Director's Report
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 TORRE AVENUE, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Subject: Report of the Community Development Directo~
Planning Commission Agenda Date: Tuesdav, December 13, 2005
The City Council met on Tuesdav, December 6, 2005, and discussed the followine:
items of interest to the Plannine: Commission: (see attached reports)
1. Consider an appeal of the Planning's Commission's approval of TM-2005-05
eEA-2005-12); Frank Sun, 21989 Lindv Lane, Tentative Map to subdivide a 2.6-
acre parcel into threé lots. The appellants are nearby Lindv Lane neie:hbors:
The City Council denied the appeal with the following conditions:
o The driveway for Lot 1 does not come off Lindy Lane but off of the existing
private drive.
o Two additional oak trees or redwood trees are to be planted along the
retaining waIl.
o The trees all along Lindy Lane are retained.
o The property owner agrees to a home no larger than 3,000 square feet.
2. Consider holding a hearine: to amend the R1 ordinance ree:arding the
Residential Hillside eRRS) standards: The City Council directed planning staff
to hold a public hearing with the Planning Commission on this issue as soon as
possible.
Enclosures:
Staff Reports
Newspaper Article
G: \Planning \ SteveP \ Director's Report\2005 \pd12-13-05.doc
])1 (l- I
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
Fax:(408)777~3333
CI
CUPEIQ1NO
Community Development
Department
Summary
Agenda Item No. _
Agenda Date: December 6. 2005
SUBJECT
Consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Application No. TM-
2005-05, Applicant Frank Sun, located at 21989 Lindy Lane.
Tentative Map to subdivide a 2.6-acre parcel into three (3) lots, ranging from
approximately 0.76, 0.65 and 1.22 acres in size in an RI-20 single-family zoning district.
RECOMMENDATION
The City Council can take any of the following actions:
1) Uphold the appeal and deny the tentative map application;
Or
2) Uphold the appeal and modify the conditions of approval;
Or
3) Deny the appeal and affirm the Planning Commission's decision of approval
with its conditions of approval as listed in Exhibit B;
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission heard this application on November 8, 2005 (Exhibit A & D)
and approved it with conditions on a 4-1 vote with Commissioner Giefer voting no
(Exhibit B). The Commission's decision was subsequently appealed by nearby Lindy
Lane neighbors (Exhibit C). Their appeal consists of three points:
1) The Planning Commission ignored the Cupertino General Plan regarding hillside
development;
2) The Planning Commission ignored the staff recommendation for two lots (not
three) that reflected the General Plan; and
3) The Planning Commission, in allowing the third lot (Lot #1), will destroy the
remaining Heritage Oak Tree Groves on Lindy Lane and further irreversibly
erode the environment and natural habItat of the neighborhood.
D-.;G
TM-20005-05
Page 2
December 6, 2005
DISCUSSION
This project was originally scheduled to be heard on October 11, 2005, but was
subsequently postponed twice by the applicant to the November 8th hearing date.
During the postponements, the applicant contacted neighbors about his project and he
submitted a petition of support from numerous neighbors. Other neighbors contacted
staff and individual Planning Commissioners via email to express their opposition and
concerns with the project and the ongoing construction along Líndy Lane. The petition
and emails are attached to the Planning Commission staff report.
At the public hearing, the following comments, concerns and issues were raised:
Applicant Comments
· The subdivision is consistent with the general plan and zoning of the area.
· The project has already been reduced in scope from four lots to three lots and is
less dense than two previously approved Lindy Lane subdivisions: Moxley and
Knopp, where 20,000 square foot lots were approved.
· A geologist has studied the site and his evaluation has been reviewed by the City
Geologist who has determined that the 3-lot subdivision is geotechnicaIly
feasible.
· The land is being subdivided to preserve its economic value; applicant has no
intention to build on the newly created lots over the short term.
· As many trees as possible will be preserved when development is proposed.
New trees will be planted to screen the residences.
· The driveway on Lot #1 will be designed to save the large trees and minimize the
visual impact.
Neillhbor Comments (in suvvort and opvosition)
· HistoricaIly, there has been landslides in the hillsides along Lindy Lane. One
recent landslide was not associated with any development. More hillside
development will place more residents in peril from geologic hazards.
· New houses are larger than existing ones and the future residence on Lot #1 will
remove mature trees, add retaining waIls and create adverse visual impacts for
neighbors on the south side of Lindy Lane.
· The character of the north side of Lindy Lane is rural in appearance. Residential
. development of Lot #1 will degrade the beauty of this area.
· A new house on the upper slope of Lot #3 is more acceptable as the building
\)-3
2
TM-20005-05
Page 3
December 6, 2005
area. It is well-screened by existing trees and vegetation and is likely to have
little visibility from Lindy Lane.
· Other property owners have been allowed to subdivide their properties
according to the City's rules; Mr. Sun should be accorded the same treatment.
Staff Comments
· Staff had recommended to the Planning Commission that the band of steep
slopes and native and non-native tree cover that occupy the Lindy Lane street
frontage should be protected, as they give this street its semi-rural appearance
and screen the visual impact of the hew residences. This was the design concept
that was applied to the recent Knopp property 2-lot subdivision. The Moxley 3-
lot subdivision occurred four years ago and its recent development demonstrates
the visual impact that subdivision can have on the character of a hillside.
· Given general plan policies 2.53, 2.55 and 2.56, which relate to minimizing
grading and retaining waIls and retaining significant trees, especiaIly when they
grow in groves or clusters, staff felt the Sun 3-lot subdivision was not consistent
with the general plan-unless Lot #1 was eliminated.
· Alternatively, staff's recommen.dation was for a continuance, if the applicant was
agreeable, to reconfigure the three proposed lots, placing all three building sites
on the upper, northern portion of the property.
Plannin~ Commission Comments
· A majority of the Commissioners approved the tentative map with three lots,
adding numerous conditions of approval to mitigate potential concerns and
impacts.
· A restriction was added to the Commission approval limiting the building area
on Lot #1 to no more than 3,200 square feet. Per the R-1 ordinance, the potential
maximum was 3,660 square feet.
· A restriction was added to the Commission approval that prohibits further
subdivision of the property beyond the three lots.
· A restriction was added to the Commission approval modifying the slope
easement condition aIlowing a house on Lot #1 and a yet-to-be-Iocated
driveway, while preserving existing land forms and trees.
· A restriction was added to the Commission approval requiring a covenant on the
property, notifying the property owner(s) of all protected specimen trees.
· A restriction was added to the Commission approval requiring a tree bond prior
to building permit approval.
D-+
3
TM-20005-05
Page 4
December 6, 2005
. The construction management plan was expanded to include parking locations
for heavy construction equipment and vehicles.
. A condition was modified to prohibit sidewalk improvements as part of this
subdivision.
ENCLOSURES
Exhibit A: Planning Commission Staff Report dated Nov. 8, 2005
Exhibit B: Planning Commission Resolution No. 6335
Exhibit C: Appeal documents
Exhibit D; Draft Planning Commission minutes dated Nov. 8, 2005
Tentative Map
Prepared by: Colin J ung, Senior Planner
Submitted by:
Approved by:
é5r...we~/cLu--
~
Steve Piasecki
Director, Community Development
David W. Knapp
City Manager
G:CupertinoNT /Planning/PDREPORT /Ce¡ tm-2005-05ccappeall.doc
þ-S
4
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
FAX (408) 777-3333·
Community Development Department
SUMMARY
Agenda Item No..23
Agenda Date December 6, 2005
SUMMARY:
Consider holding a hearing to amend the R1 ordinance regarding the Residential
Hillside (RHS) standards.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve holding a hearing to amend the
R1 ordinance regarding the Residential Hillside (RHS) standards.
BACKGROUND:
On February 1, 2005, the City Council approved comprehensive changes to the
R1 ordinance. One of the modifications reduced the slope threshold for
application of the hillside standards to lots zoned R1. Prior to the changes, the
R1 ordinance required that buildirigs proposed on a lot with slopes of thirty
percent or greater must adhere to standards in the Residential Hillside
ordinance, or the R1 zoning ordinance, whichever is more restrictive. With the
changes, the R1 ordinance applied this requirement to buildings proposed on
properties with an average slope equal to or greater than fifteen percent (see
Exhibit A).
During the recent General Plan hearings, residents in the Lindy Lane area
expressed concerns about these changes (see Exhibit B). Some residents
supported the changes due to concerns about geological problems and sizes of
homes. Others opposed the changes and felt that property owners had not been
sufficiently notified.
DISCUSSION:
Due to the concerns expressed about these changes, staff recommends that the
City Council approve holding hearings to consider amending the R1 ordinance.
The pros and cons of the potential amendments would be presented at that time.
The likely hearing date for the initial meeting would be in February 2006. Staff
believes that this a significant project that will require substantial staff time, and
D-(o
Consider holding a hearing to amend the R1 ordinance regarding the Residential
Hillside (RHS) standards
December 6, 2005
Page 2
that projects currently in the work program, such as revising the sign ordinance
and the Heart of the City Specific Plan, may need to be deferred until its
completion. The Council can take up th~ issue of which existing goals can be
deferred in conjunction with your review of goal for next year.
Enclosures:
Exhibit A: Section from Ordinance 1954 regarding Development Regùlations
Exhibit B: Letters of concern from Lindy Lane neighbors
Prepared by: Ciddy Wordell, City Planner
Approved by:
~
~
David W. Knapp
City Manager
Steve Pia ecki
Director of Community Development
G:planIÙngjpdreportj ccjR1-RHS 12-06-05
D-1"
,J proposal
may develop
lsland· of land
by Cupertino
:ommercial strip on De Anza
nay be high-d~nsity housing
Iy HUGHBIGGAR
[ f you build it, they will coni~ Thåt's
what haS some Çupertinp residents
concertied about a própq~ed devel-
>pmentproject north 9f~ghway 85.
S. De Anza Boulevard, KentWood
~veDue, HighWay 8S and Coo Avenue
J¡òu1d borderthedevelopment';;:""an ,
u-ea cqrrentIy"ho~ to a Nob Hill gro- .
:ery store. If approve~by San Jose, the I
Jroject wowd reciu4'~ a change: to San I
~~~:~~ELer-1
::ial to ",ed;um high-density residential
je;.1~';':;~~,;~~~"bf\'nsite·1
Cupertino,the project would be sur- "
rounded by the city, th~, to the
quirks of aIinexation.~_:_ ,:,'<. _,-,., _ '
"When homeownerS wanted_ to annex
[to t:upertino] because of the schools, "¡"
San Jose said, fine, but We keep the
retail [wIrlch piovides sales tax rev- C
enue]," said Steve Piasecki. Qipertino's 1.
director of community development. As
a result; a commercial strip along De ':
Anza Boulevard nOrth of Highway 85 I
has remained a part of San Jose.
Cupertino begins north'of Bollinger. I
The retail character of the San Jose
corridor would change ü the San Jose I
planning department ap.proves th~ .1
application by Jim Sullivan and. Sue
Dillon.
Although still in the planning stages,
the project is scheduled to go before
San Jose's planning department in the
winter of 2006. Cupertino is not expect-
ed to have a part in that process,
although "typically we notify each
other," Piasecki said.
Meera Nagaraj, whose is managing
the project for the city of San Jose,
also said there would be a community
meeting at an undetermined date, and
residents living within 1,000 yards of
the project will be notified.
Even so, the project bas some
Cupertino residents worried.
"We are concerned about the possi-
ble impact on the .schools with over-
crowding and traffit\" said resident
Dennis Whittakir. "And it won't go
before the city council because it's not
their jurisdìction:' ,
---'----~-_. -~.._- -.-
Luper-Uno
ER
---- --
Volume 58, "~umber 45 . November:9", 2005· Cupertino, CA· Est. 1947 . www.cupertinocourier.con
~~?
,
"'
þ-v
~