No preview available
Exhibit CC 04-17-12 #9 Bollinger Subdivision Cupertino Planning Commission 2 March 27, 2012 CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING 2. TM-2012-01,V-2012-01 Tentative map to subdivide an approx. (EA-2012-01) 1.14 acre parcel into five parcels ranging McClellan Development from 7,040 to 11,096 square feet; Variance (Lands of Jauch) to allow reduced lot widths for four of the western terminus of Bollinger Rd. five new lots surrounding the proposed proposed cul-de-sac that do not meet the minimum lot width requirements Environmental Review: Negative Declaration recommended Tentative City Council date: 05-01-2012 Chair Miller recused himself from discussion of the application as he said he had prior dealings with the applicant. Vice Chair Sun chaired the meeting. Colin Jung,Senior Planner,presented the staff report: • Reviewed the application for Tentative Map to subdivide an approximately 1.14 acre lot into 5 parcels, and variance request for reduced lot widths for four of the five new lots surrounding the proposed cul-de-sac that do not meet the minimum lot width requirements, as outlined in the staff report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council adoption of the Negative Declaration, approval of the tentative map in accordance with the draft resolution, and approval of the variance in accordance with the draft resolution. • He noted that the residential development of the properties was not the subject of the discussion; the houses being proposed will likely be two story homes. If they meet all the other R1 zoning regulations there will be a two story residential permit required which involves review of the house design with staff and also noticing of adjacent neighbors for each of the lots, giving neighbors an opportunity to comment on design, including issues of privacy; but those are handled with the provisions of the RI ordinance regarding privacy landscaping. Marta McClellan,McClellan Development,Applicant: • Agreed with the conditions set forth and said he looked forward to the buildout of the project in conformance with the agreements. Vice Chair Sun opened the public hearing. Vincent Hsieh,Bollinger Road: • Opposed to the application; resides 3 houses away from proposed construction. • Expressed concern about traffic relative to the schools; the present conditions are challenging because one has to detour toward McClellan or the adjacent street to reach either Lincoln or Monta Vista. The future entrance for the construction is on Bollinger Road side; it will increase the present traffic which has worsened for the school children and is also inconvenient for those families to send children to school having to detour. Stan Tsing,Vernie Court: • Said he had the same concern as the previous speaker, and was opposed to the opening of a Bollinger Road entrance because of the traffic and the new home that will be adjacent to his home; the builder plans to build the garage facing a fence which he felt would adversely affect their living standards. He said he hoped they would consider having an entrance to the five properties from another location. Cupertino Planning Commission 3 March 27, 2012 Umesh Toprani,Orline Court: • Said he was not opposed to the builder building there, as long as the neighbors' concerns and needs regarding privacy have been met, but he was reluctant to start compromising on the exceptions discussed with respect to the sidewalk, etc. He said whenever he did anything for his house, he had to get a permit, meet the code, etc., rules need to be followed and there is a minimum standard for each house which gives everyone a chance to have more space. Arthur Dong, resident: • Opposed to the project, because the proposed new homes will increase the traffic and during construction, the workers will park in the neighborhood crowding the streets even more. Opening up Bollinger Road will destroy the quiet neighborhood which was an attraction when he purchased the home 7 years ago. Munir Voola,Orline Court: • Expressed concern with the possibility of removal of 45% of the 65 trees which are 60 to 70 feet tall and take about 30 to 40 years to grow. He questioned whether the developer would replace the trees with trees of the same height and that would meet code. • Said he felt the request for variance could be adjusted to accommodate four lots and not break any of the code and compliance. He said Cupertino was becoming a concrete jungle and the project would set a precedent. He said the excess traffic, and amount of people would be at the neighbors' cost. He requested reconsideration of the application and the possibility of revisiting or redesign to four lots. • He said he was not opposed to dividing the lot, which the owner has the right to do, but it should be done within the boundaries of laws and codes. Judy O'Brien, Orline Court: • Said she has lived in her home 25 years, at which time the builder was considering putting in a street going through from Stelling, Jollyman through Bollinger and it was denied. The builder had to build two houses on the opposite sides because they thought it would create too much traffic to open up another corridor to get to DeAnza College which was a huge problem. She asked that they not open it now to have that occur. • Said that when her one story home was built it was imperative that the houses built around the existing homes on Kerwin be one story also; and she hoped that the thought process would be maintained to keep the houses built behind them as one story to protect their privacy. • She expressed concern that the excavation of the property behind her home could possibly kill the trees planted along her property line. She noted that there were two trees on the Jauch property that are dying and the arborist report calls for maintaining them. However, one fell over and landed on her home two years ago in a bad storm. Vice Chair Sun closed the public hearing. Com.Brophy: • Said one of the issues raised was the question of choosing to exit by Bollinger as opposed to what would be the alternative street to the south. Jim Yee,Architect: • Said the question is relative to access to the site; currently there is only one access because of how the parcel was subdivided,there is no potential access to the other parcel. Gary Chao, City Planner: • Said the question is, if it is possible, why is it off Bollinger as opposed to Jollyman. Referring to the aerial drawings which indicates both possible access points, one of the objectives that • Cupertino Planning Commission 4 March 27, 2012 the original property owner and developer had in mind is to preserve the existing house on the site on the southwest corner of the lot. It renders the access point off Jollyman infeasible from that perspective in order to keep the house where it is. • Also in reviewing the circulation and also the driveway widths and access points for subdivisions,the fire department would comment and evaluate safety measures for turnarounds and access point for fire engines and you can't accomplish that in having access off Jollyman to be able to have fire service to service the new lots being created. Aarti Shrivastava,Community Development Director: • Added that the project is a dead end with no connection to other streets and staff felt it was the best way to accomplish the lot pattern, which is what they have to do when reviewing a project. Corn.Brownley: • Asked if there was a plan for replanting some trees once the lots are subdivided. Colin Jung: • Trees on the property are not subject to the tree protection ordinance; tree replacement is defined in the sense of privacy tree planting for all second story views into adjacent properties, that the applicant will be subject to and also street tree planting for each of the lots. There will be tree planting with respect to the residential c.evelopment applications for this property. Gary Chao: • Noted that although it appeared to be many trees, in reality most of the trees are non-specimen trees in terms of the protected species that are listed in the ordinance; most are fruit trees and small firs and spruces. To that extent, under normal circumstances if the property owner without a project wanted to take care of some of the trees now, some of them don't require tree removal permits for that replacement. Corn. Brownley: • Asked if there was any discussion about subdividing into five lots rather than four and what impact that would have on the variance required. Aarti Shrivastava: • The lots are bigger than most of the lots in the neighborhood and lot widths complied with almost every cul-de-sac in town. Cul-de-sac lots tend to be bigger, and because of their configuration,they tend to have narrower front widths. By the time it passes the driveway, it is close to compliance with the lot widths. Staff felt it met the typical pattern in the city and that is why staff could support it. Corn Lee: • Said some residents are concerned about noise. traffic, and littering due to construction. Asked what steps can be taken if that occurs; and is it outlined in the Construction Management Plan. Colin Jung: • Staff expects at the residential permit stage that the applicant will be addressing construction concerns with respect to where they will store materials, locating the contractor vehicles. If the subdivision is approved, by the time the residential construction happens,there will be a full cul-de-sac there; they will be places for construction workers to park, and locations for building materials to be stored. The applicant can address the construction phasing but typically they would not build more than one or two houses at a time. All that can be addressed with the residential development permits issues for each of the lots. Cupertino Planning Commission 5 March 27, 2012 Marta McClellan: • Said the construction phasing had not yet been determined. Aarti Shrivastava: • Said that there is a process for the building of the homes where neighbors will be noticed; at which time the phasing will be squared away and neighbors can weigh in on the phasing. The typical mode of operation is for the applicant to have a construction phasing plan so that neighbors know where they are parking. There are requirements for dust control, hours of construction, and noise, and those will be applicable to this project. Marta McClellan: • Said they did neighborhood outreach and visited the surrounding neighbors, sent a letter prior to visit informing them when they would be there. Addressed neighbors' concerns at the meeting. She said the issue of a compromise between 4 or 5 houses was not discussed at the meeting with the neighbors. Colin Jung: • Clarified that some residents asked why the subdivision wasn't oriented toward Jollyman instead of Bollinger Road. He referred to the aerial photo which illustrated two parcels, one of them 10760 address developed with a single family house and the vacant property. Both properties are under different but related ownerships. The owner if 10760 does not have any intention of developing her property and the vacant one was intended for development as the inheritance of the remaining children. • Relative to Ms. O'Brien's concern about the excavation of the trees next to her property, the arborist report went into significant detail about what should be done to protect the trees not on the property; there are root structures that he believes encroach into the adjacent lot and those include at the time of demolition, grading and subdivision, specific setbacks for each of the trees where there should be no grading or development. If the subdivision is approved there are additional conditions that have been recommended by the arborist that include conditions on the type of construction, how the fences are put up to protect all of the trees that are crowded on the common property line. In addition the arborist also recommended that the applicants hire a separate consulting arborist to look at the conditions in the field at the time once the houses are proposed, and to suggest his own plan for protecting the adjacent trees. He said he did not think the applicant wants the liability of damaging any neighbors' trees. Com.Brophy: • Said the only access to the property was through Bollinger as referenced in a letter from the owner of the 10760 property. The lot sizes are significantly larger than other lots, and significantly larger than the minimum lot size of 6,000 sq. ft. Relative to the variance on the front, the minimum front footage, the variance is standard on cul-de-sac lots for the reason that the Community Development Director explained that by definition it is a pie shaped lot with a wider than average backside and a shorter than average front side. In this particular case, you end up having to make the lots larger, even if a developer would wish to make them closer to the minimum size. • Said it is important that in the process of reviewing any proposed residential permits they give special concern as they have done in the past in a city mostly built out, to look at the privacy issues, whether fencing, planting, etc. Com. Brownley: • It was stated that the entrance from Bollinger is necessary because entrance from Jollyman is not feasible given the existing home on the property; the fire department review said Jollyman was not as good an access as Bollinger. Similarly, because of the different ownership of the Cupertino Planning Commission 6 March 27, 2012 properties, there isn't access off the other road so they have to go through Bollinger. • Relative to the trees,there is an arborist plan for those; when the lots are subdivided, there will be privacy tree plantings and street tree plantings, and the current trees are not covered under a protection ordinance. Because of the shape of the property,the variance is more directed at the front of the properties close to the cul-de-sac relative to the back of the property. For those reasons,the items being requested and recommended for approval seem reasonable. Com. Lee: • Addressed the six speakers that she hoped their concerns were addressed, and encouraged them to include or give their email addresses to staff so that they would be kept updated on information about the project, including the construction management plan, phasing, etc. Vice Chair Sun closed the public hearing. Motion: Motion by Corn.Brownley,second by Com.Brophy,and unanimously approved 4-0-0 (Chair Miller absent) to approve Application EA-2012-01, V-2012-01 and TM-2012-01 Chair Miller returned to the meeting. 3. M-2011-09 (EA-2011-18), Modifications to a previously approved Master M-2011-24,TM-2011-04 Use Permit(U-2008-01), Architectural and Kevin Dare: Dare,500 Forbes LLC Site Approval(ASA-2008-06)and Tree Removal No side of Stevens Creek Blvd. Permit(TR-2008-08)to amend the master plan On both sides of Finch Ave. & for a mixed use development to allow for a 180 West of No.Tantau Ave. room hotel; 78,700 square feet of retail space; 289,750 sq. ft. of office space; 143 senior age- restricted condominium units; 60,000 sq. ft. of athletic club and/or additional retail space; and an alternate plan for a 105 unit market-rate apartment complex in lieu of the 60,000 sq. ft. of athletic club/retail space; removal of a total of 84 trees and relocation of 13 trees; and modification of the master Architectural and Site Approval; Architectural and Site approval to allow the construction of two office buildings consisting of a total 289,750 sq. ft. ten retail buildings (shops 1-7 and Pads 1-3)totaling 62,200 sq. ft., a parking garage with underground parking and four levels of above ground parking; and a 5 story, 180 room hotel as part of the Main Street Mixed-Use Development Project; Tentative Map Permit to subdivide 3 parcels (approximately 18.7 acres) into 6 fee-simple parcels and 143 senior age-restricted condominium units; Negative Declaration. Tentative City Council date: 05-01-2012 Aki Honda Snelling, Senior Planner,presented the staff report: • Reviewed the application from 500 Forbes, I,LC to amend their previously approved 2009 mixed use development for Main Street Cupertino. The applications include a modification to a previously approved Master Use Permit, Architectural and Site Approval and Tree Removal Permit, as well as architectural and site approval, tentative map to subdivide 3 parcels, modification to Condition 5, and extension of permit to expire five years from date of approval of this modification, and addendum to the 2009 Final EIR, as outlined in the staff report. • She also noted that staff was requesting the Commission's direction on seven key issues, which will be discussed in detail later in the meeting, including: 1. Parcelization 2. Mix of retail and residential uses 3. Office use and allocation—Major companies General Plan requirement 4. Parking garage for the office development 5. Retail pads in Town Square 6. Hotel—type, size and amenities cc 4 - - T+em -t Karen B. Guerin From: Darci Hodder[darcihodder @att.net] Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 11:03 AM To: Mark Santoro Subject: REOPENING OF BOLLINGER RS I have been informed that there are plans in the works to reopen Bollinger Rd. It is my understanding that that was not proper without the approval of the residents . I live at 7504 Bollinger Rd. Not only do I object I was never informed of these plans . I have been calling the City attorney at (408 ) 777 3402 all morning and it just rings without being answered. Who can I talk to about this . Darci Hodder 1 Kirsten Squarcia From: Karen B. Guerin Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 8:51 AM To: Kirsten Squarcia Subject: FW: Bollinger Rd. extension From: JimBRC@iaol.com [mailto:JimBRC©aol.com] Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2012 5:10 PM To: Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang Subject: Bollinger Rd. extension Dear Sirs, Please vote against the extension of Bollinger Rd. Thank you, James W. Brown 7471 Bollinger Rd. Cupertino, CA 95014 1 Kirsten Squarcia From: Karen B. Guerin Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 9:00 AM To: Kirsten Squarcia Subject: FW: Haste Makes Waste Original Message From: anita.devine(aatt.net [mailto:anita.devinePatt.net] Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2012 6:54 AM To: Mark Santoro; Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Rod Sinks Subject: Haste Makes Waste Outsiders have pointed out to me what ugly buildings in Cupertino. That is caused from over planning from bad developers. The "HASTE MAKES WASTE" has not helped Cupertino. I do not give my approval for the dead end of Bollinger Rd. to be re-opened for new development. Enough, is enough! Already we have too much traffic and too much crime. No decision should be made without the formal review of the pre-existing legal document associated with the original closure of Bollinger Road. Do not listen to the greed listen to the residents of Cupertino. Don't destroy Cupertino. Anita Devine 7463 Bollinger Rd. Cupertino, Ca 95014 1 Kirsten Squarcia From: Karen B. Guerin Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 10:10 AM To: Kirsten Squarcia Subject: FW: Residential street for residents group Original Message From: Park Parker [mailto:parkerautomotivetaayahoo.com] Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 8:59 AM To: Mark Santoro; chuck parker Subject: Residential street for residents group Dear Sir, I'm a concerned owner who lives near the western terminus of Bollinger road. I became aware of New property Development this weekend by a concerned neighbor. The McCellan Development is to allow 5 new houses on our street. I would like you to know that I have Not been sent a letter by the company that will be doing this work. I am under the understanding that the city cannot reverse this decision without the approval of the residents. However there will be a final approval on Tuesday the 17th. I am letting you know that I am voicing an objection- specifically, no decision should be made without the formal review of the pre-existing legal document associated with the original closure of Bollinger Road. Concerned owner Gayle and Chuck Parker 7557 Bollinger Road, Cupertino 1 Kirsten Squarcia From: Karen B. Guerin Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 8:50 AM To: Kirsten Squarcia Subject: FW: Bollinger Dead End Re-open? From: Jiamin He [mailto:jiaminheyahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2012 12:28 PM To: Mark Santoro; Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; bchange©cupertino.orq; Rod Sinks Subject: Bollinger Dead End Re-open? Dear gentlemen, My neighbor sent me a flyer which is a BIG surprise to me about this to-be-reopened Bollinger dead end, and the final approval is 4/17. 1. Why there is no notice to us nearby neighbors? Is it the resposibility of developer(builder) who distributes the notice? 2. A few years back, the one way gate at Bollinger Road and Kim Street was removed, allowing all time through traffic. It has already increased quite a bit of morning traffic so that backing out of my garage has been a little inconvenient. I am looking forward to hearing back from you before 4/17/2012. Thank you all. Jiamin He 7507 Bollinger Road, Cupertino, CA 95014 Kirsten Squarcia From: Colin Jung Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 10:27 AM To: City Clerk Subject: FW: Bollinger development CC 4/17/12 Desk Item From: itarter @netscape.net [mailto:itarter@netscape.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 5:07 AM To: Colin Jung Subject: Bollinger development Dear Mr Jung I am unable to attend the Council meeting this evening, but I would like to take this opportunity to lend my support to the project that is being considered for development on the property of my parents, Edmund and Irene Jauch. As the trustee of their estate, I would like to assure the Council that I am in full agreement with this project and believe it should be approved by the Council this evening. Regards, Irene Jauch Tarter 1 Kirsten Squarcia From: Karen B. Guerin Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 8:47 AM To: Kirsten Squarcia Subject: FW: Application TM-2012, V,EA McClellan Development Attachments: deer 267.JPG; Deer 268.JPG; deer271.JPG From: Jauchp@aol.com [mailto:Jauchr @ 3aol.com] Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 6:41 AM To: City Council Subject: Application TM-2012, V,EA McClellan Development Dear Council: I will not be able to attend Tuesday's councils meeting. I would like the council to have the developer address his plan for the safety of the wild life that habituate on the property.See attached photos Sincerely Patricia 1 .�. - , •, 9 4 . • 2 Kirsten Squarcia From: Karen B. Guerin Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 8:47 AM To: Kirsten Squarcia Subject: FW: Application TM-2012, V,EA McClellan Development Attachments: deer 267.JPG; Deer 268.JPG; deer271.JPG From: Jauchb(aaol.com [mailto:Jauchp(aaol.com] Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 6:41 AM To: City Council Subject: Application TM-2012, V,EA McClellan Development Dear Council: I will not be able to attend Tuesday's councils meeting. I would like the council to have the developer address his plan for the safety of the wild life that habituate on the property.See attached photos Sincerely Patricia n R 1. ;4 di tr 'w" 2 : t Y {k i 9 S ' ,a: ; • • a k ,k d C 7 fi /"t y 't' i t a CIF #i 55 "4,' } J F t k� y 1 Q y `f ia k b A Y *...,,,,' ; ..,4... .. ' , ... ..' {:�" - w r t ..,',1,.).,' §,¢z'y ‘ffr.l i�s. K� t $y t{ ' t't ` $v A t `'.t t n . k' sq fix. o K , rte. ;s'' `+ ,• � . yeti gar P c} Me ' f -..'i .,;',.' ,.,:,'.r.'. I ¢ Q 9 Cc ff1 1-76z .t- ct p c HWill] April 15, 2012 .. El APR 1 6 2012 CUPERTINO CITY CLERK City of Cupertino Mayor Santoro Vice Mayor Orrin Mahoney Council Member Gilbert Wong Council Member Barry Chang Council Member Rod G. Sinks City Attorney Re: New Property Development at western terminus of Bollinger Road We, the undersigned residents of Cupertino at the impacted location, swear that not all of us have received all the notifications (some did not receive any; some received partial)pertaining to the `McClellan Development (Land of Jauch)' at the western terminus of Bollinger Road. Regardless of the 300 feet notification rule, all of us along Bollinger Rd will be equally affected. Furthermore, the City Council meeting on April 17, 2012 is inappropriate without prior notification to the impacted residents and the meeting should be postponed until such notices are delivered. Residential Street for Residents Group (RSR) Contacts: Arthur Dong (7588 Bollinger Road 408-307-6521, arthursunnyvale @yahoo.com) Barbara Wong (7565 Bollinger Road 408-966-9467, barbara.wong @gmail.corn) • veyfwe C49 kt-- XI"OVIC‘k `1 S (0 I l3 DLL. c N —&R y� K� M y f:N/ cc2GJ SON 546,, ? sue -c6 S— 0n!b kocad4 154/4wro� wrivq - to gy Wait / "7.r J c�oQ- 2n,; h 2k , vt? Olex a-4 Artt" cD(2'16/ ArW 7507 aO if, ride/1 Y jl‘AAvi ivl H� v hateer (7 ►1-h0i.ln . CSGt q)5-1)21-pvt-e_Ct AO go-r- (2„,t_d .A-0, 6 0• Q I y moo,,--e 72v5 �I ' / -f----' / (lx-1-"e'j qs-D- v -,2 ie 6. VZen L eau 6?"1- c %-:-'—e At eri o , cer 9-o// 7S4 P-(12)14 C/- NE7 - yq elii-n/ `-- r-- (L_____ ni,e9l ho, 7t/p