PC 08-09-04
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 (408) 777-3308
AGENDA OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Study Session
5:00 p.m. Conference Room C
Planning Commission Meeting
Conference Room C
August 9, 2004, 6:45 p.m.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
ROLL CALL-5:00 p.m., Conference RoomC
PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION
1. Application No. (s): MCA-2003-02 (EA-2003-19)
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Location: Citywide
Amendments to Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code (R1 Ordinance)
Continued from Planning Commission Study Session of July 26, 2004
Tentative City Council date: Not scheduled
SALUTE TO THE FLAG-6:45 p.m.; Conference Room C
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
July 12, 2004
July 26, 2004
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
POSTPONEMENTSjREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR
2. TR-2004-04; Li Mei Yee:8062 Park Villa Circle
Request postponement to Planning Commission meeting of August 23, 2004
3. TR-2004-05; Nathan Lewis (Westridge HOA); 10166 English Oak Way
Request postponement to Planning Commission meeting of August 23, 2004
7. M-2004-04; Etsuko Kuromiya; 19990 Homestead Rd.
Request postponement to Planning Commission meeting of September 13, 2004
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (Reserved for persons wishing to address the Commission on
issues that are not already included in the regular Order of Business
Planning Commission Agenda of August 9,2004
Page-2
CONSENT CALENDAR
2. Application No.(s):
Applicant:
Location:
TR-2004-04
Li Mei Yee
8062 Park Villa Circle
Tree removal of a protected tree at a planned residential development
Request postponement to Planning Commission meeting of August 23, 2004
3.
Application No.(s):
Applicant:
Location:
TR-2004-05
Nathan Lewis (Westridge HOA)
10166 English Oak Way
Tree removal of a protected tree in a planned residential development
Request postponement to Planning Commission meeting of August 23, 2004
PUBLIC HEARING
4. Application No.(s):
Applicant:
Location:
M-2004-05
Mark Lavoie (B.J.'s Restaurant & Brewhouse)
10690 N. De Anza Blvd.
Modification of a use permit (U-2002-01) to allow valet parking at an existing restaurant
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed
ACTION TO BE TAKEN:
1. Approve or deny M-2004-05
5.
Application No.(s):
Applicant:
Location:
TM-2004-07, V-2004-02
Qi Gary Li
21851 Lomita Avenue
Tentative Map to subdivide a .46-acre parcel into two lots of .22 acres each
Variance to reduce lot width from 60 feet to 50 feet to match neighborhood pattern
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed
ACTION TO BE TAKEN:
1. Approve or deny TM-2004-07
2. Approve or deny V-2004-02
Planning Commission Agenda of August 9, 2004
Pagè -3
6.
Application No.(s):
Applicant:
Location:
TM-2004-09, EA-2004-12
Art Dave
11081 S. Stelling Rd.
Tentative map to subdivide a 1.25-acre parcel into five parcels ranging from
approximately 7,630 to 10,270 square feet
Tentative City Council date: August 16, 2004
ACTION TO BE TAKEN:
1. Approve or deny EA-2004-12
2. Approve or deny TM-2004-09
7.
Application No.(s):
Applicant:
Location:
M-2004-04
Etsuko Kuromiya
19990 Homestead Rd.
Modification of a use permit (U-2004-02) for late night activities: extending the
hours of operation of a karaoke studio to 2 AM
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed
Request postponement to Planning Commission meeting of September 13, 2004
ACTION TO BE TAKEN:
1. Approve or deny M-2004-04
8.
Application No.(s):
Applicant:
Location:
R-2004-17, TR-2004-03
John Ghashighai
10230 Scenic Blvd.
Residential Design Review of a 1,929 square foot addition to an existing residence
that requires an exception to the front yard setback requirements
Director's minor modification with referral to Planning Commission for removal
and replanting or replacement of an existing oak tree
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed
Planning Commission Agenda of August 9, 2004
Page-4
ACTION TO BE TAKEN:
1. Approve or deny R-2004-17
2. Approve or deny TR-2004-03
OLD BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Review Committee
Housing Commission
Mayor's Monthly Meeting with Commissioners
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ADJOURNMENT to joint study session with the City Council on Tuesday, August 17 at 4:30
p.m. at Blackberry Farm
If you challenge the action of the Planning Commission in court, you may be limited to raising
only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this agenda, or
in written correspondence delivered to the City of Cupertino at, or prior to, the public hearing.
Please note that Planning Commission policy is to allow an applicant and groups to speak for
10 minutes and individuals to speak for 3 minutes.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the City of Cupertino will
make reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with qualified disabilities. If you require
special assistance, please contact the city clerk's office at 408-777-3223 at least 48 hours in
advance of the meeting.
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application:
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Property Location:
MCA-2003-O2
City of Cupertino
Various
City-wide
Agenda Date: August 9, 2004
Application Summary: Review of Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code (Rl
Ordinance) related to changes to Single-Family Residential regulations.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission discuss design guidelines.
BACKGROUND
Staff briefly introduced the Design Guidelines at the Planning Commission's study
session on July 26, 2004. This is a continuation of that discussion.
DISCUSSION
The City Council enacted the Design Guidelines to provide direction to applicants and
decision makers regarding subjective issues of design and compatibility. The
guidelines define the Council's principles, objectives and solutions to problems they
identified during the review of the R1 Ordinance that was approved in 1999.
The Commission has expressed interest in incorporating the Guidelines into the Rl
Ordinance. Staff considers the following issues as the main points in the current
Guidelines, most of which are already in the Rl Ordinance:
Issue
In the Ordinance?
The following are issues that the Guidelines do not address, but staff believes should be
considered:
STuD1 &;<;:.~\at-l
S'::>-\
MCA-2003-02
August 9, 2004
Page 2
Issue
Maintaining side setback and garage patterns in
nei hborhoods.
How to Inco orate
19.28.060 C 1 d
Using symmetry and alignment in the exterior design
doors, windows and architectural elements.
Encouraging porches, which provide a neighborly
façade to the street.
Encouraging the entry and living areas closer to the
street, instead of having the garage projecting
forward.
Discouraging garages that dominate the front
elevation.
19.28.060 C 1 e
19.28.060 C 1
W28.060 C 1
Added t'o 19.28.060 C 1 c
The Commission may wish to do more to encourage porches and de-emphasize the
garage. The following are options for the Commission to consider:
. Porches: The Linwood Acres Rl-a zoning ordinance has a special provision for
front porches to encroach into the front setback. This was intended to provide an
incentive for homeowners to build porches.
. De-emphasize the Garage: Increasing the prominence of living area and de-
emphasizing the garage typically results in homes that appear to be neighbor-
friendly. Methods include:
0 Require that the garage be setback 5 feet more than the living area of the
house for new houses. It is not practical to require this of all new
construction such as additions.
0 Allow a front-yard setback encroachment for living area if certain design
criteria are met.
Old Business: Design Review Process
At the July 26, 2004 study session, the Commissioners were split on how the design
review process should be changed. Chair Saadati and Commissioner Giefer supported
Exhibit F while Commissioners Miller and Wong supported Exhibit E. Exhibit D is the
original process.
Staff met with seven local architects and builders that represent about a third of the
design review projects the City has reviewed since 1999 about potential changes to the
design review process. Specifically, staff met with Dick Fang of Fang Design, Mike
Chen of HMc, Reza N orouzi of Mernarie Associates, Mike Amini of the Craftsman's
Guild, Danny Lee of Cupertino Construction, Henry Lo and David Pemg.
The local architects and builders were in general agreement on the following:
1. Most prefer not having review at all, but consider staff approvals to be better
than the public meetings at the Design Review Committee. They cite the fact that
S'S-ÒJ
MCA-2003-02
August 9, 2004
Page 3
the Committee members change over time, which creates a "moving target" to
get project approval and that many neighboring cities have sirrúlar processes.
2. Most believe Exhibit E needs improvement because two-story projects under 35%
FAR do not get any review until after structural drawings are prepared. The
local architects and builders prefer having a semi-formal process to get the
design approved prior to submitting for building permits.
3. Most believe Exhibit F needs improvement because it removes an incentive to
build 35% FAR houses on large lots. On lots less than 8,000 sq. ft. in area, the
local architects and builders agree that most projects will be over 35% FAR, but
for the larger lots, having a simpler review process provides enough of an
incentive to remain at 35 % FAR.
Exhibit G evolved during these meetings. This option provides neighbor input of all
two-story projects, although less notification is given for two-story projects under 35%
FAR, while maintaining a simpler process for the smaller two-story projects. The local
architects and builders prefer this option. Staff believes it is the middle ground between
the two processes the Commission considered on July 26, 2004. Staff suggests that the
Commission consider Exhibit G.
Peter Gilli, Senior Planner~ 2.
Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme~
Prepared by:
Approved by:
Enclosures:
Section 19.28.060 C
Design Guidelines
Exhibit D: Current Rl Development Process
Exhibit E: Alternative 1: Design Review Process
Exhibit F: Alternative 2: Design Review Process
Exhibit G: Design Review Process based on Local Architect Input
ss-~
Section 19.28.060 C(1)
The following language is in the Rl Ordinance and is applied during the review
of two-story projects (new text is underlined):
a. The mass and bulk of the design shall be reasonably compatible with the
predominant neighborhood pattern. New construction shall not be
disproportionately larger than or out of scale with the neighborhood
pattern in terms of building forms, roof pitches, eave heights, ridge
heights, and entry feature heights;
b. The design shall use vaulted ceilings rather than high exterior walls to
achieve higher volume interior spaces;
c. For projects with three-car garages oriented to the public right-of-way, the
wall plane of the third space shall be set back a minimum of two feet from
the wall plane of the other two spaces, or shall incorporate a tandem
space. There shall not be a three-car wide driveway curb cut. There
should not be a three-car-wide garage on a narrow lot.
d. Maintain the current pattern of side setback and garage orientation in the
neighborhood. .
e. Doors, windows and architectural elements should be aligned with one
another vertically and horizontally and symmetrical in number, size and
placement.
f. Porches are strongly encouraged.
g. Living area should be closer to the street, while garages should be set back
more.
S~-4
Single Family Residential
Design Guidelines
City of Cupertino
June 7,1999
Prepared by
Mark Srebnik
Architect. AlA
Los Altos, CA
SS-5
Table of Contents
1.
In1roduction
A.
B.
Goals and Guiding Principles of Design Guidelines
General Plan Policies
II. Neighborhood Compati.'bility Issues
IlL Mass & Bulk
IV. Streetscape Issues
0
617/99
Single Family Residential
Design Guidelines
City of Cupertino
Cupertino, California
SS -(0
L
Introduction
A.
Goals and Guiding Principles of Design Guidelines
. Create harmonious homes in scale and design.
. Allow for continued evolution of the city's housing stock.
. Provide a speedy development process for the applicant
" . Provide neighbors with input to the development process.
B.
General Plan Policies
All projects must be consistent with the City of Cupertino General Plan
policies.
. See Policy 2-15: Scale of Residential Development
Ensure that the scale and density of new residential development and
remodeling is reasonably compatible with the City's predominant single
family residential pattern, except in areas designated for higher density
housing.
. See Policy 2-18: Privacy in Site Design
Ensure that the site design for a residential project has private indoor and
outdoor spaces for each unit and common outdoor recreation space.
. See Policy 2-19: Neighborhood Protection
Protect residential neighborhoods from noise, traffic, light and visually
intrusive effects from more intense developments with adequate buffering
setbacks, landscaping, waIls, activity limitations, site design and other
appropriate measures.
. Policy 2-20: Minimizing Privacy Intrusion
Keep the sights and sounds of the neighbors from intruding on residents.
Techniques can include greater building setbacks, wing waIls, window
shutters and non-transparent glass.
Single Family Residential
Design Guidelines
City of CUpertino
Cupertino, California"
6(//99
S~-T
c.
Objective
New homes and remodel and addition projects offer a great opportunity to
create a design that is harmonious with and enhances the neighborhood.
However, for this to happen one must observe the existing neighborhood
characteristics and incorporate those patterns that are appropriate into their
design.
A special sensitivity must be shown in the design of two story homes, as they
have a greater visual impact on the neighborhood. To reduce the impact of
new homes on the neighborhood incorporate the scale, form, and materials
found in the neighborhood into the design.
2
6nt'ß
Single Family Residential
Design Guidelines
City of Cupertino
Cupertino, California
SS-b
See grading
& drainage
procedure
See General
Plan Policy
2-15
ll.
Neighborhood Compatibility
Objective
. To soften the transition between existing
single story neighborhoods and new
two-story developmenL
Problem
. Architectural design of new two story
homes may not account for scale, mass
and bulk of existing homes in a
neighborhood.
Solutions
. Keep soil grade changes between
properties to a minimum.
. Set the first floor elevation as close to
existing grade as possible. This does not
include split-level portions of house.
. Balance the appearance of new two story
development with those of the existing
neighborhood by keeping similar
architectural form, roof pitch, eave and
ridge heights.
. In new home developments, use one
story elements at edges of development
abutting existing one story homes to
soften the transition.
SlrolkAR. ROOF ÇllíVH
~".¡;~R\Oð~ ~r6Hr.s
10
Single Family Residential
Design Guidelines
City of Cupertino
Cupertino. California
3
617/99
Ss-9
:ee General
'an Policy
.-20
See General
Plan Policy
2-19
See General
Plan Policy
2-18
See Chapter
19.80
Accessory
Buildings!
Structures
See Chapter
19.28
Municipal
Code
Where new two story elements or homes
are proposed adjacent to single story
homes, position new two story windows.
to protect the privacy of backyard and
living areas of existing single story
homes. This can be achieved by the use
of skylights, clerestory windows,
reducing the size of windows, raising the
sill height of windows or installing
louvers on windows.
. Privacy protection between new two
stories and existing one story homes can
also be addressed through the planting of
fast growing, non-deciduous trees and
shrubs.
Second story decks should be placed or
designed so as not to offer direc~ views
into adjacent property living or backyard
areas. Use solid railings instead of open
railings. lattice and landscape screening
on sides of deck toward sideyards.
Single Family Residenûal
Design Guidelines
City of Cupertino
Cupertino. California
00
DON"
4
617/99
ss-\ 0
See Chapter
19.28
Municipal
Code
See Chapter
19.28
Municipal
Code
See Chapter
19.28
Municipal
Code
See Chapter
19.28
Municipal
Code
See Chapter
19.28
Municipal
Code
m.
Mass & Bulk
Objective
. To reduce the appearance of mass and
bulk of new structures.
Problem
. New two story homes or additions
having two story vertical walls appear
more massive and bulky; due to lack of
regard for building indentation, distance
to adjacent buildings or impact to light!
air to adjoining properties.
. How to maintain the building square
footage that the public wants but
reducing the visible bulk of a building.
Solutions
. Keep visible second stories waIl heights
reduced to a minimum by burying them
under the roof of the first story.
Add articulations to second story waIls
where 6' high walls are used over a
length of24'.
. Reduce the height of entry features to
match the eave heights of homes in a
neighborhood
Single Family Residential
Design Guidelines
City of CupertiDo
Cupertino. California
MONOL.I1!1IC fDI\M
!MP\!IISIU,," II1ASS ~ ~Ll4<-
lI<Rc:a!ó S/;'ILe
t¡¡1RY
5
617/99
s~- i \
. Use vaulted ceiling rather than high exterior
walls to achieve higher volume spaces.
. Use simple building forms instead of overly
complex forms. Too many hips and valleys,
bays, etc. can create a busy appearance.
. Setback second story from first floor and
shape to relate to existing house. Avoid a boxy
looking second story.
Single Family Residential
Design Guidelines
City of Cupertino
Cupertino, California
ð
L.t$ ~,.,~
Do
rt. ~ fYI f'<S5
oo..t,.
6
6m99
ss- I ;;L
. If hipped roofs fit your architectural design,
they could be used because they reduce the
visual mass of the roof.
. The use of steep pitched roof should be
avoided, if the architectural design allows.
. Use lighter looking materials on second
story such as wood or stucco and avoid
using heavy looking building materials
such as stone or brick.
7
Single Family Residential
Design Guidelines
City of CupeltiDO
Cupertim. California
l~S
t-\~
HIP¡>ê¡} qABU:
t>
t-\\pfit>
617/99
SS-I~
See Chapter
19.28
Municipal
Code
See City
Street Tree
Policy
IV.
Str~ts~pes
Objective
. To promote good site planning
techniques that will improve and
beautify a neighborhood.
Problem
. A neighborhood has a pattern as it
relates to building setback from street,
orientation of garages/driveways,
sidewalk pattern and public street tree
type. This pattern should be maintained
when new homes are built in a
neighborhood.
. New two-story homes are constructed
without installation of front yard
landscaping and trees to soften the mass
of new two-story elements.
Solutions
. Plant a minimum of two non-deciduous
trees (1-24 "box, 1-15 gallon) in the
front yard, in a location to soften the
appearance of the two story elements of
a home.
. The city requires the owner to plant
street tree(s) where none exist when the
owner either subdivides the property,
builds a new home or improves the
structure by adding twenty five (25)
percent of the value of the existing
structure.
.. Design the new home to match the
existing neighborhood building setbacks
and orientation of garages! drivc;way.
Single Family Residential
Design Guidelines
City of Cupertino
Cupertino. California
NO ~íf<B1?í"- 1<£65
8
617199
SS-ILf'
See Chapter
19.28
Municipal
Code
. When the garage doors are turned away
ITom the street, use landscape planting,
trellises, or the installation of a
window(s) facing the street to soften the
appearance of what would otherwise be
a blank wall. Also, the garage doors
should have a minimum of contrasting
color to blend in the doors appearance.
. Three car garages could have one space
setback ITom the other two spaces. Three
single width doors instead of a single
and a double width door could be used to
reduce the scale of the garage. There
should not be a three-car wide driveway.
. Three car garages can be softened by the
use of one tandem parking space behind
one of the two parking spaces.
Single Family Residential
Design Guidelines
City of Cupertino
Cupertino, California
Do
TR=~L\S
DO
DO
'Do
9
HoUS,
GARMf
6nt99
55-IS
2. Lots, which contain less area than required by
Section 19.28.050 AI, but not less than five thousand
square feet, may nevertheless be used as building
sites, provided that all other applicable requirements
of this title are fulfilled.
. B. Lot Width. The minimum lot width shall be
sixty feet measured at the front-yard setback line.
C. Development on Slopes of Thirty Percent or
Greater. .
I. Site plans for all development ¡>roposals shall
include topographical information at contour
intervals not to exceed ten feet. Areas where slopes
are thirtypercent or greater shall be identified on the
site development plan.
2. Buildings proposed on a portion of a lot with
slopes of thirty percent or greater shall be developed
in accordance with the site development and design
standards specified in Sections 19.40.050 through
19.40.140 of the Residential Hillside ordinance,
Chapter 19.40, or the R-I zoning ordinance, Chapter
19.28, whichever specific regulation is more
restrictive.
3. No structure or improvements shall occur on
slopes of thirty percent or greater unless an exception
is granted in accordance with Section 19.40.140,
unless no more than five hundred square feet of
development, including grading and structures,
occurs on an area with a slope of thirty percent or
greater. (Ord. 1886 (part), 2001; Ont. 1868 (part),
2001: Ord. 1860 § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834 (part),
1999: Ont. 1635 § 1 (part), 1993: Ont. 1601 Exh. A
(part),1992)
19.28.060 Lot coverage, buildiug setbacks,
height restrictiODS aDd privacy
Dlitigation measures for
DODDCCessOry buildilÌgs aDd
structures.
A. Lot Coverage. The maximum lot coverage
shall be forty-five percent of the net lot area.
B. Floor Area Ratio.
1. Any new single-story house, or single-story
addition to an existing house may not cause the floor
area ratio of all structwes on the lot to exceed forty-
five percent.
19.28.050
2. Any new two-story house, or second story
addition to an existing house, may not cause the floor
area ratio of all structures on the lot to exceed thirty-
five percent, unless discretionary design approval is
first obtained &om the Design Review Committee
pursuant to Section 19.28.090.10 no event shall such
floor area ratio exceed forty-five percent of the net
lot area.
3. The floor area of a second story shall not
exceed thirty-five percent of the existing or proposed
first story or six hundred square feet, whichever is
greater.
C. Design Guidelines.
I. Any new two-story house, or second-story
addition to an existing house, shall be generally
consistent with the adopted single-family residential
guidelines. The Director of Community Development
shall review the project and shall determine that the
following items are met prior to issuance ofbuilding
permits:
a. The mass and bulk of the design shall be
reasonably compatible with the predominant
neighborhood pattern. New construction shall not be
disproportionately larger than or out of scale with the
neighborhood pattern in tenns of building forms, roof
pitches, eave heights, ridge heights, and entry feature
heights;
b. The design shall use vaulted ceilings rather
an high exterior walls to achieve higher volume
nterior spaces;
c. For projects with three-car garages oriented to
e public right-of-way, the wall plane of the third
space shall be set back a minimum of two feet ftom
the wall plane of the other ~o spaces, or shall
incorporate a tal\dem space. There shall not be a
three-car wide driveway curb cut
2. If the Director does not find that the proposal
is generally consistent with this section, then an
application must be made for design approval ftom
the Design Review Committee pursuant to Section
9.28.090.
D. Setback-First
Structwes).
I. Front Yard. The minimum fiont yard setback
is twenty feet; provided, that for a curved driveway
Story
(NonaccesSOI)'
588-11
(~.4.o:z)
SS>-I <.0
en
(¡ì
\
EXHIBIT D
CURRENT Rl DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
Extension
ofLNC **
bldg. line
Two Story
under 35%
FAR *
Staff Review for
Guideline
conformance
Neighbor approval
Staff
approval
1_- - - - - -- -- - -- - - - -- --- -- - - - - - - - --- - -- - - - -- -- - - --¡
I
Two Story
over 35%
FAR *
Consulting
Architect review
for Design & Staff
Review for
Guideline
Conformance
Story Poles, 300'
noticing
I Exceptions I ~ I 300' noticing
(#) Actions can be appealed to the CC through the PC
~
* FAR = Floor Area Ratio
** LNC = Legal Non-Conforming
*** DRC = Design Review Committee
**** PC = Planning Commission
***** CC = City Council
(¡J
C/'
\
cP
EXHIBIT E
AL TERNA TIVE 1: DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS
Two Story
under 35%
FAR *
Staff Review for
Guideline
confonnance
I
I
"- - - - -- - -- - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - -- - -- - - - -.
:
,
:
¡
¡
:
I
I
I
I
1--_--___-----------------------------------------------------------------------¡
Two Story
over 35%
FAR *
Consulting
Architect review
for Design & Staff
Review for
Guideline
Confonnance
Stery Peles, 300'
noticing, llx17
plans to adj.
neighbor, posted
notice in ftont
yard wi rendering
Director's
Approval
(no hearing)
(##)
I 300' noticing,
I Exceptions I ~ 11~17 plans to adj.
neighbor
(#) Rear yard setback reduction
17'+ gable end height outside of building envelope
2nd story decks
Extension ofLNC ** bldg. line
(##) Actions can be appealed to the CC through the PC
* FAR = Floor Area Ratio
** LNC = Legal Non-Confonning
*** DRC = Design Review Committee
**** PC = Planning Commission
***** CC = City Council
C/)
(J1
I
-D
EXHIBIT F
ALTERNATIVE 2: DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS
Adjacent noticing I---¡
wlll>l7plw< ~
I Two Story ¡-.
Consulting
Architect review
for Design & Staff
Review for
Guideline
Confonnance
Story Pales, 300'
noticing, llxl7
plans to adj.
neighbor, posted
notice in front
yard wI rendering
I I 300' noticing,
I Exceptions ~ ll~l7 plans to adj.
neighbor
(#) Rear yard setback reduction
17'+ gable end height outside of building envelope
2nd story decks
Extension ofLNC ** bldg. line
(##) Actions can be appealed to the CC through the PC
Director's
Approval
(no hearing)
(##)
* FAR = Floor Area Ratio
** LNC = Legal Non-Conforming
*** DRC = Design Review Committee
**** PC = Planning Commission
***** CC = City Council
v')
V
\
~
0
EXHIBIT G
DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS: BASED ON LOCAL ARCHITECT INPUT
Two Story
under 35%
FAR
Staff Review for
Guideline
Confonnance
Two Story
over 35%
FAR
Consulting
Architect review
for Design & Staff
Review for
Guideline
Confonnance
Adjacent noticing
wi llxl7plans
Adjacent noticing
wi llxl7 plans,
posted notice in
front yard wi blw
rendering
Stery Pales, 300'
noticing, llxl7
plans to adj.
neighbor, posted
notice in front
yard wi colored
perspective
rendering
I I 300' noticing,
I Exceptions ~ Ilxl7 plans to adj.
neighbor
(#) Rear yard setback reduction
17'+ gable end height outside of building envelope
2nd story decks
Extension ofLNC ** bldg. line
(##) Actions can be appealed to the CC through the PC
Director's
Approval
(no hearing)
(##)
* FAR = Floor Area Ratio
** LNC = Legal Non-Confonning
*** DRC = Design Review Committee
**** PC = Planning Commission
***** CC = City Council
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
5:00 P.M.
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
STIJDY SESSION DRAFT MINUTES
JULY 26, 2004
CONFERENCE ROOM C, CITY HALL
MONDAY
The Planning Commission study session of July 26, 2004 was called to order at 5 :00 p.m. in the
Conference Room C, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Taghi Saadati,
and the following proceedings were had to wit:
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present:
Chairperson:
Vice Chairperson:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Commissioner
Taghi Saadati
Gilbert Wong
Lisa Giefer
Marty Miller
Angela Chen
Commissioners absent:
Staff present:
Community Development Director:
City Planner:
Senior Planner
Assistant City Attorney:
Steve Piasecki
Ciddy Wordell
Peter Gilli
Eileen Murray
PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION
1.
MCA-2003-02 (EA-2003-19)
City of Cupertino
Location: Citywide
Amendments to Chapter 19.28 of the
Cupertino Municipal Code (RI Ordinance)
Tentative City Council date: Not scheduled
Mr. Peter GOO, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
Purpose of the meeting is to discuss the design review process and the relationship with the
Planning Commission guiding principles, to help detennine what avenue the Planning
Commission may chose to take.
One of the principles relating to this concept that was on many of the commissioners' lists,
was having either improved design or good design, in some cases called nice design.
On the topic of good or nice design, it is staff's viewpoint that regulations either loose or strict,
don't cause or preclude a good or bad design. If you want improved design you have to have
design review process and high expectations of applicants.
Staff needs to know if the Planning Commission is comfortable with what has already been
done with the projects being built. If the Commission believes that the current projects are
already quality design, no changes are necessary to the process to improve it. If the
Commission wants to improve design, changes would have to be made.
. The first question relates to where the Commission wants to be on the spectrum of design
review. If the Commission wants to improve design, either to mitigate the impacts of increased
second story area or just as a general principle, then the process should be expanded and what
Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session
2
July 26, 2004
.
the Commission was talking about at the last meeting having a consulting architect at the
meeting, that kind of process should be explored. That is generally shown in Exhibit E.
There was another principle and that was to streamline the process and improve affordability.
That and expanding the process are two principles that are going to clash if the design is
acceptable as it is now, then we think there are ways that the process can be streamlined and
made cheaper to the applicant, and that can be achieved if Exhibit F is used.
Exhibit F would save about $],400 in fees to each applicant and about two weeks of time.
There have been architects who say that they admittedly don't have a problem with that kind
of concept; this process would continue to allow neighbors to have input into projects, but
instead of a hearing date, it would have a due date to provide comments to staff.
The residents/neighbors would call, e-mail or show up at the Planning Department counter by
that date.
Vice Chair Wong:
. Asked how the concerns would be mitigated.
Mr. Gilli:
Will proceed in the same way that the Planning Commission and DRC has in the past years. If
it is a case where a neighbor says they don't want a two story house there, and that is the only
complaint, it will likely get approved; a chance it would get appealed. If the issue is over trees,
if applicant is agreeable, that is the kind of discussion we can have and that happens at the
DRC, but then we often have to have a continuance to make sure everyone is happy. The
concept is to take those small problems which seem to be what we are having, and address
them in a nerving way that it can be solved quicker. If there is rea] conflict, it will be appealed
by somebody and will go to a hearing; estimation is that it would be about 5% or 10% at most.
Appeal costs are $140 vs. not going to DRC, there would be a cost but it would be subtracted,
the cost of hearing and staff time at the hearing and such would be deducted, it is a saving of
about $],000. The earlier number mentioned on the $1400 is overstated; that is the difference
between the current fee and the fee prior to July. That should actually be $1000 because we
would still have to charge a fee because there is a level of review, we have to do noticing, but
that fee will be $1000 less than what they would pay if they went to a hearing, $800 vs. $1900.
If there is no hearing, it would be about $800 to $900, based on how much a Director's minor
modification cost.
It is estimated that it would be about the same amount of time; appeal would be $140, staff
would not be able to recover the staff time for the appeal; $800 costs are the costs to still have
a review and have the noticing of neighbors, but having at Director's approval.
. fustead of having a hearing to come to, neighbors would have a date on which to provide
comments and the idea was also to have the date, whether it's a hearing or the comment date,
on the posted notice in the tÌ'ont yards and that notice will also have the renderings, which was
previously agreed to.
e Once the Director acts on the project, all neighbors who provide comments will be notified of
what action was taken; the applicant, P]amring Commission and City Council are going to
receive a notice of the action and a copy of the approve plans, which is how director's minor
modifications are handled now.
Any interested party is able to appeal the decision.
Mr. Piasecki:
It would take less band width than the current process because of the staff that is working on
various projects, it would be spending less time on Rl design review.
Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session
3
July 26, 2004
.
He said he would quiz them with the same kind of issues that the Planning Commission
would; for less money and less expenditure of time, we will get most of what you have wanted
with the other process, and you still have the ability to appeal.
Mr. Gilli:
. If there is an appeal it would add about a month.
There would be two weeks time provided for notice and for the neighbors to provide feedback.
Com. Giefer:
. Said she was concerned about the two week timeline, because neighbors are saying it is not
enough time for them to provide input.
Chair Saadati:
Said his experience is that sometimes two months is not adequate, because people receive
notices, toss them out, and later on when the time comes, they wake up and show a concern.
Mr. Piasecki:
There is the appeal process you have now with the Planning Commission and/or DRC which is
same, you have the competing interest between the neighbors' interest who have had the time
to review it, and the applicant's interest, who is also a neighbor, who wants to get their plans
pushed through, so you could easily say that you cannot hold people up forever, with the
possibility that someone might appeal.
Com. Giefer:
The one thing that is different about this that helps everybody, is if we have the plans and the
renderings in front of the property; then it is not an unknown to them and it helps make it real.
Mr. Gi1li:
The immediate neighbors will get the elevations and site plans.
Com. Miller:
Some people come through this process, and whether it is because it is a language issue or it is
a lack of understanding, they are not clear on what the process is, or even that they have the
right to appeal.
. Is there a way we can make it very clear on the applications exactly what the process is, and
that in fact if they go through a Director's review and they are not happy with'the result, they
do have the right to appeal and the cost as well.
Mr. GOO:
When there are issues where it does look like a happy ending isn't on the horizon, we let them
know early on, and this is for all types of projects, mtless you are at the City Council already,
you have appeal process and cost. If the applicant is not happy that they have to do a certain
thing, or if there is a neighbor who is not happy, that is one of things that we tell them early
on; it can be put in the notice.
Average annual applications are about 20, but this year was higher, because of allowing
second stories to be higher with exception; the city is now on track for about 35 this year
which is the highest.
Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session
4
July 26, 2004
Ms. Wordell:
That is what was projected going into the Rl process, when estimating how much time this
would take.
Com. Giefer:
Asked if staff felt the number is lrigher than it has been before because people know that they
are reviewing the Rl process and they perceive there is going to be a change in second story
ratio.
Mr. GiIli:
. It is more because the committee and staff has been comfortable with second story exceeding
35%, going up to 40% in exceptions.
Many people aren't able to get what they wanted out of that, there are some people who are
going to wait, hoping it goes to 50%, but for most people, the 40% number is appealing and
they are applying.
Com. Miller:
. Referred to the change regarding adding things for Director's review, and asked if it was
correct that they did not review anything for one story, nor any review or very much for two
stories under 35%.
Mr. Gilli:
Said examples of minor issues were use of the rear setback, having a gable end outside the
building envelope over 17 feet, having second story deck, and extending of a legal
nonconforming building line.
Another principle was to allow for neighbor involvement especially in cases of privacy; in
staff's eyes there are privacy impacts with a second story.
. In order to address the privacy impacts there should be some level of review of all two story
projects, not just the two story projects over 35%. Currently the ordinance calls for all two
story homes to meet certain design standards; these are guidelines relating to the mass, bulk,
scale of the house. In that respect requiring them to go through a director level process like the
rest of the homes if that is agreed to, would not be an added burden as far as what they would
be required to do.
There would be added costs in time but in many cases these two story houses with 35% FAR
or less, have applied for building permits and had their structural drawings drawn and t!ten
they have had to adjust them. The arclritects who have had to do this would rather have a
formalized process where they know ahead of time, rather than have to do structural plans and
redraw it.
The other alternative is to not look at anything on a two story house under 35%.
Since the second story is going to be increased likely to 50%, that actually increases impacts
on neighbors because you are going to have more rooms upstairs; and if we review all two
story homes that will make it a simpler ordinance. In some ways it requires more of some
people, but it is a simpler ordinance in that you don't have a certain process if you are two
story over 35% you don't have this process; if you are under, that is the rationale why staff
believes you should review all two story homes; it is something the Planning Commission
agreed to in 2003, but this Planning Commission is not held to that in any way.
. Staff does not recommend the current process remain in its present form; if the Planning
Commission is happy with what is coming out of the design review process, staff can do that
without the hearings and have a yearly report showing the Planning Commission what has
Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session
5
July 26, 2004
been approved and the Planning Commission can give feedback on whether they are content
with that or not.
Can do things so that the Planning Commission is aware and comfortable with what has been
done at the staff level; but currently having the hearings, staff does not feel is enough of a
benefit to outweigh the costs on the applicant, unless the Commission wants more out of the
design.
Staff recommends the process following either Exhibits E or F; if the current designs are
appropriate, Exhibit F is recommended; if the Planning Commission wants improved designs,
Exhibit E is recommended.
On the later meetings of the Planning Commission, it is likely the next meeting will cover
guidelines, which ones to incorporate into the ordinance, which ones to not have, the 23'" there
will be a presentation ITom Palo Alto, and staff recommends each be a study session, since the
9th is a full meeting.
In September, unless the Commission wants to act on the Palo Alto concept, staff will get
language to the Planning Commission in September on what has been agreed upon.
.
Com. Miller:
Presently we don't review 35% houses and the reason that was in the original ordinance was
that people in general felt that they were not issues for mass and bulk, or intrusion.
. Relative to making the process simpler by adding it, he said he did not see where now it is
added to the one story.
He said they leave the two story below 35% along with the one story, it doesn't seem to
complicate the process any, because there is still the one story that is treated that way, and we
continue to do what we are doing with the two story houses.
Open to staff suggestion that staff does a director's review and that the appeals go to the DRC
as opposed to the present process.
Favors streamlining the process.
Mr. Gilli:
On the issue of current process and two stories, it does go through a different process when
compared to a one story, because it does have to be reviewed by staff in order to meet certain
guidelines, such as issues of wall heights, and ridge heights.
We use the actions of the DRC and the Planning Commission as a barometer, and if the
Planning Commission is comfortable with a certain height, certain mass for the ones under
35%, we generally require a step under that, as far as strictness.
Ms. WordeD:
. Said those elements are prescribed in the ordinance.
Com. Giefer:
Said she was comfortable with the streamlining suggestions because it serves one of the
consistent issues heard ITom people both in the public hearing process as well as people in the
community who have remodeled homes.
Support going with the streamline process to see how that works.
. Said her discomfort felt across the board with that is the information ITom the survey indicates
that the community is not comfortable with the increase to 50%. Also, four years ago it was
resoundingly put at the current ratio, and the concern is that in four years ITom now will it be
up to 75% and then 100%; some creeping up happens.
Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session
6
July 26, 2004
Said she is supportive of replacing the housing inventory and keeping it up to date, but has a
bottom line discomfort, even though she feels they need to show leadership and move forward;
is not comfortable with 50%.
Vice Chair Wong:
Agree at this time with the infonnation presented that architect is not needed; the staff and
architects provided at stafflevel are adequate.
Regarding DRC; it depends on the design and compatibility, which we haven't really got there
yet and you talked about process vs. design review.
Mass and bulk are still my guiding principle and we should let the ordinance determine the
other parts.
. Regarding the second story compromise in 1999, the City Council thought hard about it and
for two stories under 35% FAR, it was a compromise; for people who wanted to build two
stories they wouldn't be under as stringent guidelines.
. By making all two stories fall under there, it will deviate from what the 1999 ordinance wants
to do.
. Agree with Com. Miller that the one story, and two story under 35% should be left as is; two
stories over 35% FAR should go through a Director's approval and that is dependent on what
happens on the design compatibility when discussed at the next meeting, because he said he
may change his mind.
Asked staff to explain: both in the current process and the new process, both streamlined and
expanded, is consulting architect review for design, and staff review for guidance and
confonnance.
Mr. Gilli:
What occurs when a preliminary project is submitted, staff looks at it and we look at its
contents; and we make sure it meets the guidelines in a way consistent with all the actions of
the committee. Then it is sent to the architectural consultant and he reviews it to make
recommendations on improving the design within the framework of the project
He tries to keep the interior spaces as the applicant would like it, in trying to recommend
exterior improvements and once that is done, it is set for hearing.
Vice Chair Wong:
What is the difference from under 35% and over 35% currently; is it the over 35% that goes àt
the design review guidelines vs. under 35%?
Mr. Gilli:
Under 35% we still look at the major guidelines; it is just that how much we would try to push
an applicant is based on what the committee is doing on projects; if the committee has a
sensitivity to a certain issue, and we look at a project that is under 35% that is doing the same
thing that the committee is concerned with; we will require the applicant to come close to what
the committee has approved. We don't require to meet it because it is under 35% and it is
smaller house overall.
Vice Chair Wong:
Summarized that he supported what currently is, shown in Exhibit D, one story and two story
under 35%, that flow chart, and cross out story poles and have director's approval; that would
be contingent on what happens in the next meeting.
Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session
7
July 26, 2004
.
Told Com. Giefer he understood her concern about going over 35%, but many people with
expanded families, even staff feels comfortable coming close to 50%; based on sitting on the
ORC and his almost 2-1/2 years on the Planning Commission.
Com. Giefer:
Said everyone has their own opinions; she felt that in four years they will be talking about 75%
and even bigger, and is not sure that is a trend.
. Is comfortable with 35%, not going to 50% at this time.
Trend-wise, it is easier to get bigger and bigger; people always want more.
Vice Chair Wong:
. It has been about 5 years since we first looked at it and it is about the right time to review it;
perhaps in 5 years, it will either go more, or even go back.
Com. Miller:
. Addressing comments about surveys; said he felt it looks at who you consider and that is why
there are breakouts; when you look at respondents who know RI, 57% said they wanted 50%
or more.
. It is a collection of people who are both residents who had homes built and also neighbors, but
people in that group who said they understood the ordinance.
Com. Giefer:
Said they serve the entire community, not just people who have issues with planning or getting
a large home built.
Relative to Com. Miller's comment that they are residents who had homes built and also
neighbors, but people in the group who said they understood the ordinance; ITom her
perspective it is immaterial, because she looks at what the greater pool of respondents say.
Com. Miller:
She said she understood, and thought the point of these four meetings was now that they had
experience with Rl, they would go back and look at it from the standpoint of the experience,
and the greater pool includes a lot of people who don't have any experience or are going off
their thoughts of 4 or 5 years ago.
Com. Giefer:
Or their experience of living in Cupertino for 30 or 50 years.
Mr.Gilli:
Said it was a general question, but noted that some people marked that they were familiar with
RI, and some marked they were familiar but were not, and some who knew what the major
issues were, and some who said no.
Com. Giefer:
. Said it was a subjective issue, and she was not taking task with anyone, just stating that she did
not have a comfort level with the 50% number, because she is concerned about the precedent
they are setting for the future.
Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session
8
July 26, 2004
Chair Saadati:
The second to first ratio increases the overall square footage of the home, it is not going to
increase, it will still be maintained; so that puts some limit on how much is going to be built on
the lots if you go with 35% or 50%; it's the total square footage; it is much the same except
you may have more back yard or side yard. There is some benefit that could be gained.
Regarding the streamlining, the savings of $1,000 when someone builds a house about
$300,000 to $400,000 does not seem like a lot, but they are trying to encourage that they put
more emphasis on a rendering which that money can go toward that. If streamlining of the
process will help keep things moving faster, and also you have to compare homeowners
building or developers building, as it will be different.
Said he was in favor of streamlining and to simplify it, and not knowing if we are going to end
up with up to 50% second story, it is better to have the same eyes look at the under 35% and
over 35% up to 50% because then you put more emphasis on design and consistency.
. If it is changed to below 35% and one story goes through one set of rules and then over 35%
up to 50% and another group reviewing it, you may not get the same consistency. All over
two story going through the same process, moves fast under the Exhibit; but I think at least
you have some design input because my concem is you may have 35% second story that is
going to look worse than a 50% home. That is possible.
Mr. Gilli:
. On the issue of two story over or under 35%, that is not second story area, but is total. You
could have a two story house with a 35% FAR, that second story is 50% of the first.
Now there are two processes based on the total FAR, not on the proportion of the first and
second story.
Chair Saadati:
Concern is second to first story, not increasing the allotment.
The exceptions to go through DRC are appropriate.
In favor of Exhibit F as shown; not breaking up the 35%.
Mr. Gilli:
Asked if it would help the Commissioners if staff did a quick survey of local builders and local
architects to get their opinion. Most of the two story homes are done by a handful of local
architects.
Vice Chair Wong:
Asked to see both plans; the streamlined current process and the current process with two story
under 30% and two story over.
Two commissioners want the illustrated one, without the story poles and would need
Director's approval.
Mr. Gilli:
Said he would take it and add two story under 35% back in.
Vice Chair Wong:
Asked if they could do without the guidelines?
Mr. GOO: .
He said if they were 99% happy with the product, it is possible to not have them.
Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session
9
July 26, 2004
There may be some applicants who like knowing in advance some of what the city wants, but
most of the applicants are local and they have already done it in Cupertino.
If the Commission is happy with what we are getting, then not having guidelines is a
possibility.
Com. Giefer:
. Asked if they discussed incorporating the guidelines into the RI ?
Vice Chair Wong:
Said he wanted another option.
Com. Giefer:
. Not in favor of getting rid of the guidelines altogether; want to have some qualitative examples
available, either separately as a guideline or as part of the body of the RI because it is difficult
to understand what quality we are seeking or what we view is acceptable; unless you are one
of those few handfuls of architects that work in the city who understand it.
It is helpful for homeowners and newer people who are interested.
Mr. GOO:
We could still have the guidelines but not have it as a finding of approval; presently it is a
finding of approval that you meet the guidelines; if that is not in there as a eroding, we could
still have the document saying this is what we would like to see in general but you don't have
finding, and it truly becomes guidelines; there is no enforcement capability.
Vice Chair Wong:
Suggested a discussion at the next meeting.
Com. Miller:
. Said in his mind, knowing people who have gone through the process of building homes, some
people actually prefer to do a two story greater than 35% FAR, but will go to a one story or a
two story 35% FAR simply to avoid the extra work and the extra process that is entailed in
doing that.
If you put the 35% FAR into the same process as the higher than 35% FAR, then you have
done away with the incentive of building a smaller home and that might lead to larger homes
overall.
Asked that when they talk to the people, they specifically address that issue.
Mr. GiIli:
. Said there were many people who avoid going the route of review; the impression being that
they don't want the hearing. They don't mind if the neighbor has some input; they are more
comfortable and these are just certain architects, they are more comfortable if they know who
is making the decision and they work with us and have an understanding of what they need to
do with us.
There are many architects who slowly had to get use to being in review and now they have no
problem with it.
Chairperson Saadati opened the meeting for public comment.
Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session
10
July 26, 2004
Jennifer Griffin, Cupertino resident:
Said that the study session was beneficial as it was important to find out where the RI changes
are going and the design review process.
Concerned about changes that are made to RI; there is a long history of precedence into the
creation ofRI, particularly as pockets have annexed into Cupertino.
. Said she understood that prior to 1999 and the annexation of certain pockets, Cupertino was
looking at changing and upgrading the design codes.
At that point, the tenn RI was adopted; contiguous to the time that Rancho Rinconada
annexed in 1999 the building code was upgraded in Cupertino to reflect changes that were
being made to Cupertino and to incoming communities that were annexing parts of Monta
Vista and the section on Stelling.
There is a long history on what is currently RI now, to start breaking it down means that there
needs to be a thorough survey into why RI is the way it is now; there is a precedent for every
piece in that document.
. Concerned about the 10 foot setback which should be 20. Said there was a home next to hers
that is pre-annexation, is 3500 square feet, maybe more, with no second story setbacks. It is a
prime example of what Cupertino was seeking to avoid when they instituted RI as of 1999.
Would be horrified to see RI go back to that point because that is about as bad as you can get;
said she understood Willow Glen has had some very severe building problems.
Other communities have been successful in taking an approach to try to make everyone happy;
I understand some cities have much more tight building codes, such as Los Gatos; San Jose is
less restrictive, Saratoga is probably more like Los Gatos. Los Altos is more like those areas.
I am very concerned with changes to RI and I hope that everyone takes a close look at what is
occurring because those were hard fought battles to get RI to where it is today and my
husband and I are concerned since we plan to live here and raise our family in this area for
many years. It is important that everyone realize that RI is very important to the neighbors and
the community, and it is there for a reason.
Asked that they take special consideration when anyone anticipates changing it.
Responding to Vice Chair Wong question, she said she was referring to back setbacks.
Said she attended a Planning Commission meeting a month ago when there was an occurrence
of a home being built on Wunderlich in Rancho Rinconada; it appeared that part of the house
is within 10 feet of the setback; most of the older homes in Rancho are at least 30 feet back
ITom the back property; all the new homes are at least 20 feet. There is a very large house with
a large window and it is right into the back of the property that it butts up against, owned by
Mr. Martinez; it is currently a vacant lot; the house was stripped off pre-annexation.
She said Mr. Hughes had a similar problem in his neighborhood; the code appears to contain
ambiguous wording about 10 foot setbacks, relative to allowing a side yard to be a certain size
. She understood it related to pie shaped lots and was an incomplete piece of code that was not
clarified at the time; had good intent, but needs to be cleaned up because Mr. Hughes is upset,
he has a large window looking into his back yard.
My husband and I would protest vigorously if this occurred around us; I understand the
neighbors currently cannot complain about this but hopefully with Mr. Hughes input and with
our understanding of what can occur with this, there might be some change. Rancho has very
small lots and commissioners need to be sensitive when they start talking about increasing the
second story FAR that you look at the size of the lots in the community that you are at.
Vice Chair Wong:
Said the ordinance is 20 foot rear setback; asked if Mrs. Griffin was referring to the extension
of the legal nonconforming building line.
Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session
11
July 26, 2004
Mr. Gilli:
No, the ordinance says the rear setback for the ground floor is 20 feet but it can be reduced to
10 feet so long as you have a useful rear yard area equal to a certain amount.
Com. Giefer:
. One of the things discussed this evening was streamlining the design process for second story
homes and other things as a courtesy to neighbors, and to make working with the city easier.
. Asked Mrs. Griffin if she would appreciate receiving a mailed notice that somebody within
300 feet was going to make a property modification.
Asked Mrs. Griffin if she would be comfortable with two weeks notice.
Mrs. Griffin:
Conf1ffi1ed that she would appreciate receiving the notice. Stated that in January or February
of this year she received a notice that there was a home proposed under construction on
Johnson, and there was a notice within 300 feet. .
. Supports story poles; it was helpful to be able to see where the story poles were going up; she
went to the Planning Department and looked at the plans.
Said she would be more comfortable with having a notice sent and there being a organized
review on a certain date.
Prefer the way it is now, with the DRC meeting.
Vice Chair Wong:
Asked if she was willing to trade the story poles for noticing going out to a further area. The
story poles can cause building damage; if noticing was sent out to cover a larger area, people
could e-mail the staff, and come to the DRC meetings.
The renderings would be 11 x 17 plans and would be sent out; the elevations could be seen on
all four sides, two dimensional renderings would be sent to the neighbors.
Mrs. Griffin:
. Said she felt story poles were the way to go; they are required in most cities; if they are
properly constructed they don't fall down.
Said they are helpful for the neighborhood and because people are working during the day, it is
difficult for them to communicate on an ongoing basis with staff, or planning department or
City Council because of other commitments. The current process works well, and I don't
think giving up story poles is the direction to go.
Vice Chair Wong:
Said he wanted to be certain that Mr. Gilli heard him correctly; that he agreed when you add
the two stories under 35% FAR which is the current process, and have staff review for
guidelines the perfonnance and the next box would probably be going, will follow the one
story, go to courtesy notices and then to the building permits. Want to clarify that.
Mr. GiUi:
. Said he would copy Exhibit F, put the two story under 35% above minor issues, which would
allow to go to the courtesy notice without a mess.
. Reviewed the guidelines and objectives.
Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session
12
July 26, 2004
Summarized that the guidelines were straight forward; other than the issue with the vaulted
ceilings vs. tall exterior wall height, most of the guidelines aren't controversial.
Vice Chair Wong:
. The suggestion for the next meetings, either keep them as guidelines or implement them into
the ordinance.
Mr. GiIIi:
. That is up to the Planning Commission, as far as staff is concerned we already have the ability
to implement thern because it is a finding of approval; all the Planning Commission has to do
is give us their interpretation of what the guidelines mean to them and if we can do that, or you
can go the extra route of actually taking the ones you really want and putting them where you
want them.
Vice Chair Wong:
. Said if they follow Com. Miller's point of view that if they follow the current ordinance as two
story under 35% FAR, then they wouldn't be as strict under the guidelines vs. over 35%.
Mr. GiIli:
It is hypothetically possible if the Planning Commission said they want a certain level of
review of all two story homes, but we want the smaller homes to not have to meet the
guidelines as much; that is a direction you can give and that we would implement; as it is now,
that is already being done.
Vice Chair Wong:
With the current directions since July because of Nann Drive, have we heard more or less
regarding neighborhood concerns about two story homes since we implemented to use less of
the guidelines since July.
Mr. GiIli:
The homes approved since July aren't done yet.
Chair Saadati declared a recess and convened the meeting to the Council Chambers for the
Planning Commission regular meeting of July 26, 2004 at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted:
Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
6:45 P.M.
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES
JULY 26, 2004
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY
Following a recess of the Study Session, the regular Planning Commission meeting of July 26,
2004 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 10300 Torre Avenue,
Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Taghi Saadati.
ROLL CALL:
Taken at the Study Session.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the July 12,2004 Planning Commission meeting:
Com. Giefer requested the following changes:
Page 12, under Dr. Katz, 4th bullet: Change Ervie to Ervin.
Page 13, under Dawn Teuthorn: Add: The church was trying to be a good citizen by supporting the
Ciy's telecommunications master plan.
Page 27, Com. Giefer, I" bullet: 3'" line should read: white background area (referring to slide
illustrated) had as high.
Page 33, Com. Miller, I" bullet: Add Would like to add comments on story poles.
Chair Saadati requested the following changes:
Page 27, Vice Chair Wong, 2nd line: change neighboring neighbors to read adjacent neighbors.
Page 34, Chair Saadati: Change Consideration would be given to to read he would consider.
Page 34: Delete Chair Saadati and continue with bullets.
Page 35, Chair Saadati: Change the more people who receive to read as more people receive.
Page 37, Chair Saadati: I"bullet, 2nd line, change in to into.
Page 37, 3'" bullet: Delete another design review invited.
Page 37, 4th bullet: Change personnel to person
Page 40, Chair Saadati: Change sat to served
Page 41, Mayor's Monthly Meeting: Add Com. Giefer will attend the September meeting.
Com. Giefer: Noted that the comments sent bye-mail regarding the June 28, 2004 minutes were
not included in the July 12 minutes.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Giefer to postpone approval of the
July 12, 2004 minutes to the next meeting. (Vote: 4-0-0)
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOV AL FROM CALENDAR:
3.
Dffi-2004-06
David Perng (Tian-Hui
Temple. Location:
7811 Orion Lane
Appeal of a Director's approval of a minor modification
for minor additions to an existing church.
Request continuance to Planning Commission meeting of
August 23, 2004. Tentative City Council date: September
7, 2004.
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Miller, to postpone Application
Dffi-2004-06 to the August 23, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. (Vote: 4-
0-0)
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
CONSENT CALENDAR
2.
TR-2004-06
Thomas Brutting
(The Forum at Rancho
San Antonio. Location:
23500 Cristo Rey Dr.
Tree removal of four protected trees and replacements to
accommodate an approved health care facility expansion
(U-2004-ol)
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Miner to approve Consent
Calendar Application TR-2004-06. (Vote: 4-0-0)
4.
U-2004-07, ASA-2004-10
Danny Lee, Location:
10078 Santa Clara Ave.
Use permit to allow two 2,120 square foot two-story
single family residences in a planned development
zoning district. Planning Commission decision final
unless appealed. Postponed from July 12, 2004
Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Peter Gilli, presented the staff report:
Application is for a use permit and architectural site approval to allow two 2,120 square foot
two-story single-family residences in a planned development zoning district.
. Noted that Exhibit B was revised plans to incorporate a tandem garage into the project.
Requested that if a motion is made, to clarify which exhibit is applicable.
Said the issue staff has with Exhibit B is the floor area ratio; the plan would have an FAR of
61 % which is more than any other project approved on a lot of similar size.
The reason the applicant increased the FAR is to add a second garage space in each of the
units; if the Planning Commission is comfortable with the FAR, it should approve Exhibit B; if
they believe the parking is acceptable without a tandem garage, they should approve the
original plan set.
. Staff feels that the original parking is sufficient.
An issue was raised about the on-street parking on Alhambra Avenue; it can be increased by
having the parking on the other side of the street. If the Commission wishes to recommend
that the City Council do this, it should approve a Minute Order and the Council will direct
Public Works staff to work on that project.
Staff recommends approval of the project either the original plan or Exhibit B if the Planning
Commission wants more parking.
Mr. Gilli:
In response to Com. Giefer's question, he said the FAR for the original plan was 55%.
The homes on Eaton are in a planned development zone.
The homes on Homestead Road and Maxine are 45%; they were required to have an average
FAR, of the 7 homes on that project, one or two could be over 45% but you would have to
have others under 45%.
. The duet homes on Stelling Road aren't single family homes; possibly 70% to 80% but are not
included in the comparison because they aren't technically a single family house.
. Saron Gardens are detached homes but not in a neighborhood; it is its own unit and
development and completely enclosed.
Vice Chair Wong:
Regarding the parking, staff report said it was an oversight; the parking ordinance passed by
the Planning Commission and City Council was a guideline for planned unit development and
small single family homes; to my recollection it was part of the ordinance and not a guideline,
so if we were to go toward that direction.
Said he would rather have it be an exception, since he did not see it as a guideline, and it
should be straightened out.
Mr. GOO:
The ordinance states that in the P zone, all parking regulations are guidelines.
. Not a recent change, but was in place in the ordinance for some time.
Vice Chair Wong:
Said he recalled that when they approved the 2.8; it was for a planned unit development and
small single family homes.
Com. Miller:
In this planned zone, in tenns of what they can and cannot do and the percentage of floor to
area ratio, in a planned zone like this, can you do anything you want, or are there some limits?
Mr. GOO:
You are allowed to approve projects with FAR setbacks for parking of whatever the Planning
Commission would like to see in a certain project, but what you approve on one project has
consequences on later projects; where if a similar project as this is proposed, and you allow
this project to have a certain FAR, you have to have strong findings to not allow another
project to not have that FAR.
Com. Miller:
So we have the flexibility of doing whatever makes most sense.
Mark Snow, applicant:
. Said they were advised at the last Planning Commission meeting to provide a tandem design
and they complied.
The tandem space may be better for the home buyer, certainly because they get more space for
an additional car or more storage.
If they had a preference, it would be to move forward, and was open to whatever the Planning
Commission feels is the right direction.
Does not feel that the site is compromised even with the tandem.
There are still some decent rear yard setbacks; if the Planning Commission is concerned about
on-site parking, I don't believe the new tandem design takes away ITom it.
The FARis fairly high, if you look at the rear yard setbacks, it is still a decent setback for the
majority of the property.
Vice Chair Wong:
Asked how important the third bedroom was to the applicant.
Asked the applicant if he was comfortable with the tandem garage with the impervious surface
for the driveway and ifhe felt there was enough open space in the rear.
Mr. Snow:
Said the third bedroom was very important and would be a hardship not to have the third
bedroom in a single family home in a community where people purchase homes for the
excellent schools.
. Said he was comfortable with the tandem garage.
Chair Saadati opened the meeting for public comment; there was no one present who wished to
speak.
Vice Chair Wong:
Thanked staff and the applicant for addressing the concerns of the Planning Commission by
having a tandem garage and also looking at the original plan.
Understood that staff's concern is that design is very important, and with the inclusion of
tandem garage, the design aspects will still be in it.
It is an unusual neighborhood with small lots; and as the applicant said, the third bedroom is
important because ofthe schools. He said he agreed that the third bedroom was important.
Said that he drove by the location and did not see enough parking, which is another reason he
felt the tandem garage was important; and he felt it was important to implement the parking
ordinance with 2.8 parking spaces.
. Said they could look at the Alhambra Avenue which will be separate ITom what staff
recommended, but he supports Plan B. The impervious surface is on the driveway; it did not
have to be implemented, but good of the applicant to do so, and still have the open space.
The neighborhood is in transition; strongly support this application as Plan B.
Com. Giefer:
Said she felt Plan A is a better plan for the neighborhood; is concerned with setting a precedent
for planned neighborhoods with FAR of over 60%.
Also concerned that Plan B reduces the penneable surfaces in the rear of the house; roughly it
looks like by about 50% of the area space; she is inclined to approve Plan A and send a Minute
Order to City Council requesting them to reconsider parking along Highway 85.
Com. Miller:
Said he had trouble with Plan A because it doesn't meet the parking requirements and he felt
they were asking everyone else in the planned development zone to adhere to 2.8, and they
were making a big exception here.
Concerned about Plan B because he felt that it is over-building for the lots; and the applicant
may not find that acceptable.
.
If the applicant dropped the third bedroom that would allow the tandem garage and allow a
building that is not over-built for the lot.
Vice Chair Wong:
. Said he would compromise and agree with Com. Miller to help.
Chair Saadati:
. Asked if Plan B had gone to the neighbors as a notification.
Mr. GilIi:
No, the project is in almost every respect the same; it is more square footage, but was not re-
noticed.
Mr. Piasecki:
. Said it is not uncommon as the process changes, it is modified through the process that new
notices are not sent out; people can contact staff and they will come to the meeting regardless
of which plan is being discussed at a given time; that is not usually a part of the customary
noticing.
Chair Saadati:
Concurred with the other commissioners; Plan A doesn't have the parking allotment, and Plan
B is a little over what he thought would be reasonable; one option is to scale these back but it
seems by providing additional parking on the street may remedy the parking situation, and also
there is parking for another car in front of the garage.
. It is comparing to some other houses in RI that is not meeting those parking requirements and
either one is difficult; would lean more toward Plan A which provides more back yard and it
doesn't appear on paper to over-built.
Mr. GilIi:
Asked the commissioners their opinion of an option where the houses are pushed back more so
that the driveway becomes closer being able to have two cars on it.
. It is now at 28 feet; to reasonably have 2 cars, it has to be pushed back about 9 feet.
Chair Saadati:
Can that be done with maintaining the side setback without changing anything
Mr. Gilli:
It would reduce the side setbacks to around 4 or 3 '6"; a small area would encroach.
Mr. Piasecki:
Another option would be if the applicant could design it, is to move just the garage back
bedroom component of the house back 9 feet; slide that back and you would have the
advantage.
Mr. Gilli:
Said he raised it with the applicant; it causes conflict with the roof over the garage that is
trying to hide the mass of the bedroom above it.
The combination of the two could be worked out to have enough on the driveway to have two
cars, but not have the FAR issue.
The original concept was to push the footprint back 9 feet; with the Director's idea, you can
push the garage part half way and then move the whole house in the other half; it would
probably be a continuance to have some plans drawn up and come back.
Clarified that it would be a one car garage with a driveway that can reasonably fit two cars.
If pushed back 9 feet, the rear setback would still be over 22 feet.
Mr. Piasecki:
An option for the Planning Commission would be to approve it with the provision that the
driveway parking in front of the garage shall be able to reasonably accommodate two vehicles,
approximately an additional 9 feet.
. Staff to work with the applicant to figure out how to make that work with tlús particular plan.
Otherwise the direction has to look like tlús (illustrated); it cannot be different.
Vice Chair Wong:
Questioned that with his colleague's support, pushing the direction of the garage coming out
toward the front to accommodate the tandem garage.
Mr. Gilli:
You would have to push back and then push the garage out about 18 feet, the garage would be
projecting and there would not space on the driveway to park the car.
When on the driveway, it is reasonable to say you don't quite need as much space as you
would in a garage; that's part of why the parking standards in the P zones are guidelines; you
don't have to explicitly meet a 10 x 20 space; there is precedent to allow for smaller depth of
18; and also the idea if you bring the garage out, you still have the FAR issue.
Com. Giefer:
What is recommended is what Plan B is for clarification; how is it different from the current
PlanB.
Vice Chair Wong:
Staff is suggesting instead of having an enclosed garage, to have 2 open spaces and an
enclosed space.
Mr. Gilli:
It would reduce the side setbacks and it could be done so the side setbacks are 3'6" which is
what it is between the homes. If the Planning Commission wants a minimum, the applicant
can trim off the corners.
One issue with the neighbors is they don't know what the setback is, because they haven't
contacted us, unless the applicant has talked to them; they only received a notice that the house
will be built; there are no story poles that show where the setback is now.
Chair Saadati:
Concern is for the neighbors; they need to become aware of this; at least the adjacent
neighbors should be informed of it.
Mr. Gilli:
In the planned development zone 3.6 on one side and 5.7 on the other is acceptable.
Com. Miller:
Said he shared Chair Saadati's concern also, if the setbacks are changed, the neighbors need to
be notified because they are going to be surprised when the house is built.
Chair Saadati:
. The side setback varies; it is a unique situation, at some point there is 10 feet at the front of the
house, you have to look at the average.
Mr. Gilli:
Said it was not an RI area; it is a planned development zone.
Story poles are only required in the RI zone.
Vice Chair Wong:
In a planned development zone, it is not necessary for a two story unit to have story poles even
though that planning development is the one particular small neighborhood.
Did the initial noticing language state that it is a two story house?
Mr. Gilli:
. Confirmed that was the description on the agenda; and that would have been what they
received.
Chair Saadati:
. With that, providing two surface parking spaces in front of the garage seems to be an option,
and by notifying the neighbors. Perhaps some adjustment needs to be made to minimize the
impact to the site.
Mr. Piasecki:
. It could be stated that in no case shall the side setback be less than 3 foot, 6 inches, similar to
the other side, it is setTated and would be much larger in most of the area; the applicant needs
to lay it out, staff can work with them; the building will look much like it does now, somewhat
better because it will be set back; it will have less of a street impact.
Com. Giefer:
Requested that a Minute Order to City Council be sent, because she felt parking in general in
the area needs alleviation and by opening up Alhambra it will help alleviate that, not just for
this project, but for the neighborhood.
Vice Chair Wong:
. Said he did not feel comfortable voting on the application tonight without re-noticing the
neighbors; and said he was concerned about the setbacks, and without lmowing what the
setbacks are, the overall plan sounds good, but he needed to see it in writing. He said the
notification was important to him.
Asked the city attorney about Minute Orders on Alhambra A venue; since they were not
noticing the neighbors, how could they discuss it, not lmowing how the neighborhood feels.
Ms. Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney:
Said that it was not an application; it would be a Minute Order to open the item for discussion.
Mr. Piasecki:
Public Works has a procedure for noticing neighborhoods when they change parking; or street
configuration so that would go through that normal process.
If the City Council agrees with you that they should consider parking on the other side of the
street, they would direct Public Works staff to go through their nonnal noticing procedure and
raise that issue; it would go to the City Council for a final decision it would not have to come
back to the Planning Commission.
Vice Chair Wong:
Said it clarified the process; still concerned about the opening; presently parking is on one
side, the residential side. The fteeway wall side is much darker, with many trees and the
sound wall.
Not certain if residents would want to park on the other side.
. Assume they would like to park closer to their residences so that they can monitor their cars.
. Undecided about the Minute Order.
Chair Saadati:
. The neighbors may object to it.
Mr. Gilli:
One other option is the Planning Commission can approve the use permit FAR with a
minimum side setbacks and a minimum amount of parking and refer to ASA with a re-
notification to the design review committee.
Com. Miller:
What is the difference between going back to the DRC and coming back to the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Gilli:
The timing; it will also allow the applicant to know that he has a limit on the FAR; he has to
find his parking. it will only save a small amount of time.
Mr. Snow:
Said he appreciated staffs efforts; it is a difficult site; frustrating for everyone.
. Said it was his goal to have a satisfactory project and if it meant having the two parking
spaces, and open space in ftont, and trying to maintain some reasonable setbacks, he was
willing to work toward that.
Com. Giefer:
Said in the spirit of tonight's discussion about streanùining the application process as part of
the RI, she would be comfortable having it be a director's modification provided setbacks are
maintained.
Would like to see bigger setbacks, and be in favor of just pushing the garage space back, and
have applicant work with staff to come up with a quality design that would accommodate all
of our requests.
Mr. Piasecki:
Said pushing the garage back does not increase the FAR.
.
Staff expressed that the applicant was concerned about maintaining the roof element currently
over the garage, and if it was slid back, it could have the roof element as a carport-like
structure, and the additional space would be able to fit into an open carport.
There may be different ways of accomplishing it and maintaining the integrity of the design
applicant has already worked on.
Com. Giefer:
From what staff said today, having an additional 9 feet of driveway, if that is what it would
take to accommodate two cars in the driveway for the two open spaces, and only moving the
portion behind that; if the garage, one bath and bedroom could be reasonably worked out in
design so that it didn't look out of place, she said she would be comfortable with that.
Staff said they could accomplish that with the applicant.
Said she was not considering additional setback in the side or rear areas,just the driveway
area.
As the Director said, increasing the total length of the driveway to give two open spaces, a
covered garage, and the bath and bedroom go back, still maintaining approximately 20 feet
between the furthest pushback of the home and the fence line, which is important if this is
being built as a family home.
. Said she felt 3 feet on both sides of the house is difficult, if it is a wedge shaped lot, at some
point there is no way to get any equipment in the back yard to do any landscaping; 3-1/2 feet is
too little space and it is also encroaching on the neighbors.
Com. Miner:
Said he felt the applicant is 1rying to do too much with too little; looking at the 3.6 feet on the
side setback, he said he thought in Saron Gardens, they were at least 5 feet on everything.
Asked if they were in general going down to 3.6 feet on side setbacks?
Mr. Piasecki:
. Relative to the 3.6 feet on side setbacks, said he did not recall.
. I recall that there were three parcels being consolidated into two; so there is compromising
going on with the applicant.
This is internal to the project as opposed to external to the neighbor; the thought was that there
would be more leeway here (illustrated); but it is clearly minimal.
Com. Miner: .
It is minimal and it is also minimal on a two story house; that is two story there; 3.6 feet away
trom the property line.
Mr. Gilli:
The second story is closer to 6 feet but it is still much less than Rl.
Com. Miner:
Yes; and less than other developments in planned development zones.
Mr. Gilli:
Said he was aware of some projects in this area with a setback of this amount, and the director
is correct, it is almost a tradeoff saying if you combine lots instead of having three homes like
shoeboxes; having two, if you are going to chose somewhere to put the small setback, you
should put them in between the two; and keep as much room as available on the other sides.
Com. Miller:
Concurred with Vice Chair Wong that radical changes are being made to the design, and it
should either come back to the Planning Commission or the DRC, either one is acceptable.
There is so much going on here and lack of agreement, it needs to be seen again.
Vice Chair Wong:
Said he liked Plan B, but agreed with Com. Miller that the FARis quite big; the family room
and dining room, the increase in the family room that is 12 x 24, vs. the original one 16 x 17,
and by either making the third bedroom smaller or deleting it, it is still a good size house.
From a marketability standpoint, it would be beneficial to have the third bedroom, but he was
concerned also. It is also a good point that regarding the side setbacks to get things to the rear,
3 to 3-1/2 is small and one of the setbacks should be at least five feet.
Chair Saadati:
Agreed with other commissioners that if it is revised, go back to the DRC and maintain the
setback as shown on the site, because reducing that could trigger outrage.
On the neighboring homes, said he liked Com. Giefer's idea of pushing the garage back and
pushing the bedroom toward the backyard, which also opens up the front to some extent.
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Miller, to approve Application
ASA-2004-10 and U-2004-07 per the original Plan A, taking into
consideration that the house be pushed back 8 to 9 feet to accommodate two
parking spaces in the front of the garage, and also the side setback minimum
on one side should be at least 5 feet; to go back to the DRC with noticing to
the neighbors. (Vote 4-0-0; Com. Chen absent)
Vice Chair Wong:
Commented to the applicant that he agreed it was a frustrating process, which needs to be
streamlined, but they want to accommodate everyone on the Planning Commission and by it
coming to the DRC, staff will work with the applicant and by the September I" DRC meeting,
the applicant should have a well qualified project.
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS:
5.
Discuss changing the Planning Commission meetings from the second and fourth
Mondays of each month, to the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month.
Mr. Piasecki:
As stated in the staff report, City Council is considering changing their meeting night ITom
Mondays to Tuesdays because of the number of holidays conflicting with the Monday night
meetings, and they want an additional day to review the packet material. For consistency
purposes, it would be helpful to meet on the same night so people understand Tuesday night is
the activity night.
For the Planning Commission the city's budget approved 5 citywide furlough days on the last
Monday of different months, which will conflict with some of the Planning Commission
meetings. There will be the added advantage of having an additional day to review the packets
material but also having fewer conflicts.
City Council indicated that the change would have to go through an ordinance and they were
considering the effective date to be when the City Council and Planning Commission meetings
move over to the new premises, likely the fIrst meeting in November.
Vice Chair Wong:
Recalled that Councilmember Sandoval said she wanted consistency; they received their
packets on Wednesday evening, Thursday is a full day at City Hall; a slow day on Friday and
some Mondays would be holidays or furlough days. If concerns are not addressed on
Thursday, the next day to address them would be Tuesday, the day of the hearing.
. Asked that they be consistent with the City Council and get their packets on Wednesday night
to allow more time to review packets.
Said he understood that some applicants can't get their materials on time, but at least they
could have a head start on reading some of the staff reports, and if there are late items, they
could be couriered to Commissioners' homes on Friday.
Said the more time the Planning Commissioners have to review the packet is important to him,
to enable him to make a good decision.
Mr. Piasecki:
Said it would be problematic for staff to do that because their dates drive the final filing dates
for applicants as well as the materials they have to get to staff. The Council date being a
Wednesday does not do that; if they do make the change to Tuesday nights, there will be some
occasions when staff won't be able to get Planning Commission actions written up for the
Council packets the next day if meeting on Tuesdays as well, because they would have to get it
to the packet for Wednesday. In some rare instances, there will be double packets going out to
City Council to accommodate the changes described.
Said they would address it one more time and when it comes back to the Planning Commission
in the hearing process, they would look at it; however, in the past it has been difficult for staff
to consider moving those dates, because it changes everything.
Said they would try to pre-write the reports for the City Council, anticipating what the
outcome will be and make the final changes on the Wednesday after the Planning Commission
meeting.
. Said they are willing to look at that; it is very difficult to do that given the tight timeline staff
is on.
Com. Miller:
Agreeable with moving the date and with staff looking at whether or not they can get the
packet out earlier.
Com. Giefer:
Agreeable with the date change.
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Miller, to authorize staff to
move forward to chauge the meeting dates from the second and fourth
Mondays of the month to the second and fourth Tuesday of the month, and
investigate the possibility of having agenda packets delivered on Wednesday.
(Vote: 4-0-0; Com. Chen absent)
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Review Committee: Chair Saadati reported that the only item discussed was a
parcel ofland being subdivided into 5 parcels. He noted that students ftom Los Gatos attended the
meeting.
Housing Commission: Com. Giefer reported that no meeting was held.
Mayor's Monthly Meeting With Commissioners: Chair Saadati reported:
The CCC wants a special election ballot; there were speakers in support of the initiative and
also speakers in opposition.
Teen Commission: Discussed new art at the Teen Center.
Bicycle Committee: Regnart Trail behind city hall; planning to walk the trail with community
this month before final report is completed; having a blue ribbon team formed for that project;
discussed walk to school in future months.
Fine Arts Committee: Dedication of the Cali Mill Plaza took place last Saturday; also
working on library public art; said that the Persian community is working on donating a statue
of Cyrus to be placed in a Cupertino location.
. Parks Committee: Stevens Creek Corridor: working with the water district to rehabilitate the
natural corridor around the creek; partnering with other agencies.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Piasecki:
The City Council is planning on holding a joint study session on August 17", 4:30 p.m.,
regarding the Hewlett Packard vacant lands next to Vallco Fashion Park; Residential developer
Toll Brothers are asking for a change in the authorization for the General Plan amendment to
add more housing units. Corns. Wong, Miller and Chair Saadati said they would attend the
study session.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned to the study session of Planning
Commission meeting on August 3,2004 at 5:00 p.m.
SUBMITTED BY:
Elizabeth A. Ellis, Recording Secretary
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application: M-2004-05 Agenda Date: August 9,2004
Applicant: Mark Lavoie for B.J.'s Restaurant & Brewhouse
Owner: Sobrato Interest II
Location: 10690 North De Anza Boulevard, APN 316-02-104
Application Summary:
Modification of a Use permit (file no. U-2002-01) to allow valet parking at an existing
restaurant
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve:
1. The use permit modification (file no. M-2004-05), allowing valet parking in
accordance with the model resolution.
Project Data:
Number of Rest. Seats:
Parking Required:
248 indoor seats
158 outdoor seats
406 total seats
(24 bar stools)(l parking stall/3 seats) = 8 spaces
(382 rest. seats)(l parking stall! 4 seats)= 96 spaces
Total Parking Required: 104 spaces
94 + 11 offsite (adjacent Sobrato property)= 105 spaces
Parking Supplied:
BACKGROUND:
BJ's Restaurant & Brewhouse (aka Chicago Pizza and Brewery) was approved by the
City Council on April 1, 2002. Construction subsequently began with the restaurant
opening for business around the Thanksgiving Holiday. As the Northern California
flagship restaurant for this restaurant chain, patronage has been heavy, exceediIi.g
expectations. The restaurant has 94 unrestricted parking spaces and 11 restricted spaces
on the abutting Sobrato building property that are available after 6 p.m. Monday
through Friday and all day Saturday and Sund;y.
The excessive demand on parking was recognized early in the operations of the
restaurant by BJ's management. BJ's has been working on its own initiative to address
its parking overflow situation. The measures include:
. Moving all employee parking offsite to the Dade Behring building on Mariani
Avenue;
. Working with Apple Computer and Sobrato Development, which owns or uses
the surrounding parking lots, to address their security concerns; and
4-\
. Implementing an unpermitted valet parking system to expand onsite parking
availability.
In the Spring of 2003, early in the operations of the restaurant, city staff was asked to
mediate conflicts over parking and related issues between Apple Computer, Sobrato
Development Companies and BJ's Restaurant. Various parking options were explored,
including:
. Valet parking or self-parking on adjacent Apple Computer parking lots (Apple
Computer management vetoed this idea, expressing security concerns.)
. Restricted hour street parking on the south side of Mariani Avenue. (Apple
management had security concerns about allowing parking on the north side of
Mariani. Street width is currently being used as vehicular and bike lanes and
would generate few extra parking stalls.)
. Temporary overflow or valet parking at the former" Any MountainjPacketeer"
site across De Anza Boulevard ( Landowner is reluctant to lease parking lot
because of liability concerns and current marketing of property for sale or lease.)
. Expand available parking to the garage under the Sobrato building (Parking
lease would be expensive and existing tenants use spaces during nighttime
meetings).
. Move employee parking offsite (BJ's secured an agreement with Dade Behring
to allow employees to park at this industrial building on Mariani Avenue.)
DISCUSSION:
BJ's Restaurant is not the only business that has parking overflow issues. Customer
vehicles of other popular restaurants, such as Chilis and Outback Steakhouse, also
overflow into adjacent parking lots. This situation may have not gained the attention
of the public and public officials because the property owners and tenants of businesses
adjacent to these restaurants tolerate the vehicle spillover. If they were intolerant of this
parking condition, it is likely that these restaurants, and perhaps others, would be
forced to implement alternative parking measures, such as valet parking, like BJ's.
Exhibit A presents lunch and dinner parking lot car counts for the period December
2003 through February 2004 for BJ's Restaurant. These are total counts based on a lunch
period from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. and a dinner period from 4 p.m. to 11 p.m. In general,
dinnertime is more impacted than lunch and Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays are the
busiest days. Various parking options were reviewed as described and valet parking
appears to be the most feasible means to increase parking availability at the restaurant.
It works by allowing parking attendants to control how vehicles are parked, allowing
them to crowd vehicles in the designated spaces and to park in driveway aisles. Exhibit
B depicts an aerial view of the parking lot and surrounding streets.
BJ's has been improving its unpermitted valet parking system since its opening. In the
course of those improvements, several issues have arisen from staff and the public:
2
4-~
1. Placement of plastic cones/ delineators in the public right-of-way;
2. Vehicle queue spillback onto De Anza Bouldevard, which affects traffic flow
during peak periods;
3. Desire by motorists for more self-park spaces; and
4. Desire by motorists to exit onto Mariani Avenue.
BJ's has been responsive to these concerns (Exhibit C) and is proposing a valet parking
plan (Exhibit 0) that includes more self-parking during the slower restaurant periods
and accessibility to Mariani A venue for exiting purposes. The" AM" sheets refer to
lunchtime parking and the "PM" sheets refer to dinnertime parking. The valet stand
has been placed near the back of the parking lot and traffic has been channeled with
cones to allow more cars to queue in the parking lot, rather than, on the street.
An additional condition has been placed in the conditions of approval requiring the
applicant to work with the Community Development and Public Works Department to
further refine and improve its valet parking system.
Enclosures:
Model Resolution
Exhibit A: BJ's Lunch and Dinner ParIdng Lot Car Counts for 3 months
Exhibit B: Aerial Photo of Parking Lot
Exhibit C: Letter from Mark LaVoie to CoIinJung dated 6/27/04
Exhibit D: Valet Parking Plan
Submitted by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme~
G.planning/pdreport/pc Usereports/U- 2002-01. doc
4-3
M-2004-05
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO.
USE PERMIT MODIFICATION TO ALLOW VALET PARKING AT AN
EXISTING RESTAURANT, 10690 NORTH DE ANZA BOULEVARD
SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
M-2004-05
Mark Lavoie for BJ's Restaurant
10690 North De Anza Boulevard
SECTION II: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application
for a Modification of a Use Permit, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the
Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held
one or more public hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said
application; and has satisfied the following requirements:
1. The proposed valet parking, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to
the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience;
2. The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the
Cupertino General Plan and the purpose of this title.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, application no. M-2004-05 is hereby approved; and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this
Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning
Application M-2004-05, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting
of August 9, 2004, and are incorporated by reference herein.
4-4
Resolution No.
Page 2
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
M-2004-05
August 9, 2004
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on the valet parking plan for BJ's Restaurant labeled as Exhibit D,
except as may be modified by the conditions contained in this resolution.
2. MARIANI AVENUE D RIVEW A Y
In implementing its valet parking plan, the applicant shall not obstruct motorists
from entering or leaving the site via Mariani Avenue.
3. VALET PARKING PLAN MODIFICATIONS
Applicant shall work with Community Development and Public Works
Departments to continue to refine and improve its valet parking plan, which shall
include, but not be limited to the following items:
a. Applicant shall not obstruct the bike lane or vehicle lane of De Anza
Boulevard.
b. Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Works Dept.
for its traffic channeling plan.
c. Applicant shall seek to locate self-park areas as close to the front of the
parking lot as possible.
d. Applicant shall diminish valet parking if parking demand decreases.
4. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication
requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government
Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of
the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other
exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you
may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to
Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-
day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally
barred from later challenging such exactions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of August 2004, at a Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
4-S
Resolution No.
Page 3
M-2004-0S
August 9, 2004
ATTEST:
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
G:\Plallning\ PDREPOI<TlRES\M-2004-05 res. doc
APPROVED:
Taghi Saadati, Chair
Cupertino Planning Commission
4-(0
B""'-'
'-.!s
Lv r\c\" i\ b\r,í\Q..-\'
Dec/2oo3 QiAAIif.l..v"C,\,
~
,
~
DATE DAY CARS
1 MON 85
2 TUE 94
3 WED 110
4 THU 118
5 FRI 107
6 SAT 94
7 SUN 87
8 MON 85
9 TUE 92
10 WED 98
11 THU 114
12 FRI 127
13 SAT 98
14 SUN 89
15 MON 94
Subttl 1,492
16 TUE 79
17 WED 89
18 THU 105
19 FRI 119
20 SAT 104
21 SUN 100
22 MON 92
23 TUE 99
24 WED 115
25 THU 0
26 FRI 89
27 SAT 87
28 SUN 92
29 MON 89
30 TUE 92
31 WED 106
Sub Itl 1,457
Total 2,949
Po.. ,:¿lt8- l..ûT- CC\;¡- C.v .~ fh ;
LUNCH
Jan/2004 Lunch
DATE DAY CARS
1 THU 65
2 FRI 102
3 SAT 84
4 SUN 81
5 MON 84
6 TUE 91
7 WED 82
8 THU 122
9 FRI 140
10 SAT 95
11 SUN 128
12 MON 87
13 TUE 118
14 WED 120
15 THU 122
Sub ttl 1,521
16 FRI 138
17 SAT 91
18 SUN 114
19 MON 86
20 TUE 97
21 WED 91
22 THU 108
23 FRI 151
24 SAT 91
25 SUN 101
26 MON 82
27 TUE 84
28 WED 97
29 THU 116
30 FRI 121
31 SAT 92
Sub ttl 1,660
Total 3,181
\) P-C.. 2..oó3 - fe.,~,- 20~Lt
Feb/ 2004 Lunch
DATE DAY CARS
1 SUN 99
2 MON 67
3 TUE 79
4 WED 94
5 THU 102
6 FRI 111
7 SAT 96
8 SUN 89
9 MON 68
10 TUE 96
11 WED 118
12 THU 126
13 FRI 128
14 SAT 107
15 SUN 78
Sub ttI 1,458
16 MON 87
17 TUE 82
18 WED 84
19 THU 89
20 FRI 92
21 SAT 89
22 SUN 87
23 MON 62
24 TUE 37
25 WED 34
26 THU 37
27 FRI 112
28 SAT 22
29 SUN 26
Sub ttl 940
Total 2,398
If)
1<
:r
rj
-t'""
:p
Dec/20o3 Dinner
..þ.
\
(j)
DATE DAY CARS
1 MON 198
2 TUE 201
3 WED 241
4 THU 329
5 FRI 325
6 SAT 242
7 SUN 203
8 MON 179
9 TUE 204
10 WED 265
11 THU 377
12 FRI 336
13 SAT 236
14 SUN 212
15 MON 225
Sub ttl 3,773
16 TUE 213
17 WED 325
18 THU 379
19 FRI 355
20 SAT 253
21 SUN 231
22 MON 203
23 TUE 318
24 WED 25
25 THU 0
26 FRI 250
27 SAT 235
28 SUN 174
29 MON 207
30 TUE 310
31 WED 198
Subttl 3,676
Total I 7,449
DINNER
Jan/2o04 Dinner
DATE DAY CARS
1 THU 125
2 FRI 336
3 SAT 313
4 SUN 155
5. MON 166
6 TUE 131
7 WED 223
8 THU 253
9 FRI 360
10 SAT 304
11 SUN 222
12 MON 141
13 TUE 184
14 WED 237
15 THU 314
Sub ttl 3,464
16 FRI 439
17 SAT 279
18 SUN 230
19 MON 153
20 TUE 221
21 WED 219
22 THU 269
23 FRI 415
24 SAT 334
25 SUN 186
26 MON 93
27 TUE 178
28 WED 269
29 THU 385
30 FRI 383
31 SAT 260
Sub ttl 4,313
Total 7,777
Feb/20o4 Dinner
DATE DAY CARS
1 SUN 116
2 MON 164
3 TUE 203
4 WED 273
5 THU 324
6 FRI 424
7 SAT 345
8 SUN 198
9 MON 156
10 TUE 262
11 WED 249
12 THU 300
13 FRI 320
14 SAT 252
15 SUN 204
Sub ttl 3,790
16 MON 189
17 TUE 211
18 WED 114
19 THU 356
20 FRI 401
21 SAT 309
22 SUN 149
23 MON 161
24 TUE 199
25 WED 226
26. THU 251
27 FRI 415
28 SAT 241
Sub ttl 3,222
Total I 7,012
Exhibit: B
BJ's (Peppermill) Restaurant Aerial Photograph
Parking Layout and Circulation Remained the Same
...
Entrance
4-9
t'{hl\:;;t; C
June 27th 2004
Mr. Colin Jung
City of Cupertino
Senior Planner
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014-3255
RE:
Valet Parking at BJ's Restaurant in Cupertino
Mr. Jung,
Thank you for taking the time to meet with me on March 5th at your office to discuss the
valet parking situation at our restaurant. I understand that there is a concern over the
amount of space allocated to self-parking versus valet parking. We have taken the time to
look at all meal periods to reassess what our current valet parking needs would be. We
have determined that at the current level of business we can make some adjustments to
the existing plan during some of these meal periods and allow for more self-parking. We
would also like to note however that anticipated seasonal increases in business could
necessitate changes as well.
We discussed the fact that the restaurant has proven to be very busy and the numbers of
current parking spots are not sufficient to accommodate the number of people arriving at
the restaurant. People that were intending to meet their friends or family inside would
drive around, find no spot iri the lot and then attempt to park in Apple's or.other local
businesses lots.
To date we have taken all possible measures to insure that the impact on our neighbors
has been minimal. These include an arrangement allowing our employees to park at the
Dade Bhering parking lot for which we extend a discount of 20% to their employees
amounting to a considerable annual cost to the business. We also implemented valet
parking successfully keeping excess cars in our lot versus the surrounding businesses at a
cost of$90,000 annually to the business.
These measures have alleviated Apples security concerns and they have been very
satisfied with the current arrangement and the results. We have responded to the guests
concerns and needs by allowing the maximum amount of self parking possible during
slower business periods and have altered the traffic flow to allow guests to exit the lot
4-10
onto Mariani and re-enter the queue for Self Parking or exit onto De Anza Blvd. in either
direction.
I hàve attached some maps showing the number of spots for valet vs. self-parking on a
shift by shift basis. It also indicates the location of the valet stand.
Please see report on number of stalls, cars parked daily and diagrams of proposed
changes.
Thank you,
/iþ-W~
Mark LaVoie
District Manager
BJ's Chicago Pizza Inc.
4-\ I
"A "
7 spots
œdJ~@ œQ!]D~@]D[(î)@
Hand Cap
4 Spots
- = V,^'(,~ ø."'~
.;. S(, \.ç rl\.(""
MoV\
Å~
)O1-\6\í Þ
"E" 11 spots
Flower- bed
Flower -
bed
"B"
6 Spots
"C"
5 Spots
I Flower- bed I
"Dff'
15 Spots
Side Walk
"B" "C"
5 spots 5 Spots
cr>
=V"\e.\- ~~ p\"'ct.~
<;:
0
Þ-
f['
~ .-'
~
yo
-
~
V)
,.
..
~~
~ ~
o"Q
~
'"
~ lõ
~rÊ
'" I/)
.....
~
...
Q
~
~
'"
~
"
,¡:,
,
..
"
g
~
"' I:J
"' 0
Ç.)Q.,
:: 7J1
I/)
"' I:J
"' 0
Ç.)Q.,
:: 7J1
I/)
~
~
~
§V
5
DC=:¡
~
c=:::::J
DC=:¡
§3
~
@R)
c?
~
~
ì
~
-'!f
Q.
£
p--
I.,
~"'d
~ ~
o..c
S
tI:2
..-
0
tI:2
~
~
't:I
~
..c
::
~
'"
I
",
~
~
0
~
"' I:J
"' 0
Ç.)~
~ rJl
I()
'"
"' .....
"' 0
~I~
\C
'"
~ \ õ
~~
'" I()
-
+.
"C
..
-=
,
~
=
~
..------'
'"
"' I"'"
"' 0
Ç.)~
~ rJl
~ I()
~
~
Q;
:s "' I:J
00 "' 0
~~
I()
"' I:¡
"' 0
~~
t--
,.,.
01
U '"
'CQ
1:1 ,.,.
0100
Þ:'","
§)
~
D~
~
c:::==:J
D~
§3
~
-r
4:"
'"
oJ
f\A.
i
t ::t
~ c.X
u
@/2)
V'
c:v
~
I
r
¡..
~"CI
~ ~
o.t::l
~
'"' I~
'"' 0
Ç,)o.
::: rJl
I£)
'"
~ I~
~$
'" I(')
-
1
1
4
~
1
1,
~
~
'"' I~
'"' 0
Ç,)o.
::: rJl
I£)
§V
~
0 c:=:::J
~
c=:=:J
0 c:=:::J
ê3
~
¡:
p-
J)
~
.ffr
.JJ¡) -
J.4
j,,-
4 -
?~
J\ \\
I
@/2)
r?
c=v
~
~'t:I
~ ~
Q..c
S
r:I:
...
0
r:I:
~
~
't:I
~
..c
I
;..
~
~
Q
~
..
~
'"
.. ,:J
.. Q
\,,)0.
'" 00
'"
I/)
'"
.... -
.... Q
~I~
Ie
!J'j
'" 1~
.. 0.
~oo
'"
'" I/)
-
""
..
.Q
,
...
..
~
..
~
'"
'i
~
...
"0
00
..., :J
.. Q
~ ~
'" t--
§Z)
5
0 c:::=:::J
CZ9
c::==:::J
0 c:::=:::J
ê3
~
@/2)
¡;?
c=v
~
...1 :J
... Q
\,,)0.
'" 00
'"
I/)
...1 :¡
.. Q
~~
'" I/)
c..
01
U '"
""~
== c..
0100
="1'
~
<C
~
..,
.ßi
- )f
~ J.
.3:1 ~
1>~
"
1\
I
"'"
a,¡"!:j
~ ~
QJ:i.
I S
rIJ
~ lõ
"' =-
~rJ1
'" I£)
,...,
~ I~
~ Q
u=-
'" rJ1
'" I£)
"CI
"
,Q
,
~
Q
¡:¡:;
~ I ~
~ Q
u=-
'" rJ1
'" I£)
§) 2:
5 ~
0 c:=::::J
~
c:::==:::J ~
0 c:=::::J ->
ê3 '3
~
@R) ~ ..Y
d:
c?
c=v ~ ....a..
-
§ ~ ~
h
.
œ~~@ œ[illD~WD[íî)[
Flower -
bell
"C"
5 Spots
"n "
15 Spots
"C"
5 Spots
-. - \Jo-\.c,.\- ~\¿ ---- \ AM
- ) ~~(~
-:. ~ t.ç. 'Po«.
@]V
§
D c::::=J
CC3
c:::=::::::J
D c::::=J
ê3
~
@Ø
V'
c:v
~
¡f
.\
I
..
~"'ð
~ ~
0.0
S
"' .:l
"' 0
Ç"JQ.
:: VJ.
'"
~ I~
~$
... '"
,...,
1
J
-
Q..
)
cI)
~
"
":)
J~
""
..
,.Q
"' .:l
"' 0
Ç"JQ.
:: rJ1
If)
§)
5
0 c:::::==J
~
c::=::=J
0 c:::::==J
§3
~
~
¡;J
c=v
~
¿:
.::C
. -
ct
oX .3l)
~ ~
+ -
~ ~
I, 1\
I
/,æ-.,....
;:
OOdT@ œODÖ~@]ÖüíJ~
"A "
7 spots
œ~"@ œQDD~@]D[íù~
Hand Cap
4 Spots
5CA-t"
AM
-:::. ~\.ç..pw-\¿
"E" 11 spots
Flower- bed
"B"
6 Spots
"C"
5 Spots
I Flower - bed I
Side Walk I
"B" "C"
5 spots 5 Spots
Flower -
bed
"D"
15 Spots
.~
~
...
Q
J
4-
~
"'i
:5
'\
~
~
~
:::
~
'"
§)
5
0 C:=J
~
c::==:J
0 C:=J
ê3
~
C?CV
ÇJ
~
§J
1j
";) ~
d u
ííE" 11 spots
Flower- bed
UA"
7 spots
UB"
6 Spots
UC"
5 Spots
OOdr@ OO(illD~~DITO\ID
I Flower- bed I
Side Walk l
ííB" uC"
5 spots 5 Spots
Hand Cap
4 Spots
Flower -
bed
UD"
15 Spots
. :: \{~ld-1'.,.~ C
:=. ~ t ç {>.J.c:. Ù u. V\
...~
AM
I
.;
I\,)-c
~ Q,)
o.c
~
'"
~Ii
:: rJ1
I£)
'"
~ \ Õ
~Œ
" I£)
....
'C
..
.c
,
..
..
~
0
ï'":
'" I.~
'" 0
U~
:: rJ1
I£)
§2)
tS
D c:=::J
CZ3
c==:J
D c:=::J
a
§J
@J2)
¡;?
c=v
§J
~
A-
ç
~
fJ
... ~
" ~
~ ,.
u "
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application:
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Property Location:
TM-2004-07, V-2004-02 Agenda Date: August 9,2004
Morey Nelsen of Nelsen Engineering
Qi Gary Li
21851 Lornita Avenue, APN 357-16-064
Application Summary:
TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide an approximately 19,871 sq. ft. lot into two parcels
(9,936 sq. ft. each) in a Rl-7.5 zoning district.
VARIANCE to reduce the lot width from 60 feet to 50 feet to match the neighborhood
pattern.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the tentative map, file
number TM-2004-07 and the variance request, file no. V-2004-02, in accordance with the
model resolutions.
Project Data:
General Plan Designation:
Zoning Designation:
Acreage (gross):
Density:
Residential 1-4.4 DU/gr. acre
Rl-7.5
Two lots - about 9,936 square feet each
4.38 du/ gr. acre.
Project Consistency with: General Plan:
Zoning:
Yes
Yes, if variance is granted
Categorically exempt.
Environmental Assessment:
DISCUSSION:
Site Analysis
The project site is located on 21851 Lornita Avenue. The existing residence is
surrounded by single-farnily residential uses. The site is developed with one single-
family detached residence that straddles the proposed subdivision line. The residence
will be moved to one of the new lots. Trees are below the size that warrants a tree
removal permit.
5-/
TM-2004-o7, V-2004-O2
Page 2
August 9, 2004
Variance Request
The minimum required lot width in the Rl zoning district is 60 feet. The applicant is
requesting a variance to reduce the lot width of each proposed lot to 50 feet. 60% of the
lots that directly front Lomita Avenue have less than 60-foot lot widths and a large
majority of these narrower lots have rear yard garages (See Exhibit A). A consistent lot
pattern is important in ensuring that new houses integrate with the neighborhood.
An alternative flag lot subdivision of one wide lot and a flag lot would not be in
keeping with the character of the area since there are no flag lots on Lomita Avenue.
Also, homes on flag lots are generally discouraged because they are less visible to the
street and do not integrate as well into the fabric of the neighborhood.
The Planning Commission must be able to make the following three findings in order to
approve the lot width variance request. The variance findings are in bold typeface with
staff comments in italics.
1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying
to the land, building or use referred to in the application, which circumstances or
conditions do not apply generally to land, buildings and/or uses in the same
district.
The subject interior lot is twice the width of any adjacent existing lot on the same side of San
Fernando Avenue.
2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of substantial property rights of the petitioner.
Granting the petitioner's variance request to subdivide the property with a lot width equal to
adjacent similar lots will allow the property owner to enjoy his property rights in a manner
similar to his neighbors.
3. That the granting of the application will not, under the circumstances of the
particular case, materially affect adversely the health and safety of persons
residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant and will
not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be materially detrimental to
the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in said
neighborhood.
The lot subdivision will not have an adverse impact on the health and safety of persons
residing or working in the neighborhood or pose a detriment to the neighbors' property. The
property will be able to develop in a manner similar to the adjacent neighbors.
There is another neighborhood pattern with these narrower 50-foot wide lots where the
garage door does not dominate the frontage of the lot. For these narrower lots, the
garage is either non-existent or mainly in the rear of the property, which is more in
keeping with the old Monta Vista residential character.
5-éL,
TM-2004-07, V-2004-02
Page 3
August 9, 2004
The applicant shows a new 2-car garage to be built in the front of an existing, moved
house. The location needs to be adjusted so it does not encroach on the required 10 foot
setback. Use of the existing house will create design challenges that should be
addressed through design review. For example, the existing entrance of the house will
be oriented to the side property line and the side of the house will face the front. The
new garage should not dominate the property frontage, but its location should integrate
with the floor plan. Additional conditions were placed in the tentative map and
variance approvals to discourage a garage door dominance of the residential front
facade. The conditions of approval reflect the Hung and Han land division on San
Fernando Avenue (file nos. TM-2004-O3 and V-2004-01) recently approved by the
Commission on a 4-1 vote.
Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme~
Enclosures: Model Resolutions
Exhibit A: Neighborhood lot pattern
Plan Set
H:\Planning\PDREPORT\pcTMreports\ TM-2o04-o7 SRdoc
5-3
TM-2004-07
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO.
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
APPROVING A TENTATIVE MAP TO SUBDIVIDE A 19,871 SQUARE FOOT PARCEL
INTO TWO PARCELS OF 9,936 SQUARE FEET EACH AT 21851 LOMITA AVENUE
SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
TM-2004-07
Qi Gary Li
21851 Lomita Avenue
SECTION II: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application
for a Tentative Subdivision Map as described in Section I of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the
Subdivision and Procedural Ordinances of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning
Commission has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said
application; and has satisfied the following requirements:
a) That the proposed subdivision map is consistent with the City of Cupertino
General Plan.
b) That the design and improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent
with the General Plan.
c) That the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of development
contemplated under the approved subdivision.
d) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely
to cause substantial environmental damage nor injure fish and wildlife or their
habitat.
e) That the designs of the subdivision or the type of improvements associated
therewith are not likely to cause serious public health problems.
£) That the design of the subdivision and its associated improvements will not
conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use
of property within the proposed subdivision.
5-4-
Resolution No.
Page 2
TM-2004-07
August 9, 2004
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the application TM-2004-03 for a Tentative Map is hereby
approved subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on
page 2 thereof, and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this
Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning
Application TM-2004-07, as set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of
August 9, 2004, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS
DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
ADMINISTERED
BY
COMMUNITY
THE
1.
APPROVED EXHIBITS
The approval is based on exhibits titled: "Tentative Map, Lands of Li, 21851
Lomita Ave., Cupertino, California" consisting of 1 sheet and dated May 2004,
except as may be amended by the conditions contained in this resolution.
2.
SIDE SETBACK/BUILDING LINES
On the final parcel map, the applicant shall show a 10-foot side setback/building
line on each side of the common property line between the proposed lots. The
final map shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community
Development for compliance with this condition.
3.
NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS:
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees,
dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute
written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the
dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified
that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications,
reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section
66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period
complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally
barred from later challenging such exactions.
SECTION IV: CONDITIONS
DEPARTMENT
ADMINISTERED
BY
THE
PUBLIC
WORKS
4.
STREET WIDENING
Street widening, improvements and dedications shall be provided in accordance
with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer.
5-5
Resolution No.
Page 3
TM-2004-07
August 9, 2004
5.
CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS
Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed in
accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer.
6.
STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION
Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer.
Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of
visual interference to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the
maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located.
7.
FIRE HYDRANT
Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City.
8.
TRAFFIC SIGNS
Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City.
9.
GRADING
Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance
with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404
permits maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/ or Regional
Water Quality Control Board as appropriate.
10. DRAINAGE
Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Surface flow
across public sidewalks may be allowed in the R-l, R-2 and R-3 zones unless the
City Engineer deems storm drain facilities necessary. Development in all other
zoning districts shallbe served by on site storm drainage facilities connected to the
City storm drainage system. If City storm drains are not available, drainage
facilities shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
11. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities
Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of
Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of
underground utility devices. Ordinance No. 331 requires all overhead lines to be
underground whether the lines are new or existing. The developer shall submit
detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject
to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer.
12. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of
Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking
and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for
5-lD
Resolution No.
Page 4
TM-2004-07
August 9, 2004
==================~~===========
undergrounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of
construction permits.
Fees:
a. Checking & Inspection Fees:
b. Grading Permit:
c. Development Maintenance Deposit:
d. Storm Drainage Fee:
e. Power Cost:
f. Map Checking Fees:
g. Park Fees:
h. Street Tree
$ 5% of Off-Site Improvement Costs
($2,268.00 minimum)
$ 5% of Site Improvement Cost
$ 1,000.00
$ 593.40
(Nj A -21870 Lomita - Bonded)
$ 520.00
$15,750 (credit for one existing home)
By Developer
Bonds:
a. Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements
b. Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements
c. On-site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements.
-The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule
adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified
at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the
event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then
current fee schedule.
13. TRANSFORMERS
Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment
enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground
such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas.
14. DEDICATION OF WATERLINES
The developer shall dedicate to the City all waterlines and appurtenances installed
to City Standards and shall reach an agreement with San Jose Water for water
service to the subject development.
15. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP' s), as required by the State Water
Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP plans
shall be included in your grading and street improvement plans. Erosion and or
sediment control plan shall be provided.
s-+
Resolution No.
Page 5
TM-2004-07
August 9, 2004
-------------~-----------------------------------------------------
CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE OF
ACCEPTANCE OF ENGINEERING/SURVEYING CONDITIONS
(Section 66474.18 California Government Code)
I hereby certify that the engineering and surveying conditions specified in Section IV of
this Resolution conform to generally accepted engineering practices.
Ralph Qualls, Director of Public Works
City Engineer CA License 22046
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of August 2004, at a Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
Taghi Saadati, Chair
Cupertino Planning Commission
G:\Plarming\pDREPORT\RES\ TM-2004-o7.doc
5-5
V-20Q4-07
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO.
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW LOT WIDTHS OF 50 FEET AND 50 FEET
(MEASURED AT FRONT SETBACK LINE), RESPECTIVELY, INSTEAD OF 60 FEET FOR A
PROPOSED TWO-PARCEL SUBDIVISION ON 21851 LOMIT A AVENUE, AS REQUIRED
BY CHAPTER 19.28 OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE.
SECTION I: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino has received an application
for a Variance, as described in Section II. of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural
Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one
Public Hearing on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has meet the burden of proof required to support the application,
and has satisfied the following criteria:
1) That there are extraordinary or exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property involved that do not apply generally to properties in the same district in that the
property is twice the width of adjacent interior lots on the same street.
2) That granting of the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial property rights of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or
unnecessary hardship in that a lot division with a narrower 50-foot lot width will allow
the property owner to develop the property in a manner similar to adjacent property
owners; and
3) That granting the Variance will not be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and
general welfare, or convenience, and to secure the purpose of the title.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, testimony, exhibits and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the application for Variance is hereby approved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Cupertino; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
That the subconclusions upon which the findings specified in this Resolution are based are
contained in the public hearing record concerning Application V-2004-07, as set forth in the
5-4
Resolution No.
Page -2-
V-2004-07
August 9, 2004
Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of August 9, 2004, and are incorporated by
reference as though fully set forth herein.
SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
V-2004-07
Qi Gary Li
21851 Lomita Avenue
SECTION III: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1.
APPROVED EXHIBITS
The approval is based on exhibits titled: "Tentative Map, 21851 Lomita Ave.,
Cupertino, California" consisting of 1 sheet dated May 2004, except as may be
amended by the conditions contained in this resolution.
2.
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW
The applicant/property owner is required to obtain design review of any new residence and moved
residence prior to building permit approval. Applicant/ property owner is strongly encouraged to
minimize the appearance of the garage as viewed from the front yard in keeping with the dominant
character of the residences on the street.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of August 2004, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
Taghi Saadati, Chair
Cupertino Planning Commission
G: IPlanninglPDREPOR TlRES\V -2004-07 .doc
5-\0
~
'ðl
\J'
OFFICE
0 F
COUNTY
ASSESSOR
- SANTA
C L A R A
COUNTY.
II)
Z
W
>
W
l-
II)
,..' "I ¡, I" , .~:~.
' .. -'-"',;",,~ - -Q-
111
'"
3.:
(J'
-=\
~., '"f"
~. p
~I Q
pl ~r¡\
;...
-"{
,J)
~,
SCALE, I "0
'. ~
LANDS OF FRAN/CH
DOc. #/025304/
LANDS OF SWENSON
DOc. #5265082
t
-, ~I
~
LØf 1
VICINITY MAP
LØf2
..- sa. ". (C1.22 AC.)
,
'",.,æ I
I
I I
i ~~J'~
, I.
! Ii i
~ "'"'. II .
-", WI'" llJ I! .
:r r ~ I
I 'I :
: <t ':::( I
I ~ I '" I. .
, " '1 .
~ \ If-- I I
l. ....... . .
¡¡¡ "".
-j , I ~ :: I
f 'OO"""'~'~ I '."
f- + "~I
I 'I
1--'"00) ~;:-~,,",~~~,~"M'
~ '~ I_. ' . -1: I
I I '" I
~.I~. 'I:
I 0 ¡; 'I
I "~I ...
I I !::v~u.,,'
I ,;L"'
I I 1'-'
: 'I ,I
I i
, I
. I I,
~
PROJECT INFORMATION
-- »8 M'J'&IIIUft
OMfU
21881 ~ A~
~_11111114
(4œ) 817-411.
--
== ~ R.C.E. 21187. DP. '/l1li
21l1li -- - _MID
--_I11III14
1EL (4œ) -- FAXI (401) 2117-
~_»8-
21881 ~ A~
---
__-1-
--.-.
,.... - 11,371 sa. ". (0.44 AC)
--
~-_P.o."E.
""'l1li. - ... ""1111 OJ:1I/I1NIY
--
--. - ~ DIS1IICf
- RI-7.6
-.,- 1
-- fEU) IIIIMY BY IELSEN -I
LEGEND
--__---"R""'nY,-",
- -"""",-,,,"",""""
x
! III!
ell
IMIF
".111
_II
::¡
La..
0
en ~
0 Z
~w25
~ ¡.
~~~
::I .
~gS1
'"'....~
~~It)~
coß..
....~
C'IIO
On ""V 2004
,,= ,'°'"
1
. 1,"'"
~5
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application:
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Property Location:
TM-2004-09, EA-2004-12
Art Dave
Dave Cucuzza
11081 S. Stelling Road
Agenda Date: August 9, 2004
Application Summary:
Tentative Map to subdivide an approximately 1.25 acre parcel into five parcels ranging
from 7,200 sq. ft. to 9,273 sq. ft. in a Rl-6 zoning district.
*Please note that there is a slight variation in the proposed parcel size range from the
public hearing notice due to some minor revisions to the map made by the applicant
after the notices were sent out.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the tentative map, file
number TM-2004-09 and EA-2004-12, in accordance with the model resolutions.
Project Data:
General Plan Designation:
Zoning Designation:
Acreage (gross):
Density:
Residential Low 1-5 DUjGross Acre
Rl-6
54,630 sq. ft.
4 duj gr. acre
Project Consistency with: General Plan:
Zoning: .
Environmental Assessment:
Yes
Yes
Mitigated Negative Declaration
DISCUSSION:
Site Analysis
The project is located on 11081 S. Stelling Road and is surrounded by single-family
residential uses. Currently the site is developed with one single-family residence with a
detached garage. The home is not considered historic nor is it listed on any historic
inventory. The home was constructed in 1951 based on the County's database. The
residence will be demolished as part of the final map process. The project is located in
an Rl-6 zoning district with a minimum lot size requirement of 6,000 square feet. The
proposed lots range from 7,200 to 9,273 square feet in size and conform to the minimum
lot widths (measured at the front setback line) of 60 feet. Currently the map
erroneously shows five-foot side yard setbacks on Lots 3 and 4 where one side must
[0-1
TM-2004-09
Page 2
August 9, 2004
have a minimum ten-foot setback. The applicant is required to adjust the side yard
setbacks on these two lots to be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. The side yards
adjacent to existing residential homes should be a minimum of ten feet. In addition, the
cul-de-sac design shall be revised to provide a less abrupt return in front of lot 2. The
revised plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works, Planning and Fire
Departments prior to approval of the Final Map.
Private Road
The project is accessed by a 28-foot wide private roadway (cul-de-sac) from Stelling
Road. A 28-foot private road provides sufficient room for two ll-foot travel lanes and a
six-foot parking lane on the side of the street. Staff supports the use of a narrower road
to help preserve many of the trees on this heavily treed site. Although not shown, a
monolithic sidewalk will be provided along the first five feet of the front yard setback
areas on the new lots. The sidewalk will not continue along the north property line next
to the existing home because there is a groove of trees along that section of the property
that will be preserved. Both the private road and the sidewalk will be paved with
semi-pervious stone pavers or similar interlocking pavers to enhance the storm water
quality of the project and to also help preserve the root systems of existing mature trees.
The applicant is required to work with staff to design the pedestrian sidewalk to
meander around existing trees to the maximum extent possible at the final map process.
A home owners association/Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&R) and a
private road maintenance agreement are required to be submitted to the City for review
and approval ensuring that the individual property owners will properly maintain the
roadway, sidewalks and the street lights.
Tree Removal
The City's Arborist prepared a tree report Qn the project site. The report identified 84
trees on the site. A total of 25 trees are proposed for removal as part of this project. Out
of these trees, only one tree is considered specimen and will be removed because it is
located in the center of the access road. All of the trees removed are either located in
the roadway, in building pads, or are in poor health. The final replacement trees will be
determined by the City Arborist prior to issuance of grading permit. In addition, Staff
will evaluate the final building footprints during the design review stage to determine if
additional trees located at marginal locations could be preserved, even though they are
not protected as part of the tentative map.
It should be noted that even though some trees are indicated on the plans to be
preserved (21, 22, 26, 34, 37, 42, 43, 44, 56) but since they are fruit trees or other non-
specimens, discretion will be given to the future property owners for their removal.
ttr~
TM-2004-09
Page 3
August 9, 2004
Prepared by: Gary Chao, Assistant Planner
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme~
Enclosures: Model Resolution
Plan Set
G: \ Planning\PDREPORT\pcTMreports \ TM- 2004-09 .doc
(P-3
TM-2004-09
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO.
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A TENT A TlVE MAP TO SUBDIVIDE A 1.25
ACRE PARCEL INTO FIVE PARCELS RANGING FROM 7,200 TO 9,273 SQUARE
FEET.
SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
TM-2004-O9, EA-2004-12
Art Dave
11081 S. Stelling Road
SECTION II: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application
for a Tentative Subdivision Map as described in Section I of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the
Subdivision and Procedural Ordinances of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning
Commission has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said
application; and has satisfied the following requirements:
a) That the proposed subdivision map is consistent with the City of Cupertino
General Plan. .
b) That the design and improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent
with the General Plan.
c) That the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of development
contemplated under the approved subdivision.
d) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely
to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidable
injure fish and wildlife or their habitat.
e) That the designs of the subdivision or the type of improvements associated
therewith are not likely to cause serious public health problems.
£) That the design of the subdivision and its associated improvements will not
conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use
of property within the proposed subdivision.
&7-4
Resolution No.
Page 2
TM-2004-09, EA-2004-l2
August 9, 2004
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the application TM-2004-09 for a Tentative Map is hereby
approved subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on
page 2 thereof, and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this
Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning
Application TM-2004-09, as set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of
August 9, 2004, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS
DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
ADMINISTERED
BY
THE
COMMUNITY
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approved is based on the tentative map entitled "Tentative Parcel Map, Lands of
Dave" by Nelson Engineering, dated August 2004 except as may be amended by the
Conditions contained in this Resolution.
2. PRIVATE ROADWAY & PUBLIC SIDEWALK
A homeowners association shall be established with a CC&R that addresses
maintenance and upkeep of the private road, sidewalk and streetlights. A five-foot
public access/pedestrian easement shall be placed on all five parcels along the
frontages of the private road. The applicant is required to work with staff to design
the pedestrian sidewalk to meander around existing trees to the maximum extent
possible and provide smooth sidewalk transition with adjoining properties. A
supplemental arborist report with specific tree preservation recommendations must
be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to finalizing the
sidewalk/ curb design along Stelling Road and the new private road. The CC&R
and the public access easement shall be reviewed and approved by the City and
recorded prior to approval of the Final Map. The private road and the public
sidewalk shall be paved with interlocking pavers or similar semi-pervious material.
The final paving material shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works and
Planning Department prior to issuance of building permits.
3. LOTS 3 & 4
The side yard setbacks of lots 3 and 4 shall be adjusted to conform to the Zoning
Ordinance. The side yards immediately adjacent to existing single-family homes
shall be at least 10 feet. Revised plans shall be reviewed and approved by the
Planning Department prior to recordation of the Final Map.
(O-~
Resolution No.
Page 3
TM-2004-09, EA-2004-l2
August 9, 2004
4. CUL-DE-SAC RETURN
The cul-de-sac shall be revised to provide a less abrupt return in front of lot 2. The
revised plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works, Planning and
Fire Departments prior to approval of the Final Map.
5 TREE PRESERVATION
The final replacement trees will be determined by the City Arborist prior to issuance
of grading permit. In addition, Staff will evaluate the final building footprints
during the design review stage to determine if additional trees located at marginal
locations could be preserved. It should be noted that even though some trees are
indicated on the plans to be preserved (21, 22, 26, 34, 37, 42, 43, 44, 56) but since they
are mostly fruit trees and non-specimen trees, discretion will be given to the future
property owners for their removal in the future. All of the other trees shown on the
plans to be preserved must be recorded on the CC&R as protected trees for future
owners to preserve and maintain. In the event that any protected trees must be
removed due to reasons deemed appropriate by the Community Development
Director, then comparable diameter replacement tree(s) must be planted at the same
location or locations visible to the public.
6. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees,
dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant
to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice
of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications,
reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day
approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and
other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you
fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements
of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions.
SECTION IV:
DEPARTMENT
CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS
1.
STREET WIDENING
Street widening, improvements and dedications shall be provided in accordance
with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer.
A 25' dedication along the frontage of S. Stelling Road is required
2.
CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS
Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed in
accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer.
(p -(0
Resolution No.
Page 4
TM-2004-09, EA-2004-l2
August 9, 2004
3. STREET LIGHTING INST ALLA TION
Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer.
Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of
visual interference to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the
maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located.
4.
TRAFFIC SIGNS
Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City.
5. STREET TREES
Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way and shall be of a type
approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125.
6.
GRADING
Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance
with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404
permits maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/ or Regional
Water Quality Control Board as appropriate.
7.
DRAINAGE
Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Pre and Post-
development calculations must be provided to identify if storm drain facilities
need to be constructed or renovated.
8.
FIRE PROTECTION
Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the
City.
9.
UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities
Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of
Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of
underground utility devices. Ordinance No. 331 requires all overhead lines to be
underground whether the lines are new or existing. The developer shall submit
detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject
to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer.
10. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of
Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking
and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for
undergrounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of
construction permits.
(0-7-
Resolution No.
Page 5
TM-2004-09, EA-2004-12
August 9, 2004
Fees:
a. Grading/Improvement Permit:
Costs
b. Development Maintenance Deposit:
c. Storm Drainage Fee:
d. Power Cost:
e. Map Checking Fees:
f. Park Fees:
$ 5% of On and Off-Site Improvement
$ 1,000.00
$ 1,617.66
$ 575.00 *
$ 63,000.00
Bonds:
a. On & Off-Site Improvements Bond: 100% Labor/Material Bond, 100%
Performance Bond
-The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule
adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified
at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the
event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then
current fee schedule.
* Based on a 5 lot development
** Developer is required for one-year power cost for streetlights
11. TRANSFORMERS
Electrical transfonners, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment
enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground
such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas.
12. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), a;<; required by the State Water
Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil.
The applicant must provide an erosion and/or sediment control plan. Identify all
Pre-and Post development BMPs that will be installed on and off-site.
14. NPDES CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT
The applicant must file for a NOI (Notice of Intent) and must prepare a Stonn
Water Pollution Prevention Plan with the State Water Resources Control Board.
The city must obtain documentation that the process has been completed.
For copies of the Construction General Permit, the NOI and additional permit
infonnation consult the state Water Resources Control Board web site at:
http:/www.swrcb.ca.gov I stormwtr I construction.html
(¡r 'Ò
Resolution No.
Page 6
TM-2004-09, EA-2004-12
August 9, 2004
15. AMENDED DEVELOPMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP)
REOUIREMENTS
Post-Construction Best Management Practices
a.
Permanent Stormwater Quality BMPs Required
In accordance with chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and
Watershed Protection, of the City Code, all development and redevelopment
projects shall include permanent BMPs in order to reduce the water quality
impacts of stormwater runoff from the èntire site for the life of the project.
(Use for all construction projects)
b.
Stormwater Management Plan Required
The applicant shall submit a Stormwater Management Plan for this project.
The permanent storm water quality best management practices (BMPs)
included in this plan shall be selected and designed in accordance with chapter
9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the City
Code.
(Effective 10/15/03, use for Group 1 projects creating or replacing one
acre or more of impervious surface, including roofs and pavement)
c.
BMP Agreements
The applicant and the City shall enter into a recorded agreement and covenant
running with the land for perpetual BMP maintenance by the property
owners(s). In addition, the owner(s) and the City shall enter into a recorded
easement agreement and covenant running with the land allowing City access
at the site for BMP inspection.
(Effective 10/15/03, use for Group 1 projects creating or replacing one
acre or more of impervious surface, including roofs and pavement)
CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE OF
ACCEPTANCE OF ENGINEERING/SURVEYING CONDITIONS
(Section 66474.18 California Government Code)
I hereby certify that the engineering and surveying conditions specified in Section IV of
this Resolution conform to generally accepted engineering practices.
Ralph Qualls, Director of Public Works
City Engineer CA License 22046
úrC)
Resolution No.
Page 7
TM-2004-09, EA-2004-12
August 9, 2004
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of August 2004, at a Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
Taghi Saadati, Chairperson
Cupertino Planning Commission
G: \ Plallllíllg \ PDREPORT\RES \ TM-2004-09res.doc
(0-10
CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
July 14, 2004
As provided by the Environmental Assessment Procedure, adopted by the City Council
of the City of Cupertino on May 27, 1983, as amended, the following described project
was reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee of the City of Cupertino on
July 14, 2004.
PROTECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
TM-2004-09 (EA-2004-12)
Marty Miller/ Art Dave
11081 S. Stelling Road
DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST
Tentative Map to subdivide a 1.25-acre parcel into five parcels ranging from
approximately 7,630 to 10,270 square feet.
FINDINGS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Mitigated
Negativ Declaration with the following mitigation: 1. The arborist will review the final
landsc e p.. the replacement of trees on a tree-by-tree basis.
Steve Pias cki
Director of Community Development
g/erc/REC EA-2004-12
(ç- \
~ _LII (D) "'-- V'J 'ONlllf3dn'J ~ i'I
I -- tl!.III!DII OVOè:l ~Nm3lS .S ~90~ ~ ~ .' ~ ~ ..-
--- UIC:'IU ~ ~
- '1M) ~31l1ri .:10 SONVl . dVn 13'J~d 3AIlVlN31 1, ~~
(i i I
~ ¡ r¡ ~ Ií
I -li."~ ifj Î
~ i Iii. I I Q ~ft i T i
II III ~ ii-Ii IIh n ¡;.; ii ! ¡
Iii Ih.M I ille III; 1111311111
~
~ ~
. ; ;:
~ " °1
I ~ ! 3 ¡~
~ ~ I q~
~ Udd
~ I II
~I
i II~
: II
I I
~
~
. ",
~ r----- C1
~ ~ I
~ ~ 1 "1" \
!:I .. 1 f-It \
J¡ . 1 s~ \, ÇJ
lfiI~ I '- '- ~
di \T----------~=!:
-~-'~~---I
~ ~.
~ !II ~õ
~ - ~~
~ - ~o
lfil. ~
di
... ~
!Ii i ~I~I ~ ~¡¡ ~!I
1':1 at ~ II"
d. ~b : - hi
,------:. - - ÇJ --~it.!!!N--1..--- ÇJ
!~... ' ,II
: ~ ',: I
.fill í------- I: ~I--------'--¡ ¡~
*... I ~ ~ :i 1...:8I~
hi 1 ~ ~ \ oii I~'
1 ~" ~ '\ \ -'" .~
1 ." ;'~4'-----------~ ,
f-, ~ /" , I
1 '3~ æ" : I
\ ,
~
~
hi
.fili
di
:
1 ~
I ~
, ~ 1
~/t
, I
-1,,-1
!
-,"~,"-
, I
a¥o~ 31 ¥^'~d
i
.1
II
II
I,
~I
I
I
~_.:!'~-----
!~s
.i:S.
lfili
dl
!Ii
Ifill
~h
- ,0< --;--
,
I 1
~H
t¡;¡
~
~
~
~
~!
ø~
j
~
d
TREE SPECIES LEGEND
1 PICEA SP.
2 WASHINTONIA ROBUSTA
3 JUGLANS CALIFORNICA
4 QUERCUS AGRIFLORIA
5 QUERCUS AGRIFLORIA
6 QUERCUS AGRIFLORIA
7 UERCUS AGRlFlrRIA
8 QUERCUS AGRIFLORIA
9 QUERCUS AGRIFLORIA
TU
11 A
13 QUERCUS AGRIFLORIA
1"- 'I';
15 QUERCUS AGRIFLORIA
<"
17 QUERCUS AGRIFLORIA
18
19 .J[ e;1 ANS
20 JULGANS REGIA
21 FICUS CARICA
')') "'II~ '.;Rlr.;
23 FICUS CARICA
,lue;1 ANS f/H;IA
;:;~ JUGLANS REGIA
",,- PRUNUS SP.
')7 JUGLANS
;:;0 ERIOBOTRYA JAPONICA
')n JUGLANS REGIA
:;;:, JUGLANS REGIA
"' QUERCUS AGRIFLORIA
;~ SE UlnA SEMPFRVIRENS
;:; SEQUIOA SEMPERVIRENS
,A MALUS SP.
;~ PINUS SP.
36 QUERCUS DECURRENS
" ~"UI~U::>::>r.
:;-¡,-
,n JUGLANS CALlFNORICA
........-n AESULUS CALIFORNICA
" """PRUNUS ::>1".
;~ JUGLANS CALIFORNICA
43 FAGACEA SP.
44 PRUNUS SP.
45 CALOCEDRUS DECURRENS
46 SEQUIOA SEMPERVIRENS
.- PICEA SP.
'° JUNIPERUS SP.
49 CASURINA UUISl:.TlrULIA
"0 N POPULNEUS
51 JUGLANS REGIA
~ Of\iTPFRI~ ~p.
;;:;: PISTACIA CHINENSIS
54 JUNIPERUS SP.
PRUNUS SP.
56 PRUNUS SP.
57 JUNIPERUS SP.
58 SEQUIOA SEMPERVIRENS
59 CEDRUS DEODAR
60 JUGLANS REGIA
61 JACARANDA MIM SI LlA
62 LABURNUM ANAGRYOIDES
PRUNUS SP.
64 SEQUIOA SEMPERVIRENS
iMMO
66 JUGLANS REGIA
67 SCHINUS MOLLE
68 EUCALYPTUS SIDEROXYLON
69 PINUS SP.
70 AESCULUS CALIFORNICA
72 PRUNUS REGIA
74 OLEA EUROPEA
--+
SC^", ,. = 20'
8 ,""CAm¡ "'Œ TO BE RE"O""
-~ f:-~7 9 1t14~5-1718
1 ~.- ---mw- 9 '.' ~ 0 1 ~-,.....
0 ~'o.-O ,,- 1 0 't.".-
~' -2"10 -----, 12(["21-----'18:
20' ""'" 5£TBAO< '-" I 1..If .. 122 I
.23~ II I V
~:".-{)~ I 3 I '",
'" 1 LOT 3 I 0126 T4 I .
/ ~ 9.210 .." I I ~.." i -
'~i I 1 I .
.~'-"-O I ~ - --I l, I' Dff -,-
1~a281~9...../ 63 I I
~-o I~?" ".T " J
'1'-0/ \ /"" - .
'.'"-¡ *e;-o \~..... ~-l
/31 I 32 ~~......"'" I ,
, ~ r I 36.
. ",,', I 1'8"-81
~ ~ I I -I
:JJ. 1 \ I I:", 'I'BACT &'711
. I \ I I /2
J I \ 1 LOT 5 144 -
. I \, .~ 1"""""'".L,8'
S I ~ ~ I I J
It!"'-¡ ¡ ~ 39 40 'o'r.l~
~"I I ~ -~- 143 "I
'-2'-~ I 10'-~ J '
~~~ k&T"l I - ~- 1 Dff -,-,
.~ I
;!?, I 46 I
g ! L --J!IIL ---.J
Dff -,.......
:4Š ~"Wt ..J
/ 1--,"as2~
'55 I - I
rot'" II .' to
"-0 I j
. 6 I 15
. I LOT 1 I
/ : 1.m.." ~
"-0: 6_:
7L "'
S. S'l'ILUNG RCW)
----
--
~-r
~ L_-
L -
f
g
¡
......... ."
! III!
c:
111;:13
!II
!II
~
I.&J
~
C>
Z
~
l5c
~~
...JC>
I.&JZ
~~ð
~ .Ò
,:;(I)Z
:..o..-~
~a)1.&J
ZOo..
I.&J"-::>
1-..-0
10o," JUNE 2004
5"". "-20'
10.,-" CAlI
1°°. ,,4-<>5
SO", 2
,,2
CITY OF CUPERTINO,
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application No.: R-2004-17, TR-2004-03 Agenda Date: August 9, 2004
Applicant/Owner: John Ghashghai/Kelly Walsh
Property Location: 10230 Scenic Boulevard
Application Summary: Design Review of a 1,929 square foot addition to an existing
residence that requires an exception to the front yard setback requirement and a tree
removal to remove an oak tree.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve:
1. Exception to the Rl Ordinance, file number R-2004-17, in accordance with
the model resolution.
2. Tree removal permit, file number TR-2004-03, in accordance with the
model resolution.
BACKGROUND:
The applicant proposes a 1,929 square foot addition to an existing single story
residence. Part of the addition will be a new 686 square foot semi-exposed
basement under the existing house. In addition, the applicant is proposing to
add a two-car garage and an entry foyer toward the front of the house
encroaching into the required front yard setback. The project parcel is defined as
a flag lot with a 25 foot wide access corridor off of Scenic Boulevard. Other than
the front yard exception being requested, the project conforms to the Rl
Ordinance. Normally, a front yard exception is approved by the Design Review
Committee. However, the request is being forwarded to the Planning
Commission since the removal of a specimen tree requires Commission
approval.
DISCUSSION:
Front Yard Setback Exception
Currently, the project house is considered non-conforming since it only has a
one-car garage and a sub-standard rear yard setback (approx. 9'-6"). Based on
the code, four off street parking stalls (two covered and two open) and a
minimum 20-foot rear yard building setback are required for single-family
dwellings. It is the applicant's desire to construct a conforming two-car garage,
since there is an on-street parking shortage along Scenic Boulevard. The lot
appears to have a large front yard area, but the majority of the open space
belongs to the planned development residential development to the north via an
open space easement (see drawing below).
-, .
b-I
R-20o4-17, TR-2004-Q3
Page 2
August 9,2004
According to code, the access corridor of the flag lot is discounted from the net
lot square footage for the purpose of calculating floor area ratio. In addition, the
flag corridor is not counted toward the required front yard setback area (see
drawing below), The intent of this rule is to provide adequate building
separation from the property in front of the flag lot under normal circumstances.
However in this case, the parcel in front of the project site is an open space
easement where no buildings will be allowed. Coupled with the difficult
topography of the side yard areas and the non-conforming rear yard setback, the
applicant's only option is to locate the two-car garage within the required 20-foot
front yard area at approximately 6'-10" setback from the terminus of the access
corridor. It should be noted that even though the proposed garage is
encroaching into the front setback area, it still has approximately 45 feet of
setback from Scenic Boulevard via the access corridor. The proposed garage will
not create a negative visual impact from the street and in staff's opinion meets
the intent of the ordinance.
\
.
.
\
\
ì
~
= .
::'~~, I
I
~ .
B-óC
R-2004-17, TR-2004-03
Page 3
August 9,2004
Tree Removal
Two oak trees located in the footprint of the proposed development will be
removed as part of the project. The smaller oak (8" Dia.) is not specimen size
and does not require any further review. The larger oak (12" Dia.) is considered
a specimen and requires Planning Commission approval. Ideally this tree should
be transplanted to another location of the property. However, staff and the City
Arborist have determined after several site visits that there is not an appropriate
area (40 feet by 40 feet) onsite to replant this oaktree since the site is already
heavily vegetated with other specimen trees. To require transplanting or
additional replacement trees will facilitate an improper growing environment
and compromise the health of other fine specimen trees on the property. In
addition, the cost of having the oak tree relocated to an offsite location is
extremely high and is not considered a reasonable mitigation option. Staff
supports the request to remove the specimen oak tree. The applicant has
expressed willingness to explore options of selling the oak tree to other private
interested parties or tree companies, but purely on a voluntary basis.
Enclosures:
Model Resolutions
Letter of Justification
Letters of Support from Adjacent Neighbors and Location Maps
Plan Set
Submitted by: Gary Chao, Assistant Planner
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developmen~
G:IPlanningIPDREPOR1\pcEXCreportslR-2004-17.doc
6-3
R-2004-17
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW OF A 1,929 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO AN
EXISTING RESIDENCE THAT REQUIRES AN EXCEPTION TO THE FRONT YARD
SETBACK REQUIREMENT
SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
R-2004-17
John GhashghaijKelly Walsh
10230 Scenic Boulevard
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR EXCEPTION
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application
for a Rl Exception, as described on Section I of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural
Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more
Public Hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support this
application, and has satisfied the following requirements:
1. The literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter will result in restrictions
inconsistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter;
2. The granting of the exception Will not result in a condition that is materially
detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare;
3. The exception to be granted is one that will require the least modification of the
prescribed design regulation and the minimum variance that will accomplish the
purpose;
4. The proposed exception will not result in significant visual impact as viewed
from abutting properties.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, application no. R-2004-17 is hereby approved; and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this
Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning
ß-4
Model Resolution
Page 2
R-2004-17
August 9, 2004
Application R-2004-17, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting
of August 9, 2004, and are incorporated by reference herein.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS
DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
ADMINISTERED
BY
THE
COMMUNITY
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on the Plan Set entitled: "Ghashghai Residence," consisting of 3
sheets labeled: AI, A2 and A3, except as may be amended by conditions contained
in this resolution.
2. MINIMUM GARAGE INTERIOR CLEARANCE
The garage plan shall be revised to indicate a minimum of 20 feet by 20 feet of
interior clearance. Revised plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning
Department prior to issuance of building permits.
3. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/ owner shall fully address the
concerns and conditions of the City Geologist (Cotton, Shires & Associates, Inc.)
4. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees,
dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to
Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of
a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications,
reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day
approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and
other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you
fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements
of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of August 2004, at a Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
G: \ Planning \ PDREPORT\ RES \ R-2004-17 res.doc
Taghi Saadati, Chairman
Cupertino Planning Commission
6-5
TR-2004-03
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
APPROVING A TREE REMOVAL TO REMOVE A SPECIMEN OAK TREE.
SECTION I: PRDTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
TR-2004-O3
John GhashghaijKelly Walsh
10230 Scenic Boulevard
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR EXCEPTION
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application
for a Tree Removal Permit, as described on Section I of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural
Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more
Public Hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support this
application, and has satisfied the following requirements:
1. That the location of the tree or trees restricts the economic enjoyment of the
property by severely limiting the use of property in a manner not typically
experienced by owners of similarly zoned and situated property..
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, application no. TR-20O4-03 is hereby approved; and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this
Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning
Application TR-20O4-O3, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission
Meeting of August 9, 2004, and are incorporated by reference herein.
ß -W
Model Resolution
Page 2
SECTION III: CONDITIONS
DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
TR-2004-03
August 9, 2004
ADMINISTERED
BY
THE
COMMUNITY
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on the Plan Set entitled: "Ghashghai Residence," consisting of 3
sheets labeled: AI, A2 and A3, except as may be amended by conditions contained
in this resolution.
2. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees,
dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to
Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of
a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications,
reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day
approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and
other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you
fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements
of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of August 2004, at a Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
Taghi Saadati, Chairman
Cupertino Planning Commission
G:\Planning\PDREPORT\RES\ TR-2004-03 res.doc
9-1-
City of Cupertino Planning Department
Re: 10230 Scenic Blvd.
June 20, 2004
To Whom It May Concern:
Enclosed are all of the documents needed to apply for the variance we are requesting.
There are some important thoughts we would like the City to consider in reviewing this
application.
Our proposed plan has 4 basic tenets:
1. Minimize Mass. Scale. and Bulk. We have proposed a low profile, single story
residence. Although we have the right to, we did not propose a large 2-story
structure in the center of the 'flag' portion of the lot.
2. Protect the natural setting/feeling of the current property. We have preserved the
chann and wooded feeling of the property/neighborhood with a design that very
much resembles the "cottage" feel of the current residence.
3. Maximize privacy protection for our neighbors and us. Altemative designs that
expand east-west rather than toward Scenic Blvd would have a) interfered with
the views of the neighbor to the west (10234 Scenic), and b) overhung above and
significantly reduced the privacy of the neighbor to the east (10122 Adelheid).
4. Maximize use of the limited flat area on the property. Due to the steep grade on
the 'flag' portion of the property, any plan to build over that portion dramatically
increases the cost of the project. Since there seems to be a viable alternative (our
proposal), we feel this cost can be reasonably avoided.
Our plans are within the "spirit" of every single Cupertino Ordinance and Guideline (and
long-standing desire to minimize behemoth properties). It is also within the "letter" of all
but one. The variance we are requesting is for the front setback. The spirit of this
regulation is to avoid building houses too close to the street, and to protect privacy. Our
proposed structure will still be approximately 60 feet from the street (3 times the norm
for most houses). We will also have no impact on the privacy of any neighbor. It is also
extremely important to note that, if granted, this exception will not likely lead to jùture
privacy issues with a potential structure on the easement, because given the size and
location of the easement, there will likely never be a residence on the easement.
As evidence to the points on privacy (as well as the overall impact of our plans on the
neighborhood), you may fmd enclosed letters from every neighbor that has seen our
proposed plans expressing their support for the project. The letters are from neighbors on
both sides of our property, and directly across the street.
Thank you for your cO¿;¡J~t our variance request.
Smcerely, ¡ú.1iLf /;/ ~
John Ghashghai & Kelly Walsh
B-B
Jon Chang & Ruth Chen
10195 Scenic Blvd.,
Cupertino, CA 95014
Tel: 408-564-4123
March 31, 2004
Mr. & Mrs. John Ghashghai
10230 Scenic Blvd.
Cupertino, CA 95014
Tel: 408-257-4994
Dear John,
Thank you for showing us your remodeling floor plan. It looks beautiful. We have no
objection to your remodeling and wish you luck on this exciting project. Please let us
know if there is anything we can do to help.
a:gh~? rI~--r..
-1nvs C~g
6~4
John Ghashghai
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Fisher, Brooks [BrooksJisher@intuit.coml
Sunday. March 28. 2004 7:46 PM
John Ghashghai
Fisher, Brooks
Comments on Construction Plans
To whom it may concern,
Our neighbor, John, shared his construction plans with us Sunday March 28.
Both my wife and I were impressed with the quality of the plans and like the
1-story design. We do not have any problem with or objection to the
proposed remodel. Please let us know if you have any questions.
Regards,
Brooks and Kim Fisher
10122 Adelheid Court
Cupertino, CA 95014
408-255-9352
Brooks Fisher
VP Learning & Development
brooks fisher@intuit.com
650-944-5430
Asst, Lynda Larsen
lynda_larsen@intuit.com
650-944-3056
ß-\O
@
""" .
~357~'9~
rk 8
---\.=+;;------ ~
! '-
6-11
Ii '1 Z1 ..-J-
'-,j ~4'[.)-£./ ~~- 4 c{;.Ú-ä-viJ tŸt1--- ;jff:i"bU .
/U-'V>1/[n:U",( f. ~-:. L#vil (!,;:«..þ- .~l'~'4i/,-. .~/~:l 'I
-1Z:. ¡J./IJ.U ((/Tp'/)p.A/. J/C.-/-/1)-ð'-'l4/ ./¿ Juc/ /~.:z./
.J!~ - / . .
<þÁt>-C 9 4--- ~ /--~- é:t l]il'tr ¿i.- '(I'V-~'J' /J'27.J.<-z...'~.'...)'
/ V t/ /'
/) )./ ,é-.. -
/}1¡ t~ /t;r d-¿,2Þé~iv
I ¿J Jð £/ ~?V-L/ !.JjL.~¿;l/
¡/5ivt!
ß-I~
"""
"""
"""'" - """
'" "
""".
"""",.
~ 357 /I Pâ" II
,,1, "ê
~t;----- "
J -
@
(2)
CD
8-1 :,
1 j
,I, J,l, I I I I I I I I I
. li¡ ¡ill!
:!
0
l!'"
g~
.- .!! ï~
i ~ .i~
.F ~ 'i ~
11\ "'U oX 2
a.- o'f
.¡: 11\ ::: 8.
,,~ 203
"'~ c
c .2
,... ..
i. ~
a. .t:
IIf! I ¡g I
III 0
Q) U
L. ,.
me
0':::
La 0
n.z
j JjJï !
tliî
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 11111 1
II!!
-111
nij
~ ~ nk f
~ d ¡¡PI
~,~H
,!,,~,.
I 1 I 1 I I I I 0
c:
I\
;;:
.!!
¡¡¡
~ 111
:;¡: j :-
¡<ii
~,,-
,,--
~
~~~
---------- "" 1 --
,"""I
'-'-'--;0.,,=00,-'-
~~~
j
...
.
-,
".
. A '" ~
d ~
.-J
,,; !
/'"
~/
~I[
~~
..B',,"
"""lOB 'a'
.Bn."
"
-~~
".10'
A
'.17/B'
13'.1719"
,'-41'"
Bedroom 1
Master
Bedroom
Dining Room
17'-7'
3'-4'
17'-4'
N"
38'-3'
iIi1iI :. ~
8"'"
20'-4'
,
Brea~ast
"
i
Ii
0-'"
-..
~
..
".10"
,'.10'
7""
20"'"
83""
20""
~
~
'r
'"
~
~
~
~
'"
12'-4'
20'-4'
" //,' z//////e-¿/ ee¿':::.::é::'CrT:'/////,'///,'ZZ,'/,' // /, "
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
SQuare Footaae
House: 2144 sq.ft.
Garage: 520 sq.ft.
Basement: 686sq. ft.
20""
11'",
Exercise
.
%
~
Game Room
..r""i'lJ..ll;llL8:1~"
DesignARC
--
-'"'-
---
"---ø,,
--,"""'-
"",.", ....
........""" ."
M.... ."..." ...
M'.,."."",.....
.....",.".. ...
Ghashghai
Residence
10230 Seen;, Boulevard
Cupemno, Calõfamia 95014
Progress:: Print
Not for Constructior:
- *,,",;.d - T-
!:: I !E:-::-;::"-;=!=--"'::""::.~':;:',
~ ,,--::::.::=.::::::::..."';:.::::-";.~
¡i; .-.
...,~ """""'
Floor Plan
A2
Oo~. w... """
... w.,'<.
ri..
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 TORRE AVENUE, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Subject: Report of the Community Development Director
Planning Commission Agenda Date: Monday, July 26, 2004
The City Council cancelled their regular meeting of Tuesday, August 2, 2004. Their
next regular meeting will be August 16, 2004. Thev will be meeting in a joint study
session with the Planning Commission on August 17, 2004, to be briefed on the latest
concept plans for the Hewlett Packard site.
Miscellaneous
1. Meeting Protocol: Thanks for a productive study session on meeting protocol on
Tuesday August 3, 2004. Staff is preparing the follow-up information requested by the
Commission.
2. Reminder: August 17 Joint CC/PC Studv Session regarding Toll BrosIHP: Just a
reminder that you will be attending a joint City CouncillPlanning Commission study
session scheduled for Tuesday August 17, 2004 at 4:30 PM at Blackberry Farm. The
Commission has already confirmed that a quorum of the Planning Commission is able to
attend this meeting.
3. Val1co Park Rose Bowl Submittal: Val1co Fashion Park intends to complete filing of
their application for the Rose Bowl site. The application is tentatively scheduled for the
Planning Commission meeting of August 23, 2004.
G:planning/SteveP/director's report/pd8-09-04