Packet.pdf
Ubcmf!pg!Dpoufout
Bhfoeb3
esbgu!njovuft!gps!503703122
esbgu!njovuft!5.37.31226
Bqqfbm!pg!b!Ejsfdups(t!bqqspwbm!gps!b!ofx!tjohmf!gbnjmz!sftjefodf
Tubgg!Sfqpsu28
2/!Esbgu!Sftpmvujpo31
3/!Sftjefoujbm!Eftjho!Sfwjfx!Bqqspwbm!mfuufs33
4/!Bqqfbm!gpsn35
5/!Dpmps!Qfstqfdujwf36
6/!Dpoujovbodf!sfrvftu37
7/!Bqqmjdbou(t!Sftqpotf38
8/!Qmbo!Tfu39
Sfqpsu!pg!uif!Ejsfdups!pg!Dpnnvojuz!Efwfmpqnfou
Ejsfdups(t!Sfqpsu45
2
AGENDA
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino Community Hall
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
ORDER OF BUSINESS
SALUTE TO THE FLAG: 6:45 p.m.
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1.Subject: draft minutes for 4/26/2011
Recommended Action: approval of minutes
Page:
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR
2.Subject: postponement of the appeal of the approval of the new single family residence
Recommended Action: None
Description: Application: R-2011-03
Applicant: Daryl Harris (Sengupta/Herrera residence)
Appellant: Mehrdad & Homa Mojgani
Locataion: 21150 Grenola Drive
Appellant has requested a postponement to the June 28, 2011 Planning Commission meeting. The
applicant is requesting that the item not be postponed.
Page:
3.Subject: postponement of the Use Permit, Architectural and Site, Exception and Tentative
Map applications for the four single family residences by Habitat for Humanity
Recommended Action: None
Description: Application: U-2011-05, ASA-2011-06, EXC-2011-06, TM-2011-01
Applicant: Chris Weaver for Habitat for Humanity
Location: Cleo Avenue
Staff has requested a postponement of this item to the June 14, 2011 Planning Commission
meeting
Page:
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
3
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Page -2
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Commission on any
matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases, State law
will prohibit the Commission from making any decisions with respect to a matter not on the
agenda.
CONSENT CALENDAR
PUBLIC HEARING
4.Subject: Appeal of a Director's approval for a new single family residence
Recommended Action: Deny appeal
Description: Application No.: R-2011-03
Applicant: Daryl Harris (Sengupta/Herrera residence)
Appealant: Mr. & Mrs. Mojgani
Location: 21150 Grenola Dr
Appeal of a Director's approval for a new 3,683 square foot, two-story single family
residence
Requested postponement to the June 28, 2011 Planning Commission meeting
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed
Page:
5.Subject: Use Permit to build four single family residences by Habitat for Humanity
Recommended Action: Approve the Use Permit, Architectural and Site, Exception and
Tentative Map applications
Description: Application: U-2011-05, ASA-2011-09, EXC-2011-06, TM-2011-01
Applicant: Chris Weaver for Habitat for Humanity
Location: Cleo Avenue
Use Permit for four, two-story single family dwellings on 0.30 acres;
Architectural and Site approval for four, two-story single family dwellings;
Parking Exception to allow a parking ration of 2 stalls pre dwelling, in lieu of the
required 2.8 stalls (garage and open) per dwelling, for a small lot family residential
project;
Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide 0.30 acres into four lots and a common area lot
for a single family residential development
Requested postponement to the June 14, 2011 meeting
Tentative City Council meeting: July 19, 2011
Page:
OLD BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
4
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Page -3
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Review Committee
Housing Commission
Mayor’s Monthly Meeting with Commissioners
Economic Development Committee Meeting
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
6.Subject: Report of the Director of Community Development
Recommended Action: Accept Director's Report
Page:
ADJOURNMENT
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 isto 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.
Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Planning Department after
distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Planning Department
located at 10300 Torre Avenue, during normal business hours.
For questions on any items in the agenda, or for documents related to any of the items on the
agenda, contact the Planning Department at (408) 777-3308 or planning@cupertino.org.
5
CITY OFCUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES
6:45P.M. April 26, 2011 TUESDAY
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
The regular Planning Commissionmeeting ofApril 26,2011was called to order at 6:45 p.m.inthe
Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, Ca.,by Chairperson Winnie Lee.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present:Chairperson: Winnie Lee
Vice Chairperson:Marty Miller
Commissioner:Paul Brophy
Commissioner: Clinton Brownley
Commissioners absent:Commissioner:Don Sun
Staff present:Community Development Director:Aarti Shrivastava
AssociatePlanner:Piu Ghosh
Public Works Director: Timm Borden
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the April 12,2011 Planning Commission meeting:
Motion: Motionby Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. Brophy,and unanimously carried
4-0-0(Com. Sun absent) to approve the April 12, 2011 Planning Commission
minutes as presented.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:None
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR:None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada Resident:
Expressed concern that there were no printed materials available for the agenda items,
particularly since the two agenda items were controversial items. She said there were no prior
notifications that no printed materials would be madeavailable, and asked that
accommodations be made for residents without computers or older slower printers.
ChairLee:
Explained that there were voluminous printed materials relative to the current meeting
application and that City Council was also not printing outpackets. The information packet for
this meeting has been online for more than a week; she encouraged the public to visit the
website for the packet.She noted that printed information was now available at the meeting.
6
Cupertino Planning Commission2April 26, 2011
CONSENT CALENDAR:None
PUBLIC HEARING:
1.U-2011-04, ASA-2011-05,Use Permit to allow a child care facility with a school
EXC-2011-05 (EA-2011-04)and an after-school learning program to operate at an
Karl Shultz, Lili Zhu and Louisoperate at an existing 8,999 sq. ft. commercialoffice
Tseng (Sunflower LearningCenter;building. The application also includes a new outdoor
18900 Stevens Creek Blvd.play area in the rear parkinglot; Architectural and Site
approval for minorfaçade, landscaping and parking
lot modificationsat an existing commercial office
building. Exception to the Heart ofthe City Specific
Plan to allow non-commercial uses (a child care
facility) to exceed 25% of the total building frontage
along Stevens Creek Blvd.Planning Commission
decision final unless appealed.
Piu Ghosh, Associate Planner, presented the staff report:
Reviewed the application for Use Permit, Architectural and Site Approval and Exception to the
Heart of the City Specific Plan relative to a child care facility with apre-school learning
program on Stevens Creek Boulevard, as outlined in the staff report.
She reviewed the proposed site plan, elevations, outdoor play area, additional site
improvements on the project site, landscaping, parking, traffic, and façade as detailed in the
attached staff report.
th
She reviewed the neighbors comments and concerns from the April 9neighborhood meeting
held by the applicant, including the mitigation at the Stevens Creek Boulevard/Stern Avenue
intersection; the traffic and onstreet parking concerns on Sterns Avenue; the lack of pedestrian
improvements along the property to the west of the subject property wherethey wanted to
maximize the pedestrian pathways inside the existing parking lot.
There was also concern about whether the cumulative noise impacts from the proposed
operations were studied in conjunction with the existing preschool on Brett Avenue that backs
onto the property; and the operator of the preschool contacted staff because they were
concerned about the economic impacts of the proximity of another preschool to her business.
Staff recommends approval of the application in accordance with the model resolutions with
the added condition about the Ash tree to the south of the driveway.
Timm Borden, Director of Public Works:
Said that the intersection of Stevens Creek and Stern is already at level F service; the
transportation consultant studied seven signalized intersections and one unsignalized
intersection which is Stevens Creek and Stern.He responded to a question why staff was
recommending blocking off the median rather than having a sign indicating No Left Turn
during the appropriate rush hours.The neighborhood learned that during thepeak hours it is
almost impossible tomake a left turn without a long wait at that intersection, some motorists
will learn how to deal with the shortcomings of the intersection and others will continue to use
it, hence the associated delay and change in level of service, resulting in traffic concerns.
This is one location in the city where left hand turns are accessing out into a six lane arterial
across traffic onto a six lane arterial; theother one staff is working to block that as well so
there arejust left turns into the minor street. There is a site distance issue with the residential
property to the west of this site also that brings upsafety concerns; it is level of service and
safety, so it is possible tosign this where that left turn would be prohibited during the p.m.
peak hour, but you would still have an overriding safetyconcern.
7
Cupertino Planning Commission3April 26, 2011
Timm Borden:
Said there was additional traffic involved that makes it more of a concern; at its Level of
Service F there is a safety issue and staff feels it is a good mitigation even without a project.
Staff answered questions regarding the application, including questions relating to the traffic issues
relative to the intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stern.
Louis Tseng, Applicant:
Said they worked hard to ensure minimal impact on the neighborhood, improve the
appearance, establish a long term business, and be a good neighbor. His goal was to be a part
of the educational infrastructure in the area and provide a benefit to the community. He said he
was comfortable with the traffic report and the proposed mitigations, including raising the
fence to a height of 8 feet. The facility will be open only during the week and not on weekends
and evenings. He discussed the varied dropoff and pickup times for children attending the day
care facility.
Chair Lee opened the public hearing.
Catherine Thaler, Stern Avenue, Cupertino:
Said that themeeting notificationletter did not mention the possible closure of Stern Avenue to
left turn traffic. Stern Avenue is only one of three westbound locations to get out of the
neighborhood; she expressed concern about the high volume of traffic using Stern Avenue.
The recommendation for the project is to cross Stevens Creek with a median to prevent getting
out of the neighborhood; for a 10 hour problem two hours, 5 days a week, they are proposing
168 hours solution; closing the neighborhood, changing thetraffic pattern, adding more
pollution to the neighborhood. She said she felt a better solutionwould be to restrict the left
hand turns from 4:30p.m.to 6:30p.m. daily, similar to Saratoga/Sunnyvale Road by Apple,
where you cannot make a rightturn on ared duringpeak traffictimes;it simply did a
prohibition to ease a traffic congestion issue.
She asked that the Commission consider postponement, changing the recommendation and
allowing the citizens to have input because it is a major change.
Lisa Warren, Judy Avenue:
Said she was not aware of the project or traffic concerns until Ms. Thaler brought them to her
attention; and she agreed with the assessment that making it impossible to turn left on Stevens
Creek 24/7 was not a viable solution for the neighborhood. She expressed concern about the
potential danger in the parking lot when cars create a backup; it would be helpful if the
playground could be positioned somewhere else in the parking lot; the likely reason the
playground isn’t further back to allow for a drive-through entrance and exit in two different
areas instead of one area, is that they don’t want it too close to the residential properties
behind.She recalled a recent tragedy of the death of a child in a daycare parking lot/driveway
and expressed concern about the safety factor.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
Said she felt the project was too large for the constrained area; several issues are going on with
the project, one of the foremost that is not talked about is an exception to the Heart of the City
to have what has been an active office space retail, etc. become a day care center. Cupertino is
now on the fast track to becoming known as the day care center of Silicon Valley, with many
day care centers. She said she couldn’t disagree that Cupertino needed quality day care
centers; but it is also important to keep good retail along Stevens Creek Boulevard.
She said the project is toolargefor the sitewith a constrained parking lot, and should be
located elsewhere; there are negative traffic impacts for the neighborhood; and there was not
proper neighborhood notification of the project.
8
Cupertino Planning Commission4April 26, 2011
Chair Lee closed the public hearing.
Vice Chair Miller:
Said Ms. Thaler and Ms. Warren brought up some good points, particularly the issues about the
7/11 store and the apartment building; the traffic that those uses generate wasn’t included in
the staff report.
Aarti Shrivastava:
Said theexistingconditions study all trips going in and out of existing sites at Sternandthe
apartment building does have other exits;it should have been included in the traffic study.
Vice Chair Miller:
Said the residents’concerns werethat if the left turns were eliminated, it would force more
traffic into the neighborhood than just the project being considered tonight.
Timm Borden:
With the daycare itself it would be approximately 59 plus there would likely be some that are
coming into 7/11 and would have to exit via Tantau or some other method. I still believe that
would be minimal on top of the 59; if you had 70 peak hour trips down Stern over to Tantau,
those streets are fairly wide and still easily can carry that amount of traffic. Operationally with
that amount of driveways in the short distance south of Stevens Creek, there should not be a
problem carrying all those movements at that location; it is still putting more traffic into the
neighborhood .
Com. Brownley:
Said that the additional option that the community brought up of restricting left hand turns
during certain hours could be a viable temporary solution instead of the cement median, until a
signal light could be installed.
In the traffic study all of the three lights on one side and the three lights on the other, are all
trafficsignals and would fit in that pattern and allow everyone from the community to come
out at a particular time. Itwas looked at as an option in the study and it seemed like the wait
time was about the same. Still trying to think about that traffic flow in addition to the parking
lot, but was trying to get a sense of whether we had an intermediate solution for that and a long
term one, and what the options might be.
Timm Borden:
The time restrictions on the left turn movement is a possible solution, especially relativeto the
people who already know how to work around the intersection. The p.m.peak hour, the fact
that the rest of the day it is not bad from a level of service standpoint; it is staff’s concern that
there still is the fact that you are turning leftacross onto a six lane arterial; across three lanes of
traffic with not great sight distance to the west. That is the concern in addition to the level of
service; if it was only level of service, the time restrictions is a possibility. It is difficult to
enforce, but given all other things, it would be acceptable. It would be a solution while seeking
enough funds with outerjurisdictions and developments to provide a signal light in the future.
The concern that staff would have is the additional safety impacts of just that left turn.
Louis Tseng:
Said that his business proposal includes after school care and the preschool; the plan is to
spread out the pick up time because the pick up time iswhere most of the traffic will come in.
The preschool will close at 6 p.m. and the after school care facility will close at 6:30 p.m.
9
Cupertino Planning Commission5April 26, 2011
Aarti Shrivastava:
Said the applicant was aware of the vision of the Heart of the City plan along Stevens Creek
Boulevardand that an exception would be necessary to meet some of the conditions. Staff is
supporting the project because the building was built as an office building and would not be
successful as retail; it was built in San Jose at a time long before the Heart of the City
guidelines were put into place. Many of the newer buildings and even some of the older
buildings are designed for retail; when a daycare facility or non-retail is proposed for a
shopping center, staff tries to locate them in the back are or limit the percentage. The subject
project is a special case different from many of the buildings in the remainder of the Heart of
the City area which is the reason staff supports the exception.
Com. Brophy:
It seems that most of the issues have been answered; there is still a concern about the point
Coms. Miller and Brownley madeabout the internal circulation.
Aarti Shrivastava:
The traffic consultant reviewed the operation and observed the other site at Sunflower and said
that every 15 or 20 minutes there were 10 or 11 cars coming in, and at one point altogether on
the site there are about that many cars moving in and out;based on that they felt comfortable
that the parking lot could accommodate this operation. Staff understands it is a concern; that is
why they observedexisting operations run bythe same operator and we had that advantage
here, and they felt that this would work. Theyare all valid concerns; but we felt we should
study the issues so that we would have the benefit of that information.
Said that two optionsfor discussing the traffic flow later included reviewing the mitigation
recommended and putting up a sign that limits left turns onto Stern duringcertain hours.She
said they were the only two available at this time since there was no capital improvement
budget to put in trafficlights. Either one of those decisions could be made tonight.
Chair Lee:
Expressed concern that the traffic study indicated thebest thing would be to have a traffic
light; however the applicant does not have the funds to pay for it. Staff is looking at Heart of
the City and some languagerelative to the issue.
Aarti Shrivastava:
Said there is language for the east Stevens Creek Boulevard regional commercial district area
which the proposed project is in, that states that the primary use is retail
commercial/commercial office; secondary use is office above ground level and supporting use
to be residential or residential mixed use. It does not speak aboutspecifically ground level but
it implies that office is secondary use above ground level.
Com. Brophy:
Said he wanted to support the recommendations of the Public Works Department but looking
at the neighborhood east of Judy and north of Barnhart, the traffic needs to flow out, and he felt
amedian there would not work and he would prefer the sign restricting left turns since the
problem already exists.
Relative to the Heart of the City plan, thebuilding has already been built; it is not unrealistic to
expect retail space to be put into a building that was not built there. Said he was undecided
aboutthe internal circulation and whether or not they feel they could live with that and have it
be satisfactory.
Vice Chair Miller:
Said the two separate issues are the circulation at the intersection of Stern and Stevens Creek
Boulevard and the application itself. Said he did not feel people would make a right turn and
:
Cupertino Planning Commission6April 26, 2011
then a U-turn; the choice is to force the traffic back into the neighborhood or allow the current
situation to exist. Given that the accident picture hasn’t been something to cause concern to
this point, he said he supported leaving it status quo with the hope that the funds will show up
in the near future. The issue of the traffic at the site of the proposed use itselfis a concern
because it is nota good traffic flow, and there is concernabout the children’s safety; the
situation proposes a risk.
Relative to the applicant’s suggestion of staggering the times for dropoff and pickup of
children, he said if there was a schedule that would satisfy the concern of spacing the times out
far enough that it would not become an issue, he would be more inclined to consider it;
however, based on input received at the current meeting, he was too concerned to approve it as
it currently is.
Expressed concern about the safety of children getting hit by a vehicle when drivers do not
have a clear view of the children. Having another adult out in the traffic area during the
dropoff and pickup times to make sure things went smoothly, could help alleviate the potential
danger of an accident.
Aarti Shrivastava:
Referred to the site plan and reviewed the space requirements, including those for employee
parking. She said she felt the concerns expressed were valid.
Said it could be a condition of approval to require a parking lot monitor/supervisor, and is
something the applicant can address.
Louis Tseng:
Said it was in his best interest to ensure the safety of the children, particularly during dropoff
and pickup times, and to make sure the traffic runs smoothly so that the neighbors don’t have
any reason to complain.
Vice Chair Miller:
Said he would support a condition for the requirement of a person to be present in the parking
lot as a monitor/supervisor during dropoff and pickup of children; and it would also be
beneficial to stagger the dropoff and pickuptimes. He also agreed with Com. Brophy that
putting up a sign was better than creating a median to blockpeople from getting out; and to
leave the current situation as is, except for a few hours during the day when left hand turns
would be restricted.
Com. Brownley:
Concurred with the other twocommissioners; and asked for input on forwarding a
recommendation to begin thinking about a future traffic signal.
Com. Brophy:
Suggested forwarding the recommendation to Public Works, but to be cognizant of the reality
that there is not likely $300K or $400K in the city’s funds for another new project soon.
Motion:Motion by Com. Brownley, second by Vice Chair Miller, and carried 3-1-0, Com.
Sun absent, Chair Lee voted no, to approve Application U-2011-04, ASA-2011-05,
EXC-1011-05,and EA-2011-04 with the additional condition regarding the Ash
tree;the recommendations for a supervisor to be present in the parking lot and
Stern Avenue being restricted for left hand turns duringcertain hours based on
the sign; but no median blocking traffic.(Chair Lee voted No because of the
exception to the Heart of the City rule and said she would prefer a traffic signal
since the applicant will be generating more traffic.)
21
Cupertino Planning Commission7April 26, 2011
2.DIR-2010-26Referral of Director’s Minor Modification to allow theoperation
Jerr Lami (Modenaof a Farmers’ Market at the existing OaksShopping Center on
Investment, L P &Sunday mornings and Wednesdayafternoons. Planning
Sunnyvale Holding LLC)Commission decision final unlessappealed.
21275 Stevens Creek Blvd.
Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
Reviewedthe application for Use Permit for operation of a farmers’ market at the Oaks
Shopping C enter on Stevens Creek Boulevard and Highway 85, on Sundays and on
Wednesdays starting in April 2012, if demand warrants it, as outlined in the staff report.
He also reviewed the comments from the public regarding the proposed farmers’ market
including those in favor and those opposed to the market. This would be thesecond farmers’
market within the city of Cupertino, the proposed farmers’ market would be held on Sundays
and in 2012 the owner would also hold the farmers’ market on Wednesdays if demand was
there. The current farmers’ market held at Vallco Shopping Center is held on a weekday.
To addressconcerns, staff has recommended conditions be placed in the resolution:
Portable Toilet Facilities/hand washing facilities-tobe moved tothe Stevens Creek
side of the market and removedat the end of each market event.
Noise concerns relative to unloading/loading portable facilities–prohibit live
activities because of early hours of market in the morning.
Cleanupof the parking lot following each event.
Review of the operations after first year of operations, and make any adjustments as
needed.
Parking –Reviewed the parking analysis for both Sundays and Wednesdays, as
outlined in the staff report.
Staff recommends approval of the proposed project.
Staff answered Commissioners’ questions regarding the proposed farmers’ market.
Vice Chair Miller:
Said that DeAnza College charges a parking fee for students because they want students to
park there and payfees to the college. Something should be done to encourage students to
park on their campus, either by charging aparking fee or putting a sign up saying Patrons
Only. He said there must be a way to reduce the traffic from DeAnza students.
Aarti Shrivastava:
Said the information could be given to the Public Worksdepartment; another option is to limit
the parking to 2 or 3 hours; if someone is parking to go to the shopping center, it is assumed
that they are not going to be there all day.
Colin Jung:
Said a Minute Ordercould be done; parking restrictions on public streets is the purview of the
City Council and ifthey desire to make a change, it has to be done by ordinance with a
separate hearing.
Aarti Shrivastava:
Explained that the parking at the Oaks Center could accommodate the farmers’ market on
Sundays when there are also festivals being held in thepark. She said the purpose of the
market was a food market and not a flea market.
Colin Jung:
Said that no complaints were received about the current Vallco Farmers’ Market.
22
Cupertino Planning Commission8April 26, 2011
Raymond JeromeLami,West Coast Farmers’ Markets:
Provided a background of his experience in operating farmers’ markets and his desire to bring
the positive experience of a farmers’marketto residents of the city, giving them the
opportunity to purchase fresh produce, fruits and vegetables directly from the farmers.He
answered questions regarding food trucks, live entertainment, cleanup, vendordisplay and
sales areas, loading and unloading products, and elements of a successful farmers’ market.
Aarti Shrivastava:
Noted that as conditions of approval, the city was prohibiting live outdoor entertainment, and
requiring cleanup of the vendors’areas and facilities following the farmers’market.
Chair Lee opened the public hearing.
Ted Hattan, Avery Construction (Owners of Glenbrook Apts):
Opposed to proposed market; feels the project is inappropriate for the area.
Illustrated a bar graph showing the distance of various farmers’ markets from residential areas
of neighboring cities; the Oaks is closer than other markets to residential housing. If the
application is approved,he is hopeful that the city or Planning Commission will verify that all
State agriculture guidelines are being met.
Said that rents in the Glenbrook Apts will have to be lowered if the farmers’ market is located
in the Oaks Center, because of noise created by vendorsand visitors to the event/market.
Sherry Hattan, resident:
Opposed to the project.
Said information from Pacific Coast Farmers Market Assoc.indicated during the low peak
season of fall and winter, 1800 people would visit the farmers’ market, and 3000 during high
peak season. She asked others to consider how they would feel if their neighbor had 1800 to
3000 people over every Sunday morning all year round.
Asked that the application not be approved.
Christina (no last name given), Cupertino resident:
Supports application, and welcomes the opportunity tohave a farmers’ market to support the
local farmers and a market that residents can walk to.
Hasnot heard any compelling evidence that attendees are not low abiding citizens.
Asked that the application beapproved.
Don Drucker, Cupertino resident:
Opposed to the project.
Said the list of many projects inflicted on his neighborhood included the Mary Avenue auto
bridge, the Mary Avenue 280 off ramp, the mini condos, diagonal parking, Mary Avenue
Bicycle Bridge, Dog Park, Hotel, and a variety of festivals with ever-increasing attendance and
event center with live music at the Oaks.
Said his statement might not be politically correct but stated he felt the real reason for the
proposal is to provide more traffic to the Oaks and to bail out the owners, not to provide fresh
produce in thearea.There are plenty of ways to get fresh produce; this market is not needed
and not wanted.
Art Cohen, CEO, Blue Light Cinemas:
Supports the application.
Said he recently conducted an informal survey of 60 people who were in favor of the farmers’
market and hadpositive remarks from residents of other neighboring cities. The farmers’
23
Cupertino Planning Commission9April 26, 2011
market will bring other people to Cupertino for a positive experience, which is good for the
businesses and the community.
Jeff Hulquist, Cupertino resident:
Supports the application.
Lives in a quiet neighborhood behind the OaksCenter,and said there were many events to
walk to in the park and he considered it a good selling point to let potential buyers know there
was a farmers’ market twice a week, if he was selling his home or renting an apartment.
Said he was looking forward to the farmers’ market and felt it would be an asset to the
neighborhood.
Paula Rand,Manager, Glenbrook Apts:
Said most of the residents of the Glenbrook Apts have anegative response to the project;
events and marketsstarting at 7:30 on Sunday morning is unheard of as Sunday may be the
only day residents have a chance to sleep and are disturbed by noise, congestionand parking.
She urged people to attend the Cherry Blossom Festival scheduled for the upcoming weekend
to see that there is a non-existence of overflow parking. She said she had to hire someone to
make sure the apartment complexparking lot is used by residents of the apartment complex
only. She also questioned whether the farmers’ market planners and organizers would put up
signs in front of the apartment entrances; clean up before and afterthe event, and clean the
streets. If events are going to be approved, they should be approved with the conditions that
would allow the apartment residents to maintain their privacy and enjoy their surroundings,
which they are not currently able to do.
Pravin Fulay, Cupertino resident:
Opposed to the application.
Saida farmers’ market would be nice to have, but not at the proposed site. A market on
Sundays and Wednesdays at the intersection wouldroute the traffic on Mary Avenue, and
would create a safety concern for the school children.On Fridays and Saturdays frequently the
police are called about the level of noise in the area of the pedestrian bridge. When the bridge
was constructed, the residents were told that the real estate values would increase; however in
the recent difficult years, the real estate valueshave decreased.
Said residents of Cupertino value quality education and a peaceful life, and quality of better
life, not more commercializationand more traffic congestion. Asked that the farmers’ market
application not be approved.
Richard Miller, Glenbrook Apartment resident:
Said they did not receive adequate notification about the application.
Expressed concern about the noise from a farmers’ market and the negative impact on
residents’ privacy, particularly since the weekends are the only time someresidents have to
enjoy their time off and rest. He also expressed concern about health issues relative to the food
products sold.
Said he was disappointed to hear about issues related to parking fees for students at DeAnza
College and the burden it puts on them. Many students park on the street to avoid having to
pay for the parking fees.
Mary Hulquist, Cupertino resident:
Supports the application.
Said she has lived near theOaksCenterfor over 17 years and was in favor of the farmers’
market and felt it would have very little impact to the neighborhoods. She said that farmers’
markets are a positive thing, promoting good health and well being and not crime ridden as
some believe. Having a Sunday market provides working residents the opportunity to visit the
market, whereas during the week, many people cannot attend; also the weekend market has
24
Cupertino Planning Commission10April 26, 2011
affordable prices. It also provides a pleasant outing for families to experience together and
learn the benefits of fresh produce and fruit, while supporting local farmers.
The traffic plan allows traffic to go out Stevens Creek with no reason for driving into the
neighborhood.
Alan Takahashi,resident of Mary Avenue neighborhood:
Supports the application.
The report lookedat both positive and negative input from the public and addressed issues;
there were many exaggerated inputsfrom public input. He said he did not feel his property
values would decrease as the farmers’ market was a regular community event and would have
a positive impact on the neighborhood.Any negative impacts could be mitigated to the
people’s satisfaction; it is the role of the Planning Commission to view those mitigations and
arrive at a solution that will work for the public.
He cited examples of successful farmers’ markets throughout California and said they provide
the opportunity for families to spend time together at the same time supporting local farmers.
He felt it would have a positive impact on the Oaks Center, which has experienced a lot of
retail turnover; and it would help with retail and revenue for the city and continue to foster
positive retail. It is important for the city to provide the opportunity for the community and see
what the outcome is.
Dennis Bell, Glenbrook Apartment resident:
Expressed concern about pedestrian traffic crossing Mary Avenuewhere there is no crosswalk.
People will also park along Mary Avenue to get access to the north end where the proposed
market will be located. There will be an increase in traffic and drivers don’t always adhere to
the speed limit and the safety issue needs to be mitigated.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
Expressed concern that many attendees did not have printed material relative to the agenda
items. She said she was questioning whether she would prefer a daycare center with large vans
driving into an extremely constrained Stern and Stevens Creek area impacting her
neighborhood, or would prefer a farmers’ market there. Said she was pleased that the residents
in central Cupertino by the Oaks Center have been given the opportunity to provide input, as
she felt the residents of Rancho Rinconada and Loree Estates were not extended that courtesy.
She recalled the heyday of the opening of the movie theater and when the center had
bookstores. She expressed confusion about the Sand Hill project, the plans to build a hotel and
an event center and the current plan to put a farmers’ market on the location where the hotel
was to have been built. She said she had empathy for the residents of the apartment complex
and was pleased to see that care was taken to ensure that the public had input. She said she
felt it was important to keep the project on site, with the parking and vendors on the Oaks
Center property.
Aarti Shrivastava:
Said that the staff report addressed the background of the hotel; and she provided a history of
the hotel, which was approved in the area that the farmers’ market is proposed to be located.
The owner will not continue to lease the site once the hotel is ready to be built; it is an either/or
situation; the permits are still active, but they have not yet applied for the builder’s permit.
The permits expire in 2012.
Alys Hay, Cupertino resident:
Opposed to the application.
Said she felt it hadn’t been taken into account that she would not be able to use Mary Avenue
when leaving her home because of the high volume of pedestrians and cars. Said she felt
25
Cupertino Planning Commission11April 26, 2011
people who attend the farmers’ markets and festivals are loud and boisterous and it would
interfere with the quiet enjoyment of her private property.
Katherine Winget, Cupertino resident:
Said she was concerned about the increased traffic on Mary Avenue that the proposed farmers’
market would create. There would also be an increase in the pedestrian and bicycle traffic
which could potentially create a safety issue.
Chair Lee:
If the farmers’ market is successful and there is not a lot of opposition, would it be the
Director’s call at that time?
Aarti Shrivastava:
Explained that the one year review is a report; if the permit needs to be revoked oramended, it
is brought back for a public hearing. If the Commission is not comfortableapprovingthe
Wednesday farmers’ market tonight, they should not approve it. The question for the city
attorney is whether or not you could make it conditionalto sayif there are no issues after a
year, we could consider it approved, or should it come back to the Commission.
City Attorney:
Arguably it could be done either way, based on all the circumstances, it would be best to have
a new approach a year from now because circumstances change and there are so many traffic
issues, etc. that haven’t been examined.
Vice Chair Miller:
Said he agreed, that he would prefer to do the Sunday farmers’ market and depending on its
success, re-evaluate in a year.
Applicant:
Said he would accept responsibility for cleanup of the parking area and Mary Avenue at the
completion of each farmers’ market.
Motion:Motion by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. Brownley, and unanimously
carried 4-0-0, Com. Sun absent; to approve Application DIR-2010-26, which
includes modifying 20-U-86 to allow the operation of a farmers’marketat the
Oaks Shopping Center with the following changes: Sunday market only; the
northern tip area next to Mary Avenue is eliminated; if there is cooking it is
toward the southern end; portable toilets located toward the southern end; the
operator is responsible for cleaning up the shopping center and Mary Avenue
th
afterwards; there will be no farmers market on Cherry Blossom Day or the 4of
July; staff in conjunction with the applicant will work out a satisfactory
circulation plan that keeps traffic off Mary Avenue as best as possible and bring
that back to the Planning Commission as a informational item; and no music
permitted.
Planning commission decision finalunless appealed within 14 calendar days.
OLD BUSINESS:None
NEW BUSINESS:None
26
Cupertino Planning Commission12April 26, 2011
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Environmental Review Committee:Chair Lee reportedthe last two meetings were cancelled.
Housing Commission: No report.
Mayor’s Monthly Meeting With Commissioners:No Meeting
Economic Development Committee Meeting: No meeting.
REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:Written report submitted.
MISC/OTHER
Vice Chair Miller:
Asked if they should consider a Minute Order relative to charging for parking on Mary Avenue
or put upFor Patrons Onlysign.
Com. Brophy:
Said it could be structured more as a review of options; ask that the Council ask the Public
Works Department towork with Planning Department to look at options for Mary Avenue to
reduce heavy use, long term use of the public spaces there, etc.
Vice Chair Miller:
DeAnza wants to collect parking fees from their students and we give them an out so they
don’t have to do that, shouldn’t we be working together instead of cross purposes; if they
wanted the students to park on campus without charging them, they could do that; but they
don’t want that. I don’t see the point in forcing or pushing the students out to park on our
streets and leaving their parking lots empty; it doesn’t make sense.
Aarti Shrivastava:
Mary Avenue was originally designed as a wide road with a highway exit and when the
decision was made to not have that and then there were events at Memorial Park. It may have
been thought of as a good idea to add more parking since there was a lot of right of way.
People asked don’t have any knowledge of the past practice.
Vice Chair Miller:
Said he was not opposed to a For Patrons Onlysign.
Aarti Shrivastava:
Noted that they had people parking there; festival attendees and people from the neighborhood
also park there long term; occasionally residents from Glenbrook or Casa DeAnza use the
Mary Avenue parking. Said they have had numerous conversations about Mary Avenue
parking in the past and it comes back to what can they do. It is a common theme when people
ask forpermit parking on their street; they realize it also applies tothem and their guests; the
conversation changes; it is never easyand it is difficult to please everybody.
Adjournment:The meeting was adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission meeting
scheduled forMay 17, 2011, at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted:__/s/Elizabeth Ellis_________________
Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary
27
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DJUZ!IBMM
21411!UPSSF!BWFOVF!DVQFSUJOP-!DB!:6125.4366
)519*!888.4419!!GBY!)519*!888.4444
SUMMARY
Agenda Item No. Agenda Date: May 10, 2011
Application: R-2011-03
Applicant: Elena Herrera & Subir Sengupta, 21150 Grenola Drive
Appellant: Homa and Mehrdad Mojgani, 21180 Grenola Drive
Property Location: 21150 Grenola Drive
Application Summary:
Consider an Appeal of the Community Development Director’s decision to approve the
Residential Design Review for a new 3,683 square foot, two-story single-family residence
located at 21150 Grenola Drive.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission may take one of the following actions:
1.Uphold the appeal;
2.Uphold the appeal with modifications; or
3.Deny the appeal and uphold the Community Development Department’s decision.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend upholding the Director’s decision
as per the attached model resolution (Attachment 1).
PROJECT DATA
Zoning Designation: R1-10
Lot Area: 9,705 Square Feet (.22 Acres)
Floor Area Ratio: 38% (45% allowed)
Setbacks: All setbacks are consistent with the R1 Ordinance
BACKGROUND:
On March 14, 2011, the Community Development Director approved a new 3,683 square foot,
Two-Story Single-Family Residence located at 21150 Grenola Drive. (See Attachment 2 for the
approval letter)
On March 28, 2011, the Director's decision was appealed by Homa and Mehrdad
Mojgani, the property owners to the west of the project site (See Attachment 3 for the
detail appeal petition).
28
R-2011-03 May 10, 2011
21150 Grenola Drive, Cupertino Page 2
DISCUSSION:
Basis of the Appeal
The appellants are appealing the decision of the Director of Community Development
Department based on the reasons listed below. Each appeal issue is followed by staff
discussion in italics.
1.The notice board did not include a three dimensional image.
Staff Response:
a.A three dimensional image is not required by the R1 Ordinance.
b.The image on the project notice board meets the requirements set forth for a ‘colored perspective’
rendering (See Attachment 4).
c.Typical colored perspectives will show the structure at a slight angle with roofline shadows and
background/surround environment f or context.
2.A complete landscape plan was not available for review for this project and privacy
planting is not provided for the west elevation.
Staff Response:
a.The staggered window sill heights, along a stairway on the second story of the west elevation,
comply with the privacy planting requirement as listed in 19.28.070(A). Consequently no
additional privacy plantings are required along the sides of the house.
b.A conceptual landscaping plan has been provided showing that the relevant cone of visions for
privacy screening have been appropriately delineated.
c.All windows facing the sides have sill heights of 5 feet or taller (measured from the floor) -
consequently no privacy planting required.
d.A condition requires the detailed landscape plan be submitted prior to issuance of building
permits.
3.The proposed home is not compatible with other new homes in the area. Specifically,
the composition roof shingles and shingle siding are not consistent with the
neighborhood. Stucco and tiled roof are preferred.
Staff Response:
The proposed home is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Most of the homes in
the project neighborhood were originally designed as ranch-style architecture, with wood
exterior siding and shingle roofing material. Consequently, staff disagrees with the appellants
in that the proposed building roofing/siding materials are compatible with the predominant
neighboring homes and complements the architectural style of the project.
4.The City did not conduct proper notice for the project
Staff Response:
In accordance with the City Ordinance, on February 24, 2011, formal notices of the project
were mailed to neighbors within a 300 feet radius of the project site. All of the mailing
addresses were retrieved by the City from the County Assessor’s database. Notices for the
appeal hearing were mailed out on April 20, 2011.
29
R-2011-03 May 10, 2011
21150 Grenola Drive, Cupertino Page 3
Continuance Request
Subsequent to the mailing of the public notices, the appellants have requested a postponement
of the appeal hearing to the June 28, 2011 Planning Commission meeting (See Attachment 5).
The applicant is requesting that the item not be postponed (See Attachment 6).
Prepared by: Aparna Ankola, Planning Department
Reviewed by: Approved by:
/s/Gary Chao /s/Aarti Shrivastava
Gary Chao Aarti Shrivastava
City Planner Community Development Director
ATTACHMENTS:
1: Model Resolution
2: Community Development Department Approval Letter
3: Appeal submitted by Ms. Homa and Mr. Mehrdad Mojgani
4: Project Color Perspective
5: Appellant Continuance Request
6: Applicant’s Response
7: Plan Set
G:\\Planning\\PDREPORT\\Appeals\\R-2011-03_appeal.doc
2:
Attachment 1
R-2011-03
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO.
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
APPROVING A RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW 3,683 SQUARE FEET, TWO-STORY RESIDENCE
AT 21150 GRENOLA DRIVE, CUPERTINO
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: R-2011-03
Applicant: Darryl Harris
Property Owner: Subir Sengupta and Elena Herrera
Location: 21150 Grenola Drive, Cupertino (APN: 326-28-059)
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL:
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an appeal of a Director’s Approval of a
Two Story Residence as described in Section I of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the project is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan, and applicable specific plans, zoning
ordinance and the purpose of this Title; and
WHEREAS, the granting of the permit will not result in a condition that is detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, and
WHEREAS, any adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonable mitigated.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of the plans, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter,
the two story permit approval, application no. R-2011-03 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 no. R-2011-03 as set forth in the Minutes of Planning
Commission Meeting of May 10, 2011, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
APPROVED PROJECT
1.
This approval is based on a plan set entitled, “Proposed Residence for Subir Sengupta/ Elena Herrera, 21150
Grenola Drive, Cupertino, CA 95014” consisting of seven (7) sheets dated January 2011, except as may be
amended by conditions in this resolution.
2.ACCURACY OF THE PROJECT PLANS
The applicant/property owner is responsible to verify all pertinent property data including but not limited to
property boundary locations, building setbacks, property size, building square footage, any relevant easements
and/or construction records. Any misrepresentation of any property data may invalidate this approval and
may require additional review.
3.LANDSCAPING PLAN
The final landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of
building permits. If the landscaping area (defined by section 14.15.030) is greater than 2,500 square feet, then a
full landscape project submittal per section 14.15.040 is required prior to issuance of building permits.
31
Resolution No. R-2011-03 May 10, 2011
Page - 2 -
4.PRIVACY PLANTING
The final privacy-planting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of
building permits. If existing tree(s) is used for privacy screening, a letter from a certified arborist shall be
submitted confirming that the tree(s) is in good condition and is appropriate privacy protection in any season.
5.PRIVACY PROTECTION COVENANT
The property owner shall record a covenant on this property to inform future property owners of the privacy
protection measures and tree protection requirements consistent with the R-1 Ordinance, for all windows with
views into neighboring yards and a sill height that is 5 feet or less from the second story finished floor. The
precise language will be subject to approval by the Director of Community Development. Proof of recordation
must be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to final occupancy of the residence.
6.CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS
The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/or agencies with regard to the proposed
project for additional conditions and requirements. Any misrepresentation of any submitted data may
invalidate an approval by the Community Development Department.
7.EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS/TREATMENTS
Final building exterior treatment plan (including but not limited to details on exterior color, material,
architectural treatments and/or embellishments) shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of
Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. The final building exterior plan shall closely
resemble the details shown on the original approved plans. Any exterior changes determined to be substantial
by the Director of Community Development shall require a minor modification approval with neighborhood
input.
8.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 10th day of May 2011, Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of
Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Aarti Shrivastava Winnie Lee, Chair
Director of Community Development Planning Commission
G:\\Planning\\PDREPORT\\RES\\2011\\R-2011-03 res.doc
32
Attachment 2
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DJUZ!IBMM
21411!UPSSF!BWFOVF!DVQFSUJOP-!DB!:6125.4366
)519*!888.4419!!GBY!)519*!888.4444!!qmboojohAdvqfsujop/psh
March 14, 2011
Darryl Harris
RH Associates
10091 Streeter Rd. #13
Auburn CA 95602
SUBJECT: RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW ACTION LETTER – Application R-2011-03:
This letter confirms the decision of the Director of Community Development, given on March 14, 2011; approving a
new 3,683 square feet, two-story single family residence located at 21150 Grenola Drive, with the following
conditions:
1.APPROVED PROJECT
This approval is based on a plan set entitled, “Proposed Residence for Subir Sengupta/ Elena Herrera, 21150
Grenola Drive, Cupertino, CA 95014” consisting of seven (7) sheets dated January 2011, except as may be
amended by conditions in this resolution.
2.ACCURACY OF THE PROJECT PLANS
The applicant/property owner is responsible to verify all pertinent property data including but not limited to
property boundary locations, building setbacks, property size, building square footage, any relevant easements
and/or construction records. Any misrepresentation of any property data may invalidate this approval and
may require additional review.
3.LANDSCAPING PLAN
The final landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of
building permits. If the landscaping area (defined by section 14.15.030) is greater than 2,500 square feet, then a
full landscape project submittal per section 14.15.040 is required prior to issuance of building permits.
4.PRIVACY PLANTING
The final privacy-planting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of
building permits. If existing tree(s) is used for privacy screening, a letter from a certified arborist shall be
submitted confirming that the tree(s) is in good condition and is appropriate privacy protection in any season.
5.PRIVACY PROTECTION COVENANT
The property owner shall record a covenant on this property to inform future property owners of the privacy
protection measures and tree protection requirements consistent with the R-1 Ordinance, for all windows with
views into neighboring yards and a sill height that is 5 feet or less from the second story finished floor. The
precise language will be subject to approval by the Director of Community Development. Proof of recordation
must be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to final occupancy of the residence.
6.CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS
The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/or agencies with regard to the proposed
project for additional conditions and requirements. Any misrepresentation of any submitted data may
invalidate an approval by the Community Development Department.
33
7.EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS/TREATMENTS
Final building exterior treatment plan (including but not limited to details on exterior color, material,
architectural treatments and/or embellishments) shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of
Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. The final building exterior plan shall closely
resemble the details shown on the original approved plans. Any exterior changes determined to be substantial
by the Director of Community Development shall require a minor modification approval with neighborhood
input.
8.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.
Please be aware that if this permit is not used within two years, it shall expire on March 14, 2012.
Staff received the following concerns on March 11, 2011 from an anonymous neighbor:
1.The notice board does not include a three dimensional image.
2.A complete landscape plan is not available for review for this project and privacy planting is not provided
for the west elevation.
3.The proposed composition roof shingles and shingle siding are not consistent with the neighborhood.
Stucco and tiled roof are preferred.
Staff has verified that the colored perspective rendering provided on the notice board meets the requirements set
forth in 19.28.100(B)(1). The staggered window sill heights, along a stairway on the second story of the west
elevation, comply with the privacy planting requirement as listed in 19.28.070(A). The use of roof shingles and
siding are consistent and compatible with the predominant style of the neighborhood.
Staff has made all the findings that are required for approval of a Two-story Residential Permit as required by the
of Cupertino's Municipal Code, Chapter 19.28.100 (D). Also, please note that an appeal of this decision can be made
within 14 calendar days from the date of this letter. If this happens, you will be notified of a public hearing, which
will be scheduled before the Planning Commission.
Sincerely,
Aparna Ankola
Planning Division
City of Cupertino
408-777-3319
aparnaa@cupertino.org
Enclosures:
Approved Plan Set
Cc: Subir Sengupta/Elena Herrera, 21150 Grenola Drive, Cupertino, CA 95014
G:\\Planning\\Minor Residential\\R1 Approvals\\2011\\R-2011-03 Actionletter.doc
34
Buubdinfou4
35
Buubdinfou6
From:Aparna Ankola
To:Beth Ebben
Subject:FW: Request to change hearing date
Date:Tuesday, April 26, 2011 9:16:19 AM
From: mehrdad mojgani \[mailto:hmfamily@sbcglobal.net\]
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 6:29 AM
To: Aparna Ankola
Cc: Gary Chao
Subject: Request to change hearing date
Dear Bqbsob-
Due to my business trip, we are requesting to postpone the Hearing date for Application NO. R-
2011-03 from May 10, 2011, to any time in June 2011. We would appreciate you for its
continuation and apologize for any inconvenience.
Regards,
Mehrdad Mojgani
37
Buubdinfou7
38
45
46
47
48
49
4:
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
5:
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68