaining signatures for a petition from the neighbors to achieve this goal.
Glenn will be presenting his recommendations at an upcoming planning meeting in August. Hopefully, with the
support of the neighbors and final approval from the planning commission, this project will be given final and
complete approval.
Thank you for all your support.
Sincerely,
John Dozier
(agent for John and Karen Knopp)
Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com!
811/2008
1-6
EXHIBIT B
11
Subdivision Maps (Five or More Parcels)
18.16.060
7. That the design of the subdivisi~n or the type of
improvements will conflict with easements acquired by the
public at large for access through or use of property within
the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing
body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements
for access or for use will be provided, and that these will be
substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the
public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of
record or to easements established by judgment of a court of
competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to
a legislative ~y to determine that the public at large has
acquired easements for access through or use of property
within the proposed subdivision. This provision does not
apply to condominium projects or stock cooperatives which
consist of the subdivision of air space in an existing
structure unless new units are to be constructed or added.
(Ord. 1384, Exhibit A (part), 1986)
18.16.070 Planning Commission Action-City
Council Review.
A. If a tentative map is recommended for approval
or denial by the Planning Commission, the Department of
Planning and Development shall make a written report to
the City Council. This report shall be placed on the City
Council agenda at the next regular meeting following a
Planning Commission meeting, unless the subdivider
consents to a continuance. The Council may review the
map and the conditions imposed by the Planning
Commission. The City Council may deny the tentative map
on any of the grounds contained in Section 18.16.060.
B. Any person disagreeing with any action by the
Planning Commission with respect to the tentative
subdivision map may request removal of the item from the
City Council and discuss his concerns at that level. The
Council may sustain, modify, reject or overrule any
recommendations or rulings of the Planning Commission
and may make such findings as are not inconsistent with the
provisions of this title or the State Subdivision Map Act.
(Ord. 1384, Exhibit A (part), 1986)
18.16.080 p19nning Commission Action-Extension
of Time for Planning Commission or City
Council Action. .
The time limits set forth above for acting on the
tentative map may be extended by mutual consent of the
subdivider and the Planning Commission or the City
Council. (Ord. 1384, Exhibit A (part), 1986)
18.16.090 Expiration.
A. The approval or conditional approval of a
tentative subdivision map shall expire thirty -six months from
the date of City Council approval. An extension or
extensions may be approved as provided in Section
18.16.100.
1-7
B. The period of time specified hereinabove shall not
include any time during which a development moratorium
is in effect as specified in Section 66452.6(b) of the
Subdivision Map Act nor shall include any period which
involves litigation as described in Section 66452.6(c) of the
Subdivision Map Act.
C. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, if
a subdivider is subject to a requirement of one hundred
thousand dollars or more to construct or improve or finance
the construction of or improvement of public improvements
outside the boundaries of the tentative map, each filing of a
final map authorized by Government Code Section 66456.1
(multiple final maps), shall extend the expiration of the
approval or conditionally approved tentative map by thirty-
six months from the date of its expiration or the date of the
previously filed fmal map, whichever is later; provided,
however, the extension shall not extend the tentative map
more than ~n years from its approval.
D. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, a
tentative map on property subject to a development
agreement authorized by Government Code Section 65865
et seq. may be extended for the period of time provided for
in the agreement, but not beyond its duration.
E. Expiration of an approved or conditionally
approved tentative map shall terminate all proceedings and
no final map or parcel map of all or any portion of the real
property included within such tentative map shall be filed
without first processing ~ new tentative map. (Ord. 1433,
(part), 1988; Ord. 1384, Exhibit A (part), 1986)
18.16.100 ExtensioDS.
A. Request by Subdivider. Upon application of the
subdivider filed prior to the expiration of the tentative map,
the time at which the map expires may be extended by the
Planning Commission for a period or periods not to exceed
a total of three years. Prior to the expiration of a tentative
map, upon an application by the subdivider to extend that
map, the map shall automatically be extended for sixty days
or until the application is approved, whichever occurs first.
B. Planning Commission Action. The Planning
Director shall review the request and submit the application
for the extension, together with a report, to the Planning
Commission for approval or denial. A copy of the Planning
Director's report shall be forwarded to the subdivider prior
to the Planning Commission meeting on the extension. The
resolution adopted by the Planning Commission approving
an extension shall specify the new expiration date of the
tentative subdivision map. If the Planning Commission
. denies a subdivider's application for extension, the
subdivider may appeal to the City Council witllln fifteen
days after denial. (Ord. 1433, (part), 1988; Ord. 1384,
Exhibit A (part), 1986)
Exhibit C
<5
~
::>
V'J
::>
0
"" ~
8 ~
r::;b.
CIJ
......
I i '\ \ ""'~
t == ~~;~,)ii
--..... ~ ............, ...... ..
~- :::--------,., ~'--" . (
'--~..,,','~,- "'" '. ~, '. ~ " ,\
------ ------, ". -----.. --------. .,.co:. . \
~- ---...... ----- .'...... '..... .. I..
. ------- ....., '. '. '-' \ ;
----- ~" . \ Z \ N:::-\ I
" ~t\u~'" \1 \1;!\ if, '
. If- 0 \ "",_
\ ~~\
\ '\~?"' \
) ,
\ \ I lei
'. '\1 u< 83
\ ~ cz
\ I~ B~
o 105
\ :: ~ IUw
\ \"<t- lli..J \j z
~\ ~ ~ ~ 8S
"'l:J z (I,) tn >
~'r"'1 .L c.b I~ 0
" ! .u Cf-J
I ~~ I
. /{ ,:::1::: - 11 \ I ~ ffi I
: ltJ;' ,t.. ~~\ '\ \ I( Ll1 I s\...
l!c-,,! \~
~r ~r' 'j ~j ~ll \ i ~
@fl--n I' C.,' ( \ \
"""15U I I I! '."'.
"I I I I I '. \ '. \
i, '/(\ \\\'
: i ," \ \
\ \
\ \ \ --
\ ~
~\ \ \
i~l '\ \. \
\ \
J <, . \
)
.~
/- ..
j
, .
'----(2... - :0-:. ,."l'" ~3t' '
- I ! /r-d.~ -' .,.:Jv:;.". :, "', r 1',0::: ~ '0
.' .C~ ~\~]~ i~~' ..,
. -" "J "'C:~I'" ~ ow/"
. ~o~~.~~1.., ~ ~8r
. r~f~~~~"'" i . i, . .
f:;;"
;~
" ,.
.~
~ ~
~~~!~1~
~ r : :\!'_ ;/
,Q.
'CIJ
C\;! ~
E-;~ ~
c) ~
.~~ C\l
(f)
.w
....Jx
F=o
~Q)
.. -:c ___ __ _
(lCj :Sg'l>t- Mo' " ~
" . p. t-t-.t.N) 6(; t1> ,
I 'Mu1>l.trr'<.N \
I , , . I .. i I \\, I
/~. , I~";I I .r ( _
!. 8~ ;
I
\
,-: .",\1
I ' r
\
\
~
(f)
(f)
w
0:::
<..:>
1-8
/
\
0-
q...-
J
~
-f-
~
q)
,,-
--~
<t:
i
;::J
o
c..,.
t
H
1
~
~
d
~
-f
V)
2
<3
IJ
f-
V
><
l.L.
Exhibit 0
5
Street Improvements
14'.04.030
D. Protect the vested interest of the public in the
preexisting capacity of the City's streets and highways;
E. Promote the installation of all necessary street
improvements in the most economically feasible manner to
GottT€ityanct to tne-owners-of-:a:ttected-parcets-o-[-lanQ,
F. Protect the public safety, living standards and
common welfare of the general public. (Ord. 1094, (part),
1981)
3. If sidewalk is not to be provided, traffic
conditions on the street are such that pedestrians may travel
safely along the street without a separate pedestrian
pathway.
4. ffier-e-are-ne-sigrnfieam=aec-es~iffility=-issues=tftat-
wiil arise from lack of sidewalk or the use of alternate
sidewalk.
5. Waiver of streetlights or alternate streetlights
would not contribute to an unsafe condition for traffic,
pedestrian travel, or the security of the surrounding
neighborhood. There are no maintenance or replacement
issues with any alternate proposed.
E. In addition, for a semi-rural designation:
1. 4dequate drainage along the street and in the
surrounding area exists, or can be achieved, with alternate
curb and gutter or dike.
2. At least two-thirds of the property o\vners along
the affected street have signed a petition to the City
requesting a semi-rural desigilation for their street. The
petition must make it clear that streetlights may not be
totally waived along the street, but may still be required at
larger spacings or at important locations" such as
intersections, along the street.
F. In addition, for a rural designation:
1. Adequate drainage along the street and in the
surrounding qrea exists, or can be achieved, without curb
and gutter.
2. At least two-thirds of the property owners along
the affected street have signed a petition to the City
requesting a rural designation for their street. The petition
must make it clear that streetlights may not be totally
waived along the street, but may still be required at larger
spacings or at important locations, such as intersections,
along the street. The petition must also make it clear that
street sweeping cannot be performed on streets where there
is no curb and gutter.
G. Alternates to standard high curb and gutter (Type
A2-6, Fig. 1-16, City of Cupertino Standard Details) that
will typically be acceptable are roll curb (Type E, Ibid.) and
A.C. Dike (Type A3-6D, Ibid.)
H. If no 'projects to which a rural or semi-rural
standard would apply have occurred along a street within
five years of the date that the City Council approved a rural
or semi-rural designation for that street, the rural or semi-
rural designation will expire, and the standard improvements
will again be required for the street until such time that the
City Council approves anew rural or semi-rural designation I.
for the street by the process outlined in this section.
L Any surveys, studies, plans, profiles, etc., ,
determined by the City Engineer as necessary for making J
14.04.040 Requirements-GeneraI.
A. Any person who proposes to erect, construct, add
to, alter or repair any building or structure for which a
building permit is required by the City on or upon any land
adj acent to an unimproved street, or who seeks a use p~rmit
or architectural and site approval from the City for land
adjacent to an unimproved street must improve, or agree to
improve by installation agreement, said street as herein
required by the installation of such of the following
improvements as the City Engineer, under the provisions of
this chapter, deems necessary: underground utilities, curbs
and gutters, driveways, sidewalk, street paving and overlay,
street lights, storm sewers, sanitary sewers, street trees,
street signs, water lines, fire hydrants, and retaining walls,
and, 'Nhere necessary, the dedications and improvements of
service roads, facilities for off-street parking, alleys,
easements for public utilities, drainage, sewers, walk\.vays,
watercourses, planting strips and nonaccess facilities, and
the payment of park and recreation facilities acquisition and
maintenance fees in accordance with Chapter 14.05 of the
City's Ordinance Code. Said improvements or installation
agreements shall be a condition precedent to the issuance of
any required building permit, use permit, or architectural
approval.
B. Certain local streets not covered under the
hillside development provisions of this Code may be of such
a nature that the City can determine them to be eligible for
modified street improvement standards. Developers of
properties that front on unimproved or partially improved
portions of such a street may apply to the City to I110dify the
improvement standards for that street by requesting that the
City adopt a rural or semi-rural designation for that street.
C. The City Council, upon the recommendation of
the City Engineer, may approve a rural or semi-rural
designation for a street, based upon the following findings.
D. For . either a rural or a semi -rural street
designation:
1. Conventional improvements are not appropriate
due to the character of development in the area, and
surrounding developed properties lack such improvements.
2. If sidewalk is not to be provided, the street is not
on a recognized route to school.
2004 8-1
1-9
D
14.04.040
Cupertino - Streets, Sidewalks and Landscaping
6
any of the foregoing findings for a rural or semi-rural street not fully compensate the City for the expense of making the
designation shall be the responsibility of the applicant for improvement. In order to mitigate the disparity between
such designation. improvement costs and in-lieu payments, the City shall be
~h~~ll=spgc-i~~mI=and=GGn:teI:l:t.=Gt:===:r-equired=tQ=instal:l=impr-G\l..ements=financed::by-=said=indieu--- --
14.04.060 In-Lieu Payments and Deferred
Agreements.
Notwithstanding the requirements of Section
14.04.040, permittee, at the option of the City Engineer,
shall be allowed to make provision for the necessary street
improvements either
A. By in-lieu payment as defined in Section
14.04.010 (B);
B. By a deferred agreement as defined in Section
14.04.010CA); or
C. By a combination of the above. (Ord. 1094,
(part), 1981)
14.04.070 In-Lieu Payments-Purpose-DeferraI of
Payments by the City.
In-lieu payments are intended to provide a method to
achieve the objectives of this chapter without the delay and
expense to the permittee attendant upon the preparation and
review of contracts, faithful performance bonds, labor and
material bonds, insurance policies, and other requirements.
However, the formula for the determination of the amount
of in-lieu payment, as specified in Section 14.04.180, does
2004 8-1
payments only at such time as the City can do so on an
economical, areawide basis, rather than on an expensive
piecemeal basis. (Ord. 1094, (part), 1981)
I
14.04.080 Deferred Agreements-Purpose-DeferraI
of Improvements by the City.
Deferred agreements are intended to provide
permittees who develop in certain areas an alternative
method of meeting their obligations under this chapter to
install street improvements. In areas where immediate
installation of improvements on a piecemeal basis cannot be
accomplished without creating a dangerous change in street
or sidewalk grade, or a hazardous lack of street alignment,
or interfering with utility service, or causing
disproportionate expense i!l the relocation of utility lines, or
interfering with natural or artificial drainage facilities and
causing ponding or flooding, and where property may
develop at an uneven and sporadic rate, making it difficult,
if not impossible, to determine when improvements can be
installed on an areawide basis, the C.ity Engineer, at his
option, may allow the permittee to execute a deferred
agreement in lieu of obligations imposed by Sections
14.04.040 or 14.04.070 of this chapter. COrd. 1094, (part),
1981)
14.04.090 Inter.im Street Improvement-Certain
Areas-Purpose.
A. Certain areas within the City as shall be more
specifically described by resolution of the City Council,
have the following special characteristics:
1. Virtually all properties \vithin the area are fully
developed and application for permits from property owners
within the area will, in all likelihood, be filed with the City
at a very slow rate over a substantial period of time;
2. Maj or portions of the streets in the area are of less
than standard width and are without full street
improvements as normally required by the City;
3. Full street improvements, if required to be
installed under the general requirements of Section
14.04.040, would be installed in a piecemeal and
uneconomic manner over an unreasonably long period of
time;
4. The use of in-lieu payments or deferred
agreements, as described in Sections 14.04.010(A) (B),
14.04.060, and 14.04.070 of this chapter, would not be
equitable or practical due to the fact that most properties in
the area are unlikely to develop or redevelop for a
substantial period of time; hence, full street improvements
1-10
EXHIBIT E
CUPERTINO
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
AGENDA ITEM
Summary
I ~ 0Jv\~ AGENDA DATE August 19, 2008
SUBJECT AND ISSUE
Report on modified street improvements for the Knopp development at 21925 Lindy Lane and
recommendation to retain the street improvement conditions required by the Planning
Commission.
BACKGROUND
On July 26, 2005, the Cupertino Planning Commission approved application TM-2005-03,
granting the applicant John Knopp a permit to subdivide the property at 21925 Lindy Lane into
two residential lots. As part of the approval, the Planning Commission required that established
existing trees along the street frontage of the property be preserved. In order to preserve the
trees, the standard roadside improvements would have to be modified to allow the roadway to be
built at less than the standard width and to delete the requirement for a concrete sidewalk.
The procedure laid out in Section 14.04.040 B of the Cupertino Municipal Code for modifying
roadside improvement standards for streets in areas of the City not covered under the hillside
development provisions of the Code requires that a semi-rural designation for such streets be
approved by Council. A prerequisite for Council consideration of a semi-rural designation is that
at least two-thirds of the property owners along the affected street shall have signed a petition to
the City requesting a semi-rural designation for their street. A Knopp subdivision representative
attempted to circulate such a petition to the residents of the area shown on the attached map, but
indicated to City staff that many of the residents who were approached remained sufficiently
unclear about the implications of the petition that they were unwilling to sign it.
Recognizing that the trees could not be preserved without modifying the street improvement
standards, as well as the existence of significant sentiment in the neighborhood to preserve the
trees and the natural quality of the neighborhood, staff held a neighborhood meeting at the site to
clarify the options presented by the petition. With plans produced by the applicant's engineer,
staff used the site meeting to demonstrate graphically the options for modifying the improvement
requirements to preserve the trees and minimize grading of the hillside. The attending residents
were polled for a general sense of the modified improvements that would be acceptable on a
revised petition, and the following was the result:
1-11
The subj ect section of Lindy Lane would have
1. Less than standard road \\ligth~:njypical curb-to-curb width will be 32 feet Jreduced from_.
standard 40 feet);
2. Altered curb type: Roll curb, rather than standard high curb;
3. No concrete sidewalk. A decomposed granite or aggregate base rock pathway may be
~s_ubsJitute~djn~a_manneLthat will nQLcDmpr.omiseJhenexisting~trees._~_ ._________ _.
A petition with the above parameters, together with a map of the affected area and a drawing of
the proposed modified road section was sent to each property owner in the affected area. It was
explained at the meeting and in the body of the petition that the narrower road width would
eliminate parking on one side of Lindy Lane along the Knopp frontage. The recipients of the
petition were asked to submit a signed petition by Monday, August 11, 2008, so that the item
could be presented at the August 19, 2008, meeting. As of this writing, the petition has not
achieved the required two-thirds signup.
Options for Proceeding
The semi-rural ordinance, adopted October 20,2003, and codified as Section 14.04.040 B in the
Cupertino Municipal Code, was approved by Council at the behest of a number of residential
property owners who desired not to install curb, gutter and sidewalk, or streetlights as building
permit conditions in order to preserve the semi-rural character of their neighborhoods. The
ordinance had been envisioned and employed primarily as a means whereby Council, in receipt
of a valid neighborhood petition could make the [mdings necessary to waive the requirements for
sidewalk or streetlights. The Code section, however, does deal with "modified street
improvement standards."
The purpose of bringing this matter to the Council is to recall a similar situation in 2005 when
the Council, in response to neighborhood concerns, felt it necessary to realign the curb at City
expense along the Poppy Way frontage of the Murano development after the developer in
accordance with the project conditions narrowed the street to preserve trees. In both the Poppy
Way and the present cases, the Planning Commission required tree preservation that calls for
narrowing of the street. Application of the procedure outlined in the semirural ordinance where
modified street improvement standards are called for as permit conditions should be required in
order to avoid a repeat of the Poppy Way misreading of neighborhood sentiment.
Normally, failure to acquire the signatures of the required two-thirds of property owners on a
semi-rural designation petition would preclude the issue from coming before Council, and the
standard improvements would be required. However, because of the tree preservation
requirement and what has appeared to be significant sentiment in the neighborhood to preserve
the trees and the existing character of the neighborhood, staff felt it prudent to advise the Council
of the status of this situation.
The approval of the applicant's final map has been held off pending the resolution of this issue.
There are at least the following options that could be pursued to allow the applicant to proceed:
1. Staff recommends that the modified street improvements necessary to fulfill the Planning
Commission condition to preserve established existing trees along the street frontage of
the property be approved. These modified street improvements, shown on the attached
diagram, are those that accompanied the neighborhood petition. The City Attorney has
advised staff that inasmuch as the semi-rural ordinance that would allow such modified
1-12
street improvements lacks a provision for Council approval of a semi-rural designation
witho~t a valid petition,--~1lRertino __Muni<::i})al C9d~_uS_ectLon_14Jl4.040~ mu~t be
amended if Council wishes to follow this recommendation.
2. The applicant could submit construction securities for the most extensive improvements
___that could bei~q.uiLed-tD_al1o~the_applicanUo_submiLthe-1inaLmap-IoLCounciLapproval,----
while the time for the petition signatures to be submitted in support of the semi-rural
designation is extended; or
3. Since the petition has not achieved the required two-thirds signup, the Council may
overrule the Planning Commission's .condition, as was done on Poppy Way, albeit after
the fact and at considerable expense to the City. In that case, the standard improvements
will be required, and the applicant can proceed with the final map approval.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact.
ST AFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conditions requrrmg modified street
improvements for the Knopp development at 21925 Lindy Lane be retained.
Submitted by:
@~- c~
~~ Ralph A. Qualls, Jr.
Director of Public \V orks
Approved for submission to
the City Council:
~
David W. Knapp
City Manager
1-13
0:::
W
W
Z
0:::0 7
wZ -.J
OW
-l z>- >-
<( w" r-r- ::JI- W
I- u-.;;t oU 7" 0
W 0:::1- n
0 I-w~ ~oeJ--r-T w <r: z
::JW
ZI--l zI -.J
0 WI- 0l1- -I- -.J
0::: L::Jo... I-
<( woW 0" Zw- >-
N
0 > W rnn 00 UJ
Z <(w-O U 0
<( 0...0 O:::L UlZ C'J
I- u ::Jo -0 Z OJ
00...<( 0_
UI Uo::: I-
z:::i_ OW- ww -.J
0 F:s:'N rno::: C'J
o:::z (J) ~ I-UI U
w- -w rn~ OUl 0::::
0...1- ~ZI 1--
0::: 0:::0::: N 0 0 LL
[!]w I- ::J<(
W I-L3 Iw LL 0
> 0:::0... u>
::J::J ::Jo 1-,
i= <(-
UU uo:::, 0...1-
w<( w-u ,/ w
I::d OW- 5_ l- I- e')
zo::: wO <('N<( ~<( 0 <r:
~~ -l>- (J)~o... CD ZUI
-ll- <(W l- f-
0_
00 o:::u o:::W U Z
(J) 00:::
80 I- W 0
UlI- Ow- (j; 0::::
~o bio
LW OUl 0 LL
01- o...w W
uU 2Z W
0- LI;
w<( u-l I
00... T Wo... ,,----.,
2 '-- f-
0 0- D.-
~u 0:::
..0 0
W C)
-.;;t I-w
OI 0:::: Z
~ ZI- D.- O
-.J
<r:
=. 0 ~
"'"0:::
.x <( ou
'No wo
OJ l- I w
0 <(-
wo::: w"'" 0
I-w g:@ <(
<(0 0:::
W<( WW 0
o:::w
I-I 0:::Y: 0
::J<( Z
W UlI-
0::: UIUI i=
::J W UI
UI 0::: X
UI 0... W
W
0::: N
0...
1-14
TM-2005-03
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 6313
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
APPROVING ATENTATIVE MAP TO SUBDIVIDE A 1.0 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO
LOTS OF ABOUT 20,000 SQUARE FEET EACH IN SIZE IN AN Rl-20 ZONING
DISTRICT AT 21925 LINDY LANE
SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
TM-2005-03
Bret Moxley
21925 Lindy Lane
SECTION II: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application
for a Tentative Subdivision Map as described in Section I of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the
Subdivision and Procedural Ordinances of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning
Commission has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said
application; and has satisfied the following requirements:
a) That the proposed subdivision map is consistent with the City of Cupertino
General Plan.
b) That the design and improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent
with the General Plan.
c) That the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of development
contemplated under the approved subdivision.
d) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely
to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidable
injure fish and wildlife or their habitat.
e) That the designs of the subdivision or the type of improvements associated
therewith are not likely to cause serious public health problems.
1-15
Resolution No. 6313
Page 2
TM-2005-03
July 26, 2005
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the application TM-2005-03 for a Tentative Map is hereby
approved subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on
page 2 thereof, and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this
Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning
Application TM-2005-03, as set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of
July 26, 2005, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approved is based on the tentative map entitled "TENTATIVE MAP, LANDS OF
KNOPP, 21925 LINDY LANE, CUPERTINO, CAli by Nelsen Engineering, dated
May 2005, and consisting of one sheet labeled 1.
2. FUTURE BUILDING AREA
The applicant/ owner shall submit a revised tentative map clearly delineating the
limits of development to closely reflect the illustrations included in the Planning
Commission staff report dated July 26, 2005. In addition, no retaining walls over 4
feet tall (measured from the natural grade) shall be constructed on the project site.
3. SLOPE EASEMENT
The applicant/ owner shall submit a revised tentative map clearly delineating the
required slope easement to closely reflect the illustrations included in the Planning
Commission staff report dated July 26, 2005. The easement is required to be
recorded on the property ensuring that the existing landforms, trees and vegetation
be preserved, and precluding any future developments or improvements in this
area, except for necessary under grounding of utility lines that do not adversely
affect the specimen size native oak trees.
4. TREE PRESERVATION
No trees are to be removed as part of the tentative map approval. The tree
protection measures outlined in the City Arborist's report dated June 29, 2005 shall
be conditions of this project. Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits,
the City Arborist shall confirm the implementation of the tree protection measures.
Prior to the final occupancy, the City Arborist shall confirm that the protected trees
have been preserved and survived the construction activities. In the event that any
protected trees must be removed due to reasons deemed appropriate by the
Corrununity Development Director, then comparable diameter replacement tree(s)
must be planted at the same location or locations visible to the public.
1-16
Resolution No. 6313
Page 3
TM-2005-03
July 26, 2005
Prior to final map approval, a covenant shall be recorded on the property, notifying
future property owners of the kinds and numbers of specimen trees protected by
City Ordinance and the requirement for a tree removal permit for these trees. The
covenant shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.
5. DRIVEWAY MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
Prior to final map approval, a driveway maintenance agreement shall be recorded for
existing driveway benefiting Lot #1.
6. DRIVEWAY ACCESS FOR LOT #2
Vehicular access for Lot #2 shall be taken off the ingress/ egress easement to the west
side of Lot #2 in order to limit grading impacts.
7. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN
A comprehensive construction operation plan must be submitted to the City for
review and approval prior to issuance of grading and building permits addressing
the following:
. Staging area
. Tree protection
. Construction hours and limits
. Construction vehicle and truck routes
. Dust and erosion control
. Garbage and debris container location and pick up schedule
. Signage advising contractors of the restrictions
In addition to the consh'uction management plan described above, the following
additional construction activity limitations apply:
. No grading is allowed during the rainy season - October through April.
. On Saturdays, grading, street construction, demolition, underground utility
work and other construction work that directly involves motorized vehicular
equipment are prohibited.
. On Sundays, construction is prohibited.
8. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The project and future developments shall adhere to the RHS Ordinance or the Rl
Ordinance whichever specific regulation in each ordinance is more restrictive.
9. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees,
dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant
to Government Code Section 66020( d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice
1-17
Resolution No. 6313
Page 4
TM-2005-03
July 26,2005
of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications,
reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day
approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and
other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you
fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements
of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions.
10. ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS
Prior to the approval of grading or building permits, a detailed geotechnical,
design-level investigation shall be performed in accordance with the
recommendations outlined in a letter from Cotton Shires & Associates to Colin
Jung, Cupertino City Planner dated June 29, 2005.
11. CALCULATION OF NET LOT SIZE OF LOT #2
For the purposes of subdivision, floor area ratio and building coverage, the area of
the ingress/ egress easement shall not be subtracted from the lot area to calculate net
lot size.
SECTION IV. CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT
12. STREET WIDENING
Street widening, improvements and dedications shall be provided in accordance
with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer.
13. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS
Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed In
accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer.
14. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION
Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer.
Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of
visual interference to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the
maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located.
15. FIRE HYDRANT
Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City Engineer.
16. TRAFFIC SIGNS
Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City, as required.
17. STREET TREES
Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way and shall be of a type
approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125.
1-18
Resolution No. 6313
Page 5
TM-2005-03
July 26, 2005
18. GRADING
Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance
with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404
permits maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers andj or Regional
Water Quality Control Board as appropriate.
19. DRAINAGE
Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Surface flow
across public sidewalks may be allowed in the R-1, R-2 and R-3 zones unless the
City Engineer deems storm drain facilities necessary. Development in all other
zoning districts shall be served by on site storm drainage facilities connected to the
City storm drainage system. If City storm drains are not available, drainage
facilities shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
20. FIRE PROTECTION
Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the
City, as required.
21. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities
Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of
Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of
underground utility devices. The developer shall submit detailed plans showing
utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the
affected Utility provider and the City Engineer.
22. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of
Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking
and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for
under grounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of
construction permits.
Fees:
a. Checking & Inspection Fees:
$ 5% of Off-Site Improvement Cost or
$2,130.00 minimum
$ 5% of Site Improvement Cost
$ 1,000.00
$ 1,293.87
NjA
$ 2,000.00
$ 15,750.00
b. Grading Permit:
c. Development Maintenance Deposit:
d. Storm Drainage Fee:
e. Power Cost:
f. Map Checking Fees:
g. Park Fees:
Bonds:
1-19
Resolution No. 6313
Page 6
TM-2005-03
July 26, 2005
a. Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site
Improvements
b. Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvement
c. On-site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements.
*The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule
adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified
at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the
event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then
current fee schedule.
23. TRANSFORMERS
Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment
enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground
such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas.
24. DEDICATION OF WATERLINES
The developer shall dedicate to the City all waterlines and appurtenances installed
to City Standards and shall reach an agreement with San Jose Water for water
service to the subject development.
25. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water
Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP plans
shall be included in your grading and street improvement plans. Erosion and or
sediment control plan shall be provided.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of July 2005, at a Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll
call vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: Giefer, Vice-Chair Miller, Saadati & Chairperson
Wong
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS: Chen
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
I sl Steve Piasecki
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
I sl Gilbert Wong
Gilbert Wong, Chairperson
Cupertino Planning Commission
g:/planning/pdreportjres/TM - 2005-03 res. doc
1-20
"...."-a" lVUTI
NOl1:)mU.5HO:J
OHIJ.lAIflS
DHIl3lNI!lIIl 'IAJ~
~
!j
~
'U!l::IiU!!)U:I
U ac;,au
v~ UNIH:ljdll~
3NVl )..ONll Sl6~l
ddON>t .:10 SONVl 'd'v'~ 3^ll'v'lN31
.~ II) ~ II} ~ rJ !"~ fl ...,
..'~ :! .... ~ ..
. l:
E ~.lj ~ as
~~ ~&~~ ~ i<
~~ ~~~~ ~ A'~
~g ij IO~ ] <~
Ij 1~~ l f lu
~~ il~~~ ~ !~,
t E ~ l!~ ~ E:~
~i ! ~l g I~ij
]! ~jE!~ ~ ~~i
! J- 0 B' g
ir !JllJ ~ ~I.
]~ sl~j~ & ~'E
IIa ~H] ~ 't ~~~
~ri j012!1 ~ I ~~l
JJd ~"i! i ~m ~BI
a. !~b~ j It o~s
I s R'~i~ · 18 ~~.
." ~ ~ ~~ 8 ~ J h ~ ~ I
~ ~ .~'i~ ~. "
~)- < '" ~ L .. ~...
~ ~ i - - - i= rE'
i! 1 ~!~-:6 i q :;::~f
.~ J ~ ~ ~ ~"6 ~ jJ - x ~
]f ~~~~l ~ ii~
'-1 '!.B;jt> L , 1!
~ j I ..ll' J ~!
~ l ~ n,; i~
. . " Hi . _ ~ . H
I
I
\
I
I
\
I
1
\
1
I
\
I
\
l
I
\
1
\
I
\
I
\
1 1H 1
!,t'.n .!
I In B
., ;; g~:I II l; II l!ll! ::
...
...
~~
z
o ..
E=: ~
~ ~ ~ i
~ ~ ~!~
r... ~ ~~~
u ~ ~:Q~
e; "i:jlSa
o
~
ll.
~ ~
~ r1.
~ ::
,.: ~ ~ :;:
'" ~..- ~
~ s~
aJ Oll!,. e
u m..( ~
~~~~~ g
~ID",~'!' :1l
ill gti~(.):Q ..
== wi5~gi ~
~ !!li5_~- t
~ ~~~a{ ~
(')2 <<)." ll'/-tO M
~,
J
,t tU ~
.~ lU '~
[~' ;~:
~;;,f") :l~
.~~ ~ ..~ ~
~ '~~.~,g~,:~.,~:~;.~
>--
@
u
<
"
%
~
%
13
i5
~
%
~
t;
"t j ~
g ~8 >-
l") 41 ~
~ ~~ ~ ~
.. -~ ~
. ~~u~ ~ ~
~ ~"1lI15.'. u
C ~ :~~a : ~
~ ~ ~f:' ~ ~
g: s ~~~! ~ ~
~
"
....
..
-< "
~ ~
~~5 ~
,.y,), >:
~67 ~
:J~:8 tI;j
t!Jffi~ ~
lSB~ ~
~
cr
ii! II
~ ~
'" "
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ..
/
1-21
~ ~
~ -
~ ~
\ ~
\~ -E
::
....:1 t:
< a ~
>
0 !'oO
~ ~ ;;;
<0. "
.:.. eo
oJ: a en
E;
u
-<
'"
...
8-
>- ~
~ <I( t
~ g
V)
i:l
'"
'"
...
9 g
~ ~
~ J
~
~ ~
~ 5
f5 gj
'~ ~~
g ! I
II
i I
t;;
%
t;;
%
u
-<
~
8-
t;'
g
o
g
g
~
'"
g
...
'3