draft minutes 10/27/2009CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES
6:45 P.M. October 27, 2009 TUESDAY
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
The regular Planning Commission meeting of October 17, 2009, was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in
the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Vice Chairperson
Paul Brophy.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present:
Vice Chairperson:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Paul Brophy
Winnie Lee
Marty Miller
David Kaneda
Commissioners absent:
Chairperson:
Lisa Giefer (ill)
Staff present: Community Development Director: Aarti Shrivastava
Senior Planner: Colin Jung
Senior Planner: Aki Honda Snelling
City Planner: Gary Chao
Public Works: Glenn Goepfert
Vice Chair Brophy chaired the meeting in Chair Giefer's absence.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
• Aarti Shrivastava noted emails received relating to agenda items.
• Gary Chao noted a site plan was submitted by the applicant for item No. 1, relative to the
realignment of the driveway for Lot 1.
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR:
2. U-2009-06 (EA-2009-07) Use Permit to allow an 8,400 sq. ft. daycare facility
Cindy Cheng (Cupertino to operate at an existing commercial building. The
Investment Partners LLC) application also includes a new outdoor play area
19875 Stevens Creek Blvd. in the existing rear parking lot. Applicant has
requested a postponement to November 24, 2009
Vice Chair Brophy noted the postponement of Application U-2009-06 (EA-2009-07) at the
applicant's request.
Cupertino Planning Commission 2 October 27, 2009
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
PUBLIC HEARING•
1. TM-2009-02 (EA-2009-09) Tentative Map to subdivide a 13.47 acre parcel into four
TR-2009-16 parcels ranging from 2.86 acres to 3.65 acres each;
Robert Bigler Tree removal and replacement of 6 Coast Live Oaks
22045 Regnart Road Continued from the October 13, 2009 Planning
Commission meeting; Planning Commission decision
final unless appealed
Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
• Reviewed the background of the application for Tentative Map to subdivide a 13.47 acre
parcel into four parcels, and tree removal and replacement of 6 Coast Live Oak trees, which
was continued from the October 13, 2009 Planning Commission meeting.
• He reviewed the Planning Commission concerns discussed at the October 13, meeting:
(details of concerns outlined in staff report attached)
• Septic system backup features
• Comprehensive storm drainage system
• Disclosure of geotechnical requirements (new condition added to notify potential
property purchasers that there is additional geotechnical work that needs to be done on a
lot-by-lot basis)
• Winter grading requirements
• Tree preservation and removal
• Construction management
• Notice of public hearing
• New Issue -revised southern driveway alignment.
• Staff recommends approval of the Tentative Map and Tree Removal application in accordance
with the model resolution, with the added condition that if the Planning Commission finds
merit in the revised driveway alignment, that a condition be added to require basically city
agency review prior to final map approval.
• Staff answered questions relating to the application.
Vice Chair Brophy opened the public hearing.
Robert Bigler, Applicant:
• Said that since the October 13 Planning Commission meeting, he met with neighbors to
respond to their concerns about not receiving the public hearing notice in ample time to review
the issues; and answer mostly technical questions about the project. He said that questions
relating to the septic system should be directed to experts. He said he was more capable of
responding to questions about the tree removal. In response to a suggestion to cut the driveway
up sooner, he said that his engineer said it would involve a lot more and would have a much
bigger impact on the land and was an option they would not propose because of the high
additional cost. Because of the high cost, he asked that he not be compelled to explore that
option unless it is deemed to be cost effective; apparently it will involve several hundred feet
of additional and tall retaining wall and cut and fill issues.
• I still would like to explore doing something to rescue the Oaks; I prefer the new design but
would like to be able to get some contractors to look at it to see if I can get the cost within
Cupertino Planning Commission 3 October 27, 2009
reason. My objective would be to have approval for the existing approach and then a
recommendation for pursuing the preferred approach or a condition that it be found to be cost
effective. Some of the neighbors were extremely interested in these two trees that are just
being removed because they are deemed a hazard; they are not in the way of anything; no one
more than I want to save them and I indicated that I would like to try and explore means of
saving them; I confirmed that a permit to remove a tree is not a mandate to remove it, and if I
can make them safe with cable or other system, or I can do a little more analysis and prove
them safe, I would like to keep them. Nevertheless, currently as it is going forward, I would
be permitted to remove them so I would be amenable to a condition that an investigation be
done to see if they really need to be removed; I would be amenable to them being removed
from my permit and I would have to seek the permit again upon further investigation. I would
be happy to do whatever I can to save those trees and that will happen regardless of whether
the permit issues or not.
Some neighbors had a concern about two very tall Eucalyptus trees; it is not really related to
the subdivision but we agreed that they were a danger as they were towering over the houses.
We have been discussing the trees for years and I conceded that the trees should be removed if
they wanted to remove them. Staff noted that the Eucalyptus trees could be removed without a
permit as they are not native trees and are not considered privacy trees.
Barbara Black, Regnart Canyon Drive:
• Said that her first concern was the Eucalyptus trees that Cecil Mahan planted before Mr. Bigler
purchased the property. The trees have grown into a small grove, and continue to sprout; they
are not native to California, with a narrow root system and are a concern relative to canyon
fires. She said she was willing to be a part of the tree removal, but not responsible for the
entire removal.
• The second concern is the barn which Mr. Bigler wants to maintain on the property. It is very
aesthetic and beautiful if you like barn paintings, but also there are all types of critters living in
there. If he wishes to maintain the barn, he needs to clean it out and maintain it.
• Third concern relates to the drainage. She said the ineffective drainage between the two
properties needed to be addressed.
Greg Young, Regnart Road:
• (resides across the street from the Bigler development)
• Said he was having difficulty finding in the application what the actual legal precedent is for
granting an exemption to the current lot size requirements. Mr. Bigler sent an email explaining
that Mr. Mahan had established something but there is no actual legal agreement between the
city and the recorded agreement that said there was going to be four lots. It is less than 15
acres, hence granting lots significantly smaller than what the current ordinance is.
• Said he shared the concern about the drainage; the bigger issue is the drainage that comes
straight down the other driveway which puts a lot of dirt and water onto the road in a place
where there is no storm drain to handle it.
• Down Regnart Road there is a place where you can see the ruts and where the dirt comes
down; it is a very narrow section of road on Regnart Road because of the way the creek comes
in and it has eaten it away. I don't see how they are going to convey the water across
underneath the road unless they are going to dig a trench and put in a new culvert in; I didn't
see any discussion of how that was going to work, but I really don't think that the primary
amount of water as staff stated is really coming down the Lee Driveway.
• At the base of where the two driveways come together, there is presently not a location for
garbage and recycling totes, or mailboxes, or a space for residents to pull cars off to deal with
all of the above, and since it is such a narrow area of road, it is narrower than city standards.
It would be advantageous to have a small area level enough to put out the containers and
Cupertino Planning Commission 4 October 27, 2009
mailboxes, since there will be more traffic.
• The fourth concern doesn't relate to the Biglers, but relates to the emergency access; Regnart
Canyon is in and out only on Regnart; there have been times when Regnart has been closed.
When he first moved to the area, a neighbor explained to him there was a secret way up
Regnart Canyon and could be opened with a combination lock. He no longer remembers the
combination for the lock and has queried Public Works who denies its existence. He said that
the City needs to look into the matter as emergency exit access is needed.
Morey Nelson, 21801 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Project Civil Engineer:
• Said he was available to speak if there were any questions about the design of the project or
the alternate road.
• Relative to concerns about drainage, he said they have come up with preliminary drainage
designs that include retention basins for the excess runoff from the project. The retention basin
will consist of large diameter pipes that will be buried underneath the road way where it
intersects Regnart Canyon Road and those will be designed to handle the excess runoff that is
coming because of the development. It has been done on a preliminary basis and will be part
of the improvement plans they are preparing for the project.
Com. Miller:
• Does that include the primary road there, on the day of the last hearing, there was a torrential
downpour and the water was very deep and running very fast down that main road. Is that
being addressed?
Com. Kaneda:
• You said excess runoff, so does that mean that as you add impervious surfaces to the site,
runoff that is generated, that's what the retention basins are sized for, is the runoff; the
increased runoff and nothing to do with what the existing runoff is.
Morey Nelson:
• Technically that is a correct statement; what we are required to do is to account for the
additional runoff that will be developed because of additional impervious areas. However, we
are aware that there have been some flooding conditions there and part of the drainage design
will be to improve the existing drainage that is there to mitigate those problems.
• Said it would be mitigated with another culvert going under Regnart Road; it would consist of
better outfalls underneath that culvert to prevent the downstream erosion.
May Koski, Regnant Road, (across from the Bigler property):
• Said that she was being left out of the loop; no one has talked to her about any kind of
immediate drain or runoff plans, other than being extremely general. She left the previous
meeting with the understanding that it was up to each property owner and since the Biglers
want to develop Lot 3, nothing happened to the existing situation. The civil engineer said they
are going to put another culvert under Regnart Road which empties onto her property.
• I think they should talk to me about that before we really understand what the solution is going
to be. I like the idea of a retention basin but I feel left out of the loop. They forget that the
other side of the road where the existing not adequate culvert comes out, is also my property. I
really want something to happen right away and not wait for the parcels to be subdivided and
split off and who knows if they will be sold or not. They don't legally have to do anything
until someone wants to build.
• She said that there is a potential of removing 13-1/2 acres of wildlife corridor off of Regnart
Canyon, because legally one can fence off your entire property as long as it is not a board
fence; She said she felt that was wrong especially in an area that is not urban, but rural, and
Cupertino Planning Commission
October 27, 2009
she felt it should be addressed more specifically.
• She said she appreciated the Bigler's efforts on the Oak trees but had no comment.
• The heavy equipment issue will hopefully be addressed in the construction management plan.
• She asked for confirmation that all the buildings will be removed except for the barn that could
be preserved, because they are in extremely dilapidated condition; parties have been held in
the buildings. With the worry of fire danger, any building now is presenting a problem.
• She said she would like to be contacted; she is an important neighbor and all the runoff will
have an impact on her property.
Jim Black, Regnart Canyon Drive:
• Said his wife spoke earlier about the Eucalyptus trees which was discussed with Mr. Bigler,
and reached an agreement about tree removal.
• Drainage is an issue; we have also discussed that. His wife mentioned that Cecil Mahan had
worked on the drains for years. One thing on the history of it, when Cecil thought about
selling the property, we were neighbors of his at the time; and I came down with John Dozier
who was a real estate broker representing him and we made a presentation that he be allowed
to maintain the grandfathered approvals which he has on his property. That should be
something that can be confirmed.
• He echoed the comments about the removal of the dilapidated structures and the cleanup of the
barn; and May Koski's comments about the plans to minimally fence around the occupied
areas of the homes and leave the rest of the property in its native state which would respect the
animals currently there.
• He said he appreciated the details Mr. Bigler put together; it is a good plan, and has the
potential of being an excellent development down the road.
Chris Henry, Regnant Road:
• I agree with staff that we have the septic system that the Bigler's are considering; we have had
no problems with it; it is not loud, we have actually had a pump failure and have been able to
fix that and it has worked out well. I don't see a problem with the proposal before you.
• He said he had concerns about the southern driveway; because he cannot see a view from the
side, the aerial view shows it is a flat road, and he cannot see what the retaining walls look like
or if there are lights on the driveway that will shine down on his property. What does it look
like from a retaining wall standpoint and are there any lights associated with that, that I would
be concerned about as it shines down on me. I would also request that there is some action
taken to clean up the existing homes because they are a wreck and an issue. I would confirm
what staff said in an email and that is that with the construction and essentially would mean
removing the trailer, because the trailer would no longer have a reason to be there. I would
like to know that it is going to be removed as well.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
• Said she was pleased that Cupertino took pride in the care and protection of the Oak trees in
the city. Rancho Rinconada has not been part of the city for long, but she was pleased that
everyone on staff, the Commission and Council and residents of Cupertino really have a
passion for their trees and do everything possible to ensure that replacement trees are planted
when others are removed. Mr. Bigler has been sensitive to the tree issue and has worked very
hard to make the project a lovely addition to the Regnart area.
Vice Chair Brophy closed the public hearing.
Staff confirmed that Eucalyptus trees are not native trees and do not have to go through city
Cupertino Planning Commission 6 October 27, 2009
permits for removal.
The question Mr. Young asked; is there an exception to the lot size in this project. Staff said there
was no exception. The semi-rural slope density formula which is a General Plan designation on
this property was put there in 1994/95 by the City Council, establishing a density that was identical
to what the adjacent property owners received when they subdivide their lots; that slope density
formula allows for a lot size at the very minimum 1.5 acres at the shallowest slopes, and at the
steepest slopes a 5 acre minimum and the average slope would have to be 45% or greater to hit that
5 acre minimum. He pointed out that the Regnart Canyon properties if you took a look at all the
lots excluding the Bigler property, the average lot size is 3 acres.
Residents of the area indicated they were responsible for taking the trash and recycling totes down
to the area in the circle where the trucks came by and picked them up.
Glenn Goepfert, Public Works:
• Said the issue of the trash bins pickup would be reviewed by Public Works at the time of the
final map, especially since it has been brought up. Locating an area that would work for this
would be something that the project engineer would look at and the refuse collection company
would say whether or not it would work for them.
Morey Nelson:
• Said that a turnout similar to what was designed for the emergency vehicles, a local widening
of the road could be done where the bins for trash and recycling could be put, and an area for
the mailboxes so that residents could stop and pick up their mail.
Glenn Goepfert;
• Said that the neighbors could follow up with Public Works on the issue of emergency exit
access. It is a difficult situation, with only one way in and out.
Com. Miller:
• Relative to the drainage issue, looking at some other subdivisions in town, there was no overall
plan to address the total flow as the individual lots were sold off and the houses were built.
Does Public Works have a position for this one at least, designing a drainage system that
upfront accounts for all the capacity that will be needed for the individual lots. How is that
normally handled?
Glenn Goepfert:
• As the project engineer mentioned, the first responsibility of a development is to take care of
the additional runoff, and by the preliminary system they have shown, the concept is to use
some retention. He said he was uncertain what the design storm was, but it is supposed to
address the additional volume. The drainage system once designed, should be made a
condition of the subdivision and not the successor owners, so that the improvements would be
coordinated. It appears that the neighbors and probably the applicant are concerned about the
changes that are going to happen, but taking care of what exists there as well. The preliminary
plan shows some capture elements for the roadways that are there and it also calls for an
additional cross in a culvert under the road. They also mentioned they need to put some
energy dissipation at that end because this is a country road that was built above a creek and
you need to try to cut down on the erosion. We do need to talk to them about capture and
perhaps upsizing of the culverts at least to try to take some of what is already there. It is a
difficult proposition because as they mentioned they are not responsible for all the drainage.
However, I think in this case what they are really looking at is capturing some of what is
Cupertino Planning Commission 7 October 27, 2009
already there and we can talk to them about what the size of the new culvert and what their
capture devices on the storm drains system are, and hopefully they would be amenable to that
because it is somewhat their problem as well.
• Said it was handled at final map as opposed to tentative map. He said he was cognizant of the
desire to have these be conditions of the subdivision, perhaps overall site improvements; not
something left to successor owners as they develop.
May Koski:
• She said there is a lot of runoff from the north driveway as mentioned earlier by staff. The
north driveway is entirely the Bigler property; it is 13-1/2 out of 14-1/2 acres, which is most of
the runoff. There is already a problem; this is the first time tonight I heard about additional
culvert going under the road, which would have to exit onto my property and I don't have any
retaining walls there, I have one old culvert; I have one culvert that cost me $70K to build; and
I don't want to be surprised suddenly by another culvert dumping water onto my property
where I think it is going to go. There is no retaining wall, nothing but a bank; it is natural
land.
• She said she was annoyed and people should be talking to her.
Morey Nelson:
• He apologized that Ms. Koski was left out of the loop and said she would be contacted.
Vice Chair Brophy:
• Said he was concerned about Ms. Koski's question; and asked if the addition of the second
culvert under the street would put a burden on her property.
Morey Nelson:
• Said they typically provide erosion control on both sides of the creek bank; somewhat upstreet
from that, primarily down stream to dissipate the energy of the culvert that would come out.
There is an outfall structure and there would be erosion projection on her side of the bank as
well as on the street side of the bank.
May Koski:
• Said she was aware of the retention chambers; it is a good idea and it may mitigate any
increase in water, but Mr. Young told them at the last meeting that the implementation of
drainage was left at this time up to the individual property owners who buy the lots and
develop the property. There was discussion at the last meeting about doing some of it up front,
but no final decision was made. She pointed out that Regnart Road was a very narrow road
and what happens in her general area is that the water runs down and enters the creek; there
are not any big storm drains that run under the road and down through the city until you get to
the bottom of Regnart Canyon. People's property runoff eventually goes into Regnart Creek;
how much is entering at anyone point along the creek is very important as far as maintaining
the bank structure. She has only aone-acre lot and her house is right above the bank; she does
not want any more erosion of the bank.
Glenn Goepfert:
• Said that the applicant and project engineer need to talk with the neighbors, especially May
Koski, in order to ascertain what might be acceptable in case they have to take the erosion
control or culvert near her or what sort of improvements might be needed. He said he heard it
was discussed that the improvements be done by successor owners; he recommended in this
case that at least these improvements be made part of the subdivision improvements, the site
improvements in general, so that it is taken care of in a coordinated fashion.
Cupertino Planning Commission 8 October 27, 2009
Mr. Bigler:
• Responded to questions about the disposition of the abandoned buildings on the property. He
said he intended on cleaning them out, but the disposition of each structure has a different
circumstance surrounding it. At this time he is not sure which ones will be restored for rental
and which ones will be torn down; but ultimately they all will have to be torn down as part of
each lot's development. He said he would like to keep the barn and noted that the neighbors
did not seem opposed to keeping it if he cleaned it up. He commented that it was very costly
to maintain a property as large as his, especially with the new requirements that property
owners are subjected to, and tree protection and removal. He said he would like to preserve
the option of renting out the buildings; and noted that when the buildings are occupied there
are not as many problems with the properties.
Aarti Shrivastava:
Noted that the building official routinely works with people in similar situations to ascertain
what is needed to make a structure habitable; it has to be made habitable or taken down. She
said they would work with Mr. Bigler on any plans he has.
She reiterated that the City does not allow uninhabitable structures; staff will work with the
applicant through the Planning Commission. Staff had recommended removal because they
considered those uninhabitable; but if he does want to rehabilitate them, staff will work with
him through the Building Department to make sure those are habitable. They have to be done
quickly; they cannot remain there for three years.
Colin Jung:
• The current condition in the model resolution calls for the removal of all of the dilapidated
structures at the time of the final map approval.
• The applicant's engineer could explain how long it takes to complete a final map for this
property. The tentative map is good for 36 months.
• Said that the trailer is considered a vehicle, not a dwelling. When Mr. Bigler pulled the trailer
up the hill, there were people living on the property and every resident is entitled to have a
parked vehicle on their property, which includes trailers. The circumstances have changed; it
is considered a vacant lot now, because no one is living there and the trailer is prohibited from
being there, and can be grouped with the other structures there. That is something that could be
a code enforcement action as well.
Mr. Bigler:
• Said he communicated with the neighbors indicating he was opposed to chain link fencing. He
said if he had a vegetable garden or something similar, he would likely fence it in to keep the
deer from eating it. He said he shared the overall feeling in the canyon that the fencing
regulations were too liberal. He said he would not invite special regulations on his property
specifically, but encouraged the Planning Commission to look at tightening up the fencing
regulations.
Colin Jung summarized the phasing of the development:
• If approved tonight, the engineer provides staff with the detailed drawings of the alternative
alignment of the driveway as well as the staging area for trash enclosures, etc. The drawings
are then circulated among the affected agencies, and a decision is made whether or not to go
with that particular design.
• At that point, Mr. Nelson will prepare a final map for the subdivision itself which is approved
by the City Council; along with that final map he has to provide improvement plans; all the
details, specifications on the road width, the retaining walls, all the drainage.
Cupertino Planning Commission 9 October 27, 2009
My assumption is that all the drainage had to be addressed at the improvement stage of the
final map, so that all that has to be figured out, whether it is going to be retained on site,
whether it is going to use existing culverts that go into Regnart Creek, and if it is not, I am
assuming that they are going to have to get permission from the Kolski's who own the
property across the street, especially if they own that section of the creek, to get their
permission to drain it that way, put a separate culvert that way, and if they can't they are going
to have to figure out something else.
In addition to those specific street improvements and drainage improvements, there is an
existing condition in the resolution that they remove all the existing structures on the property.
That would also include the trailer, because it was legal then, but not now; or if that gets
stymied for some reason, i.e., that the final map is not done for two or three years, a code
enforcement can be on the trailer itself.
Depending on what Mr. Bigler decides to do with the other structures, we can wait for those
rehabilitation of the structures. I have been to the structures today and they need a lot of work,
the building officials are probably going to require them to be boarded up, windows and doors,
so they don't become an attractive nuisance and if people continue to go up there and tear
down boards and do things in the house, then they will have to go through an abatement
process which takes 6 to 9 months, through the courts and they could be removed at that point;
in lieu of it all happening voluntarily through a final map process.
Colin Jung:
• Explained that if they decide for financial reasons not to move forward immediately, things
remain status quo indefmitely, pending any code enforcement against the structures. He said
that drainage and demolition will be part of the final map approval.
Com. Kaneda:
• The requirement for site drainage is for the applicant to only mitigate the additional runoff that
they create by putting in hardscape and buildings so the retention that is shown on some of
these drawings actually isn't improving anything; it is just to prevent it from getting worse.
Colin Jung:
• His obligation is to address 100% of the new flow, but my expectation would be that he would
address at least the existing flow that is coming off the northern driveway.
Gary Chao:
• The project civil engineer has already confirmed that they will be looking at additional
improvements as well relating to what Colin is saying.
Com. Kaneda:
• Is it reasonable to condition something like that; it seems like that because of the steepness of
the site, the creek as just a creek being the drainage, on some fairly severe erosion issues
because of the runoff, are just naturally there. Whether or not there is a driveway there or
anything else, you get a lot of rain, a lot of runoff, eventually the soil saturates and the creeks
fill and you have erosion. Even to do nothing there is going to be erosion problems in that
creek. Is there much from a mitigation standpoint that can be done that is not horribly onerous
that you are aware of and maybe this is a question for you.
Glenn Goepfert:
• Said that not only is there the additional runoff that would go into retention, theoretically you
would handle it and not increase the volume; but it has been suggested that there is an existing
problem during certain storms that is originating to a large part from the property, and as the
Cupertino Planning Commission 10 October 27, 2009
city planner said, an existing condition that is due to the lot, would be addressed, not as part of
the responsibility to mitigate the new flow, but just to take care of an existing problem.
• The thing we have to be careful about, we may very well capture with any device on the storm
drain its improvements, runoff is coming from another area or from the road itself, strictly
speaking it is not the applicant's responsibility to take care of that, but that is something we
need to take a look at. I guess I would want to say that we will be looking to try to take care of
as much of the existing problem that stems from their property as possible and not just look at
what is being added. Hopefully that is clear; and I answered Com. Lee's question as well. The
plans now, the preliminary plan shows that it is going into the existing system. Whether that is
what we will finally end up with, we will see; it sounds as though there is a plan for an
additional culvert and yet there is something to be worked out with the neighbors. I think we
have got the basis of a solution, but there is more work to be done.
Gary Chao:
• Said that the cost of removing Eucalyptus trees is usually a civil issue; the decision being
between the neighbors as to how much each would share in the cost.
Com. Lee:
• Staff did a really good job on all the issues presenting them again, the storm drainage and
runoff, the plans are here, it shows culverts along both driveways, and they go to storm drains
and two retention chambers; I am confident that it is going to be taken care of at the final map
approval stage.
• Construction management plan is going to be specified on construction phasing, the timing,
construction parking, make sure that any of the noise, dust is taken care of and that an
emergency phone contact is available for residents with concerns; noticing was 1,000 foot
radius instead of the required 300 feet; refuse truck access, trees, it is great to save a few more
trees if we can redirect it with a new retaining wall.
• I have looked at all the trees, just go by the city arborist; fencing, I used to live on a hill and
didn't fence it off, so they don't have to fence it if they don't want to; different animals in your
yard. I don't think we should talk about limiting fencing; this is not the application to do it; the
ordinance change is something different; it is not part of this process. Demolition of existing
structures, at the final map it has to be shown that the plans and bonds are shown to demolish
it; so that includes the trailer, and also staff says it is code enforcement.
• Geotechnical report and studies, we didn't cover too much but it is going to be recorded in a
covenant so make sure future owners know that there has already been two geotechnical
studies but there have to be even more done, so if parcels get sold, future owners know to do
more geotechnical studies to make sure that landslides are looked at and that will be compliant
with the recommendations from the previous geotechnical studies.
• Said she would recommend approving the tentative map and tree removal access and putting
condition make sure if the city departments look at the new map if it is okay then approve the
new one; and if not, then it is okay to approve the other one.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he agreed with Com. Lee to recommend approval with the new map if it is approved by
the city departments, and with the old map, otherwise. The issue with the abandoned homes is
a code enforcement issue that can be taken care of separately. Said he understood what the
neighbors were saying about fencing; it is a city ordinance issue and if there is a problem, it
should be taken up by the city in general not something specific to this set of lots. He said he
hoped that the city would work with the applicant so that it sounds like the biggest issue with
this development is related to storm water drainage during the rainy season.
Cupertino Planning Commission 11 October 27, 2009
• He said he was hopeful and expecting that as a detailed design evolves that the applicant will
be able to come up with something that actually not only takes care of the minimum code
required retention basins to catch the additional runoff created by developing the properties,
but can do something to help mitigate the existing conditions. The erosion becomes less of a
problem than it currently is; there doesn't appear to be a big concern with the septic system
and it was discussed in the last hearing but it sounds like it is a fairly standard system and there
are no real issues there.
• Said he supported approval of the application.
Com. Miller:
• Said they all agreed that the drainage solution should be part of the site improvements as
opposed to being dealt with separately by the individual lot owners. The applicant had
requested with regard to the realignment that they had the option of considering to do it or not
do it based on the cost and I think that is reasonable because if it has to get into considerable
retaining wall construction, it could run into a very large amount of money and it is probably
fair to insist on that since they are willing to approve the other alternative. I would honor his
request to allow him to make that decision based on cost, since he was the one who brought it
up initially. We talked about having a turnout area for the garbage, recycling, mailboxes, etc.
and that should be included in our conditions. Removal of the existing structures I think that
staff has indicated that they would work with him on that in terms of perhaps cleaning them up
immediately but giving him some leeway in terms of the timing of rehabilitation. I think that
addresses the major concerns.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said that the garbage pickup would be added as a condition to be solved at the final map stage.
Vice Chair Brophy:
• I agree with all these points at the final map stage and I think we do need a detailed drainage
design for the entire property and some explanation of how we fair if the lots are going to be
sold off as to how they will be taken care of whether it is by Mr. Bigler for all parcels or how
the work will be apportioned.
• I agree with Com. Miller on the point of the road plan, what we are talking about potentially is
if the second plan goes in, it means a fairly expensive retaining wall construction for the
purpose of saving 4 of the 161 trees; there is already a clause that requires replanting of a
dozen trees. He said he felt they should cut the applicant some slack on that issue because it
would be preferable to have him focus on the needed drainage improvements for his work and
hopefully improve the existing condition.
• I agree that the fencing issues really need to be decided on in an ordinance level and not on an
individual parcel level; I agree with the comments about the structures that we need to use
code enforcement to get a short term fix at the very least and I would hope that Mr. Bigley
would consider regardless, I understand how it is hard to move forward sometimes on the final
map, but I am concerned that the potential danger of those structures in terms of security to
yourself and the surrounding owners. I think we should add a clause that is part of the final
map approval that there be a design for the turnout for the garbage, mailbox, so that we don't
lose that in the process.
Motion: Motion by Com. Lee, second by Com. Miller, and unanimously carried 4-0,
Chair Giefer absent, to approve Application TM-2009-02, TR-2009-16
(EA-2009-09), with the added condition that the optional map, revised map
goes to all the city agencies for review prior to the final map approval; and
the second condition that there be a staging area for mailboz and refuse and
Cupertino Planning Commission 12
October 27, 2009
recycling bins as part of the final map approval; and applicant can use either
map after deciding if one of them is more cost prohibitive than the other;
and the drainage system is to be approved at the final map approval.
Amendment to motion: Amend Condition No. 5 that final map improvement plans shall
include plans and bonds for demolition/removal of dilapidated
houses or accessory buildings on property, or to work with the
Community Development Director's satisfaction in working out a
schedule to be adhered to the law regarding rehabilitation of
dilapidated structures and removal of the trailers since the
property is not being inhabited. Amendment accepted by Com.
Lee
Vice Chair Brophy declared a short recess.
3. TM-2009-03 Tentative Map to subdivide an approximately 42,925 sq,
Brian Kelly (Kelly Gordon ft. parcel into three parcels ranging from 12,049 to 14,470
Development Corporation) sq, ft. Planning Commission decision final unless
10231 Amelia Court appealed.
Aki Honda Snelling, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
• Noted for the record receipt of material from neighbor Steven Hoffman, Varian Way.
• Reviewed the application for tentative map to subdivide a 42,925 square foot parcel into three
parcels on Ainsworth Drive, for single family homes, as outlined in the staff report.
• She reviewed the subdivision design, involving the creation of three single-family lots, ranging
from 12,049 to 14,470 square feet, with two homes accessing Amelia Court and one home
accessing Ainsworth Drive. There are 42 trees on the site and surrounding the site; three of
which are protected Coast Live Oak trees. The three protected trees will be relocated on site.
The staff report summarized the non-protected trees that will remain and those that may
require removal due to the condition of the trees or their location in proximity to the location
of the proposed homes.
• The Cupertino Sanitary District indicated that sanitary sewer can be provided to the site, and
also the District is considering a Quit Claim to the existing 20 foot easement on the east side of
the project.
• Staff has reviewed the project from an environmental standpoint and it does complies with
CEQA as a categorically exempt project that is consistent with the General Plan; no variances
are needed and the average slope is less than 20%.
• Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the tentative parcel map in
accordance with the model resolution. Planning Commission decision is final unless appealed
to the City Council.
Staff answered questions regarding the proposed homes,
Brian Kelly, Kelly Gordon Development Corp., Applicant:
• Reviewed the proposed subdivision of the three homes and noted his willingness to address
design review issues during the process. He said that some neighbors had concerns regarding
privacy, screening, the cul de sac and the potential additional traffic that will be generated by
the new homes.
Vice Chair Brophy opened the public hearing.
Cupertino Planning Commission 13 October 27, 2009
Steve Hoffman, Varian Way:
• Said he has lived on the corner by the park and has taken pride in his property, screened off
his side of the property to provide a buffer from the people using the park; the city has put in a
grove of trees; I get a lot of enjoyment out of it, for the past twenty years my neighbors and I
have enjoyed the open space and have been privileged.
• We understand progress is here and we are going to lose that; we are fortunate to have Mr.
Kelly as a builder, we have seen his property across the park, he is sensitive to the
environment and has built a nice product. Having said that I make it clear that I do not oppose
the development, but the layout of the parcels. The reason the application for a map is in front
of us today is to divide up the parcel the way the lines are drawn on the tentative map. Having
said that the concept buildings are there and we almost have to approve those concepts in order
to approve the lines. My neighbors and I feel that the lines should be drawn elsewhere; that
the backyards of each one of the properties should back up to our backyards the way it is
normally done in a project. I am impacted most by this proposal, because on Lot 2 that garage
backs right up to the back of my house, it has a 10 foot setback, but you can see by the photos;
my whole view is going to be wiped out.
• We heard Mr. Kelly talk about the screening, and we saw how nice that screening looked; the
reality is that most of the screening is the birch trees; a triple trunk birch tree on my property
and another separate one and they are deciduous and lose all their leaves in the winter. There is
also an apple tree and almond tree which are not in good condition and they are deciduous.
• The whole length of my yard is vacant in the winter time; I will be looking straight at a garage.
I am told by Mr. Kelly his original plan had the lots line up 1,2,3 and the backyards were
facing our backyards. But staff wanted him to have garages so they were not visible from the
street; so they pushed on Lot 2, the garage toward the back of my yard; It doesn't make sense
because you have Amelia Court which is a private street extended with a cul de sac and
beyond that a driveway that goes all the way down the road, turns the corner and goes into the
garage. Most developments would have a cul de sac and a driveway right off the cul de sac,
why not just have the flag lot, which would be a lot less intrusive and lot less impact on the
whole site. The way these lots were laid out we are getting a lot more concrete, more
driveways, a lot more extension on Amelia Court and for what.
• The other main issue is the Amelia Court extension; I already get a lot of headlights into my
back yard; I am the one who calls 911 when there are problems in the park which are
numerous in the summer; that is going to create more problems in Varian Park. I don't see a
purpose for the extension of the cul de sac. My other points are all listed in the material
distributed.
Shankar Ayyar, block next to Mr. Hoffman:
• Said he agreed with Mr. Hoffman's points; he met Mr. Kelly yesterday and had an opportunity
to understand the subdivision of the existing parcel and to hear from staff today as well. He
said he was not opposed to the development, but was opposed to the way it is subdivided. Staff
stated they had subdivided the lots so that the lots would face the street, and the street that is
being proposed is the extension of Amelia Court.
• Although Amelia Court is a private road, it does see some traffic. Parents sometimes come on
the backside of the park through existing Amelia Court and drop their kids off so they can go
through the park and go on to school. If Amelia Court is extended, especially all the way to
the park, there will be even more traffic and exacerbation of that problem. A better solution
would be to keep the existing driveway on the south side of the property and use that as
access for three lots that are subdivided in what one would imagine would be a standard
subdivision where the three lots are essentially parallel to the lots existing on Varian Way.
That way we can mitigate some of the problems that Mr. Hoffman talks about, especially
with Lot 2 where the existing proposal is to build a structure whose side essentially is 10
Cupertino Planning Commission 14 October 27, 2009
feet away from his property and comes a little bit into my property as well.
He requested that the subdivision of the lots be looked again; it would be a simpler proposal
and doable according to Mr. Kelly.
Ken Ong, Varian Way:
• Said he voiced the same opinion as his other neighbors, it is nicer to have backyards back up to
other back yards instead of a side of a house backing up to the back yard.
• Said he would like to see a footprint for Lot 3, which may affect his opinion on how the lots
are divided.
• He said he felt that the way the parcel was subdivided was based on guidance from the staff
and it might be useful to understand the pros and cons of having these kinds of cul de sacs for
turnarounds; the pros of that vs. the cons of ending up with a subdivision with houses close to
other people's property lines.
M. Danek, Amelia Court:
• Said he was disappointed they were not contacted because they own the part of Amelia Court
and feel they should have input. Although he welcomed the development, it is a good thing
for the neighborhood in general, he disagrees on the subdivision. He said he felt the decision
was made in isolation, and no one looked at the overall impact of the area.
• Toward the end of Court there is a sidewalk to Stevens Creek School; there are a lot of
children going to that school every day, and walking on Amelia Court. If Amelia Court is
extended, it will increase the traffic on the street and will present a safety concern as there is
no sidewalk.
• He said he was also concerned about the construction impact; the additional heavy trafl=lc and
the children in the area, it will present another safety concern. Amelia Court is not designed
for heavy traffic.
• He said he welcomed the development proposal, but felt the subdivision of the lots should be
reconsidered.
Morey Nelson, Project Civil Engineer:
• Said he was present to answer any technical questions about the project.
Said they considered north/south orientation. They looked at a number of configurations; the
ultimate plan shown was based upon negotiations with the Planning staff. They had some
concerns about the visibility of the garages as you approach the project, heading northbound
from Amelia Court.
Vice Chair Brophy closed the public hearing.
Gary Chao, City Planner, presented the background on orientation:
• As it relates to the current design being presented, the primary objective was not minimizing
garage visibility; that is an ancillary benefit. When you put in a cul de sac, you can do various
things with the garage presentation which would lead to a better interface to the rest of the
neighborhood, primarily south of the project. The reason for the cul de sac design is that we
are opposed to flag lots in the city; the flag lots do not create appropriate interface and they are
not desirable in terms of creating neighborhoods. With that in mind, the natural inclination is
to present a subdivision proposal with a nice book end to this Amelia Court where currently it
just abruptly stops. We do not believe by installing a cul de sac it would significantly increase
the traffic. The subdivision in itself will add a little more volume to the streets by virtue of
creating two more lots, but it is a private road. We have spoken to Public Works about optional
conditions that you may impose as part of this project to place signage at the entrance of the
Cupertino Planning Commission 15 October 27, 2009
cul de sac by painting the curbs red. The way it is detailed out presently, there is no room for
additional parking along the cul de sac, so that could be easily accommodated.
• Relative to the interface issue, if you look at the subdivision from where it is being primarily
entered into from Crescent along Amelia Court, you immediately will realize a pattern of lots
as it orients horizontally as opposed to north and south. It would be odd to have a house
facing someone's side yard or driveway, so being considered we took the primary concern to
address the interface issue and lot pattern issue as it fronts onto the relevant neighborhood
south of the property. There are obvious considerations that were given to adequate interface
with the property north of the project. Looking at the site plan, typically ground floor side yard
setbacks are required to have 10 feet on one side and 5 feet on the other, We have asked the
developer to make sure that the 10 feet is on the northerly side of the property to allow
additional separation. I believe a resident brought up the concern of having a garage as
interface to his rear yard. Typically, one would imagine if you have a garage, usually it is not
a privacy consideration because no one will live in a garage and it is a single story element.
We can work with the property owner and developer to make sure that the second story if it is
going to be a two story house, that it be centrally located on the lot; if anything, be pushed
back away from the northerly property line. Also, the R1 ordinance requires second floor
setback to be 15 feet on one side and 10 feet on the other side. We would be happy to see a
condition that relates to the second floor setback as it relates to the northerly property line that
you would ask for the larger second floor relief of the setback along the north property line.
The other options if the Commission is concerned with interface, is you can entertain a
condition that would require the rear yard or typical of a rear yard setback be imposed along
the northerly property line. Alternatively what you can also condition is that the rear yard
reduction will be applied to the northerly property line too. As you are familiar with the rear
yard rule, all R1 lots are allowed to reduce their rear yard setback to no less than 10 feet. That
is something that is in the existing ordinance, many people have used that in the past; of late
the only condition is that it not be the entire structure of the frontage, approximately 50%
frontage be set back further and half of it be set back at 10 feet. You can consider, in light of
the concern on the interface, privacy consideration, setback, building interface, you have
options to work out a better setback arrangement along the northerly property line.
• Staff would be extremely concerned if the subdivision is designed to be more of a vertical
alignment; in fact we would not support the project if that was the case.
Gary Chao explained his concern about the north/south alignment:
• With the north/south alignment, it is not going to reduce some of the concerns that the
neighbors have addressed this evening as it relates to traffic. It is the same number of lots; it
would still be pulling in additional volume traffic associated with the two lots. It is not a good
interface, it is matching a lot pattern that really is not fronting the immediate neighborhood but
the pattern north to south is more of the lots to the north of the project which the project's Lot
1 and 2 are not being accessed off. Only along Ainsworth is where the lot 3 is going to be
accessed, so that is going to be an enhancement and that is going to have a nicer presentation
along Ainsworth, but along Amelia Court you have to be forced to do some sort of flag lot
arrangement, which one house would be behind the other and possibly with a huge garage in
the middle of the driveway or along the driveway where that is all you are going to see. Staff
feels that based on past practice and decisions by various decision bodies of the city, that is not
the desirable arrangement in this case.
Com. Miller:
• If it was north/south, is there not enough frontage to do two.
Cupertino Planning Commission 16 October 27, 2009
Gary Chao:
• There is going to be a pinch point where both lots would have to be accessed off Amelia
Court, and there is no way to do it unless you create the narrow corridors at least for the lot in
the back to access.
Com. Miller:
• Said he was not sure why there is an objection to the garage on the side, since no one lives in
the garage and it is more private; however, you could move the garage to the other side of the
house just as easily.
Gary Chao:
• The neighbor at the corner of Ainsworth and Varian Way had concerns on future placement of
the structure on Lot 3; based on the topography, the only feasible house location is where the
current house is located now, which is at the southwest corner of the lot if you look at the
area; the furthest away possibly from this property and possibly with a detached garage. The
house placement is precisely where the current house resides and possibly with some sort of
accessory if it is warranted at that location, so that the main mast and the elevations would be
furthest away from his property.
Com. Miller:
• If the frontages were 90 feet, another alternative is to move that side lot even more to make it
15 feet.
Mr. Kelly:
• Said they could live with an additional 5 feet; a 20 foot setback on that side; that is really
carving fairly drastically into that lot and Mr. Hoffman indicated that even if we were to move
it an additional 5 feet, he is still going to be looking at the side of a building and we have no
objection to an additional 5 feet if that is the pleasure of the Commission. We will do
everything we can in design review for screening, etc.
• He clazified that at no time did they submit a site plan for 4 lots; it has always been a 3 lot
subdivision.
Com. Miller:
• Said they could also adjust the two lots so that the 5 feet is shared; giving up 5 feet that you
might have been building on.
Mr. Kelly:
• There is a certain amount of flexibility there; the one problem on the side where the existing
driveway goes up, the grade change is somewhat drastic so we are dealing with that as a
physical impairment as well. We can live with 15 feet on the north side.
• The driveway is going to go away, and we are going to grade it, but you still have to push a
house over for your setbacks. We can work that out.
Gary Chao:
• Clarified from a design perspective, typically if you look at a new house, the rear yard usually
is the most massive elevation; that is where the least amount of articulation happens; typically
the articulation happens on the side and on the front; so to that extent I keep giving you some
perspective that it is not necessarily visually pleasing; it wouldn't necessarily be an
enhancement in my opinion if the reaz yazd facing elevation was facing the neighbor to the
north. In addition, as it currently is proposed, the reaz yard is facing west on those two lots;
there are provisions in the ordinance to allow for reaz yard reductions down to 10 feet, so if the
Cupertino Planning Commission 17 October 27, 2009
Commission fmds merit in increasing the side yard along the northerly property line, the
expansion or the development plan can also infringe a little bit of that the rear yard to the west,
so it can be reduced to 10. That is commonly done as well. There is a lot of flexibility
Com. Miller:
• It was mentioned before you can apply the rear yard formula to the side yard and if you did
that it looks like it is only the garage that is at the 10 foot line; the rest of the building is at
least 15 feet away.
Mr. Hoffman:
• Commented on the Amelia Court extension. There is a gate, an entrance into Varian Park that
is at the end of that abrupt stop on Amelia; people drop their children off and drive away. He
said it would detract from the project to have those cars continue onto a private road; it will
also detrimentally impact Varian Park. Relative to the placement of the garage, he said that
even though there is no structure on there, that denigrates from the view you get from the park;
hiding the garage is really detracting. It seems that you could have more trees and whatnot if
you had the garage up front. It would be a shorter distance to the garage from Amelia Court
where you stopped it and you just have trees there so that there is a hedge buffer zone to the
park.
Com. Miller:
• I understand your concern about; but how they develop their lot is one thing and your concern
is you are going to have a view of the side of the garage; is that the primary concern?
Mr. Hoffman:
• Said that the glare from the car headlights from cars coming down Amelia Court beam into his
family room all night long. He said he understood from the developer that the reason why the
garage was put in the back right next to the fence was because that was what the city wanted,
and staff was recommending.
• Moving the garage to the other side of the house, would give more room for the developer to
play with in terms of where the house gets oriented, which would provide more setback. He
said he would like backyard to backyard, or 20 feet back yard at a minimum.
Com. Miller:
• The ordinance only requires it be set back 10 feet. What I notice, is only the length of the
garage that is at the 10 foot line; that could be his back yard and it would still fit the formula
for a back yard; someone's back yard could still back up 10 feet to your back yard. It can be as
little as 10 feet as long as the overall average, there is a formula for it, so the overall average is
20 feet, even though one portion of it could be just 10 feet. The proposed solution is the least
impact to the Hoffman property.
• Said it appeared to be the optimal solution; they are minimizing traffic by putting one house
off Ainsworth and two houses down on the bottom; we have talked over whether or not you
could orient them north and south, and staff s comment was that there wouldn't be sufficient
frontage to do that. I think this looks like an acceptable subdivision to me; the only thing we
could ask for is allowing a little larger setback on the neighbor's side of 15 feet to give a little
more clearance to his property. Even as it is now, if this was the plan put into effect, I don't
see where most of the house is 20 feet or more away from his property line to begin with.
• Said that he supported the subdivision; and asked for input on the setbacks.
Cupertino Planning Commission 18 October 27, 2009
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he agreed with Com. Miller; I could see that privacy planting will be a key thing, but it is
already required anyway when we are doing these types of projects. I don't know that we need
to condition anything because the Planning Department is going to require it. The only
modification I could see making since the developer is amenable to it, is to increase the
setback on the north side an additional 5 feet.
Com. Lee:
• Staff said that one of the conditions that could be done is have more of a second floor side
setback or just increase the side yard setback. It appears that Mr. Hoffinan is more concerned
with the garage, not the second floor.
• Said that she supported the tentative map as proposed. It is a unique situation, because if it is
vertical towards Ainsworth side or Varian Way, then it is going to be horizontal and strange
looking from Amelia Court. It is going to be 90 degrees if you change it, it will be strange on
one side. I think it is better to be more in line with Amelia Court as proposed by staff.
Vice Chair Brophy:
• Said he concurred with the Commissioners; only issue is there a preference to raise the setback
on the north side of the parcel from 10 to 15 feet.
Com. Miller:
• Said another alternative might be to give the applicant a choice of either 15 feet there or
meeting the rear yard setback formula which would mean that you could have a small portion
as close as 10 feet, but that the overall average had to be 20 as written in the ordinance.
Gary Chao:
• Said staff would ~ like the Planning Commission to consider the second floor as well as
discussing the ground floor because depending on your final decision on what you like to call
that, whether side yard or rear yard, the rear yard setback for second floor is 25 feet; typically
for ground floor it is 20 feet, second floor is 5 feet more. As it currently exists, that northerly
boundary is considered a side yard, ground floor is minimum 10, second floor minimum we
would like it to be 15, but if you are going to bump it out, you might consider second floor to
be also appropriately and proportionally added,
Vice Chair Brophy:
• There is consensus that a 15 foot setback on the north side is acceptable.
Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Kaneda, and unanimously carried
(4-0, Chair Giefer absent) to approve Application TM-2009-03 per the model
resolution, with the addition that the side yard setback on Lot 2 on the north side
be a minimum of 15 feet; the overall side setbacks would be a total of 20 feet.
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed to City Council within 14 days.
4. Z-2009-03 (EA-2009-08) Rezone property from Single Family Residential (R1-7.5) to
City of Cupertino Parks & Recreation (PR) for a proposed neighborhood park.
Sterling & Barnhart Tentative City Council Date: November 17, 2009
Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
• Reviewed the application for city-initiated rezoning of property from Single Family
Cupertino Planning Commission 19 October 27, 2009
• Residential to Park and Recreation for a proposed neighborhood park as outlined in the staff
report.
• The neighborhood park is located in Rancho Rinconada on property previously serving as a
water pumping station for the City of San Jose until it was subdivided and sold to the City of
Cupertino in 2002. Preliminary park designs have been developed and the City Council will
make final design changes and award the bid for park construction; with the completion date
scheduled for mid-April 2010.
• The ERC has reviewed the project and has two concerns: (1) Potential for increased storm
water runoff and associated pollutants into Saratoga Creek from new impervious surfaces in
the park and landscapes areas; and (2) Noise impacts on adjacent residents from the use of the
basketball court. The projected noise level of 63dBA is below the City noise standards of 65
dBA. However, there is a concern that the noise level may have occasional noise spikes from
outdoor play similar to those at other parks. ERC recommended a negative declaration for the
project and noted that consideration be given to minimizing storm drainage toward Saratoga
Creek.
• Staff recommends the negative declaration on the rezoning and recommending approval of the
rezoning application.
Mark Linder, Director of Cupertino Parks and Recreation:
• Said that the Rancho Rinconada neighborhood is deficient in parks, the new park is .6 acre,
although some of the area of the park is unusable as a park.
• He reported that there was extensive community input on the design of the park and a
community sign-off.
Vice Chair Brophy opened the public hearing.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
• Said she appreciated the amount of work Mark Linder had done on the project. She also
thanked staff and the City of Cupertino; and recognized Pat Bustamonte's efforts in
spearheading the project which began in 1990. She said that the Rancho Rinconada
neighborhood has not had a park and the residents are excited and grateful to have a park.
Rancho Rinconada community has about 1,500 homes; 5,000 people of mixed ethnicity.
Motion: Motion by Com. second by Com. and unanimously carried 4-0, Chair Giefer
absent, to approve Application Z-2009-03 (EA-2009-08) per the model resolution.
OLD BUSINESS• None
NEW BUSINESS• None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Review Committee:. No meeting.
Housing Commission: No meeting.
Mayor's Monthly Meeting with Commissioners: No meeting.
Economic Development Committee: No meeting.
Cupertino Planning Commission 20 October 27, 2009
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
Aarti Shrivastava reported:
• City Council heard the sign ordinance and approved it with one minor change; reducing the
maximum area for non-residential real estate signs from 64 square feet to what is currently
existing in the ordinance at 32 square feet; and made one minor shift about changing language
but keeping the intent of it.
• She provided an update on the online permitting service; people can apply for roofing permits;
water heater permits; and as storage capacity increases and staff expertise increases, the
program will be expanded.
• The Economic Development Manager worked on a successful Mandarin business class; the
goal is to continue to include everybody in all outreach relative to training efforts.
• Cleo property: There has a change in management at the Habitat for Humanity; they are still
interested in the property.
Adiournment: The meeting was adjourned to the special Planning Commission meeting
scheduled for Thursday, November 5, 2009 at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted: /sBlizabeth Ellis
Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary