Draft Minutes 07-26-05
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
6:00 P.M.
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES
July 26, 2005
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
TUESDAY
The regular Planning Commission meeting of July 26, 2005 was called to order at 6:00 p.m. in the
Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA., by Chairperson Gilbert Wong.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present:
Chairperson:
Vice Chairperson:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Gilbert Wong
Marty Miller
Taghi Saadati
Lisa Giefer
Commissioners absent:
Commissioner:
Angela Chen
Staff present:
Community Development Director:
City Planner:
Senior Planner
Senior Planner
Assistant Planner
Contract Planner
Assistant City Attorney:
Steve Piasecki
Ciddy Wordell
ColinJung
Aki Honda
Piu Ghosh
Tricia Schimpp
Eileen Murray
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
June 12, 2005 special Planning Commission meeting minutes:
Com. Saadati requested the following change:
· Page 8, Com. Saadati, second line: Delete "even the smaller units" and "they"
Com. Giefer requested the following change:
· Page 7, Com. Giefer, Line 9: Insert "industry" after "service"
Motion:
Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Com. Giefer, to approve the
June 12, 2005 minutes as amended. (Vote: 4-0-0; Com. Chen absent)
June 13, 2005 special Planning Commission meeting minutes:
Com. Giefer requested the following change:
· Page 5: Delete: "Com. Giefer: No comment".
Com. Saadati requested the following change:
· Page 10, Com. Saadati, Line 3: Change "how would the parking" to read: ''where would
Cupertino Planning Commission
the parking be?"
2
July 26, 2005
MOTION:
Motion by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. Saadati to approve the
June 13, 2005 minutes as amended. (Vote: 4-0-0; Com. Cheu absent)
June 15, 2005 special Planning Commission meeting minutes
. The approval of the minutes of June 15 was continued to the August 23 meeting as the set of
minutes was incomplete.
Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Vice Chair Miller, to continue the
June IS, 2005 Planning Commission minutes to the August 23, 2005
meeting. (Vote: 4-0-0; Com. Chen absent).
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Applications related to the applications on the agenda; there
are some modified resolutions proposed. No additional written communications.
POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR:
1.
U-2005-01, Z-2005-01,
ASA-2005-02,
TM-200S-01, EA-2005-01
Alan Loving (Taylor
Woodrow Homes)
Bubb Road & Imperial
Ave. (a portion of Results
Way Corporate Park)
Use pennit to demolish 175,000 sq. ft. of
industrial buildings and construct 94 single-
family residential units and recreation
areas. Rezoning of a l2-acre site ftom
Planned Industrial - P(ML) to Planned
Residential-P(Res). Architectural and site
Approval for 94 single-family residential
units and recreational areas. Tentative map
to subdivide a 12-acre site into 94 lots + 1 lot
held in common.. Continued from the June
28. 2005 Planning Commission meeting.
Request continuance to August 23. 2005
Planning Commission meeting.
Motion by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. Saadati, to postpone
Applications U-2005-01, Z-2005-01, ASA-2005-02, TM-200S-01, and
EA-2005-01 to the August 23, 2005 meeting. (Vote 4-0-0; Com.
Chen absent) .
Motion:
ORAL COMMUNICATION: None
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
PUBLIC HEARING:
Chair Wong noted that Items 2 and 3 would be heard together.
2. U-2005-07
Vickie Peng,
10038 Orange Ave.,
Cupertino.
Use Pennit to construct a two-story mixed use
(commercial/residential) 4,964 square foot
building. Planning Commission decision
final unless appealed.
Cupertino Planning Commission
3
July 26, 2005
3. U-200S-0S, Diana Hu
10026 Orange Ave.
Cupertino
Use Permit to construct a two-story mixed use
(commercial/residential) 5,500 square foot
building. Planning Commission decision
final unless appealed.
Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director:
· Introduced new employees Piu Ghosh, Assistant Planner; Aki Honda, Senior Planner; and
Tricia Schimpp, Contract Planner.
Piu Ghosh, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report:
· The two applications are for Use Permits to demolish 2 single family homes and construct two
mixed-use projects located on Orange Avenue. The mixed-use projects will have ground floor
retail/commercial uses and second floor residential uses.
· Reviewed the adjacent uses which are similar to the proposed project, including two story
office buildings, a church, a residential property and a planned development with single-family
residences.
· The project meets the Monta Vista design guidelines and conforms to the General Plan use,
height and density regulations and General Plan Policies Policy 2-12 and 2-13.
o Reviewed the staff report including the Monta Vista design guidelines, site analysis, shared
parking, FAR, shared ingress/egress easement between 10038 and 10026 Orange Avenue;
dedication of 10 feet required of the properties for street improvements to allow for street
parking; trash enclosure; and setbacks.
o Applicants are proposing one 4 bedroom residential unit on each property, each with two
decks, one facing the ITont of the property and one facing the rear of the property.
· Both properties meet the parking requirements under the parking ordinance without the shared
parking calculation.
o llIustrated elevations of the proposed projects, which meet the Monta Vista design guidelines,
with rectilinear forms, with Queen Anne and Victorian embellishments. They also use
architectural articulation in the form of using decks and also projecting bays.
· Staff recommends a condition of approval that applicant provide an enhanced landscaping plan
including use of picket fences, raised planter boxes, trellises at entry ways.
o Staff recommends the approval of the use permits in accordance with the model resolutions.
Since they are exempt under CEQA, no environment action is necessary.
o Staff answered questions relative to the proposed projects.
Com. Giefer:
o Said that when the applicant returns with a landscape plan, she would like to see more
vegetation in the ITont to screen as well as the to the existing neighbor to the south.
Mr. Piasecki:
o It is the intent of the revised wording in the conditions that they provide more landscaping in
the ITont including street trees.
o The Fire Department has looked at this; we do a pre-hearing meeting with the Fire Department
and the Sanitation Department and Public Works; they have reviewed this and it meets their
requirements, and determined they have ample access.
o To access ITom the rear -- From Orange Avenue on the south side of the 10038 the southerly
most parcel, you will see a cross hatched area on Sheet A2 of the plans, that is actually a 20
foot wide access only showing half of it; conditions require that they implement the full shared
driveway with the neighbor to the south. The applicant will have to demonstrate that they
have all the easement before they can proceed ahead with either of these buildings.
Cupertino Planning Commission
4
July 26, 2005
Chair Wong:
o The single family residential unit upstairs is a large unit; and my concern is that on big bulky
items, there is a lot of neighborhood concern about having large buildings. Under single
family Rl, I know this is not an Rl neighborhood, we always encourage second story to have
some side setback and it just looks a little larger. Have you considered stepping back the
second story?
Mr. Piasecki:
o We will ask the applicant if they considered that and may be willing to modify the building to
get some offset on the second floor. We looked at this and said that it matches a lot of the other
buildings in the area and the architectural advisor looked at it and felt that it had the design
symmetry and alignment, and that it met criteria that he would look for in architectural issues.
If you are concerned about massing of the building, you can talk to the applicant and they may
be willing to modify it.
Architect:
o This project is unique, it belongs to two separate owners and they would like to share the
common area, especially in the back area, the parking lot, they share the trash enclosure to
maximize the parking spaces. The design of the entire building resembles the previous
example of Mr. Marci at 10056 Orange Avenue and we followed that concept and style.
o We also worked with the planning staff to satisfy the requirements fÌ'om architectural review
comments and also incorporate their conditional requirements as well.
o Relative to whether they had considered making the residential units smaller, it was originally
thought to make sure the massing matched the adjacent area; we did try to make the second
floor cut back for the deck area, to make the second floor massing smaller than the first floor
and also to follow the same concept that developed at 10056 Orange Avenue. If there are any
requirements on the massing on the second floor, we can continue to study that, but it was
reviewed by the architect and they did not have any comments regarding the massing.
o Relative to consideration of having more than one unit on the second floor, he said it was
considered, but the parking area cannot support the second unit on the second floor.
o He said the first floor designated as clinic, could potentially be dental offices with a reception
area, or a real estate or loan office.
o The owner is planning to use half of the first floor for offices and plans to reside in the
residential unit.
Chair Wong:
o Noted that there was a statement fÌ'om the Fire Department indicating that there were no fire
department conditions or additional requirements.
Chair Wong opened the public hearing.
Jennifer Griffin, resident:
o Asked how much of the area where the proposed project is planned is zoned commercial, since
there were many homes within the area; and why is the height of the proposed building 28.5
feet when the city maximum is 28 feet.
o Expressed concern about the removal of the 30 inch pepper tree on the Ping property.
Ms. Ghosh:
o The height meets the Monta Vista design guidelines of 30 feet.
Cupertino Planning Commission
5
July 26, 2005
· llIustrated the zoning map for Cupertino; the industrial area of Monta Vista goes down one lot
south of Granada avenue and extends north of Stevens Creek for a couple of blocks.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Clarified that the speaker was referring to a single-family residential standard of 28 feet; the
proposed project is not constrained by that 28 foot linritation.
Dennis Whitaker, resident:
· I have similar concerns as Ms. Griffin; and am curious about how invasive the commercial is
going to be moving back towards the residents.
· Staff remarked about this being made in 1978. There have been numerous changes and
perhaps a task force just for the Monta Vista area nright be considered to let the people in that
area have input in what they want to see, make is restricted to that area. Perhaps it is not a bad
idea to have a second look at that because a lot of things have happened in Cupertino.
· I am also concerned about parking. I see 4 or 5 styles for the clinics or the retail, and I know
the monster parking problems we have in Town Center; and I want to make sure we are
realistic. There is residential upstairs and I applaud the residents; I support affordable housing
and this is the way to do it; but let's be realistic about where the people are going to park their
carS. I know there are successful dentist offices next to us; they have people conring and
going, please make sure you have enough parking. It has always seemed that it is never
enough.
Chair Wong closed the public hearing.
Com. Saadati:
· In general, considering that Larry Cannon has reviewed the project and his recommendation
included architecture; I am not sure if one setback on the second floor would be architecturally
as pleasing, that is something he can comment on. There is some articulation here in the
building. The balconies and other things, the entry, those are the areas I would like to see be
focused on.
· Some of the other projects we have approved in the past at least had some interest; there are
trellises on the side, so there is an intent to try to work the building up and the color and
materials will enhance that.
· The Fire Department is not an issue; overall it is done nicely and is consistent with the areas.
Parking is a difficult issue to discuss; people living in the same building they work in reduces
traffic which is a positive aspect. I use Imperial Avenue often, I have never seen a parking
problem there; in general I think the project is good.
Com. Giefer:
· Is there a reciprocal parking agreement with McShane?
Ms. Ghosh:
· It is not a reciprocal parking agreement; it is a reciprocal easement agreement.
Com. Giefer:
· If parking demand is higher than we anticipate for this, legally their clients do not have the
right to use the space; except they are there.
· I would concur with Com. Saadati, I have not observed patronizing many businesses in the
Monta Vista area and not observed high parking demand in that area, although there also can
be the spot business that is highly successful and they may have a higher parking demand
than we anticipated. I would also have liked to have seen greater setbacks, but for me it is
Cupertino Planning Commission
6
July 26, 2005
more in the front and the rear as opposed to the sides, because I view these as more row type
buildings the way they are designed. I think it would be more comfortable for the resident if
they had greater personal space either through balconies in the front of the building or in the
back. It would also enhance their privacy.
· Although I don't find the architecture of this building to be a problem, I think it is a good
thing to note that I would support that if there are enough commissioners who concur.
· I am concerned with regard to the landscaping that has been described in the staff report and
then in the findings; with the support of the other commissioners, I would suggest that we add
mandatory street trees that are fuIler than an Italian Cypress. When I visited the site and
looked at the planned residential across the street, they all had nice street trees that made it
feel much more like a neighborhood and I didn't see that, although I understand the applicant
wiIl come back with their landscape plan for staff. I would like to require them to have fuIl
street trees that mirror the type of canopy presently in the neighborhood to give it more of
that residential business type, more of the cozy downtown look and feel that we are trying to
achieve in that area; because I think it will be too stark as the elevation that we have before us
this evening, given the fact that there is a planned residential across the street. I think it can be
achieved through landscaping.
Vice Chair Miller:
· I think it is a nice project; it fits in with the Monta Vista General Plan; I am also sensitive to
the second stories, but this does comply with what the Monta Vista Plan talks about and is
consistent with the structures currently there. I am also familiar with the Monta Vista area arid
I don't see particularly with smaIl spots like this, that parking is a huge problem; and the
number of spots they are proposing seems to be ample, particularly considering that they are
not accounting for the fact that there is uses where the residential wiIl be heavier parking in the
evening and the commercial wiIl be heavier during the daytime.
· I support the project; I like the idea of a live/work unit; or at least one is a live/work unit.
Chair Wong:
· This is a good mixed-use plan, it is a good way to bring residents and retail together.
· Said he had concerns about the parking; but staff addressed those concerns.
· The narrow aIleyway is also a concern, but the fire department addressed the issue. I still
would like to see the front of the back stepped back a little. It is a little more mass and bulky
and that concern that was brought up by residents before.
· OveraIl, I do support the project.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Vice Chair Miller, to approve Applications
U-2005-07 and U-2005-08 with the . addition of adding more robust
landscaping snch as street trees to the front of the building.
Vice Chair MiUer:
· Could you be more specific about how many trees that you want?
Com. Giefer:
· Relative to the space, I want thern to be sensible trees that fit in the space that they have
currently have planned for their landscaping, but their elevation shows some fairly thin trees at
the sides of the buildings. I don't know what the appropriate tree is, staff has a planting list.
Mr. Piasecki:
· The Monta Vista design guidelines caIl for an evergreen pear on the secondary streets; the
Cupertino Planning Commission
7
July 26, 2005
intent was to get a diminutive tree; it could be specified that they upsize those to at least 24
inch box, so that when they come in they are a little larger than otherwise might be. The
sidewalks may have to be meandered slightly or widened where those street trees occur, but it
is consistent with the Monta Vista design guidelines and will be implemented.
· Suggested the following wording "that the applicant shall incorporate 24 inch box street trees
consistent with the Monta Vista Design Guidelines."
Com. Giefer:
· Said she would support the language.
Chair Wong:
· It is a good idea.
(Vote: 4-0-0; Com. Chen absent.)
4.
DlR-200S-12, Henry Lin
(Ben Shyy) 19028 Stevens
Creek Blvd., #D.
Direstor's Minor Modification (12-U-97) with
referral to Planning Commission to locate a
medical office in an existing commercial
building. Planning Commission decision
final unless appealed.
Aki Honda, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
· Reviewed the application for a Director's minor modification referred to the Planning
Commission for their determination. In 1998 the City Council approved construction of a
mixed-use building with 3,500 sq. ft. of retail space and three residential units. In 2002, the
Planning Commission approved a modification to the use permit allowing a 1,584 dental office
which resulted in a 45% FAR for the building.
· Applicant is requesting to modify the previously approved use permit to allow additional
office space within an existing mixed-use shopping center, within a P(mixed use) planned
development roning district in the Stevens Creek special planning area.
· The proposed project is a chiropractic office requesting approval to occupy 953 square feet of
a tenant space within the building which would increase the office use fÌ'om 45% to 72%.
· The surrounding neighborhood consists of multi-story office buildings, Rotten Robbie gas
station and single family-residences. Photos were shown to illustrate that there was not a
critical mass of retail in the area.
· No exterior improvements are proposed; only interior improvements will be made.
· The site exceeds the parking requirements for the project site with the additional chiropractic
use. The site currently has 29 spaces and with the chiropractic office use, the total site would
only be required to have 25 spaces.
· Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the application in accordance with
the model resolution.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said that if the applicant wanted to return to retail in the future, they could do it on their own,
which can be noted in the conditions.
· He said that staff has felt that the site has not functioned well as a retail site; it doesn't support
a critical mass and is not one they would feel insistent that they maintain a retail presence,
when the building does not lend itself to that.
Cupertino Planning Commission
8
July 26, 2005
Henry Lin, applicant:
· Said the chiropractic office would be an asset to the area and the community.
Chair Wong opened the meeting for public input.
Jennifer Griffin, resident:
· Said there were medical offices in the original building prior to the construction of the present
building.
· The neighborhood was concerned with the building height; the first 100 feet along Stevens
Creek in that area is zoned commercial; there are homes across the street and immediately
adjacent to the said property.
· The property was one of the first homes in the area converted in the late 80s into an office
building.
· It appears to be an appropriate use of the building as long as there is no further building into
the parking lot, and assuming there is no further proposed enlargement of the building; it is
already a large building.
· One of the issues is there is residential upstairs in the building.
· It may keep some of the spot traffic down as it is a busy area along Stevens Creek.
· If all they are doing is changing the office space around inside, it sounds like a good area to do
that as long as there is adequate parking and that the parking is not going to go on Stevens
Creek or to Bret around the comer, as it is a quiet suburban area. Make sure that the medical
office keeps its parking in its own parking lot.
Scott Balkman, Alpha Investments, Property Management Company representing the
owner:
· Said there was a great deal of advertising done for the property to rent as retail; all responses
have been for service type businesses and primarily clinical and very little retail and point of
sale retail; the reason being that there is no support in the area or spillover from other
establishments that would help a particular point of sale retail.
· Said it was an ideal use for the space, especially since there is a dental office located nearby.
Deborah Hill, Cupertino resident:
· Agreed that having a chiropractor in the area would be beneficial to the community.
Chair Wong closed the public hearing.
Vice Chair MiUer:
· I agree that it is a reasonable approach given that it is not an area at this point that is
synergistic in terms of retail development. However, there is the potential for further retail
development in the future.
· I support this project, but recommend wording in the model resolution to state that they can
convert back to retail at any time without having to go through a special hearing again.
Com. Giefer:
· Supports Vice Chair Miller's suggestion to add verbiage to the findings that support allowing
the applicant to switch back to retail at a later time.
· No objection to the change between retail to commercial at this time.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Clarified that Condition 3 of the model resolution presently covers the issue of the applicant's
Cupertino Planning Commission
9
July 26, 2005
ability to convert back to retail at a later date without going through a public hearing.
Com. Saadati:
· Supports the project with conditions stated by Vice Chair Miller.
Chair Wong:
· Staff provided a good explanation regarding there being no critical mass in this area; that we
would like to see it retail but for this particular area it does not support that. If retail comes
back in the future in that particular part of the neighborhood, it can go back, and I do support
the project.
Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Miner, second by Com. Saadati, to approve Application
DIR-2005-17 per the model resolution. (Vote: 4-0-0; Com. Chen absent)
5.
TM-200S-02 Pinn Brothers
Construction (Adobe Terrace)
20128 Stevens Creek Blvd.
Tentative Map for condominium purposes for
an approved mixed-use project consisting
of2,395 sq. ft. of retail space and 23
residential units. Tentative City Council
date: August 16. 2005.
Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
· Application is for a Tentative Map to subdivide a .84 net acre parcel for condominium
purposes for a mixed-use project previously approved by the City Council on March 1, 2005,
consisting of 2,400 square feet of retail space and 23 residential units in a Planned
Development Zoning District.
· Reviewed Section 66427 of the State Subdivision Map Act.
· The applicant has agreed to provide their work in progress, which is the draft condominium
plan.
· Relative to the subject map, the thing we need to be concerned about is: that it doesn't create
more than 23 residential condominiums; it creates a 10,000 square foot commercial parcel
and/or a lot with 100 linear feet of rrontage for permitted uses and this is on Page 24 of the
Heart of the City Specific Plan. Also part of the Use Permit approval was a pedestrian
ingress/egress easement rrom the rear of the property to Stevens Creek Boulevard. This was
put in there to promote walkability; it was a feature of the past approval for a hotel on this
property and is shown on the condo map. The condo map also states in the conditions of
approval for the condo map to provide BMR units in accordance with our housing mitigation
manual. Last condition would be for staff to review the final condo plan showing the 3
dimensional division of parcels which will be checked against the approved plans.
· Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Tentative Map to
the City Council subject to the model resolution.
Chair Wong:
· Asked for clarification on why someone would want to subdivide this property; and why a
condominium map was needed.
· We discussed earlier relative to the parking, there would be a common area that space would
be shared by both the retail and the residents.
Mr. Jung:
· Because the owner's/purchaser's intention would be to sell the units vs. keeping.them as rental
property.
· The parking would be shared by the retail and the residents. Initially when the project was
Cupertino Planning Commission
10
July 26, 2005
presented to the Planning Commission, it was presented as a rental project, and at that time the
developers of the project did not know whether they would be able to purchase the property or
not; and subsequently by the time of the second City Council hearing, they found out that they
were going to be able to buy the property and so they pursued it. At the Council level they
changed their proposal tTom an apartment project to a residential condominium project.
· Usually when people subdivide the property, it is for sale purposes.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Clarify the linkage between the 100 feet of tTontage vs. the 10,000 square feet.
Mr. Jung:
· Said that the intention was trying not to create unviable commercial parcels, either through the
size of the lot or the width of the tTontage itself; not to get it down to such a small increment
that over the long tenn it wouldn't be a viable commercial location.
· They either control it through the width of the lot itself, 100 feet is the minimum width that
they would need, or 10,000 square feet, the minimum size.
Mr. Piasecki:
· The irony in this case is that the applicant could chose to eliminate the commercial and
wouldn't have to deal with that particular issue at all. We want them to keep the commercial
in this case. They have met the minimum of 100 feet.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Asked the civil engineer to delineate the subdivision.
Felix Jacobs, Civil Engineer for Plnn Brothers:
· Referred to the site map and reviewed the proposed project.
· In order for a condominium map to be created, a Tentative Map needs to be approved.
Com. Saadati:
· What is the total count of the BMR units?
Mr. Piasecki:
· 15% of the total; the price for the BMR units is between $250,000 to $350,000.
Com. Giefer:
· When the application was before the Planning Commission in the past, we asked to have some
handicapped parking above by the businesses, and not all fully contained in the podium
parking. I do not see any handicapped spaces for the business above ground.
Colin Jung:
· The City Council wanted to change that and provide more usable parking on the surface for
the commercial businesses; they were concerned about the viability of the commercial to a
great extent. They asked the applicant to check the rules to see if they could move the
handicapped parking downstairs which is accessible by an elevator to the top, and have the
surface parking be non-handicap.
Com. Giefer:
· Asked if it was flush at the same level in the podium as the retail buildings?
· Also expressed concern about the elevator exit.
Cupertino Planning Commission
II
July 26, 2005
Mr. Piasecki:
· Rcferring to the podium level of the first floor, I believe it is flush; and if it is not, they will
have to make sure it is if they are going to have handicap parking downstairs. Staff will
research the concern.
Com. Giefer:
· I do have an issue with that accessibility plan.
Chair Wong:
· I suggest sending a Minute Order to City Council, because I do support that, it suggests having
some handicapped above.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Why don't we double check what the City Council's action was, and/or what the code requires
in terms ofa handicap access; then we can get back to you. We can report to the City Council
that you have raised a question, a Minute Order is not necessary; we can go ahead to them and
report that you raised that issue; if they chose to, they can ask that they bring the handicap
space back to the upper level.
. Com. Giefer:
· I would like them to think of it in the context that if there is an emergency, that the retail space needs to
be evacuated and if that handicapped person is dependent on going to the elevator and taking the
elevator down to exit the building, that is an issue.
Chair Wong:
· I feel that sending a Minute Order would be better.
· Is the elevator gated or not? It is accessible to the retail area?
Mr. Piasecki:
· It has to be accessible; proceed with the Minute Order and send it to the City Council; and we
can double check that for them.
Vice Chair Miller:
· If there are two separate parcels, are there going to be separate APNs fòr these?
Mr. Piasecki:
· The Assessor's office creates condominium APNs; for the condo units they have an assessor
parcel number assigned to each unit; there will also be an assessor parcel number assigned to
the remaining portion, that is the commercial and anything undér the building.
Mr. Piasecki:
· I think the applicant's engineer was trying to explain that the condos are air space condos, a
parking garage underneath is not being subdivided; there is not a footprint on the ground; that
is all part of the commercial parcel that remains under the commercial parcel.
Chair Wong opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak
on the application.
Vice Chair Miller:
· I am not sure there is much I see in the way of deliberation; City Council apparently approved
Cupertino Planning Commission
12
July 26, 2005
to go ahead and do this project, and we are looking at the Tentative Map at this time.
· 1 don't see anything objectionable about the Tentative Map except for the issues concerning
the handicap spaces that have already been addressed.
· 1 support a Minute Order to that effect.
Com. Giefer:
· 1 would agree with Com. Miller; it seems straight forward, the decision has already been made
that they should be condos instead of apartments.
· It seems straight forward other than the handicap spaces in the Minute Order.
Com. Saadati:
· It is straight forward and there is a possibility of adding parking in front and parking in space
No. I by taking a little bit of space from landscaping and putting in a handicap space without
sacrificing any more parking in front. With that 1 would support it.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Vice Chair Miller, to approve
Application TM-2005-02. (Vote: 4-0-0; Com. Chen absent)
Motion:
Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Vice Chair Miller, to send City Council a
Minute Order with regard to moving one of the required handicap parking
spaces in Application TM-2005-02. (Vote: 4-0-0; Com. Chen absent).
Chair Wong declared a short recess.
6.
M-2005-02, Dan Ikeda
(pSS Ventures, LLC)
20415 Via Paviso
Modification of a Use Permit (8-U094) to
convert a l40-unit apartment project
(Aviare) to for-sale residential condominiums.
Planning Commission decision final unless
appealed.
Tricia Schimpp, Contract Planner, presented the staff report:
· Reviewed the application to convert 140 for-rent residential dw.elling units to 112 for-sale
condominiums and 28 BMR rental units.
· She explained the city's condominium conversion ordinance as outlined in the staff report.
· Pointed out that the original units were designed for condos, and changed to apartments and
now proposed to be converted back to condos; and it requires another modification to the Use
Permit. Because of the original design, there are no major site improvements to the structures
or to the property. The common areas will be maintained by a homeowner's association.
· Staff has reviewed the application submittal documents and finds that the materials comply
with every element of the condo conversion ordinance, provided the four conditions of
approval are met.
" There would be a BMR dedication of 28 units as rental units, which the applicant has
agreed to.
" The maintenance of the common area and all the site and structural improvements
would be handled by the homeowners' association.
" The applicant will also need a letter certifYing compliance with all the teclmicaI
reports that show they have satisfied the recommendations for the minor repairs to the
unit that are displayed in those reports; and that Certificate of Compliance will be
issued by the Director of Community Development.
" Law requires that the applicant submit a final report to the Department of Real Estate
and within 10 days of submittal a copy would come to the city for their records.
Cupertino Planning Commission
I3
July 26, 2005
· Staff recommends approval of the modification of the Use Permit to convert the 112 for-rent
apartments to for-sale condominiums per the provisions of the model resolution with the
remaining 28 units being BMR rental units.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Clarified that the reason the BMR units were being offered as for-rent units rather than for-sale
units was that the apartment BMR is more affordable than the ownership BMR units. Stafffelt
that by retaining these as apartments, we would keep that more affordable stock and would not
disrupt those tenants who are currently in their BMR units, and we could offer more BMR
rental units.
Com. Saadati:
· How did we arrive at the 5.2% vacancy rate; what period does it cover?
Mr. Piasecki:
· It is for a period of six months; they have to demonstrate that it is held at greater than 5% and
the evidence they provided demonstrates that.
· That is part of the condo conversion ordinance; the intent was that when it exceeds 5%, that
the market is sufficiently flexible, that the tenants who are displaced will be able to better find
replacement housing of a comparable type and price and range. When it is below 5% the
feeling was that it is much harder to displace tenants and expect they will be able to fmd
replacement housing of a comparable type.
· It was a number we had to come to when the condo conversion ordinance was adopted.
Com. Giefer:
· With regard to the BMR units, seeing that the majority of the units will be condos, how will
the BMR rental units be maintained, especially the interior. I assume the exterior will be
maintained by the homeowners' association.
· With regard to the for-rent housing study, what portion of the housing inventory was
considered as that vacancy study; is it single family homes, condos, apartments, townhomes.
what is the mix of product considered?
· Does every building have its own elevator?
Mr. Piasecki:
· The applicant can address the maintenance; I think they are going to retain ownership of the
BMR units and continue working through us with the management of that space.
· I believe the study got down to fourplexes. We did some additional work to find those
fourplexes. The market area we are describing is larger than just the city of Cupertino; the
boundaries go to Prospect Road, to Lawrence Expressway, up to Fremont Avenue in
Sunnyvale.
Ms. Schimpp:
· Relative to the vacancy study, they considered apartments for rent.
· The applicant will respond regarding the elevators.
Mr. Piasecki:
· In response to Vice Chair Miller's question, he said he did not think the Housing Commission
has looked at this; the only issue would be the tenant relocation program; we referred one
other case to them to look at tenant relocation.
· The current BMR ratio there is 10%.
Cupertino Planning Commission
14
July 26, 2005
· Answered questions about the BMR units.
Ms. Schimpp:
· Explained the difference between a condo and an apartment.
· Said that the applicant would describe the relocation program.
· Explained that the renters were notified of the public hearing in the same manner as everyone
else in the city. They also had prior knowledge of this application.
Chair Wong:
· In the General Plan we promote affordable housing and on Saron Gardens it made sense
because it was a dilapidated building and we wanted to upgrade it. This building looks
relatively new; what makes this building convert for sale vs. the city encouraging the applicant
to seIl this building so that we could keep this whole Avery complex for rent to keep the
affordable housing units in Cupertino. (Question for the applicant)
· How would it relate to the General Plan; we are stressing affordable housing units; if we set a
precedent then it sends a green light to other folks that why don't we have for-sale units and
then we won't have people moving into Cupertino, start renting and then apply for a condo and
move into a single family home.
Mr. Piasecki:
· There is a broader issue; you are asking what the ratio of apartment units is in the community,
and how critical it is to keeping that balance of housing types. I don't think there is a magic
percentage or number; what I can teIl you in this case because we have statements in our
housing element about preserving the rental housing stock, we asked the applicant to double
the number of affordable rental units that they would make available to the community. They
were required at the time to have only 10%; we would have required at least 15% under our
new rules; we asked them to increase it further and bring it up to 20%. The Commission could
discuss whether that is sufficient or not, but I think you are getting a long term commitment
that you will have 20% affordable rental units in this project. I don't know that given the
newness of the project, they can teIl you what the rental structure is like. You are satisfying at
least the affordability side of that equation and you need to make that decision. We were
satisfied that they met the minimums and actuaIly exceeded it with the 20%.
Chair Wong:
· Regarding the requirement vacancy rate, 5% or greater for 6 months; I am troubled why we are
looking beyond Cupertino's city limits, because it should be pertaining to Cupertino and not
the greater Cupertino area.
Mr. Piasecki:
· That is the way the ordinance was structured in the 80s. The feeling was that the housing
markets do not stop at city borders and even our school district boundaries go beyond our city
border; and it should replicate more closely the school district boundary and the realization
that there is a housing market that exceeds just our borders.
· You could chose to be more restrictive and get down to just Cupertino, but it was felt we need
to be flexible and look at the broader area.
Chair Wong:
· As a property manager, we have zero percent, what drives the rental market here is our
schools; and I am very troubled with the 5.2% in this particular area.
Cupertino Planning Commission
15
July 26, 2005
Ms. Schimpp:
· We were supplied extensive information by Real Facts, a survey that was done by the
applicant, and staff also conducted phone interviews to an additional 17 apartment complexes
to ask specifically as of this date what is your vacancy rate. We feel we have filled in the gaps
to cover the entire housing market area in the survey; we feel confident with the 5.2%.
Chair Wong:
· It is good that we can increase the BMR units nom 15% to 20% and with our planning and
development, I believe that our parking ordinance is now 2.8, being legal but not conforming.
I have already been to the site and there is no way to add more parking spaces. There is not
much room for overflow parking with Corsica next door; I don't think there is any shared
agreement for parking. Where does your overflow parking go?
Mr. Piasecki:
· We are not aware that there has ever been a problem in this project or the ownership projects
that are similarly parked out at this level. We have changed our standard; they may have a
plan to provide a few more spaces here and there, but we don't think this is going to be a
problem in terms of the parking demand, and they can put owners on notice that they have
limited parking in their CC&Rs and disclosures when they buy these units.
David Nicks, Consultant for the Applicant SCS Development, an AffIliate of Citation Homes:
· The project was built as a condominium project, and because of market conditions they made
the decision to rent it instead of completing the condo entitlement and selling them off as
condos. It is the only for-rent project that the company owns; it is their desire to remain
consistent with their strategy of selling residential houses including condos.
· Citation Homes became involved when the prior owner experienced financial difficulty in
1995, and purchased the remaining land. They reconfigured the land plan and come up with
something more acceptable to the market, which included the 84 single family detached homes
(now Corsica) and the high density Aviare project, which was originally designed as condos.
· We feel the conversion of the project to condos provides needed lower cost ownership
opportunities for not only the current residents, but for residents within Cupertino looking for
their first time purchase. Also, the project will add 28 BMR units to the city's rental pool.
· We request that you approve staffs recommendation of a modification to the conditional Use
Permit that enables A viare to be sold as condos.
Mr. Nicks responded to Commissioners' questions:
· There is no current rental agreement with an option to purchase. Until we get through the
process to get approval to sell the units as condos, it would be premature. The reaction nom
the residents regarding purchasing the properties, has been positive.
· We are not certain how the BMR units will be maintained. The one thing to keep in mind is
that the owner of the BMR units will own 28 shares of the HOA, and the HOA will be
comprised of 140 ownership shares, one for each of the units. The HOA will have a board
which will be charged with ensuring the proper maintenance of all the units, because the HOA
actually owns the physical improvements. The unit owners own an air space unit, which
includes everything nom the painted surface of the walls nom the ceiling to the floor. The
interior of the units will be the responsibility of the renter to maintain pursuant to their rental
agreement with the owner. The owner of the units would be responsible for long term
maintenance on replacement of carpeting, floors, painting and repairs to kitchen, etc.
· The Department of Real Estate (DRE) safeguards the interest of the ultimate condo owners
that there have been sufficient and adequate reserves established to address the ongoing long
term maintenance of the public property.
Cupertino Planning Commission
16
July 26, 2005
· He noted that there were no elevators on the property.
· There is no street access to Via Lombardi, which was a condition of approval for the Aviare
projects. It was an agreement with the adjacent homeowners in the Corsica neighborhood as
well as Portofino; their concern may have been access of renters into their common areas.
· Relative to the current 10% BMR rental units, and when the tenants move out, he said the
owner would come in upon turnover and repaint and recarpet them if necessary, fix whatever
is broken to bring it up to code. They have engaged third party property management.
Chair Wong:
· In the City of San Jose when we have BMR program, the Department of Housing City of San
Jose has an oversight; do we have an oversight in Cupertino?
Mr. Piasecki:
· Vera Gil would know if we have an oversight, because we have many BMR units and they are
managed by apartment owners and the same problem could result; that is neglect of those that
give the lowest return. She has undoubtedly addressed or come across this issue; staff will
return with infonnation relative to the issue.
· It could be added to the conditions that they shall come up with a maintenance schedule
consistent with their BMR housing program and other units in the community, and if they
don't have a schedule for this project, they will have to develop one to address the concerns
you are raising.
Chair Wong:
· Why didn't you consider selling the whole development to another owner, vs. selling them
individually?
Mr. Nicks:
· The applicant being an affiliate of Citation Homes is in the business of selling for-sale
residential dwelling units; which is consistent with their core business and that is how they
generate profit and run their business.
· He reviewed the noticing procedure for the intent to convert to all of the existing residents; and
noted that the owner implemented a noticing provision to all prospective tenants. The owner
intends to send out a 180 day notice of intent to convert, and there will be notices of public
hearings. The residents will also be notified that there will be public reports available through
the DRE. In addition, toward the end of the process and before the units are sold to the general
public, each resident has an exclusive 90 day right to purchase their unit.
· The owner will also be developing a marketing plan using consultants to help decide what
amenities should be added to the units in the way of improvements and upgrades and will price
them at a certain level. In addition, the owner contemplates selling units on an as-is basis at a
reduced cost.
· Relative to relocation displacement assistance, the owner will work with the residents to make
sure they are fully aware of all properties that are currently available and identifYing those
properties with facilities that meet any special needs that our residents may have.
· We have not developed any monetary compensation to the tenants, but have considered
providing the purchasers with a discount equal to what a sales commission would cost to sell
to third parties, in the 3% range.
· It is a requirement of the approval that the city is imposing that says the BMR rental units are
more desirable to the city than for-sale units.
· Answered commissioners' questions related to the project.
Cupertino Planning Commission
17
July 26, 2005
Chair Wong opened the public hearing.
Dr. Frances L. Edwards, President, Portofino HOA:
· Said a letter and copy of easement filed before any of the changes occurred was provided to
the Commission. One of our concerns is directly related to that.
· Expressed concern that the easement be fully enforced; it includes not only the use of the
parking but also the maintenance of the property at the expense of the A viare lot. Up until
present time, it has been done poorly, if at all, and has required considerable effort on the
homeowners' part to do anything. It is important when this turns into a condo complex that
people understand thoroughly what their responsibilities are.
· The pedestrian gate issue; the problem was that there was a concern the renters would come
and use the facilities and we have already had considerable problems with that, even with the
gate being locked. When people move in and out, it is inconvenient for the moving trucks to
go in off DeAnza Boulevard, and they were coming into Via Lombardi, and parking on our
street, completely blocking it and using the pedestrian gate to caÌ'ry furniture back and forth. It
was a tremendous nuisance and we would appreciate it if it could be left locked and a
condition of development could be changed to allow for a locked gate.
· Weare also concerned about the issue of adequately maintained because the buildings are ten
years old and they have been rentals; and traditionally rentals are not as well maintained as
owner occupied homes.
· We are also concerned that the price points of these facilities be in keeping with the
neighborhood; the homes in Portofino are currently selling between $800K and $900K and the
single family homes in the area exceed $lmillion. We are concerned that the value of our
properties be considered as part of this conversion.
· Weare also concerned about the vermin issue which is considerable; we have taken aggressive
steps as has Northpoint, but have not had any cooperation from our neighbors and it makes it
difficult when only one property is generating a great deal of wildlife.
· Noted critical errors in the staff report:
./ The project data needs to be clarified; it is a 5.8 acre project, the 18 acre project was
abandoned by Mariani through bankruptcy in the early 90s. You should be looking at
only the 5.8 acres that constitute the apartment complex because there is no legal or
any other relationship between that and the other neighborhoods in the area that
constitute the rest of that original 18 acres.
./ The word "duplex" is inappropriate when applied to Portofmo which is single family
residential homes with a zero lot line; as you look at 2 homes you appear to see one
building but they don't have a common wall; they have two separate walls according
to the construction information we received.
./ Four of the 84 units built by Citation are part of the Portofino Villa HOA, not Corsica
which has 80 homes.
· We share your concern on ownership of the BMR housing and how they will be maintained,
and I think you have addressed that thoroughly.
· Section 3, No.7 of the original development agreement; they are supposed to be maintaining
the fences etc. Historically they have only maintained anything on the inside of the fence that
faces their property, not on the rest of their property that faces the common or private streets.
· Section 3, No. 10, there is a statement that they were going to dedicate all of the recreational
amenities to the city of Cupertino and it was to be used as a park for our two developments.
Because of the locked gates, I don't think anyone from our development has made the efforts
to use the facility, but I question whether that was the intention of the city at the time it was
originally passed in 1995, and if you are going to readopt this development agreement, I would
ask you to consider if you really want 84 Corsica and 30 Portofino households going over to
the apartment complex and using their pool and BBQ and not paying dues. What about the
Cupertino Planning Commission
18
July 26, 2005
liability issue which is why we can't allow any other developments to use our pool because
our insurance would be unaffordable.
· Section 3, No. 15 reiterates the easement that we have attached in one sentence. It is important
to read the entire easement and appreciate that the entire financial burden is resting on that lot.
· Section 3, No. 19 on recycling; we are concerned that if a recycling facility is in fact installed,
that it be installed adjacent to DeAnza Boulevard which is already noisy and has a great deal
of traffic, rather than adjacent to Via Lombardi which backs over a narrow space onto our
single family homes.
Sharon Comenslater, Via Valente:
· Relative to the letter submitted, my point has to do with the parking easement that goes from
A viare to Portofino and Corsica; at the top of the picture you see the present apartments, and
below is the white cement fence; the parking easement is where all the vehicles are; from
Homestead to 280 and the gutter is actually the property line. The people are always confused,
they think that the fence line is the property line and it is not.
· What Dr. Edwards referred to as the maintenance obligations run with lot 99 which is A viare
and our concern is that these easement references don't get buried in the escrow documents
because it is not at all intrinsically obvious where the easement is, and how the obligations run.
· I have attached the two pages from the original tract map that reference the obligation that
references the easement and that are cross referenced to the easement grant that Dr. Edwards
talked about. That is my point to describe how the parking easement worked geographically
and there have been a number of times have seen landscapers there I can understand why they
are confused. My hope would be that the disclosures would be clear.
Dennis Whitaker, resident:
· I am concerned about the trend in conversion in Cupertino from rentals to condos.
· It was stated within the last 1-112 years we have lots ofrentals stock; staff said we want to try
to reserve the rental housing stock; we hear that housing is 70%, rental is 30%, and now we
have 140 units involved. In Saron Gardens, we called them dilapidated, but you had 39 units
there of people who had affordable housing that were bumped out and now you have $800K to
$900K and $ I million homes in there. Verona apartments, you had 16 families that were put
in there under BMR that were moved out when the owner needed money, so he sold them.
You now have 28 rental units that are BMR; what kind of protection are you going to put in
for those people so they are not going to face the same fate that the 16 people did in the
Verona apartments?
· It seems like we are desiring and pushing for an affordable housing, but it seems like we are
taking a contradictory action. When will we not have enough rentals; is the Biltmore next, the
Hamptons next; Glenbrook next?? We need to set a standard or a policy to save Cupertino; we
need some sort of dividing line to know how we Can preserve our rental stock.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Clarified that there were only 14 existing BMR units in this development; that they are
proposing to provide 28, which was a condition that would be required of them. They are
increasing the number of BMR units, so it doesn't take away from Mr. Whitaker's point that
there are displacement issues associated with these kinds of conversions.
Chair Wong:
· Back then the BMR ordinance was 10%, that is why we only have 14. If there are any updates
to any application, parking, BMR, they will have to be addressed before it can be submitted.
Cupertino Planning Commission
19
July 26, 2005
Mr. Piasecki:
· That is not necessarily true but you can require that they meet current standards, the minimum
BMR would be 15%. They have gone beyond that because they are trying to address the
affordabiIity issue raised in the housing element.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Asked staff to address the two issues raised by Dr. Edwards and Ms. Comenslater in tenns of
the gate and the parking easement.
Jennifer Griffin, resident:
· Condo conversion is something that smacks very badly in my vocabulary. It is a dangerous
precedent in Cupertino.
· I heard that four to five years ago residents of Cupertino were screaming that there were no
apartments in Cupertino; this was prior to the building of the Hamptons.
· When the market was high the apartment rentals were about $1400 per month in 1999; people
had no place to live in Cupertino; there were not a lot of apartments in Cupertino prior to
2000; I believe as the public outcry went on in 1998-99, apartments were built, the Hamptons
were built, and there were some other apartments constructed on the periphery of Cupertino.
· This is a bad thing to do; there has to be some balanced plan to account for housing in
Cupertino; now it is make condos, build condos, everyone needs to live in a condo; while I
have been told that the apartments are sitting there with no one wanting to rent them. What
happens when we get to the point where the apartment market comes back again, and people
want to rent apartments. This is going to happen; we are going to have no apartments because
everybody is going to be sitting on condos; once you start converting apartment stock into
condos, it is lost, and therefore in the future people will come back and say there are no
apartments and then they are going to say we are going to need to build more apartments in
Cupertino, 5 to 10 years down the road; it is a vicious cycle.
· There is no more land in Cupertino; are we going to start building apartments in the middle of
Memorial Park because ten years down the road there is no apartment stock? I say, let's draw a
close to this; leave this as rental apartments; it is an excellent location, professional families
can live there.
· How many children are going to be disrupted from their school districts to be sent back to
some other area of Cupertino or some other city?
· There has to be managed apartments.
Chair Wong:
· (to property manager) Currently in this particular unit, what is the current vacancy?
Brian Rayburn, property manager, Aviare Apartments:
· The current occupancy rate is 95% occupied.
· Outreach has been through letters and everything has been positive.
· Collins elementary, Hyde Jr. High and Fremont High School are the feeder schools.
· The price of the units has yet to be detennined.
· One bedroom units are renting at $1450 to $1550; and two bedrooms rent for $1695, $1800
and $1995.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Summarized that there were five issues identified by the Planning Commission that were not
responded to. Perhaps ask the applicant if they would be willing to take a continuance to the
meeting of August 23'" to address the issues.
Cupertino Planning Commission
20
July 26, 2005
.¡' The gate and the easements.
.¡' How to ensure the BMR units are maintained properly; there are some references to it
in the manual, but don't know how it gets implemented.
.¡' Whether the applicant would be willing to consider up to 25% BMR. There was
comments about the 7 units being provided as ownership; you may prefer that they are
all ownership and may want to address that to the Planning Commission.
.¡' We can provide the Planning Commission with the parking data, because they did give
us a parking study.
.¡' Ask the applicant to hold a resident meeting between now and then so you have the
advantage of any additional resident input.
The Planning Commissioners discussed additional issues still to be covered, as noted below:
Vice Chair Miller:
· I asked staff to address the gate issue and the easement issue; and the other question I have is
whether it is appropriate at least for the BMR units, for the Housing Commission to address
that; that is their area of expertise and they might have some appropriate input into this that
could benefit us at the Planning Commission.
· If staff is going to confer with Ms. Gil and/or the Housing Commission, it would be nice to get
their input on their thoughts on conversion in general; whether we need a more definitive
policy as to what percentage of units of rental vs. housing we would like to see in the city, and
would it make sense to do conversions or not do conversions in that regard; and not just rely
on the market conditions encouraging developers to come in and make this conversions
because that is quickest way to increase their profits at this time.
Mr. Piasecki:
· We can ask the Housing Commission; what I can advise the Planning Commission of, is that is
set by our General Plan policy, and the General Plan policy does not address it. We can get
their input to you on what their feelings are on reasonable relationships, but that would be
citywide policy we would look to for that.
Vice Chair Miller:
· I understand that, and maybe we should be addressing it, but I think that a recommendation to
address it would appropriately come from the Housing Commission.
· It may not be appropriate to apply that in this particular case, but in future cases, I think we
want to use this as something to look into for future cases.
Mr. Piasecki:
· It is a good topic for the City Council to consider with the General Plan update.
Chair Wong:
· What is the right percentage of rental vs. for-sale housing and why are we leaning more toward
one direction vs. another? It is probably better as City Council vs. the Housing Commission
level and is appropriate at the General Plan now.
Vice Chair Miller:
· I agree with you; the City Council makes the decision, but the Housing Commission is a good
place to start for recommendations.
Com. Giefer:
· I think increasing the BMR is a great idea; I would like to suggest we consider that additional
Cupertino Planning Commission
21
July 26, 2005
5 units as for-sale BMRs as part of the package. If we are going to have 28 units that are BMR
rentals, I would like to see some additional BMR units or some portion as for-sale units. If we
are going to increase the total amount of BMR units, I think we should consider some of them
for-sale units instead of for-rent as a mix.
· The other question I asked is I would like to know what the useful life of the gas heater is for
the pool, because I think that the homeowners association can reduce their overall costs long
term if it is at the end of its useful life, to replace it with solar. This would be an opportwrity
to become more environmentally ftiendly or green if this device is towards the end of its
useful life, it is something that might be replaced if we agreed to let them go to condos.
Com. Saadati:
· I concur with Com. Giefer that some of the units would be preferable as for-sale BMR units.
· Also addressing the maintenance for the BMR units.
· Do we know what the interior condition of some of the BMR units are?
· One option was the possibility of energy saving implementations. If the owner is going to
improve some of the units, we would like to know if they are going to make it more energy
efficient.
· Landscape and maintenance in general terms.
Com. Giefer:
· Asked staff to submit the vacancy rate for apartment complexes in Cupertino; specific to the
city, not the greater area.
Chair Wong:
· Actually list in the city of Cupertino what is the apartment complex for rent and how many
units are in each of the buildings and the building mix.
· I want to see it more definitive in writing regarding the displacement and compensation plan; I
heard that you have some conditions that if they are going to buy it, you will compensate them.
When we did Saron Gardens, we put it in writing and I want to see a more updated version.
Applicant:
· Some speakers were talking about the gate; clarified that it is required by the Cupertino Fire
Department to remain unlocked.
· Relative to these considerations as it relates to the continuance, I am assuming that we would
come back and there are some things on this list that are our responsibility and some internal to
you; and there are some policy issues that were being kicked around as well. I am curious to as
well, is there a thought that some of those policy issues were going to be considered as a part
of this approval or are those something that will be addressed for future?
Chair Wong:
· They will be separate; regarding the overall question that as we go through your application,
there are some things that popped up, but overall everything is positive so far. You can work
with staff, many unanswered questions came up during the public hearing we need
clarification on.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Your application has generated some questions as to whether we need to review the policy, but
your application is being considered under the policy as it stands today. It wouldn't be fair to
change the policy on you in mid stream and do that.
Cupertino Planning Commission
22
July 26, 2005
Applicant:
· Agreed to the continuance, to return on September 13th to respond to the outstanding issues.
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. Saadati, to continue Application
M-2005-02 to the September 13, 2005 Planning Commission meeting.
(Vote: 4-0-0; Com. Chen absent)
Chair Wong declared a short recess.
7.
TM-2005-03
John Knopp (Moxley
Properties) 21925
Lindy Lane
Subdivision of a 43,583 square foot parcel into two
20,000 square foot (net) parcels.
Planning Commission decision final unless
appealed within 10 days
Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
· Distributed a letter from Bill Schmidt, owner of property north of the applicant's property; and
a sheet illustrating Figure 3 from the geotechnical report.
· He reviewed the application for subdivision of the 43,583 square foot parcel into two parcels
as outlined in the staff report. He noted that the property as well as a number of other
properties were on the north side of Lindy Lane and have been part of the General Plan
discussions, particularly relative to whether the designation should have been changed on the
properties from its current designation of low density residential, 1-5 dwelling units per acre,
to a more hillside General Plan designation which is very low density residential that has the
application for slope density formulas.
· Neighborhood issues: The main concerns are preserving the semi rural character of the hillside
area; preserving the large oak trees present on the property; addressing the geologic concerns
regarding landslides; ingress/egress easement granted to Mr. Knopp for his property; and the
question about whether utilities would be allowed on it, or whether there is an overburdening
of the easement by creating an additional lot that would also use the ingress/easement; various
construction issues relative to parking by construction vehicles, hours of operation, noise, and
staging of operations.
· To address the concerns, staff is proposing to limit the size of the building footprint and
preserving the oak trees with a slope easement to maintain the semi-rural appearance and to
protect the oaks on the property. An additional condition of approval would be requiring a
design level geotechnical study when a residence is proposed. He noted that it was a
subdivision of property with no proposal for a residence at the current time; the owner is
interested in subdividing property, and not interested in building a second residence; that
would be left up to a future of the property itself.
· Lastly, have the applicant and the driveway property owner resolve the issues regarding the
ingress/egress easement and if that is not possible, the Planning Commission may need to
consider a separate access for the lot taken off Lindy Lane. This is a new condition being
proposed by staff. The Deputy City Attorney will probably want to weigh in on that.
· Staff recommends approval of the Tentative Map.
Com. Saadati:
· Asked why the applicant proposed a 10 foot retaining wall when there is no plan at this point
to build any unit.
Mr. Jung:
· Responded that there was no proposal to build a retaining wall; it was a conceptual plan
Cupertino Planning Commission
23
July 26, 2005
submitted by the civil engineer to show the feasibility of developing the property. It was an
idea he had and not a part of the application.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Noted that the conditions state that along with creating a slope easement, staff has suggested a
condition that would limit retaining walls to a maximum of 4 feet; they would have to work
out how to place the home and accomplish that, because staff does not want 10 foot retaining
walls.
Com. Saadati:
· Asked about the history of sliding in the area of adjacent homes or the existing home.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said that the drawing iIIus1rated some regarding or unengineered fill going on that may not be
directly sliding, but may relate to that. Suggested that the applicant address what has been
going on the lower hillside area.
Mr. Jung:
· Relative to the drawing of Figure 3, in the city geologist report he expressed a concern that if a
house was built below the unengineered fill, it is most likely the most difficult cons1raint on
the property itself and he would most likely require that either an unengineered fill be removed
and recompacted, or that there be a retaining wall put in with deep enough piers to make sure
that if the fill ever became loose, it would be held back by the retaining wall.
Com. Giefer:
· Given the new infonnation regarding access on the shared driveway, if it was necessary allow
vehicular access /Tom Lindy Lane to the new lot, where would that driveway be.
Mr. Jung:
· It would likely be where the proposed driveway was drawn; it is the area of the /Tontage of the
lot which seems to be the least steep.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said that staff would not suggest that option until there was a very precise drawing.
Everything seen thus far is predicated on the idea that it would be gaining access /Tom that
existing driveway and the easement.
· They did not want retaining walls greater than 4 feet, and putting in a new driveway in that
location would give much higher retaining walls and might be cause to reconsider whether the
subdivision makes sense.
Com. Giefer:
· With this new infonnation, why are we considering this instead of continuing it?
Mr. Piasecki:
· You may end up continuing it; it is similar to the issue you had with the Bunker application
where you said there seems to be three options available; you can apply a similar condition to
this application and proceed with it. You could have that kind of condition saying work it out
and we will approve it only with the condition that you work it out, and it hasn't been able to
be worked out in the other case.
Cupertino Planning Commission
24
July 26, 2005
Mr. Jung:
· The applicants had a conversation with Mr. Schmidt after the letter was written; you will likely
want to talk to him about that.
Com. Giefer:
· In reading the city geologist's report, it seems we have some different ideas to pursue; but it
appears that we have either the retaining wall as part of the home or we have removal of the
non-engineered fill which would probably take out the trees above it. Is that correct?
Mr. Jung:
· That is likely.
Com. Giefer:
· Asked for a review of the reason for the recommendation to split a lot at the division line
running east/west vs. north/south.
Mr. Piasecki:
· It was felt that the least visible building site is located between the oak tree groves Mr. Jung
pointed out; which exist to the west side of the lot; we felt that with the slope easements on the
frontage of the eastern lot that you could preserve the semi-rural character as you come down
Lindy Lane; and that it made more sense to keep that as part of the existing house because they
are looking out on to it, and they would be more likely to want to keep it highly maintained
and clean. One of the maps shows that their water access comes off Lindy Lane directly from
the site anyway, so we feel that the north/south division sets up an even more constrained new
lot with a limited building area with an easement that is going to prevent them from climbing
up the hill and take advantage of the views; and the property owner would not have the option
of coming in and saying let me develop that sloped area under the slope easement. There is a
lot of reasons why we felt that was the better solution for the neighborhood; probably not the
better one from the applicant's standpoint; they would probably prefer an east/west line, but I
think in terms of ensuring the objectives that the north/south makes more sense.
Com. Giefer:
· Another question was regarding the Rl vs. RHS, because the average slope of the lot is greater
than 15%, they would actually be governed by the RHS in any future development for this lot.
Mr. Jung:
· The Rl is written that if you have a slope of over 15% which is the case in this particular lot, it
is either the RHS or Rl regulations whichever is more restrictive. In this particular case as far
as the FAR the more restrictive regulations, the RHS regulation which has aFAR percentage
up to a 10,000 square foot lot, has a smaller increment for lots larger than 10,000 and there is a
slope penalty that starts deducting the square footage as the slope gets steeper.
· The calculation was already done under a nonnal Rl relatively flat lot; for a 20,000 square
foot lot you have a theoretical maximum that is close to a 10,000 square foot house, but with
RHS regulations on it, you end up with about 3,720 maximum.
Com. Giefer:
· If this lot where the Knopp house currently sits, was redeveloped in the future, if the person
who buys it, subdivides it and decides to build two homes and scrap the lot of the Knopp house
and that is redeveloped, would that lot also have to adhere to the RHS as opposed to the Rl?
Cupertino Planning Commission
25
July 26, 2005
Mr. Jung:
· It would still be subject to the same rules regarding the slope as well. Most likely if they were
interested in expanding, they would be intruding on some of the steeper slope areas as the
building pad itself is confined to just the flat portion of the lot.
· If the house is larger than what the ordinance presently requires, it would be considered a legal
non-conforming structure and they would have the right to rebuild that to the same square
footage. It is a case that if it is a voluntary demolition, they would have to comply with the
new rules.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Noted that were some other technologies besides removing the non-engineered fill and
replacing it with engineered fill and other technologies to investigate as an alternative to
saving the 1rees.
John Knopp, property owner:
· Said that his property is only one of four properties that the rezoning could subdivide.
· There have been recommendations and suggestions about what would be built and how it
would be built, but this is just the subdivision and I do not intend to actually build myself,
those matters would have to be brought up with whoever buys the house and that would be the
time to consider retaining walls, etc.
· There never was a utility easement on that driveway and there doesn't need to be; the only
utilities that are affected by the new lot is the sewer coming down ITom the existing house. I
understand the recommendation is to move that over to the common line of the two lots.
· The Schmidts sent a letter stating that their concern is they don't want the driveway dug up,
don't want it altered in any way, and don't want any utility easements on the driveway; there
never were any and they were not proposing that in any regard.
· They said that the existing property would still have ingress and egress easement. They would
prefer the new lot have its own access off of Lindy Lane.
· I talked with them before the meeting and I think they would be willing to grant ingress and
egress for the new lot also, especially since it is only on the lower part of the driveway. They
would not want it tom up in any way and I agree with that. There is a possibility of putting a
new driveway beside it; it would mean putting in a new culvert and putting pavement next to it
so that could be done; again that has to do with the development of the property itself.
· Thanked the Planning Commission for extending a second notice to neighbors affected; the
notice was sent out to a broader area than the standard 500 feet. The neighbors encouraged him
with the subdivision and they shared the same concerns about construction noise, etc.
· My neighbors and I are concerned about 1raffic noise, construction noise, etc. Again, this is
one of only four or five properties that could be subdivided; we are proposing one more and it
will be another year of construction noise, etc. Code enforcement has encouraged us to call if
there are any violations by construction crews. Recently there was a backhoe on one of the
lots; a call was made and they were shut down immediately.
· Briefly discussed the slides and movement in the 70s and a small slide in the 90s; there has
since been no other earth movement.
Brett Moxley:
· I am sympathetic to the concerns about the impacts of construction, and I think it couId
effectively be addressed in the construction management program which can be attached to
conditions; we don't object to that and recognize that it is really well addressed or should be
well addressed in the exercise of the enforcement by the building department.
Cupertino Planning Commission
26
July 26. 2005
· He reiterated that they were not proposing a 10 foot retaining wall and it was not part of the
proposal. They have not proposed any house footprint and feel that it is best left to careful
deliberation on the part of those who are designing the house that would go there and the
dialog that would go on either with staff or a Design Review Commission.
· It is currently zoned Rl and would be subject to design review. There is some concern that in
the hillside ordinance currently if that was not redrafted, there isn't a provision for design
review provided you are within the constraints of the RHS ordinance.
· As opposed to the current relatively prescriptive comments in the staff report, I would like you
to consider the alternative that design review does have a finn hold on what goes in there and
it gives the opportunity or the DRC the opportunity to judiciously evaluate a more carefully
considered proposal for the house.
· I would like you to contemplate that that the Rl growth calls for design review; if it were to go
to RHS it wouldn't, we would be happy to stipulate that any future work that happened at the
house would be subject to design review, in exchange for a relaxation of the current relatively
restrictive and I think early judgments on what could and should go there, subject to more
careful review by a designer.
· Weare going to need to bring in utilities, and I think this may not have been the intent of the
slope easement, but I bring it to your attention.
· The sewer district does not like the current lay of the sewer pipe; the new house would go in
on the newly created lot, and they would like to see a new sewer line put in across the slope.
· I suspect the slope easement that staff is proposing addresses larger above surface
improvements, and doesn't speak to underground utilities which would not have any
irnpainnent to the trees here. I want to ensure that we anticipate that if it were a slope easement
and no underground utilities along there, we would be obliged to object.
· Relative to the retaining walls and the mitigation of the unengineered fill there are three
obvious solutions, and other solutions that haven't been discussed that could be evaluated.
· If there is a concern about preserving these trees here and stabilizing unengineered fill, I feel
pretty confident we can do that and not compromise those trees with a hybrid approach to
some retaining wall, some unengineered fill removal, replacement, or retaining walls varying
the footings so the retaining walls stand far enough out from the trees but are structurally
sound and achieve their objective.
· The retaining walls in some cases could be a part of the house foundation. I appreciate that
those would not be technically retaining walls; as I understand from staff, a retaining wall is a
structure separate and apart from the house envelope and the foundation.
· The issue of the Schmidt easement probably will be a moot point for several reasons. It is
similar to ingress/egress easements that were present on my family's lots and in retrospect,
they do not specifically and prescriptively restrict use to one house. If that was the case, the
houses upslope of my family's lots would not be able to be subdivided and there hasn't been
any discussion of restricting subdivision in that area because the ingress/egress easements
don't specify the number of houses that they serve. They are generic and they are not that
restrictive; on the legal merits, that argument might not stand up. I appreciate staff's
comments that the city does not want to adjudicate matters like this and I don't think any of us
would want the city engaging in that; I think we can work it out. It looks favorable that will be
able to enjoy agreement with the Schmidts for access along that driveway.
· I appreciate that we have a supportive staff report. I suggest that the site and community are
better served by availing everyone to the design review process as it was intended and should
appropriately apply here and give the person who would be coming in and doing a careful
design, the opportunity to engage the design review committee or staff or the community in
coming up with the most elegant, least disruptive design there; as opposed to prescriptively
tying the hands of a future designer unnecessarily.
Cupertino Planning Commission
27
July 26, 2005
In response to an earlier question from Com. Giefer about the existing house, staff said it was 2 I 00
square feet. The footprint is such that you would not want to expand beyond, but want to go up.
Com. Giefer:
· (To Mr. Moxley). Would you be trying to develop and build on these lots once they are
divided and the Knopps decide they are leaving the area; would the lots be sold for future
development?
· Were you suggesting that the RHS house size calculation should not be used in favor of design
review?
Mr. Moxley:
· Yes.
· No, not at all; I would gladly recognize that the RHS formula is appropriate here and applies,
and the location of the house is its relationship to trees, retaining walls, of whatever size, are
appropriately addresses in a design review context. I did not mean to suggest that the RHS
formulas apply in addition with the slope penalty, 28% slope, which calculates over a 3,700
square foot house. I think that is entirely sufficient and I don't believe we have ever had any
objection to that, nor would be raise any.
Chair Wong:
· V s. north, south, east, west; what did you prefer; the current plan or the other one; it looks like
there is an easement going over the new subdivision.
Mr. Knopp:
· As the owner, I want to get the value out of the land; so whatever is reasonable I will go either
way. If! was to develop myself and years ago if! were to put up my own house, I would have
done it east/west and then developed the lower lot; put the house down so it had a valley view;
but then you have a long bowling alley type house, so that is purely aesthetics. Either one is
fine. I think staff thoroughly investigated all the pros and cons and that is why they came up
with that recommendation.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Part of the existing driveway is now going to become a part ()f the new lot, and the existing
house will then have an easement through there.
Mr. Moxley:
· You are referring to the ingress/egress easement, which is correct. We had a number of
conversations with staff about different pennutations of using the site and one would be to
push the driveway up slope which would require retaining walls and move a house up slope
which in some regards captures more of a view. I think some of the intent was that it might
provide more screening from the trees.
· This is an ingress/egress easement for use of the house and part of the reason for that is that a
driveway here doesn't benefit anybody.
Vice Chair Miller:
· The part of the driveway that the current house uses will now be on the adjacent property; who
maintains the driveway?
Mr. Moxley:
· I would argue that the house that enjoys the benefit of use of that driveway.
· It is my understanding that subject to the RHS aspects applicable here, that a driveway
Cupertino Planning Commission
28
July 26, 2005
maintenance agreement is a requirement.
Vice Chair Miller:
· That is fine; but the new parcel you are creating has no motivation or incentive to put any
money into that driveway, because they are not going to use it.
Mr. Moxley:
· Unfortunately crafting a road or driveway maintenance agreement when the same owner owns
both parcels, becomes an easy argument for that person to settle and record as part of a road
maintenance agreement.
Vice Chair Miller:
· You can do it any way you want but you would like to do it so that you have a goal of
congruence; even though you are forcing someone to do something, there is some motivation
for them to do it, otherwise it creates a conflict between the two neighbors over time.
Mr. Moxley:
· llIustrated that a 12 foot driveway would be required per the fire code to serve the house; and
showed where access to the site would be feasible, transgressing across the slope easement for
a few feet, not disturbing the trees.
Vice Chair Miller:
· I have no objection to that as long as an engineer approves it and it doesn't generate retaining
walls that don't fit in with the general guidelines that the city would like to see.
Mr. Moxley:
· I agree, I don't foresee any problem.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Also, relative to comments about other solutions to the non-engineered fill, it is ftom my
viewpoint as long as an engineer approves the solution, you are ftee to pick the best solution
for you.
Chair Wong opened the public hearing.
Bernard Tischee, Terra Linda Lane:
· About 10 or 15 years ago the residents of the large lot requested to subdivide their properties
and at that time the request was rejected because of the consideration of the high density and
slides in those hills.
· Unfortunately when they developed Lindy Lane I don't think it was done properly, the Lindy
Lane road is like a valley; when it rains it becomes a river, and if you build more homes the
overflow of the rain will make the road even worse during the rainy season.
· I don't know the reason why this decision was changed that allowed that hill to be subdivided
but there must be a reason.
· I oppose this subdivision, not only this subdivision, but all the subdivisions because there is a
lot of construction going on in the hillside now, and it has destroyed the hillside view. I think
there are some potential hazards in the future such as landslides or overflow water, and we
have been living with nuisance of construction noise the last 4 months; it negatively impacts
the surroundings and residents' right to enjoy their homes and yards.
Cupertino Planning Commission
29
July 26, 2005
· If the decision is made to subdivide the hillsides, at least make a decision and change the
cons1ruction ordinance that cons1ruction takes place only between 8 and 5 p.m. during the
weekend and no cons1ruction on the weekends.
· The property owner has a right to develop his property; but when he purchased his property he
knew that there was an ordinance prohibiting subdividing his property. When we purchased
our home, we realized that the hills would not be subdivided, so we would be able to enjoy our
home; everybody knew the rules in the beginning; somehow the rules have changed.
Jennüer Griffin, Cupertino resident:
· In this proposed lot split, there was a great deal of thought given to preserving the oak trees on
the property. Everything needs to be done to preserve the oak trees, they are the legacy for
Cupertino for generations to come.
· Asked if it was the last subdividing of the lot; could the lots be split into quarter-acre lots;
could the future purchaser of the lots come back in the future to split up the lots further?
· You should publicly look at constraining the maximum size home; how large a home Can be
built on the lots; 10,000 square feet is a large house; do we want two stories on the property.
· Please preserve the oak trees.
Chair Wong closed the public hearing.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said under the current zoning, you could not subdivide further.
· Relative to changing the cons1ruction ordinance, changes can be made but there are
consequences of changes since it affects homeowners as much as contractors. It nonnaIly
takes about a year to make changes, to gather input from the public, conduct public hearings
and prepare reports.
· He said under the cons1ruction ordinance, the hours of cons1ruction were 7 a.m. to 8 p.m.
weekdays and 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on weekends.
Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney:
· Said she was participating in meetings about the cons1ruction hour wnes; and noted that code
enforcement has been on Lindy Lane at least a dozen times in the last month regarding
concerns about cons1ruction noise, radios, and grading on the weekends. They are attempting
to enforce the law and changes in the ordinance are under discussion.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Clarified the definitions of daytime as 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. on weekdays, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on
weekends.
· Maximum house size is 3600 to 3700 +.
Mr. Jung:
· The square footage requirement applies to ail building s1ructures and would include any
granny unit, any greenhouse, 3720 maximum. Pools are not included.
Mr. Piasecki:
· That was the purpose of the slope easement area, to make sure that is a non-buildable wne, no
pools, no poolhouses, and you could use some undergrounding of utility that is not included.
Com. Giefer:
· If these lots had been rezoned to RHS vs. continuing to have the RI designation, what would
Cupertino Planning Commission
30
July 26, 2005
be the minimal lot size.
Mr. Piasecki:
· We haven't done the slope density calculation and under the RHS I would expect that you
would not be able to subdivide this property.
· If it was changed to the hillside land use designations, it would be unlikely that you would be
able to get another lot there.
Mr. Jung:
· Said the General Plan designation that controls the subdivision; it is not the zoning, the RHS
zoning ordinance says specificaIly refer to the slope density formulas that are found in the
General Plan designation.
· It is not the RHS that controls the lot size in this particular instance; it would be the slope
density formula if you had a slope density formula General Plan land use designation on the
property.
Com. Giefer:
· Expressed concern with the condition of Lindy Lane. It is worn down as weIl as Regnart
Road. The developer pays a street maintenance fee, but when wiIl those issues be addressed
by the city; how is it prioritized.
Mr. Piasecki:
.. Said that Public Works would respond.
· I don't think there is a requirement when you build you have to pay an extraordinary fee; if
you damage something we know it holds.
Com. Giefer:
· I thought the developers paid a city maintenance fee that specificaIly addressed streets
Mr. Piasecki:
· I don't believe so; private streets you would have such a setup potentiaIly where the
maintenance would be controIled
Com. Giefer:
· One of the issues that several residents mentioned is they felt their street is getting chewed up
by the construction vehicles.
Mr. Piasecki:
· We can ask Public Works how they can handle that.
Vice Chair MiIler:
· If this project does proceed, I would propose that it include some kind of road maintenance
agreement for the current driveway from the existing house out to the access road.
· I don't feel we can rule on this tonight because there is contention over whether or not the
shared access can be shared by the lot and if the applicant is proposing an alternate driveway,
then we need to see that on the General Plan.
· I propose we continue the application until that issue is resolved.
Chair Wong:
· (To staff) When the applicant came to us were you satisfied with their comment or do we need
Cupertino Planning Commission
31
July 26, 2005
to resolve that, regarding them talking to the applicant.
Mr. Piasecki:
· We received that letter today and we were not aware that it was an issue until we saw the
letter; we could handle that either with a condition that said the example we cited the Wolfe
Camera issue that had three options, and the applicant could demonstrate to us that he has
satisfied those. If they are seriously looking at creating another driveway, I agree with Vice
Chair Miller, that we would like to understand what it looks like, how it impacts trees, what do
you need for retaining walls, etc.
· We would continue it for that purpose; again I would ask if the applicant is willing to take a
continuance and come back with a definitive answer. The driveway is usable, it would be our
preference that they use the existing driveway.
Chair Wong:
· I agree.
Com. Giefer:
· I would agree with Vice Chair Miller; until we see that there is not an issue fÌ'om the Schmidts,
I would be more comfortable with that.
· Another suggestion is to record the trees that are there; the reason I asked Mr. Moxley if he
was actually going to be developing the property himself is that once Mr. Knopp and Mr.
Moxley are out of the picture, the future owner may come in and clear cut the lot, thinking
they can get away with that. As the property deed is changed, I would like to record the
heritage trees to give them some protection, more for the future.
· I suggest that we add conditions for construction stating that the neighbors feel antagonized by
all the development going on. That has been the primary complaint I have heard.
· There are concerns about landslides; we have the geologist report they retained; the city
geologist is more negative about the soils there. I would like to require that there is no
construction on weekends for this project; neighbors need some relief as part of this project.
· I don't know if the street repair is a developer issue; we as a city need to understand that this is
getting worn down and should be looked at as a higher priority.
· I would support Vice Chair Miller, if we do act on this tonight, I would like to suggest we
record the trees and add the condition of construction management that they do not work on
weekends or have a very limited schedule.
Com. Saadati:
· Said he concurred with the statements made by fellow commissioners.
· Relative to construction time, some of our neighboring cities have construction time limits 7
a.m. to 5 p.m. during the week, and no construction on weekends. Exceptions for working on
the weekend can be granted, but not for noisy work that would impact the neighbors.
· I concur with the recording of the trees.
· The issue that they share access needs to be resolved; if it can be done at the staff level, I
support that; if not, it be continued to come back.
· Overall, this lot Can be subdivided; regarding building of the house, slope stability; those will
be added at the time the house is proposed and design is proposed and specific geotechnical
report will be required for that site, prior to building permit action.
Chair Wong:
· I support the tentative mapping of the project with the condition about recording the trees;
having limited construction hours on the weekend; and regarding the concerns of the residents
Cupertino Planning Commission
32
July 26, 2005
on Lindy Lane.
· I also agree with Com. Saadati that if the applicant can satisfY staff's concern regarding the
easement with the Schmidts, I feel comfortable leaving that decision to the competent staff.
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. Saadati, to approve Application
TM-200S-03 with the modifications snggested by the Planning Commission.
Com. Giefer:
· The concerns of the neighbors include the heavy construction noise all of the time. I agree
there may be interior construction that could be done that is less noisy; however, the heavy
equipment, and backhoes are too much to have going 24/7 which is what the neighbors feel
they are living through.
· I would suggest that on Saturday, there not be any heavy equipment and dirt trucks. Ifwe
limit heavy construction, cut and fill type of activities, that would reduce a lot of the noise
immediately, where they didn't have trucks reducing access to their homes.
· Limit construction on Saturday to no heavy equipment, perhaps from 9 a.m. to noon, and if
there is only quieter construction, things not requiring heavy equipment during that
timeframe. On Sunday, give the neighbors a break and not have any Sunday construction.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Added another condition that no grading be done during the rainy season.
Mr. Piasecki reviewed the suggestions:
· Said there was a desire to see a road maintenance agreement recorded prior to the recordation
of the final map on the private drive over the westerly lot to the benefit of the eastern lot.
· That there would be a construction management plan as required by the conditions and that
there be no heavy equipment construction occurring on Saturdays; no construction on Sundays
and work with the applicant to define the meaning; it can be written into the construction
management plan.
· That they would record the 1rees that are protected under the 1ree ordinance and they would
record the fact that there would be no clear cutting; staff will define it.
· That the applicant shall demonstrate that there is access as proposed over the private drive to
the west of the site; and there would be a clearance from that property owner who owns the
easement; there be no grading during the rainy season as defined by the ordinance. It would be
recorded against both lots.
· They would record the slope easements in which case there would be no above ground
construction allowed.
(Vote: 4-0-0; Com. Chen absent)
Mr. Piasecki:
. Noted it was a final decision of the Planning Commission unless appealed within 10 days.
Chair Wong:
· Said that relative to the General Plan for the neighborhood, they made a recommendation and
if they are still interested, they should follow up with the City Council when they make their
final recommendation.
Cupertino Planning Commission
33
July 26, 2005
OLD BUSINESS
8. Review of General Plan Preliminary Recommendations:
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said that staff had nothing to add.
Chair Wong:
· Expressed his thanks to Ms. Wordell and Mr. Piasecki for the excellent work on the General
Plan..
NEW BUSINESS
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Review Committee:
· The meeting was cancelled due to lack of business.
Housinl! Commission:
· No meeting was held.
Mavor's Montblv Meetinl! Witb Commissioners:
· Quarterly meeting; next meeting is the next Thursday.
Economic Development Committee Meetinl!:
· Report will be provided at next meeting.
Director of Community Development:
· No additional report.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned to the next regular Planning
Commission meeting on August 23, 2005, at 6:00 p.m.
SUBMITTED BY:
Elizabetb A. Ellis, Recording Secretary