PC 11-09-04
CITY OFCUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
6:00 P.M.
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
AMENDED MINUTES
NOVEMBER 9, 2004
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
TUESDAY
The Planning Conunission meeting of November 9, 2004 was called to order at 6:00 p.m. in the
City Council Chambers, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Taghi
Saadati.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Conunissioners present:
Chairperson:
Vice Chairperson:
Conunissioner:
Conunissioner:
Conunissioner:
Taghi Saadati
Gilbert Wong
Lisa Giefer
Marty Miller
Gilemt 'Nsag Angela Chen
Staff present:
Community Development Director:
City Planner:
Senior Planner:
Assistant City Attomey:
Steve Piasecki
Ciddy Wordell
Colin Jung
Eileen Murray
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL ORIENTATION
1. A Planning Conunission orientation session for the operation of the new
Council/Conunission Dais was held before the meeting commenced.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR:
4.
M-2004-08 Elephant
Bar Restaurant (in
Marketplace Shopping
Center) 19780 Stevens
Creek Boulevard.
Modification ofa use pennit (U-2004-11) to extend hours
of operation from II PM to 12 PM (Midnight) on Friday
and Saturday nights. Planning Commission decision
final unless appealed. Request continuance to
December 14, 2004 Planning Commission meeting.
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. MiUer, to postpone Application
M-2004-08 to the December 14, 2004 Planning Commission meeting.
(Vote: 5-0-0)
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
Cupertino Planning Conunission
2
November 9,2004
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
PUBLIC HEARING
2.
DIR-2004-06
David Perng (Tian-
Hui Temple)
7811 Orion Lane
Appeal of an approval of a Director's minor modification for
minor additions to an existing church. Postponedfrom
October 26, 2004 Planning Commission meeting; Tentative City
Council date: December 6, 2004.
Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
· Noted that the application was a continuation of the appeal by the applicant of a director's
approval for a minor building additions and a one story entry porch for an existing church and
ancillary building.
· Reviewed the history of the church and property, including church use; landscaping;
demolition and construction activities without the appropriate city permits, resulting in a stop
work order ±rom the city; neighborhood meetings with the applicant; as outlined in the staff
report.
· When the applicant met with neighbors and the physical plan largely met the neighbors'
concerns, but did not address their concerns with respect to potential overflow parking,
moming and evening operations, intensity of use, hours of operation; the neighbors were
interested in obtaining written restrictions that run with the land, either a use pennit or use
restrictions placed on the approval. The applicants verbally agreed to work with the neighbors
to address any complaints but were silent on agreeing to written use and intensity of
limitations on the project.
. Reviewed the plan modifications:
o To address privacy concerns, the height of the fence has been increased in certain
locations by adding 22 inches oflattice work.
o Proposing to plant trees and shrubs on the west, north, and east sides to provide
privacy.
o Move the sanctuary entrance to the south side.
o Move the handicapped ramp to the east and partially to the south side, away from the
neighbors to the west.
o Placement of a storage shed, located between the courtyard and the residence, which
will act as a buffer to the residents on the west side.
o To address the use intensity concems the applicant was agreeable to limiting the
parking to the 42 existing parking stalls.
o The proposed building additions do not generate additional occupancy since they are
used for storage or bathrooms.
o Increased bathroom size to accommodate handicap accessibility requirements.
Cherngye Hwang, Secretary, Tian-Hua I-Kuan Tao Foundation:
· Said the plan was revised to include the input ±rom the neighbors and recommendations ±rom
the Planning Conunission.
. Neighbors still have concerns regarding parking, traffic, and noise.
· Following input from the neighbors, submitted the letter to staff specifying that they will limit
the parking spaces to 42 on the premises and 8 around the property lines, which will limit the
number of people on the premises to 200.
Chair Saadati opened the meeting for public input.
Cupert;no Planning Commission
3
November 9, 2004
Peter Zen, Wallin Court (AppeUant):
· Said there have been many positive changes since the last public hearing.
· Clarified his motive for filing the appeal. Said that in a legal dispute about neighborhoods, the
residents have to get along, neighbors and cities have to live with the decision forever. It is
best not to rush into a decision, and in doing so, avoiding sutprises in the future. Also the
parties involved must be ready to maintain open discussions, fully disclose essential
information. In the past, there was a lack of information disclosure and open communication
from the temple. The director's approval would have resulted in constant sutprises, which are
not good for the temple, the neighbors or the city.
· Reported the communication between the temple and the neighborhood has improved.
· Recently a meeting with neighbors was arranged where concems were discussed. He thanked
the applicant for setting an example of promoting open communication.
· Reviewed his reasons for filing the appeal.
George Cuan, Orion Lane:
· Said he felt it was imperative that use restrictions be imposed and tied to the property, not
necessarily to impose undue limits on the current church group, but also to protect the
neighborhood from future tenants and any possible future expanded use.
· Expressed concerns about increased traffic in front of his house affecting his children playing
outside in front of the house.
· Shares neighbors' concerns about property values, noise, privacy and parking.
· Said he felt the church property is non-conforming and has lost its legal status, and as such
should be required to apply for a new use permit. Official records indicate that there is no use
permit on file.
· Section 19.112.010 defines non-conforming use and loss of legal status; since the church has
had no practical use within the last two years, it no longer has its legal status.
· The church should be subjected to use restrictions appropriate for a quiet residential area with
narrow streets, and a neighborhood that has changed substantially since the church was fIrst
established.
· Since the church has been utilized very little over the past 8 years and not utilized over the past
2 years; what the applicant is proposing is a major impact to all of the previous mentioned
factors.
Patrick Flavin, Orion Lane:
· Reviewed the history of the property.
· Average attendance in the past was 40 persons; the present use would increase the attendance
to 200, which is a large increase for a small street.
· Expressed concern about the size of the parking lot compared to other churches.
· Future home buyers in the area ask about the impact of the church property in the
neighborhood.
· Opposes proj ect.
Anat Dror, Wallin Court:
· Concemed about children's safety; it is a small neighborhood.
· The existing church and future churches will continue to grow without any control of usage.
· Major impact on the neighborhood; neighbors pay taxes and try hard to keep the community
safe and controlled.
Cupertino Planning Commission
4
November 9. 2004
Carol Subrahmanyam, Orion Lane:
· Said that maximum number of cars in the parking lot were six.
· Concerned about a stamp of approval increasing from 6 to 50 cars, and 20 people to 200
people.
· The street is two lane, and the children play on the street because most yards are small.
· Changes are inappropriate as a Director's approval with no use permits.
· Neighbors do not object to the construction, but with the use of it, and feeling unprotected at
this point by the city and the temple.
· Recently had her house for sale and one-third of the interested parties said they were not
interested because of the location of the church, preferred to live in a residential neighborhood.
· The proposed usage is detrimental to the public health safety and to the effect of the
neighborhood.
· Opposes the proj ect.
Nitan Shan, Orion Place:
· Lives adjacent to the church property.
· Acknowledged the cooperation of the applicant in the neighborhood meetings held.
· Two issues raised in the meetings: one related to the building construction where the entrance
is to the building and what changes had to be made and the other one was on the use
restrictions of the property.
· The changes to the plans seen today were in accord and respectful of the inputs of the
neighbors; thankful to the temple staff for doing that.
· On topic of use restrictions, there are still concerns; what has been presented to the neighbors
are voluntary restrictions by the temple, the times the property would be used, assurances
about noise and also frequency of events which would violate the other things which may be
special events.
· Asked for serious consideration that it is a quiet residential neighborhood, the number of cars
was 10 or 20 in the parking lot, 40 or 50 people maximum; and over the last 14 to 16 months
the property was not used; the property has not been used as a church for over a year and even
when it was in use, it was not anywhere close to the level of utilization described by the
voluntary undertakings of the temple.
Sally Haworth, Derbyshire Drive:
· When they purchased their home 8 years ago they were told the traffic congestion and noise
from the Orthodox congregation was minimal because ofthe small congregation.
· Reviewed the minimal past events of the church which did not have a negative impact on the
neighborhood because of the small numbers.
· Reviewed a recent schedule of events from the temple and verbal indication of the expected
future growth, special seminars and day camps for teens and festivals; however, no specifics or
details given about parking, traffic or anticipated participation.
. Neighborhood is small and compact and physically not conducive to the anticipated special
events or for much growth beyond the past history of the 40 congregants of past churches.
· What is causing so much concem is hesitancy on temple representatives' part to put anything
in writing regarding actual usage of the property.
· Questioned why one building on the property has a use permit and the other does not. There
has been no usage of the property since the summer of2003; does that mean a new use permit
is required?
· Everyone wants to work with the temple and their representatives on the use of the property
that would be satisfactory to both sides; hopeful that the Planning Conunission will consider
Cupertino Planning Commission
5
November 9, 2004
the history of the neighborhood, neighbors' concerns and actual physical accommodations the
neighborhood can offer into consideration as a decision is made.
. Opposed to the proj ect.
E. Dror, Wallin Court:
· Issues of concern are not related to any religion; even if it was a synagogue he would have the
same issues; respect the people and their help and their contribution to the community, but it is
not relevant here.
· The type of church they operate does not fit this kind of neighborhood.
· Submitted 15 signatures from different neighbors in opposition of the project.
· Asking the city for an operation restriction that would be part of the property, restricting level
of noise, number of people at any given time; hours of operation; number of cars outside the
property; signs and lights, that can be agreed upon.
· Asked the city to empathize with the residents regarding the issue since they compromise 24
neighbors and the temple is one large unit coming to the neighborhood.
· Said they strongly believe that they have the legal and moral reasons and rights for the city to
start joining forces with the neighbors and not with the church on the issue.
. Without restriction, it risks the safety of the children, the standard of living would be lower,
they would not be a happy neighborhood with a church; felt the neighborhood will reduce in
property values that will affect the city and affect the church property value as well.
· Any change in the building that makes the church operate better must be considered as major
change and not a minor change.
Lionel King, Wallin Court:
· Thanked the temple for the open communication and changes they have incorporated from
neighborhood feedback.
· During the home buying stage, the existence and hours of operation of the church were
revealed, but they were minimal; expressed concem with recent changes in level of activities.
· According to long time residents, the status of the church has been an ongoing problem
because its status is undetermined.
· Without a permanent solution it would be necessary to go through the legal process each time
the property changes ownership.
· Need a proactive solution giving assurance that the activities surrounding the church will
remain within the limits anticipated.
Deborah Hill, Wilkinson Avenue:
· Expressed concem about the motorists speeding on McClellan, Bubb, and Stelling Roads;
motorists parking in a no parking zone.
· Reported that recently a small child was severely injured when hit by a car.
· Urged the Planning Conunission and city to take action to solve the problem to make the
streets safe.
Wu Fu Chen, Chairman of the Foundation:
· Said he understood the neighbors' concerns and they were working with the neighbors to
resolve issues.
· Have addressed the initial concems about privacy.
· Issue of building usage is a neighborhood concem.
· Would like to see the Planning Conunission make reasonable judgment about use of the land
and their rights.
Cupertino Planning Conunission
6
November 9, 2004
Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director:
· Asked Mr. Chen to address the issue of continuous use.
. It is an extremely important issue; it is fundamental to the rights that people have owning
property and if in fact the use has been discontinued as stated in the ordinance, and as heard
from the testimony of neighbors, the Planning Commission needs to know that because then
the options are to continue it, go back, either get the proof that it has been operating or the
contrary proof that it hasn't been, and then file the use permit if it hasn't been.
Mr. Chen:
· The property was purchased in December 2003, and continued using the church in a lower
capacity; the time lag of not having any service is only about 3-1/2 months, mid-August to
mid-December.
Mr. Piasecki:
. Said that given that the issue seems to be clouded, the property was used at a lower capacity,
how much of a lower capacity; were the property rights of the church maintained, keeping it at
the previous levels; again because it addresses the rights of the neighborhood and the rights of
the church, would the church object to filing a use permit and going through the use permit
process and then negotiate with the neighbors and come up with some reasonable limits that
they would be happy with.
· If no objections, it would be best to file that application, have a hearing to talk about what are
the reasonable limits.
Mr. Chen:
· Said it was an uncertainty process they had to go through; they thought they purchased the
property, understood what they could do with the property; and will take the neighbors' input
and negotiate that; but said at this time they did not feel they wanted to agree to that.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Asked for the city attorney's advice to the Planning Conunission on what appeared to be
conflicting testimony; they have not continued use at the same levels; does staff need to gather
information from the neighbors and from the church.
Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney:
· There has been testimony tonight that it has been dormant for 6 months, dormant for up to 14
months; there is a question whether there is continuous use or not.
· In a non-conforming use if it is not used for 6 months for the non-conforming use, the status is
lost, and it can't be continued again without the use permit.
. If more information can be gathered on this, there may be some information in city records
that hasn't been previously found.
· . Continue the item and investigate this; there may be some of the neighbors who have been in
the area since the 60s who have some factual information.
Chao-Yue Liu, San Fernando Avenue:
· After the meeting and the last public hearing, he said they revised the plan and worked closely
with the city planner; from the last public hearing it looks like minor remodels or major
remodels, but have done a lot of step back and try to accommodate neighbors' needs.
· Give the neighbors a chance to prove they are good neighbors.
Cupertino Planning Commission
7
November 9, 2004
· Have put voluntary limitations of 200 people; 50 car parking spaces; this is for the future use;
presently the active members are only 60 and plans are for the future, for the neighbors, the
traffic, and the safety issue.
· Wanted to hear Planning Conunission's point of view and have them see how willing the
applicant is to cooperate.
· Last year they spent 7 months to raise the funds to purchase the church.
· Before purchasing the church, consulted with the city planners; the property is BQ zoning and
it can be used as a shelter, a school, or church or temple and they don't need to apply for the
use permit.
· Should have the right to use the church; they paid top money to purchase the church; the main
issue is that this great neighborhood and this BQ zoning is the reason we pay the money to buy
it and we want to have some place to worship.
· In favor of the project.
Sharon Chen, Seeber Court:
· Said the temple has shown goodwill to make the job work; from the neighbors' concerns they
have some issue about classes, activity, noise, traffic. Said there is some way to solve it.
· Said that there are classes presently at the temple and asked if the community felt any impact.
· Noted that the number of 200 people is a futuristic prediction and questioned whether the
community felt an impact now.
· In favor of the project.
Rajani Balaram, Oro Grande Place:
· Shares a fence with the temple.
· Repeated concern about noise and usage in the future when the temple expands its parish and
activities.
· It is a question whether the Planning Conunission puts some limits and stipulates something so
that even if the temple leaves it can be carried forward and be assured of what the
neighborhood will be.
· Neutral position on the project.
Chihua Wei, WilIowbrook Way:
· Said he was impressed with the goodwill and manner in which the applicant has worked with
staff and community to address issues. They have gone beyond what should have been done.
· Has observed many areas in Cupertino and saw many different activities in the areas which
bring value to the area.
· Has experienced how people accept or reject each other due to various reasons.
· The temple has done so much to show their goodwill toward the neighborhood, and has done
everything within the guidelines.
· The Planning Conunission should look at everything they have done and look at their rights
and to make sure that the temple can use the property within the city guidelines.
· Urged the Planning Conunission to approve the application and allow the temple to use the
property to meet, meditate and have personal growth which will benefit the community as
well.
· Supports the project.
Cupertino Planning Commission
8
November 9,2004
Chi-Lan Chang, Orion Place:
· When negotiating the purchase of her home, she was aware of the location of the church; but
thought it was being sold to a builder; the history of the property was that it was not used as a
church for some years, and had a low level of activity.
· Said the temple spent a lot of funds on the property, but the residents also spent a lot of money
to purchase their properties.
· The neighbors hear the construction noise from the remodeling at the temple and it negatively
impacts their privacy.
· Urged the Planning Conunission to consider the residents' concem for the value of their
properties and their privacy impacts.
Jean Fan, Oak Meadow Court:
· In favor of project.
· Said that the temple location is ideal for neighboring church members to walk to the church
rather than have to drive, decreasing the traffic impacts to the neighborhood.
· When seminars are held at the temple, lunch or light snacks are usually provided following the
seminar; people leaving the site do not leave at one time, which lessens the traffic impact to
the neighborhood.
Chair Saadati closed the public comment portion ofthe meeting.
Chair Saadati:
· Summarized that the concerns were noise, traffic, number of attendees at the temple.
· Questioned the building occupancy.
Mr. Jung:
· Said approved parking is 42 parking spaces; based on parking code it equates to 168 seats in
the temple; however, if fewer persons are in each car, the temple seating will be decreased.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said the fundamental issue is establishing the continuity of the use.
· The ordinance has a specific time limit of 6 months; if the use lapses, one must file for a use
permit; if it is continuous, there is not a requirement to file for a use permit, which is the
current assumption.
· Options to explore include going back to the applicant; continue the item and ask them to
demonstrate of the continuity of use, which can be done through utility bills, possible
testimonials from the parishioners that they have been attending services.
· There are rights on both sides of the issue; the ordinance requirements are followed and staff
understood there was a continuity of use.
· The alternative is that the applicant can say they do not want to debate the issue, will file the
use permit, talk with the neighbors, and arrive at some reasonable level of use.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Looking at the time history of the issue, the community does have a concern that if staff felt
comfortable authorizing the Director of Community Development, it must have been
established that there was no lapse of time, why are they going back.
Cupertino Planning Conunission
9
November 9, 2004
. If the applicant chooses to. he can determine that August 2003 was when the previous tenant
left and they took over in December 2003, they don't necessarily have to go through use
pennits.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Staff understood that there was a continuity of use based on the information received from the
applicant and through their own observations.
· Contrary information is being heard this evening from direct neighbors, they have a better
view of what is happening on the property. Staff may have been incorrect fundamentally and
if that is the case, needs to know that.
· Also, simply owning the property doesn't establish that they are using it, and even paying
lease rates doesn't establish that it is being used at a particular rate. Again, the applicant can
say they are willing to ratchet the levels back to what the perceived levels were, whether that is
50, 60, 100 or 200 parishioners attending services at this location. If it can be established, the
issue can either be closed conclusively or the applicant can do it through a use permit process.
. It is not a question of do you have the ability to apply for the use; you do; it is quasi-public
zoned, a church is an appropriate use in that zoning district; it has been used that way for a
long time. The issue is the process that needs to be followed; in this case if in fact it hasn't
been operated at whatever number they feel comfortable, then they need to apply for a use
permit to enable them to operate at that level, and work with the neighbors to address the
legitimate issues of traffic, parking, noise, hours of operation, number of employees; all the
things addressed with a use permit application.
Com. Chen:
· Assuming the use permit is in place and the use is changed, how can that be addressed.
Mr. Piasecki:
· The question was premised on the idea that there was a use permit in place; there is a use
permit that only speaks to the rear portion of the building; there is a real hybrid where part of
the property is under use permit, limited by that use permit, but the actual area where the
congregation is taking place is not, and the number of persons attending events is not.
· If there was a use permit intensified, you must amend the use permit to accommodate the
intensification; address the issues once again of traffic, noise, so they are all legitimate issues.
If there was a use permit we wouldn't be having this discussion, because they would have
already filed for an amendment instead of a Director's minor modification which was
perceived as, we simply want to change the entrance to this building, and that was perceived as
being no great impact and unless there is an intensification issue and it is not covered by a use
permit pre-existing use. It can be covered either way.
Com. Giefer:
· Questioned ffi on the use pennit, is it only the use permit as it pertains to the temple, or if it is
established there is a break in the use pennit with the prior occupants; does that void the
current use permit?
Mr. Piasecki:
· The current use permit in the packet seems limited, it addresses specifically the issues relating
to the back building only; if they were required to file a new use pennit, staff would want an
umbrella use permit that covers the entire site and not have parts of the site being covered
Cupertino Planning Commission
1()
November 9, 2DD4
different pennits, because then you would get down to the limitation on how many total people
can be in the buildings on this property.
· If there is a use permit in place, you have a year of non-use before that pennit expires; then
you have to file a new one. If you don't have a use permit in place, you only have six months·
of non-use before that use becomes invalid and then you have to file a use permit for the
property. The testimony seems to be that we have had more than six months of either highly
underutilized use or non-use; we need to establish that our assumption going into this was, no,
there has been continuous use, they have owned it, there was no more than a 6 month's lapse
and there has been continuous use; they may be able to demonstrate that.
· Not certain it is up to 200, and those are valid neighbors' concerns; it has been indicated that it
is an outer limit and they may be fine in saying 100 is their maximum. The neighbors need to
know that if that is the case.
Com. Giefer:
· Based on the square footage of both buildings, we have heard about the occupancy based on
the parking demand, but wouldn't we need to look at the square footage of both buildings
combined to determine what the actual maximum usage would be of those buildings.
Mr. Jung:
· The parking requirement is based upon the sanctuary seating only, applying to every church in
Cupertino. Other uses you might find in ancillary buildings such as a social hall, library,
daycare classes, Sunday school, are considered ancillary units not counted toward the parking
requirement.
Mr. Piasecki:
· It is permissible to under-utilize a building; you can have a huge building and very little usage
of it, either by use permit or by continuous pre-existing use in this case. If it can accommodate
500 and only being used for 100, the neighborhood has a right to keep it at 100, although 500
may be the maximum.
· Don't know how relevant the total building occupancy is relative to this type of issue.
· Clarified that it is an old law, applying to every church, and quasi-public use in the city; it is
not something being selectively applied in this case; staff has given the benefit of the doubt, it
was their impression that it was under continuous use.
Mr. Jung:
· Spoke about the evidence used to arrive at the conclusion of continuous use. It is based on
ownership and lease of the property itself. For a period of time, from July 2001 to December
2003 when the temple bought it, the property was under the ownership of a private property
interest who was interested in redeveloping it for single family uses. During that time, or at
least the majority of that time, the private property leased the property to another church.
· Staff's assumption is the person was using, it, because why would you pay rent on something
you are not using.
Com. Miller:
· Said the issue that needs to be resolved before moving ahead is whether there was continuous
use or not.
· Said he was uncomfortable making a decision without knowing that information, since it
seems to be crucial.
Cupertino Planning Commission
II
November 9, 2004
Motion:
Motion by Com. Chen, second by Vice Chair Wong, to continue application
No. DIR-2004-06 to the December 14, 2004 Planning Commission meeting.
(Vote: 5-0-0)
Chair Saadati declared a short recess.
3.
TM-2004-10, TR-2004-09
Cupertino Estates, LLC
22291 Cupertino Road
Tentative Map to subdivide a 23,158 square foot parcel
into two parcels (approximately 11,000 and 12,000
square feet, respectively). Potential tree removal of 5
specimen trees (1 oak, 4 cedar) on a residential parcel.
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed.
Mr. Jung presented the staff report:
· Application is for a tentative map to subdivide a 23,158 square foot lot into two parcels in a
RI-IO zoning district; and a tree removal request allowing potential removal of 5 specimen
trees.
· Reviewed the staff report including zoning and General Plan confonnance, street
improvements, and tree removal.
· Staff recommendation is to approve the tentative map, but deny removal of the trees. Staff
feels the tree removal is premature since there are other design options for the house.
Com. Giefer:
· Noted that there were two large Bay Laurel trees that were not included on map and felt they
should be saved.
· Questioned why they were not shown on the map; staff did not know the reason.
Ms. Wordell:
· Said that if it is still unclear and there was concern prior to approval as to whether the Bay
Laurel was there and was going to be removed, there could be a condition that any other
specimen trees would be required to be retained.
John Ha, architect:
· Said they decided to preserve the three trees growing together, with pruning as suggested in
the report and relocate the Oak tree to a different location on the property.
· Are asking for support in removing only one cedar tree located near the center and a hillcrest
roll; originally they designed the driveway access from Cupertino Road, where the three trees
are and the original driveway to the garage.
· After the discussion with staff and understanding they can request the re-orientation of the
front and rear yards, they will redesign the garage entry from Hillcrest, leaving the front
toward Hillcrest, to preserve the three Cedar trees; because if the tree is on both streets, it
would be difficult to design the garage access if it blocks on both sides.
· Willing to replace two or three trees for the removed trees.
Steven Lang, Southshore Court:
· Needed a larger home and found the property on Cupertino Road; ideal location because it is
closer to in-laws home; children will have space to play and visit grandparents often; good
environment and close to parks and foothills.
· Ask permission to remove Cedar tree located in the center of the corner lot; so they don't have
to locate the house in the rear of the lot.
Cupertino Planning Commißßion
12
November 9, 2004
· Cares about the trees and would like to plant more trees in the landscaping; build two houses
on the property.
Chair Saadati opened the meeting for public comment.
Harlan Jackson, Cupertino Road:
· Not aware of any concerns regarding the removal of the Oak tree.
· Concurred with the decision to retain the Blue Atlas Cedar trees.
· The removal of the Deodora Cedar may be driven to some extent by how the Public Works
department requires fill dirt.
· Welcomed applicant to the neighborhood.
Jan Stoekenius, Cupertino Road:
· Clarified the Bay Laurel trees may be indicated on the plan as fig trees.
. Said the major concern was with the protection of the Cedar trees; not concerned with the
Oak tree.
· Concerned about transplanting the Oak tree of that size and condition.
· Other concerns included drainage, because of the number of trees on the southerly lot, Lot 2;
filling it to bring it to street level might cause difficulty with retention of the trees, therefore
suggesting that an attachment be made to lot I to allow drainage across that lot; that will
avoid the need to fill as much of Lot 2 as otherwise would have to be done.
David Doyle, Cupertino Road:
· Welcomed applicant to the neighborhood.
· Keep the Cedars, Oak can go.
· Came to attention the rural street standards; would like to try and get that designation and as
part of the approval, have the flexibility of including this one in that designation and be
considered as part of the tentative map.
Tom Dursow, former resident of the site; resident of San Jose:
· Spoke about the drainage issue when there is heavy rainfall. At the comer of Cupertino Road
and Hillcrest in the area of the olive tree, extra water will sit in a small area about 20 x 20.
· The other two trees, rather small and relatively new as well as the Oak tree are not large in size
and when his family lived on the site, the trees grew on their own.
· Said he supported keeping the Cedar trees.
· Said he did not know if the trees Com. Giefer was referring to were Bay Laurels.
John Wilfolk, Hillcrest Road:
· Said the plans for the removal of trees and preservation of the three Cedar trees is an excellent
idea.
· Agrees with the plans for the property.
· Concurred with Mr. Doyle's idea about rural street designation or standard applying to the
area.
Chair Saadati closed the public input portion of the meeting.
Cupertino Planning Conunission
13
November 9,2004
Mr. Jung:
· Regarding Com. Giefer's comments about Bay Laurel trees, it does appear that it doesn't show
up on at least one of maps on sheet AI; checked the ordinance and Bay Laurels are not one of
the protected trees; they are considered a native tree but not one of the protected species.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Agrees with the community and neighbors that the Coast Live Oak can be relocated or
removed.
· Also concur that the 3 Atlas Cedars should remain; open minded about the Deodora Cedar;
and based on fellow colleagues stating that if there is tree removal, there has to be a
replacement of a specimen tree on the property.
· Supports the subdivision of the property.
Com. Giefer:
· Supports the subdivision of the property; it will create two good size lots; allow the applicant
to build their dream home.
· Supports retaining the trees, and does not feel that the trees should be removed.
· Supports moving the Oak tree te from its current location to another area in the lot.
Com. Chen:
· Supports subdivision of the lot.
· Does not support removal of the trees; supports staff recommendation to deny tree removal
request.
Com. Miller:
· Supports the subdivision.
· Pleased that everyone supports the three Atlas Cedars.
· Supports moving the Coast Live Oak tree.
· Would reserve judgment on the Deodora Cedar until after there is a final revised plan for the
lot.
· If the neighborhood is going to go rural, which is an excellent idea; as well as if the applicant
is going to revise his plans and build a two story house instead of a one story, there may be the
potential for saving that tree; on the other hand if it significantly interferes with building the
house, consider removing it.
Chair Saadati:
· Supports subdivision of the lot.
· Supports staff recommendation to retain the trees.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Chen, second by Vice Chair Wong, to approve Application
TM-2004-10. (Vote: 5-0-0)
Motion:
Motion by Com. Chen, second by Com. Giefer, to deny Application
TM-2004-09. (Vote: 4-1-0; Vice Chair Wong voted No.)
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS: None
Cupertino Planning Commission
14
November 9,2004
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Environmental Review Committee: Com. Chen reported that the meeting was cancelled.
Housinl! Commission:
Com. Giefer reported the Housing Commission met two weeks ago; reviewed the Nexus study
which primarily links housing to jobs analysis which is the current analysis. Cupertino is still
having problems providing mid-range and low cost housing and entry level housing based on the
growth and jobs for the community; they will continue to advocate providing a broader range of
housing within the community and try to develop low cost or moderate housing. Countywide, the
need for very low market rate housing and BMR housing is so significant that it begs the question
where should we concentrate and put our efforts; which is one of the objectives that the Housing
Commission is struggling with at this time and will decide what their objective is and how to move
forward on it.
Maior's Monthly Breakfast: There is a meeting scheduled for next week.
Report of the Director of Community Development:
Mr. Piasecki reported:
· Beginning Monday, November 15th, at the Senior Center, 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. the first General
Plan community meeting will be held; run by the Planning Commission; facilitated by MIG,
addressing a number of things about the process.
· Stressed that there will be other opportunities for the public to address the Planning
Commission and/or City Council.
· Second meeting in community room on December 6, 7 p.m. to 9 p.m.
· Change of date for mayoral succession: December 2, 2004, at 7 p.m.
Ms. Wordell:
. Said that the facilitator hopes to foster a thoughtful discussion among the people who attend
so that beyond just stating a point of view, she will work with them as much as possible
within the time constraints to elicit what is behind concerns, the thinking, pros and cons of
that, more than just people making a statement of what they like and don't like.
. The Planning Commission's role would be more to ask questions and hold comments to the
end to give the public the opportunity to speak and the Planning Commission to take their
input.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned to the meeting on Monday, November 15,
2004 at the Community Center, at 7 p.m.
<
SUBMITTED BY:
(),~
Approved as amended: January 11, 2005