PC 11-8-05
.
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
6:45 P.M.
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
AMENDED MINUTES
November 8, 2005
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
TUESDAY
The Planning Commission meeting of November 8, 2005 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the
Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA., by Chairperson Wong.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present:
Chairperson:
Vice Chairperson:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Chair Wong
Vice Chair Miller
Lisa Giefer
Angela Chen
Com. Saadati
Staff present:
Community Development Director:
City Planner:
Senior Planner:
Assistant City Attorney:
Steve Piasecki
Ciddy Wordell
Colin Jung
Eileen Murray
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the September 27,2005 Planning Commission meeting:
Com. Saadati:
· Page 4, bottom of page: Change "nnmbers" to read "number"
· Page 21, third line from bottom of page: delete second "be"
· Page 27, 5'h line from bottom of page: change "would" to read "may"
· Page 27, 41h line from bottom of page: cbange "fit tbe" to read "for a"
Com. Giefer:
· Page 6, second last paragraph: Change "Kahn" to "Kahan"
· Page 16, bottom of page: Cbange "Commissioner" to read "Cbair Wong"
Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Com. Saadati to approve the
November September 27, 2005 minutes as amended. (Vote: 5-0-0)
Minutes of the October 11, 2005 Planning Commission meeting:
Com. Giefer:
· Page 12, Com. Giefer, Bullet No.6: delete "CUSD's advisory committee several years
ago" and insert "CUSD"
Cupertino Planning Commission
2
November 8, 2005
Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Com. Saadati, to approve the
October 11, 2005 minntes as amended. (Vote: 5-0-0)
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
. Staff noted receipt of an email relative to an application on the agenda.
. Chair Wong noted receipt of correspondence regarding the Val1co Fashion Park
condominiums; an objection on the Toll Brothers project; correspondence regarding the water
wells and possible contamination on the California Water Service Company site; an email
from Jennifer Griffin regarding the Planning Commission meeting. (Chair Wong noted that the
meeting would be a delayed broadcast because of the election). He also noted receipt of an
email from Joho Knott regarding an agenda item.
POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR:
2.
M-2005-04
Brett Moxley
(Knopp residence)
21925 Lindy Lane
Modifications to a Tentative Map (TM-2005-03) to provide
access for Lot 2 from Lindy Lane. Planning Commission decision
final unless appealed. Continuedfrom the October 25,2005
Planning Commission meeting. Request postponement to the
December 13, 2005 Planning Commission meeting.
Tentative Map to subdivide 0.48-acres into 2 parcels, ranging
from 7,387 square feet to 7,390 square feet. Interpretation
to define the front yard as Jollyman Lane for a comer lot at
Jollyman Lane and Stelling Road. Planning Commission decision
final unless appealed. Request postponement to the
November 22, 2005 Planning Commission meeting.
Tentative Map to subdivide 0.49-acres into 2 parcels, ranging
from 7,486 square feet to 8,744 square feet. Interpretation
for the front yard on Jollyman Lane for the comer lot at
Orline Court and Jollyman Lane. Planning Commission decision
final unless appealed. Request postponement to the
November 22. 2005 Planning Commission meeting.
Director's Minor Modification with referral to Planning
Commission to install six panel antennas on an existing 82-foot
PG&E transmission tower, and installation of related ground
equipment. Exception to install six panel antennas on an
existing 82-foot PG&E transmission tower. Planning Commission
Decision final unless appealed. Request postponement to the
November 22, 2005 Planning Commission meeting.
Motion: Motion by Com. Chen, second by Com. Saadati, to postpone Item 1 to the
December 13, 2005 Planning Commission meeting, and postpone Items 3, 4 and 5
to tbe November 22, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. (Vote: 5-0-0)
3.
TM-2005-10,
INT -2005-01
Dipesh Gupta
10752 S. Stelling
Road
4.
TM-2005-12,
INT -2005-02
Dipesh Gupta
(May residence)
Road
5.
DIR-2005-28,
Jason Smith (Cal
Com Systems)
10110 California
Oak Way
Cupertino Planning Commission
3
November 8, 2005
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
· Expressed concern that the Planning Commission meeting was not simultaneously broadcast
because of the election.
· Expressed concern that Item 2 was the only item on the agenda not continued, and said she felt
that many of the concerned residents may not be in attendance.
Chair Wong:
· Clarified that consideration was given to ensuring that the meeting would be taped.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Explained that the Permit Streamlining Act requires government to act in a reasonable period
of time and noted that relative to tonight's agenda, a number of the applicants were willing to
take continuances, and the applicant tonight wasn't required to and exercised his right to move
ahead with the application. He pointed out that the city observes state laws and respects the
applicants' rights as well.
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
2.
TM-2005-05
(EA-2005-12)
Frank Sun
21989 Lindy Lane
Tentative Map to subdivide a 2.6-acre parcel into three lots.
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed
Postponed from the October 25.2005 Planning Commission
meeting.
Mr. Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
· Reviewed the application for a Tentative Map to subdivide a 2.6 acre site in an RI-20 zoning
district into three lots, as outlined in the staff report.
· Showed a 2004 aerial photo of the site; reviewed the Tentative Map application and the
maximum house sizes.
· He reviewed the impact of the conceptual building sites on the affected trees and discussed the
features of Lots I, 2 and 3.
· Staff recommendations include:
o Either continue the Tentative Map application to allow the applicant time to reconfigure
the three proposed lots; placing all three building sites on the upper northern portion of the
property; which would be the least visible portion of the property for the neighbors to the
south and would have the least grading impacts.
o If the applicant is not agreeable to the first recommendation, to approve a two lot
subdivision, eliminating proposed Lot No. I per the model resolution.
o In any subdivision, staff would like to condition it with a slope easement across the front
of the property, facing Lindy Lane.
· Responded to Commissioners' questions relating to the proposed application.
Com. Giefer:
· Disclosed that she was contacted by several residents in favor and opposed to the project.
· She also stated she was contacted by several residents that there was a rumor that the meeting
was cancelled.
Cupertino Planning Commission
4
November 8, 2005
Chair Wong:
· Disclosed that he had spoken with the applicant, and had received phone calls and emails from
various parties.
· Said he suggested to Com. Giefer that they should try to meet with all parties. He expressed
appreciation to Ms. Wordell for meeting with some of the neighbors to express viewpoints
regarding the process; and for Mr. Jung taking him to the site and talking with the neighbors.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Stated that he walked the site also and spoke with the applicant and received emails from
many ofthe neighbors.
Yetka Symbol, representing Westfall Engineers:
· Said that Parcel No. I could be accessed from the existing driveway as mentioned, it would
require some creativity in design of the structure.
· Discussed the process to the present state and how the plan was developed. The process began
two years ago with a detailed survey and preliminary development plan. The initial plan was
to create four parcels on the property; two were created on the upper section which is now Lot
No.3; and the parcel was similar to what to what it presently is. To verify suitability of the
building site, it was recommended to Dr. Sun that he do extensive geotechoical report. Barry
Millstone did a subsurface exploration which included trenches and borings. It was
determined that all four sites were suitable. Based on the report we met with the planning
staff, recommended that the four lots were too dense and Dr. Sun decided to go with some of
the recommendations of staff and reduce the subdivision to three lots.
· We have taken into consideration also the pattern which was established by development of
the Moxley property across the access road to the east. The map is consistent with zoning and
the General Plan and the neighborhood. In the layout the smaller parcel which is Parcel No. I
located near Lindy Lane in keeping with the existing homes across the street, and the largest
parcel over one acre in size creates secluded building site close to the hilltop where there are
large building sites.
· We respectfully request an approval of the subdivision, Dr. Sun has worked hard and in good
faith to create a development which is both appropriate and sensitive to natural limitations of
the property. Both the proposed parcels and the building sites were selected to minimize
grading, prevent removal of existing trees while maintaining the integrity of the existing
neighborhood. The three lot subdivision of 2.6 acre site has lower density than other properties
developed recently in the area. It is consistent with the existing homes and parcel along Lindy
Lane as well as with the larger parcel located along Lindy Lane, westerly along Lindy Lane
and north along Montcrest Place.
· Pointed out regarding tree preservation and tree protection, there are methods which can be
utilized to protect trees. Driveways can be constructed without grading on grade with geo
fabric and a thin layer of rock material, with pavers to surface it with to protect the roots of the
tree. It has been utilized in cities such as Saratoga, Palo Alto, Los Gatos.
Dr. Frank Sun, applicant:
· Over the past few years we have been in the middle of several constructions so we are aware
of the impact of a new apartment. We worked hard to communicate with our neighbors in
order to know their concerns and demands. We tried to look at my project from their
perspective and from their lots, their yards, sometimes their living rooms.
· We often reached the middle ground to balance our rights and theirs. We worked hard to
mitigate the potential impacts by reducing the lot numbers, choosing the building size and we
tried hard to protect all the trees.
Cupertino Planning Commission
5
November 8, 2005
· We had the most comprehensive and indepth geological review and study; one was performed
by the previous owner. About 50% of the residents contacted on the south side of Lindy Lane
were either neutral or supported the project; some had other wishes which they will express
tonight.
· It has been a long journey which began two years ago; it was a process of compromise.
· I hope you see the merit of my project.
Chair Wong opened the public hearing.
John James, Lindy Lane:
· Said his purpose was to petition the Cupertino Planning Commission to maintain a safe, sane,
steep hillside environment.
· Retain the significant specimen trees especially when they grow in groves or in clusters.
· When highly sensitive natural areas such as those subject to floods, brush fires, earthquakes,
landslides become part of the city, human life must be protected.
· Illustrated photos of the Lindy Lane mudslide in the early 80s when his home was completely
destroyed and 750 dump truck loads of dirt was hauled away.
· Asked them to stop the destruction of the rural environment on Lindy Lane, please keep the
50% formula for hillside neighborhoods in Cupertino.
· Opposed to application, but would support a two lot subdivision with sloped easement of Lots
2 and 3.
Ron Berti, Lindy Place:
· Said he was not opposed to Dr. Sun subdividing his property, but he was reluctant to see much
more development.
· Expressed concern about the number of properties being subdivided above his property and the
negative impacts on his privacy. Subdivision of three homes on the hill are resulting in eight
new homes being constructed, which he noted is appropriate in an R I area, but the community
is a mature neighborhood on the edge of the hillside.
· He urged the Planning Commission to be restrictive in pursuing further development on the
hill, as he felt the hill could not support eight new homes.
Jnlia James, Lindy Lane:
· Said she supported the neighbors and urged the Planning Commission to make the right
decision.
· From a safety factor, it is not feasible to have more homes on the hill.
· Respectfully request limiting the hillside to 15 foot setback and smaller homes.
· Opposed to the application.
Mohammed Hossain, Lindy Lane:
· Said when he moved to his home, he was told there would not be further hillside development.
· The ongoing construction is ruining the environment.
· Opposed to the application; request limiting further development.
· Suggested that the Sun's property be subdivided to two lots only.
Charlie Taysi, Lindy Lane:
· Limit the subdivision of the north hills of the Lindy Lane, follow the staff recommendation to
subdivide to two lots.
Cupertino Planning Commission
6
November 8, 2005
· Provided a history of the Lindy Lane development, which was developed in the early 70s; at
that time the Planning Commission and City Council considered facts which included
protection of the rural environment of the hillside, traffic conditions of the Lindy Lane and
north hillside. The hillside was restricted to much larger sites and the homeowners were aware
of the conditions.
· In the late 80s the hillside owners requested subdivision of their lots and the requests for
subdivision of the north hillside were denied.
· In the 90s the zoning regulations were changed and the current homeowners were encouraged
to attend the Planning Commission and City Council meetings to defend their position. The
City Council and Planning Commission members were elected to protect the rights of the
hillside property owners and make the right decision and keep the status quo of the hillsides.
· Said they should maintain the hillside development to a minimum and allow only two lots for
the Sun application.
· Opposed to the application for subdivision into three lots.
Jondon Taysi, Lindy Lane:
· In the 80s there was a mudslide which covered Lindy Lane. A concrete retaining wall was
then constructed to protect the Sun property; the Taysis have also had to build retaining walls
on their property.
· Expressed concern about the larger homes being built and the strain on the hillside.
· Urged the Planning Commission to be cautious about allowing more large homes, and to save
the present neighborhood for the existing residents.
· Opposed to the application for subdivision into three lots.
Bob Rodert, Lindy Lane:
· In the 70s he selected his lot based on the rural environment and the assurance of the Planning
Commission that the land would always be a rural environment.
· He urged the Planning Commission to protect the hillsides and preserve the grove of oak trees.
· Said he was not opposed to the development at the top of the Sun property, but requested that
Lot No. I remain the way it is.
Sara Arzeno, Lindy Lane:
· Lindy Lane is a canyon, when you approve homes that may on paper look perfectly adequate
and look as if they are within the codes, when you build the homes, they pop over the tree
canopy, way up over the hills and look down into the south Lindy Lane homes. My home
looks out onto two monstrous homes, retaining walls, workmen everyday; and we have no
privacy in our back yard. All our front facing windows now have homes looking into them.
· What does property rights mean? Does that mean that only people building have property
rights? What about the present residents? My rights have been destroyed, I have no privacy in
my backyard; my quality of life has been destroyed as well as my families. You have to look
beyond what you see on a map, walk up and see the impacts; I feel the Planning Commission
has ignored me, they have not listed to my concerns and I am outraged about the
unprecedented lack of respect by the builders and developers for the people that have lived
there for years.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
· Recalled the heavy rains in 1983 and the damage to the hillside properties in various areas of
California.
· Questioned whether the proposed three lots would be able to be subdivided again in the future.
She said there should be a minimum lot size for the hillside building.
Cupertino Planning Commission
7
November 8, 2005
· She asked if there would be a bond imposed by the owner and developer for the tree protection
during construction. She suggested that the oak trees be fenced off during construction.
· It would be helpful to keep the density of the hillside lots to two lots.
Marie Lin, Mount Crest Place:
· Said her backyard opens to Lindy Lane; the slope on the Mount Crest side is smaller.
· The retaining wall is well engineered, and with today's technology and knowledge of
construction, civil engineering, there is a way to make the hillside living safe for everyone.
· Dr. Sun's lots, after subdivision, would still be larger than some of those presently under
construction.
· Said she felt the large lots subdivided would make them easier to maintain and more fire safe.
· If the applicant works with the city, neighbors and uses careful architecture and design, many
concerns can be addressed.
· Supports the application.
J. W. Lee, Realtor, Stevens Creek Boulevard:
· Spoke about owners' property rights and their right to maximize the value of their property if
they desired.
· The applicant's property is geologically approved for 4 lots and the applicant wishes to
subdivide it into 3 lots to avoid crowding.
· He discussed the size of the surrounding properties and noted that Dr. Sun's subdivided lots
would be larger than the existing ones in the neighborhood since his parcel was 2.6 acres. Dr.
Sun has also assured that he was committed to protect the current vegetation and was willing
to increase the vegetation if necessary.
· He pointed out that any development on the proposed subdivided lots would adhere to the city
codes, geological studies, and the applicant would work with the neighbors and city relative to
the design and size of the homes, and tree protection.
· Supports the application.
Sherry Fang, Lindy Lane:
· Supports the application for subdividing into three lots because the current law permits him to
do so.
· Recently there was a subdivision of two smaller lots in the same neighborhood.
· If you want to preserve the hillside, since our previous meetings, no one has ever approached
us about starting an endowment fund or having the, city acquire the land. The view of the
hillside is for the benefit of us all, we should all pitch in. It shouldn't be the burden of a few
property owners. Let's be fair.
· Urged the Planning Commission to approve and resolve Dr. Sun's subdivision in a timely
manner, similar to the turnaround time extended to the other applicant Mr. Knapp. He started
the process two years ago, and it was longer than it needs to be; time is money.
Mark Santoro, Lindy Lane:
· I share a driveway with the Sun's property.
· Those of us who live on the north side of Lindy Lane do enjoy the hills also. We purchased
land there because of the hills.
· Apologized to his neighbors for the inconvenience caused by his construction. Said he would
do the utmost to have his house as invisible as possible to the neighbors and make the property
look better. Noted that there were more trees on his property now then when he acquired it
Cupertino Planning Commission
8
November 8, 2005
and there will be more to follow. The retaining wall mentioned is closer to 6-1/2 feet tall
rather than 10 feet tall, and he planted plants and trees in front of it which will grow.
· In addition, I don't necessarily agree with everything that has been done up there; I think that
the Moxley properties were divided by someone who was leaving the neighborhood, many
trees were taken down which exposed my property as well as others which is one of the
reasons why people see the wall they discussed. I am sympathetic to keeping the trees in the
neighborhood and I hope we all strive to do that.
· I support the Sun's subdivision.
· The reason I support it is the Suns are going to continue to live there; they are doing it to
preserve the value of their property; I understand that they currently don't have any intent to
build, although I recognize that they could someday. Given that they have the right, a
compromise of 3 lots is reasonable.
· It is my understanding, and I feel the way they are dividing it is the proper way; if they tried to
put more lots up on top, it is putting the small lots next to a lot of big lots and burdening the
bigger lots as well as our driveway which is already loaded. By putting the entrance on Lindy
Lane, it will take less burden off our private drive which is a good thing.
· Said he understood that Dr. Sun agreed to not subdivide further and also agreed to limit the
size of the house on the lower lot. He said if those could be included as conditions, he would
support the project. If the house on the lower lot is limited to a small size so there are not trees
being taken out, the current plan makes sense.
· Supports the application.
Jim Moore, Lindy Lane:
· Resides across from the retaining wall, 10 feet high; almost 200 feet long; there is another one
up Lindy Lane to the west, about 90 feet long. The retaining wall was installed to keep the
hill from coming down.
· Showed photos ofthe properties in the area.
· Expressed concern about the numerous retaining walls in the area and not part of the natural
beauty of Cupertino hills.
· Asked that the Planning Commission to consider keeping the Sun subdivision to the two lots
including the existing lot and the one on top of the hill.
· I don't want us, or the future residents of Cupertino to have a hill that has monstrous homes on
it, and huge retaining walls. The neighbors don't feel the walls protect the properties in the
heavy rains, as witnessed over the last 25 years.
· Opposes the application to subdivide into three lots.
Barry Millstone, Millstone Geotechnical (Consultant for Dr. Sun):
· We did a detailed site specific geotechoical investigation; we worked closely with the city
geologist for a year; it was a three phase investigation and our analysis at each stage, we
interfaced with the town geologist that approved our procedure and reviewed our conclusions.
· Their final conclusion was that they agreed with us that the site was acceptable and safe for
this type of development. The investigation looked specifically at potential land sliding; it
looked at the effects of the existing fill on the slope of some deep fluving that was
encountered.
· All the analyses show that we looked at both the potential deep sliding; there is some shallow
sliding with some of the shallow slopes, it is stable but not to our satisfaction; proposed
development would improve that.
· Finally if these slopes stay as they are, they are as they are. Proposed development would
result in improved conditions; both drainage would be controlled and the houses would be
Cupertino Planning Commission
9
November 8, 2005
founded on drilled piers; the drilled piers would extend through the materials into the bedrock
and thus retaining any shallow material increasing the stability.
Com. Chen:
· Asked if the construction would affect the structure of the hill and the stability of the soil.
Mr. Millstone:
· Said the local construction would not affect the structure of the hill and stability of the soil; the
onsite construction would improve it.
· You had asked the difference between the work we did do and a site specific geotechoical
report. The difference is that the geotecluÌical report would include recommendations for
design and construction; that would be how to build the retaining wall; how deep the
foundation should be; where to put drains, and at that time we would include design criteria
that would enhance the stability of the slope; it would be taking subsurface water away,
directing surface flows and designing retaining walls and piers to also resist downhill
movement.
Com. Cheu:
· From the 1983 mudslides, was there any sign of the mudslides in the general area? Was the
neighborhood site analyzed for instability?
Mr. Millstone:
· We looked at the neighborhood mostly for rock type; and looked at aerial photos going back to
the 30s and 40s, walked the site and mapped rock types on the hill, on the north side. He said
the 83 mudslide was on the south side of the canyon; they did subsurface work specifically
looking for instability potential landslides or existing landslides.
· The aerial photos showed a hint of some features that suggested there may have been a
landslide; something that the land geologist did not recognize when first asked for a review.
· It was identified and they proceeded to do a test pit investigation along the margins of the
feature to try to identify whether or not there had been movement. When the rock was
exposed they did not see any movement; the town geologist came out and looked at our
exposures and also didn't see movement in those features.
Mr. Millstone responded to Commissioners' questions:
· Said the prehistoric landslides occurred tens of thousands of years ago; it wasn't clear because
the edges were very subdued and is why they investigated the subsurface.
· Indicated on the drawings the location of the bore holes and answered questions about the
proposed borings.
· Said he did not dispute there was an 83 mudslide, but he would need more information to
conjecture the cause. Landslides are caused by a number of driving factors - slope steepness,
moisture, and strength; there would need to be more information on what kind of material
failed, how steep it was and what the groundwater conditions were. Once a landslide fails, it
leaves a void. Mud flows, and it is not known if it was shallow materials that floated over the
surface or there was a deep slide.
· Said they investigated between the upper property line, essentially the lot 3 building site.
· Said with having the precautions of the retaining walls and the results of their studies, he felt
comfortable with the homes on Lots 1 and 3. He and a registered geologist signed a report
making the recommendation.
· He said the city geologist also went over their work at each stage.
Cupertino Planning Commission
10
November 8, 2005
· This is the way we like to look at the landslide, what do you think, and they concur; they came
and looked at it; we did the same with the drilling program whièh followed. We interfaced;
showed them the results; we discussed a large diameter shaft, where that was going to be; and
then once we did preliminary slope stability analyses, also discussed with the engineer at
Cotton's office; and made some changes based on his recommendations.
· Said he would be willing to do the same testing on the south side that was conducted on the
north side to get a more accurate reading and determine what caused the 83 mudslide.
Luciano Dalle Ore, Lindy Lane:
· Said he was affected by the Santoro residence because it took away his view.
· Said he would be impacted by the trees, because they will grow in his view; and he may be
impacted when the Gingrich's who live in front, build a second floor, taking away his privacy
and view.
· The homeowners have the property rights. To some extent I have some things I have to live
with in terms of other people's property rights; I wish I had purchased the Santoro residence to
keep the view; unfortunately I did not have that opportunity. From my point of view it has to
do with what kind of property rights people have; what kind of things are granted by the city;
and what can be done in order to protect them.
Chair Wong closed the public hearing.
Mr. Jung:
· Relative to whether there was a voluntary agreement to limit the size of any home built on
Line I, he said there was nothing in the conditions of approval.
· Dr. Sun has offered a voluntary restriction to limit the size of the house as an option.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Cautioned that this is a conventional Rl-20 zoning district, and under the RI-20 zoning
district, it is not required to limit the size of the house.
· The city attorney said that if we were going to implement something like that, we would have
to see a change in zone to a Planned Development zone, a covenant recorded on the property,
so that future owners of that parcel were aware that they were limited, that we probably
couldn't simply do that through the tentative map process.
Chair Wong:
· Clarified that a condition of approval could not be done on the tentative map? Recalled that
when doing a tentative map on the Moxley property, there was a condition of approval to
restrict his property to a certain square footage.
· Suggested using the same precedent of using that condition of approval based on the precedent
of the Moxley project. He said he wanted to have history on that.
Ms. Wordell:
· Recalled that the tentative map was approved without any size restriction on the houses, but
when Mr. Moxley came back to ask for an extension for his final map, they discussed those
issues as part of the General Plan, and the issue was raised to consider changing the area to
hillside so to maintain control of the houses; and at that time he volunteered to put a covenant
on his property to limit the size of the house.
Cupertino Planning Commission
11
November 8, 2005
Ms. Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney:
· Confirmed that it was a voluntary covenant and said an owner can do that. In this case, Dr.
Sun could voluntarily put a covenant on these properties.
Ms. Wordell:
· All two story houses are stafflevel; if there are exceptions to the RI, it would go to DRC. It is
only if there is an RI exception for setbacks or something, that it would go to DRC.
Otherwise it is staff level, with notice to the neighbors.
Com. Saadati:
· Asked if they could add a condition that it needs to go to the DRC because it is on the hillside.
Ms. Wordell:
· We avoid any connection between residential restraints on a subdivision. It should be strictly
the subdivision.
· It wouldn't be guaranteed that there would be any public review; there is a possibility that it
could be hillside exception if it was over 30% slope, but some of this information is that the
building pads would not be over 30% slope, it is likely that it would be staff review and not a
public review.
Vice Chair Miller:
· There have been a nurnber of concerns with this subdivision. Relative to the slides, the
neighbors have expressed concerns about the slides but what we have heard from the geologist
report and the expertise here is that rather than increasing the risk of a slide, that if the
structures were done properly, it would actually reduce the risk of a slide. That being the case,
it doesn't seem like the slide in itself is an issue for the subdivision.
· Relative to the issue of the trees, if there is development here, I think we all want to preserve
the trees on the site and do the development in a way that makes that possible. For the lower
lot, my understanding is that the proposal by the applicant is to put a smaller house there; that
would preserve the trees and we have heard that it might have to be voluntary, and perhaps the
applicant may want to address that at this hearing, if we were to go ahead with the three lot
subdivision. Also a smaller house would make it less visible from the other side of the street
and there is considerable amount of foliage there with those two large oak trees. I would
propose that additional screening be placed on the west side that is open to the street, to further
screen the property.
· The issue of the views of the house is also addressed by having the appropriate amount of
screening there and preserving the trees on the lot. It isn't clear where the driveway should go
and I don't know that we need to decide that at this hearing, but if we go ahead with the
subdivision, I suggest some very strict provisions on it, so that we achieve as much as we
possibly can the minimizing the impact on that neighborhood and on that slope.
· Some of the things I have already mentioned would be to minimize the tree loss, reduce the
size of the house, in some kind of a voluntary agreement with the applicant; and have the
appropriate design done so that the structure fits in appropriately.
· I understand the concern of the neighbors, and when I look at the Moxley subdivision, I
understand that concern completely; and I am not quite sure what happened with that Moxley
subdivision, or where all the trees went that were once on lot, but that is not an issue for this
particular application.
· It is important that we not create a large number of retaining walls that are visible from the
street and I believe that it is possible in the design of lot 3 to include the retaining walls in the
structure itself so that it actually minimizes the visibility of those retaining walls. Everyone
Cupertino Planning Commission
12
November 8, 2005
seems to be content with the location of Lot 3 and the structure. My previous comments were
related to Lot I, and from what I have heard, nobody seems to be concerned with Lot 3 at all at
this point.
· Under the ordinance, the applicant is permitted to subdivide and it seems based on what we
have heard, that the concerns for this development can be mitigated; with that in mind I would
recommend approval of the subdivision. However, we need to discuss if a house is going to
built, when it is going to be built, and what it will look like to further ensure that we protect
the hillside.
Com. Chen:
· The project has been going on for months and the primary concern of safety has been well
addressed by the two geologists.
· The other concerns are aesthetic concerns based on many of the residents proposing to
eliminate Lot No. I which is supported by staff as well. This concern can also be addressed
by the screening.
· The privacy issue is the main concern of the Planning Commission and staff. It would be
addressed at the time the building is built.
· Concurred with Vice Chair Miller with the additional concern of the potential for further
subdivision of the lot. Hopefully the owner would consider voluntarily putting a condition for
no future subdivision.
· Suggested a smaller house on Lot No. I and also attempt to design a house to avoid taking
more trees out and add further screening to preserve the look of the rural site.
Com. Giefer:
· Said that building on Lindy Lane has been a concern since they began deliberating and
changed the RI. When she walked the site and looked at the Moxley site, she felt even with
voluntary limitations on the house size, those homes are too large for those parcels and she felt
they did not make the right decision.
· She expressed concern about replicating that decision and that this lot will be divoreed
deforest as well with the oak forest that is currently there by building. She said she was
concerned regarding the tree protection as all the trees have disappeared on Moxley; some by
mistake and some through the building process. She said she did not want to lose the trees that
are on the bottom toward Lindy Lane.
· Said she was concerned that there is currently 250 feet of retaining wall at the bottom of Lindy
Lane; not certain why it is there, but something slid back in the 80s on both sides of Lindy
Lane. There have been slides off Montcrest on the opposite side towards Santa Teresa and just
having lived in the neighborhood, she said she personally observed many of the slides.
Sometimes hills will slide, not necessarily caused by houses; so safety cannot be discounted.
Safe houses can be built and retaining walls put up, but it deprives the residents of Cupertino
of the natural beauty of the hillsides.
· She said she thought the lot was lovely, but felt it very steep, and she could not see three lots
there. She said she would support staffs recommendation to subdivide in two lots or give Dr.
Sun an opportunity to come back with a more reasonable map that takes into consideration
mitigation such as removal of oak trees. The average slope in all the areas is very steep,
which is a concern.
· There were also several conditions that I thought were lacking in the final resolution; some of
those, Dr. Isaak sent a letter to Dr. Sun talking about privacy and fence extension along his
sites. Dr. Sun has voluntarily agreed to those points as well on the letter that was part of our
packet. Shouldn't those be recorded as conditions of approval?
Cupertino Planning Commission
13
November 8, 2005
Mr. Jung:
· Many of the concerns that neighbors have are about the potential development of that site and
we are hearing the subdivision, not presently the house. He said he did not recall seeing
subdivision applications conditioned with landscape requirements.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Relative to the process for approval of the homes, the ordinance is structured to give staff the
authority to review the house and approve the house subject to noticing. The decision can be
appealed. Presumably we could incorporate some of those site specific conditions referred to.
Com. Giefer:
· Some of the conditions that have been agreed upon with neighbors aren't reflected in this. At
what point were those actually implemented.
Mr. Piasecki:
· If they are relating to fencing, it would be a site development condition.
Com. Giefer:
· Some of the more global ones relate to the construction requirements; one of the things we had
talked about is truck equipment and parking. I would like to add a condition that we specify
where equipment can be left, trailers be left by double trucks, etc. because they are continually
left and parking becomes an issue. Also the tree bond is not part of this package and that is a
condition we normally add. One condition that isft.!t is here and I question why, and perhaps
we should consider removing is Condition lIon Page 2-9 which addresses installing sidewalk
and gutters; because this is a very rural looking place I don't think we want sidewalks and
gutters especially where are you going to put them, by the 250 foot long retaining wall. That
is somewhat problematic, I would recommend that whatever we approve, we remove that one;
and those are the three conditions I would like to see added. One relates to trucking equipment
parking and especially when it is left overnight; tree bond to protect the trees that are there in
the oak forest; and then also remove Condition No. II; it does not make sense. I think we are
overbuilding this hill and I think we are jeopardizing all of the oaks there and I don't think we
are decreasing the value of the land because as land becomes more scarce, the value goes up.
· I support the staff recommendation.
· If we have a voluntary agreement on what size the lower house would be ifthere is approval of
Lot I, I am concerned why we haven't heard what that size is tonight.
Com. Saadati:
· Relative to the slide, there has been adequate evaluation done and I am comfortable that the
geotechoical engineers have done enough; based on the information given this slope is as safe
as any similar to it; and based on the data provided I feel comfortable about the subdivision of
the projects.
· If there are any retaining walls that go in there hopefully they would be hidden and ifthere are
some exposed they won't be too high and will be natural material such as stones or rocks that
blend in and with some design of plants and shrubs consistent with what is already there to
soften the effect.
· There are other w~'s of stalliæiBg the slope by addiBg to the soil similar to the
fouBdatioR syatem whieh was de~eribed filr the bRildiBgs. If the piers go deep enough and
lock into the bedrock they do provide some stability of the slope; similar to having a tree with
the roots going down 20 to 30 feet deep.
Cupertino Planning Commission
14
November 8, 2005
· Said he wanted to preserve all the trees on the site especially in front. Privacy is an issue that
has come up many times and the design of the houses cannot be addressed now.
· He said he was hopeful that any design on the hills would go to the public hearing to get more
input, and that the noticing would go to all the people who attended here and also along Lindy
Lane and the neighbors during the design review, so they can get involved and see what the
proposed design is at the time it moves forward.
· Said he would like to see the privacy preserved for the people across Lindy Lane; if additional
trees need to be placed there to accomplish that, it should be done.
· The houses should be designed in such a way to have the least impact on the neighbors. It
may be that Lot 1 would end up as a one story building, maybe smaller. He said he was in
favor of a much smaller house; hopefully the owner would voluntarily agree to that.
· Not having enough information, I would support the staff recommendation of two lots;
however, I would be willing to consider two three lot subdivision if the design of Lot 1 was
is to be done in such a way that would not be as visible from the street. If there was some
assurance on that, I would be willing to go along with the subdivision, basically the owner has
the right to subdivide his property, and I recognize that; but also the staff recommendation has
merit which I will value also.
Chair Wong:
· Thanked audience for their patience and summarized the benefits of a democracy where
elections are held, public hearings held where people can freely express their opinions and be
free to agree or disagree.
· Relative to the present project being discussed, people have shared the history of Cupertino
and expressed their opinions about the rural atmosphere of Cupertino, but as the city grows,
the question of how to have acceptable growth agreeable to everyone remains to be answered.
There is a prescriptive ordinance regarding the particular neighborhood, it is not known why
the south side is zoned one area and the north side zoned the other area. We don't know what
happened 25 years ago, but it would make sense to zone all of it RHS, which would have been
the right thing to do. Today the zoning is odd and we are trying to correct it, but we have to
work with today's ordinance and I believe some of the mitigating factors that were suggested
can help that, and we can't get everybody in agreement, but what I hear from the
neighborhood that the number one concern is how do we preserve the row of oak trees; and I
believe that what the applicant suggested is by building the house behind the row of oak trees,
you have that row of oak trees that will prevent the view of seeing the house in Lot I. The
house on Lot 3 is not in question since it is covered into the canyon, but it is Lot 1 where there
is a row of houses facing Dr. Sun's property. More trees can always be planted along Lindy
Lane to mitigate that and I believe that will help that.
· Regarding staff's suggestion on the slope easement to preserve the rural atmosphere, I support
it, but not the area where suggested. I prefer the smaller area so that it would allow the
building envelope for Lot I to be built. Also I would agree with Vice Chair Miller on the
driveway, that at the time of it being built, that has to be looked at carefully because there is
sensitivity of the driveway opening onto Lindy Lane and I prefer to see the driveway open up
onto the private driveway. That is not the question here tonight; it is do we allow the
subdivision of the tentative map tonight?
· I also agree with Com. Chen if we can have the applicant voluntarily limiting Lot I and even
though you are penalized for a slope density over 15% to 3660, I would like to see it smaller to
3200 or 3000 square feet.
· Do not allow further subdivision of the lots.
Cupertino Planning Commission
15
November 8, 2005
· Also agree with Com. Giefer relative to Item II, that there be no sidewalk and street lights on
that particular side. I also agree that there should be a tree bond, and only if there is an
application to build a home.
· Relative to construction trucks, I agree with Com. Giefer, but is that appropriate in a tentative
map or more appropriate when someone pulls an application for building a home, because it
sounds like Dr. Sun does not want to build a home until 5 to 20 years later.
Ms. Wordell:
· It would be appropriate for any improvements connected to the subdivision, but not for the
construction of the residences. Whether they are street improvements or utility improvements
or whatever is required in terms of those kinds of improvements.
Com. Giefer:
· Pointed out that Point No.6 is there is a construction management plan as part of our approval
tonight as well as tree removal and preservation; I think it is appropriate to add those items
tonight; it is already in the model resolution in both those areas but those two items are
missing.
· No.6, add that the heß'I'Y truel¡s and where heavy equipment and trucks can park, but
not be parked around the oak trees; there also have been a number of code enforcement calls
regarding the rear part of the dump truck being left in the neighborhood.
· Tree removal bond should be added to Point No.4 on Page 2-7.
Chair Wong:
· Agreed with the tree bond.
Mr. Jung:
· It doesn't make sense to place the bond now and then if Dr. Sun comes through and says he is
not going build for 5 years, the bond would be in place for 5 or 10 years.
Chair Wong:
· Asked that the language be included to have the tree bond; they would have to pay the tree
bond upon submitting construction application.
Mr. Jung:
· Suggested there be a covenant recorded on the trees, which can be required before any
construction.
Com. Giefer:
· Said she would support the bond upon pulling the application for a house; suggested there be a
covenant recorded on the property for all the oak trees and for identifying and stipulating
where those oaks are today.
Chair Wong:
· Said he agreed.
· Said Com. Chen would like to record a covenant not to subdivide further than 3, and on Lot I
to restrict the size of the house to either 3000 or 3200 square feet.
Dr. Sun:
· Said if they had approval for the current proposal, they would not pursue any further
subdivision, which has been stated many times.
Cupertino Planning Commission
16
November 8, 2005
. Would be able to keep the size within 3200 square feet.
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. Chen, to approve Applications
EA-2005-12, and TM-2005-05, for a three lot subdivision based on the map of
the Sun site Lot 1, 2 and 3, dated August 22, 2005, Job No. 0805-165 with the
following conditions: Add a condition to record a covenant for development
restriction running with the land limiting all structures on Lot 1 to a
maximum of 3200 square feet; remove Condition 11; add requirement under
the Construction Management Plan that they detail the location for heavy
truck and equipment parking; Condition 4 - a covenant sball be recorded
running witb the land identifying the oak trees that are to be preserved; and
putting the future property owner on notice that a tree removal bond will be
required upon submitting for design approval of the home, on either Lot 1 or
3 or any additions to Lot 2; and a covenant recorded agreeing that there will
be no further subdivision of any of the lots; the tree bond be provided upon
receipt of the building permit; and tree protection identifying all oaks in
excess of 10 inches to be preserved; the slope easement shall generally follow
the line shown, excepting any areas for a driveway off Lindy Lane or off the
private drive, should that be the ultimate location.
(Vote: 4-1-0; Com. Giefer No)
Planning Commission final unless appealed to the City Council within ten days.
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS:
6. Consider cancellation of the December 27, 2005 Planning Commission meeting and
adding a special meeting in December.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Suggested that the Planning Commission hold a meeting on December 20, 2005
responding to applicants' requests.
Mr. Peter Pau, San Mateo:
· Requested that a meeting be scheduled for December 20, 2005 since a month's delay
would delay the interior work on his project until the Spring and the possibility of losing
their tenancy.
Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Miller, second by Chair Wong, to schedule a special
Planning Commission meeting on December 20, 2005.
(Vote: 5-0-0)
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
· Requested that the December 20, 2005 meeting be publicized to the neighborhood and
community.
· Expressed concern about the amount of development in the area of the city where Rancho
Rinconada exists.
Cupertino Planning Commission
17
November 8, 2005
· Mr. Piasecki:
· Clarified that there would be citywide notices on both applications;
· Stated that there are no condos planned on either development application; both
applications meet the Heart of the City minimum setback requirement of 35 feet;
· Relative to the Marketplace, they are proposing to tear down part of the building as well as
building new retail and second floor office building;
· Relative to Whole Foods, they will tear down the Anderson Chevrolet buildings and put in
a Whole Foods store.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
· There was no discussion or reports.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
· No report.
SUBMITTED BY:
The meeting was adjourned to November 22, 2005 meeting
at 6:00 p.rr(] . (l ~ A ,
't../[. ~
ADJOURNMENT:
Elizabet . Ellis, Recording Secretary
Approved as Amended: November 22, 2005